Pro evolution?

[The Rookie Detective]

When we combine all of the various different individual "professionals" who were involved with the Ripper case from 1888 through to the early 1890's; including all the clinicians, police officers, detectives, coroners etc... etc... then who do we believe to be the most valuable, the most reliable, the most integral sources of information?

When we consider that the most senior officers couldn't agree on a prime suspect for the Ripper, and the doctors and clinicians couldn't agree on pretty much anything (nothing's changed) then who should we believe in, and whose theories should we disregard, and for what reasons?

Who should we place the most trust in and who do we feel has done nothing but hinder the case by giving us incorrect information?

If you were to compile a retrospective and authentic Ripper case dream team, then who would you include? And why?

Abberline?
Dr Phillips?
Dr Bond?
Dr Sequira?
Pc Watkins?


You get the idea.

[Wickerman]

. . .

If you were to compile a retrospective and authentic Ripper case dream team, then who would you include? And why?

Abberline?
Dr Phillips?
Dr Bond?
Dr Sequira?
Pc Watkins?


You get the idea.

Well, you would have to have someone who knew the cases, and/or had access to the files, so that requires Abberline.
Then you need someone who thinks outside the box, for me that would be Dr. Joseph Bell.

You can send the rest home . . .