WH Bury Problems

[John Wheat]

Before I go and do something useful with my life, I really must say that if anybody wondered what would be the outcome of the title "W H Bury problems", then they really have had their answer by now...

Do you mean something useful like all the time you've wasted on your pet Lechmere theory?

[Harry D]

If you have a series of unsolved murders with a unique MO/signature, and no obvious suspect, it stands to reason that you would give precedence to a perpetrator who committed a similar crime, who can be linked to the area at the time, and whose sudden departure from that locale coincides with the apparent cessation of the series. I have never said that Bury was categorically the Ripper. I don't have the effrontery to make such a brazen claim. No one is ultimately going to solve this case, but on the balance of probabilities the guy who committed a Ripper-like crime, who cannot be ruled out on the evidence available, must be considered the best bet. It's as simple as that. Ironically, because Bury was violent, and was a murderer, it makes it easier for certain critics to pick apart his psychology and methodology to suit their own preconceptions of the killer, while a suspect (and I use that term loosely) such as Lechmere is a blank slate on which they can project all of their own unsubstantiated suspicions.

[John Wheat]

If you have a series of unsolved murders with a unique MO/signature, and no obvious suspect, it stands to reason that you would give precedence to a perpetrator who committed a similar crime, who can be linked to the area at the time, and whose sudden departure from that locale coincides with the apparent cessation of the series. I have never said that Bury was categorically the Ripper. I don't have the effrontery to make such a brazen claim. No one is ultimately going to solve this case, but on the balance of probabilities the guy who committed a Ripper-like crime, who cannot be ruled out on the evidence available, must be considered the best bet. It's as simple as that. Ironically, because Bury was violent, and was a murderer, it makes it easier for certain critics to pick apart his psychology and methodology to suit their own preconceptions of the killer, while a suspect (and I use that term loosely) such as Lechmere is a blank slate on which they can project all of their own unsubstantiated suspicions.

Hi Harry
Absolutely.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

If you have a series of unsolved murders with a unique MO/signature, and no obvious suspect, it stands to reason that you would give precedence to a perpetrator who committed a similar crime, who can be linked to the area at the time, and whose sudden departure from that locale coincides with the apparent cessation of the series. I have never said that Bury was categorically the Ripper. I don't have the effrontery to make such a brazen claim. No one is ultimately going to solve this case, but on the balance of probabilities the guy who committed a Ripper-like crime, who cannot be ruled out on the evidence available, must be considered the best bet. It's as simple as that. Ironically, because Bury was violent, and was a murderer, it makes it easier for certain critics to pick apart his psychology and methodology to suit their own preconceptions of the killer, while a suspect (and I use that term loosely) such as Lechmere is a blank slate on which they can project all of their own unsubstantiated suspicions.

Problems:

There IS an obvious suspect, so there is no need to go looking for the Burys, the Chapmans, the Graingers etcetera.
Like you say, they need to be looked into if no caseconnected suspect can be identified. Otherwise, they remain uninvestigated second-rate figures.

Itīs good to see that you seemingly admit that caserelated suspects are better than non-caserelated suspects. It should go without saying, but that is sadly not the case.

You have the audacity to claim that Lechmere is a blank slate, whereas Bury is not. When it comes to researching the case and presenting a suspect, it is quite the other way around: those who choose a Mr Evil and try to project the Ripper murders on him are the ones who make it easy on themselves, and they do so for the exact reason you speak of: a blank slate.
Nobody knows where their men were, so they COULD all have been at the murder sites. Nobody knows what they did, so they MAY have killed away.
Lechmere is a much, much harder task. There could - and really there should - have been lots and lots of details that spoke of how he could not have been the killer. But instead, he is open to suspicion throughout. One example is how he is wedged just between the phantom killer, who must have left the site VERY close in time to Lechmeres arrival, and Robert Paul, who arrived at the site seconds only after Lechmere supposedly stopped short.
If the carman had been outside Browns half a minute earlier, he should arguably have seen the phantom killer flee, if he had been there five seconds later or so, Paul should have seen him walk out into the street.
But amazingly, neither thing happens.

Lechmere has to be tracked second for second, all he says must be scrutinized, all he did at the night and subsequently must be checked, his routes must be looked into etcetera, etcetera - and there must not be one single thing that hinders him from being the killer.

Bury? Easy-peasy: Nothing can be checked, and nothing can be established and therefore he could have been the killer.
As could Druitt.
As could Kosminski.
As could Levy.
As could Tumblety.
As could Grainger.
As could Barnett.
As could Sickert.
As could Mann.
As could a whole lot of "suspects", all of them totally blank slates when it comes to a case connection.
Itīs convenience at itīs best.

However, the subject you avoid is how your methodology - find a villain who has done something that is more or less reminiscent of what the Ripper did, and try to pinn the murders on him - beckons us to accept that the Torso man and the Ripper were one and the same.

It is proven that the similarities were far more and far greater in that case, than in the case of Bury, who managed a cut to the abdomen and then that was it. A cut that was NOT reminiscent of the Ripperīs cuts.

So your hands are tied behind yourself, Harry. There is no way out of that dilemma.
Bury was 14 at the time of the 1873 torso murder and he was stone dead at the times of the last two torso deeds.

He was dead and the Ripper was alive.

Thatīs as bad an identification as we are likely to see. Ever.

If the similarities between the Ripper and the Torso man are not enough for you, then the case for Bury looks nothing short of ridiculous in comparison.

[Pierre]

Problems:

There IS an obvious suspect, so there is no need to go looking for the Burys, the Chapmans, the Graingers etcetera.
Like you say, they need to be looked into if no caseconnected suspect can be identified. Otherwise, they remain uninvestigated second-rate figures.

Itīs good to see that you seemingly admit that caserelated suspects are better than non-caserelated suspects. It should go without saying, but that is sadly not the case.

You have the audacity to claim that Lechmere is a blank slate, whereas Bury is not. When it comes to researching the case and presenting a suspect, it is quite the other way around: those who choose a Mr Evil and try to project the Ripper murders on him are the ones who make it easy on themselves, and they do so for the exact reason you speak of: a blank slate.
Nobody knows where their men were, so they COULD all have been at the murder sites. Nobody knows what they did, so they MAY have killed away.
Lechmere is a much, much harder task. There could - and really there should - have been lots and lots of details that spoke of how he could not have been the killer. But instead, he is open to suspicion throughout. One example is how he is wedged just between the phantom killer, who must have left the site VERY close in time to Lechmeres arrival, and Robert Paul, who arrived at the site seconds only after Lechmere supposedly stopped short.
If the carman had been outside Browns half a minute earlier, he should arguably have seen the phantom killer flee, if he had been there five seconds later or so, Paul should have seen him walk out into the street.
But amazingly, neither thing happens.

Lechmere has to be tracked second for second, all he says must be scrutinized, all he did at the night and subsequently must be checked, his routes must be looked into etcetera, etcetera - and there must not be one single thing that hinders him from being the killer.

Bury? Easy-peasy: Nothing can be checked, and nothing can be established and therefore he could have been the killer.
As could Druitt.
As could Kosminski.
As could Levy.
As could Tumblety.
As could Grainger.
As could Barnett.
As could Sickert.
As could Mann.
As could a whole lot of "suspects", all of them totally blank slates when it comes to a case connection.
Itīs convenience at itīs best.

However, the subject you avoid is how your methodology - find a villain who has done something that is more or less reminiscent of what the Ripper did, and try to pinn the murders on him - beckons us to accept that the Torso man and the Ripper were one and the same.

It is proven that the similarities were far more and far greater in that case, than in the case of Bury, who managed a cut to the abdomen and then that was it. A cut that was NOT reminiscent of the Ripperīs cuts.

So your hands are tied behind yourself, Harry. There is no way out of that dilemma.
Bury was 14 at the time of the 1873 torso murder and he was stone dead at the times of the last two torso deeds.

He was dead and the Ripper was alive.

Thatīs as bad an identification as we are likely to see. Ever.

If the similarities between the Ripper and the Torso man are not enough for you, then the case for Bury looks nothing short of ridiculous in comparison.

Lechmere (L) is not an "obvious suspect" and if you can operationalize him as a suspect the only reason for that is the absence of suspects.

Please answer this:

Did L have a motive?
What was the personal motive?
How was the personal motive visible in the signature?
How was the personal motive visible at the murder sites?
How was the motive visible in the time period when the murders were committed?
From what sources do you establish the motive explanation?
How reliable are the sources?
How valid are the sources?
Was there a cause (external reason) for L committing murder?
What was the cause?
How was the cause affecting his motive?
From what sources do you establish the causal explanation?
How reliable are the sources?
How valid are the sources?
What elements in the victimology was connected to L?
How are these elements connected to the causal explanation?
How are these elements connected to the motive explanation?
Why did L start and stop killing?
On which sources do you establish the answer for that question?
Why wasnīt the killer caught?

I will now answer the questions myself using another letter instead of L. I use X:

Did X have a motive?
X had a very distinctive motive.

What was the motive?
To obtain a result.

How was the personal motive visible in the signature?
It was visible in many details in the signature.

How was the personal motive visible at the murder sites?
It was visible in several details at the murder sites.

How was the personal motive visible in the time period when the murders were committed?
It was directly connected to the duration of a personal time period.

From what sources do you establish the motive explanation?
Individual sources and sources from the murder case.

How reliable are the sources?
On a scale from 1(low) to 5 (very high) many of them are at 5, a couple at 1 and most of them at 4 (high).

How valid are the sources?
They are valid.

Was there a cause (external reason) for X committing murder?
Yes.

What was the cause?
It was a terrifying cause.

How was the cause affecting his motive?
It made X think he had no choice.

From what sources do you establish the causal explanation?
From personal sources only.

How reliable are the sources?
100 percent.

How valid are the sources?
They are valid.

What elements in the victimology was connected to X?
Very specific elements. They are there.

How are these elements connected to the causal explanation?
They match.

How are these elements connected to the motive explanation?
They are closely connected.

Why did X start and stop killing?
Because of the external cause. This cause created the motive.

On which sources do you establish the answer for that question?
Original personal sources.

Why wasnīt the killer caught?
It would have caused a riot.

Jack the Ripper was not random. He was for real. His history is an advanced history. It is not a history created on a carman murdering on his way to work.

Best wishes, Pierre

[Harry D]

What constitutes "Mr. Evil", Fisherman? Had Bury been nothing more than a violent wifekiller, there'd be small difference between William Bury and someone like James Kelly. No, what stands Bury out from the crowd is that he is the only named suspect who committed a Ripper-like murder (strangulation and post-mortem abdominal mutilation). There's the sudden uprooting to Dundee after the Mary Kelly murder. And there's even graffiti that incriminates him, graffiti that most likely had been written by either Bury or his wife. Your suggestion that Bury killed his wife in a drunken rage, sobered up in ten minutes and in his inexplicably sobering state decided to make it look like a Ripper murder up in Scotland is quite frankly a ludicrous proposition.

Also, Bury was a police suspect, you forget that. He was investigated by Scotland Yard, although it doesn't appear that he was investigated with any great rigour. That might explain why they weren't impressed by Bury, owing to a lack of communication between constabularies, or he didn't fit the criminal profile, whatever. But he was at least a momentary blip on the radar.

It is your presumption that the Torsos & the Ripper murders were connected. You might believe this explains why your imaginary suspect continued to kill by alternating his signature, however wasn't the last Torso victim recorded in 1889? Pray tell, what happened after that? Did Lechmere realise that he was tired of cutting open/dismembering women on the side and returned to his normal family life?

[Henry Flower]

Pierre,

Until you reveal your suspect, every word you just wrote is irrelevance, nothing, fraud, bull**it.

Just f*** off.

[GUT]

Pierre,

Until you reveal your suspect, every word you just wrote is irrelevance, nothing, fraud, bull**it.

Just f*** off.

That'd be nice.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: What constitutes "Mr. Evil", Fisherman?

Simply a proven bad egg with a criminal record.

Had Bury been nothing more than a violent wifekiller, there'd be small difference between William Bury and someone like James Kelly.No, what stands Bury out from the crowd is that he is the only named suspect who committed a Ripper-like murder (strangulation and post-mortem abdominal mutilation).

There are unnamed suspects who came a hell of a lot closer, can we agree on that?

There's the sudden uprooting to Dundee after the Mary Kelly murder.

You cannot go on about that, if you are not willing to concede that people passing through Bucks Row at 3.40 are incredibly rare in comparison to those who left London in winter of 88-89. And it was not all that sudden in Buryīs case, was it? Some considerable time had passed.

And there's even graffiti that incriminates him, graffiti that most likely had been written by either Bury or his wife.

It does not incriminate him. It can just as well be empty of all sinister implications.

Your suggestion that Bury killed his wife in a drunken rage, sobered up in ten minutes and in his inexplicably sobering state decided to make it look like a Ripper murder up in Scotland is quite frankly a ludicrous proposition.

How long does it take for somebody who has killed hos wife to decide to try and shift the blame, then? Not to be ridiculous, I mean? And why would the Ripper be an impossible guest in Scotland? You propose yourself that the police believed that he could have been. Was that also ridiculous?

Also, Bury was a police suspect, you forget that.

No, I donīt. And I donīt think he was a suspect, I think he was a person of interest. And Abberline satisfied himself that there was nothing to it.

He was investigated by Scotland Yard, although it doesn't appear that he was investigated with any great rigour. That might explain why they weren't impressed by Bury, owing to a lack of communication between constabularies, or he didn't fit the criminal profile, whatever. But he was at least a momentary blip on the radar.

...and then he was removed from the screen.

It is your presumption that the Torsos & the Ripper murders were connected.

You are welcome to call it a conviction, even. A near certainty. How abiout you, do you acknowledge the great similarities or not? You are strangely silent on the point.

You might believe this explains why your imaginary suspect continued to kill by alternating his signature, however wasn't the last Torso victim recorded in 1889? Pray tell, what happened after that? Did Lechmere realise that he was tired of cutting open/dismembering women on the side and returned to his normal family life?

The same question was asked about him in relation to the Ripper murders - was he tired of killing after Kelly? It seems a futile exercise, therefore. We cannot know what he did between 1889 and 1920. He is a blank slate, remember?

[John Wheat]

However much toss is written about Lechmere a random witness is nowhere near the suspect Bury is.

[John Wheat]

Pierre,

Until you reveal your suspect, every word you just wrote is irrelevance, nothing, fraud, bull**it.

Just f*** off.

Yeah Pierre

Stop pissing about and reveal your suspect.

[Harry D]

Simply a proven bad egg with a criminal record.

How does that discredit Bury as a suspect? Don't a lot of serial killers have violent/criminal pasts?

There are unnamed suspects who came a hell of a lot closer, can we agree on that?

An unnamed suspect will always have an advantage for reasons already stipulated by myself.

It does not incriminate him. It can just as well be empty of all sinister implications.

It's another "Ripper-related" aspect of the crime, along with the similar MO & signature, that supports Bury as a suspect. That might be as good a confession as we're ever going to get.

And why would the Ripper be an impossible guest in Scotland? You propose yourself that the police believed that he could have been. Was that also ridiculous?

The police suspected that Bury might be the Ripper. Therein lies the difference.

And Abberline satisfied himself that there was nothing to it.

Abberline was also convinced that Chapman was the Ripper. What does that tell you?

You cannot go on about that, if you are not willing to concede that people passing through Bucks Row at 3.40 are incredibly rare in comparison to those who left London in winter of 88-89.

But Lechmere was on his way to work. As I've posited before, if a woman had been killed in Buck's Row around that time, is it not reasonable that Lechmere would've been among the first witnesses to find the body? What reason did Bury have for moving to the other end of Britain at the drop of a hat?

You are welcome to call it a conviction, even. A near certainty. How abiout you, do you acknowledge the great similarities or not? You are strangely silent on the point.

Where the Torsos are concerned, like many aspects of the case, I try to remain agnostic. There's valid arguments for both sides. There was a spate of violent attacks on women circa 1888. Do we attribute the bulk of these to the work of an unidentified lone killer? Or were there in fact two unnamed serial killers working independently of each other? To take things a step further, did the social consciousness of the time produce a critical mass of violent individuals whose grisly deeds gave the illusion of a serial killing? The lack of empirical data in these cases makes it difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: How does that discredit Bury as a suspect? Don't a lot of serial killers have violent/criminal pasts?

Some have, some donīt. Some probably have without any record for it. Consequently, being evil does not discredit Bury as a suspect. And I didnīt say it did. I said "Those who choose a Mr Evil and try to project the Ripper murders on him are the ones who make it easy on themselves, and they do so for the exact reason you speak of: a blank slate."

The problem is not in how you suggest a violent man as the killer. The problem is that you substitute evidence for a violent disposition.


An unnamed suspect will always have an advantage for reasons already stipulated by myself.

Ah, but the unnamed suspect we are talking of here is the Torso killer. And we know, without the shadow of a doubt that he came incredibly much closer to the Ripper deeds than Bury did. And that is what counts. If we are to believe in Bury as the Ripper on account of the not very Ripperlike cut to his wifeīs abdomen, then we MUST identify the Torso man with the Ripper on account of the exact same abdominal cuts, on account of the innards taken, on account of the abdominal flaps, on account of the lost colons etcetera. And when we accept this, pooof! Away goes Bury.


It's another "Ripper-related" aspect of the crime, along with the similar MO & signature, that supports Bury as a suspect. That might be as good a confession as we're ever going to get.

He has to reach a suspect status before that status can be supported. He must be knit to ayīny one of the Ripper murders before he becomes a Ripper suspect. Thinking otherwise is to accuse on no factual grounds.


The police suspected that Bury might be the Ripper. Therein lies the difference.

But if the police could cope with that leap, then why would not any killer be able to do the same? The Ripper was supposedly seen in many places outside London, by nervous people. The papers carried such stories, so why would it be ridiculous to suggest that the Ripper could have gone to Dundee? I donīt see the logic at all.


Abberline was also convinced that Chapman was the Ripper. What does that tell you?

That an ex-copper may be wrong. But Lechmere, for example, was apparently never investigated. And Chapman was equally not investigated as the possible Ripper as far as we know.Bury, however, WAS checked. And it gave nothing. Thatīs not to say that he could not have been the killer. Itīs only to say that the police came up with the idea that he was not, after having checked him out.

But Lechmere was on his way to work. As I've posited before, if a woman had been killed in Buck's Row around that time, is it not reasonable that Lechmere would've been among the first witnesses to find the body? What reason did Bury have for moving to the other end of Britain at the drop of a hat?

How many possible reasons do you want me to give you? Were all the people who left London in that winter killers because of it? And he did not leave in November of 1888, did he?
As for Lechmere, yes he was on his way to work. But that does not have anything at all to do with how many other men had reason to pass Bucks Row at 3.40 in the morning. We know of Paul - and nobody else. We know that the streets were reportedly empty. And we know that being en route to work does not disenable you to kill.
Thatīs why Lechmere is caught in the eye of the storm.


Where the Torsos are concerned, like many aspects of the case, I try to remain agnostic. There's valid arguments for both sides. There was a spate of violent attacks on women circa 1888. Do we attribute the bulk of these to the work of an unidentified lone killer? Or were there in fact two unnamed serial killers working independently of each other? To take things a step further, did the social consciousness of the time produce a critical mass of violent individuals whose grisly deeds gave the illusion of a serial killing? The lack of empirical data in these cases makes it difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions.

How is it meaningful to conclude that a damage that is not very much alike the Rippers abdominal cutting is an example of that cutting anyway, if it is NOT meaningful to conclude that the Torso mans cuttings, that ARE very much alike the Rippers work, is clear evidence of a shared identity? Why do you do the one thing but not the other. Why is the one thing meaningful but not the other? Please explain!

And letīs be very basic: I think that the more alike to ways of cutting a body are, the greater the chances will be that there is a connestion. Do you agree with that or not?

[Harry D]

The problem is not in how you suggest a violent man as the killer. The problem is that you substitute evidence for a violent disposition.

The evidence is there. You choose to ignore it.

He has to reach a suspect status before that status can be supported.

Reach suspect status in whose eyes? Yours?

He must be knit to ayīny one of the Ripper murders before he becomes a Ripper suspect.

What about Ellen Bury's murder? Does that count?

Were all the people who left London in that winter killers because of it?

Were all the people who left convicted murderers with a Ripper-esque MO?

And he did not leave in November of 1888, did he?

Bury wouldn't necessarily need to get out of Dodge straight after Mary Kelly's murder. Perhaps he was contemplating killing again before he decided that things were too hot. And don't forget, there was another Whitechapel murder between Mary Kelly's death and Bury's departure to Scotland.

Thatīs why Lechmere is caught in the eye of the storm.

Yes, unfortunately Lechmere's crime of walking to work on the 31th August 1888 (a journey that he must have made countless times before) has placed him in modern history as a violent, misogynistic killer. Despite no sign at all that he was anything less than a hardworking man who cared for his family. And please spare me the usual patter about 'family men' killers. Those cases involve proven murderers, Lechmere is anything but.

How is it meaningful to conclude that a damage that is not very much alike the Rippers abdominal cutting is an example of that cutting anyway, if it is NOT meaningful to conclude that the Torso mans cuttings, that ARE very much alike the Rippers work, is clear evidence of a shared identity? Why do you do the one thing but not the other. Why is the one thing meaningful but not the other? Please explain!

The Torso victims were dismembered and the perpetrator(s) took great pains taken to conceal the victim's identities, whereas the Ripper killed on the streets and left his victims on display. On a superficial level there might be similarities between the two (women murdered and mutilated, partial overlap) but I can certainly see two different creatures at work here.

Also your point about the abdominal wall cutting is a belabored one. It is not unreasonable to deduce that these forms of mutilation would involve a standard technique to gain ingress to the internal organs. And for that matter, were the Torso victims dismembered for practicality or sexual gratification, in your opinion? If the latter, this poses the question of why Mary Kelly wasn't dismembered at all, rather the killer focused on disfigurement and organ removal, as he did in the previous Whitechapel murder.

[Fisherman]

The evidence is there. You choose to ignore it.



Reach suspect status in whose eyes? Yours?



What about Ellen Bury's murder? Does that count?



Were all the people who left convicted murderers with a Ripper-esque MO?



Bury wouldn't necessarily need to get out of Dodge straight after Mary Kelly's murder. Perhaps he was contemplating killing again before he decided that things were too hot. And don't forget, there was another Whitechapel murder between Mary Kelly's death and Bury's departure to Scotland.



Yes, unfortunately Lechmere's crime of walking to work on the 31th August 1888 (a journey that he must have made countless times before) has placed him in modern history as a violent, misogynistic killer. Despite no sign at all that he was anything less than a hardworking man who cared for his family. And please spare me the usual patter about 'family men' killers. Those cases involve proven murderers, Lechmere is anything but.



The Torso victims were dismembered and the perpetrator(s) took great pains taken to conceal the victim's identities, whereas the Ripper killed on the streets and left his victims on display. On a superficial level there might be similarities between the two (women murdered and mutilated, partial overlap) but I can certainly see two different creatures at work here.

Also your point about the abdominal wall cutting is a belabored one. It is not unreasonable to deduce that these forms of mutilation would involve a standard technique to gain ingress to the internal organs. And for that matter, were the Torso victims dismembered for practicality or sexual gratification, in your opinion? If the latter, this poses the question of why Mary Kelly wasn't dismembered at all, rather the killer focused on disfigurement and organ removal, as he did in the previous Whitechapel murder.

Letīs just pick one of your misconceptions out, Harry:

The Torso killer is not proven to have tried to conceal the identitites of his victims at all. That is just fiction on your behalf. He packed up Jackson in her own clothes, he threw a full face into the Thames of the 1873 victim, he left scars and moles on the bodies. No killer intent on hiding identities would do that.

You are probably going on about the missed heads, but they sink in water - and there goes your point to the bottom too.

It seems the Torso killer did not care whether the identitites were made public or not. Not a bit. Like the Ripper, therefore.

You say the Ripper displayed his victims. What would you have him do? Carry them on his shoulder? Cut the heads off and bring them along?

And how is placing a torso in the vaults of the Scotland Yard NOT displaying?

Your arguments, Harry, melt away faster than icecream on Bondi Beach.

The old idea that two men who both killed prostitutes, who both cut from sternum to pubes, who both eviscerated, who both took organs, who both cut away the abdominal wall in large sections, who both cut away colons, who both bled their victims, in the same town at the same time, could not in a million years be the SAME man is dissolved today.

Itīs anew age for Ripperology.

It cannot be said that it is a proven thing that these two killers were one and the same (although I am sure that a jury would make that leap of faith with no remorse at all).

But it CAN be said that it is proven that the Torso man is eaons ahead of any other so called Ripper suspect when it comes to the anatomical implications.

Whether the Torso man arrived in 1873 and left in 1889, we donīt know. We only know that he seems to have been around in London throughout this period of years, and that is good enough for me. He killed in the year before the Ripper, he killed in the year of the Ripper and he killed in the year after the Ripper.

He fits like a glove. Bury does not fit anywhere like it - itīs more like trying a glove on the head: itīs the right case but the wrong implications.