OK whos your favored suspect/s and why?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Likeliest…unknown. Of the ‘named’….Druitt. Then Kosminski. Then Bury. Then……I’m struggling.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I've said twice already and I'll say it a third time: it is blindingly obvious it was Bury.

And it’s blindingly obvious that it’s not even approaching blindingly obvious Wulf.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In reverse order:

Lech, Loch Ness Monster, Unknown.

I favour The Beast Of Bodmin over Nessie, Martyn

[Harry D]

By no means a favoured suspect, but I think John Cleary warrants further investigation.

[mpriestnall]

I favour The Beast Of Bodmin over Nessie, Martyn

Not a certain doggie from Dartmoor?

[Ms Diddles]

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

Personally I find it quite interesting to step away from the minutiae for a minute and see where everyone is at in more general terms.

There's plenty of room on here for both miniscule detail and broader brush strokes.

[Ms Diddles]

By no means a favoured suspect, but I think John Cleary warrants further investigation.

You see, that's of interest to me Harry, as I'm not familiar with him.

Off to check my C.J.Morely suspects book now.....

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not a certain doggie from Dartmoor?

The ghostly Hound

[The Baron]

I tust Swanson and Anderson.

If it was to me to choose, if I am writing a novel, I may pick someone like Tumplety or Kelly, I imagine Kelly returning back after years, old and tired, a very cinematographic scene.



The Baron

[Abby Normal]

By no means a favoured suspect, but I think John Cleary warrants further investigation.

yeah some weird stuff with this character.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I do have an alibi before anyone names me
Regards Darryl

[Fogelpa]

The ultimate question... Even though i'm a newbie signing up at this forum i've been lurking for many years and read through tons of threads. Since reading my first book on the subject in 2002 i've read almost everything i came across since(except clearly conspiracy stuff about royals etc). I'll admit that i'm still not much wiser on who's dunnit. At first Sugden's arguments for George Chapman as a good suspect impressed me,but i didnt become convinced and neither was Sugden himself. After reading Sir Anderson and Swanson comments its impossible for me to rule out Kosminski,but the case against him seems to be filled with contradictions and uncertainty. All in all i just dont have a favorite suspect or any pet theory,but that doesnt make the case any less interesting for me.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I do believe Jack is named out there, IE Interviewed at one time or another, perhaps even held for further questioning and his name is indexed with, who knows how many others. Just like Sutcliffe. And I have this funny feeling that if he is ever named we will look at each other and say " How did we/they miss him ". Again just like Sutcliffe.
Regards Darryl

[barnflatwyngarde]

I suppose that I am no different to many/most (delete where applicable) posters on these forums, in that I think that there is a very significant specific factor in these murders, and when we critically analyse this specific factor, we make a decision relating to it, the fog lifts and we see the scenario that is presented to us.

Fisherman sees the case through the prism of the Lechmere/Cross interaction of the Mary Ann Nichols murder; proponents of Kosminski as the killer see the case via Anderson and the Swanson marginalia, and so it goes on.

I don't know for sure who the killer is, but I think that it is probably the man seen entering Mary Kelly's home by Mrs Cox.

The obstacle lying in the way of this scenario is clearly the evidence given by Hutchinson about seeing Kelly with "Astrakhan Man".

The evidence given by Hutchinson is problematic on so many levels, but what does the case look like if we discount Hutchinson?

We have Mary Kelly, very drunk, entering her home with a man who had a carry-out with him.
It was raining, Kelly was very drunk, and was probably going to have some more alcohol in the comfort of her home.
Is it really likely that she would wander out again later?
I don't think so!

I don't know if Hutchinson got his days mixed up, or whether he was deliberately lying, but I do think his story is wrong.

Fisherman wrote an excellent article on Hutchinson's story entitled "The Man Who Wasn't There" in The Examiner (Issue 5 - December 2010).
It's a forensic dismantling of Hutchinson's story, and leaves us with the image of Kelly entering Miller's Court with Blotchy, hours before her body was found.

So I tend to see the case via the prism of Hutchinson's story being false, but as Carl Sagan once said, "When the facts change, I change my mind".

[rjpalmer]

i think its time again to take a toll.

My apologies, but I do love a good Freudian Slip.