WH Bury Problems

[Fisherman]

You should not call someone who does not make your interpretation a "complete idiot" since your interpretations are very problematic.

It has nothing at all to do with interpretations. You seem uncapable of understanding the simplest of matters, Pierre. Sadly, as a result of this, you spread dung all over the boards.

I said, and I quote:
"Only a complete idiot would disregard the matters I brought up in a murder investigation."

Therefore I did not specifically call anybody an idiot - I said that if somebody conducting a murder investigation were to disregard a person who:

A/ was found alone at a murder site with the freshly killed victim

B/ was found there at a time that was consistent with him possbly being the killer

C/ had a forensic medical expert point him out as having been in place when the murder was perpetrated, working from the presumption that the expert was correct on the timings

D/ had reason to pass a number of murder sites in a murder series at removes in time that are seemingly consistent with the TOD:s of the victims

...then this person WOULD be a complete idiot.

There can be no denying this, Pierre. It is completely, frickin´ obvious. There is no way around it, no refusal to accept it and no reason at all to misunderstand it; if there are these elements involved, then any investigator had better get a move on and take a very sharp look at this man, or he WILL be a complete idiot.

Now, will you please, PLEASE, try to do something that does not involve following me around the boards and misrepresenting me? The lesser time I spend on your antics, the better - and the less shamed you will be.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman

You have laid your case out fairly and well.

There are a number of issues I will come back to you on at a later date, some relatively minor, some not,




However there is one point I wish to make now and it is your saying that persons named by the police, near to the time are not suspects.

They are, they were named by serving Police officers as suspects in the case; end of.

You may not feel they are good suspects but that is not the issue, they were considered by some investigating the case as suspects of some sort. And if there was evidence against them, at present that has not come to light.


True you attempt to qualify this by bringing in the idea of "factual suspect".

The problem I can see with this, that while at first glance it seems a very good approach, it does not allow for "factual evidence" that may have gone missing.

There surely was some in the cases of the two you mention, I cannot believe the names were just plucked out of the air.



Now I had the very same debate with Pierre, when he said Lechmere had not been a suspect and was not now.

He may not have been seen as one in 1888, or if he was, records of such like others have not survived or surfaced.

However yourself and Edward plus others have made a case against him over the past few years and therefore he is now a suspect.


Thats all for now


steve

While it is true that Druitt, Kosminski et al were suspected by MacNaghten, Anderson etcetera, and could therefore perhaps be regarded as one-time suspects, I remain at where I am, and I think the term factual suspects should make clear how I reason.

Any suspect, no matter what the crime is, where it is perpetrated and who points to him or her, will be completely unique. There are no two cases that are exactly the same.

It therefore applies that the evidence allowing for or disallowing a suspect status is to at least some little degree different from case to case. Consequently, whenever the police are ready to say that they have a suspect, then there will be an underlying process of weighing the evidence behind such a statement.

It is not until that weighing has been made that the decision can be taken to name somebody a suspect.
For anybody who was not involved in that process, accepting the suspect status on part of the person pointed out, will involve one out of two things, or a combination of them:
1. The suspect status is accepted, since we are given the reasons and the facts behind it.
2. The suspect status is accepted, since we make the assumption that it has been correctly given, and we do not make any effort at all to make an assessment of our own.

I will not try and force you to use my definition. You clearly accept both these points, but I don´t. Before I can say "Yes, he id by right a suspect", I am going to demand EVIDENCE for it. I think it is a requirement that no discerning person should shove aside, or allow for others to decide for him or her. It is a basic principle that guarantees that nobody is judged unheard, which is effectively what we do otherwise: we make the assumption that Anderson and Macnaghten could not in a million years have grounded their takes on loose sand - which we all know that they could have. There can be no denying that.

But each to his own! All I am saying is that this is what you get from me, and this is why I say that there is one suspect and one suspect only in the Ripper case, and that´s Lechmere. The rest are people suggested on grounds of varying credibility, and many of them are rightfully persons of interest - but they cannot be suspects. It can be argued that they were once suspects (not even that is clear - it is not as if the police corps on the whole suggested any one person as a suspect), but that´s as far as it goes.

It need not be any point of contention between us, since we both know how we reason in the errand.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;401168]

A bit of a waste of time, I´m afraid. If you had been seriously interested, I would gladly have pointed you to where your questions have been answered numerous times before.

The carman was found alone with a freshly killed body, that is an undisputable fact.

He was with the body at a remove in time that is consistent with how he could have been the killer, that is an indisputable fact.

According to PC Mizen, he also said that there was a policeman at the murder site. That is a well established historical fact.

A renowned and very experienced forensic medical specialist suggests that Lechmere would have been with Nichols when she was killed, if his best guess about the bleeding times is correct, that is an indisputable fact.

Hypothesizing that your expert is correct, he confirms that the killer was at the murder site when Lechmere came along.

The carman lived in Doveton Street and worked in Broad Street, so if he used the shortest and most logical routes to work and if he worked on the working days when Chapman, Tabram and Kelly died, then he would pass right through the Ripper killing fields, that is an indisputable fact.

If?

If you think you can make a mockery of this, then you may need to realize that you are making a mockery of yourself alongside it when trying. Only a complete idiot would disregard the matters I brought up in a murder investigation.

Disregarding the matters is not the same thing as interpreting the matters in a way different from you. You should not call someone who does not make your interpretation a "complete idiot" since your interpretations are very problematic.

[Fisherman]

Hi fisherman and thanks for the reply, I have googled all the big words and get the gist of what your saying
Firstly before let me tell you my take on the case or how I view it. I do not favor one suspect over another. A example of how I think which is gained from reading most if not all of the threads on here and it is simply, when someone forwards a suspect I wait until one or two things happen.
1 Someone destroys the theory with enough 100% facts that it could not be possible that subject.

2 No one can destroy the theory so they go into my hypothetical box named could be along with the other could be's.

So lets create a hypothetical game here called three answers. The answers that only you can use are as follows.

1 yes
2 no
3 I have not got a scooby doo.

Now a hypothetical scenario (stick with it ).
Rather than announce your subject on casebook you have decided to announce at the Royal Albert Hall in London to guests from the forum. To create fairness the guests have entered some sort of lottery to get one of the tickets for £20.00 and I have luckily won one.

Two hours before the hall opens I am sat in mcdonalds and I receive a phone call with a emergency to get home forcing me to miss the show.
You overhear my phone call and approach me.

"sorry but I feel so sorry for you missing the big reveal so I am going to tell you who it is"

NOW THE GAME.

YOU SAY IT IS CROSS EXPLAIN ALL YOUR REASONS SO the game starts.

Q1. DO YOU KNOW CROSS WALKED TO WORK EVERY DAY THERE WAS A MURDER.
a " i have not got a scooby do"

Q2 WAS CROSS AT WORK ON THE PARTICULAR DAYS THERE WAS A MURDER.
a " I have not got a scooby do"

Q3 WAS CROSS THE ONLY PERSON WHO LEFT WHITECHAPEL TO GO TO WORK NEAR TO WHERE CROSS WORKED SIMILAR ROUTE AND TIME?

a I have not got a scooby do.

Q4 DID CROSS 100% STAY AT HIS MUMS HOUSE WHEN A MURDER WAS OFF HIS ROUTE.
a I have not got a scooby do

Q5 WAS CROSS DOMINEERED BY MUMSY.
a i have not got a scooby do

Q6 AS THE MURDERS (C5) WERE COMMITED AT DIFFERENT TIMES OF THE MORNING DID CROSS LEAVE FOR WORK IN THE TIMEFRAME TO PUT HIM IN THE SPOT WHERE THE MURDERS WERE COMMITED.
a I have not got a scooby do

Q6 DID THE POLICE INVESTIGATE CROSS FOR HAVING TWO NAMES AND ACCEPT HIS EXPLANATION.
a i have not got a scooby do

Q7COULD YOUR THEORY OF THE PERSON WHO FINDS THE BODY FIT ANY OTHER PERSON WHO FOUND OTHER VICTIMS
a I have not got a scooby doo

I could go on but my train is due as we part I ask you one more thing.

Any chance of a refund on my £20.00.

A bit of a waste of time, I´m afraid. If you had been seriously interested, I would gladly have pointed you to where your questions have been answered numerous times before.

The carman was found alone with a freshly killed body, that is an undisputable fact.

He was with the body at a remove in time that is consistent with how he could have been the killer, that is an indisputable fact.

A renowned and very experienced forensic medical specialist suggests that Lechmere would have been with Nichols when she was killed, if his best guess about the bleeding times is correct, that is an indisputable fact.

The carman lived in Doveton Street and worked in Broad Street, so if he used the shortest and most logical routes to work and if he worked on the working days when Chapman, Tabram and Kelly died, then he would pass right through the Ripper killing fields, that is an indisputable fact.

If you think you can make a mockery of this, then you may need to realize that you are making a mockery of yourself alongside it when trying. Only a complete idiot would disregard the matters I brought up in a murder investigation.

You said that you could not understand my confidence in Lechmere as the killer, and I took the time and the effort to answer you respectfully and thoroughly.
Sadly, you had no wish to extend me the same treatment, and so that facilitates for me to know what kind of person you are and how much one can expect from you.

Many thanks for that.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: It's your theory. I'm not developing it for you.

Nor do you have to. "Sobering up" is an expression that involves many different types of reactions.

I don't have the exact timing, but two of the doctors found that the majority of the mutilations occurred at the time of the death. Interestingly, there is also evidence that Bury returned and inflicted some minor abdominal injuries sometime later.

"Two of the doctors"? Did any other doctor/s disagree?

[Harry D]

So when still under the influence of alcohol, he would never have come up with the idea of emulating the Ripper (well...)? He needed to be stone cold sober before he could engineer such a master plan?
What I am saying is that he may have acted in an alcohol-fuelled rage, that tapered off afterwards. No need to sober up completely.

It's your theory. I'm not developing it for you.

Bu the bye, exactly how near to death in time is "very near"?

I don't have the exact timing, but two of the doctors found that the majority of the mutilations occurred at the time of the death. Interestingly, there is also evidence that Bury returned and inflicted some minor abdominal injuries sometime later.

[paul g]

thanks

Hi fisherman and thanks for the reply, I have googled all the big words and get the gist of what your saying
Firstly before let me tell you my take on the case or how I view it. I do not favor one suspect over another. A example of how I think which is gained from reading most if not all of the threads on here and it is simply, when someone forwards a suspect I wait until one or two things happen.
1 Someone destroys the theory with enough 100% facts that it could not be possible that subject.

2 No one can destroy the theory so they go into my hypothetical box named could be along with the other could be's.

So lets create a hypothetical game here called three answers. The answers that only you can use are as follows.

1 yes
2 no
3 I have not got a scooby doo.

Now a hypothetical scenario (stick with it ).
Rather than announce your subject on casebook you have decided to announce at the Royal Albert Hall in London to guests from the forum. To create fairness the guests have entered some sort of lottery to get one of the tickets for £20.00 and I have luckily won one.

Two hours before the hall opens I am sat in mcdonalds and I receive a phone call with a emergency to get home forcing me to miss the show.
You overhear my phone call and approach me.

"sorry but I feel so sorry for you missing the big reveal so I am going to tell you who it is"

NOW THE GAME.

YOU SAY IT IS CROSS EXPLAIN ALL YOUR REASONS SO the game starts.

Q1. DO YOU KNOW CROSS WALKED TO WORK EVERY DAY THERE WAS A MURDER.
a " i have not got a scooby do"

Q2 WAS CROSS AT WORK ON THE PARTICULAR DAYS THERE WAS A MURDER.
a " I have not got a scooby do"

Q3 WAS CROSS THE ONLY PERSON WHO LEFT WHITECHAPEL TO GO TO WORK NEAR TO WHERE CROSS WORKED SIMILAR ROUTE AND TIME?

a I have not got a scooby do.

Q4 DID CROSS 100% STAY AT HIS MUMS HOUSE WHEN A MURDER WAS OFF HIS ROUTE.
a I have not got a scooby do

Q5 WAS CROSS DOMINEERED BY MUMSY.
a i have not got a scooby do

Q6 AS THE MURDERS (C5) WERE COMMITED AT DIFFERENT TIMES OF THE MORNING DID CROSS LEAVE FOR WORK IN THE TIMEFRAME TO PUT HIM IN THE SPOT WHERE THE MURDERS WERE COMMITED.
a I have not got a scooby do

Q6 DID THE POLICE INVESTIGATE CROSS FOR HAVING TWO NAMES AND ACCEPT HIS EXPLANATION.
a i have not got a scooby do

Q7COULD YOUR THEORY OF THE PERSON WHO FINDS THE BODY FIT ANY OTHER PERSON WHO FOUND OTHER VICTIMS
a I have not got a scooby doo

I could go on but my train is due as we part I ask you one more thing.

Any chance of a refund on my £20.00.

[Elamarna]

Basically, it is very simple: You have the right to think anything at all about the theory about Charles Lechmere. It is up to you, and you are welcome to your take.

But I would be lying if I said that I ony think there is an outside possibility that Lechmere was the killer. I would even be lying if I said I thought that there was a fifty/fifty possiblity.

I am a lot more convinced than that.

So I am not about to fake any wavering in order to make other posters feel that it is nice with humble posters.

Overall, I feel that there is far too much of a consensus out here that anybody´s suspect is as good as anybody else´s, and that it is arrogant to propose that you have a better suspect than anybody else. To me, it goes without saying that some suspects will be really, really bad, when more than threehundred people have been suggested as the Ripper.

When it comes to the comparison between Lechmere and Bury, I find it ridiculous: there can be no comparison, since Bury cannot be placed at any one of the murder sites. Out here, it is said that Bury is one of the best suspects, but if we look at it practically, then he is not a suspect at all. How could he be?

Let´s hypothesize that we are investigating a case of murder. A woman has been murdered and badly beaten up in a city of 100000 people. It is well known that a similar murder took place five years earlier, and that the murderer was caught, and subesquently served four years in prison, whereafter he was released.

Now, if somebody says "It must have been him again, it is a vicious murder with a badly beaten up victim", then that somebody will have made a useful point: if the crime is similar in a broad sense, then the earlier perpetrator will be a person of interest to the police as long as no other suspect is identified. If there is nothing to go on but this earlier experience, the convicted killer should and will be a person the police needs to look into.

However, as long as there are no ties to the new murder - if the earlier killer cannot be placed in the vicinity, and if he does not say or do something during interrogation that points to a possible guilt - then he cannot possibly be a suspect in the case. It takes more than that.

If this earlier killer is hauled in by the police together with another person, and if that other person is somebody with no earlier convictions, with a steady work and a family with children, he will undoubtedly be the person the police will investigate first if he was found alone at the murder scene at a remove in time that seemingly tallies with the approximate murder time.
For the police to instead opt for the earlier killer, it would either take information that placed him close to the scene, information that he has lied to the police or seems to be hiding information, or that there is an ingredient involved in the murder that is completely unique and that was involved in the earlier murder too.

One such thing would be if the killer tattoed for example "William Bury" on the forehead of the earlier victim, and that such a tattoo was found on the next victim too. But although it would be a very interesting indicator, it would not be enough to convict the earlier killer unless he could be proven to have been at the site. Somebody could have copied the tattoo.

In such a case, the earlier killer WOULD be turned into a suspect, and correctly so, but the police would STILL need to clear the man found at the site.

Opportunity is everything in a criminal case, and that never changes. It is not the same as turning any or everybody who had an opportunity into suspect/s unless the circumstances did not allow for anything else (if three men were locked into a room that was subsequently unlocked, whereupon one man was found murdered, then the two men living will be suspects - and one or both of them will be the killer).
In Lechmere´s case, there is room for another killer, and so we do not have any guarantee that he was the killer. He cannot be a suspect on having been found at the murder site alone with the victim - that is not an indicator of guilt per se. But a leading forensic expert medico suggests that the more realistic thing is to expect that Lechmere was in place when Nichols was cut, and THAT certainly turns Lechmere into a suspect.

Having come that far in an investigation, the police would investigate if they could put Lechmere on the OTHER murder spots (that had not been employed yet whan Nichols was killed, apart from Tabrams musrder site). They would do so to see if they could either clear Lechmere or if he was tied even closer to the deeds, and we all know that the latter seems to apply.

If we again look at the Bury/Lechmere comparison, it is of interest that the Bury proponents say that it is a point in favour of Bury that he arrived in the East end in late 1887.
And then they tell me that any number of people could have passed Bucks Row at 3.40 in the morning.

The truth is that thousands and thousands of people arrived in the East end of late 1887, perhaps tens of thousands of them or more.

And the truth is that those who spoke of how many people they had seen on the streets immediately surrounding Bucks Row that night, said that the streets were EMPTY. Of course, someone can have slipped through these streets unnnoticed, but how many? One? Three? Five? We are apparently dealing with very few people at any rate, and the remaining impression is that the streets were deserted and quiet, as per Neil, as per Green, as per the Purkisses. Thain said that he saw two people in Brady Street, but that was all.

So Lechmere was one of the very, very few people passing through Bucks Row at the relevant remove in time - and that is accepting that there WAS somebody else. If so, nobody saw or heard that somebody, meaning that Lechmere and Paul may well have been the ONLY ones there at the relevant time.

This is before we even start pondering the name issue, the Mizen scam, how the two men did not hear each other, the hidden wounds etcetera.

Charles Lechmere is a suspect, and he is a suspect on totally relevant grounds. And much as people do not like to hear it, he is the ONLY suspect there is, if we are to go on factual case evidence.

Having been named by a police bigwig as somebody his relatives thought guilty cannot make Druitt a suspect. There is no evidence whatsoever against him and he cannot be placed at any of the murder sites.

Having been named by another police bigwig as a person who was pointed out by a witness cannot make Kosminski a suspect. There is no evidence whatsoever tying him to the series and he cannot be placed at any of the scenes.

The same goes for all the rest of the pople who have aquired the title of suspect on non-policial grounds: there is no evidence at all tying any of them to any of the murder scenes, and the fewest of them can be placed in the vicinity of any of the murder scenes.

Lechmere IS firmly placed at a murder scene. According to a forensic medico expert, he was with one of the victims at a time that is consistent with him having been the killer, whereas another killer would NOT be consistent with the experts take on things. Another killer cannot be ruled out in the light of this, but it is a less likely option. And it is not as if we knew that there were ten other men who passed Bucks Row at times that roughly could be consistent with them being that unexpected but possible killer - there is NOONE else to point to, and we are left with the possibility of the dreaded phantom killer only. Conjecture, guesswork, ramblings.

It is a one man show, and it is so on perfectly logical grounds. Anybody saying that X or Z or Y is as good a suspect as Lechmere is wrong, quite simply. There ARE no other factual suspects, there are only a few people of interest who remain that and nothing else.

The odd thing is that this very factual matter makes people say that I am infatuated with Lechmere and overstating his weight as a suspect. What is true is that anybody who says so is either ill informed or misrepresenting the factualities of the case.
Of course, when people say "No, our suspect are just as good or better", I may be faced with a large pack of people who agree with each other that I am overstating my case. But that does not alter the facts:
He was there.
He was there at a time that is consistent with him being the killer.
A forensic expert says that he is the only one within his recommended time frame who could have been the killer, apart from Paul.
He can be tenusously knit to all the murder sites and -times.
He gave another name than the one he otherwise always gave the authorities and he disagreed with a serving PC over what information he had given on the murder night.

Comparing him to anybody else is a mismatch of huge proportions, and that is not my view - it is fact.

That is where I am coming from.

Fisherman

You have laid your case out fairly and well.

There are a number of issues I will come back to you on at a later date, some relatively minor, some not,




However there is one point I wish to make now and it is your saying that persons named by the police, near to the time are not suspects.

They are, they were named by serving Police officers as suspects in the case; end of.

You may not feel they are good suspects but that is not the issue, they were considered by some investigating the case as suspects of some sort. And if there was evidence against them, at present that has not come to light.


True you attempt to qualify this by bringing in the idea of "factual suspect".

The problem I can see with this, that while at first glance it seems a very good approach, it does not allow for "factual evidence" that may have gone missing.

There surely was some in the cases of the two you mention, I cannot believe the names were just plucked out of the air.



Now I had the very same debate with Pierre, when he said Lechmere had not been a suspect and was not now.

He may not have been seen as one in 1888, or if he was, records of such like others have not survived or surfaced.

However yourself and Edward plus others have made a case against him over the past few years and therefore he is now a suspect.


Thats all for now


steve

[John Wheat]

Hi fisherman firstly I admire the amount of effort and time you have put in on letchmere however like all theory's around Jack yours and everyone else's require large leaps of faith.
I have never researched anyone in the case I don't write books I just read them.

Now I have never been in a position where I have researched a suspect so maybe I don't understand but your theory is nothing but a theory a idea a possibility and that's it .
Now as a outsider looking in I enjoy what you propose and in my mind I guess I catogorize your theory as a possibility among with many others.
What I don't understand and is the crux of the message is how you or any other person can totally except there theory as 100% correct , the answer the final solotion. What you propose with letch is nothing more than a idea and that's it really.
There are people on here and authors on the subject of Jack who have put theory's down in print but have the openness to say in so many words that what they propose is a possibility and open to debate.
Yourself and a few others have the attitude that what they have researched and found is fact gospel the answer to all answers no more research I have found him we mays well all go home.
That is what I don't get
Regards

Hi Paul

You've essentially nailed why debating with Fisherman is both pointless and frustrating.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

Hi fisherman firstly I admire the amount of effort and time you have put in on letchmere however like all theory's around Jack yours and everyone else's require large leaps of faith.
I have never researched anyone in the case I don't write books I just read them.

Now I have never been in a position where I have researched a suspect so maybe I don't understand but your theory is nothing but a theory a idea a possibility and that's it .
Now as a outsider looking in I enjoy what you propose and in my mind I guess I catogorize your theory as a possibility among with many others.
What I don't understand and is the crux of the message is how you or any other person can totally except there theory as 100% correct , the answer the final solotion. What you propose with letch is nothing more than a idea and that's it really.
There are people on here and authors on the subject of Jack who have put theory's down in print but have the openness to say in so many words that what they propose is a possibility and open to debate.
Yourself and a few others have the attitude that what they have researched and found is fact gospel the answer to all answers no more research I have found him we mays well all go home.
That is what I don't get
Regards

Basically, it is very simple: You have the right to think anything at all about the theory about Charles Lechmere. It is up to you, and you are welcome to your take.

But I would be lying if I said that I ony think there is an outside possibility that Lechmere was the killer. I would even be lying if I said I thought that there was a fifty/fifty possiblity.

I am a lot more convinced than that.

So I am not about to fake any wavering in order to make other posters feel that it is nice with humble posters.

Overall, I feel that there is far too much of a consensus out here that anybody´s suspect is as good as anybody else´s, and that it is arrogant to propose that you have a better suspect than anybody else. To me, it goes without saying that some suspects will be really, really bad, when more than threehundred people have been suggested as the Ripper.

When it comes to the comparison between Lechmere and Bury, I find it ridiculous: there can be no comparison, since Bury cannot be placed at any one of the murder sites. Out here, it is said that Bury is one of the best suspects, but if we look at it practically, then he is not a suspect at all. How could he be?

Let´s hypothesize that we are investigating a case of murder. A woman has been murdered and badly beaten up in a city of 100000 people. It is well known that a similar murder took place five years earlier, and that the murderer was caught, and subesquently served four years in prison, whereafter he was released.

Now, if somebody says "It must have been him again, it is a vicious murder with a badly beaten up victim", then that somebody will have made a useful point: if the crime is similar in a broad sense, then the earlier perpetrator will be a person of interest to the police as long as no other suspect is identified. If there is nothing to go on but this earlier experience, the convicted killer should and will be a person the police needs to look into.

However, as long as there are no ties to the new murder - if the earlier killer cannot be placed in the vicinity, and if he does not say or do something during interrogation that points to a possible guilt - then he cannot possibly be a suspect in the case. It takes more than that.

If this earlier killer is hauled in by the police together with another person, and if that other person is somebody with no earlier convictions, with a steady work and a family with children, he will undoubtedly be the person the police will investigate first if he was found alone at the murder scene at a remove in time that seemingly tallies with the approximate murder time.
For the police to instead opt for the earlier killer, it would either take information that placed him close to the scene, information that he has lied to the police or seems to be hiding information, or that there is an ingredient involved in the murder that is completely unique and that was involved in the earlier murder too.

One such thing would be if the killer tattoed for example "William Bury" on the forehead of the earlier victim, and that such a tattoo was found on the next victim too. But although it would be a very interesting indicator, it would not be enough to convict the earlier killer unless he could be proven to have been at the site. Somebody could have copied the tattoo.

In such a case, the earlier killer WOULD be turned into a suspect, and correctly so, but the police would STILL need to clear the man found at the site.

Opportunity is everything in a criminal case, and that never changes. It is not the same as turning any or everybody who had an opportunity into suspect/s unless the circumstances did not allow for anything else (if three men were locked into a room that was subsequently unlocked, whereupon one man was found murdered, then the two men living will be suspects - and one or both of them will be the killer).
In Lechmere´s case, there is room for another killer, and so we do not have any guarantee that he was the killer. He cannot be a suspect on having been found at the murder site alone with the victim - that is not an indicator of guilt per se. But a leading forensic expert medico suggests that the more realistic thing is to expect that Lechmere was in place when Nichols was cut, and THAT certainly turns Lechmere into a suspect.

Having come that far in an investigation, the police would investigate if they could put Lechmere on the OTHER murder spots (that had not been employed yet whan Nichols was killed, apart from Tabrams musrder site). They would do so to see if they could either clear Lechmere or if he was tied even closer to the deeds, and we all know that the latter seems to apply.

If we again look at the Bury/Lechmere comparison, it is of interest that the Bury proponents say that it is a point in favour of Bury that he arrived in the East end in late 1887.
And then they tell me that any number of people could have passed Bucks Row at 3.40 in the morning.

The truth is that thousands and thousands of people arrived in the East end of late 1887, perhaps tens of thousands of them or more.

And the truth is that those who spoke of how many people they had seen on the streets immediately surrounding Bucks Row that night, said that the streets were EMPTY. Of course, someone can have slipped through these streets unnnoticed, but how many? One? Three? Five? We are apparently dealing with very few people at any rate, and the remaining impression is that the streets were deserted and quiet, as per Neil, as per Green, as per the Purkisses. Thain said that he saw two people in Brady Street, but that was all.

So Lechmere was one of the very, very few people passing through Bucks Row at the relevant remove in time - and that is accepting that there WAS somebody else. If so, nobody saw or heard that somebody, meaning that Lechmere and Paul may well have been the ONLY ones there at the relevant time.

This is before we even start pondering the name issue, the Mizen scam, how the two men did not hear each other, the hidden wounds etcetera.

Charles Lechmere is a suspect, and he is a suspect on totally relevant grounds. And much as people do not like to hear it, he is the ONLY suspect there is, if we are to go on factual case evidence.

Having been named by a police bigwig as somebody his relatives thought guilty cannot make Druitt a suspect. There is no evidence whatsoever against him and he cannot be placed at any of the murder sites.

Having been named by another police bigwig as a person who was pointed out by a witness cannot make Kosminski a suspect. There is no evidence whatsoever tying him to the series and he cannot be placed at any of the scenes.

The same goes for all the rest of the pople who have aquired the title of suspect on non-policial grounds: there is no evidence at all tying any of them to any of the murder scenes, and the fewest of them can be placed in the vicinity of any of the murder scenes.

Lechmere IS firmly placed at a murder scene. According to a forensic medico expert, he was with one of the victims at a time that is consistent with him having been the killer, whereas another killer would NOT be consistent with the experts take on things. Another killer cannot be ruled out in the light of this, but it is a less likely option. And it is not as if we knew that there were ten other men who passed Bucks Row at times that roughly could be consistent with them being that unexpected but possible killer - there is NOONE else to point to, and we are left with the possibility of the dreaded phantom killer only. Conjecture, guesswork, ramblings.

It is a one man show, and it is so on perfectly logical grounds. Anybody saying that X or Z or Y is as good a suspect as Lechmere is wrong, quite simply. There ARE no other factual suspects, there are only a few people of interest who remain that and nothing else.

The odd thing is that this very factual matter makes people say that I am infatuated with Lechmere and overstating his weight as a suspect. What is true is that anybody who says so is either ill informed or misrepresenting the factualities of the case.
Of course, when people say "No, our suspect are just as good or better", I may be faced with a large pack of people who agree with each other that I am overstating my case. But that does not alter the facts:
He was there.
He was there at a time that is consistent with him being the killer.
A forensic expert says that he is the only one within his recommended time frame who could have been the killer, apart from Paul.
He can be tenusously knit to all the murder sites and -times.
He gave another name than the one he otherwise always gave the authorities and he disagreed with a serving PC over what information he had given on the murder night.

Comparing him to anybody else is a mismatch of huge proportions, and that is not my view - it is fact.

That is where I am coming from.

[paul g]

Hi fisherman firstly I admire the amount of effort and time you have put in on letchmere however like all theory's around Jack yours and everyone else's require large leaps of faith.
I have never researched anyone in the case I don't write books I just read them.

Now I have never been in a position where I have researched a suspect so maybe I don't understand but your theory is nothing but a theory a idea a possibility and that's it .
Now as a outsider looking in I enjoy what you propose and in my mind I guess I catogorize your theory as a possibility among with many others.
What I don't understand and is the crux of the message is how you or any other person can totally except there theory as 100% correct , the answer the final solotion. What you propose with letch is nothing more than a idea and that's it really.
There are people on here and authors on the subject of Jack who have put theory's down in print but have the openness to say in so many words that what they propose is a possibility and open to debate.
Yourself and a few others have the attitude that what they have researched and found is fact gospel the answer to all answers no more research I have found him we mays well all go home.
That is what I don't get
Regards

[Fisherman]

I was hoping to see some developments, but all I see is a guy named John ruining a grain's good name. Change it to 'Chaff' and carry on.

Mike

Well, you know, John has not had an easy time out here. He champions the idea that if two murders are much alike, then there is a large chance that they were perpetrated by the same killer.

That is not a half bad idea, of course. Unfortunately, there are many, many more and much closer likenesses inbetween the Torso killings and the Ripper killings, than there is inbetween the Ripper killings and the Bury ditto (Oooh - a hole in the stomach, that MUST be the Ripper, surely?), and so poor John has dug a neat grave for his own theory since Bury was dead and gone when Liz Jackson and the Pinchin Street victim met with the Ripper/Torso man.

That cannot be an easy pill to swallow, so he is understandably a bit touchy at the moment.

To make things worse, Charles Lechmere - who makes John froth at the mouth like a Pavlovian dog, but for all the wrong reasons - fits the frame for a combined Ripper and Torso killer to a tee. And John does not like that, to put things mildly.

Now, John could of course have read up on the relevant parts of it all, but A/ I don´t think he wants to, and B/ the Lechmere theory is quite complex and hard to understand in all it´s details when comparing it to the Bury theory (Oooh - a hole in the stomach, that MUST be the Ripper, surely?). So what it all adds up to is that poor John has had the easy way out barred by his own reccomendations when it comes to how we should look for the killer (Ooooh - a hole in the stomach, that MUST be the Ripper, surely?).

I can understand the frustration. John also nourishes a grudge against me for having told him that acting like a football hooligan is not the way to go about debating on Casebook. You know, trying to intimidate, telling people to disappear from a public forum as if it was his own, yelling "bullshit" without being able to substantiate what murky reasoning lies behind all of that anger and so on - the kind of things football hooligans do.

When you are told such a thing, you can go about it in two ways:

1. You can conduct a clever debate in a civil tone, making as good points as possible, read up, try to find the weaknesses in your opponent´s thinking and matter-of-factly point them out - all those things that will earn you some trust and respect and credibility, or...
2. You can yell "BULLSHIT" even louder and hope that your opponent will be intimidated enough to run for it.

Maybe some will, I don´t know. I´m not into that sort of stuff myself, so I have very little experience of it.
In that same vein and for that same reason, I prefer not to debate with people who chose the number two option. If you do not have the kind of experience it takes to yell "BULLSHIT" at the top or your voice and to try and intimidate and such things, then you should not engage in that kind of brawl. It may well prove that although you can make such a debater look incredibly silly factually, you will perhaps not have the same arsenal of horse manure it takes to move the debate a foot below the belt.

That´s basically why I´m not answering John efforts.

Take care out there, Mike!

[John Wheat]

How can anyone believe that the person who killded 6 women and escaped the police and the whole London, when he killed the seventh woman ( his wife ) he didn't know what to do except to go himself to the police ?!!

And how come those who accept this, didn't seem to accept that Lechmere didn't run away when Paul was hurrying towards him and entered the row ?!!

people..


Rainbow°

Yeah you're right a random witness is a much better suspect than Bury.

[Rainbow]

How can anyone believe that the person who killded 6 women and escaped the police and the whole London, when he killed the seventh woman ( his wife ) he didn't know what to do except to go himself to the police ?!!

And how come those who accept this, didn't seem to accept that Lechmere didn't run away when Paul was hurrying towards him and entered the row ?!!

people..


Rainbow°

[John Wheat]

I was hoping to see some developments, but all I see is a guy named John ruining a grain's good name. Change it to 'Chaff' and carry on.

Mike

I did start the thread. Also Fisherman doesn't have to post his bullshit here.