Exhumation

[Jon Guy]

As I say, I've got no moral qualms about this - to my mind, historical investigation is as valid a reason as any. Aren't there precedents for such "exercises in curiosity" being carried out anyway? One thinks of possible descendants of the Russian royal family, for example, or recent stories that remains purported to be that of a composer (was it Mozart?) weren't his after all.

DNA testing was also performed succesfully on Joseph Merrick`s bones, and he died within a year of Kelly. Although, I do believe they also used an old plater caste that had some of his hairs present.

The testing was done to investigate his illness.

[Jon Guy]

[QUOTE=Sam Flynn;26730 In Kelly's case the chances are slim (simply because of the number of subdivisions that have occurred since her birth) but there's a possibility that at least some of her family's "genetic fingerprints" have survived the generations.[/QUOTE]

If Kelly did indeed originate from a provincial Welsh or Irish town, would there not then be a greater chance of her "genetic fingerprints" surviving ?

[adamkle]

If Jack didn't wear gloves while mutilating her,at some point,isn't there a chance that he might have touched Kelly's hair if he re-arranged it as we discussed on another thread.If Jack's DNA was still on Kelly,and then DNA taken from some of the popular suspects current rellies,it might rule some of those out.

Good idea, but it's almost impossible, I'm afraid. Jack's DNA on her hair? That would be a miracle... What from? His fingers were bleeding? Or he kissed her head? It was 120 years ago... But, who knows... Maybe he broke his nail and left it in the flesh? Or left HIS hair somewhere?
By the way, what kind of remains of popular (but rather serious) suspects do we have (without digging the graves)?
Cornwell has Druitt's mDNA, isn't she? We have also Deeming's skull... Surely, there are more remains.

[Sam Flynn]

If Kelly did indeed originate from a provincial Welsh or Irish town, would there not then be a greater chance of her "genetic fingerprints" surviving ?

Quite possibly, Jon - albeit in fragmentary form, as the genome gets "diluted" between offspring and over successive generations. Assuming one or more of her siblings went on to have children, one sixteenth of Mary Kelly's DNA would survive in the genes of her great grand-nephews/nieces.

[Sam Flynn]

I am not really thinking about the moral aspect Sam, but if you wanted to cross match Kelly's sample against those held in a police database that would not be a legal use of the data.

It might not, Limehouse - although it's an interesting question whether identifying the remains of a corpse wouldn't constitute legal usage of such a database. The difference here is that one would be using the data to identify a victim, rather than the perpetrator, of an unsolved crime.

[joelhall]

there are a few bits and pieces here which i have to say are just fanciful. no offence

[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.

[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

[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]

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]

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?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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