| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1508
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 12:09 pm: | 
|
Suzi, Andy,
I don't know if that's it Suzi. i am not sure what I am saying!
Jenni
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 701
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 4:05 pm: |
|
Suzi and Jenni,
I think perhaps we feel differently about the Torso because there might still be a chance of identifying it. Conceivably, if we knew what to compare it to (that's a big "if"), we could compare its DNA against possible living relatives.
The Torso was buried in a sealed container and an attempt was made to preserve it in "spirits." I'm sure the preservation wasn't expected to last for 100+ years, but it may just have been "pickled" well enough to survive.
Here's the rub, though. It was buried in a common grave and an employee of the cemetery tells me the grave has been re-used many times. She said she could show me the approximate location. I asked what happened when a grave was re-used and she said that the new bodies were just piled on top of the old ones with fill added, if necessary. Therefore, if the Torso was buried six feet under, it must be well over ten feet down by now with other remains on top of it.
Could ground scarring radar/ground sonar detect this unusally-shaped container at that depth? I think probably not, though I really know nothing about such equipment. If this were an archeological dig we could shave off five feet or so of the surrounding area with an excavator and then scan. But that would not be practical in a cemetery.
If we could somehow pinpoint the exact location of this container and dig straight down to it, I would say it might be worthwhile even if a few other remains were "disturbed." Clearly, disturbing an entire area is not justified, however.
Andy S. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1520
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 4:52 am: |
|
Andy,
I think maybe we do. But somewhere in the back of my mind the words Pinchin St Torso and identified are already connected. geez, my memory is bad.
heres a thought Andy from what you say. Would you have to disturb the graves of others if they are burried on top.
Its interesting stuff,
thanks again Andy
Jenni
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 702
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 1:30 pm: |
|
Jenni,
I'm not sure what you are asking. I suppose you would.
Andy S. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1537
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 1:43 pm: |
|
i am asking to get to the victim in question others are burriedon top who would have to be disturbed. raising more ethical nightmares!
Jenni
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 11:48 am: |
|
Andrew - I would equally oppose exhuming the "torso".
You seem uniformed about current archaeological methods. there is, these days, HUGE reluctance to disturb a site unless wider considerations compel invasive work (ie rescue archaeology).
I doubt that neither law nor public opinion in the UK would support exhumation - "on the off-chance2 something might be found.
Phil |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 708
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 12:54 am: |
|
Trends in the UK are apparently different from those in the US. Though, of course, it is the UK practice that governs the present situation.
Still, the authorities went to great lengths to preseve the torso, presumably so that it might be exhumed one day -- though preferably in the nearer future than 125 years!
Andy S.
(Message edited by aspallek on January 05, 2005)
(Message edited by aspallek on January 05, 2005) |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 720
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 12:56 pm: |
|
Here's a different scenario people might like to follow to see what happens on the legal front. Unlike the search for Ripper DNA, here there's a specific historical goal, in that they're trying to determine identity by comparing possible DNA samples with known contemporary relatives--that's dependent on radar testing of burial sites. At least one of the relatives is inside a church and not exposed to the elements.
Sounds like a long shot to me but I wonder how the authorities in Suffolk will react to an exhumation request--in this case, they're dealing with an important figure from colonial history (whom I've never heard of). Personally, I think we're exhumation-crazy in the U.S. I can't remember if it was Billy the Kid, Jesse James, or maybe it was for determining who crewed the Hunley, but for one television program they were digging up people who might only have possibly been related to the person in question--they didn't even know for sure.
I myself have been woken from a sound sleep by Discovery Channel scientists looking for tooth DNA.
Cheers,
Dave |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3037
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 1:01 pm: |
|
David,
I think that was Jesse James -- I believe they tried to find his real grave and compared DNA with a now living relative's.
I saw that show, if it was the same one.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 301
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 1:49 pm: |
|
Didn't they also recently dig up some President to see if he had been poisoned?
Mags
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 739
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 12:18 pm: |
|
Yes, I believe that was James K. Polk, but I could be mistaken. At any rate, he wasn't.
DNA would not be the target of a JtR victim exhumation (except perhaps the Torso). It would be rather more mundane evidence.
Andy S. |
Brad McGinnis
Inspector
Username: Brad
Post Number: 224
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 11:53 pm: |
|
Hey Dave! Ive seen 2 programs looking for DNA from old west outlaws.Jesse James was one and Harry Longabaugh (aka the Sundance Kid) was the other. Friends of Sundance said he died in the northwest in the '30's or 40's I think.Anyway none of the DNA found in the graves in Bolivia matched.If you remember Sundance later became Jerimiah Johnson who some say still lives in the mountains. Or maybe ive seen too many Redford movies.
Best wishes..Brad
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 816
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 2:59 pm: |
|
Hi guys,
If anyone's interested in the Captain Benjamin Gosnold case I referenced above, they've just exhumed remains in Suffolk and hopefully will extract DNA that will allow identification on the set of remains believed to be that of Captain Benjamin Gosnold, a founder of Jamestown.
A rare exhumation: ""The application succeeded where others have failed because the reason and methodology of the project was well thought through."
Cheers,
Dave
I think that was President Zachary Taylor who was exhumed to decide whether he was poisoned or died from eating milk and cherries. I think they found out it was the milk and cherries that did him in. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2145
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 10:30 am: |
|
Hi everyone,
I remember this discussion well, perhaps now they have found 'JTR's' knife...
well you can guess the rest!
"All you need is positivity"
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 802
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 11:18 am: |
|
Concerning legal issues regarding the exhumation of human remains:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/making_history/making_history_20041109.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/making_history/makhist10_prog4d.shtml
Noting definitive, but it seems that the objection of descendants is the main concern in such cases. Since none of the victims are buried in disused cemeteries, we would be dealing with Church canon law here.
Andy S.
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page