Exhumation

[adamkle]

I know there was long discussion about it on Casebook in 2004, but I have several questions. Maybe someone would like to answer it.

1. Thanks of exhumation we could compare the cuts on the bones of the "canonical" victims. If they are similar, then probably the knife and the murderer would be the same, right?
2. It was 120 years ago, so it could be a miracle but... If any of the victim was buried in her own clothes, than we could find - literally - bloody fingerprints on it, right?
3. The DNA of the victims would be useful. For many reasons.

What do you think? With all the respect for the victims...

[George Hutchinson]

Hi Adam.

It's a non-starter on every single level.

Firstly - and most importantly - we do not have the exact burial spot for ANY victim. All the extant monuments are in the approximate area and some are in mass graves.

Secondly, there is nothing to say the bones would be preserved well enough for the efficient extraction of DNA anyway. I am no scientist but I do recall that about ten years ago some of the anonymous victims of the Titanic were exhumed in Halifax in Canada and it was found in about half those cases there was NOTHING left of them at all. The acidity of the soil had destroyed all traces of the remains.

Thirdly, DNA would only be of use in the case of trying to get an ID on MJK. As we don't know where the remains are and the exhumation would not be classified as being in the Public Interest, the Home Office would never permit exploration and the desecration of various surrounding unrelated graves in the hope of possibly finding one skeleton.

Lastly - bloody fingerprints on the clothing of a buried victim being a miracle? Damn right it would be. There is also the fact that fingerprinting was not used in criminal cases in the UK until the trial of the Stratton brothers following a murder in Deptford, SE London, in 1905. The killer would have to have a criminal record twenty years later at least and I daresay the routine fingerprinting of convicts did not occur until some years after that.

PHILIP

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

Adamkle, how ideal thinking! It's the same I had, while joining these boards...

But, like Philip said, it's only wishful thinking!

The only one, that can possibly be a hit to the target with the burial-site, could be MJK.

Getting a hit with fingerprints is unlikely, since the obvious choice for JtR is a killer, who died before the fingerprint system took place!

All the best
Jukka

[Monty]

I think the moral issue is more important.

Monty

[adamkle]

Firstly - and most importantly - we do not have the exact burial spot for ANY victim. All the extant monuments are in the approximate area and some are in mass graves.

Frankly, I didn't think the situation is so bad. But, did the authorities even try to locate it?

Secondly, there is nothing to say the bones would be preserved well enough for the efficient extraction of DNA anyway.

We can't be sure there's something left. But forensic exeminer once told me, that it's quite possible to extract DNA from the 120-years-old long bones.

Thirdly, ... As we don't know where the remains are and the exhumation would not be classified as being in the Public Interest, the Home Office would never permit exploration and the desecration of various surrounding unrelated graves in the hope of possibly finding one skeleton.

Probably that's what they think. But are they right? We talk about serial killer, not some damned tv starlet.

There is also the fact that fingerprinting was not used in criminal cases in the UK until the trial of the Stratton brothers following a murder in Deptford, SE London, in 1905.

OK. But step by step. Once we had those figerprints (miracle #1), than we could look for matching suspects (miracle #2). Today no one ever thinks about it, because the graves wasn't even checked...

And what do you think about those cuts on the bones? To know that the same knife was used (or not), that would be a progress, wouldn't it?

Best regards,
Adam

[adamkle]

The only one, that can possibly be a hit to the target with the burial-site, could be MJK.
Getting a hit with fingerprints is unlikely, since the obvious choice for JtR is a killer, who died before the fingerprint system took place!

JtR died before the fingerprint system took place? How can we be 100% sure? Even so, he could left fingerprints on his letters or other belongings.
MJK would be interesting. Her clothes - that's where a "bloody fingerprint" could be. But they were changed before the funeral, weren't they?

[j.r-ahde]

Hello adamkle!

Because we don't know for sure about JtR, I used the word "obviously"!

We don't know for sure either, that which letters if any was written by JtR!

The only way with MJK would be a lucky hit from the stores of the Scotland Yard and such hasn't happened yet!

All the best
Jukka

[sdreid]

About all that could possibly be retrieved is victim DNA and I don't know what that would gain even if it could be recovered.

[Limehouse]

Hi Adamkle,

Exactly whose interests would be served in digging up these women in the vain hope that some DNA or other foresnsic evidence can be found?

Would it make a jot of difference to the women concerned? Would it bring the killer to justice? No, I don't think it would. It would only serve to satisfy the curiosity of Ripper 'fans'.

It would be immoral and extremely disrespectful to go digging and poking around in old, common graves, some of which cover a failry large area, in the quest of finding 120 year old bodies that should be left in peace.

Those woman died in violence. Let their secrets lie buried with them undisturbed.

[John Bennett]

Limehouse - you've put it well

Let it be, as they say. We don't know where the graves are exactly and there are no benefits (in ANY context) in exhuming the bodies anyway. It's just too long ago.

I think it's a very naive view that any examination of the victims' remains will herald new evidence. Clutching at very thin straws in fact.

We know more about the victims' lives now than we ever did (thanks to people like Neal Shelden) and their slide into poverty is sad, but no more than their terrible end.

Let them rest in peace.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello John!

Most of the discussions about the exhumation has concerned finding out about the face of Mary Jane Kelly.

I have wondered, why her remains - despite having the best chances to be found - should be dug up only to know her facial appearance!

RIP, all of you victims!

All the best
Jukka

[adamkle]

Hello all!

About all that could possibly be retrieved is victim DNA and I don't know what that would gain even if it could be recovered.

For example. There is still a chance that somewhere in London Hospital there are slides of kidney, sent to Lusk. Without Eddowes' DNA, we couldn't check if it was her (then the sender would be JtR himself) or somebody else's (then it would be a hoax).
And remember about cut marks on the bones...

Would it make a jot of difference to the women concerned? Would it bring the killer to justice? No, I don't think it would. It would only serve to satisfy the curiosity of Ripper 'fans'. It would be immoral and extremely disrespectful... Those woman died in violence. Let their secrets lie buried with them undisturbed.

Look, I believe in God, soul and JUSTICE. There were tens of men wrongly accused (f.e. as well known as Sickert or Carroll). There were women slashed. It's not 'curiosity' for me. If we have a chance to bring justice, let's do it. It's not victim's secret. Their broken dreams were their secrets. And THESE are their tragedies and murderer's secret!
Kelly's death was the worst thing that could happen to her. There is nothing worse, even the exhumation.

One day, maybe for a hundred years, we might need these samples. And then we will probably have just ashes. And just the ashes of justice.

Yours sincerely,
Adam

[Limehouse]

Adam,

Surely if you believe in God and justice, you must realise that only God's judgement on the killer is now possible. No court of law could ever bring the killer to book for his/her crimes.

It would be enormously difficult to locate the correct bodies. It would involve disturbing a lot of other burials, with only a remote chance of the correct bodies being found. Even if the bodies were located, after 120 years there is the very real possibility that nothing will be left to test.

Let them rest.

[joelhall]

I know there was long discussion about it on Casebook in 2004, but I have several questions. Maybe someone would like to answer it.

1. Thanks of exhumation we could compare the cuts on the bones of the "canonical" victims. If they are similar, then probably the knife and the murderer would be the same, right?
2. It was 120 years ago, so it could be a miracle but... If any of the victim was buried in her own clothes, than we could find - literally - bloody fingerprints on it, right?
3. The DNA of the victims would be useful. For many reasons.

What do you think? With all the respect for the victims...

1. possibly but doubtful. there would be much decay, and its not necessarily true he used the same knife, nor do we know who else to look at to see if theres a match. plus theres the fact you would tell the type of knife, not the exact one by marks in bone (this isnt like ballistics). youre more likely to tell how the cuts were made, pointers to cause of death, etc. if youre lucky of course
2. no. fresh blood on fabric spreads, its not like finger grease on a window, plus human cells decompose, and iron degrades. test this by pricking your finger touching a shirt then letting it age 120 years basically, no chance.
3. no use at all really, theres nothing to compare it to.

at best you could discover a few physical/physiological details of the victims. not really even any use to ripperologists.

plus theres the biggest problem pointed out - noone really knows whos in the ground.

joel

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Joel

plus theres the biggest problem pointed out - noone really knows whos in the ground.

Without looking it up, weren't some (most?) of Jack's victims buried in coffins with brass plaques affixed to the lids? I'm not advocating exhumation, by the way, although I have no moral qualms about the matter. It's just that I agree with you that such an exercise would be of limited use.