Is Bury the best suspect we have?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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.

[Geddy2112]

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.

Did Jack have a VW Beetle?

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?

Did Peter have access to a car as well? Bring Neilson into it. He killed in a very small area, i.e. his house. Bring Fred West into it likewise.

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

Why do Team Lechmere always 'bring folk in' who they think can provide a tenuous link to Lechmere and think it proves anything. How about Ian Brady, he had two feet and two hands, so did Lechmere... lets bring him in.

[Geddy2112]

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

Can you post the evidence that shows Cross had trauma in his childhood?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Can you post the evidence that shows Cross had trauma in his childhood?

Allow me to answer that one Geddy - no he can't. There is none.

[Fiver]

And btw, Lechmere had childhood trauma: step dad was an alcoholic whose death certificate listed the symptoms of organ failure due to heavy drinking. Remember our little discussion on this last time I was here? Do you think its fun and laughter living with a step dad who drinks himself to death by the middle 30s?

There is no evidence that Thomas Cross was an alcoholic.

Thomas Cross' cause of death was Fatty degeneration, Dropsy, and Uroemia. It does not mention what organ or organs were suffering from fatty degeneration, but steosis is not confined to the liver. In the liver it is caused by alcoholism, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and hepatitis. In other organs it can be caused by obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and apnea.

Dropsy (edema) is caused by problems with the heart, liver, kidneys, or veins. There is no direct tie to alcoholism.

Uroemia is kidney failure. Causes are diabetes, high blood pressure, injuries to the kidney, and genetic defects. There is no direct tie to alcoholism.

Yet you ignore all other possibilities and assume Thomas Cross was not just an alcoholic, but an abusive one.

[Fiver]

Did you notice the possibility of sexual abuse being a consequence of an alcoholic parent? And what exactly was Lechmere's 17 year old daughter doing living with grand ma? One possibility is that it is a family dealing with sexual molestation .... wouldn't you agree? This sort of nasty behavior is often passed down from old victim to new victim within families.

There is no evidence that Thomas Cross was an alcoholic. There's a good chance that John Allen Lechmere was an alcoholic, but he had deserted the family some time between 1849 and 1851, well before his son's second birthday.

Your theory about Mary Jane Lechmere makes no sense. She did start living with her grandmother before she turned 6, but her older sister Elizabeth, as well as younger sisters Louisa and Emily continued to live with their parents. Nor did Mary Jane seem estranged from the rest of the family - she and her father were witnesses at her older sister Elizabeth's wedding. Her father and little sister Louisa were witnesses at Mary Jane's wedding.

[Fiver]

To which I would only add that, after literally decades living near or very near to his Ma, Lechmere's sudden move all the way out to Doveton Street didn't happen for no reason.

We have no idea why the Charles Allen Lechmere family moved to Doveton Street. 22 Doveton may have been a nicer neighborhood than 20 James Street. Or perhaps they needed more room after the birth of Harriet Emma. Or maybe the price was better. Or the location got their children into better schools. Or some combination of the same.

But there are no indications that there was anything sinister behind the move.

[Fiver]

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.

I invite people to read the actual debate. Newbie makes the claim in post #222. I can't find anyone that "conceded the point" and agreed with Newbie's diagnosis.

[Fiver]

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

You have claimed that Lechmere's stepfather was an abusive alcoholic. You have provided no evidence for your claim, just a mix of selectively interpreting and outright ignoring the medical evidence.