WH Bury Problems

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;401168]

A bit of a waste of time, Iīm 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]

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 donīt. 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 thatīs 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 thatīs 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.

[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, frickinī 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.

[Harry D]

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

So what you're proposing is that Bury performed the mutilations after he sobered up, in a vain attempt to pin this on the Ripper? I think you might have this ass-backwards, Fisherman. Those are not the actions of a man sober of thought.

Alternatively, Bury's first instinct was to cut open the body because he was driven by a psychosexual urge to mutilate. A defining trait that he would share with the Whitechapel murderer. However, that alone does not a Ripper make, as Jane Beadmore was also killed up in Gateshead in Ripper-esque fashion, her throat stabbed and her abdomen slashed open. However, there was nothing to connect Jane Beadmore's killer with the East End and the canonical murders. With Bury, there was.

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

Correction. Dr. Templeman who performed the initial autopsy concluded that the wounds must have been inflicted no more than ten minutes after death, due to the warmth and elasticity of the skin. Doctors Stalker & Littlejohn agreed with his findings.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: So what you're proposing is that Bury performed the mutilations after he sobered up, in a vain attempt to pin this on the Ripper? I think you might have this ass-backwards, Fisherman. Those are not the actions of a man sober of thought.

I said that "sobering up" can mean one of many processes. You can sober up and still be under alcohol influence. I am saying that he may have killed in an alcohol-induced rage, without being too drunk to stand straight. And then, when he realized what he had done, that made him regain his wits, and he decided to try and emulate the Ripper.
Hope you understood it this time over. You can always say that sobering up always means loosing all the alcohol in your body otherwise.

Alternatively, Bury's first instinct was to cut open the body because he was driven by a psychosexual urge to mutilate.

Yes, you are going to need a whole lot of alternative thinking to make Bury the Ripper.

A defining trait that he would share with the Whitechapel murderer.

But you donīt know that there was a psychosexual urge on the Ripperīs behalf, do you? You assume it only, and thatīs fair enough. But letīs not get carried away.

However, that alone does not a Ripper make, as Jane Beadmore was also killed up in Gateshead in Ripper-esque fashion, her throat stabbed and her abdomen slashed open. However, there was nothing to connect Jane Beadmore's killer with the East End and the canonical murders. With Bury, there was.

So, basically, you are saying that ripping abdomens open need not be connected to the Ripper? Good - that is progress. But where does it leave Bury? I thought the hole in the abdomen of Ellen Bury was your piece de résistance? What if Bury was another of the many possible abdominal cutters who had no ties whatsoever to the Ripper? If he was just a domestic killer, who did not cut throats, who did not take out organs, who did not leave his victim on display...?
What is left for you to argue when that part is gone?


Correction. Dr. Templeman who performed the initial autopsy concluded that the wounds must have been inflicted no more than ten minutes after death, due to the warmth and elasticity of the skin. Doctors Stalker & Littlejohn agreed with his findings.

And how many doctors expressed a view? Just the three? Not that it matters to my argument as such, but out of interest?
By the way, OF COURSE a doctor called Stalker would agree...
Oh - found it - another doctor disagreed, on account of the wound not having been everted, but was told that the wound had been everted from the outset. So some little doubt, but overall, it seems the abdominal wounds were inflicted close in time to the strangulation.
Ten minutes, however, is an awfully long time to sit beside the corpse of your freshly killed wife, pondering how to get away with it...

At the end of the day, Bury could not have been the Ripper, on account of how the Ripper and the Torso killer were one and the same. In a comparison of those two characters, we are not speaking of a rudimentary likeness, we are talking about a very close similarity, involving elements that are extremely rare.
Itīs a bit ironic, is it not, that the argument made for Bury makes a whole lot more sense in that comparison? But such is life...

[Pierre]

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, frickinī 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.

Are you afraid you have wasted 30 years on a history which is not corresponding to the past? A lot of people have done the same.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Are you afraid you have wasted 30 years on a history which is not corresponding to the past? A lot of people have done the same.

Regards, Pierre

Okay everybody, it happened again: Pierre was found out, was told that he had been found out, was explained to exactly HOW he had been found out - and avoided acknowledging it, instead opting for asking a question that has nothing at all to do with the subject discussed.

It is uncivil and lazy, and it gives away a poster who is best treated by absolute silence and utter contempt.

[Pierre]

Okay everybody, it happened again: Pierre was found out, was told that he had been found out, was explained to exactly HOW he had been found out - and avoided acknowledging it, instead opting for asking a question that has nothing at all to do with the subject discussed.

It is uncivil and lazy, and it gives away a poster who is best treated by absolute silence and utter contempt.

Two crucial things, Fisherman.

For research:

Criticize!

For individuals:

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned!

Remember that I am trying to help you. If you let the idea of the carman go, you might even find the real Jack the Ripper.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Two crucial things, Fisherman.

For research:

Criticize!

For individuals:

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned!

Remember that I am trying to help you. If you let the idea of the carman go, you might even find the real Jack the Ripper.

Kind regards, Pierre

And, everybody: Pierre does it again. Surprise, surprise!

No answer to the long post I made, where I pointed out to him that he was wrong. No ackowledgement that he stepped in it. Instead he comes up with a condescending post where he says that he is trying to help me...!

Pierre is a troll, a timewaster and a fraud who deserves our attention in one way only: we really should run him off the boards, and the quicker the better.

[Pierre]

And, everybody: Pierre does it again. Surprise, surprise!

No answer to the long post I made, where I pointed out to him that he was wrong. No ackowledgement that he stepped in it. Instead he comes up with a condescending post where he says that he is trying to help me...!

Have answered many times and so have a lot of people here. You keep on ignoring our answers.

Pierre

[Henry Flower]

Two crucial things, Fisherman.

For research:

Criticize!

For individuals:

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned!

Remember that I am trying to help you. If you let the idea of the carman go, you might even find the real Jack the Ripper.

Kind regards, Pierre

Pierre, I agree:

For research: criticize!

SO PUBLISH YOUR RESEARCH, stop being a snivelling coward and hypocrite. Until you have the guts to open up your suspect to objective investigation and rebuttals as Fisherman does, shut the eff up and get lost, you little turd.

[Harry D]

I said that "sobering up" can mean one of many processes. You can sober up and still be under alcohol influence. I am saying that he may have killed in an alcohol-induced rage, without being too drunk to stand straight. And then, when he realized what he had done, that made him regain his wits, and he decided to try and emulate the Ripper.

Oh, so when it came to my use of the word "drunken", you couldn't have been more pedantic, but now you want to argue over semantics when it suits you. You're a riot, Fish.

So, basically, you are saying that ripping abdomens open need not be connected to the Ripper?

Nope.

But where does it leave Bury?

The only named suspect who is proven to have committed a "Ripper-esque" murder who can be tied to the East End during the autumn of terror. There is simply no other suspect who qualitatively comes close.

Itīs a bit ironic, is it not, that the argument made for Bury makes a whole lot more sense in that comparison? But such is life...

Isn't it ironic how the argument for Lechmere makes more sense when you lump the Torsos into the mix? Oh wait, no it doesn't. He's still a lame duck of a suspect.

[John Wheat]

Oh, so when it came to my use of the word "drunken", you couldn't have been more pedantic, but now you want to argue over semantics when it suits you. You're a riot, Fish.



Nope.



The only named suspect who is proven to have committed a "Ripper-esque" murder who can be tied to the East End during the autumn of terror. There is simply no other suspect who qualitatively comes close.



Isn't it ironic how the argument for Lechmere makes more sense when you lump the Torsos into the mix? Oh wait, no it doesn't. He's still a lame duck of a suspect.

I couldn't agree more Harry.

Cheers John

[Rainbow]

The only named suspect who is proven to have committed a "Ripper-esque" murder who can be tied to the East End during the autumn of terror. There is simply no other suspect who qualitatively comes close.

Do you know what that means ?!!

That means, everytime you have a series of murders, look among those who are well known convicted criminals, the one who's mureder looks most like this series, is your guy

So, if Bury was the Ripper but he didn't kill his wife and go to the police, we will be now looking for the second most likely convicted criminal.

You know what, you are saying, I don't want to be a detective, I have other better things in life to do... bring us some guy who has been convicted before for a' similar' crime, and hang him.

If we say it is similar, but not the same, you will say, whatever, he is already a criminal and he deserves it !!!

If we say , there was also a similar murder after this guy was caught, you will say ... a copycat killer ?!

Let us now look for this copycat killer, and of course, he must be convicted before....

Life is easy... let's have some fun!




Rainbow°

[Fisherman]

Harry D: Oh, so when it came to my use of the word "drunken", you couldn't have been more pedantic, but now you want to argue over semantics when it suits you. You're a riot, Fish.

Couldnīt care less about semantics: He killed her, and then he decided to try and make it look like a Ripper killing in an effort to ditch the blame. Is that semantic enough?

Nope.

A slightly weird answer, since you donīt qualify it.

The only named suspect who is proven to have committed a "Ripper-esque" murder who can be tied to the East End during the autumn of terror. There is simply no other suspect who qualitatively comes close.

Yes, I completely agree! Of all the murders that involved something that could be even tenuously shown to look something like what the Ripper did, and where the perpetrator got caught, Bury is the closest hit.
Problem: He is not a close enough hit by any standards.

It is all a bit like saying that Alma Cogan was Elvis Presley, since she ALSO made records. Or that a landscape painter from Devon must be Picasso - they both produced paintings. Or that a Morris Minor is a Lamborghini; they both have engines and wheels.

There were killings that were incredibly alike the Ripper killings, where the abdomen was opened up from sternum to pubes, where organs were taken, where the abdominal wall was cut away in panes. THAT is comparing two Lamborghinis to each other, and THAT is a standard that allows for the suggestion that the originators were one and the same. So I am working from the presumtion that you accept this as a fact, and that you are accordingly accepting that Bury was not the Whitechapel killer, but instead a failed man, a drunkard, a coward and somebody who was not able to make the murder of his wife, a typical domestic deed, look anything like the Ripperīs deeds.


Isn't it ironic how the argument for Lechmere makes more sense when you lump the Torsos into the mix? Oh wait, no it doesn't. He's still a lame duck of a suspect.

Lechmere is perfectly viable, he has the correct age and he is knit to the Ripper murder series. You can call him a lame duck, a canard, a bad suggestion, a howl of laughter, anything. What you cannot do is to explain WHY he would be any of it. Yelling "bullshit" is ever so easy - you have a comrade urging you on who masters that (and little else) to perfection.

When it comes to substantiating it, it would seem you are both equally worthless.

I am the other way around: I said that it is ironic that the comparison between the Ripper and the Torso man, where there are breathtaking similarities, should rule Bury out if we were to work to your preferred methodology. And that IS ironic and it IS substantiated, so I donīt have to speak of lame ducks and bullshit. I can prove my point instead.

You should try it sometime. Itīs good fun.