What Would It Take To Convince You?

[Scott Nelson]

Bury was money-hungry. He murdered for monetary gain. Jack the Ripper's victims didn't have any, or very much of any.

[John Wheat]

Bury was money-hungry. He murdered for monetary gain. Jack the Ripper's victims didn't have any, or very much of any.

But Bury had access to Ellen's money during the Ripper murders.

[Abby Normal]

Bury was money-hungry. He murdered for monetary gain. Jack the Ripper's victims didn't have any, or very much of any.

he had access to her money while she was alive, probably easier for him to get while she was alive.

his motive to murder her wasn't for money.

[Michael W Richards]

No need to think of evidence. There is already in the public domain a wealth of evidence which rules out many of those on the long list of suspects. Its a pity many researchers wont accept that fact when peddling the same old ones continually.

Time and time again we see the word suspect used. But in reality the majority are not suspects, at `best` they are nothing more than persons of interest.and there is a big difference.

For information purposes the term `prime suspect` was not first used until the mid 1900`s. That being said why are many of the persons that in my opinion are nothing more than persons of interest being categorised as prime suspects?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

This post is both honestly given, and accurately related. To this day, there is not one "Suspect" in the Ripperological world that merits the tag.

[Scott Nelson]

But Bury had access to Ellen's money during the Ripper murders.

Some of it. Not all of it.

[Scott Nelson]

his motive to murder her wasn't for money.

Mostly it was for personal gain. But he was psycho as well.

[Harry D]

Mostly it was for personal gain. But he was psycho as well.

That doesn't disprove him as the Ripper.

[Scott Nelson]

I never said it did. But it is very unlikely he was.

[John Wheat]

I never said it did. But it is very unlikely he was.

Why exactly?

[John Wheat]

Some of it. Not all of it.

I think you'll find Bury got through most of his wife's money.

[etenguy]

I don't think there's much we can find, at this point, to identity the man, definitively. There may be a chance, a very small one, that police files, fragments or otherwise, may be found. However, from what we know, based on what the men in charge said in various venues, there was no consensus. Thus, the police probably weren't very much the wiser than we are today. So, in my view, the ship - as they say - has sailed.

I agree. It is highly improbable that official police records will provide any definitive evidence of the identity of the Whitechapel Murderer.

If his identity is ever to be established, it is likely, in my opinion, to be from the family/descendants of the murderer who have information/artifacts that have not yet been made public. Though, I wouldn't bet on that ever happening.

Or maybe, one day, we invent a time machine or time viewer that answers the question for us. This is probably more likely.

[packers stem]

How about something in the crime scene pics in Miller's Court .....

[MsWeatherwax]

How about something in the crime scene pics in Miller's Court .....

Do you have something in mind, PS?

Unless more of them turn up, I don't think that those pictures could be any more analysed than they have been already. Advances in technology maybe? I'm not sure what advances though.

[Whitechapel]

They have tried to do the same for JFK's assassination by stabilizing the Zapruder and Orville Nix film in high resolution as well as the Mary Moorman photo to find evidence of a smoking gun but it is proving just as elusive and that is only the 1960s.

[Whitechapel]

I think today, you would be looking at dna evidence. However for that to happen dna would have had to be collected off victims at the time and objects and since the suspects are dead, dna would have to be drawn from dead relatives.

There was an attempt to do this from a shawl but it proved inconclusive. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...o-9804325.html


You couldn't rely on a written confession as the cases of the Guildford 4 and Birmingham 6 have shown how unsafe these can be.

Policemen at the time had their suspicions but these revolved around suspects fitting a profile and being in the area at the time.

The proof they would have needed was for the suspect to be caught literally red handed but JTR proved elusive in the warren (even one of the policemen was called Warren) of streets, alleys, courtyards and dark corners in Whitechapel at the time.

So you are left with a series of competing theories for which best fits the evidence. Of course none of them are a complete fit and that is why proponents of competing theories knock them down.

It is made even harder by the lack of consensus over which murders can be attributed to JTR, so you have a pic 'n mix approach, collecting murders to fit in with your theory.

What you are left with is 'my guess is as good as yours' as no one can say it is right but then again no one can say it is wrong.

The biggest attraction for any Ripperologist is the fact that it is unsolved and any amateur sleuth can pitch in and play detective and be 'the one' to finally solve this age old mystery that it appears even the police at the time couldn't solve.

The attraction for the film industry is likewise unmasking an unknown serial killer (usually in hat and cape) in foggy old London town walking the streets and murdering and performing the most horrible and shocking mutilations on poor defenceless women.

However my favourite suspect has always been Tumblety as in addition to him being suggested by some policemen as a suspect as he fitted the profile and was there at the time, the American press picked up the story when he fled Britain.

However I am sure there will be new discoveries and theories and this gives life to Ripperology and makes the case soooooo enduring.