Lack of Threads

[Fisherman]

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.

I understand that - it is often the case when somebody answers every post you make; they are not - ehrm - interested.

Think about if it was proven that Bury moved along the very streets where the murders took place - like Lechmere apparently did.

Think about if it was proven that he was out on these streets at around the times the victims were killed - like Lechmere probably was.

Think about if he could be geographically tied to all the spots - like Lechmere.

Think about if Bury had given another name than his real one when approaching the police - like Lechmere did.

I bet you would have been equally disinterested then too, right...?

Think about if Bury had been the man found by Robert Paul, close to the freshly slain body of Polly Nichols. Iīm sure that would have made you go: "Nah - somebody had to find her".

Itīs a world full of hypocrisy, is it not?

[Fisherman]

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

Concession accepted.

Lewis Carrol is also tied to the case. And Vincent van Gogh. In a fashion.

And they were not cleared by the police, so it was probably them.

Bury remains a bad bid. Sorry.

Lechmere remains the only really good one.

Not sorry.

[Columbo]

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.

So can you guide me to where I can find the information McPherson and Beadle have?

Columbo

[Columbo]

Van Gough did it. "nuff said.

Columbo

[John Wheat]

Van Gough did it. "nuff said.

Columbo

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

[John Wheat]

I understand that - it is often the case when somebody answers every post you make; they are not - ehrm - interested.

Think about if it was proven that Bury moved along the very streets where the murders took place - like Lechmere apparently did.

Think about if it was proven that he was out on these streets at around the times the victims were killed - like Lechmere probably was.

Think about if he could be geographically tied to all the spots - like Lechmere.

Think about if Bury had given another name than his real one when approaching the police - like Lechmere did.

I bet you would have been equally disinterested then too, right...?

Think about if Bury had been the man found by Robert Paul, close to the freshly slain body of Polly Nichols. Iīm sure that would have made you go: "Nah - somebody had to find her".

Itīs a world full of hypocrisy, is it not?

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 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. In fact its more accurate to say he found a body. No amount of semantics make Lechmere anything other than a witness. As for me bothering to answer your posts I did start the thread.

[Columbo]

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

I think that almost any man with violent tendencies could be a suspect but where do you start?

Columbo

[drstrange169]

So can you guide me to where I can find the information McPherson and Beadle have?

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.

[Columbo]

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 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. In fact its more accurate to say he found a body. No amount of semantics make Lechmere anything other than a witness. As for me bothering to answer your posts I did start the thread.

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!