Lack of Threads

[Wickerman]

All I actually said was the reason why Bury didn't mutilate Ellen Bury to a greater extent was he would have been hung as the Ripper. This applies if Bury was the Ripper or a copycat.

It's a double-edged sword though isn't it John.
It is necessary to assert the similarities in method in order to consolidate Bury as a better suspect, yet dissimilar enough to avoid accusations by the police that he was JtR.

It comes across as a lose-lose type of argument, critiques will come at you from both sides.

[John Wheat]

It's a double-edged sword though isn't it John.
It is necessary to assert the similarities in method in order to consolidate Bury as a better suspect, yet dissimilar enough to avoid accusations by the police that he was JtR.

It comes across as a lose-lose type of argument, critiques will come at you from both sides.

Fair point Wickerman. However you mention this is all needed to make Bury a better Ripper suspect. Compared to who though?

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

Fair point Wickerman. However you mention this is all needed to make Bury a better Ripper suspect. Compared to who though?

Cheers John

Well, since you promote the damage done to the victims in each specific case as the most viable method of determining who was the Ripper, we would need somebody who had been identified as killing in a fashion that is closer to the Ripper deeds than Bury did, or who was on par with Bury in this respect but had a victimology that was consistent with that of the Ripper.

No such person has been identified, although it could be argued that if f ex MacKenzie was killed by somebody else than the Ripper, then that killer is a better bid than Bury is.

The real problem as I see things is that you seem to think that anybody with a proven record of violence is automatically a better suspect than somebody with no such record, discounting all other parameters along the way. "The Ripper was a killer, so we must find somebody with a record of having killed before we can identify him" is the message you are promoting, and as I have frequently pointed out before, many serialists who have been caught have had no previous records of violent crime before they started killing.

If you think that a proven killer or violent man must always be a viable bid, then fine - but why would we discount those who have no such identified record?
The proper way to do things is to find the ones we know were in place. Then we need to examine them, and clear them before we widen the search circle. If any of the ones who were in place cannot be cleared, then that´s were the emphasis should lie.

Putting it short, if we only allow for proven and identified killers to have been the Ripper, then Bury is firmly in the driving seat. But once we accept that many more factors must be weighed in, Bury will drop down the scale. And I think most people out here are inclined to weigh in all factors.

[John Wheat]

To Fisherman

I am not just saying Bury should be looked at closely because he committed a Ripper style murder. Have you read my postings on the Coincidences thread? If not I suggest you do. And for the last time finding a body is not indicative of guilt.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

To Fisherman

I am not just saying Bury should be looked at closely because he committed a Ripper style murder. Have you read my postings on the Coincidences thread? If not I suggest you do. And for the last time finding a body is not indicative of guilt.

Cheers John

For the last time?

You are wasting your breath. I have never said that finding a body is indicative of guilt.

I am saying that anybody who is found alone by a freshly killed victim is by definition somebody who is a better suspect than somebody who cannot be proven to have been even close to a murder site, no matter how violent that somebody is.

I have read the postings on the coincidences thread, but I remain convinced that Bury is not a good suspect.

[John Wheat]

To Fisherman
Lechmere found a body so what someone was bound to? Unless you can come up with something better than he found a body I'm not interested.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

To Fisherman
Lechmere found a body so what someone was bound to? Unless you can come up with something better than he found a body I'm not interested.

Cheers John

I have "come up with" lots more.

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

What you do now is to repeat the somewhat worn idea that I would have suggested that finding a body is suspicious per se.

I have not, so you can let that go.

[Harry D]

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

Other than him being officially investigated by Scotland Yard, you mean?

[Fisherman]

Other than him being officially investigated by Scotland Yard, you mean?

That does not tie him to the murders as such, no. Nor does the graffiti. Nor does the murder type. Etcetera.

He is not tied to the murder places or the murder victims in any form, and he is therefore not tied to the murder series in any practical sense.

He was officially cleared too, it would seem...

[Harry D]

Don't move the goalposts. You said there's nothing linking him to the Ripper CASE. That statement is incorrect. He was actually investigated as a suspect, unlike Lechmere.

He was officially cleared too, it would seem...

Yeah, but you don't put any stock in their judgement... or is that only when it suits?

[Fisherman]

Don't move the goalposts. You said there's nothing linking him to the Ripper CASE. That statement is incorrect. He was actually investigated as a suspect, unlike Lechmere.



Yeah, but you don't put any stock in their judgement... or is that only when it suits?

He was investigated as a potential suspect, yes - and the police could find nothing at all that tied him practically to the Ripper case, which is the exact point I am making.

George Chapman is another man of the same ilk - an interest (albeit at a later stage) from the police, but no links to the case whatsoever, practically speaking.

By the way, being investigated as a potential suspect does not elevate your suspect status if nothing comes to light that is of interest in the case - it is the other way around; it lowers your suspect status.

Do I put any stock in the judgment of the victorian police? Actually, I do. I think they were not up to scratch if we compare to todays forces, and I think they made numerous mistakes along the Ripper investigation. But I do not rule out their ability to exclude a person from the investigation as such. It´s not as if there was any guarantee that they would get things wrong - it´s much more a case of the victorian police being an unmodern, prejudiced police force. That would prevent them from going after people from different layers of society with the same zeal and conviction, but once they had a suspect, they would have a pretty good idea about which questions to ask and what to check.

So nice try, but no cigar, Harry. You may need to give up smoking altogether.

[John Wheat]

I have "come up with" lots more.

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

What you do now is to repeat the somewhat worn idea that I would have suggested that finding a body is suspicious per se.

I have not, so you can let that go.

Well then if even you are saying there's nothing suspicious with Lechmere finding a body then what's the point of the umpteen Lechmere threads? I'll give you a clue no point. I've read all the b.s. about Lechmere and that's all it is b.s. As for me finding nothing that ties Bury to the case I never claimed I had. That has already been done by others eg McPherson and Beadle.

[Fisherman]

Well then if even you are saying there's nothing suspicious with Lechmere finding a body then what's the point of the umpteen Lechmere threads? I'll give you a clue no point. I've read all the b.s. about Lechmere and that's all it is b.s. As for me finding nothing that ties Bury to the case I never claimed I had. That has already been done by others eg McPherson and Beadle.

It is not as if Lechmere´s finding the body is the only thing pointing to him. That is your conjecture only, and not compatible with the truth. To begin with, Lechmere is geographically tied to the murder area by means of his working trek and his mothers place. He also had reason to be on the streets at the relevant hours.
There is also the fact that he gave another name than the one he ordinarily gave when contacting authorities.
There is also the fact that he disagreed with the police over what was said on the murder night.
And a number of other matters.

To you that is bullshit. That only goes to show how ill informed and ignorant you are - and you brag about it to boot! Dear me.

McPherson and Bill Beadle have not tied Bury to the murder series. He remains a person of vague interest only. That is still enough to place him on the top twenty, but that is alongside a number of other not very remarkable candidates - such is the overall quality. If it ever changes in Bury´s c ase, I will let you know. Just don´t trust your instincts on it, since that seems to end in disaster...

[Harry D]

He was investigated as a potential suspect, yes

Therefore, he was part of the case. That's all I wanted.

Concession accepted.

[John Wheat]

It is not as if Lechmere´s finding the body is the only thing pointing to him. That is your conjecture only, and not compatible with the truth. To begin with, Lechmere is geographically tied to the murder area by means of his working trek and his mothers place. He also had reason to be on the streets at the relevant hours.
There is also the fact that he gave another name than the one he ordinarily gave when contacting authorities.
There is also the fact that he disagreed with the police over what was said on the murder night.
And a number of other matters.

To you that is bullshit. That only goes to show how ill informed and ignorant you are - and you brag about it to boot! Dear me.

McPherson and Bill Beadle have not tied Bury to the murder series. He remains a person of vague interest only. That is still enough to place him on the top twenty, but that is alongside a number of other not very remarkable candidates - such is the overall quality. If it ever changes in Bury´s c ase, I will let you know. Just don´t trust your instincts on it, since that seems to end in disaster...

Yes Lechmere had a reason to be out at that time its not suspicious it is anything but. Lechmere gave a name that could easily have been traced to him. You'll have to do better than that but don't bother I'm really not interested.