|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1377
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 7:52 am: |       |
Andy,
Ah, then I misunderstood your first passage there. Now I see what you mean, and you are quite right.
However, although one can't find support for it in the Bible, I think it is one of the more central points of Christian traditions and values anyway, that graveyards and sacred places. At least it is where I live.
Of course, it's nothing but a completely subjective feeling or notion on my part -- I can't argue against that and I have never claimed anything else. But I do have strong opinions about it.
I am glad to see, however, that you can acknowledge the fact that there at least are a number of practical difficulties connected with such an approach in this case. That is always something.
Let me just round off by saying that I hoped you had a great day (if one can put it like that) at the gravesites. Unfortunately I didn't have enough time to visit them on my London trip, but I have promised myself to do so next time.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
RipperHistorian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 2:46 am: | |
I am a little bit confused.
How is it that exhuming the graves is the epitomy of disrespectuful, but telling the story of long dead prostitutes, and all of the details of their unfortunate lives, and their subsequesnt brutal murders, and showing their grotesque mortuary photos respectful.
I really can't say that telling the story over and over, along with showing pictures of the dead bodies in numerous books, even begins to show any kind of respect for the lives of these murdered women.
I am starting to wonder what your motive is for using the respect issue here is. I just can't see what we do (including myself), spreading the news of Jack the Ripper, as respectful in any way towards these women.
I mean, it's okay to show their pictures and tell about how degrading their lives were, and to analyze their wounds to attempt to find the killer, but exhuming the graves is disrespectful when being done for the same purpose?
Is showing Mary Kelly's photo in a book any more respectful than exhuming the grave?
I would think, that at this point, anything that would yield a clue would be "fair game" as these women have already been disrespected in every way that a person could be!
Think about it,
Tim |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1398
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 11:01 am: | |
Hi Vincent. Thank you for a reasonable and very decent post. I certainly don't agree with all of it, but I think it made sense anyway and I enjoyed reading it.
Well, it's true that my interest in the afterlife do influence some of my views on the subject. However, as you say, it shouldn't necessarily be confused with one another and such issues hasn't really crossed my mind that much in this discussion. I believe such attempts would push other people away from this discussion anyway. But it can't be completely over-looked, that ones views on the afterlife also in some ways reflect how one looks upon this subject. But that is only one of the reasons why I feel so strongly about these matters.
My main concern is that I see graveyards as sacred places that should be remained undisturbed. That is my basic point of view. Then, if one for good reasons wants to dig up a body under an ongoing investigation in order to study new forensic evidence, that's fine by me. But it shouldn't be done just because of historical curiousity or undefined scientific grounds. And I don't think the result would be important enough in the Ripper case in order to do that, especially as it wouldn't be that easy to pull of in a techincal and practical sense anyway.
I think it's far worse to disturb the actual bones than to display photos of the victims or call them prostitutes in books. It is certainly more a sensitive issue to open up the physical graves. For relatives of a murdered individual, reopening the grave is not always a very popular decision, in fact it's quite traumatic, even though they know it can help to solve the murder. And I think it's understandable in many ways, because it reveals the importance we lay on grave sites as emotional memorabilia of the dead person. Look at how many of us react with contempt when vandalism on graveyards is occuring (when stones are being thrown over ny hooligans), and why do you think we find it important to plant flowers by the grave stones and visit it occasionally? It is really no different from historical monuments. As far as the Ripper victims are concerned, their gravesites are also a cultural heritage, which should be dealt with with care.
To just look at this from a practical point of view is to simplify the problem; it just isn't that easy. And although I understand that we all can't share the same views here, I must admit I am almost shocked over that many people don't even consider the ethical aspect of it. I really don't get it. I am hardly religious, but still I think it's obvious that graveyards in general should be treated with greatest respect. I really don't see what's so controversial about it.
Regarding what to find: but even if you find anything, what would you do with it? What would you compare the DNA to? We don't even have a live suspect, we have no murder weapon etc. OK, you can determine what type of murder weapon used on the different women and so on, but we do have information about that anyway -- it wouldn't help us a bit. Of course one can dispute the medical opinions of the time and there are indeed some missing pieces in the puzzle, but is it really important enough in order to dig up that part of the graveyard where they are supposed to be buried? No, Vincent. Sorry. I can see your points, but digging holes in a graveyard and reopening graves without any valid reasons or expectations of ground-breaking results, is nothing but pure vandalism in my eyes.
Regarding solving the case; I am not sure how large the percent is, that wants to really solve the case, but I do know that the popularity of the case is based on the fact that it is a mystery that is unsolved.
I personally is interested in the case because of its historical context and its flair of mystery, a mystery that really invites to brain exercise. But I am not really interested in solving it or finding a suspect. It is the study of the case that is interesting to me, not the solution, and I don't believe I am entirely alone in that notion.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1399
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 11:02 am: | |
Vincent, just an addition (although I hesitate to bring this subject in here):
"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"."
Well, there are a lot of misconceptions about this, so I have to clarify. From a spiritualistic point of view (since you brought it up) the actual bones or tissues feels more strongly connected to the actual person than any photo or written document, but when the phrase "rest in peace" is referred to, this is meant in a symbolic way, to protect their memory, since you can't really get closer to the dead person than its actual physical grave or their bones.
As far as solving the murders is concerned, the dead couldn't care less. For them life on Earth is over and done with; our issues are not theirs, so solving the case in order to honor their memory is somewhat of an empty gesture. Don't confuse it with spirits that "hasn't crossed over" to the other side for some reasons and therefore can't rest or need a reasonable explanation to why they're dead.
Now, no more spiritualism here from me -- I just wanted to clarify the point since you brought it up.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 29, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1400
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 11:52 am: | |
Mr Brian Rice,
Thank you very much for some very interesting points regarding the practical aspects of the exhumation problem.
I think you're right that DNA never fully decompose (although I am by no means that well informed), but the biggest problem is that graves are mostly reused and therefore I think it would be a problem to sort out the real remains -- if they exists -- from those of the Ripper victims. This is based on the advice and information I myself have been given from authorities and grave site staff during my own investigations regarding local cases (to my own very great disappointment, I might add -- who knows, maybe they are completely wrong). And as you say, the answers (if they exist) lies in papers and documentation anyway.
I've only used words like "disrespectful" because of the tendency here have leaned towards disturbing graves in spite of that it is quite obvious that no real gain would come out of it. Just because one is dealing with crime history (as I do), doesen't mean that the emotional aspects shouldn't be considered as important. It is a balance here one must try to obtain; archeologists are very well aware of this problem and are also therefore in general quite careful about how they deal with these matters, although they at the same time have an academic and theoretical base.
Well, welcome to the Boards, Brian, and I hope you will find the discussions interesting. It is not always easy to avoid "personally charged words" in the discussions here -- as you may notice -- but I hope you will enjoy it anyway.
What! You have a JtR Pub in your basement????? 
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 484
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 12:30 pm: | |
Brian,
Please ask the medical examiners if significant bone fragments may be expected to be found after 115+ years and whether microscopic or spectrographic examination of knife marks on bone could yield information as to the weapon used.
Also, what would the condition be of a human torso buried preserved in "spirits" be after 115 years? Would soft tissue survive as well as bone? (Thinking here of the Pinchin Street Torso which was buried in the East London Cemetery preserved in "spirits").
I think DNA is a dead end for the reasons Glenn mentions.
Andy S. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 766
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 12:57 pm: | |
Hi Brian,
A pub in your basement 'Ripper' Related, sounds cool.
Now what do I fancy, a 'Black Mary, a Double Swhartz,or mayby a ginger beer.
Anymore inspiring names , for possible tipples .
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2284
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 3:33 am: | |
Re exhumations, a Mr Nicholas Locock is currently seeking permission to exhume the body of his grandfather Henry Locock, buried 1907, with a view to ascertaining whether Henry was the illegitimate son of Quen Victoria's daughter Princess Louise.
Mr Locock's request has already been turned down by the Consistory Court in 2002, but now he is taking his case to the highest ecclesiastical court, the Court of Arches.
If he is succssful, Henry's DNA will be compared with that of murdered Tsarina Alexandra.
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 631
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 3:46 pm: | |
Hi Robert!!!
Heard that today re Mr Locock!!!! what a great story eh...Princess Louise and the Governor ....well what was that all about!!Good name tho!!!! (tee hee) Seriously though.. there is a great story here obviously.....bring up Henry I say!According to Mr Humphries this am....so it must be true!!!Court of
Arches??? whassat??? x suzi
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2289
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 4:25 pm: | |
Hi Suzi
I only know that it's the highest ecclesiastical court in the C of E. Obviously, though, if they ever do away with it they'll have to re-name it the Court of Fallen Arches.
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 634
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 5:23 pm: | |
Hi Robert
Now you've really put your foot in it!
What about this Princess Louise stuff though....hmmmmmmmmmmmm
Mind you Sunday mornings wont be the same without Alistair!!!....no one can do the "Good Morning" quite like him....
What a week at the pearly gates though....Ustinov, Cooke and God help us Hubert Gregg!!!!!....altogether now....'maybe its because....'(didnt realise he'd written that though and also 'I'm going to get lit up when the lights go up' !
Cheers
Suzi
x suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 635
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 5:27 pm: | |
Hi Robert...
God!!! Hubert Gregg et al on the Exhume the Graves thread!!!! sorry about that.. pick you up on pub talk eh!!!! will start an Alistair Cook thread...sorry Stephen!!
Suzi |
Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris
Post Number: 214
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 8:17 am: | |
Hello all,
Sorry to jump into this debate so late in the game, but I had a couple thoughts last night: I do think the idea is a bit far-fetched, and I doubt we would ever be able to find exactly who is who in any of these pauper's graves, BUT, if we could (and this is a big if) I think it would be worth while to disturb their rest just to give them a looking over. It couldn't hurt. We may be able to see with a modern eye that wasn't available then to see whether perhaps two knives were used. This is just one example I can remember from what I was thinking last night (I should have made notes) and if I think of the others I will re-post them, and I don't try to make the excuse that I think these are reasons enough, but I just mean to say that I don't think exhuming the bodies would be totally without benefit.
Ok, I sound like a nutcase, but I wanted to say that.
-K |
Brian Rice
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 9:03 pm: | |
Andrew,
I believe I can answer the first question regarding whether bones show knife marks. The answer is amazingly yes. I have recently seen a documentary of King Harald Hardrada, who died in 1066 at the Battle of Stamford Bridge. As I am sure Glenn already knows, King Harald is believed to have suffered from sharp force trauma to his lower intestines with the object stopping only because it hit the sacrum. If memory serves me correctly, bones were uncovered near the battle not too long ago, and one set of bones, complete with a "head on" indentation from a sharp object on the sacrum, were uncovered. This is very common on bones. What is amazing, is this particular set of bones was nearly 1000 years old! I'm not sure microscopy and spectrography would be needed in the case at hand, because it is likely to be seen from the naked eye. All one would have to do is play the match game with bone "lacerations" and known weapons of the day. I feel I must add here, a crime scene investigator should NEVER place a likely murder weapon into the wound it likely caused on a victim. One other thing comes to mind. It is likely only the Kelly murder could reveal anything about the weapon, as the others had parts slashed that have long since decomposed. Thus the slashes to the others' bones would likely be superficial, or not give us much in the way of a weapon. I have forwarded you questions to the colleagues I have mentioned in my previous correspondence.
Glenn, thanks for the great feedback, and I look forward to many discussions with like minded individuals.
Incidently, I must clarify, the JTR Pub is not complete as of yet, but when it is (hopefully by the end of summer)...watch out!!!
I would also like to add, I have just returned from my maiden trip across the Atlantic to jolly ole London. I could live there...if everything didn't cost so damn much!! It was a great time, and I enjoyed the hospitality of the English people. I also met Mr. Rumbelow on one of his tours. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1055
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 11:47 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
How do you know for sure that the victims have all 'crossed over' and could not, as we speak, be deeply disturbed and disappointed with us for arguing about the case when they desperately need us all to work together to see them safely to where they deserve to be (whatever it may take)?
I sometimes get the distinct feeling that if one of our suspects were indeed Jack, and proof ever materialised, there would be far too few of us with the backbone to look him in the face and recognise him, and finally admit that the vast majority of us were totally wrong whenever we expressed our opinions, or chose which suspects to favour or dismiss.
If the victims are all safely at rest, we could perhaps better afford the fragile egos and precious opinions so often displayed on these boards.
That's why I ask the question.
Sometimes I feel they are still all around us, willing us on to expose their killer and explain why they became victims. Are you certain the Whitechapel women are all truly beyond help? And even if your answer is yes, couldn't today's victims benefit from any information we could dig up (literally, if necessary) about yesterday's?
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by Caz on May 03, 2004) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1736
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 11:56 am: | |
Hi Brian,
Sorry, I seem to have forgotten about this thread, so if you read this, thanks for the response.
I envy you your JtR pub (when it gets ready) - what a splendid idea.
I can surely understand that you liked London (and I bet you found a lot of inspiration for your pub  ), I feel the same way from my own visit in February. I missed out on Rumbelow, though. He was ill when I attended the walk, so he had unfortunately been replaced by some other people.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1737
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 12:19 pm: | |
Interesting post, Caz.
Well, I don't necessarily think that they have crossed over. If we are talking paranormal stuff here, then it's quite common for victims of violent deaths not to have crossed over. That is usually why they haunt the places where they met their end (unless one believes the Stone Tape theory - which I don't, really).
But the reason for this - according to psychic mediums I know - is not that they want an explanation to what happened or to lead us right in solving their murder. Of course, that sometimes is heard of and may be the case on some occasions (also hauntings where a dead or murdered woman still is waiting for her lost love etc. is often heard of), but in general they are not concerned with earthly matters or their previous lives. If they haven't crossed over, it's just because they are stuck between the two worlds and can't find their way over (because that is what is said to happen in connection with sudden deaths) - not necessarily to force or help us to solve the case.
It is a great mistake on our part to always believe that life on Earth is what matters the most to everything in the universe. It isn't. It's just another stop on the way.
Note that this is a subject (I fear I may come out as a complete new age nutcase here...) that is based on things we probably never will understand and all I know regarding this has come from my own encounters (which isn't that many) and from psychic mediums, who are very good friends of mine and who are in daily contact with the spirit world.
I have tried to experiment with the paranormal, with the help of some psychic medium, in criminal cases, and my experience tells me that the spirits of the dead are quite uninterested about these matters, while they on the other hand are more inclined to help you focus on your own personal stuff.
So, no - I don't know anything. This is - for evident reasons - a tabula rasa and blank page for all of us; it is and always will remain a mystery.
Maybe the spirits of Eddowes & Co are roaming the streets of Whitechapel as we speak in order to find someone that will solve the case, but although I wouldn't be surprised if they haunted the sites, I don't think it would be for those reasons. But then again, who knows?
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 61
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 1:33 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
"I have tried to experiment with the paranormal, with the help of some psychic medium, in criminal cases, and my experience tells me that the spirits of the dead are quite uninterested about these matters, while they on the other hand are more inclined to help you focus on your own personal stuff."
So spirits, when dead, become more interested in counseling other people? Interesting idea.
A skeptic might point out that it just may seem like that because mediums can con people into discussing their personal affairs better than they can come up with reliable facts about crimes.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1744
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 4:46 am: | |
Hi Dan,
Yes, I know. It's a valid point. Well, this is tricky. Spirits are individuals and have different preferences and intentions, like all of us, so I wouldn't state with certainty that it's working like this or that.
However, for the most part they do communicate about the incident or circumstances around their deaths, but they are not always that keen on helping out - it's rather clear that they in most cases have no interest in seeking restitution like we know it. But in the cases I've given it a try, they have actually delivered information, although sometimes reluctantly at first.
Spirits do seem to have a mission, though, to lead us right in general, and to make us concentrate on ourselves. But of course that does not necessarily apply on confused ghosts that haunts places for different reasons - they are quite occupied with themselves and want to get help to find their way "into the light", as it's called. But restitution - no, that's something that seems to lay beyond their , as I see it.
A sceptic might see a number of signs of deception everywhere - that's only natural; I've been on a Swedish message board regarding paranormal stuff now for three years, battling it out with a number of sceptics from the "scientific" field, and I've heard all arguments before ten times over. As I've said, I would reckon a majority of the psychic mediums in the business to be frauds, because it's quite easy to fool people who want nothing more than contact with the other side. And I have witnessed a number of deliberate con attempts myself, with clear indication of cold and warm reading.
But I have also, during personal and private sessions, received exact information and details about crime matters that only I can know about (and which is totally unobtainable for the medium), as well as having a couple of encounters myself.
I wouldn't expect people to believe in the afterlife and spirit world if they themselves haven't had experiences of their own. It's first when that happens, and you have tried and discounted all natural explanations, that you make the connection. But being a sceptic is actually a good start - to a limit - in order not to fall into the worst pitfalls.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 63
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 10:04 am: | |
Glenn,
And everyone who has ever been conned by mediums or spooked themselves out says exactly the same kinds of things you just did. It's a rather pointless conversation to have, as all we are supposed to do is take you at your word that you have objectively and successfully "tried and discounted all natural explanations." I don't think anyone in the world is smart enough to think up all potential natural explanations for anything, let alone judge them all perfectly.
So you believe in ghosts, OK, that's fine. I don't see how any of that is relevant to this thread.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1747
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 1:40 pm: | |
What? You commented on it, didn't you? Or didn't you want me to answer?
As I just wrote, I have no intention of luring people into believing anything. This is all a matter of personal experiences, no one can judge what's right and wrong here. I think I just made that perfectly clear.
No one can - or need to - take my word for anything here, and I agree that it's not relevant to this thread, but since Caz (and others before her) asks me about it ... well...
I can only refer to my own experiences, not speak for others beliefs - which you naturally once again interpreted as my version of the truth, which you always do regardless of how I put things. Rather tedious, I think; making a conversation with you is certainly not easy. No wonder every thread you happen to get involved in turns into meaningless cat fights, regardless of who you address (not just me).
Ever wondered why?
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 65
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 11:35 pm: | |
Gosh, Glenn, you never give it a rest. Arguments happen on message boards, especially on a controversial topic. Some people are more defensive about their opinions then others. You don't have to try to turn everything into a personal fight.
Now, back to the topic...?
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1755
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 5:01 am: | |
Yes, I know your very strange definition of arguments. I wonder who turns everything into personal fights...
Yes, back to topic. Quite right.
Although this thread's real subject seem to have died a slow death some time ago.
Sorry about rambling on about that paranormal stuff. When people asks me about these things and want me to comment on it, I admit I can easily get carried away. But as correctly pointed out I don't think this is neither the appropriate thread or Board for it.
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1756
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 5:34 am: | |
Brian, Gary et al,
Unfortunately I am not much into natural science, so my knowledge here is limited. But from my old police education handbooks and my very basic knowledge in archeology, Brian is correct when he says cuts and marks on bones from a sharp weapon can be identified, although it hardly would be of much help in the Ripper case (besides possibly Kelly).
Brian's example regarding King Harald is a good one, but there are several others - we see this constantly in connection with archeological excavations.
But I would like, once and for all, to get some info on how much remains one can expect to find after hundred years, depending on how much humidity there is in the soil, and especially as far as the skeleton is concerned.
Our problem here is that unmarked graves was reused to a large extent and people were just dropped on top of each other, so even if we could locate the approximate spot for some of the victims thanks to the stones put up in retrospect, then how are we suppose to sort out the different bones from one another?
Apparently bones do disintegrate depending on the nature of the soil, almost to a point where it even for a trained forensic may be problematic to differ it from branches, small stones etc.
I look forward to the answers from your collegues, Brian. This definitely is not my area of expertise and I think it could be useful to know in general, since the information in professional literature seems rather sparse.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 587
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 6:34 am: | |
Glenn,
As you know, I do subscribe to the stone tape theory to explain the vast majority of "hauntings". However, I have to laugh how people (skepties) immediately start talking about people being conned when going to a psychic, but would probably never presume to do so with say...going to a minister.
And Dan, the thread topic is exhuming graves. The fact that you don't see how the dead lingering might factor into such a decision, doesn't mean that some who post here can't have a broader perspective on the subject than you do.
(Message edited by ally on May 05, 2004)
 |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1759
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 7:27 am: | |
Good points, Ally - especially the last one, this topic has turned in that direction many times and has some relevance to it; I just didn't want to argue about it with Dan, sometimes it's just not worth it.
Furthermore, and most importantly, I don't want to come across like I'm pushing these beliefs on people - as I said, I can get quite carried away and I can't take for granted that the majority share that interest.
And yes, sceptics usually refer to people being "conned" by psychic mediums; if that's what they feel (especially as most of them never have been to a psychic medium themselves), well... But it's OK to be a sceptic, I think. It is usually those who get "haunted" anyway, not people like me. So I envy them.
Just one last comment:
I do think the Stone Tape theory could explain a lot of sightings connected to violent deaths and for example old battle fields, where a scene seems to be replayed - it makes sense in that regards. We have many accounts regarding apparitions in the Tower of London, for example.
However, it doesen't work in cases where we have actual personal communication with spirits and especially not when it involves spirits that are connected to you personally - like dead relatives etc. We must not forget that there are several different kinds of hauntings, not just replayed events. (And yes, I noticed that you wrote "most hauntings", not all. Just wanted to point it out.)
I think it actually may be possible that there exists a combination and that the Stone Tape theory could be valid in some occurrences, but hardly as a full explanation.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on May 05, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2420
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 8:41 am: | |
Re exhumations, today it was reported that 2000 bodies are to be removed from beneath the netball court of a school in Marylebone. The school wants to build an underground gymnasium, and the bodies (including that of Methodist founder and hymn writer Charles Wesley) are to be re-buried in East London Cemetery.
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 724
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 3:59 pm: | |
Hi Robert
How sad.........
This of course sent me scuttling off for the Oxford Book of...... and all it has to say on Chas. Wesley is..
'Gentle Jesus meek and mild,
Look upon a little child,
Pity my simplicity,Suffer me to come to thee'
In the circumstances......bit poignant eh!
All the very best
Suzi |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1762
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 4:26 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
Well, at least they are getting reburied and that's always something. That doesne't always happen - sometimes they just get stuffed in cardboard boxes or on archive shelves, at least over here.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
d g cornelius
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 06, 2004 - 12:18 am: | |
You should also determine how each cemetery defines "reuse", which apparently occurred in several of the canonical situations: the term was used historically in Britain to mean both exhumation of surviving remains, which were then cremated or buried in a mass grave, or to bury new remains above the in-situ older ones. Iain Sinclair [shouldnt he be a Ripper Media author?], in Lights Out to the Territory, reports the prior fate for MJK's remains, although his source was slightly ambiguous.
If the soil is sufficiently acidic, there may literally be no surviving remains after less than a century. Suggest you check with archeologists. Most recent examinations of historic remains in London, most notably around the corner at Christ Church Spitalfields, have involved burials in vaults, not ground burials, which suggests that the local soil is fairly unyielding.
respex,
d g cornelius |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1768
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 06, 2004 - 4:53 am: | |
Hi Cornelius.
Thank you very much for the information. It fits quite well with the info I've been given from some archeologists and from grave attendants.
I have no idea how the soil is based in the vicinities of London, but here in Scandinavia the soil in graveyards are quite full of acid and clay, and it was originally the grave attendants who informed me (during my own search for unmarked graves of some murder victims) that even if you could find the actual exact spot - which would be nearly impossible in those particular cases - there would be practically nothing left anyway, especially after a hundred year period.
Another factor, according to what I've read in some police handbooks, is how shallow or near the surface the body is buried. The deeper it's buried in moist earth, the faster the remains expire. I don't know if this is true or not, but it would suggest that the corpses lying in the deeper layers also is less well preserved.
"Most recent examinations of historic remains in London, most notably around the corner at Christ Church Spitalfields, have involved burials in vaults, not ground burials, which suggests that the local soil is fairly unyielding."
Yes, I agree. That can also be applied on the examinations here in Sweden regarding skeleton remains of old kings and notorious people; practically all of them are buried in vaults or crypts inside the church - not in soil.
My use here of the term "reused" is strictly and exclusively referring to "bury new remains above the in-situ older ones" (nothing else), which is how it is applied over here in graveyards. This is especially valid regarding paupers' graves; not only can one expect there to be a layer of remains from several people (if they haven't totally decomposed, bones and all), but it is also a custom to plant trees on top of the older ones. So even if you have a grave site number (which can be dug up from clerical books in the city archives), the actual spot of that particular person's remains is nearly impossible to extract, especially if a lot of years have passed and other burials on the same spot has occurred.
Thanks again.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 512
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 06, 2004 - 12:05 pm: | |
I've been taking a brief break from these boards but I'm glad this thread is active once again.
I am still uncertain as to which graves were "re-used" and exactly what that means. Various terms are employed: Mass graves, Common graves, Private graves. My impression is that a common grave is left alone as long as someone appears to be visiting it. [This assumption is based upon signs I have seen posted by cemetery officials (City of London Cemetery) to the effect that if you visit this grave please notify the cemetery office, otherwise it will be re-used. These were very old graves.] So, to be buried in a "common grave" does not necessarily mean that the gravesite is obliterated shortly thereafter.
Now consider the canonical victims and their resting places:
1. Nicholls -- City of London Cemetery at Manor Park. Apparently buried in a common grave. Location is now part of the Memorial Gardens where cremated remains are interred. The Gardens are fairly modern. The gravesite might have been extant for many decades, but the present marker is probably rather approximate. Exhumation not practical and probably not possible.
2. Chapman -- City of London Cemetery at Manor Park. Buried in common grave in area that has been re-used. No marker exists. Exhumation impossible.
3. Stride -- East London Cemetery. Buried in what was described to me by an employee of that cemetery as a "common grave." The grave is quite well marked with an old concrete square foundation and a modern headstone. This leads me to believe that this particular grave was not re-used. On the other hand, other graves in the immediate area are not as old, which may indicate that the markings identifying Stride's grave were placed after it had in fact been re-used. More research needs to be done with cemetery officials. Exhumation may be a possibility.
4. Eddowes -- City of London Cemetery at Manor Park. Same scenario as Nicholls. Exhumation not practical and probably not possible.
5. Kelly -- St. Patrick's Cemetery, Leytonstone. Unclear to me whether this is a common or private grave. The grave is marked with a modern headstone only. Plots in this Cemetery are very tightly packed together. Exhumation may be possible, but would be difficult.
I did ask an East London Cemetery official about the manner in which common gravesites are re-used. She indicated that the bodies were simply buried on top of the older ones, with dirt fill added if necessary to build up the ground. This means that remains might be co-mingled over the years, but also means that the original remains buried in the grave should still be there if they have not totally decayed.
As to what might be found after 115 years, I think that is very unpredictable. If I remember correctly, the bones of the Boy Princes were discovered buried on the grounds of the Tower of London centuries after they were interred. On he other hand, I have seen a number of TV documentaries recently that featured exhumations of graves in America in the range of 75-150 years old. Existing remains varied quite a bit. In one case only the hair remained -- no bone at all. I suppose the composition of the soil, the nature of the casket, the climate, and various random factors would prohibit accurate prediction of what one might find.
Conclusion: Stride and Kelly only are candidates for exhumation among canonical victims. Kelly would be difficult due primarily to the fact that there are other marked graves very close. Stride's gravesite could be rather easily excavated without disturbing other graves. There is even a small access path next to her grave, allowing plenty of room to work. But since her injuries were primarily to soft tissue, one might seriously question the usefulness of exhumation.
Recommendation: Seek possibility of exhuming Stride's remains since they are at the present time the most accessible. In the future, newer graves may make exhumation impractical. It may be that nothing useful can be found. On the other hand, we may be surprised. In either case, the remains can be respectfully re-interred.
Recommendation: Further investigate the possibility of exhuming Kelly's remains as these are the most likely to yield useful information.
Andy S. |
Luxy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 2:06 pm: | |
Hi all
The Belgian professor Jean Jacques Cassiman is a real authority on DNA. Nowadays he's examining bones and hair of the supposed body of Napoleon Bonaparte and he's comparing it with descendants of the French emperor.
If there 's one person to identify the Kelly victim, it must be him. If the DNA structure of hair remnants or bone particles can be found in the right grave it must be possible to compare with the DNA of the Kelly's and Davies from Limerick and Wales.But it will all cost a lot of time and money.
Warm regards
Luxy |
steve tavani
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 7:25 pm: | |
I recently saw a tv program about Joseph Merrick a.k.a. the Elephant Man. Scientists were able to isolate a complete DNA profile from his bones despite their age- and despite the fact they had been boiled and bleached!
P.S. I have 'Ripper' books, pub signs, and a poster of 1888 Whitechapel in my den. Is that indicative of a childhood bed wetting issue or am I ok? It hasn't helped with the ladies. |
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 35
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 12:45 am: | |
Hi all,
Sorry to burst the bubble of anyone who holds hopes that exhuming victims' graves would yield some clues, because though it's a good idea theoretically, it's next to impossible.
Allow me to offer you an example.
I am also interested in the RMS Titanic, as well as Jack the Ripper. Recently I read about an operation that was going on to exhume corpses of unidentified Titanic victims from the Fairview Cemetery in Halifax, Nova Scotia. The plan was to use DNA to try and identify these long-unidentified victims.
Now, first of all, the graves of 2 adults were dug up in a kind of 'gully' in the cemetery lawn. When their caskets were opened, there was not a sign of either of them left, largely because of the extra water that seeped into the gully, which rotted them quicker.
So then the operation was moved up onto the top of a hill, where a young child's grave was dug up. Remarkably, there was something left. But there were only a couple of teeth, and another bone (can't remember what). Nothing left of him either. His teeth, however, were able to provide the answer to his identity, and his relatives/descendants were able to hold a proper memorial for him. I don't remember his name now, but it was quite a touching story.
Now, the Titanic sunk in April 1912. The cable-ship "Mackay Bennett" recovered around 300 bodies, and some they found were already so decomposed after just a couple of days that they were buried at sea.
It doesn't take too much logic to work it out. The Jack the Ripper victims were buried almost 24 years before the Titanic victims were. If there was nothing left of 2 adults, and only tiny fragments left from a child of the Titanic, then what are the chances of anything being left from victims buried 24 years before that?
Besides, for the past 116 years, Jack the Ripper has fascinated the world. Even if there was some way to identify him through the extremely slim chance there was something left of one of the victims' remains, should it be done? Deep down, do we really want to know for certain who Jack was? I think his is one murder case that should go unsolved. It should remain as it always has, a classic 'Whodunnit?' to debate over for many more centuries to come.
Regards,
Adam.
P.S. Just as a side note, regarding Jack the Ripper and the Titanic, for anyone who doesn't know, it's interesting to note that William T. Stead, the Pall Mall Gazette editor, went down with the Titanic. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2389
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 1:34 am: | |
Hi Adam,
In addition to your post above, let me just add, that it's not really that strange that every trace of the dead bodies disappears in water.
The preservation of the bodies depends on the nature of the soil or the grave. Therefore one can't compare a water grave to an ordinary grave in soil. In the water the so called putrefaction process starts almost immediately -- it only takes a very short time for a body to decompose during humid circumstances, but on the other hand if the soil or grave site is dry enough, a body can remain very well preserved and even in a state of mummification for several thousand years.
So unfortunately that "logic" doesen't work. Age or time span has nothing to do with it as a sole factor.
What it all comes down to is the soil conditions of the burial sites. I have no idea about this matter as far as English graves are concerned in the London area, but one can't take for granted that the bodies would be totally wiped out -- after all, we are not talking water graves here (although the ground and soil could be humid enough in order for the bodies to decompose fast anyway, of course).
The real problem is how to determine which body is the real one. Most graves were initially unmarked and although there are headstones today at many of the sites, the placement of the bodies are only estimated roughly. If bones would remain, I'd say it would be like for a needle in a haystack.
But apart from this, I agree that such an effort would be useless.
"Even if there was some way to identify him through the extremely slim chance there was something left of one of the victims' remains, should it be done? Deep down, do we really want to know for certain who Jack was? I think his is one murder case that should go unsolved."
My thoughts exactly. I think that is worth acknowledging.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 39
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 3:37 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
You wrote:
"Therefore one can't compare a water grave to an ordinary grave in soil. In the water the so called putrefaction process starts almost immediately -- it only takes a very short time for a body to decompose during humid circumstances, but on the other hand if the soil or grave site is dry enough, a body can remain very well preserved and even in a state of mummification for several thousand years."
Well, it's important to remember that most of the bodies recovered from the Titanic were in the water for roughly a week. They were wearing life preservers, etc, too. But they would have been more preserved, because the very reason that they died was that the water was so freezing cold that night, that they simply froze, or couldn't breathe because the water was so cold. So their bodies literally froze. Would this not preserve them for longer, even in water?
"So unfortunately that "logic" doesen't work. Age or time span has nothing to do with it as a sole factor."
Well I believe that whether it is a primary factor or not, 24 years, which you may as well call a quarter of a century, would effect the body in some way, dry soil, wet soil, loose soil, tight soil, whatever. It's not just 5 or 10 years, it's a very long time. Bear in mind as well that the Titanic graves have gone largely undisturbed in the past 92 years, where as the JtR victims have been moved, re-used, buried on top of, etc. That wouldn't help.
"My thoughts exactly. I think that is worth acknowledging."
What? Did I read that right? We actually agree on something!? Well, wonders never cease!
Regards,
Adam.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1419
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 6:04 am: | |
And apart from that there's just something unsettling about the idea!
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2390
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 7:25 am: | |
Hi Adam,
"Well, it's important to remember that most of the bodies recovered from the Titanic were in the water for roughly a week. They were wearing life preservers, etc, too. But they would have been more preserved, because the very reason that they died was that the water was so freezing cold that night, that they simply froze, or couldn't breathe because the water was so cold. So their bodies literally froze. Would this not preserve them for longer, even in water?"
Well perhaps, but fact remains that one can never compare a water or humid environment to dead bodies buried in soil. It is namely those circumstances that rule the decomposion process to a great extent, not age.
As I said, a decade is not necessarily a long time in soil if the conditions are not too humid. Ask any medical examiner or archeologist; you can find bodies buried in dry soil or completely air-tight stone coffins, that can remain very intact for thousand of years. This is totally impossible in the slightest humid environment, not to mention water, regardless of temperature or life vests.
What you can compare, is the conditions between different soils, not soil to water. Even if a body is dying in freezing water, as soon as the temperature in the water starts to rise, the process escalates. A body in water starts to decompose already after a few days, and they are not a pretty sight.
"What? Did I read that right? We actually agree on something!? Well, wonders never cease!"
Hehe... you underestimate me, Adam.
I always try to do my best to focus on what people say in a certain issue. Not the person himself; I have agreed on points even with my worst enemies.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2391
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 7:27 am: | |
"And apart from that there's just something unsettling about the idea!"
Absolutely, Jen. That has been my point as well, although I can't say it has been appreciated that much earlier on this thread.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1426
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 1:19 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
I don't know quite why I find it so. But indeed that is the way i feel about it!
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 178
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 2:16 pm: | |
Well, I'll disagree with you boys in that I really would like to know who the killer was.
Exhuming the bodies wouldn't tell us that,however.
Even if we could be sure we had the correct remains,and that in itself is problematic, what could we learn from them? At best, we could compare knife marks on bones microscopically to see if they were made by the same instrument. With extraordinary luck we might find Kelly's intact skull and be able to have a forensic anthropologist reconstruct her face --just to satisfy our curiosity about her appearance.
But on the whole I don't think anything would get us much information about the killer. As far as I know he left no extant forensic clues.
I haven't read the archived material on this thread so forgive me if I'm beating a dead horse here.
Mags |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2395
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 4:17 pm: | |
Mags,
Better beat a dead horse than a live one.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1657
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 5:31 pm: | |
Tantalising idea here but is it actually possible????sadly I doubt it though.....shame
Suzi |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 166
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 12:28 am: | |
It appears that all of the folks discussing exhumation are focused solely on the victims.
Ivor J. Edwards located one of the suspects, Roslyn" Sudden Death" Stephenson,back in January of this year at Islington Cemetery,London. This had been previously been considered less than probable........ Stephenson's final resting place IS an addition to what we know....
Right now,this means virtually zero,in terms of what we could apply to link this suspect to the Case.
However,there is always the possibility that the research that is being conducted into this suspect,as an example,could possibly be linked somehow to a victim or some other undiscovered-to-this-date bit of evidence.
Keep those chins up and keep the faith. Never give up the hope on a solution !!!
(Message edited by howard on December 19, 2004) |
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 42
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 3:57 am: | |
Hi all,
Glenn, you wrote:
"Well perhaps, but fact remains that one can never compare a water or humid environment to dead bodies buried in soil. It is namely those circumstances that rule the decomposion process to a great extent, not age."
But it was not a water grave. All of the said victims spent little more than a few days in the water, which, since they were frozen for part of the time anyway, would not have a great effect on the decomposition process. In any case, all that was found when a 92 year old grave was exhumed, on a hill, so therefore in reasonably dry conditions, were 3 or 4 tiny bones. Just enough to identify the child with. There was nothing left of 2 adults in the wetter soil. So if there is next to nothing left in a dry, 92-year old, undisturbed grave, what are the chances of finding anything at all in 116-year old, disturbed, and unknown soil conditions grave?
I doubt very much that there would be anything at all.
""As I said, a decade is not necessarily a long time in soil if the conditions are not too humid."
But it's not just a decade, it's 24 years. And I don't think the Ripper victims had the rest of their organs taken out, wrapped up, had their whole bodies treated and mummified, then were buried like those ancient graves were. Far from it.
""Hehe... you underestimate me, Adam.
I always try to do my best to focus on what people say in a certain issue. Not the person himself; I have agreed on points even with my worst enemies."
Trouble is....you seem to disagree with just about everything I've said in just about every post I've made on the forum so far. Elizabeth Stride, George Chapman, Michael Kidney, Grave Exhumation, Body Decomposition....it's all there! Oh well, I never did mind a good debate, so it's alright.
Maria, you wrote:
"Well, I'll disagree with you boys in that I really would like to know who the killer was."
But, really, when you think about it, what do we have to gain from knowing for sure who it was?
Sure, solving one of the biggest mysteries in history. Sure, putting a name to a famous serial killer. But then we wouldn't have our suspect debates, we wouldn't have as much excitement, and we probably wouldn't have a forum. If he isn't known, then it can be debated until the end of time. A much better alternative, I think. Until then...let the debates in our generations go on!
"With extraordinary luck we might find Kelly's intact skull and be able to have a forensic anthropologist reconstruct her face --just to satisfy our curiosity about her appearance."
A skull? An intact skull? Mags, sorry to be a stick in the mud, but you'd be extraordinarily lucky to even find a tooth in a Ripper victim's grave, let alone a completely intact skull. And as has already been said, the location of the graves aren't even certain.
"But on the whole I don't think anything would get us much information about the killer. As far as I know he left no extant forensic clues."
It wouldn't help find who the killer was. Even on the microscopically slim chance of recovering some of the killer's DNA from a victim's grave, then you'd have to have a suspect's DNA to compare with it. That is impossible in the cases of people like Walter Sickert, who was cremated, and Michael Ostrog, since we don't even know when he died or where he was buried. The chances of recovering something from the graves of suspects like Montague John Druitt would be just as slim, because he was already badly decomposed at the time he was found, and has been buried just as long as the victims, so chances are there would be nothing left of him either.
I think normally criminals that got hung had their remains cremated, or atleast in the 1900's, but I'm not sure about late 1800's. So if they were, that eliminates chances of getting DNA from Bury, Deeming, Klosowski/Chapman, Cream, etc.
If they were simply buried, then Bury, Deeming and Cream have the same scenario as Druitt and the victims.
The only suspects it would be even perhaps possible to get any DNA from would be Stephenson, Tumblety (?), Kosminski, Barnett, Thompson, etc.
And to even attempt that would be ridiculous, because there is no clues at all to suspect 1 particular person, and not only would it be an extremely wild idea to try and compare DNA of these 5 suspects to the victims, it would be almost impossible to be allowed to do it anyway. And even if 1 suspects' DNA was linked to it, it would still be controversial evidence, since it had been buried and perhaps contaminated some time since they died.
Suzi, you wrote:
"Tantalising idea here but is it actually possible????sadly I doubt it though.....shame"
Possible? Yes, perhaps. Likely? Not very. Read the rest of my post above. Not only is it very unlikely there would be anything left of the victims, but it would most likely prove very little of importance even if somehow some fragment was exhumed. A lot of false hopes over nothing, overall, I think.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2396
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 5:10 am: | |
Hi Adam,
Don't get me wrong, I think there is a very small possibility that there is something left in the graves of the Ripper victims as well. Practically none, as a matter of fact. So in theory I do agree with you.
What I react to is the basis of your arguments, and I am starting to feel like I'm talking to myself rather than having a dialogue.
Two of my best friends are archeologists, and I have also read an archeology introductory course in university (I am myself not an expert on natural science, but I have read up quite well on the forensic stuff and own a couple of books on the subject), and I must inform you that you have gotten things a bit confused here.
The contents in some 100-year old graves (or older) are well preserved if the soil is dry enough. If what you say may apply as a general rule, when why do we encounter these graves, with full skeletons or sometimes even with tissue and hair? Why can't you accept this fact? Do you think I am making this up?
For the most part there is very little left -- at least here in Scandinavia -- since the soil is quite humid and made of clay (in such an environment a body and its bones decomposes very quickly). However, in parts of the country where the soil and environment is dry, the conditions on the site actually helps preserving the bodies.
I am not talking about ancient graves here, where mummification is performed and treated deliberately post-mortem. I am talking about a natural process that takes place in the ground or in a vault after the burials.
In desert regions in China and the Middle East, this is very common, although it can be found also in our Northern regions if the conditions are right.
Archeologists sometimes dig up graves in northern countries that are from 200 up to thousands years old, and where the skeletons are intact. So the age doesen't matter in itself -- it is all determined by the conditions of the environment in which they were buried. This is really no news flash.
Here in Sweden, forensic projects have also been undertaken in order to examine the corps of old Swedish kings from the 13th century and onwards, buried inside churches, and where the bodies have been so well preserved that they have remained in a state of natural mummification (which has been a result of a natural process, not performed by hand before the burials). Attempts to gain DNA from these corpses have proved successful.
So your strong belief in that the problem only derive from the age of the bodies, is totally wrong. Also in England a large number of old graves have been excavated, with good results and the skeletons well intact.
So what the problem regarding grave excavations of the Ripper victims really derives from, is mainly two points:
a) the fact that most of the graves initially were unmarked, and it is almost impossible to separate the bones from one body to another (if they are ever located and something DO remain, which I find questionable).
b) the fact that the soil or burial ground might be of such humid nature that nothing at all is preserved (in a grave containing clay soil, it only takes some weeks for it all to disappear). And this is REGARDLESS of the age of the corps.
"Trouble is....you seem to disagree with just about everything I've said in just about every post I've made on the forum so far. Elizabeth Stride, George Chapman, Michael Kidney, Grave Exhumation, Body Decomposition....it's all there! Oh well, I never did mind a good debate, so it's alright."
I am not doing this deliberately to annoy you or to chase you, just for the joy of arguing against you. If you are ever going to survive on these Boards, you must drop that martyr/paranoid thing.
I have been battered on these Boards far worse than you ever have so far, and where I've been almost totally alone; if one can't take it, one shouldn't be here. People here are not out to get you -- on the contrary, I am personally very grateful for how you've managed to fuel new life into these Boards these recent days.
But you can't state things with such certainty (without having read up on things enough to back up your strong claims), and then expect people to agree with you. That is not how it works.
Your problem is that your stating things with absolute certainty, without having a solid base of research to build your arguments on, and when the counterpart is trying to explain things or give you his or her views, you just don't seem to listen or take it in. No offense.
As far as Klosowski is concerned, our discussions on that topic are like cut-outs or reruns from the discussions I once had with young Peter Sipka from USA. He and I will never agree on Klosowski, but we are today the best of friends on a private basis and are having e-mail contact every day (since we by incident found out that we had millions of other things outside the Ripper field in common).
So you see, it's nothing personal. Believe me, I look forward to each and every one of your posts, and I cincerely hope you continue to post on a regular basis. So keep 'em comin'
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on December 19, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1432
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 5:20 am: | |
I would just ask is it ethical to consider?
(there's no right answer to this i don't know!!)
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2398
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 5:43 am: | |
Jennifer,
As I've stated before... in my personal opinion, no, I myself find such attempts somewhat questionable from an ethical point of view. But that's me (call me supersticious); I personally believe a body should be allowed to rest after it's been buried.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 44
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 6:35 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
You wrote:
"What I react to is the basis of your arguments, and I am starting to feel like I'm talking to myself rather than having a dialogue."
Well, I just laid all that out for you on the Liz Stride topic. In short, I am stubborn, and I admit it. If I think something is right, then I'm very difficult to persuade otherwise. Thus, you may feel like you're not getting anywhere.
"The contents in some 100-year old graves (or older) are well preserved if the soil is dry enough. If what you say may apply as a general rule, when why do we encounter these graves, with full skeletons or sometimes even with tissue and hair? Why can't you accept this fact? Do you think I am making this up?"
I never suggested or even implied that I don't think it's true or think you're making it up. What my point was, and I'll say it again, is what the Ripper victims graves were disturbed, they were buried quite a long time before the Titanic victims, and the soil conditions we don't know. Now, as opposed to the Titanic victim, whose remains were not disturbed, and were on a hill, where the soil would be dryer.
Therefore, I ask you. Is it not more likely that something would be left of a Titanic victim in those circumstances, than a Jack the Ripper victim in the other circumstances I mentioned?
I consider it highly unlikely that there would be anything left, and we can't even be sure where the graves are now.
"Archeologists sometimes dig up graves in northern countries that are from 200 up to thousands years old, and where the skeletons are intact. So the age doesen't matter in itself -- it is all determined by the conditions of the environment in which they were buried. This is really no news flash."
I know, I HAVE accepted that, and i've listed my reasons above about the differences between a Titanic and a JtR victim. There is also a question awaiting your explanation.
"So your strong belief in that the problem only derive from the age of the bodies, is totally wrong. Also in England a large number of old graves have been excavated, with good results and the skeletons well intact."
Well a 5 year old body is going to look more intact than a 2,000 year old body, isn't it? That's my point. If you use long time differences, then no, it's not totally wrong. I never said there was no chance at all that there could be something left, I just think it is extremely unlikely after that the JtR victims graves have been subjected to. And, yes, the method in which they were buried.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
