Favoured Suspect...

[The Rookie Detective]

Nice little detour, but can we all get back to the topic of "Favoured Suspect" please.

(Myself included)


Many thanks.


RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well said RD. Casebook is replete with these ‘detours’ and coincidentally it’s always after a post by a certain poster. Moving on though….

[Geddy2112]

Lechmere was spotted alone, in the dark, near a freshly killed woman, gave a controversially statement to the police, lived in Whitechapel, had the opportunity to be outside at the time of murders, was alive and breathing when Mckenzie was killed, and Lechmere violently killed a totally strange to him boy.

Who spotted him alone? Was not Robert Paul as Lechmere approached him. Where is this controversial statement? I've ready many versions of his statement and it's certainly not controversial. Violently killed a strange boy? Is this twisting of evidence straight out of the Holmgren play book? He accidentally knocked down a child. And if I'm being fair we are not even 100% sure our Cross was that Cross. Sorry right up there with the 100% b/s on this post of yours.

[FrankO]

Question...


Do you have a favoured suspect, or are you on the fence?


It would be interesting to see what percentage of members have a suspect they favour and those who don't have one.

Hi RD,

I'd expect Jack the Ripper to have been someone like or similar to Francis Thompson, but other than that I don't really have a favoured suspect.

Cheers,
Frank

[JeffHamm]

I don't have a suspect, favoured or otherwise. I don't think the evidence we have allows the building of connections from any of the crime scenes to any particular individual. There are too many bridges that need to span the "unknown" to get to the information about various suspects to complete the connections.

By that, I mean identified individual, so while I think there are good arguments to be made about "unknown men seen in the company of X", I don't consider "unknown man" as a suspect in the sense I believe it is intended in this thread.

Mind you, I see some interesting possibilities that could be explored related to the "Bethnal Green Botherer", but as they too are unidentified, and it is not even established if the various snippets and accounts are even about the same individual, I can't elevate that beyond "interesting possibility to explore". Just not sure how that could get explored any further though. In many theories, particularly ones we favour, we don't notice when we leave the trail of evidence and start crossing on a bridge built of conjecture, and as a result fail to notice that our bridge lacks any real evidential support, and the link to the BGB would more than satisfy that concern if presented as any thing other than a "hmmm, curious idea" (fortunately, it hasn't been so far).

- Jeff

[etenguy]

I find myself in the same place as Jeff - insufficient evidence to identify the murderer or narrow down to a favoured suspect. Some theories are stronger than others and some I allow myself to completely discount. It becomes even more difficult when we collectively are unable to agree on the full list of victims - I for one cannot entirely discount Martha Tabram and Alice McKenzie, and if they were to be included, then some popular suspects, such as Druitt, are no longer viable suspects.

[Fiver]

I find myself in the same place as Jeff - insufficient evidence to identify the murderer or narrow down to a favoured suspect. Some theories are stronger than others and some I allow myself to completely discount. It becomes even more difficult when we collectively are unable to agree on the full list of victims - I for one cannot entirely discount Martha Tabram and Alice McKenzie, and if they were to be included, then some popular suspects, such as Druitt, are no longer viable suspects.

A lot of times, people are added or subtracted from the victim list based on whether they fit a suspect theory. I think Nichols, Chapman, and Eddows are definite victims. Kelly is near certain, Tabram probable, Stride possible, McKenzie unlikely, but not impossible.

[Abby Normal]

A lot of times, people are added or subtracted from the victim list based on whether they fit a suspect theory. I think Nichols, Chapman, and Eddows are definite victims. Kelly is near certain, Tabram probable, Stride possible, McKenzie unlikely, but not impossible.

well i think Mackenzie is probably a ripper victim but i also think bury is one of the least weak suspects. of course both cant be true but thats just how confounding this case is!

[Herlock Sholmes]

well i think Mackenzie is probably a ripper victim but i also think bury is one of the least weak suspects. of course both cant be true but thats just how confounding this case is!

I’ve always thought that she was probably not but that she might have been. I don’t go any stronger than ‘probably’ because if I did certain people would accuse me of trying to keep Druitt ‘in the game.’ In reality it wouldn’t bother at all if he was proven innocent. Or indeed any suspect. I want them all proven innocent accept one.

[GBinOz]

Hi RD,

I'd expect Jack the Ripper to have been someone like or similar to Francis Thompson, but other than that I don't really have a favoured suspect.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

I have a similar expectation, especially for Eddowes and Kelly.

Best regards, George