What would it take?

[clark2710]

I've been giving this thought and this is the question that I've come up with. I apologize if this has been posted before and I hope it hasn't. What would it take to solve this crime where all Ripperologists are happy? Is this even Possible? I mean I've seen documentaries that have taken the available evidence and narrowed down where he likely lived and the only reason that they don't know who lived where is due to the incompletion of records at the time, if you all wish a link some I could find them ....
What i'm trying to ask is with all of this would it be possible to solve this crime to everyone's satisfaction?

[claire]

No. Go away. lol.

[Natalie Severn]

Well that was certainly succinct-and accurate Claire!
Best
Norma

[Adam Went]

Ouch, Claire lol.
I reckon you'd probably need nothing short of DNA evidence, or the discovery of a confession which could somehow he proven to be accurate. Both of those are extreme long shots after 122 years and you'd still struggle to convince everybody that the mystery is solved.....

Cheers,
Adam.

[The Grave Maurice]

Adam has it right, Clark, and I hope your realize that Claire and Norma are just joking with you. We all appreciate newcomers who ask penetrating questions.

[Phil Carter]

Hello clark,

Welcome to the boards, ditto GM's words. In various documentaries I have seen that various well known experts say that there is virtually no chance of the killer (s) being discovered. It would take 100% definitive conclusive proof..but have also heard it said on a documentary that both a) some don't want the mystery solved, and b) even if there were 100% conclusive proof, still some would disagree. Human nature I suppose.

I have a personal hope. Hope that ONE of the murdered women can have their killer named, i.e. proof against one of the murders. It would not mean "Jack" had been caught and named of course, but an unknown murderer named. Possible? Perhaps. Probable? No.

best wishes

Phil

[clark2710]

Thank You all for the welcome.....Laughs You all have a point...and yes i know you all are joking ...it feels like to me that if you look at the composite they came up with, and if you read about who was where and most unlikely to have done it....it narrows it a little....somewhat...me thinks...it's one of those that it would be nice to know...but then once you do it takes the mystique out of it....if that makes sense...so i feel you claire i do
One thing that sticks out in my mind is that a good portion of the suspects suffered somehow, were executed, or something along those lines...Cream died of execution if i recall, and Prince Albert of the flu if i remember correctly, they all died or suffered in some way so would it not be safe to say that if many of the suspects were The Ripper than the Ripper died a horrible death....or was executed or something

[Fleetwood Mac]

I've been giving this thought and this is the question that I've come up with. I apologize if this has been posted before and I hope it hasn't. What would it take to solve this crime where all Ripperologists are happy? Is this even Possible? I mean I've seen documentaries that have taken the available evidence and narrowed down where he likely lived and the only reason that they don't know who lived where is due to the incompletion of records at the time, if you all wish a link some I could find them ....
What i'm trying to ask is with all of this would it be possible to solve this crime to everyone's satisfaction?

Not to everyone's satisfaction.....no...but enough to arrive at a concensus.

A simple example....most people see Schwartz as the key witness in the Stride murder.....all you have to do is imagine PC Smith was out with his time.....which is pretty easy since there's no chance of him arriving at Dutfield's Yard at 1am....and suddenly things change.....PC Smith sees Stride around 12.40-12.45 am...Mortimer's story fits.....and Schwarzt's story doesn't....and then you have a sighting of a respectable looking gentleman with Stride around 12.40. That's all it takes....a policeman who thinks he is in a certain place at a certain time but probably wasn't....and suddenly the veracity of witness's statements are affected.

Small things such as that change the whole thing......and I personally feel he was under the police radar at some point...even if tentatively questioned.....but not one of the main suspects.

There could be something in the statements of witnesses...police...etc...that seem innocous....but could be the answer...wouldn't take much.

[Wyatt Earp]

It would be quite a longshot (to say the least!), but it's possible that the Ripper dropped one or more of his hairs onto the bodies of one or more of his victims, and it's possible that his hair became mixed in with their hair such that it survived the preparation of their bodies for examination and burial, meaning that it is possible his hair is sitting in the ground with their bodies today.

Exhumation and study could determine if any "non-native" hairs were present on their bodies, and a database of these hairs could be constructed. The bodies of some of the major suspects are in known locations. These could also be exhumed and their hair samples could be compared to the samples in the database. If one of the major suspects was a match, I think that would establish the Ripper's identity for a great many people.

So which one of you guys wants to organize this?

[curious]

Very creative and interesting . . . not to mention expensive.

[Bridewell]

Agreed

Very creative and interesting . . . not to mention expensive.

I agree. It's never going to happen, but I'm with Wyatt when he says that is the only course of action likely to provide a positive result. The problem is that these women were prostitutes, so even the hair of a suspect (even a pubic hair) found with the remains of a victim's body still wouldn't prove guilt, only that he had been "up close & personal" for want of a better phrase. I do think, though, that if a suspect's hair was found with the remains of three or more victims, that would have to be seen as proof beyond reasonable doubt. It would close the case for me anyway.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Wyatt Earp]

. . . not to mention expensive.

We need to get James Cameron out of that submarine and put him to work on something that really matters.

[lynn cates]

What's the connection?

Hello Bridewell.

"so even the hair of a suspect (even a pubic hair) found with the remains of a victim's body still wouldn't prove guilt, only that he had been "up close & personal" for want of a better phrase."

Maybe not as dire as all that. Recall that the post mortems revealed no recent connection.

Cheers.
LC

[Heinrich]

I predict there will be general agreement that Joseph Barnett did murder Mary Kelly but unlikely that he can be as conclusively linked to other victims any time soon.

[Sally]

I predict there will be general agreement that Joseph Barnett did murder Mary Kelly but unlikely that he can be as conclusively linked to other victims any time soon.

Well at least you're consistent Heinrich.

Seriously? It would take a major breakthrough in terms of evidence before there would be any 'general agreement' about a suspect. Otherwise, opinion will always be divided.