Do you think this case will ever be solved?

[Harry D]

For the record: There is no established limit of time after which a case cannot be solved. Time actually has nothing at all to do with it as such. The one and only thing that governs the issue is the effort put down and the evidence unearthed.

Whether that evidence surfaces one, two, three or ninehundred and thirtyseven years after the crime is on no consequence at all.

Of course it's a factor. When it comes to physical evidence, the more time that elapses, the more chance there is of it becoming cross-contaminated.

As for the OP, no it won't be solved. That's the long and short of it.

[Fisherman]

Of course it's a factor. When it comes to physical evidence, the more time that elapses, the more chance there is of it becoming cross-contaminated.

As for the OP, no it won't be solved. That's the long and short of it.

Once again: There is no established limit of time after which a case cannot be solved.

What there is, is the correlation between time passing and work being done. That means that if very many people try their hardest to solve a case, then more and more effort will have been put into trying to find the solution over time. And if we reason that these people will go about their work rationally, then over time, the chance that they will find the solution becomes smaller.

But that is only if all work is done perfectly rationally and if all the evidence is uncovered at an even rate, and in a sequence that does not allow for the more important evidence surfacing later in the process.

If there is a written source lying on the bottom of a chest on somebodys attic, that can solve the case, then the case will be solved when that evidence is found and recognized.

This evidence does not alter over time - it stays the same. It does not change in character over time - it stays the same. If anything, the work done up until it is found will facilitate for us to see itīs importance when we find it.

If we accept the possibility of such evidence existing, we can see that it is consistent throughout, regardless of the passing of time. No stage will be more likely than any other as to when it is found.

There is also a factor that actually speaks for the possibilities of solving a crime INCREASING with time - the technical factor. There are cases from ancient history recorded where people have been recorded in contemporary sources as having died from natural causes. Modern technology has, however, from time to time been able to show that they have been f ex poisoned, something that could not be revealed at the times of their deaths. In such cases, there has been a need for many hundreds - or even thousands - of years to be added BEFORE the cases could be solved.

So no, time is not a constraint when it comes to the chances of solving the Ripper riddle other than in a peripheric capacity. Sometimes a short time will be enough to solve a case, other times a long time is called for.

Speaking of "the long and the short of it", that is...

[Rosella]

Yes, that's true. However, if we are talking about evidence in the way of documents, a diary, letter etc laying in a box in some dusty attic that could be vital in solving this case, then dangers increase. Younger relatives clearing a house after the deaths of very elderly relatives might not recognise yellowing papers (of well over 100 years old) as anything more than rubbish and might consign them to the tip. Mice could nibble, fire could destroy. All these hazards increase as decades pass and generations die off.

[Fisherman]

Yes, that's true. However, if we are talking about evidence in the way of documents, a diary, letter etc laying in a box in some dusty attic that could be vital in solving this case, then dangers increase. Younger relatives clearing a house after the deaths of very elderly relatives might not recognise yellowing papers (of well over 100 years old) as anything more than rubbish and might consign them to the tip. Mice could nibble, fire could destroy. All these hazards increase as decades pass and generations die off.

Thatīs true - but it is hard to say in what form evidence could surface. Overall timeīs tooth will wither things away, but alongside that development, we have the increasing possibilities to link threads together due to extensive research and we have the technological advances that will open up for new ways to look at the case over time.

What I am saying is that it is not true to say that too much time has passed for us to be able to solve the case. We cannot possibly know that, since it would involve a specified insight into the future and what it will bring.

Of course, the fact that thousands of people are still looking for evidence bears witness to how we know that the possibility is there. If there was no possibility or hope, then nobody would look.

It is no stranger than that, really!

[Harry D]

Once again: There is no established limit of time after which a case cannot be solved.

What there is, is the correlation between time passing and work being done. That means that if very many people try their hardest to solve a case, then more and more effort will have been put into trying to find the solution over time. And if we reason that these people will go about their work rationally, then over time, the chance that they will find the solution becomes smaller.

But that is only if all work is done perfectly rationally and if all the evidence is uncovered at an even rate, and in a sequence that does not allow for the more important evidence surfacing later in the process.

If there is a written source lying on the bottom of a chest on somebodys attic, that can solve the case, then the case will be solved when that evidence is found and recognized.

This evidence does not alter over time - it stays the same. It does not change in character over time - it stays the same. If anything, the work done up until it is found will facilitate for us to see itīs importance when we find it.

If we accept the possibility of such evidence existing, we can see that it is consistent throughout, regardless of the passing of time. No stage will be more likely than any other as to when it is found.

There is also a factor that actually speaks for the possibilities of solving a crime INCREASING with time - the technical factor. There are cases from ancient history recorded where people have been recorded in contemporary sources as having died from natural causes. Modern technology has, however, from time to time been able to show that they have been f ex poisoned, something that could not be revealed at the times of their deaths. In such cases, there has been a need for many hundreds - or even thousands - of years to be added BEFORE the cases could be solved.

So no, time is not a constraint when it comes to the chances of solving the Ripper riddle other than in a peripheric capacity. Sometimes a short time will be enough to solve a case, other times a long time is called for.

Speaking of "the long and the short of it", that is...

For argument's sake, what possible evidence do you envisage would solve the case?

You mention a written source. Well, we already have written sources from policemen who were at the heart of the case. Anderson & Swanson said that the poor Polish Jew (Kosminski) was the Ripper and it was more or less a formality that he wasn't charged for it. Case closed?