Exhumation

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Adam!

Even if Mary Kelly's DNA would be found, what would be the use of it?! You can easily notice, while reading these boards, there has been at least hundreds of Welsh/Western-Irish/London Mary Kellies studied. No match! So, if "Mary Jane Kelly" is a pseudonyme - like I personally think these days - the haystack is too big to find a needle!

Then; what would be the use of finding cutmarks? Since most of them are described the best possible way in the Archives of the Scotland Yard, most probably the only thing to do is to include/exclude some extra cuts!

If the murderer could be found, it would definitely cause embarrassment and "shhhh..." -reactions to his family. Thats a tough question: on one hand, the case should be solved. On the other, it wasn't his relatives doing the killing!

All the best
Jukka

[adamkle]

Adam, you keep saying this exercise may bring justice to the case but HOW? The killer is most definitely dead.;

No one knows, what we could find inside the coffin. Maybe nothing, maybe Kelly's DNA... cut marks on the bones, that could tell MODERN examiners something about tool of crime and mutilations... or even possible murderer's DNA or fingerprints. Yes, it would be a miracle, but... we don't even pray for it. I dare to pray. I still have a hope. (I know, hope is the mother for fools). JtR is dead. So what? The case is unsolved.

If you could positively identify the murderer, you could never achieve justice. All you could possibly do is create heartache and embarrassment to his/her family. That is no justice. It's an injustice they don't deserve.

What about the families and admirers of notable people, wrongly accused? What about the Jews from East End, who could feel 'framed'? What about Kozminskis, Druitts etc.? Aren't they 'small victims' of JtR? And he could 'kill' even now. Wasn't Sickert 'killed' as an artist in Cornwell's book (at least in the eyes of thousands of 'convinced' readers)?

Best regards,
Adam

[Suzi]

Exactly Sam!!!!!!!!!!! It's all toot!!!!.....where were we??.........let's go and sort out 'The Prophet' and his Barnardo lunacy I say- and forget this let 'em RIP (!!)

Dids says ...'That's OK Taff!'....and it's your round!!!! xxxxxxxxxxxxx

(Bugger that wouldn't that be the O'Keefes of Camarthen/Caernarvon would it?) He he x

[Graham]

I cannot belive that this thread has kept going for as long as it has...

...of all the daft threads on these boards, this one takes the cake.

Poo!

Graham

[Sam Flynn]

With Mary- Now assuming that the body underneath the gravestone- that we all assume is Mary' (or there again maybe not.........) What are we going to do with any DNA that may be retrieved??...Compare it with who's???

I may be wrong, Suzi, but if "Fingers o'Keefe" is on the police database, and a computerised search of the data throws up significant matches between sections of his DNA (autosomal, as opposed to mitochondrial) and those of "Mary's", then there'd be a calculable likelihood that "Great-great Granddad o'Keefe" was a close relative of "Mary's", possibly even her brother. (Repeat for "Great-great Granny o'Keefe", or any relative of comparable genetic separation.) Not sure quite how practical this would be, but based on my limited (albeit not quite non-existent) grasp of genetics, this ought to be possible.

In terms of ID'ing the murderer, however - not a cat's chance. Sorry, Dids

[Suzi]

Right!- OK if at the end of the day they 'Bring 'er up'-'Oop she comes' (* Memories of Thora Hurd...can't remember the name of the programme in the '70s) But......... that apart....

With Mary- Now assuming that the body underneath the gravestone- that we all assume is Mary' (or there again maybe not.........) What are we going to do with any DNA that may be retrieved??...Compare it with who's??? ....To be honest if we had someone who we compare anything to ...wouldnt they have been put forward as a 'relation' years ago!! Oddly there are worryingly mega gaps as soon as anyone puts their foot in that particular water!!!

Blimey!! Our Mary is sooooo elusive- to suddenly find someone we could compare some DNA with would be a Total Revelation!! -(And maybe change our whole aspect of who and where this creature came from.....and maybe went to!!)....Her hum.........

I still remain to be convinced that the poor soul in Mary's grave is the incumbent of Miller's Ct we know and 'love' as Mary- but that's another whole can of worms /eels....

In a rather mawkish way I would like to see an exhumation of 'Mary' but at the end of the day what will it/that prove???

As to the others..the actual positioning of the burial sites is a tad spurious-so probably best left alone I say-

Sam-It was Mozart (!! NOT) that they picked out of a common grave and buried with some style a few years ago........Rest well Wolfy!!!!(wherever you are!!!)

Suzi xx

[joelhall]

Adam, you keep saying this exercise may bring justice to the case but HOW? The killer is most definitely dead.;

If you could positively identify the murderer, you could never achieve justice. All you could possibly do is create heartache and embarrassment to his/her family. That is no justice. It's an injustice they don't deserve.

off topic i know (apologies) but youve raised an interesting point. ive always thought, if i did happen to solve the case or find good evidence to a point near to a satisfactory conclusion, would i really want to name the killer to the general public? obviously this is hypothetical but i wouldnt be sure id be comfortable doing so, as there are unfortunately nutters who may victimise the descendents.

oh well...

carry on

joel

[Limehouse]

Adam, you keep saying this exercise may bring justice to the case but HOW? The killer is most definitely dead.;

If you could positively identify the murderer, you could never achieve justice. All you could possibly do is create heartache and embarrassment to his/her family. That is no justice. It's an injustice they don't deserve.

[adamkle]

OK, so we poke around in the ground, moving possibly dozens of coffins that may well have partly rotted away, dislodging their contents into the soil, in order to find the bodies of five women (are you actually going for the canonical five?) who died 120 years ago. Then you are going to look for DNA that could belong to any number of people, catalogue this DNA, compare it with any DNA that might be on record - and then do what?? Come up with another list of suspects who may or may not be the killer? Then what? You say you want justice but how exactly do you intend to achieve this?

What can I tell? Yes, it looks impossible... But I think we could try with Mary Kelly. With one victim it won't be so complicated. Let's check, if there is something that could help us bring the justice. Maybe I'm just a dreamer... Let's try to find any material evidence. Just with Mary Kelly and then we will see...

The task would be vastly expensive

Yes, it would. If I were a billionaire I would pay for it, believe me.

disrespectful to the dead...

I don't agree. But I understand your objections.

In any case, if this quest was carried out in the case of the Ripper killings, people all over the country whose relatives have been the victims of unsolved killings would be calling for similar measures and there would be chaos and uproar in burial grounds.

I think Whitichapel murders are the part of the history. We pay every day for digging up dinosaurs' bones. So why couldn't we pay for the exhumation of one Mary Kelly?
There are so many unsolved cases. Yes. But... do thay have their Casebook.org? Are we all wicked people, who forgot about the thousands of other crimes?

Best regards,
Adam

[joelhall]

You are perfectly right. That's why we should check as many bodies of the victims as we can and... verify the results. Yes, it's VERY complicated. who said it would be easy? Even with DNA samples it would last tens of years. But what else can we do?
My great grandfather is a possible suspect, as well as anyone else's ancestors here. Why? Beacuse there are no single material proof pointing at someone else. So, maybe they are in the coffins?
Best regards,
Adam

someone doesnt become a suspect because you cant prove someone else did it, it requires some degree of evidence.

i have to say of some points raised however, were bordering into fantasy-land. its well to dream 'what ifs' but thats all theyll ever be even with exhumations.

its highly highly doubtful that even if the killer secreted there would be any trace left. throw in burial, post-mortem chemical release and worms and this lowers the probability even more.

the very best you can hope for is with kelly's body (providing it is actually hers) which could give some idea of ancestry through mtdna. matching to the criminal database would be hit and miss and a poor use of resources.

the best we could hope for for id would be some distant relative coming forward

it should also be stated that despite modern reliance on forensic science it is not a magic bullet which answers all the questions. it just gives probabilities based on known evidence and the degree of the forensic examiners findings.

and to refer to limehouses post...

'Let's suppose we dig up one of these poor women and find there IS some detactable DNA on a whisp of remaining hair or a portion of clothing that hasn't rotted away. How do we know it isn't the DNA of one of the people who discovered her body, one of the people at the mortuary who washed her body, the surgeon who carried out the post-mortem or one of his assistants,one of the women who may have borrowed the item of clothing the vicitm was buried in and returned it unwashed, any number of staff at the undertakers who may have touched the body before burial, a person who broke into the coffin after burial looking for jewellery (if they did not know the freshly buried person was a Ripper victim) or trophies (if they did know she was a victim)... the list could go on.

Given these possibilities, how would you feel if this test was carried out and people started pointing the finger at your great grandfather??'

we dont and we never would UNLESS... it was a direct match of a known suspect which would shift the probability... not prove anything.

[Limehouse]

Hi Adam,

I am sorry, but I am not following your line of logic at all. OK, so we poke around in the ground, moving possibly dozens of coffins that may well have partly rotted away, dislodging their contents into the soil, in order to find the bodies of five women (are you actually going for the canonical five?) who died 120 years ago. Then you are going to look for DNA that could belong to any number of people, catalogue this DNA, compare it with any DNA that might be on record - and then do what?? Come up with another list of suspects who may or may not be the killer? Then what? You say you want justice but how exactly do you intend to achieve this?

The task would be vastly expensive, disrespectful to the dead, who should be left to rest in peace and so likely to turn up absolutely nothing that it would not be worth the trouble.

In any case, if this quest was carried out in the case of the Ripper killings, people all over the country whose relatives have been the victims of unsolved killings would be calling for similar measures and there would be chaos and uproar in burial grounds.

Do you know there is still a little boy buried up on Saddleworth Moor, killed by Brady and Hindley over forty years ago and the police have a good idea where to look but they won't do it until they have a more precise location because of the cost and the potential disruption. There is nothing those policemen would like more than to reunite that little boy with his elderly mother so that she can bury him before she herself dies. Now, if they won't even try to dig a relatively small area in these circumstances, what chance is there that 'they' will start digging up Ripper victims?

[adamkle]

How do we know it isn't the DNA of one of the people who discovered her body, one of the people at the mortuary who washed her body... the list could go on. Given these possibilities, how would you feel if this test was carried out and people started pointing the finger at your great grandfather??

You are perfectly right. That's why we should check as many bodies of the victims as we can and... verify the results. Yes, it's VERY complicated. who said it would be easy? Even with DNA samples it would last tens of years. But what else can we do?
My great grandfather is a possible suspect, as well as anyone else's ancestors here. Why? Beacuse there are no single material proof pointing at someone else. So, maybe they are in the coffins?
Best regards,
Adam

[Limehouse]

Let's suppose we dig up one of these poor women and find there IS some detactable DNA on a whisp of remaining hair or a portion of clothing that hasn't rotted away. How do we know it isn't the DNA of one of the people who discovered her body, one of the people at the mortuary who washed her body, the surgeon who carried out the post-mortem or one of his assistants,one of the women who may have borrowed the item of clothing the vicitm was buried in and returned it unwashed, any number of staff at the undertakers who may have touched the body before burial, a person who broke into the coffin after burial looking for jewellery (if they did not know the freshly buried person was a Ripper victim) or trophies (if they did know she was a victim)... the list could go on.

Given these possibilities, how would you feel if this test was carried out and people started pointing the finger at your great grandfather??

[adamkle]

Hi Adam,
I was thinking of a match-up of DNA samples taken from relatives alive today of,shall we say,"official" suspects..to eliminate names from the list we know of on Casebook...would be interesting to see who stayed and who went.!!
It was just an idea.

Hi,
Great idea. But... you'd like to compare it with what? We dont have any JtR's DNA. We can have DNAs from the "ripper's letters", glue and envelopes. But that's not the same!
That's why I insist on exhumation. At least Mary Kelly's...
There is no other way.
And... just imagine... DNA of Kelly's murderer would be just a "DNA of Kelly's murderer". We can't be 100% sure it was JtR, who killed her, not some copycat... But the first step will be made.

Best regards,
Adam

[anna]

Hi Adam,
I was thinking of a match-up of DNA samples taken from relatives alive today of,shall we say,"official" suspects..to eliminate names from the list we know of on Casebook...would be interesting to see who stayed and who went.!!
It was just an idea.