Monty, Quite true,but w e can be partially influenced by the comments of officers at the time that there were no suspects or evidence leading to a belief.While it may be foolish to overlook that evidence may have been known to some ,I feel it is even more foolish to accept there w as evidence,untill that evidence is known. And what was the evidence on which those officers at the time said there was no evidence against any suspects? Monty, Quite true,but w e can be partially influenced by the comments of officers at the time that there were no suspects or evidence leading to a belief.While it may be foolish to overlook that evidence may have been known to some ,I feel it is even more foolish to accept there w as evidence,untill that evidence is known. Very adroitly put Harry. My personal belief is that unless specific evidence is referred to by senior officials in conjunction with their opinions, unless its cited in reports, statements or logs, described in detail by Internal memos, or that evidence still can be produced with accredited documentation to validate it, the suspects named in the most controversial documentation of the period should not be taken as serious considerations for the killer nicknamed "Jack" by today's students. There were varied police opinions as to how many were killed by one man, there were various suspect opinions voiced, killer motivations supposed, killer profile suggestions, ...but none of that means a hill of beans in