|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Matt
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 8:50 am: |       |
Will we ever know who he was? |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 204
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 2:06 pm: | |
Perhaps the question is, "Would we really want to know?" Then what would we have to debate about?
Seriously, though. I think a definitive solution could come only in one of two ways:
1. A genuine discovery of very incriminating evidence, a la a genuine diary, etc.
2. DNA evidence. Her to imagine that this is possible. But let's say, for example, Mary Kelly's body would be exhumed. We know she had defensive wounds, so what if there were mumified remains of her attacker's skin beneath her mumified fingernails. What if these bit of skin were matched to a suspect's remains? Unlikely to find such preservation of tissue in England's climate, but these things are unpredictable.
Andy S.
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 341
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 2:46 pm: | |
Hi Guys,
Will we ever know?.
Answer proberly not, however we are more imformed today then ever before.
There is someone who knows the truth, every one had relations, that were alive at the time, Mary kelly[ if that is her real name for eg] must have desendants, and so must the killer, somewhere out there is the truth, but it is a question of, will it ever be revealed?. I hope so all these years of intrest, it would be satisfying to find out.
Regards Richard. |
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 123
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 6:13 pm: | |
Richard
Interesting hypothesis that someone out there knows the truth. I would ask the question, if someone were to come forward tomorrow who stated categorically that they did know the truth, would we believe them? I would hazard a guess that very few would.
Especially as someone already did. Joseph Sickert. |
Rodney Gillis
Police Constable
Username: Srod
Post Number: 9
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 10:33 pm: | |
Alan,
You bring up a good point but remember, Sickert recanted his story and then I beleive he said his story was true once again. It's not hard to doubt somone after a history such as that.
Rod |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 797
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 4:01 am: | |
G'Day,
I remember on the old message boards, someone appearing and saying that she was Mary Kelly's great grandaughter and Joseph Barnett didn't do it! I can't imagine what her motives were, but someone else pointed out that Mary Kelly had no children and she disappeared!
LEANNE |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 166
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 5:24 am: | |
Leanne, we can only take what we know and assemble the puzzle. Not everyone will see the same picture. Problem is, as you pointed out, there are as many hoaxers today as there were in 1888. We are left to sort out what is real or fabrication and that is no easy task. We each go by what we know, and try to fill in the blanks as best we can. I believe each of us has a piece of the puzzle, and the message boards allow us to share our piece with everyone else, and yes, eventually one day someone will put all the right pieces together and we will know what happened. Until then, keep posting...
When you remove all that is false, what ever remains, however questionable, must be the truth...
Shannon |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1083
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 6:00 am: | |
Hi Shannon, Leanne, everyone
Not a single member of Kelly's family attended the funeral. OK, maybe this can be put down to family reluctance to attend the funeral of a daughter who was a prostitute (the funeral in this case being a very public business). However, the absence of any reports whatever of family members turning up in the days after the funeral, and trying to find out about her - talking to the police, or Barnett, or McCarthy, or her friends - makes me question whether any reliance at all can be placed on what she told Barnett about her earlier life.
If for instance at some point Kelly's friends had told a journalist that Kelly's family had been asking them questions about her, that would not guarantee that the family actually had been doing this. But the absence of any reports of this nature suggests to me that her family actually hadn't been doing this. Which is odd.
Maybe there are reports of such enquiries, and I haven't heard of them. Does anyone know? (Leanne, don't go revealing any secrets from your book before it's published!).
Robert |
Jason Mullins
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 6:28 pm: | |
Hello Again All -
The truth shall set you free 
Unfortunetly, as I once said recently in the chat room, if I were go to back in time, video tape the whole thing, come back and show it to everybody, (assuming of course that I could do that) It would still be debated for years to come. >=/
I agree with Richard.. someone, somewhere knew.. it's just a matter of seeing if they wrote it down or told someone else. Then tracing it back and seeing if the information is correct. I highly doubt we'll ever _know_. Besides, like Andrew said, what we would do with ourselves after we found out beyond a shadow of a doubt?
crix0r |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 3:20 am: | |
Richard, how can you assume that both MJK and the Ripper had descendants? All the best evidence points to MJK never having children and we simply do not know about Jack.
Beyond that, even if either or both did, what on earth makes you think that they would know any more about who the killer was than anyone else? From what we have seen of descendants of other people linked to the murders in one way or another (victim, suspect, investigator, etc.) they haven't had any better knowledge of the case than the general public. Quite frankly, I have no idea what my ancestors were doing in 1888 or even who they were, let alone if they were secretly serial killers.
I really doubt it's possible to ever find out who Jack the Ripper was, but I'm not going so far as saying it's impossible. I, for one, would like to know. And, trust me, if we ever did find out for sure the debate wouldn't end. There'd be the refuse to see facts in front of their faces crowd and the others that would still like to discuss the particulars. |
Joe
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 8:11 pm: | |
Not to be disrespectful to anyone. Why can't we then search the victims' remains for these clues?
Of course, permission would have to be granted by the family and a lot of money would have to be paid to the family and the cost of DNA analysis would be a lot. Also, A LOT of criticism would be taking place.
Perhaps, if we do find out one day, this will be the way we find out who he really was.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 128
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 9:53 am: | |
i think to exhume the victims remains would not only be a bit wierd in the sense that theres no way we can catch the killer, in the sense they aren't roaming the streets but also probably wouldn't help much after 120d yrs
jennifer |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 343
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 3:26 pm: | |
Hi Dan.
For a start , Joseph barnett reported to the star newspaper , that she had a son aged 6 or7 , living with her, obviously, in the final days of her life, it was also reported that she told a associate, that she could not bear to see her son starving. he was reported to have been sent on the streets begging, there was also a report , somewhat ignored, that the boy was taken to a neighbour on thur 8th nov. This implies to me that it is at least a possibility that kelly had a offspring. Obviously the police would have done their best to hush up such a possibility, for the decent thing to do..
So that is a possible desendant.
Also you state that you dont know what any desendants of yours were doing in 1888. Well I do I Discussed the case with my long passed grandmother, when I a boy, she was 9 years old at the time of the murders, and although twenty miles south of london remembered. the scare mongering that went with it.
The public were easily frightened in those days.
As for Jack desendants, he had a mother and father, and desendants were obviously present.
Regards Richard. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 206
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 12:13 am: | |
Jennifer,
There are reasons beyond the very practical catching of the perp (now impossible in this case). Historical interest can be compelling. Jesse James was exhumed just to prove that he died when history says he died. I believe also Billy the Kid was exhumed for largely the same reason. Many of the dead from the Little Big Horn were exhumed just to learn more about that battle. These are all graves from roughly the same era as JtR.
Andy S.
|
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 181
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 12:30 am: | |
Andrew, the Little Big horn bodies were exhumed, studied and returned to their resting place. It is one of the only cemeteries in the United States where the men are buried exactly where they died and not lined up as is the norm.
It was done for historical reference, to make sure the story was told correctly after much evidence came to light that the battle was not how it was portrayed in our history books.
The bodies were not tested for DNA, only identified as soldier, scout, or indian. The real forensics came from analyzing the shell casings which were marked on the field so the scientist could mark which gun fired which round and where the gun was located and which direction it was heading, and how many shots were fired from it. From that they reconstructed nearly the entire battle as it happened.
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 182
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 12:37 am: | |
Andrew, Jennifer, there may be a way to do the DNA test without exhuming the bodies. I remember seeing something a few years ago about a team of archaeologist who used a fiber optic light probe with a small razor hook on the end of it to take sample of material in a tomb in Egypt.
If anyone knows of the technology or remembers the program, any help with the exact science used and the outcome would be appreciated...
Shannon
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 801
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 1:18 am: | |
G'day,
The only reason people would want the bodies exhumed is to satisfy their own curiosities, and I don't think that's a good reason. Jack the Ripper can't be punished now, and they'd have to then exhume the bodies of all the suspects to find a matching DNA anyway. NOT GOOD!
LEANNE |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 132
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 6:36 am: | |
i agree 100 per cent with leanne.
i din't like to say it b4 but i find the idea a bit sick.
jennifer |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 208
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 6:45 pm: | |
Shannon,
Yes, I know. I saw the History Channel documentary. They were not tested for DNA, but they were exhumed for historical purposes.
Leanne, Jennifer:
There is room for disagreement here, to be sure. But I have never understood the revulsion some people have to exhuming the dead and the reinterring them. Curiousity is a human trait. We learn because we are curious. We should never stop being curious.
I believe that historical curiosity is a judgment call. Is there enough historical value in the Ripper case to warrant a respectful exhumation and reinterrment? Was there enough historica value in the case of Jesse James? Billy the Kid? The Little Big Horn victims? In my opinion, yes to all of these including the Ripper case!
Andy S.
|
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 199
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 9:19 pm: | |
Jennifer, Leanne, these women are history! They are at the very heart of it, and as such deserve to have their story told as accurately as possible.
They did not choose to be remembered as "unfortunates" that were brutally murdered. They, like all of us, want to be remembered for the good in their lives.
The search for the Ripper is not a quest for a killer. It is a journey through the lives of many people though passed, who have left a legacy. That legacy being for us to learn about a time and place that once existed, now gone but not forgotten.
They accepted life in a place we find unbearable. They are survivors in a place where the quality of life is measured by seeing the sunrise on a new day. What they endured we can only imagine, and if not for our quest for the truth, we would never have known about them, their lives, hopes and dreams.
We owe it to them to tell their story respectuflly, and honestly, and if exhuming their remains honorably, treating them with respect and returning them to their final resting place allows us to pass on to future generations the truth about their lives, then I for one would welcome it.
Shannon |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 804
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 3:07 am: | |
G'day,
But Shannon we can tell their story respectfully and honestly, without disturbing their peace! Everything you listed as a reason FOR exhuming them, can also apply WITHOUT exhuming them.
Study of this case can be very valuable, without knowing the culpret's true identity. That's why I support studying it in schools. I've learnt all about the history of the police force, the value of forensic science, the living conditions in the East End of London at the turn of last century, and more.
As long as there's no definite proof of who he was, people are still going to be curious, disagree with one another, write books explaining their theory in the hope that others will agree, be tempted to examine the case. Put a lid on this, and there will be no temptation to look inside the 'cookie-jar'.
LEANNE |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 206
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 3:51 am: | |
Leanne, their lives are anything but a "cookie jar" for curiosity seekers. In each culture there is a longing to know the past history, and more over to tell it correctly for future generations. What we owe them is not about theories, its about the truth. Mary Kelly may not even be her real name, and she may very well have heirs in our midst. You can not learn of these things and pass them on from guess work...
If I were in their position I would welcome anything and everything that would allow my memory to go down in history the way it really happened, and possibly prevent $%^&*( like Patricia Cornwall from slandering the good names of those involved...
Shannon |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 806
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 4:10 am: | |
G'day,
So why do you support opening their graves, ('the cookie-jar'), and looking inside for the Ripper's identity, (Big cookie)? Mary Kelly's real name won't be found inside her coffin!
LEANNE |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 208
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 4:33 am: | |
Leanne, Yes, Mary's real name is in her coffin. Whoever she was, her name is now officially Mary Kelly, its her heirs that are unknown. A simple MtDNA testy will give her family a long lost relative, and a full DNA spectrum will give someone a great grandmother, or great aunt...
From someone who is adopted, I would love to know who my ansestors are...
Shannon |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 807
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 5:40 am: | |
G'day,
OK, so if they opened her coffin, got a DNA sample, then what?
What fortunes did Mary have stashed away?
LEANNE |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
