| Author |
Message |
    
Eric Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 5:55 am: |       |
I suspect that DNA research will develop extensively in the next decade or so. Perhaps it will reach the point where a strand of hair could be used to recreate an entire person's appearance. Any one think that once DNA research gets well developed, one of the victim's bodies could be exhumed and DNA samples possibly taken off it that could help us figure out who the Ripper is? I know they cleaned and washed the bodies, but maybe some DNA was left by Jack. Thoughts? |
James Eric Carter
Police Constable
Username: Archangel261973
Post Number: 6
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 10:28 pm: | |
No matter how far DNA research goes we/they will not be able to use it in finding Jack, not only would it be impossible to get any kind of viable DNA off the bodies of the victims but they would not have any thing to compare it to.
Also, I don't see them getting to a point where they will be able to do a reconstuct on a person without getting more into the cloning area that should be avoided, but that is another topic.
Eric |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 292
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 2:55 pm: | |
Eric,
The other problem with exhuming the bodies is that we cannot be 100% sure that the gravestones that mark the sites are in the accurate location. These women were paupers - having a proper burial wasn't something that was always possible.
But like James said, we don't have anything to compare it to, unless we were able to find a distant relative, and even then, it would be a tough match.
B |
James Eric Carter
Police Constable
Username: Archangel261973
Post Number: 10
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 10:19 pm: | |
Three of the victims graves should be able to be found Kelly, Nichols, and Chapman. A fourth Stride could possible for by the grave number. Eddowes was the only one placed in an unmarked grave.
In reguards to the relative for comparison, you get into a whole catch-22 you need a name to find the relative and to get the name you need the relative to compare the DNA to and we're back to one again.
Eric |
Andrew Spallek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 56
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 1:03 am: | |
Actually it is Chapman's grave that is now lost. She was buried in a common grave 12 feet underground and the gravesite has been since re-used. Eddowes and Nichols are buried in the City of London Cemetary in marked graves. Stride and Kelly lack headstones (unless they have been recently replaced) but the graves should still be identifiable.
There is also still buried somewhere in a sealed lead cylinder and preserved in spirits the remains of the Pinchin Street Torso.
Andy
|
James Eric Carter
Sergeant
Username: Archangel261973
Post Number: 12
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 5:44 pm: | |
Andy,
Have you seen the graves? According to "The Jack The Ripper A-Z" Eddowes was placed in an unmarked grave, Stride was in a grave with just a number, the rest were burried in Cemetaries with some type of marker.
Just wordering since I haven't been to see for myself.
Later,
Eric |
Paul Williams
Police Constable
Username: Wehrwulf
Post Number: 1
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 8:40 am: | |
Would it not be possible to compare DNA from the victim with that from the descendants of the popular suspects? This might at least eliminate some characters such as Maybrick. |
James Eric Carter
Sergeant
Username: Archangel261973
Post Number: 14
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 7:59 pm: | |
Again the problem would be finding 100+ year old DNA on the decomposed body of someone else.
1) You would never find anything.
2) Even if a hair from Jack was some how still
there the "root" would be dried and no DNA
could be obtained.
But as to comparing DNA found on the victim and decendants today would not give definate proof. DNA evidence usually only works within the immediate famly.
Later,
Eric |
Martin Fido
Detective Sergeant
Username: Fido
Post Number: 100
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 8:02 am: | |
Hi Eric!
Unmarked but numbered graves can be identified from their numbers on cemetery records. Common graves, of course, are likely to present indistinguishable emains of different people.
All the best,
Martin F |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 168
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 10:26 am: | |
Hi.
What a shame about Chapman, buried in a common grave that has been reused. Even in death she strikes me as the most pathetic of the victims.
Best
Gary |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 484
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 12:36 pm: | |
Hi Gary
I think she was given the same mortuary shell that Nichols had been placed in earlier.
Robert |
Brenda Love
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 11:23 am: | |
If anything could be had for DNA testing after all this time....do you suppose they could still get tooth pulp? Well maybe if they had been buried in sealed caskets, which they weren't. The victims' bodies are probably dust by now. |
Andrew Spallek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 59
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 05, 2003 - 1:57 pm: | |
Eric,
Yes, I just got back from London where I took the time to visit the Eddowes and Nichols graves in the City of London Cemetery. (That's why it took me so long to respond to you.) There are pictures on this website; search under "graves." These two graves are now part of a "heritage tour" in the Cemetery (don't know any of the other details of the tour). The graves are easy to find using the directions provided here on the Casebook. Both have new headstones (plaques, actually) that do not mention them being victims of JTR.
Perhaps the confusion is that Nichols and Eddowes were indeed buried in "common graves." But that doesn't mean mass graves. The plot was recorded and these particular graves were not re-used, as common graves eventually are, since they are now within the memorial gardens, an area used for plants in memory of those who have been cremated. The location of the plots should be rather precise.
To get to the City of London Cemetery, take the National Rail to Manor Park. As you leave the station turn left and keep walking up the street. You'll eventually see the main entrance. The South Gate is a shorter walk, but a bit harder to direct you.
Andy
|
Richard Lawrence
Police Constable
Username: Rl0919
Post Number: 5
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 12:20 am: | |
Even with a host of relatives to compare to, the idea of finding any firm DNA evidence in a 100+ year old grave is remote. At most it might consist of some hairs or a bit of skin under the victim's fingernails, which would be near impossible to find in an old grave site. Despite our notions of the ground as tranquil and unmoving, there is actually quite a lot of activity in a grave. Any bit of Jack that might have been on a victim could have migrated quite a ways as bugs, bacteria, gasseous byproducts of decay, etc., moved through the earth. Assuming it hasn't simply degraded into untracable chemicals, which it probably has. Assuming it wasn't washed off when the bodies were cleaned and prepared for burial. Assuming it was there to begin with.
If a DNA comparison from a victim gravesite were feasible, I think the best bet would be to analyze whether the body in Miller's Court was actually Mary Kelly or not. But even that is unlikely to be determinable at this point. Finding anything of Jack is even less likely.
|
Andrew Spallek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 91
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 2:00 am: | |
Richard,
I totally agree. The only useful DNA evidence would be to verify the identity of the victims. Yet I wonder if modern forensics could tell us anything from examination of remains, such as knife marks on bone, etc.
Andy
|
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 617
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 3:58 pm: | |
Hi all
In some ways it might be a good idea to dig everything up - victims' bones, suspects' bones - and preserve it all. Who knows what science will be able to do a few decades from now?
If they'd kept the kidney......
PS I know these exhumations are unlikely to get permission.
Robert |
Robert Clack
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 113
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 5:02 pm: | |
Hi All
We could always see if there is any saliva on the top of Mary Kelly's coffin. It might end a few debates.
And test any descendants of James Maybricks dna with any thats on the diary, but I suppose the diary has been contaminated to much by now.
Personally I think we should let the victims rest in peace.
Rob |
Andrew Spallek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 97
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 6:30 pm: | |
I agree that exhumation is extremely unlikely to be allowed, although I don't know what laws England has on the matter. I know that exhuming the body of John F. Kennedy has been proposed time and again in the US, but it is never seriously considered.
I really don't see what is so distasteful about it myself. No one is harmed by it. It would not occur to me to object to the exhumation of my 100-year old dead relatives if that would yield useful information.
This is a bit off-topic, but I also don't see what's the big objection to exploring shipwrecks such as the Titanic and even bringing back relics. I've heard the Titanic described as a "gravesite." Balderdash! A grave is where human remains are intentionally buried. The Titantic site is a disaster site, not a gravesite.
Andy
|
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 622
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 6:51 pm: | |
Hi Andy
I think what gets people about the "Titanic" is, that they're anxious that no one will make money out of it. As far as I know, this hasn't occurred.
This sort of issue seems to provoke different reactions. A year or two ago some mountaineers found the body of Mallory near the peak of Everest. He had lain there ever since he fell, being periodically covered and uncovered by the snow. I believe they covered him with some stones, pronounced a funeral service over him, and left him there, as they felt this was the best way to show him due respect.
Robert |
Richard Lawrence
Police Constable
Username: Rl0919
Post Number: 7
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 8:16 pm: | |
Andy,
Your suggestion about examining the bones for knife marks is an interesting one, and much more plausible than looking for DNA. Bones might still be around (no guarantees, though), and if so then knife marks could very well be studied. For Kelly in particular, it might be possible to resolve the dispute about whether a leverage tool was used to split her leg bone. It might also be possible to infer whether JtR really did try to cut off some of the victim's heads, as is sometimes claimed.
As noted, however, getting permission to exhume might be difficult.
|
Andrew Spallek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 98
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 11:24 pm: | |
Richard,
As I mentioned earlier, the graves of all cannonical victims except Chapman are extant. Large bones, such as Kelly's split (?) femour should easily be recoverable. I suppose that decendants would be given first opportunity to object to exhumation, then probably the cemeteries (who might not want the media circus). The real interesting ehumation would be the Pinchin Street torso, which was preserved in spirits and buried in a lead cylinder.
Re: the Titanic. There is a display of artifacts currently at the Science Museum in London. I saw the same exhibition some years ago in Kansas City. Admission is rather pricey, so I do think someone is making money. But that still doesn't bother me as long as any identifiable property is offered first to the descendants. In the Titanic's case there are surely no human remains to contend with.
Andy
|
Lisa Turner
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 8:30 am: | |
Does anyone know where exactly the Pinchin Street torso cylinder is buried? |
Andrew Spallek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 102
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 12:18 am: | |
Lisa,
Yes, we have good information on the burial. Ultimate Companion on pp. 513-515 contains memos detailing the arrangements. The torso was buried in a case (no mention of its being lead or a cylinder, I must have read that somewhere else) charged with preserving spirits, the case itself enclosed in a black painted wooden box at East London Cemetery, Grange Park, Plaistow, Essex -- where Liz Stride was already buried and Frances Coles would soon be.
The torso was buried in Grave No 16185. Stride is buried in Grave 15509. The question is whether the torso grave has been re-used and if there is a chance of recovering the container. I seriously doubt that the seal is still intact, which means soft tissue is probably gone. But it would be interesting to compare knife marks on the torso's bone to that on Kelly, Eddowes, or Nichols -- all of whose graves are extant. Perhaps some researcher in London would contact the Cemetery and enquire as to available information.
Andy
P.S. -- On the torso's "casket" was a plate with the following inscription:
"This case contains the
"body of a woman (unknown)
"found in Pinchin Street
"St. Georges-in-the-East
"10th Septr./89." |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 264
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 3:26 am: | |
Hello All
Getting back to the subject of the usefulness of 100+ year old DNA. I might not be so quick to rule it out. It was used a year or two ago to prove that the man buried as Jesse James was actually Jesse. They were able to get useful DNA from the teeth as I recall and proved that it was indeed Jesse buried in the grave that bore his name. This was true despite the fact that the body was said to be in much worse condition than expected because of water leaking into the grave. This was done to rule out imposters. Mtc. DNA was used. Jesse died in 1882.
As we speak they are digging up the body of Billy the Kid for similar reasons.
All The Best
Gary |
Lisa Turner
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 7:53 am: | |
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for that. The funny thing is that I was born and bred in Plaistow/Canning Town & I lived just around the corner from Grange Road cemetary. If only I knew then what I know now! I moved out of London 7 years ago.
Well at least I know my dead relatives buried there are keeping historical if not mysterious company!
Regards
Lisa |
