Is Bury the best suspect we have?

[John Wheat]

Not one word on my hypothesis that Cross sexually molesting his elder daughter was why she was living with her grandma?
There perhaps are other possibilities, but none that easily come to mind: ....schooling (probably not)? employment?

I thought i had stirred up the ant colony with that one ... herlock didn't even budge.

Well, this is a Bury thread, regardless of him not being the ripper.

Bury may well have been the Ripper. Cross no chance.

[rjpalmer]

His doctor(s) certainly thought he was an alcoholic, and they had personal discussions with him; their diagnosis would have been facilitated by that ....

Good Lord. Where can I read your novel?

See you on the other side.

[Newbie]

Seriously. What do you hope to gain by making things up as you go?

To state that the conditions listed on Tom Cross's death certificate can only be explained by alcoholism is pure moonshine.

And feel free to provide a contemporary source that states that "dropsy" was the "catch all medical term for the effects of alcoholism."

Below is an open letter to the Registrar General from the English physician William Farr, M.D., dated 1867---only two years before Thomas Cross's death---where Farr discusses the inadequacy of the term "dropsy" on death certificates---dropsy merely meaning edema--the unwanted retention of fluids in the tissue--and cites any number of conditions that can lead to it including Bright's Disease, heart disease (which I suspect is what Cross had), ascites (which CAN be from cirrhosis but can also be from an infection or from cancer), anemia, problems with the ovaries, scarlet fever, and even scurvy (Not to mention many other conditions, including diabetes).

I think we can safely rule out an ovarian disorder (!) or scarlet fever sending Tom Cross to the graveyard, but the relevant point is the diagnosis can spring from dozens of different disorders and not just alcoholism.

The reality is that there is not enough on Cross's death certificate to determine what disease or diseases killed him. You want it to be alcoholism, but there's nothing to show it was, nor do I think it is likely. Hell, the symptoms are compatible with Wilson Disease--a genetic condition that makes one retain copper, which leads to edema and kidney disease. How do you know that that's not what killed him?

The death certificate doesn't even identify which organ had 'fatty degeneration.' How do you know he didn't have a congenital heart condition? Or diabetes? Both of which can lead to "dropsy" and kidney disease.

Well, we are going to have to go through the damn thing again over the weekend, when I have time, and I'll strike off heart disease, Bright's disease, Wilson's disease, etc. .... just like last time.

You left out the time & sequence, for whatever reason ... which is very important in the diagnosis. We talked about the different organs and fatty degeneration, if I remember correctly. I'll just look up what i wrote a year ago.

fatty degeneration - years,
dropsy - 5 months,
uremia - 3 days

That's all we need.

Consider them one at a time, and ignore the sequence and duration, and there are infinite possibilities. But that's not the manner in which clinical diagnosis are based. You do realize this, no?

Sorry to say that considering them together, sequentially, puts the kibosh on your personal favorite heart disease.

I also discussed the level of understanding of diseases at the time. His doctor(s) certainly thought he was an alcoholic, and they had personal discussions with him; their diagnosis would have been facilitated by that .... so, if you contend that they might have got the symptoms wrong: well, we are no longer privy to these private discussion that would have influenced the diagnosis.

I always thought that one of the grave weaknesses on your side concerning Lechmere is an insistence in considering facts one by one, where anything is possible, as opposed to grouping certain ones together, which restricts possible interpretations.

Anyways, see you soon ... cherrios!

[Abby Normal]

this latest on here is exhibit A ive been saying for years that people lose there minds when it comes to lech. he keeps popping up everywhere, and people cant seem to stop talking about him, on both sides of the fence.

off topic gents, please take to the proper section.

[rjpalmer]

Alcoholic poisoning is the only plausible etiology for the symptoms listed .... dropsy alone, back in 1888, was the catch all medical term for the effects of alcoholism ...

Seriously. What do you hope to gain by making things up as you go?

To state that the conditions listed on Tom Cross's death certificate can only be explained by alcoholism is pure moonshine.

And feel free to provide a contemporary source that states that "dropsy" was the "catch all medical term for the effects of alcoholism."

Below is an open letter to the Registrar General from the English physician William Farr, M.D., dated 1867---only two years before Thomas Cross's death---where Farr discusses the inadequacy of the term "dropsy" on death certificates---dropsy merely meaning edema--the unwanted retention of fluids in the tissue--and cites any number of conditions that can lead to it including Bright's Disease, heart disease (which I suspect is what Cross had), ascites (which CAN be from cirrhosis but can also be from an infection or from cancer), anemia, problems with the ovaries, scarlet fever, and even scurvy (Not to mention many other conditions, including diabetes).

I think we can safely rule out an ovarian disorder (!) or scarlet fever sending Tom Cross to the graveyard, but the relevant point is the diagnosis can spring from dozens of different disorders and not just alcoholism.

The reality is that there is not enough on Cross's death certificate to determine what disease or diseases killed him. You want it to be alcoholism, but there's nothing to show it was, nor do I think it is likely. Hell, the symptoms are compatible with Wilson Disease--a genetic condition that makes one retain copper, which leads to edema and kidney disease. How do you know that that's not what killed him?

The death certificate doesn't even identify which organ had 'fatty degeneration.' How do you know he didn't have a congenital heart condition? Or diabetes? Both of which can lead to "dropsy" and kidney disease.

[Lombro2]

Lechmere is the height of Ripperology’s unknown local nobody theory.

You need to own your theory and your suspect.

Or get a new theory and start over.

[Newbie]

Not one word on my hypothesis that Cross sexually molesting his elder daughter was why she was living with her grandma?
There perhaps are other possibilities, but none that easily come to mind: ....schooling (probably not)? employment?

I thought i had stirred up the ant colony with that one ... herlock didn't even budge.

Well, this is a Bury thread, regardless of him not being the ripper.

[Newbie]

This isn't the thread for it, but I'm deeply skeptical of this claim. It is your theory, but is it a fact?

We've all seen skid row drunks who stubbornly cling to life into their late 40s, 50s, or even 60s despite pouring rotgut down their throats for years on end. Yet you have Thomas Cross suffering organ failure from alcoholism at the relatively young age of 34.

And yet, during this same span Cross is listed as a police constable at the time of his February 1858 marriage; again in 1861; and again on his death certificate in 1869. There is also a small amount of newspaper clippings referring to him walking the beat.

So how did this allegedly raging drunk manage to hold on to his job for a decade--in an organization that demanded discipline, no less---at a level of alcohol abuse that led to his total collapse in the prime of life?

If I were you, I'd run your diagnosis past Dr. Gregory House. If he did indeed die of kidney failure, there are a lot of reasons a person's kidneys can fail at a young age, and alcoholism is pretty low on that list.

RP

Why are you asking me these question? Google them and you'll get answers.
1 in 5 deaths of US adults 20 to 49 is from excessive ...

Again, look at the symptoms and do your own research, come up with a reasonable etiology.
I've already done this and would rather just relocate the arguments.

As for Cross's time on the police force, we don't know if he died a PC or resigned.
Its evidently more common in police officers than in the general population
Alcohol Abuse Among Police Officers


Cross must have been hitting the sauce hard from a young age to die in his mid 30s.

[Newbie]

I don't see anything about alcoholism or heavy drinking mentioned on the death certificate.

Yes, you do .... you just don't understand what is in front of you. Drospy and uremia, and there were a few other descriptors of his failing health listed, are symptoms of failing internal organs due to end stage alcoholism. Alcoholic poisoning is the only plausible etiology for the symptoms listed .... dropsy alone, back in 1888, was the catch all medical term for the effects of alcoholism ... but modern medicine would perceive the other tell tale symptoms listed. We had this debate a year ago, and the anti-Lechmerites ended up conceding the point and pivoting towards the so-what, that doesn't make him a serial killer posturing. A plucky group they are ... its not like alcoholism was uncommon back then.

But now they are getting cheeky and pretending that Lechmere had a trauma free childhood .... which we know was not the case.

[Newbie]

Now, to answer and specific questions I missed.


Why was Bury so fetched with Whitechapel?

If he did then I have no idea why. Why is it considered a good point that we have no answer to something? Because we don’t know the answer to something doesn’t lessen the possibility of it occurring. Maybe he’d gotten into the habit of using certain pubs in the area? Maybe there were certain ‘regulars’ that he met for sex? Who knows?

Why was he always wandering into Whitechapel to commit the murders?
Bethnell Green was an equally lovely hell hole, was closer, and had plenty of prostitutes - Bow also offering these amenities.
The entire police force was mobilized against you in the Whitechapel area, and yet you insist on doing your killings there - good heavens, why?

Again, you appear to believe that a lack of a known reason somehow reduces the possibility of something occurring. The killer, whoever he was, killed in that area…why? We can’t just assume that he lived there.

The entire police force was mobilised against whoever Jack the Ripper was and yet he continued to kill in that area. It’s no less likely for Bury to have operated in that area than any other suspect. (Answered)

What was he doing along Buck's row at 3:30 am, some 3 hours after the pubs had to close by law? Hanging out in the train station?

Who knows?But someone was in Bucks Row 3 hours after the pubs had closed. It’s no less likely to have been Bury than anyone else. (Answered)

And why was he getting sauced up near Berner street Saturday night before stumbling out of some pub and killing Liz Stride .....

We don’t know that he did. (Answered)

Bow had no pubs? Maybe the plan was to make the 45 minute walk from Bow, get smashed and then head on out for the killing spree.

Did Peter Sutcliffe kill on his doorstep? Did Ted Bundy stick to a small area? How can we presume to know what a serial killer was thinking at the time. Surely you can’t be suggesting that no one living outside of that small killing zone could have been the killer? Killing in a confined area where you live increases the likelihood of the killer not just being seen but seen and recognised. (I’ll add the fact that Bury had a horse and cart - Answered)

The city of London was closer to the crime scenes and had plenty of violent, wife beating drunks with miserable childhoods to your heart's content. Sift through a list there and you're as likely to find the Ripper as with Bury.

True enough. (Responded too)

If you can't answer these questions, imagining Bury as JtR is absurd.

What is genuinely absurd is for an intelligent person to mention Cross and Bury in the same breath as suspects.

Yes, you don't know .... and its kind of crucial to establish it for this guy to be taken seriously.

Ted Bundy didn't kill in a small area .... but the Ripper did, what is your point? Most everyone except you are convinced that the Ripper
was intimately familiar with the streets in which he killed ... the double event being one clear example of that knowledge.

Lechmere had it in spades, and Bury was new to not only Bow, but London in general.

From Berner street, to Mitre square, and back to Berner street to pick up your horse and cart and take flight: are you serious?
At night by a guy who doesn't know the area ... gaining his knowledge from hanging out at a few bars for inexplicable reasons?

The alternative is the 50 minute walk into Whitechapel just to kill, and then the 50 minute walk back to Bow ... sometimes unsuccessfully
one would imagine, because the opportunity just didn't arrive. Getting up at 2:30 am to make the long walk and kill Polly Nichols,
and then returning to Bow because you had no business being in White Chapel ..... and yet you always kill in a less than 1 square mile area in Whitechapel. Did Peter Sutcliffe kill in a small area some distance away from his home? No, he did not. What was your point in bringing him and Bundy into the discussion again?

Sutcliffe's father btw was an (abusive) alcoholic .... so, he shares that with Lech.

If people actually took Bury seriously, then there would be extensive research in making the connection between his employer in Bow,
and businesses in White Chapel. But no one really takes him seriously and doesn't bother to do that. Just lazy hand waiving arguments
on how he frequented prostitutes and killed his wife, etc.

[rjpalmer]

This isn't the thread for it, but here is the death certificate that Dr Palmer is opining about...

Free advice:

Never take medical advice from anyone named Dr. Palmer. Especially if he's from Rugeley.



RP

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't see anything about alcoholism or heavy drinking mentioned on the death certificate.

Maybe someone used invisible ink Lewis.

[Mark J D]

I don't see anything about alcoholism or heavy drinking mentioned on the death certificate.

Can't help you with that, squire.

M.

[Lewis C]

I’ve just had it pointed out to me by Roger Palmer that Murry wasn’t actually the suspect he was the informant. A piece of careless reading on my part which was well spotted by Roger.

Hi Herlock,

With all of the Murrays mentioned, I'm confused about which is which. It appears that 3 of them spelled their names with an "a" (Murray), and that one spelled it without an "a" (Murry). If that's the case, the one you're talking about here would be the one without an "a", the 38 year old labourer John Murry. Baron spelled his suspect's name without an "a", so if what I've said so far is right, then either Baron's suspect is really the informant or Baron misspelled his name.

[Lewis C]

This isn't the thread for it, but here is the death certificate that Dr Palmer is opining about...



M.

I don't see anything about alcoholism or heavy drinking mentioned on the death certificate.