What evidence would it take?

[Trevor Marriott]

By likely suspects do you mean violent murderers? Eg Bury, Kelly etc

I mean suspects that there is some real evidence for them to be categorised as likely suspects just because someone is a violent killer doesn't necessarily make them a ripper suspect.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John Wheat]

I mean suspects that there is some real evidence for them to be categorised as likely suspects just because someone is a violent killer doesn't necessarily make them a ripper suspect.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I'm just really saying that suspects such as family man Lechmere have nothing going for them in terms of candidacy whereas a suspect such as Bury there is a lot of circumstantial evidence.

[Aethelwulf]

I'm just really saying that suspects such as family man Lechmere have nothing going for them in terms of candidacy whereas a suspect such as Bury there is a lot of circumstantial evidence.

Hi John, I'm not too well up on my modern true crime but it's noticeable with a lot of modern cold cases that quite often the same sort of names are mentioned by the police. e.g Bellfied was suspected of three bludgeon attacks on women in the Hastings area in that late 90s/early 00s, and he has apparently confessed to these - he lived close by at the time. There are several unsolved murders where the police belive that monster Robert Black was involved as he was in those areas at the time. There is another murder in the south wales area that Joe Kappen (of that Steeltown Murders dramatisation) is stronly suspected to have comitted but never proved. Even that german guy in the McCann case.

Something that all these and more have in common is that the suspects in question had form for similar crimes and were in the area. That is why Bury is the prime suspect - there aren't going to be loads of suspects that were willing to murder and mutilate, in some ways indetical to the ripper, or strangle with a knotted cord as with one of the additional cases, who lived nearby and were known, as far as we can tell, to have been awol from their lodgings on those nights. As I said on that other thread, there is circumstantial evidence, and there is circumstantial evidence. None of this proves Bury was the ripper beyond doubt, but the circumstantial evidence for Bury is of an entirely different nature to the other suspects. That Scotland Yard sent two dectives to hear is final words after months of detailed investiagtions says he was never ruled out.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi John, I'm not too well up on my modern true crime but it's noticeable with a lot of modern cold cases that quite often the same sort of names are mentioned by the police. e.g Bellfied was suspected of three bludgeon attacks on women in the Hastings area in that late 90s/early 00s, and he has apparently confessed to these - he lived close by at the time. There are several unsolved murders where the police belive that monster Robert Black was involved as he was in those areas at the time. There is another murder in the south wales area that Joe Kappen (of that Steeltown Murders dramatisation) is stronly suspected to have comitted but never proved. Even that german guy in the McCann case.

Something that all these and more have in common is that the suspects in question had form for similar crimes and were in the area. That is why Bury is the prime suspect - there aren't going to be loads of suspects that were willing to murder and mutilate, in some ways indetical to the ripper, or strangle with a knotted cord as with one of the additional cases, who lived nearby and were known, as far as we can tell, to have been awol from their lodgings on those nights. As I said on that other thread, there is circumstantial evidence, and there is circumstantial evidence. None of this proves Bury was the ripper beyond doubt, but the circumstantial evidence for Bury is of an entirely different nature to the other suspects. That Scotland Yard sent two dectives to hear is final words after months of detailed investiagtions says he was never ruled out.

and if Bury was the Ripper what was stopping him from confessing to those police officers who went all that way to interview him? What had he to lose after all he was going to be executed anyway, and did finally confess to his wife's murder,

Do we have any details of that interview and what conclusions the police came to as a result of that interview?

I have stated previously that if the murders of McKenzie and Coles were the work of the Ripper then Bury is eliminated the same applies to the suspicion surrounding Druitt.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John Wheat]

Hi John, I'm not too well up on my modern true crime but it's noticeable with a lot of modern cold cases that quite often the same sort of names are mentioned by the police. e.g Bellfied was suspected of three bludgeon attacks on women in the Hastings area in that late 90s/early 00s, and he has apparently confessed to these - he lived close by at the time. There are several unsolved murders where the police belive that monster Robert Black was involved as he was in those areas at the time. There is another murder in the south wales area that Joe Kappen (of that Steeltown Murders dramatisation) is stronly suspected to have comitted but never proved. Even that german guy in the McCann case.

Something that all these and more have in common is that the suspects in question had form for similar crimes and were in the area. That is why Bury is the prime suspect - there aren't going to be loads of suspects that were willing to murder and mutilate, in some ways indetical to the ripper, or strangle with a knotted cord as with one of the additional cases, who lived nearby and were known, as far as we can tell, to have been awol from their lodgings on those nights. As I said on that other thread, there is circumstantial evidence, and there is circumstantial evidence. None of this proves Bury was the ripper beyond doubt, but the circumstantial evidence for Bury is of an entirely different nature to the other suspects. That Scotland Yard sent two dectives to hear is final words after months of detailed investiagtions says he was never ruled out.

Absolutely Aethelwulf.

[John Wheat]

and if Bury was the Ripper what was stopping him from confessing to those police officers who went all that way to interview him? What had he to lose after all he was going to be executed anyway, and did finally confess to his wife's murder,

Do we have any details of that interview and what conclusions the police came to as a result of that interview?

I have stated previously that if the murders of McKenzie and Coles were the work of the Ripper then Bury is eliminated the same applies to the suspicion surrounding Druitt.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And I have said previously that it's doubtful that McKenzie and Coles were Ripper victims.

[Aethelwulf]

and if Bury was the Ripper what was stopping him from confessing to those police officers who went all that way to interview him? What had he to lose after all he was going to be executed anyway, and did finally confess to his wife's murder,

Do we have any details of that interview and what conclusions the police came to as a result of that interview?

I have stated previously that if the murders of McKenzie and Coles were the work of the Ripper then Bury is eliminated the same applies to the suspicion surrounding Druitt.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

who knows and IF being the key word there. As I said, Bury has the form for these crimes, was in the local area and appears to have had no alibis and been missing from his lodgings on the nights in question; he fits many aspects of the physcial description and the best profile we have, and was striongly suspected by the police even after months of investiagtion. He is very cleary the prime suspect.

Back to the original post, short of a shoe box turning up with Bury's knives and those two cheap metal rings, blood stained belt, and thimble that he had locked away in a chest, it can't be proved, but he is clearly the best bet we have.

[Trevor Marriott]

And I have said previously that it's doubtful that McKenzie and Coles were Ripper victims.

But they cannot be totally dismissed as victims of the ripper, although as I have stated those who propose certain suspects will have to deny these victims as ripper victims to be able to keep their own specific suspects in the game.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John Wheat]

But they cannot be totally dismissed as victims of the ripper, although as I have stated those who propose certain suspects will have to deny these victims as ripper victims to be able to keep their own specific suspects in the game.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

True. But I still think it unlikely they were Ripper victims. The time frame alone suggests they were not Ripper victims. All things considered only an idiot would dismiss suspects due to Mackenzie and Coles.

[Trevor Marriott]

True. But I still think it unlikely they were Ripper victims. The time frame alone suggests they were not Ripper victims. All things considered only an idiot would dismiss suspects due to Mackenzie and Coles.

Well your statement is clearly prejudiced

Furthermore, we have a suspect who can be placed in London as late as 1891

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John Wheat]

Well your statement is clearly prejudiced

Furthermore, we have a suspect who can be placed in London as late as 1891

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Doesn't mean I'm not right though.

[John Wheat]

Well your statement is clearly prejudiced

Furthermore, we have a suspect who can be placed in London as late as 1891

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Your also prejudiced. Mackenzie and Coles as Ripper victims doesn't add up. A few years after Mary Kelly's death a couple of murders with tentative mutilations. If Jack had waited a few years surely the mutilations would be much more extensive.

[jerryd]

Your also prejudiced. Mackenzie and Coles as Ripper victims doesn't add up. A few years after Mary Kelly's death a couple of murders with tentative mutilations. If Jack had waited a few years surely the mutilations would be much more extensive.

Hi John.

A few years? When are you thinking Alice McKenzie was murdered?

[John Wheat]

Hi John.

A few years? When are you thinking Alice McKenzie was murdered?

Alright then around a year. My point still stands though.

[jerryd]

Alright then around a year. My point still stands though.

Fair enough. A little less than a year in the case of Alice, anyway. (Nov. 1888 to July 1889)

Alice was brutally murdered no matter how you look at it. The killer had an extremely tight frame to work in, in her case. I think a lot was done in that short period of time. This may have been the riskiest of all the murders, imo. If one can include Elizabeth Stride in the mix, I think McKenzie can be considered as well.