Lack of Threads

[John Wheat]

It does not "suit" me, John. I have worked a lot with the case, I have spent a lot of time and effort and I like to think that I have done so in a useful manner. I am not very happy about the kind of hints you produce.

We know that the carman was presented as Charles Cross in the police reports. It is perfectly obvious that this was not the name he otherwise used in an official capacity. It is therefore quite rational to conclude that the police did not look into him deep enough to find out his real name.
It has nothing to do with what "suits" me.

If the police had been aware that he was actually Charles Allen Lechmere, I would be very interested to know why they did not call him Charles Allen Lechmere in their reports. Were they that anxious not to be able to research him in the future, should the need arise?

As for the graffito, yu are in the fortunate position that I cannot prove my case. But I CAN lay down that the talk of the town is what normally ends up as graffito, so the writing is on the wall in a double capacity.

Could it be that it "suits" you not to acknowledge this, John? Do you imagine a situation where hundreds of fake Ripper letters were written, were thousands of letters to the editor were sent to the papers about the Ripper - but where nobody came up with the idea of chalking it...?

We do our work in very different manners, donīt we? Letīs see how you solve this one: If the police knew his real name after having researched him, then why did they not use it in their internal reports? A "suitable" answer is required.

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

[Fisherman]

The lack of throat-cutting is not necessarily an issue with Bury as a suspect. The Ripper was striking on the streets or in other risky locations where he needed to silence the victim immediately to avoid detection and perform the mutilations. William Bury killed Ellen in the 'comfort' of their basement flat. He didn't need to worry about a passer-by or someone peeping through the hole in the window like at Miller's Court.

... so he did not mind if she cried her heart out? Were the walls and windows isolated so as not to let any sound through?

Also, keep in mind that Polly Nichols seemingly had her abdomen cut BEFORE the neck was cut. Or so Llewellyn said, at least, but maybe we can drop that...?

[Fisherman]

In his memoirs, Walter Dew made the following comment;

"After the lapse of so many years I find it difficult to say just when the name of Jack the Ripper became associated with the Whitechapel murders, but it was certainly in the early days of the mystery.

The name originated from the messages chalked on the walls, and the many letters received by the police and others bearing this terrifying signature. It fitted, and because it fitted, it stuck. Even to this day it lives in the minds of many as a symbol of fear and horror."

This sounds to me as if there was JTR graffiti about, although it has to be said that Dew was writing 50 years after the events.

There we are then! I think that John Wheat is the only one genuinely perplexed by this...

[Fisherman]

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

A wise enough reflection, Columbo - and once again, we have Peter Kürten as an interesting example. He killed women in the most horrendeous ways, enjoying their suffering, but he treated his wife as a princess. They had no sex life, but he was very affectionate towards her.
And Gary Ridgways wife said that she had never met a better man than her husband.
Etcetera, etcetera.

So being a loving family man and a horrific serialist are two quite comparable extremes that can be found within the same person.

[Harry D]

The lack of throat-cutting is not necessarily an issue with Bury as a suspect. The Ripper was striking on the streets or in other risky locations where he needed to silence the victim immediately to avoid detection and perform the mutilations. William Bury killed Ellen in the 'comfort' of their basement flat. He didn't need to worry about a passer-by or someone peeping through the hole in the window like at Miller's Court.

[Joshua Rogan]

Graffito

In his memoirs, Walter Dew made the following comment;

"After the lapse of so many years I find it difficult to say just when the name of Jack the Ripper became associated with the Whitechapel murders, but it was certainly in the early days of the mystery.

The name originated from the messages chalked on the walls, and the many letters received by the police and others bearing this terrifying signature. It fitted, and because it fitted, it stuck. Even to this day it lives in the minds of many as a symbol of fear and horror."

This sounds to me as if there was JTR graffiti about, although it has to be said that Dew was writing 50 years after the events.

[Columbo]

Bury didn't confess to killing his wife. There is also nothing to say Lechmere had violent tendencies. Its a fact that the graffito was found at Bury's place. Its worth noting that no other instances of this sort of graffito have been noted down.

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

[Fisherman]

I don't think we can safely bank on there being graffito about the Ripper all over the place. The fact is the only recordered instances of this sort of graffito were at Bury's place. Yes the place of a Ripper suspect. No other suspects have graffito linked to them. I still think there is a strong possibility Lechmere was investigated at the time but obviously it suits you to think he wasn't.

It does not "suit" me, John. I have worked a lot with the case, I have spent a lot of time and effort and I like to think that I have done so in a useful manner. I am not very happy about the kind of hints you produce.

We know that the carman was presented as Charles Cross in the police reports. It is perfectly obvious that this was not the name he otherwise used in an official capacity. It is therefore quite rational to conclude that the police did not look into him deep enough to find out his real name.
It has nothing to do with what "suits" me.

If the police had been aware that he was actually Charles Allen Lechmere, I would be very interested to know why they did not call him Charles Allen Lechmere in their reports. Were they that anxious not to be able to research him in the future, should the need arise?

As for the graffito, yu are in the fortunate position that I cannot prove my case. But I CAN lay down that the talk of the town is what normally ends up as graffito, so the writing is on the wall in a double capacity.

Could it be that it "suits" you not to acknowledge this, John? Do you imagine a situation where hundreds of fake Ripper letters were written, were thousands of letters to the editor were sent to the papers about the Ripper - but where nobody came up with the idea of chalking it...?

We do our work in very different manners, donīt we? Letīs see how you solve this one: If the police knew his real name after having researched him, then why did they not use it in their internal reports? A "suitable" answer is required.

[John Wheat]

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

Correct - there is not. It is and remains an unwritten chapter. There are numerous examples of serialists who made their surroundings go "What? HIM!!??" when found out, so you cannot make any point about it. It is totally moot.

We know that there was Lipski graffito in the East End, and we may safely bank on there having been Ripper graffito in many places. Graffito is a sort of societal comment board message, expanding on the trends of the day.

Therre will have been hundreds of people who claimed to be the Ripper during the scare. These things are not in any way indicative of being the real thing - it is a common kind of background music that is played in these kinds of cases, quite simply.

I don't think we can safely bank on there being graffito about the Ripper all over the place. The fact is the only recordered instances of this sort of graffito were at Bury's place. Yes the place of a Ripper suspect. No other suspects have graffito linked to them. I still think there is a strong possibility Lechmere was investigated at the time but obviously it suits you to think he wasn't.

[Fisherman]

If its police procedure to look at witnesses that found bodies etc then I'm sure that the police of the time looked at Lechmere and cleared him.

It IS police procedure. And it WAS police procedure back then too - but the victorian police force was (as was the society on a whole) prejudiced, and so various categories of people were variously likely to be raked over the coals. And a family man with a steady job would have been very unlikely to be at the top of the list. It was a sad prejudice then - and even more sadly, it is shared today by many a poster out here, who STILL think that family men with steady work cannot be serial killers.

Little do they know!

[Fisherman]

Bury didn't confess to killing his wife. There is also nothing to say Lechmere had violent tendencies. Its a fact that the graffito was found at Bury's place. Its worth noting that no other instances of this sort of graffito have been noted down.

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

Correct - there is not. It is and remains an unwritten chapter. There are numerous examples of serialists who made their surroundings go "What? HIM!!??" when found out, so you cannot make any point about it. It is totally moot.

We know that there was Lipski graffito in the East End, and we may safely bank on there having been Ripper graffito in many places. Graffito is a sort of societal comment board message, expanding on the trends of the day.

Therre will have been hundreds of people who claimed to be the Ripper during the scare. These things are not in any way indicative of being the real thing - it is a common kind of background music that is played in these kinds of cases, quite simply.

[John Wheat]

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.

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.
If it was as simple as you think it is - find the killer who has a record that comes closest to what the Ripper did - then this case (and every other murder case) could be settled quickly enough.
But the truth of the matter is that there is no other identified killer who did what the Ripper did at the relevant remove in time. Bury strangled his wife, a common enough method of killing people, and then he cut her abdomen in a fashion that was not very reminiscent of what the Ripper did. He took no organs, he did not seem to have a fascination with the inner organs, he did not cut the face (which the Ripper did in the last two cases), he did not kill a stranger but instead his own wife, he did not leave the body on display, he went to the police and told them about it, he kept the body at a place that was connected to him etcetera - he differs on every major point from what the Ripper was about.

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 alione with the freshly killed victim? Do you think that is irrelevant? Has it ever been irrelevant? Do police manuals include the advice to let people with no previous criminal records off the hook if they are found alone with a freshly slain body?
Can we be for real? For once? 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.
In other words: Lechmere comes BEFORE Bury, BEFORE Levy, BEFORE Druitt, BEFORE Chapman, BEFORE Kosminsky 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, and as we all know, there is not one single known criminal from the perios who carried the same size and design as the Ripper did. Factually, we would be left with no real suspect. We would have to resort to discussing which of the proponents is the least bad one. There, and there only, can Bury come into play.

In fact its more accurate to say he found a body.

Then explain to me just HOW it is more accurate. The way I ujderstand things, we do not know whether he found the body or killed nichols. So how on earth is it "more accurate" to rule one option out, and to establish the other option as "more accurate"?
My prediction is that you will not be able to answer that question.

No amount of semantics make Lechmere anything other than a witness.

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

As for me bothering to answer your posts I did start the thread.

Ah, yes - but that does not mean that you are obliged to answer me every time I post. You are free to choose.

If its police procedure to look at witnesses that found bodies etc then I'm sure that the police of the time looked at Lechmere and cleared him.

[John Wheat]

Oh good another Lechmere reference! Lechmere was found with a very recently killed victim. That in itself should warrant at least a look at him. But look at the other threads and there is a little more then just finding a body. I'm not saying he did it, just pointing out there's more than what's referenced here.

Bury killed and confessed to killing his wife. There was no similarities between JTR's victims and Bury's mutilation of his wife. No throat cut, no dis-disembowelment. the wounds were practical. The stabs may have to finish her off because she wasn't quite dead. Wounds were made to stuff her into a box, just like Mary Pearcy did to her lover's wife and child. So when people say the wounds are similar, that's semantics.

A few graffito's make no difference because there's no real proof of what they said or if they even existed. If they did exist why did no one point Bury out at the time as JTR? If they took the time to write it and were actually referencing Bury why not tell the cops?

Bury's like other suspects. He's a possibility but not a very strong one. Not even during his own time.

Columbo

Bury didn't confess to killing his wife. There is also nothing to say Lechmere had violent tendencies. Its a fact that the graffito was found at Bury's place. Its worth noting that no other instances of this sort of graffito have been noted down.

[Fisherman]

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.

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.
If it was as simple as you think it is - find the killer who has a record that comes closest to what the Ripper did - then this case (and every other murder case) could be settled quickly enough.
But the truth of the matter is that there is no other identified killer who did what the Ripper did at the relevant remove in time. Bury strangled his wife, a common enough method of killing people, and then he cut her abdomen in a fashion that was not very reminiscent of what the Ripper did. He took no organs, he did not seem to have a fascination with the inner organs, he did not cut the face (which the Ripper did in the last two cases), he did not kill a stranger but instead his own wife, he did not leave the body on display, he went to the police and told them about it, he kept the body at a place that was connected to him etcetera - he differs on every major point from what the Ripper was about.

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 alione with the freshly killed victim? Do you think that is irrelevant? Has it ever been irrelevant? Do police manuals include the advice to let people with no previous criminal records off the hook if they are found alone with a freshly slain body?
Can we be for real? For once? 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.
In other words: Lechmere comes BEFORE Bury, BEFORE Levy, BEFORE Druitt, BEFORE Chapman, BEFORE Kosminsky 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, and as we all know, there is not one single known criminal from the perios who carried the same size and design as the Ripper did. Factually, we would be left with no real suspect. We would have to resort to discussing which of the proponents is the least bad one. There, and there only, can Bury come into play.

In fact its more accurate to say he found a body.

Then explain to me just HOW it is more accurate. The way I ujderstand things, we do not know whether he found the body or killed nichols. So how on earth is it "more accurate" to rule one option out, and to establish the other option as "more accurate"?
My prediction is that you will not be able to answer that question.

No amount of semantics make Lechmere anything other than a witness.

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

As for me bothering to answer your posts I did start the thread.

Ah, yes - but that does not mean that you are obliged to answer me every time I post. You are free to choose.

[Columbo]

http://www.amazon.com/Trial-Jack-Ripper-William-1859-89/dp/1845960114

and

http://www.amazon.com/Jack-Ripper-Anatomy-William-Beadle/dp/0952448904

It's been a decade or so since I've read them but, I recall enjoying the books.

Excellent! Thank you.

Columbo