OK whos your favored suspect/s and why?

[DJA]

I beg to differ! Bond could not see the Ripperīs knowledge at Millers Court, because Jack was on a trip, having a victim helpless where he could do what he wanted! In other canical 5 cases he displayed(!) medical knowledge! The way he opened up Eddowes was done like a surgeon does and that is obvious because if the Ripper just wanted the inner organs, he could have cut and slashed differently. But he did it like he was in a surgery ward, the same steps and way in! He also handled the intestines like a surgeon does, indeed that is handled the same most times still today!
That is not the work of a total amateur with a scalpel, Kelly is an outlier, because the Ripper had time to do worse than he did with the others. When Jack was under pressure to be quick, he obviously reverted to learned behaviour in cutting! What he did e.g. at Mitre Square is nothing an amateur would do the same. He did it like a surgeon or medic with surgery experience would have done.
And this displayed knowledge disqualifies a lot of the wannabe suspects, including Bury.

Wynne Weston-Davies who posted here as Prosector agrees.

[DJA]

I have to say you are a funny guy! Saying I write fantasy gibberish, when just reading the pathological report of Eddowes and reading about typical surgery techniques of the late 19th century show that I am right. The Ripper went for her kidney like a surgeon or medic of the time would! The same steps and way into the abdomen as they would have done during a surgery back then! Besides, in Mitre Square it was near total darkness, to filet a human open in such a sequence and timeframe alone shows some skill.
That is an undeniable fact of the Ripper "Saga"! Bury on the other hand was not even capable of the signature throat slash.

Yep.

He strangled her with a rope and stabbed her with a penknife.

A month later he turned himself in and confessed.

[Aethelwulf]

Wynne Weston-Davies who posted here as Prosector agrees.

It's just an opinion, by someone who wasn't there at the time and didn't see any of the bodies. You like it though because it supports your Sutton fantasy. Just like the way you latch on to Elizabeth Long like a rabid dog, because she is the only witness who, if you close your eyes and stand upside down, could very, very remotely be said to have given an age estimate that is vaguely close, but still way out, from Sutton. It's a full on rubbish theory. Oh hang on, I forgot about your glorious IQ! ha ha!

[John Wheat]

Yep.

He strangled her with a rope and stabbed her with a penknife.

A month later he turned himself in and confessed.

The Ripper may well have used a ligature so hardly a point against Bury. By confessed do you mean the chalk confessions?

[John Wheat]

I have to say you are a funny guy! Saying I write fantasy gibberish, when just reading the pathological report of Eddowes and reading about typical surgery techniques of the late 19th century show that I am right. The Ripper went for her kidney like a surgeon or medic of the time would! The same steps and way into the abdomen as they would have done during a surgery back then! Besides, in Mitre Square it was near total darkness, to filet a human open in such a sequence and timeframe alone shows some skill.
That is an undeniable fact of the Ripper "Saga"! Bury on the other hand was not even capable of the signature throat slash.

Bury was a working class local though. In that he lived in the neighbouring Bow at the time of the Ripper murders.

[Enigma]

I have always thought it was an unknown who never came under suspicion as the most likely perp.

I still think this, though the aardvark theory does begin to have traction with me.

[mpriestnall]

The police (Warren, Anderson, Swanson, Macnaghten etc) knew who JTR was but never named him IMHO.

[John Wheat]

The police (Warren, Anderson, Swanson, Macnaghten etc) knew who JTR was but never named him IMHO.

Where's the evidence of this?

[mpriestnall]

Where's the evidence of this?

Where is the evidence to support any suspect ever mentioned. Bury for instance?

[Iconoclast]

This is the sort of question asked by those who know diddly-squat about the subject.

Hi Simon,

Trust you're well.

If it isn't necessarily a question asked by those who know next to **** all about the subject, it's certainly one confidently answered by those who appear to know **** all about the subject.

Cheers,

Ike

[Mike J. G.]

Hi! I think there is a misunderstanding with what I intended to bring across. There are monsters in human form out there, luckily they are very few in number across our globe. Souls even Luzifer does not want, but even those beings without any piece of humanity left in them have some reaction to the sins they commit. Not necessarily loss of the rest of their sanity, it can be the laughter you mentioned or wharever, but never nothing at all.
In the Ripperīs case we have a very quick ratcheting up of the savagery of his murders. What he did to Mary Kelly is well beyond the moral event horizon, there had to be a reaction. Be it ultimate pleasure, horror at himself in a moment of clarity, the wish to repeat it soon, sating the urges inside him, satisfaction at a job "well done", who knows.
Jack succeeded with what he did and with how quick he became worse, there is no chance in hell he would stop after Kelly. But there have never been crimes in London again you could lay at his feet without serious doubt. So he either really lost his last sanity, died from whatever reasons or - changed the way he killed because he knew there was no way he could top this series and get away with it.

It's possible, I guess we'll never really know for sure and all we can do is speculate.

Looking at some well-known serial killers, though, we can see that many of them lacked any significant remorse, and likely would've continued to kill if given half the chance. Some people just enjoy killing, oddly enough.

The thing with "the Ripper," whoever they were, is that they didn't seem to be as engrossed in the actual killing of the victim, as evidenced by the speedy manner in which the poor women were dispatched. Killing just seemed to be the first hurdle to be overcome so that the murderer's real goal could be fulfilled, which in this case was the postmortem mutilation.

[Iconoclast]

Where is the evidence to support any suspect ever mentioned. Bury for instance?

Easily answered as there is self-evidently only one candidate ever proposed for whom we have actual, concrete evidence to support (or deny) his candidature.

Every single one of the rest are mere indolent naval-gazing irrelevances because there is literally not a jot of reason to argue for or against.

"I'm Jack ..." (croak) does not a Whitechapel murderer make, by the way.

Ike

[Mike J. G.]

Plainly, when it comes to actual evidence for any suspect, all we really have is circumstantial evidence. There's some interesting characters, imo, and Bury is certainly one of them, but he's not the only one. As for the diary, if that's evidence that Maybrick was the Ripper then the bible is evidence of God, if you're easily taken in by such things and seek the easy answers. All my opinion, of course. Y'all do you.

[John Wheat]

Where is the evidence to support any suspect ever mentioned. Bury for instance?

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence Bury was Jack.

[DJA]