What would it take?

[clark2710]

Is the exact site of Mary Kelly's grave known; paupers or otherwise?

[Wyatt Earp]

Easily biodegradable matter like stray hairs will be long gone.

Maybe, maybe not. Bolivar died in 1830 and his body was exhumed in 2010. Hair was present. (Source: "Venezuela Opens Bolivar's Tomb to Examine Remains.")

The possibility of recovering something useful is remote, but I don't think we can completely rule it out.

[Lechmere]

I am loath to inject a note of common sense in here, but the bodies have been in the earth for about 124 years, in nearly every instance in a common or pauper's grave which means other bodies would have been buried on top of or underneath them. The location of several are only known in general terms. Easily biodegradable matter like stray hairs will be long gone. You would be lucky to accurately identify any bones relating to victims, although as some of the victims had children a DNA link would be possible.

[Jon Guy]

Michael

No. That doesnt mean anyone is going to toss in the towel though.

In Blighty we throw in the towel, for obvious reasons ;-)

[Michael W Richards]

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?

No. That doesnt mean anyone is going to toss in the towel though.
Welcome aboard.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Wyatt Earp]

Considering these bodies, perhaps excluding that of Mary Kelly, would all be washed before, during or after, the autopsy, any hairs found on their bodies (hypothetically), might belong to a doctor, mortuary attendent or funeral director.

There's another possibility here for which the washing of the corpses would not pose an obstacle. Think about Mary Kelly in particular, whose insides were on the outside all over the place. If the Ripper dropped a couple of tiny bits of hair onto her, it's very possible they landed on something sticky and were trapped inside her body when she was sewn up. Any search for fibers would need to involve reopening the bodies.

[towboydds]

Link

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?

I for one would like any link you might have to this information.

As to whether or not it could satisfy all of the people? Nothing satisfies all of the people, you can please some of the people most of the time, and most of the people some of the time.

Your Humble Servant
Darrel Derek Stieben

[Barnaby]

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.

This wouldn't surprise me in the least. Wouldn't it be neat if someone were to take the time to catalog every man whose name appeared in police files (the Companion could be mined) or contemporary press reports. Then we could attempt to track people on this list through the census etc. and see if any interesting characters emerge.

[Wyatt Earp]

Considering these bodies, perhaps excluding that of Mary Kelly, would all be washed before, during or after, the autopsy, any hairs found on their bodies (hypothetically), might belong to a doctor, mortuary attendent or funeral director.

Small hair fibers can be very difficult to extricate from an object once they become enmeshed in them. If they can stay with an object through a modern tumbling washing machine, it seems reasonable to believe they could survive hand-washings, especially since one would expect the hand-washings of the corpses to have been done with expedience and not with fine care in mind.

Mary Kelly would be the victim most likely to harbor loose hairs given the amount of time and negative attention the Ripper gave to her.

A piece of hair in the same ballpark color-wise as the hair of a victim would not have been noticed or specifically removed by anyone.

[Wickerman]

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.

Considering these bodies, perhaps excluding that of Mary Kelly, would all be washed before, during or after, the autopsy, any hairs found on their bodies (hypothetically), might belong to a doctor, mortuary attendent or funeral director.

Regards, Jon S.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.