|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1434
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 11:20 am: | 
|
Hi Glenn,
I quite see where you are coming from. In my own view, it is not so much the general point as the specifics that I am bothered about. In modern murder cases where the killer is still at large it is probably an ok idea to dig up bodies of victims if evidence can be achieved. particular if it may save others in the long run in identifying a killer or at least providing clues which could not otherwise be asertained. all the things mentioned on this thread.This is also true cases where the deaths were recorded as natural or as in other cases where they are recorded as open verdicts or accidental whereby they can be checked eg for traces of poison. To help bring killers to justice.
But in this case, in the JTR case that is, what can we achieve by disturbing the final resting place of these women? We can maybe at a long shot satisfy our own curiosity, but at the end of the day is that reason enough? is that reason enough to dig up someone? that is all i am saying!
phew! I went on a bit then - sorry!!
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!!
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 344
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 1:46 pm: |
|
It seems we went through much the same discussion many months ago. Jenni is right, even as the same point was made ages ago on this thread: whatever the state of the victims' remains today, there would seem nothing to be gained by exhumation at this point, save I suppose satisfying the macabre curiousity of a few. Even if some DNA were able to be extracted, to what purpose would it be applied? There is little doubt Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes are who they were contemperaneously identified as being and "Kelly" is such a mystery that nothing less than comparing her DNA with everyone extant in the British Isles would winnow down that conundrum.
In a way, this reminds me of the old argument about "cliometrics," the application of statistical data to history. There are many things you can measure (and measure well), but whether the resultant figures help to explain anything is another matter entirely and that is what I think you have here. I cannot see how exhumation would bring us any closer to finding the Ripper(s).
Don. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1178
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 4:26 pm: |
|
Hi,
I like you all, am a true enthusiast on this case, however no clue could be found by exhumation, for no sexual contact was reported at the time[ although not proven ] therefore unlike for eg the case of Henratty where valerie storeys underware was tested against james henrattys DNA, and a match was found, we can not hope to trace a match for we simply have no 100 percent suspect to start with.
Plus we could not gauge the precise spot of the remains anyway.
The graves should remain untouched, and the poor women should remain undisturbed.
Regards Richard. |
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 47
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 12:32 am: |
|
Hi all,
Jen, you wrote:
"In modern murder cases where the killer is still at large it is probably an ok idea to dig up bodies of victims if evidence can be achieved. particular if it may save others in the long run in identifying a killer or at least providing clues which could not otherwise be asertained."
Oh, that's certainly true. If there has been an unsolved case in the last 20 years or so, for example, and it's thought that new evidence and testing might reveal more about the killer, or perhaps even the killer himself, then by all means it would be alright to exhume the bodies and perform further tests. But not in the Ripper case.
First, we may not know who the Ripper was, but we know for a fact that he is long dead. Unless of course he is the oldest living person in the world and was about 5 when he committed the murders. Therefore, there's no point to it in that it wouldn't lead to punishment of Jack, who ever he was.
Second, whatever Glenn or anyone else may argue, there is far more chance of finding something from a 20 year old grave than a 116 year old grave, and therefore, more chance of uncovering evidence. It's my opinion there would be nothing left at all of the Ripper victims.
Third, and perhaps most important, modern DNA could catch a killer and put families minds at rest, knowing that the killer had been punished for what he had done. Nothing like that could be achieved in the Ripper case. In the slight chance that DNA could be found, it wouldn't lead to the killer. A waste of time, money, and disturbing graves for no sufficient reason, I think.
Richard, you wrote:
"I like you all, am a true enthusiast on this case, however no clue could be found by exhumation, for no sexual contact was reported at the time[ although not proven ] therefore unlike for eg the case of Henratty where valerie storeys underware was tested against james henrattys DNA, and a match was found, we can not hope to trace a match for we simply have no 100 percent suspect to start with.
Plus we could not gauge the precise spot of the remains anyway.
The graves should remain untouched, and the poor women should remain undisturbed."
I agree with you completely, Richard. I am a believer in that their graves should remain undisturbed too. I'm all for it in modern cases where something more could be gained from it, but there is little decent purpose to raise 116 year old graves.
In any case, as I long-windedly explained in another post here, you would need a suspect's DNA to be compared to the Victim's DNA in order to attempt any results. Any results that were made from it would be controversial, especially if it ruled out certain suspects. And it's also impossible to do so anyway, simply because some suspects were cremated, others we don't know where they're buried or even when they died, and others are almost as old as the victim's, leaving them possibly with nothing left either.
These women suffered enough during their lifetimes, now they should be allowed to rest in peace, and be left alone.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator!
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1436
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 3:54 am: |
|
Hi everyone,
indeed it would seem we are in agreement!
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!!
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2404
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 4:52 am: |
|
Adam,
"I am a believer in that their graves should remain undisturbed too. I'm all for it in modern cases where something more could be gained from it, but there is little decent purpose to raise 116 year old graves.
In any case, as I long-windedly explained in another post here, you would need a suspect's DNA to be compared to the Victim's DNA in order to attempt any results. Any results that were made from it would be controversial, especially if it ruled out certain suspects. And it's also impossible to do so anyway, simply because some suspects were cremated, others we don't know where they're buried or even when they died, and others are almost as old as the victim's, leaving them possibly with nothing left either.
These women suffered enough during their lifetimes, now they should be allowed to rest in peace, and be left alone."
Well, I can certainly agree with you on that. As you say, in modern cases, I am all for it, if it would prove necessary.
But in this case, disturbing their graves would lead to nothing, and I think making such attempts just based on our own curiousity is ethically wrong.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 676
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 4:18 pm: |
|
Well, folks, how interesting that this threat is re-opened. First, let me say that I realize how people may have very different views on the ethics of opening graves. I myself am deeply religious (Christian) and the thought of opening a grave does not bother me in the least as long as its contents are respectfully re-interred. I realize that others disagree. Since that is a personal matter, let's not get hung up on that. [And, lest anyone think I am distanced from such concerns, let me tell you that we buried my mother last week. I am as sensitive to such issues as I will ever be].
The question then becomes twofold: How difficult would it be to exhume the graves and how much benefit would there be in doing so.
If you read my discussion above, you will see that the grave of Liz Stride should be quite accessible. I therefore would recommend exhumation, if legally feasible, on the chance that something of value might be discovered. It is likely that only bone fragments and/or hair remain but these things are very unpredictable and it is possible that something of importance may be found. I am not talking about DNA here, because I don't think that would be useful. I think we might also consider Kelly's grave, but this would be more difficult.
I know this is going to get me a lot of flack, but I am of the opinion that historical "curiosity" is a valid reason for exhumation as long as the remains are respectfully re-interred.
Andy S. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1183
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 4:41 pm: |
|
Hi Andy,
First of all I am so sorry that you lost your mum recently, my sincere condonences.
I agree that if it could be of major significance that one or more of the graves should be exhumed, then so be it, however DNA, surely is only likely to be proven if.
a] Articles of clothing remain of the deseased.
b] The above is only relevant if sexual contact was in evidence.
c]A suspect is produced that is a real possible for the murder.
As none of the above can be certain, what evidence could be obtained, ie if we anyway could be absolutely certain that any remains found were that of the actual victims.
I stated the case of Henratty recently. that protested his inocence, throughout his trial, and to his family, and on the morning of execution, however in the last couple of years was found almost certain to have been the A6 killer, because of exhumation, because the underware of The unfortunetly Valerie Storie, and the DNA sample taken from Henrattys remains matched perfectly.
But that was evidence derived from exhumation, which actual matched the only tried suspect with the lucky to survive victim, but in the Ripper case we have not a tried suspect.
Richard. |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 679
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 5:01 pm: |
|
Richard,
Many thanks for the condolences. My mum was 84. She lived a full life and had a strong Christian faith.
I agree that DNA is not a concern as it would not be useful. The most likely useful information that could be obtained in my view might be a bone fragment containing a knife mark, possibly with some metal from the knife blade remaining. I agree that this is an unlikely find, but not impossible.
Many people seem to want to focus only on the likelihood of finding useful information. There is another side to the equation and that is the ease of exhumation. A glance at Liz's grave tells you that exhumation should be rather simple, physically anyway. An excavator can be pulled up right alongside. That's why I am suggesting exhumation. Those of you who are ethically opposed -- I understand your feelings. I am giving my opinion.
Andy S. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1447
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 5:05 pm: |
|
Hi Andy,
I am sorry to hear about your mother.
You mention above although you are a Christian exhumation of the victims doesn't bother you. Perhaps the fact that I am well, not particularly religious, and do find it unnerving shows the issue is more to with other factors than religion, or maybe it says something about myself - i don't know! As you say it is a personal matter.
It is not so much the ethics of disturbing a grave that I am concerned with at all. As I said above I can think of numerous examples where it would and could be worthwhile. It is more to do with what can be achieved and what impact this would have that is my concern. I can't see myself that anything positive in the here and now can be achieved (and in this sense this would probably make the chances of permission lower too?) As you say it is the benefit in doing it that is important. I don't think the potential cost is outweighed by the potential benefit in this case is all I am saying. I total intend no disrespect to you or your opinion in saying that, as I can quite see where you are coming from, I hope you do not take it that way.
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!!
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1448
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 5:07 pm: |
|
Andy,
sorry - our posts clashed.
Even if something is easy there is no point doing it for the sake of it, but saying that. I can be convinced about most things!
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!!
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 348
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 5:57 pm: |
|
Andy,
I really don't see what bearing the ease of exhumation has in this instance. Because you can do something is hardly the same as saying you should do something and I think that is what is important here.
Whatever one's religious or ethical feelings are about exhumation, it ought not be done simply because it would be easy. Nor do I see the possibility of knife marks or blade fragments to be found among Stride's remains being worth the effort.
I think we are all agreed that Ms. Stride had her throat cut so there might well be knife marks to note -- but to what end would those discernible marks be put? We would have nothing with which to compare them. Except for Donald Rumbelow's fanciful tale about the knife he was once given, I know of no "Ripper's knife" in a collection anywhere that could be compared with any marks left on anyone's bones.
Just not worth the candle, you know.
Don. |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 680
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 6:26 pm: |
|
Don,
I didn't say that just because you can do something, you should do it. I merely said it seems that most people are ignoring the other side of the equation, i.e. the "ease" with which the exhumation can be done. The two sides must be balanced, with neither outweighing the other.
You have placed your finger, so to speak, on the nature of the dilemma. Liz's injuries were largely to the soft tissue and even if knife marks were obtained, with what would we compare them? Nevertheless, with each passing year there is even less likelihood of recovering anything at all. Thus I think it worthwhile to take a stab at preserving whatever might be preserved just in case something else does turn up in the future. It is unfortunate that the most accessible grave contains the least mutilated corpse. There is another possibly related corpse, however, that just might be possible to exhume: that of the Pinchin Street torso. Because of its unusual metal container it may be possible to locate. I think I am remembering this correctly.
Jenni,
No offense taken, my dear. I suspect the difference in our opinions lies in the amount of pragmatism in our relative makeups. I tend to be very pragmatic.
Andy S.
|
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 8:30 pm: |
|
Hi,
Let them rest in peace.
Adam: Glenn has answered your question, but methinks you didn't read his post?
The fact that 24 years after, some _other_ bodies were buried in _another_ location and nothing was left of _them_ has no relevance to the burials of JtR victims in London.
Glenn has said it several times, and it's like comparing apples with bicycles; it's the condition of the ground which is the key and it has absolutely nothing to do with the number of years.
Though you are right that disturbance by reuse of the graves will make any such attempt futile in most if not all cases.
The specific answer to your case is that it depends on the soil conditions in the various cemetaries.
On a general point,
I'm sure we could all wish some of JtR's hair fell onto the victim or that some JtR skin is under the fingernails, but, it's not likely any such optimistic evidence would still exist or could be identified as JtR's.
As has been said previously, knowing who Kelly really was might be interesting for us to know, and any DNA evidence found may be useful to match her to her relatives but... that information would be purely for our academic benefit.
The interesting question is when would is it OK to dig up the dead for academic purposes?
Archaeological digs do sometimes find old cemetaries and have no problems as far as I know disturbing the old bones and might even sometimes target old cemetaries to discover life expectancy, diseases prevalent then, etc.
So it's not clear cut to me why I say let them rest in peace, but I suppose I see it as being for our own morbid curiousity rather than for information for the "common good".
Anyways..
Nice post Richard and I agree with the sentiments.. but... Hanratty and DNA and a 100% conviction of guilt? DNA testing wasn't around in the 60's.
I thought there is now some serious doubt on Hanratty's guilt from what I recall and a posthumous pardon is still being sought? Do you speak of a recent re-examination of the Hanratty case in relation to a pardon? Or am I confusing Hanratty and Henratty?
Cheerio,
ian -- keeping one eye open and the other one closed.
|
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 49
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 1:55 am: |
|
Hi all,
Glenn, you wrote:
"Well, I can certainly agree with you on that. As you say, in modern cases, I am all for it, if it would prove necessary.
But in this case, disturbing their graves would lead to nothing, and I think making such attempts just based on our own curiousity is ethically wrong."
I am in complete agreement with you. We would not learn anything from it that would lead to a solving of the case, or atleast part of it, and these women would once again have to be subjected to the torment that they suffered so much of in life.
When all the points are weighed up, I think most of us are in agreement that they should be left alone.
'Hemustadoneit', you wrote:
"Adam: Glenn has answered your question, but methinks you didn't read his post?"
I did read Glenn's post, and whether we agree on the points of the previous posts or not, if you look back you will see that we have come to an agreement on the ethnics and usefulness of digging up the victims.
"The fact that 24 years after, some _other_ bodies were buried in _another_ location and nothing was left of _them_ has no relevance to the burials of JtR victims in London.
Glenn has said it several times, and it's like comparing apples with bicycles; it's the condition of the ground which is the key and it has absolutely nothing to do with the number of years."
I know it's not a relevant point to the JtR victims, but I was simply showing you an example of the decomposition of similarly older graves.
I never said it was *definite* that there was nothing left of the victims, but I do *believe* there wouldn't be, and as I pointed out, there is more chance of finding remains in a 20 or 30 year old burial site than graves from 100 or more years ago. Or atleast, more intact remains. And since the victims of the Ripper were buried in common graves, then not as much care would have been taken for their preservation as other deaths at the time. As well as that, the average death - burial time then seems to have been around 6 days, these days it is usually 3-4 days. Less time for the body to be in the open.
"The specific answer to your case is that it depends on the soil conditions in the various cemetaries."
And since we don't know for sure the type of soil in those cemeteries, then any discussion about the likelihood of finding remains in the graves aren't that relevant, unless we know the soil type and quality.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator!
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1184
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 3:42 am: |
|
Hi,
Just to clear up a few points, My spelling obviously was a error James Hanratty, sentenced to death in 1961, for the murder of Gregson, and the attempted murder Of Valerie storey is the person i am refering to.
The grave of Hanratty was exhumed a couple oy years back, and articles of Valeries clothing were Dna matched, the chances that Hanratty did not rape her are remote , therefore he is most certainly the A6 murderer.
Obviously in the early sixties DNA did not exist, and in this case it laid a doubt that had been lingering over the years to rest.
I am exspecially pleased for Valarie, who people seemed to forget was paralyzed for life, and has always been the target of people opposed to capital punishment, she found a great deal of peace with the findings.
Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2413
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 4:13 am: |
|
Adam,
"...and as I pointed out, there is more chance of finding remains in a 20 or 30 year old burial site than graves from 100 or more years ago. Or atleast, more intact remains."
*sigh*
No, not at all. That depends on the conditions on the burial grounds.
If the soil is clay based or contains some degree of humidity (which is the most common condition and I'd say this is most likely in this case), it only takes a couple of weeks anyway for the body to evaporate. You wouldn't find more remains after 20--30 years than you would have after a 100 years!
Andy,
Sorry to hear about your mother. My deepest sympathy and condolensces. I am so glad she lived her life to the full.
"I myself am deeply religious (Christian) and the thought of opening a grave does not bother me in the least as long as its contents are respectfully re-interred ... I am of the opinion that historical "curiosity" is a valid reason for exhumation as long as the remains are respectfully re-interred."
This is a contradictory statement. You can't have it both ways. As I said, a couple of friends of mine are archeologists, and they live with this problem everyday. And although they try their best to be careful and treat the remains with respect, it is still nevertheless a disturbance.
To say that "historical curiosity" is OK "as long as the remains are respectfully re-interred" is a strange statement. It is still a disturbance, and a disturbance of a grave or burial is never respectful no matter how good intentions you have (although it can be useful for academic reasons in some situations, but that is a different matter).
As there probably is no great information value to gain from digging up the JtR victims' graves, and en excavation would NOT lead to their killer anyway, I say: let them rest in peace! In this case -- in contrast to archeological excavations -- we have no use for examining their bones for diseases or living conditions. These poor women has gone through enough as it is during their time on Earth, let them rest undisturbed in death.
As far as the accessability of Liz' grave and examination of knife marks, I agree totally with Don's opinion here.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on December 21, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 51
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 4:59 am: |
|
Glenn,
"*sigh*
No, not at all. That depends on the conditions on the burial grounds.
If the soil is clay based or contains some degree of humidity (which is the most common condition and I'd say this is most likely in this case), it only takes a couple of weeks anyway for the body to evaporate. You wouldn't find more remains after 20--30 years than you would have after a 100 years!"
Glenn, you didn't read my post correctly. I said there is more chance of finding something, in general. And since we don't know the type of soil that is in the Ripper victims' grave area, then we can't judge just how decomposed or intact they would be. But, please, stop assuming that I am still stating things with certainty , when I'm not at all. It is simply my opinion that a 20 year old grave would yield more clues as to a killer's identity or details of the victim, than a 100 + year old grave would. Especially if there is a chance that the killer or someone who may know more information about the case is still alive, which we can state with certainty is not the case of the Ripper.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator!
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2415
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 5:42 am: |
|
"Glenn, you didn't read my post correctly. I said there is more chance of finding something, in general."
No, Adam, I did read your post correctly -- I know that's what you meant, and you are STILL wrong!
And since others have pointed that out to you as well (you apparently are not reading their posts either), I think you should stop using your "stubbordness" as an excuse for stating things that are completely groundless.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 52
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 6:31 am: |
|
Glenn,
"No, Adam, I did read your post correctly -- I know that's what you meant, and you are STILL wrong!
And since others have pointed that out to you as well (you apparently are not reading their posts either), I think you should stop using your "stubbordness" as an excuse for stating things that are completely groundless."
You can't say I am wrong, if nobody even knows the conditions of where the victims are buried. Nobody is wrong or right until that is found out.
If you read my post properly, then you will also notice that I stated nothing at all with 'certainty' or 'stubbordness'. I even underlined relevant parts of that post to show you that I was not doing that, but you seem to have missed them. You've said yourself before that when you first came here, you were the same, and then changed. Well, I must add that I am already beginning to feel the same way.
However, I would like to suggest that we stop this off-topic, 'you did it', 'No, YOU did it', argument now, before it gets too serious and 1 or both of us land ourselves in trouble for it. I'm sure you don't want that either, and I don't want to be involved in constant arguments so early. I hope we can have an understanding on atleast this much, whether you agree or disagree with me.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator!
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2416
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 7:07 am: |
|
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 190
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 10:03 am: |
|
Glenn, you make me laugh. I've wanted to post that graphic SO many time myself!(certainly not just in this thread!!)
If you know what I mean.
Mags
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 681
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 10:46 am: |
|
Glenn,
I don't know why I'm having such a difficult time getting my point across. I'll probably give up after this try  but I feel somewhat compelled to defend my position against those who still think it crude or unfeeling.
Glenn, you make the assumption that disturbance equals disrespect. This is apparently so fundamental an assumption for you that you don't question it or consider that the contrary opinion might be valid. For me "disturbance" most certainly does not equal "disrespect." In fact, I would use the term "disturbance" here only in the sense of "moving a stationary object" and not in the sense of "bothering a person who is resting" since the "person" is not in the grave. I know of no religion that attributes "personhood" to a deceased corpse. Even those religions that practice ancestor worship to my knowledge do not worship the actual earthly remains of their ancestors. The only sense in which the remains are "resting" is in that they are stationary and not moving.
I hold two graduate degrees in theology so I am somewhat knowledgeable about Christian doctrine. While it may be a breech of etiquette to disturb a consecrated grave for insufficient reason, there is no theological ground for believing that it "disturbs" (i.e. bothers) the person who is now at rest. Therefore, my earlier statement is not contradictory.
One final word: when I referred to "historical curiosity" I wasn't meaning "a whim." Human beings are curious creatures. Our curiosity is the single greatest impetus for our learning.
There, well I've probably muddled my explanation rather than clarified it.
Respectfully,
Andy S. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2418
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 11:08 am: |
|
Andy,
"For me 'disturbance' most certainly does not equal 'disrespect.'"
I am sorry, but for me it does, in these situations.
"In fact, I would use the term 'disturbance' here only in the sense of 'moving a stationary object' and not in the sense of 'bothering a person who is resting' since the 'person'" is not in the grave."
Religion or not, a dead body is -- in an emotional sense -- for me not an "object" (although it of course is, seen from a practical point of view). Neither is it for the archeologists, who very often rebury the remains and even are holding a ceremony. These people are academics, and still they understand the spiritualistic and emotional nature of their actions. A dead body possesses a symbolic importance for several people in different cultures, not least in the modern western world and sometimes regardless of any religion. Why do you think many relatives to a deceased person are refusing organ donation or are against authopsy of the dead body (which is a common problem during police investigations)?
And why do we even bury dead bodies or visit their graves if the dead body doesen't mean anything? Or do you come from another planet where these expressions don't occur?
A dead body may be just a dead body in clinical terms, but it once WAS a living person, and quite many people feels that a dead body should be treated with respect even if it's not still "in use".
It's up to you if you want to refer to the remains of what once was a human being as an "object", compared to a bicycle or a piece of pottery -- you have your beliefs, I have mine (and I am not even religious!) -- but as far as I am concerned that is probably one of the worst descriptions I have heard.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 682
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 11:21 am: |
|
Glenn wrote:
And why do we even bury dead bodies or visit their graves if the dead body doesen't mean anything? Or do you come from another planet where these expressions don't occur?
I don't think that was called for at all.  I didn't say they don't mean anything. We are getting into emotional responses now rather than rational ones and therefore it is probably time to draw this discussion to a close with some final (hopefully) words from me.
(1) I used the word "object" to refer to human remains only in a linguistic sense to distinguish them from being assigned status as a "person."
(2) As I said earlier, my suggestion of exhumation is predicated on the respectful re-interrment of any remains exhumed.
(3) What I failed to say earlier is that I would be much more hesitant to exhume if there were descendants still visiting the grave, particularly those who knew the deceased. This is not the case for Stride.
Regards,
Andy S.
(Message edited by Aspallek on December 21, 2004) |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 351
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 12:27 pm: |
|
Okay, this is not quite the thread for this, but this thread is about graves and is "open" (intended) so I'm posting here. Anyway, the photo should answer the argument that raged elsewhere (maybe a "grave spitting" thread) about boards around graves. Clearly, the boards covered the open grave until filled so no one would tumble in.
Don.
 |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 683
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 12:36 pm: |
|
While at a cemetery recently I also observed an open grave with boards (actually plywood) over it. I suspect the grave was empty, but there was no way of knowing. I also spotted much to my surprise an empty, open grave (obviously about to be used) with no covering or safety precautions whatsoever. I suspect somebody did not do his job in the latter case.
Andy S.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2420
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 12:41 pm: |
|
Hi Don,
Wow, interesting photo.
Actually, before I had read that far in your post, it DID make me automatically think about the "grave spitting" thread and the discussion about boards.
Yes, I believe they covered the hole after it was dug and before the coffin was put in there; I have seen that on other pictures, so I don't think they were there just for standing on while lowering the coffin, as was suggested by someone.
I could be wrong, though, but I think I remember quite clearly that I've seen pictures where the boards cover everything until the burial, and yes, probably for safety reasons.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1458
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 1:14 pm: |
|
Andy,
I neither think your position is crude or unfeeling.
Now we have established that point,
I see what you are saying about the bodies of the Whitechapel victims and our emotional rather than rational response to this. Is it disrespectful to dig up a body, i don't know? I still maintain it depends on things such as the reason for doing so, the likely results, the effect that will have in the present, the views of any relatives/decendants living, the potential costs , etc, etc
It's not a clear cut thing by any stretch of anything. It raises ethical as well as pratical issues. These cannot be resolved easily but perhaps they can be reconciled. I don't know!
We have to bear in mind that much of what we say in this field is considered weird and disrespectful gross or bizarre by many others.Its evident by comments from unregs occassionally. But it knowing that it is not any of those things in our minds that lets us continue our interest. knowing what would cross the line, is also important.
And so ends the ramblings of Jennifer for another post!
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!!
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 352
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 2:49 pm: |
|
Glenn,
Yes, an interesting photo and while you are probably aware of who Alice Burnham was, in case anyone else is wondering she was one of the "brides in the bath" murdered by George Joseph Smith. His method of murder was certainly unique and undetectable; it was only his repeated use of the method that aroused suspicions. I have always wondered just how he learned that "sudden immersion" technique of drowning.
Don. |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 684
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 3:47 pm: |
|
Jenni,
Well said. And, perhaps that piece of reason should be the last word.
Andy S.
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 405
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 3:59 pm: |
|
Can anyone propose a checkable detail for the gravespitting story? |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 354
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 4:01 pm: |
|
Diana,
If you value your sanity, don't go there.
Don. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1186
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 4:07 pm: |
|
Hi guys,
I am glad that picture was introduced for it clearly dipicts the boards in position after the coffin was lowered.
Obviously for safety reasons, and for closure of the lowering of the coffin.
In the case of kelly, the sketches made at the service clearly depict the boards to the right of the mourners, therefore to cover the open grave whilst it was being prepeared for the earth filling was the norm.
So it would not have been unusual for the boards to have been placed over the hole while the attendants waited for the ok to replace the earth.
I rest my case
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1665
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 4:27 pm: |
|
Don
I love the comment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
........and the photograph of Alice Burnham is superb,rather bleak and lonely but excellent,where did you come by that?
As to the boards (wooden variety!) ....I am sure that they are just in place to enable the bearers to lower the coffin into the 'hole' with no fear of slipping on possibly wet clay at the edge of the grave!,also I believe they are in place for obvious reasons prior to the interrment.....!
Suzi |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 356
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 8:23 pm: |
|
Suzi,
Came from the memoirs of Superintendent Arthur Fowler Neil Man-hunters Of Scotland Yard 1933.
My dad died when I was only 10, but among many things he left behind was a wonderful collection of books, especially old detective fiction. This included most of the Strand magazines with the original Sherlock Holmes stories. I suppose I am one of the few kids since the late 19th C. who got his first taste of Sherlock by reading the stories in Strand magazines. That and a second mortgage would probably get me two "Luscious Latvian Lattes" at the local coffee shop.
Don. |
Lindsey Millar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 122
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 1:27 pm: |
|
Don,
Great pic - thanks!
There were no boards at my mother's graveside. We just stood there and tried not to fall in. Well, I almost fell in.. too much gin I guess.
But, if they used boards in the past, maybe Richard has a point to go on..
Bestest,
Lyn |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 357
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 1:52 pm: |
|
Lyn,
As I recall (and I try to put it out of mind) there was no argument about whether there were boards; there was a minor dispute about what the boards were used for (now settled I hope) and a major kerfuffle about whether those boards were disturbed after the service and why they were disturbed.
Don.
|
Lindsey Millar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 129
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 4:02 pm: |
|
Please, Don, don't get into the grave spitting incident.. I couldn't bear it!
Bestest,
Lyn |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 361
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 4:23 pm: |
|
Lyn,
Don't worry -- I can give you 39 reasons why I won't.
Don. |
Lindsey Millar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 135
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 8:24 pm: |
|
Thank you, Don. 
Lyn
Merry Christmas! |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1195
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 3:41 am: |
|
Hi,
Did someone beam me here?.
The 39 theory, and the gravespitting [alleged] incident may be the most relevant happenings that this case has ever produced.
I will however not mention it this close to xmas, as i do not wish to spoil peoples festivities...
Merry Xmas everyone.
Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2440
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 4:02 am: |
|
Don,
Now, see what you did...?
Shame on you 
Richard,
a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you as well.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 3:09 am: |
|
The boards issue could probably be settled easily and conclusively by speaking to a long-established firm of undertakers. they would know whether usage had changed over the years as well. In 1888, health and safety issues would, I suspect, have been less important than practicality. Today both might apply with the former being the highest consideration in an increasingly "compensation"-focused culture.
On the "spitting", the old academic technique of textual analysis and searching for internal evidence might be useful.
On exhumation - in the C18th and C19th centuries there was a great deal of tomb opening, especially in places like Westminster Abbey and St George's Chapel, Windsor - largely because they "could". The excuse was antiquarian research and they measured bones and looked for "clues" much as some propose here.
You'll still find references in biographies of Kings (matted "blood" on hair found in tomb of Henry VI; long bones in the tomb of Edward IV - who was VERY tall, etc). Charles I tomb was found in the 1820s and opened, the skull lifted out, and there are detailed descriptions of what was seen - even coloured drawings, as in many of these cases.
The practice stopped (I think by concensus0 in the late C19th simply because it was seen as uncivilised. Today, if a grave is found in the course of construction work it might be examined (Anne Mowbray's coffin - she was wife to the younger of the Princes in the Tower - was found in Minories in the 60s and her corpse examined. But I don't think any reputable archaeologist of historian would now suggest opening the tomb of Queen Victoria or PAV simply to find out what they could.
Even Egyptologists have ceased to be tomb-robbers or treasure seekers. If their excavations uncover a tomb or mass burial then action is taken. But unwrapping mummies is not done today because of the loss of evidence involved and its intrusiveness.
Leaving aside moral questions on which we all might have personal and different views, I reject exhumation of JtR's victims on the following grouns:
a) it would run counter to current custom and practice;
b) there is no reason to do it;
c)there is doubt over the identification of some interments;
d)there is no identifiable scientific reason which can be ascertained beforehand;
e) evidence might be lost which future generations might be able to recover - even if bodies have decomposed more over time, science might have better techniques of soil analysis etc;
f)I doubt anyone in authority would approve such action anyway.
On a final point, I would ask a genuine philosophical question:
How would those who exhumed JtR's victims differ from those who commisioned Burke and Hare?
Thoughfully,
Phil
|
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 7:35 pm: |
|
Hi Andy,
I add my condolences to those already expressed by others.
I think I can understand where you are coming from; especially the logic that goes along the lines that if there is something to find (even if the smallest possibility) then if we were to exhume the graves then now would be the time to do it as the clock is ticking and has been ticking for the past 110+ years.
I personally doubt there would be much found, but, soiliology (made up word I think) is not my specialism so perhaps the bodies are better preserved than we think in good old London earth.
Where I would disagree is with Glenn, who seemed to go over the top in a response on your beliefs on disturbance not = disrespect which made you seem to be an unfeeling and uncaring b*st*rd.
I _accept_ where from where you are speaking and I also believe in one sense the physical body is not really who we are; it _is_ just a vehicle for our mind and spirit, so with respect Glenn, yes your body can be compared to a bicycle (or in my case a porshe!).
That being said I would still agree with Glenn that I'd still not want to exhume in this case, but it is personal to each one of us.
Richard: Thanks for the info on Hanratty, I'll go Google for info as I hadn't realised the case had moved on.
Dianna: Research on the spitting indcident, as Don said don't go there, BUT, I am (or was?) hoping Suzi would find something from Aunty Beeb on Brian's radio program which would be a good Christmas present for Brian, not sure whether the search continues or not on that front.
And since I mentioned Christmas, have a good one EVERYONE, and a special big Christmas cheer to Stephen Ryder on the excellent web site and all the other "moderators" for approving guest's posts; without it I'd be speechless.
Jen: "Ho, Ho, Ho", nice tag line/sig, makes me smile every time I see it.
Cheerio,
ian -- Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!!
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 690
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 11:55 am: |
|
I'd like to respond to Phil if we can keep this on a reasonable rather than emotional level.
Point by point:
(a) Perhaps. Possibly more in England than in the USA. While we don't go around digging up graves willy-nilly, I have seen several recent documentaries which featured exhumations done with the consent of relatives for what amounted to reasons of "historical curiosity."
(b) Begs the question and assumes an unproven conclusion. Perhaps you mean "there seems to be insufficient reason to do it."
(c) True. Fortunately, Liz Stride's grave seems to be extremely well-marked and would, I suspect, present the least such difficulty. It is also the easiest to access.
(d) I assume you mean essentially that we don't know what we would be looking for. That is true. It would be a quest for clues.
(e) Irrational. By this logic we should never do any archeological digging for fear that succeeding generations might do it better!
(f) I have no idea what British law says on this matter. I suspect that in the USA there would be a good chance of securing permission since there are no remaining relatives who would have to approve. I don't know whether this applies to England.
Such exhumation would certainly not be comparable to grave robbing. Nothing of monetary value is being sought and any human remains would be respectfully re-interred, hence no "robbery." There would be "disturbance" in the sense of that word which is expressed when I "disturb" the mobile phone sitting on my desk by moving it to the left or right, i.e. moving an inert object.
In summary, I would advocate examination of the remains of Liz Stride because there is significant historical interest and there are no surviving relatives to object or to be traumatized and because it is at least remotely possible that some useful information may be obtained. This is not the same as doing it "just because one can."
Let me ask this: Would your feelings be different regarding the exhumation of the Pinchin Street torso, which is buried in the same cemetery and which, if it could be located, stands a better chance of being preserved?
Andy S.
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1711
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 5:52 pm: |
|
Well posted Andy!
Will re read all this through and take another look at this!
Don
Best too!
Lyn
As ever!
Suzi |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 223
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 6:01 pm: |
|
I don't have any emotional or religious objections to exhumation, I just can't see what we would gain by it??
Mags
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1505
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 4:48 am: |
|
Andy,
I have been thinking about your post above, you raise an interesting thing in asking about the Pinchin Street Torso, you know what i think i would feel differently about that.
I am sure I have been over why i wouldn't want to exchume the Ripper victims elsewhere so i won't ramble on any further!
Jenni
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1712
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 7:25 am: |
|
Isnt it odd that we dont seem to feel the same over an unidentified torso as we do over the named and character filled 'girls'?....must admit I fall victim to this way of thinking too
Suzi |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
