Edward Buchan - A New Jack The Ripper Suspect. With Roger Barber. 

I am so tired of seeing that image! Perhaps if they had a painting of the dark Victorian London skyline, with the looming shadow of a man dressed in a cap, tattered tweed jacket, holding a knife and silhouetted against a bright full moon with a skull face above the figure, it would be something different!!

I like the idea of the hat and the fog. A bit of mystery and allure.

The only reason why they thought that was cause the victims would say he would Wear a top hat, and a black over coat

The only reason why they thought that was cause the victims would say he would Wear a top hat, and a black over coat. But I believe it was rainy

I think that's just to catch the attention

A true crime hunter finds a possible lead, then trys to prove their innocence. Only if its impossible to prove them innocent do you have a possible suspect

Totally agree

@@robertball2272 Yes, I agree with you.

Agreed, good points!

It makes no sense at all. Whoever killed Elizabeth Stride must have spoken to her in order to get her to go into the yard with him. Do you really think she wouldn't have been slightly suspicious of someone speaking to her from behind? That is just absurd. The MO of Jack the Ripper is fairly consistent and it is pretty clear he faced the victim, and also strangled them before using a knife, hence the lack of blood.

Agreed. Both you guys make good points.

@@robertball2272Also It said he was disturbed by Loui with his cart and horse (who reeled as they approached the location of the body). It was also stated by the body temp of the victim (I believe?) she was killed fairly recently and the fact the horse reeled gives the idea they probably just interrupted the Ripper from completing his “work” and the horse reeled from Jack jumping back rather than the horse being frightened by her body. Would a horse be afraid of a dead body? Maybe or potentially 🤷‍♂️. I would think the horse would probably jump back from a quick sudden movement rather than a corpse however

@@dillionoshea7535 Yes, this is why you put blinkers on horse's head harnesses. They get really jumpy with unexpected things in their peripheral vision area.

Gary Ridgeway?? Same.

Yeah that statement held no weight whatsoever

I’ve literally just commented the same thing 😭😭 look at Fred west. He had lots of kids and was absolutely obsessed with sex and was a very sexually active man. Yet he murdered multiple women and mutilated them. Even cutting his own baby from a woman’s womb 😔 this man seems extremely obnoxious and doesn’t really seem to look at actual facts, just the snippets that fit (or actually dont) his theory 🤦🏻‍♀️ such a shame because Richard Jones is such an intelligent and interesting man I couldn’t believe he gave this man airtime on his channel to talk utter crap and basically put down anyone else that has a theory that isn’t the same as his.

Joseph deAngelo had kids, John Wayne Gacy had kids

Dennis Neilson, Peter Sutcliffe never had kids nor did Ian Brady and Myra Hindley. Not sure therefore that argument could sustained.

Add Rex Heuermann, one daughter, one stepson.

Agreed. And the testimony he gave seemed overly embellished.

Whats interesting then: why would he lie? We know he was observing Miller's Court entrance. One witness confirmed it.

I’m just speculating, at this time, there was a reward offered for information leading to the capture of the killer.

Yet Abberline who questioned him at length did, or at least was able to rule him out as the Ripper. So did Abberline think what he heard from Hutchinson was credible ? Maybe not as Hutchinson doesn't figure at all in surviving police records.

​@@davesmith7432it was unusually for a Ripper "witness" and perhaps the investigation on the ground led by Abberline was aware of this.

It kinda depends on the type of the killer. Some of them we can assume are perfectly capable of having wife, kids and normal family life. Ripper is assumed to be disorganized offender which means: he is more lucky than intelligent, he is impulsive, possibly insane, a loner, not very sociable. Still it does not have to mean he is not married. Especially when we are considering different culture back then. There was a killer in Poland very similar to Ed Gein and Ripper. He was married I think but he also fitted the profile of disorganized killer.

​@mariuszstanisawczyk8990 I can see why most consider Jack random or disorganized. But when he killed Annie Chapman, he took all the items out of her pockets and arranged them neatly at her feet. I believe he thought of himself as an artist. Leaving the women on display, his postmortem mutilations were increasingly progressive when he had time. He deprived them of their dignity, their feminine power, he mutilated their faces, and destroyed their beauty in death. If you look at Gary Ridgeway, he saw prostitutes as vermin, and in his mind, he was doing society a favor by eliminating them. Jack took exceptional risks, but to him they might have been rationalized by careful planning. Ridgeway frequented prostitutes and they didn't suspect him because he was a repeat customer. If you're a regular John, avoiding the police is second nature. No one would suspect a repeat customer that had never shown a violent side. Ridgeway had a wife and kids, Jack could have easily had a family n appeared perfectly normal.

It is speculation

Unless some very unexpected evidence emerges.

even that is unknown

Royal connection

@@jamessones4044 Dont be so ignorant

Yes. Embarrassing

Possibly, but then the evidence against Charles Lechmere is also weak. The evidence against all of the popular suspects is weak.

Agreed. He’s another guy writing a book. Not solving a mystery.

Agreed, 😂

Well no, we don't. None of these people will ever be brought to trial, so such considerations are entirely irrelevant.

Yeah that is great, we do not have anything close to solid evidence against suspect, let alone that more than half the evidence has been destroyed. People can only make cases against, as best they can at this stage. We will never know who JTR was, best we can do is assertain, if you looking for guilt by todays standards, you may as well forget about JTR unless it is out of interest. People who enjoy JTR simply enjoy piecing a mystery together. I am pretty sure most people know todays standards of guilt in legal terms, but we will never find it.

I agree. These days we need more than 1 form of evidence to prove guilt. But it’s highly unlikely we’ll get it. So the best we got is likelihood based the facts and what we know of criminal psychology.

Saying that Lechmere or Levy or Kosminski is guilty without evidence is very relevant. We still need to prove guilt otherwise we just believe our fantasies completely detached from reality ​@@patavinity1262

You cannot read Cutting Point without concluding that the evidence against Lechmere is decisive proof that he was both Jack and the Thames Torso fiend.

Valid hmm most could be applied to almost anyone

It's to do with secrecy in the papers. The tabloids would name witnesses and suspects, but they wouldn't be able to say where they actually lived. It's not so much about his own secrecy but more to do with his name being posted everywhere in the papers because of how accusatory they are. The tabloids don't care about victims, witnesses or anyone, they just want to sell papers.

Lechmere told a crafty half truth. He gave his name firstly at the inquest and knew, having thought on it, that although he was compelled to come forward to police he wanted his family not to recognise him as it is they.who could destroy his timing's.

Indeed... and especially when the alternative name he gave was one he once would have used, and by which he was likely known at work. Of course he not only freely gave the authorities his address, but also his job and his employer!

I assume that he did not think they would publish the exact address of a witness in the newspapers and I also assume his family read the papers.

@@ianbrailsford5843 he wasn't the only one using a different name. Eddows said her name was Mary Jane the night of her murder if I'm not mistaken. Aliases were used in 1888 way more than now. If you give a false now you're immediately a suspect. Back then no one really knew your real name

It's about 33 suspects, Craig.

Do you have that link please ? Thanks 😊​@@JackTheRipperTours

I agree with most of what you’re saying, asides from medical expertise. Why would they call a doctor to examine a woman lying on the ground dead if the doctor had no idea what he was talking about? Why would he be summoned out of bed at 4am if he didn’t know what he was talking about? Sure it wasn’t down to the minute, but there were useful clues that could’ve narrowed down the time. Such as the bodies core temp or if the onset of rigor mortis has occurred. And then there’s the blood evidence. A woman with nearly decapitated and only a small puddle of blood oozing out when Neil arrived. Unlike Turner, whose body was cold with the landing covered in blood, it shows she died recently. Not to mention it correlates with PC Neil’s testimony that he passed the murder site at 3:15. He must have been close.

Somebody should probably tell Roger that PC Neil testified he was at Bucks Row around 3:15.

There certainly is : the 1876 inquest into the accidental death of a young boy, where he was called as a witness and named himself Charles Cross, just like he did in 1888. That's every inquest we know he ever attended as a witness, he used the same name. It's not 100% proof because we don't have Pickfords registers or his contract of employment, but there most certainly is strong evidence he was known as Cross at Pickfords.

Yes there is. Charles Cross, a carman ar Pickfords ran over a young boy. Richard has posted a video on RU-vid on the incident.

Agreed. Good points

But that is just the point. Paul is the most important witness for the Lechmerians because he 'creates' a time-gap by stating he entered Bucks Row at 3:45 precisely (and just ignoring Cross gave his time of departure "at around" 3:30). But Pauls time is contradicted by the Police. All 3 of them. Neil states he was with the body at 3:45. Thain confirms he was alerted by Neil around 3:45 and Mizen states he spoke with Cross and Paul at 3:45 several minutes after the carmen had already left the body. So unless all 3 policemen (from 2 different divisions) were making things up or conspiring for some reason Pauls time of 3:45 can't be accurate. The state of Nichols body says nothing about the identity of her killer other than that he was a sociophatic coward and vicious killer, and I think everybody agrees there probably was only 1 in the area, only after almost 140 years we still don't know who he was and probably never will.

@@LucasLucas-ne4xs I disagree. Paul probably had a good idea what time it was when he left his home as he did the same thing everyday. There was a large clock on the brewers building, visible from the entrance to Bucks Row. So he was close. Not exact but close. The 3 PCs likely met up at Nichols body and got their story straight. Not all of the things you mentioned could been at the same time. But it could have happened in a short approximate time. Once Neil flashes Thain, he’s no longer worried about keeping track of time. So they pieced it together afterward. However, Lechmere lied to Misen and later lied about his identity. So why do you think he’s telling the truth about his timeline? Why is this trustworthy when a liar claimed it and no one can corroborate it? On Paul’s path they should have been aware of each other at some point before entering Bucks Row. But Paul didn’t see him until he was only 40 yards from him, standing where the woman was. So someone’s timeline was false. Polly’s dress was pulled down concealing the wounds before Paul got there. He didn’t know she was dead. Why would this notorious display killer leave his work covered if no one was there to catch him? Polly hadn’t started bleeding. Why? Because she just died!

@@davesmith7432 I agree if Cross was the killer (big IF) he lied about the time he left home. He would need a lot longer to find Polly on Whitechapel Road, chat her up, follow her to Bucks Row and kill her. So why jump through hoops and try to create a time-gap based on his own timing and use the problematic statement of Robert Paul that contradicts everyone elses? Intresting you say Pauls time is correct because there was a brewers clock, but Paul never mentioned the clock (other witnesses did in similar situations), we have no idea if the clock was working and it's time was correct, and why does this clock not apply to Thain who entered Bucks Row the exact same way ? Yet Thain clearly stated he was signaled over by Neil around 3:45 who by then was already with the body. Your accusation that the 3 PCs met up at Pollys body and got their story straight is no small feat : not only do you accuse them of sabotaging a murder investigation from the start but also committing perjury during the inquest. Btw Why did they do that ? It's nonsens ofc : Thain was already sent to dr. LLewellyn when Mizen arrived and he himself was immediately ordered to go fetch an ambulance, but it is very obvious anyway Mizen never confered with his collegues from an other division : Neil never knew about the carmen Mizen spoke to at 3:45. He made a fool of himself (and the whole Police force) by claiming he was the one who found the body during the first inquest the next day. How could Neil not know about the carmen if as you claim they got their story straight over Nichols fresh body ? The answer is simple : they never did : 3.45 is the time 2 PCs were with the body and the time Mizen was talking to the carmen. Paul is wrong. Most likely he is not deliberately lying, he just got the wrong time and in fact wasn't running as late as he thought he was. It's always amusing to see how Lechmerians cherry pick the elements that supports their theory but ignore the facts that contradict them (or even worse : invent the most outlandish stories to undermine them) What Cross said is true when it fits the narrative : when he left home, that he didn't want to touch the body, that he saw or heard nobody in Buck Row. But of course he is a liar when he contradicts the gospel. The Mizen scam never happened, he didn't lie about his identity, the carmen (both moving) where just far enough apart to not see or hear eachother (pretty obvious when you look at the map) and the whole Pully was covered up by Cross and wasn't even bleeding is fantasy. Of course that's only my opinion.

@@LucasLucas-ne4xs If you (reasonably) assume that the times given by all parties is, in reality 3:45am +/- 4 minutes, then there is no problem. They are all correct in that case. All these things happened 'around' 3:45am.

If you've heard that that's the only reason people suspect him you then haven't heard enough. There's plenty more than that.

Your comment demonstrates your lack of knowledge on Lechmere. I recommend checking out Richard’s video on it with guest Ed Stow. Also, he did a contrary video with Steve Blomer. Both well worth watching!

There is a lot more to Lechmere being the killer than him "discovering" the body: the "bleeding argument", Dr Llewellyn's statements, the fact that Robert Paul never saw, and more importantly never heard his footsteps when walking on the empty Bucks Row or anywhere we else, P.C. Meisens statements on what Lechmere had said to him, the fact that he didn't "turn up" until after the newspaper interview with R. Paul.

Was he covered in blood?

Agreed. Lol

I look forward to reading about or watching the video on the evidence you find.

Where is the evidence against Druitt?

Just like the guy Roger is presenting, it’s highly unlikely Druitt was the killer. This is basic knowledge of criminal psychology. Serial killers are always psychopaths. Psychopaths don’t commit suicide.

What evidence?

​@@davesmith7432Israel Keyes and Fred West both committed suicide.