Lack of Threads

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Good! Your should try that more often.

But jokes aside, the problem is that there are, and have been, so many serial murderers in the world. Bury is just one of them. And ideal types are reductive. So being a murderer using a knife really means nothing. But I can understand that people are desperate.

Kind regards, Pierre

Pierre,

seriously now agreeing with you twice in one night.

However are you sure he was a serial killer?

my view on Bury is:

Is he worth looking at - yes.

Is it possible he could be the killer, - just about, certainly more going for him than many. However as i have said before that does not say much. All the cases are weak!

Is it probably he was- No, being in London obviously gives opportunity, but no more. killing with a knife as you say proves nothing.

Know that is very simplified, but trust it is clear.


regards

Steve

[Columbo]

Hi Steve,

Good! Your should try that more often.

But jokes aside, the problem is that there are, and have been, so many serial murderers in the world. Bury is just one of them. And ideal types are reductive. So being a murderer using a knife really means nothing. But I can understand that people are desperate.

Kind regards, Pierre

That's not correct. Bury was not a serial killer he was investigated for a string of serial killings. Let's not re-hang the man for something he probably didn't do.

Columbo

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;380201]

Is there anything to say that Lechmere did NOT have violent tendencies?

Correct - there is not. It is and remains an unwritten chapter.

When you have arrived at a point where you must argue with what you do not know, it is time to stop.

Regards, Pierre

[John Wheat]

Hi Steve,

Good! Your should try that more often.

But jokes aside, the problem is that there are, and have been, so many serial murderers in the world. Bury is just one of them. And ideal types are reductive. So being a murderer using a knife really means nothing. But I can understand that people are desperate.

Kind regards, Pierre

Pierre

I would just like to say that I am not desperate. If someone was to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that someone else other than Bury was the Ripper I would be ecstatic. However I'm sure this wouldn't be the case for some posters.

Cheers John

[Pierre]

No, Pierre, he is not a better bid than a man who was found with one of the victims at a remove in time that was very close in time to her death. He is a better bid than van Gogh, however, so itīs one out of two for you.

Someone had to find her. People were passing through Buckīs Row on their way to work.

So that is nothing suspicious.

Is it suspicious that a man named Cross and Lechmere (in two different time periods of his life) used the name Cross at a murder inquest?

Is it suspicious that he said he saw a policeman at the murder site - if that is what he said?

Are you looking for "suspicious things" Fisherman? Are you constructing a "suspect" out of sparse data with low validity and reliability?

I think THAT is a bit "suspicious".

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

My Dear Pierre,

Not often we agree, even partially, however on this rare occasion I agree with you completely on the above statement.

all the best

Steve

Hi Steve,

Good! Your should try that more often.

But jokes aside, the problem is that there are, and have been, so many serial murderers in the world. Bury is just one of them. And ideal types are reductive. So being a murderer using a knife really means nothing. But I can understand that people are desperate.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;380189]John Wheat: By your reckoning thousands of men have as much chance of being the Ripper as Lechmere other than the fact that he found a body.

[B]And by YOUR reckoning, no other man could be the Ripper but one who had a previous record of having killed, John. And that is where you are wrong. You oversimplify.

Very good, Fisherman. That is exactly what ideal types do. They oversimplify by pointing out one special characteristic.

And you keep going on about Lechmere being found with a body but it's not as if he was found with a knife over the victim.

No, because if he had been, he would have been identified as the killer and we would not be here discussing the case. Why does it nag you that I point out that he was found alone with the freshly killed victim?

Very important! He was "found alone with the freshly killed victim". So where were all the attributs of the murderer who was found with the freshly killed victim? Where was the knife, the blood on the murderers hand, on his clothes, and why was the murderer standing in the street at some distance from his freshly killed victim? Why was he not kneeling beside the victim, or in the act of cutting the victim? And why was he not trying to run away when he was found with the freshly killed victim?

All of these questions are questions that people here have been asking you. And what have you done with the attributs that people want to see?

You have explained them away.

You have done what you think that Lechmere did.

Because you are imposing your own thinking on a dead man who wasnīt a suspect and had none of the necessary attributes when he was "found with the freshly killed victim". There is ABSENCE OF ATTRIBUTES and YOU EXPLAIN THEM AWAY. On top of this you impose that thinking, as I said, on Lechmere. Lechmere explained away his role as a murderer and his name. But that is your own construction.

But do you not see that the attributes are not there? And do you not understand that Lechmere did not have your own attribut of explaining away things? He was just afraid of having his name in the papers. And others did the same. Cleary / Arnold did it. And "the pensioner" even made a remark that all the world would know who he was after they had questioned him and he appeared in the newspapers.

Go ahead Fisherman and study THAT problem instead.

Read my lips: Any criminal investigation should take itīs starting point by examining the people found at the crime scene at a remove in time that is potentially consistent with having been the perpetrator. It is only if no suspect can be identified among these people that the investigation should be widened to involve people who have a record of having perpetrated deeds that are reminiscent of the one investigated.

And still, Lechmere was no suspect. Why? Have you ever been thinking about the fact that he could have made a deal with the police to use his name Cross so he would not to have his usual name Lechmere in the newspapers?

In other words: Lechmere comes BEFORE Bury, BEFORE Levy, BEFORE Druitt, BEFORE Chapman, BEFORE Kosminsky etcetera.

And YOU come BEFORE Lechmere. BEFORE his supposed lies, BEFORE his supposed guilt and BEFORE the "theory" about Lechmere being Jack the Ripper.

Etcetera.

Once we are able to clear Lechmere and to realize that nothing he said or did is in any way suspicious, we may turn to the painstaking work of trying to fit known criminals into the Ripper suit,

...Hold it, Fisherman! "Trying to fit known criminals into the Ripper suit"? Now, that is very, very unempirical. Jack the Ripper can ONLY be found by examining the sources from 1888. NOT by arguing for "people being Jack the Ripper". No. You see, Jack the Ripper was unique. He was a very rare serial killer and a very unique person.


No amount of semantics will make him less of a killer, John. It works both ways as long as we cannot prove either version.


That is silly. That principle means you could say anything and as long as people cannot disprove it, it can be taken as a serious hypothesis. You hide behind that idea now, Fisherman, and that is what is silly. Of course it does not "work both ways", since it does not work at all. That is the problem with Lechmere.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Bury is a better case actually. He was a murderer. Although I do not at all think he was Jack the Ripper. But a better case, having the characteristic of being "a murderer". Also, having used a knife to commit the murder.

My Dear Pierre,

Not often we agree, even partially, however on this rare occasion I agree with you completely on the above statement.

all the best

Steve

[Fisherman]

If we want violent tendencies we can remain in Whitechapel. Take Henry Buckley for instance, who lived in McCarthys house. Stabbed a man in the thigh in december 1888, just after the murder on Kelly.

So he is a better bid than both Van Gogh and Lechmere. Violent tendency, lives close to one of the murder sites in the right time period.

Regards, Pierre

No, Pierre, he is not a better bid than a man who was found with one of the victims at a remove in time that was very close in time to her death. He is a better bid than van Gogh, however, so itīs one out of two for you.

[Fisherman]

I would rather a non condescending tone from you but we can't have everything. As for the surrounding World the majority of this site well I'm sure you know what they think of you.

No, I donīt. Tell me!

[Pierre]

Well Van Gough is a better bet than Lechmere at least Van Gough cut off his ear so he obviously had violent tendencies.

If we want violent tendencies we can remain in Whitechapel. Take Henry Buckley for instance, who lived in McCarthys house. Stabbed a man in the thigh in december 1888, just after the murder on Kelly.

So he is a better bid than both Van Gogh and Lechmere. Violent tendency, lives close to one of the murder sites in the right time period.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;380047]

I have "come up with" lots more.

Lots more about one "connection". Lechmere - Nichols.

Built on sources with low validity and reliability.

Nothing at all connects Lechmere to Chapman, Stride, Eddowes or Kelly.

The fact is that you have come up with absolutely nothing that in any shape or form ties Bury to the Ripper case.

Bury is a better case actually. He was a murderer. Although I do not at all think he was Jack the Ripper. But a better case, having the characteristic of being "a murderer". Also, having used a knife to commit the murder.

Letīs postulate two ideal types:

A) The Murderer is the type who murders someone. If the victim was killed with a knife, the ideal type is The Murderer with a knife.

Bury was such a person.

B) The Finder of a murdered body is the type who finds a murdered body. If the person who is a finder will have his name published in the newspapers, he may not want that, and the ideal type will be The Finder who avoids getting his name published in the newspapers.

Lechmere was such a person.

Now, we can not swop A and B. And we can not impose the ideal type of A on B. So why are you trying to do that?

Also:

C) Jack the Ripper is the type of murderer who killed at least five women in Whitechapel in 1888.

Just because you do not know who he was: Why do you try to impose both A and B on Jack the Ripper?

What problem does that solve?

Regards, Pierre

[John Wheat]

John Wheat: If your not that happy about the kind of hints I produce then you have options you could ignore them or you could ignore my posts.

Maybe so - but I would much prefer a civil tone from your side.

I don't believe your time and effort has been remotely useful.

Luckily, thatīs not for you to decide.

Admittedly you've maybe managed to convince one or two that Lechmere should be a suspect rather than a witness but that's about it.

Have a look at the surrounding world and the comments about the documentary.

But now you have descended down into worthless bickering about anything but the case as such, and the time has come to drop this discussion.

I would rather a non condescending tone from you but we can't have everything. As for the surrounding World the majority of this site well I'm sure you know what they think of you.

[Fisherman]

John Wheat: If your not that happy about the kind of hints I produce then you have options you could ignore them or you could ignore my posts.

Maybe so - but I would much prefer a civil tone from your side.

I don't believe your time and effort has been remotely useful.

Luckily, thatīs not for you to decide.

Admittedly you've maybe managed to convince one or two that Lechmere should be a suspect rather than a witness but that's about it.

Have a look at the surrounding world and the comments about the documentary.

But now you have descended down into worthless bickering about anything but the case as such, and the time has come to drop this discussion.

[John Wheat]

Actually, Bury wrote out a confession before his execution and gave it to his Pastor. So yes he did confess saying they were fighting over money while drunk.

I believe the police and newspapers reported alot of JTR graffito talking about how many killed and how many to be killed etc,. IMO the graffito at Bury's was probably written by some kid he got nasty with while drunk and it was a form of retaliation.

If you think it was written by his wife, she could've just turned him in and left. She apparently had some means to get away from him.

I couldn't tell you if Lechmere had violent tendencies or not. He didn't necessarily have to be a drunken wife beater or anything along those lines. It might very well have been in his mind for years and he finally took action on it.


Columbo

I don't believe the graffito was written by some kid. Odds on it was written by Bury or Ellen. What makes you think Ellen was capable of getting away from Bury? The available evidence suggests that at the time of Ellen's murder Bury had squandered almost all her money. It also suggests Ellen was scared of Bury.