Who was killed by Jack the Ripper?

[jerryd]

Mary Jane Kelly is listed as a canonical victim, but not a single post about her murder exactly 137 years ago. Rest in Peace, Mary Jane.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I hadn’t noticed the date tbhJerry. Fair point.

RIP Mary.

[Lewis C]

The police don't investigate a dead man.

Why not? Dying doesn't exonerate you from possibly being the Ripper.

c.d.

Good question, c.d. I would think that they should investigate a dead man to help the investigation as a whole. If they learn that he's the killer, then they don't need to investigate further. If they learn he isn't the killer, then they still need to determine who is.

[Lewis C]

Maybe this has some bearing on the discussion of Mac's memory. I have found that I'm much better at remembering some types of information than others. I'm very good at remembering what years things occurred, but I'm not nearly as good at remembering names. And I'm better at remembering names that I see in print than names that I hear. I suspect that it's common for people to have a stronger aptitude for some types of memory than others, and those aptitudes will vary from person to person.

RIP Mary Kelly.

[Doctored Whatsit]

If rumors came to light while Druitt was alive then yes, we should expect the police to have investigated Druitt, but from Mac's wording I took it that rumors only surfaced after Druitt's death. This explains why Mac. only had personal notes, so there would never have been any police files for him to destroy.
The police don't investigate a dead man.

Hi Jon,

In this case, I am sure that you are right, and as I wrote, there seems to have been no police investigation. I am not sure that this is always the case, and some investigation at the time could possibly have "tidied up" an extremely serious series of murders. If he was sure of his facts, one might have expected Mac to have made some nominal enquiries, and if he had done so, he should have got Druitt's age, occupation and address sorted, but he didn't.

[Wickerman]

The police don't investigate a dead man.

Why not? Dying doesn't exonerate you from possibly being the Ripper.

c.d.

Two main reasons are, he cannot be interviewed, or interrogated, so cannot give his side of the story.
There can be no resolution, no trial.
In consequence, any resources put into such an investigation will be wasted, you will never proceed beyond allegation.

[Wickerman]

Good question, c.d. I would think that they should investigate a dead man to help the investigation as a whole. If they learn that he's the killer, then they don't need to investigate further. If they learn he isn't the killer, then they still need to determine who is.

But how do they 'learn' he was the killer?
Presumably, they already have suspicions, they may accumulate more, but having two cups of nothing is no improvement over one cup of nothing. The East End of London was rife with people making accusations against others they had issues with.

The police can never get past the accusations, and even if he possessed knives that is not sufficiently unique to single him out either.
If they had fingerprinting, blood typology or DNA then that would be different, but that was not the case.

Edit:
Scotland Yard adopted fingerprinting as a means of I.D. in 1896. They adopted the use of blood typology for I.D. after 1910.
(According to A.I.)

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

In this case, I am sure that you are right, and as I wrote, there seems to have been no police investigation. I am not sure that this is always the case, and some investigation at the time could possibly have "tidied up" an extremely serious series of murders. If he was sure of his facts, one might have expected Mac to have made some nominal enquiries, and if he had done so, he should have got Druitt's age, occupation and address sorted, but he didn't.

We likely shouldn't forget, Anderson according to his own claims, had conducted an I.D. that in his mind (as Assistant Chief Constable), put an end to the mystery.
This I.D. must have taken place between 1888 - 1894, so the suicide in the Thames may have not been a high priority - especially if the Boss is of the opinion the case was solved.

Also, what does Mac. getting Druitt's age and occupation wrong really signify?
Does that point to him inventing the whole thing?, clearly not, as many others provided supporting circumstantial evidence.
Or does it indicate he had a poor memory for specific details?
You may not have noticed, but he also confused the two murders on 30th Sept. by claiming the killer was disturbed "by some Jews who drove up to a club".
"One Jew" drove up to a club in Berner St., and "some Jews" saw him with the victim at Mitre Square.

Mac. getting some details wrong does not give Druitt an alibi, it does not clear him of any suggested suspicion.
What it does do in my opinion, is make his recollections not particularly accurate, but still worthy of investigation, if Druitt had been still alive.