Lack of Threads

[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.

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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]

[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

[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

[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]

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.

Ok so if Bury wrote it why didn't he confess? and if the wife wrote it, why didn't she tell someone? why would she write it outside where he could see it, and why would he let it stay there if he was JTR and didn't write it? Too many variables for the graffito and most likely it's a red herring anyway.

You're correct, at the time of the murder they were broke, but she did have opportunity before they squandered her money to leave and she had the money to make it happen. for whatever reason she chose to stay.

Again, Bury didn't kill his wife in a JTR manner like MJK even though he had the opportunity. Bury just doesn't add up as a strong suspect.

Columbo

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;380279]Pierre,

seriously now agreeing with you twice in one night.

However are you sure he was a serial killer?

Thank you Steve. Sloppy thinking here. No, of course I am not sure he was a serial killer. Just a killer.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

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

He was found at the murder site, alone with the victim at a remove in time that was roughly (if not exactly) consistent with the murder itself.
There are a number of anomalies tied to him - the name, the disagreement with the police about what was said, the fact that Paul did not hear him walking down Bath Street or Bucks Row - he has geographical ties to all the murders, he had a working trek that may well have taken him past the major part of the murders...

I did not construct these things. They are facts. And they put him a country mile ahead of any other suspect - not least people who stabbed other men in the thighs, but who cannot be proven to have been anywhere ner any of the murder sites.

Your "scientific" approach is good fun, but there is a practical side to all matters. And that practical side tells us that Charles Lechmere is the prime suspect for the Nichols murder and therefore also for the Ripper murders as such.

Now I am going to sleep. It seems you have already started your nap.

[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

Hi John,

Thatīs good.

Kind regards, Pierre

[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

Hi Colombo,

yes, I know. I was a bit lazy. Steve corrected me.

Kind regards, Pierre

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

To be completely fair, believing that a random man that was around the "first" crime scene to be more suspect than a certified murderer got as much value as believing that the ripper must have been a police official to be able to get out of Mitre square...