|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Vincent
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 10:19 am: |       |
I think the likelyhood of DNA evidence from the killer is virtually nonexistent but it would certaintly be worth a look. Wound analysis, signs of strangulation, and DNA analysis of the victims, particularly Kelly, would be some of the more interesting avenues of inquiry
Regards, Vincent |
Kelly Robinson
Police Constable
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 5
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 12:27 pm: | |
Because there is no one alive to prosecute, and no family members needing closure, the only reason for exhuming the bodies would be for our own curiosity, and that doesn't seem like a good enough reason to me. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1359
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 1:26 pm: | |
Vincent wrote:
>How do you know that it would result in nothing? Frankly, if--and I'll agree that these are some big if's-if we could locate some or all of the victims, and if at least one was relatively intact, then the forensic knowledge gained could be huge.
Well, I think the answer to your first question is rather obvious, isn't it? What do you expect to find? What huge forensic knowledge? We already know how the victims were murdered, we have medical reports, police reports etc. In no possible way is a reopening of the grave sites relevant for solving or studying the Ripper case. You must be joking. We don't need to get the victim's DNA, and to expect to find DNA from the killer in the remains of the bodies (if there are remains at all) is an idea so far-fetched and ignorant that it goes beyond much of what I've come across so far in studying crime.
It happens on occasions, that historical kings and queens (for example) have been exhumed for different reasons; in Sweden Charles XII, among others, has been subjected to such "disturbance", since his wounds and death throughout history has raised a number of question marks.
From a moral and spiritual point of view, I find that unacceptable as well; I think that has become a playground for academics and archeologists, but these excavations do have their reasonable points:
1) The corps are obtainable, since these persons weren't buried in soil, but in vaults and inside churches. Therefore their remains are no problem.
2) There are legitimate questions connected with the corps that one wants to find answers to.
Regarding the Whitechapel victims, none of the above apply. If we want DNA from the killer we have to look elsewhere, and the victims' DNA can't really tell us anything.
And for this you think it's OK to disturb the graves, not to mention all the other bodies that may lie in the close vicinity of them. I don't think morbid curiousity is a valid reason enough to indulge in such a technical impossible and morally questionable task.
There is no one left alive to prosecute in the Ripper case and to do this just for intellectual reasons I find completely degrading. But most of all, it's a waste of time and effort.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 24, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Belinda Pearce
Sergeant
Username: Belinda
Post Number: 13
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 1:43 am: | |
With regard to the Romanov "identifications" the whole matter is very cotroversial for more info www.thefateoftheromanovs.com |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 683
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 11:33 am: | |
Hi Belinda
Many thanks for the link on the Romanov investigation, although a warning to anyone else who goes to the site, the webpage opens up with a fusillade of bullets to simulate the sound of the execution of the Imperial family.  Not a good thing if you are at work and share an office with others! Er, I think I will wait to get home and look at the site on my home P.C.
In my capacity as an author on the War of 1812, I have written about the possibility of investigating the remains of Major General Robert Ross. The British commander was mortally wounded in a skirmish preceding the Battle of North Point outside of Baltimore, September 12, 1814 as the British marched up the road to attack the city.
There is a debate about whether General Ross was shot by a militia rifleman or a militiaman armed with a musket. A local legend credits the shooting to two riflemen, Daniel Wells and Henry G. McComas, aged 18 and 19, respectively. Since Ross was never autopsied to our knowledge, an investigation of his remains in Halifax, Nova Scotia, might show the remains of either a rifle ball or a larger musketball with buckshot, as the militiamen usually loaded their weapons.
One well known Canadian historian has expressed the opinion that the debate is rather immaterial and that the general's remains not be disturbed. It would seem to me that the debate about whether to disinter Ross is very similar to that about whether anything would be gained by investigating the Ripper victims' remains. Although Ross is buried under a tabletop tomb, there is evidence that the top slab of the tomb was shifted and may have let in dampness. So the debate may be even more immaterial if the damp climate of Halifax may have helped to dissipate the general's remains much as the damp soil of England has probably done the same to the remains of Polly, Annie, Liz, Kate, and Mary Jane.
Best regards
Chris George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
Casebook: War of 1812
http://warof1812.casebook.org/ |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 474
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 6:44 pm: | |
Hello All --
Just back from London less than an hour now and noticed this thread.
I do favor exhumation, though I appreciate the difficulties. I don't think DNA evidence would yield much. I would be more interested in microscopic and spectrographic examination of knife marks left on bone. I am no expert in the soil properties of London, but bone matter generally survives 100+ years.
As to finding the exact locations of the remains: Chapman's gravesite is lost. Nicholls and Eddowes are marked by plaques in only the approximate locations. Kelly's marker is probably very close and there might be some hope there. Stride's grave is marked by a stone rectangle which I assume marks the exact spot of her grave.
There is also one other set of remains that might be of interest and just possibly accessible: that of the Pinchin Street Torso, buried in the East London Cemetery (same cemetery as Stride). Although it was buried in a common grave on land now re-used, it was first preserved in a container of spirits. It ought to be there and possibly locateable by ground sonar.
Now, I understand the regulations. Since Scotland Yard has never (to my knowledge) officially closed the case, perhaps someone on the force could resume the investigation on his or her own time and thus there would be a police inquiry. Also, I think most governments work pretty much the same: where there are regulations, there can always be exceptions if the right strings are pulled. It would be both difficult and expensive, however.
Finally, those who want to let the poor women "rest in peace" might want to remember that at least Kelly and Stride belonged to Christian congregations. Christian doctrine does not connect the eternal "rest" of the person to the disposition of the earthly remains. Those who think my suggestion callous might want to know that yesterday I visited both Kelly's and Stride's graves and did a bit of housekeeping and tending in order to honor their memories.
Andy S.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1364
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 7:18 pm: | |
Andy wrote:
>I am no expert in the soil properties of London, but bone matter generally survives 100+ years.
No, Andy, they "generally" don't, although that sometimes is the case. I am no soil expert either, but I have been in close contact with a lot of cemetaries in order to track down some of "my" murder victims (not to dig them up, though) -- usually buried in paupers' graves, some marked but mostly unmarked. On every occasion the result has been zero, mostly due to the soil; I have simply been given the explanation that there is nothing left anyway, not to mention the fact that other corps are tucked in on top of them, since unmarked graves usually are reused. It is only a matter of weeks or moths until everything has disappeared, if the soil is of a certain disposition. If you dug up those graves, I can assure you would find nothing.
Besides, as you yourself indicate, the spots of most of the Whitechapel victims are only approximately estimated, so nothing of use would come out of it.
It is of course possible that the London soil could contain less acid, but you still have other problems to deal with regarding other buried corps in the vicinity of or on top of them.
"Finally, those who want to let the poor women "rest in peace" might want to remember that at least Kelly and Stride belonged to Christian congregations. Christian doctrine does not connect the eternal "rest" of the person to the disposition of the earthly remains. Those who think my suggestion callous might want to know that yesterday I visited both Kelly's and Stride's graves and did a bit of housekeeping and tending in order to honor their memories."
I appreciate that you visited the graves and did things to honor their memories -- that's fine by me -- but, yes, I think your suggestion is callous just the same.
My objections to the whole thing is not based on Christian belief. That is not what I meant with being a spiritual man. I just simply believe in the afterlife, and I think it's fair to respect them and leave them alone. To dig up a grave without a proper reason is to me an act of considerable disrespect -- if it was an ongoing case with a chance to convict a living murderer and with new important evidence to test, I would have nothing against it. You may call "spectrographic examination of knife marks" a valid reason to dig them up, I would call that just another playground for intellectuals who have nothing better to do with their time.
(Message edited by Glenna on March 25, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1365
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 7:56 pm: | |
In addition, Andy.
In spite of the above: I know very well that your interest in paying their respect is genuine, i could very much tell that from your posts in the Victims section, in connection with Stride's and Kelly's graves. I also think your detailed direction pointers were excellent, and I wish I had those when I visited London some moth ago. Unfortunately I didn't have time to visit the graves, but that information will surely be of use next time.
However, I stand firm in what I've written above. The idea to exhume the graves is as ridiculous as it is disrespectful and superfluous. If such an approach should be justified, it would be under different circumstances and if there were legitimate reasons to do so -- and I think it is obvious that there aren't.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 190
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 8:22 pm: | |
Andy,
Just what is it that would be gained from an exhumation? You concede that the likelihood of any soft tissue remaining is nil so even under optimum conditions what would be learned from an analysis of any knife wounds to the bones? If spectrographic analysis revealed all the victims' bones had been nicked with the same knife or with five separate weapons would it make an identification of JtR surer?
If it were the former case, I suppose a stronger argument could be made for Stride as a victim of JtR, but that still won't get anyone any "forrader." As it is, for most of the 116 years since the murders most researchers accepted Stride as a victim without making any great progress toward identification. And so on for any combination of knives and victims.
Of course, if Kelly's skull were found intact a foresnic sculptor could probably create a passable likeness of her in life. But aside from satisfying the curiousity of a certain segment of Ripperologists, what else would be accomplished? It still won't give us any idea who "Mary Jane Kelly" actually was and putting the image on a milk carton is not going to turn up any surviving family members.
Whatever answers to the Ripper riddle may yet be out there, they don't lie in the decaying bones of some long dead women.
Don. |
Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 82
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 9:32 pm: | |
Hey Everyone,
As Glenn said in his posts..There really wouldnt
be much medical or forensic reason to exhume these women. For one thing, as Glenn states,
it would be very disrespectful to the remaining families of the victims...if it would lead us any closer to the identity of the killer, that might be different. But, it is doubtful that it would. Besides, as I stated in a previous post, all the suspects are dead. If an arrest could be made and a suspect brought to justice, that would be different. But the only thing it would provide us would be a sore back, a headache, some bones and more questions. Best regards
Paul |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1366
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 9:56 pm: | |
And since a green light from the authorities probably would be out of the question, also a very angry graveyard attendant... 
Don and Paul.
Some very sane posts on the subject. Thank you both.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 477
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 12:43 pm: | |
I'm not so sure the "green light" would be out of the question owing to the ongoing interest in the case. Most victims do not have close relatives surviving who would be likely to object. But I would not advocate exhumation over the objections of close surviving relatives.
As to being respectful or disrespectful, that is a matter of opinion. Personally, I think anything that would possibly give us more information as to their killers would honor the memory of these victims.
Andy S. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1369
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 1:35 pm: | |
Andy wrote:
>As to being respectful or disrespectful, that is a matter of opinion. Personally, I think anything that would possibly give us more information as to their killers would honor the memory of these victims.
And since exhumation -- as we all know -- in this case wouldn't deliver any such information at all, I would say disturbing their graves for nothing is a strange way to honor their memory. Luckily, so far my interest in crime yet haven't made me that indifferent to the ethical aspects of the investigation.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 26, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 191
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 2:04 pm: | |
Andy,
I still am at a loss as to what you hope find upon an exhumation that "would give us more information as to their killers." Could you elucidate?
Don. |
Vincent
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 9:40 am: | |
Glenn, I am still trying to understand your objections. When you say that you are a spiritual man, what exactly does that have to do with exhumation? I am sure that you do not mean that those of us in favor of exhumation are somehow not spiritual or less spiritual than you. Perhaps I have a different meaning of the word "spiritual" than you do. I understand perfectly well the scientific, financial, and bureaucratic barriers to exhumation, and I still think these may be surmountable. And we can debate all day whether or not it will be worth it. I have made it plain that I think it could be. But I confess that I am at a loss when it comes to understanding the spiritual objections. Please explain to me what you mean by spiritual as it pertains to disturbing old graves. I am truly not trying to be offensive--I just do not understand.
Regards, Vincent |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1372
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 6:16 pm: | |
Vincent,
I am not trying to be offensive either, but the fact that you even have to ask that question worries me. I don't know about you, but to me a grave site is something more than just a place to dump a dead body; it actually has some symbolic and -- yes, that's right -- spiritual meaning where the person is supposed to rest in peace, and to disturb them without a proper and clear reason is to me a legitimate crime. You don't have to be of active Christian or of other religious belief to be of that opinion. I know that you think that they are dead already, so therefore it doesen't matter, but you see, I am of a different opinion.
If you don't know what I mean with being spiritual in this context, then I must admit it would be problematic for me to explain it. But I'll tell you this much: to me a grave site is a sacred place, which shouldn't be disturbed without a proper and very valid reason. To me that is just disrespectful and ruthless. If you don't agree with that, you can't really call yourself spiritual in that particular sense (as I mean it here), since those matters apparently doesen't matter to you.
And no, Vincent, it won't be worth it. As I've already said several times (not to mention several others on this thread), there is nothing important to gain from it -- if there were, even I would consider it.
To me the problems with an exhumation of the Ripper victims are not of a financial or bureaucratic character -- that is not important to me -- but merely practical and ethical. Practical because of acid and humidity in the soil but mainly because of the fact that you would come across other bodies as well and you probably wouldn't find the exact remains, if they'd still exists. Ethical because of the things I just put forward above.
I really can't put it any clearer than that, at least not in a language that isn't my native one.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 26, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 479
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 6:52 pm: | |
To all,
If it is possible that neck vertebrae fragments could be found with knife marks these could be subjected to microscopic and spectrographic examination. This could tell us something about the weapon used, and perhaps most significantly, whether the same knife was used on multiple victims. I have said this a number of times now and it would definitely be an important clue.
I hope this doesn't bring about another lecture on acidity of English soil, etc. My support for the notion of exhumation presupposes that bone fragments can be found. If that is not possible, then forget what I have said. But bone fragments do usually survive 100+ years in most locales.
I can appreciate the monetary and legal objections, but I frankly don't understand the emotional/moral. For the record, I have no objection whatsoever if someone cares to dig up my remains 100 years after my demise. If something can be learned, be my guest.
Andy S. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 480
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 6:58 pm: | |
Glenn wrote:
I don't know about you, but to me a grave site is something more than just a place to dump a dead body; it actually has some symbolic and -- yes, that's right -- spiritual meaning where the person is supposed to rest in peace, and to disturb them without a proper and clear reason is to me a legitimate crime. You don't have to be of active Christian or of other religious belief to be of that opinion.
Just for the record, I am an active Christian (quite active as a matter of fact) and I can assure you that there is no Biblical basis for notion that disturbing one's grave disturbs that person's eternal "peace." It is a traditional Christian belief (though without specific Biblical basis) that a consecrated grave ought not be disturbed without good reason, but those of us who favor the notion of exhumation do so presupposing good reason. We are not suggesting frivolous vandalism of consecrated graves.
Andy S. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1374
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 7:51 pm: | |
Andy wrote:
> Just for the record, I am an active Christian (quite active as a matter of fact) and I can assure you that there is no Biblical basis for notion that disturbing one's grave disturbs that person's eternal "peace."
I am a Christian as well, although I wouldn't call myself active. That doesen't matter one inch as far as I am concerned; I don't base my "emotional/moral" notions on specific religious beliefs (I thought I had made myself perfectly clear on that point!), but instead on a rather, in my view, self-written respect for the dead. If you think that is a view that's hard to understand, I can't help you.
"I hope this doesn't bring about another lecture on acidity of English soil, etc. My support for the notion of exhumation presupposes that bone fragments can be found. If that is not possible, then forget what I have said. But bone fragments do usually survive 100+ years in most locales."
Great. Believe what you like. My own experiences on the matter points in other directions, though.
"...but those of us who favor the notion of exhumation do so presupposing good reason."
Hardly. Even if you found the information you need regarding the different types of knives used by the Ripper or any other murderer (which I believe is quite superfluous information anyway), that would certainly not bring us closer to the identity of the killer. As I've said quite a number of times, I really don't see the point if there are no murderer or suspect alive to convict.
Don't fool yourself by comparing the Jack the Ripper mystery to unsolved modern and open murder cases that critically needs to be solved. In those, exhumation of the bodies can be quite reasonable and sometimes even crucial (and don't even try to compare it to archeological excavations and exhumations); in connection with Jack the Ripper, however, such an approach can hardly be considered justified.
I think Kelly Robinson put it splendidly enough in her short but efficient post above: "Because there is no one alive to prosecute, and no family members needing closure, the only reason for exhuming the bodies would be for our own curiosity, and that doesn't seem like a good enough reason to me." It really is as simple as that.
"We are not suggesting frivolous vandalism of consecrated graves."
Yes, that is exactly what you are suggesting, especially since we can't be sure of the exact spot of the remains.
As I said, if there was good cause for it, I generally wouldn't be against it, but considering the nearly impossible task it would be to pull it off, and the little outcome that would be the result, I really don't find such a careless idea justified. If you don't care about your own bones being disturbed, however, that is your call. A graveyard is a graveyard -- not a playground.
(Message edited by Glenna on March 26, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 482
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 10:21 pm: | |
Glenn wrote:
I don't base my "emotional/moral" notions on specific religious beliefs (I thought I had made myself perfectly clear on that point!), but instead on a rather, in my view, self-written respect for the dead. If you think that is a view that's hard to understand, I can't help you.
You are entitled to your view. However, you can't appeal to Christianity (at least not to the Bible) to back you up because it doesn't. You say you hold a "self-written" respect for the dead. OK, I'm not sure what that means but don't presume to impose your "self-written" respect for the dead on the rest of us.
I've said quite a number of times, I really don't see the point if there are no murderer or suspect alive to convict.
OK, you don't. Many of us do. Many of us see historical inquisitiveness as quite valid and an integral part of human self-consciousness. If you can't understand that, I'm afraid I can't help you!
A graveyard is a graveyard -- not a playground.
That's not fair at all. If you could have seen the reverence with which I regarded the victims' graves when I visited them (and I have visited all four of the extant graves) you would see that I am in no way advocating disrespect. The Whitechapel Murders have passed into history -- real history. There are a number of reasons for this which have been discussed elsewhere. Part of human nature is to explore one's history and to look for answers to questions that have heretofore gone unanswered. It is not always necessary for there to be a practical motive, such as prosecution of a suspect, behind such inquiry.
Glenn, I have been rather pointed in my reply to you. From reading your posts over the months I presume you understand that I mean no offense to you.
Andy S. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1376
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 12:30 am: | |
Although I hesitate to turn this into a soap-opera:
"However, you can't appeal to Christianity (at least not to the Bible) to back you up because it doesn't."
Now I am really getting frustrated, Andy. For the third time: I am NOT leaning against Christianity here, and not on ANY religion belief whatsoever. I think that was perfectly clear even in that quote you referred to.
Well, I think it's natural to have respect for the dead and I believe that really is a notion that goes beyond the boundaries of religion. I really don't understand what is so controversial about it.
"Many of us see historical inquisitiveness as quite valid and an integral part of human self-consciousness."
So do I. Especially since I am a historian to begin with.
But there are limits as far as the methods of study are concerned. To disturb dead bodies in consecrated graves just for historical curiousity is NOT OK. Even archeologists (who come across this everytime) are aware of this -- so I believe could even the Ripperologists.
"Part of human nature is to explore one's history and to look for answers to questions that have heretofore gone unanswered. It is not always necessary for there to be a practical motive, such as prosecution of a suspect, behind such inquiry."
Well, what can I say, Andy? I couldn't disagree more. When it involves digging up old graves and wreck the peace of the dead I think it is obvious that it should be necessary -- and it also usually is, thank God. Especially when it's obvious that it won't give you any valid answers at all.
Believe me, Andy, I take no personal offense of this ridiculous idea (although it may sound like it, but I admit the subject is delicate to me), but I find it nevertheless disturbing that just because these people died over a hundred years ago, they are not entitled to be left alone, but should be subjected to all kinds of unreasonable and voyeuristic whims from the intellectuals -- regardless of the consequenses. Not to mention the fact that you would have to destroy a large area in the nearest vicinity of the approximately marked or unmarked graves in your attempts to find the correct remains -- if they do exist (and disturb other graves nearby as well). Do you seriously think it would be worth the "effort"?
As you say you have paid the victims their respect (which I naturally see as a nice gesture) I really don't understand how you on the other hand can reason the way you do here. It seems obvious to me, that those here who supports the idea of exhumation of these women apparently look at them as mere objects of study. It is horrendous enough that their mutilated bodies are displayed in mass-reproduced pictures, but at least these photos displays vital information in a way that just text documentation or exhumation couldn't possibly do. Therefore I think that's OK, regardless of how gruesome they are. To disgrace the real bones is not, however.
Still after some years now having indulged in rather gruesome crimes, I feel that a graveyard is a sacred place and should remain so (and a dead body of a victim something that shouldn't be unnecessary exploited), unless there are legitimate reasons to make exceptions to consider. I know you think that's ridiculous, but it can't be helped.
To hypothetically claim that the victims or their relatives "wouldn't mind", because it presumably could bring out new evidence in order to catch their murderer(s) is just bogus; you know as well as I do that that will never happen -- regardless of how many caterpillars and shovels you use. What you instead will manage to achieve, however, is a cultural disaster. But I wish you the best of luck with it.
Now, I believe I have made my points clear enough on the matter.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 483
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 12:47 am: | |
Glenn,
It seems to me that we are at loggerheads on this issue, so I won't debate it with you any longer. But I do want to clear up what I think is a misunderstanding on your part of my last post.
I did not imply that you were leaning on Christianity to support your point -- quite the opposite. My point was that since you cannot cite Christian Biblical dogma to support your point it becomes merely a subjective feeling on your part, which is I assume what you mean by "self written" respect for the dead. Thus both your position and mine are subjective.
Finally, I will admit that disturbing nearby graves is a concern that might well make the idea impractical. Stride and Kelly I think are the only two that might be cleanly exhumed. Since Stride's injuries were I believe confined to the soft tissues, it may not be worth doing.
Regards,
Andy S. |
Brian Rice
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 11:44 pm: | |
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am new to this website, and this is my first post. I have read the posts to this point and find all arguments very intruiging. As a young criminalist and criminologist, I have read with an entertained eye regarding any prospect of exhumation. I have put in two calls; one to an influential Medical Examiner in Fresno, California, USA, and one to a medicolegal investigator and friend in my hometown of Atlanta, GA, USA. These questions entail both the organic breakdown of DNA, though I am relatively certain DNA never fully decomposes (the whole half-life thing...), and the time of complete decomposition of a human body with regard to environmental factors such as pH of soil, weathering, exposure to the elements, entomology, etc. I fear my colleagues will eventually direct me to the (in)famous "Body Farm" at the University of Tennessee for this very detailed information.
As for the idea of exhumation itself, please remember good, grounded scientific study, as well as criminal investigation are devoid of emotion and spirituality (though ethics IS paramount). I have seen words such as "disrespectful" and "superfluous," yet believe there is little need for personally charged words in this discussion.
I thank the fellow researcher for his/her work in the law of English exhumation. While I do believe this case has never been closed, I do not believe exhumation is will provide much help in our great plight. The simplist two questions I have for the learned advocates of exhumation are these: (1) When you find the DNA, whose will you compare it to? (2) Will you ever know for sure the bodies you extracted the DNA from are even the victims. Hell, we admitedly don't even know how many and who all were JTR victims (another argument for another day). I guess one would answer that you could give is that the DNA profile from descendants of suspects would have enough markers to implicate the family. WHo do you think would want to give a DNA sample in order to determine if their ancestor was JTR? Another obstacle is this... we are not even sure who some of these people are. Take Kosminski for example (John Douglas' poster boy for the JTR murders; again another debate for another day), we dont even know if that is the correct spelling of his name. My wife, a Czech citizen living here in America has descendants that were Jewish, emigrated to England during the 1880's, with the last name "Anglicized" to Kosminski from the native Kazminski.
Ladies and Gentlemen, while I think the thought is with great merit and full of the best intentions, I believe there is little probative value to be gathered from exhumation. I have always thought, since I was a wee Ripperologist, the answer lies in some papers, somewhere in this world, be it diaries (exc. Maybrick's), posts, memoirs, official documents, or correspondance. Of course, if and when it is found, only some will believe it, or want ot believe it, because it will solve the greatest mystery of our time.
Again, I am very interested and take great pleasure in this forum, and look forward to many educated conversations with obviously learned individuals in the coming days on this and other JTR matters.
Who knows, maybe someday we can have a roundtable discussion in my JTR Pub, a period entertaining room, complete with bar and memorabilia, located in the basement of my home.
Brian Rice
Atlanta, GA, USA
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 9:38 pm: | |
Glenn wrote:
" But I'll tell you this much: to me a grave site is a sacred place, which shouldn't be disturbed without a proper and very valid reason. To me that is just disrespectful and ruthless. If you don't agree with that, you can't really call yourself spiritual in that particular sense (as I mean it here), since those matters apparently doesen't matter to you. "
Oh, great. That bit of circular reasoning doesn't really explain much. You say you believe what you do because you are spritual, and when asked to explain what you mean by spiritual you say that you mean that you believe what you believe and that anyone who doesn't believe the same thing isn't spiritual.
It'd be best not to insult other posters just because they don't believe the same thing as you. I don't think archeologists, antrhopologists and others who investigate burial grounds for scientific purposes are ghouls to be loathed anymore than people who want to try to gain more knowledge about comparably recent historical events such as the Titanic or the Ripper victims' graves. If you disagree, fine, but don't get holier than thou on everyone.
I think it's mostly a practical concern. While I think it's unlikely to find much, it is possible that there could be valuable forensic evidence to be discovered. Knife marks being most obvious. We could probably settle the axe / split femur question about MJK, possibly compare marks of Tabram versus others (if Tabram is even in the picture), potentially discover from knife marks if organs were taken from Nichols (as some have postulated), verify the autopsy reports that can be verified, and that's just off the top of my head. |
Vincent
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 10:25 pm: | |
Glenn, thank you for your courteous response to my rather awkward question. When you used the phrase "spiritual man" I thought that perhaps you were referring to yourself as a Spiritualist, and basing your objections to exhumation upon that. I did not want to offend you or anyone else who might hold those beliefs. I know that you have expressed interest in paranormal phenomenae (SP?) on other threads, and I didn't want to confuse your interest in Spiritualism with something else.
Glenn, I don't know about you, or anyone else on this site, but I began visiting here to learn about what in my opinion is the most interesting unsolved crime in human history. I personally think that there is about a 99.99% chance that it will never be solved. But what keeps me coming back is that .01%. In my opinion if the solution ever presents itself it will be in the form of documents. The missing inquest files and the missing suspect files are the keys and they may yet turn up. If they do, or should I say when they do, exhumation will be warranted.
"Okay", you say, "if that's the case, then when the files turn up we'll go ahead and break out the shovels. 'Til then let 'em rest in peace."
I would agree, except every day they are in the earth evidence is decaying. Every week that goes by lessens the chance that the very information that we will need will survive. In 10 years there may be nothing left at all. That is why I argue so vehemently for "EXHUMATION NOW".
(Sorry, embolden doesn't work for us temporary folk.)
We need to ask ourselves if the gain is worth the risk. That is to say, we need to ask ourselves if we really want to solve the case. Oddly enough, in this case the gain and the risk are the same: solving the crime. Someone touched upon this earlier--do we really want to solve it?
Then there is the question of: should the victims be allowed to "rest in peace?" Yes, of course. In my opinion their souls have been at rest for over 115 years. But if you believe in such things, justice has not been done for these women. The book has essentially been closed on their deaths and their killer remains unidentified. As long as the murderer remains unknown he remains a legend--and his victims are merely "unfortunates".
Finally, some have argued that since the victims families and the monster himself are long dead then the truth doesn't matter. I say the truth, or at least as close as we mortals can get to the truth, is the most important thing we have to strive for to honor the victims. What was done to them was brutal and unjust-they deserve that the world know his name.
Thus endeth the novel, and I apologize for my inability to indent.
Regards, Vincent
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
