Could we prove any suspect guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt?"

[Wyatt Earp]

“Could Bury be convicted in an 1889 courtroom?” and “Could Bury be convicted in a 2015 courtroom?” are separate questions. For example, the “Ellen Bury’s throat wasn’t cut” defense, which is unfortunately still being trotted out today, would be quickly demolished in a 2015 courtroom. You could call Keppel to the stand, he would testify that the MO of a serial killer can change from crime scene to crime scene, and that would be the end of that. On the other hand, I could see an 1889 jury struggling with the absence of a cut throat, and perhaps attaching undue weight to it during deliberations.

[Sherlock Holmes]

“Could Bury be convicted in an 1889 courtroom?” and “Could Bury be convicted in a 2015 courtroom?” are separate questions. For example, the “Ellen Bury’s throat wasn’t cut” defense, which is unfortunately still being trotted out today, would be quickly demolished in a 2015 courtroom. You could call Keppel to the stand, he would testify that the MO of a serial killer can change from crime scene to crime scene, and that would be the end of that. On the other hand, I could see an 1889 jury struggling with the absence of a cut throat, and perhaps attaching undue weight to it during deliberations.

Just because Ms/Mrs Bury's throat was not cut does not mean Bury should not have ended up wearing Devil's Claws and being topped

For those of you who don't understand what I just said, I said: Just because Ms/Mrs Bury's throat was not cut does not mean Bury should not have ended up wearing prison stripes and being hanged.
Regards
Mr Holmes