Lack of Threads

[John Wheat]

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

There are alot of things that don't add up with Bury but that doesn't mean he couldn't have been Jack. I don't actually believe Ellen Bury not leaving Bury is particularly relevant. The reasons for Ellen not leaving Bury could apply wether he was the Ripper or not. Bury did kill Ellen in a ripper like fashion though he just didn't mutilate her to the same extent as some of the C5. I'd like to know who you regard as a strong suspect and why?

[John Wheat]

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 murderd must have been a police official to be able to get out of Mitre square...

Your exactly right CommercialRoadWanderer its just that some have a vested interest in Lechmere.

Cheers John

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;380284]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.

1. "Fact" 1: The name. You say that you did not construct these things and "they are facts". It is a fact that he used the name Cross. It is not a fact that he used it to hide his real name because he had killed Polly Nichols.That is your construction, i.e. your interpretation. People do not agree with you on that.

2. "Fact" 2: the disagreement with the police about what was said. Your interpretation is based on the hypothesis that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper. There are other possible interpretations. So this "fact" is you construction. And other people do not agree with you.

3. "Fact" 3: "Geographical ties" is a concept you have constructed. It is your interpretation. There are other possible interpretations. What makes you think that Lechmere would have chosen these specific places with "geographical ties"? Is there a functional explanation? Because a problem for him, if he did make those choices and was Jack the Ripper, was that people who lived at those locations could have recognized him. So the functional explanation does not work here.

What about a motive explanation? What would his motive have been for choosing those places? Would it be that he could "explain away" what he did there? This comes very close to your own bias in the interpretations of everything you believe that Lechmere did. And there is not sources confirming such a motive explanation.

4. "Fact" 4. "he had a working trek that may well have taken him past the major part of the murders." That is your interpretation. I have another fact for you, how about this: "He had a working trek that took him to work." That is a well established historical fact, isn´t it?

There you see the difference between a well established historical fact and your "fact".

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.

Henry Buckley is no suspect for the murders. He just had a violent tendency.

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.

Thank you, Fisherman. But there is a practical side to science. And that practical side tells us that the sources you use have low validity and low reliability and that you use many ad hocs to puzzle together you history about Lechmere, i.e. to achieve some coherence.

But there where at least five murders:
X X X X X

You only have sparse data for:
X

So how come you say Lechmere killed:
X X X X X

?

Kind regards, Pierre

[John Wheat]

[QUOTE=Pierre;380292]

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.



1. "Fact" 1: The name. You say that you did not construct these things and "they are facts". It is a fact that he used the name Cross. It is not a fact that he used it to hide his real name because he had killed Polly Nichols.That is your construction, i.e. your interpretation. People do not agree with you on that.

2. "Fact" 2: the disagreement with the police about what was said. Your interpretation is based on the hypothesis that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper. There are other possible interpretations. So this "fact" is you construction. And other people do not agree with you.

3. "Fact" 3: "Geographical ties" is a concept you have constructed. It is your interpretation. There are other possible interpretations. What makes you think that Lechmere would have chosen these specific places with "geographical ties"? Is there a functional explanation? Because a problem for him, if he did make those choices and was Jack the Ripper, was that people who lived at those locations could have recognized him. So the functional explanation does not work here.

What about a motive explanation? What would his motive have been for choosing those places? Would it be that he could "explain away" what he did there? This comes very close to your own bias in the interpretations of everything you believe that Lechmere did. And there is not sources confirming such a motive explanation.

4. "Fact" 4. "he had a working trek that may well have taken him past the major part of the murders." That is your interpretation. I have another fact for you, how about this: "He had a working trek that took him to work." That is a well established historical fact, isn´t it?

There you see the difference between a well established historical fact and your "fact".



Henry Buckley is no suspect for the murders. He just had a violent tendency.



Thank you, Fisherman. But there is a practical side to science. And that practical side tells us that the sources you use have low validity and low reliability and that you use many ad hocs to puzzle together you history about Lechmere, i.e. to achieve some coherence.

But there where at least five murders:
X X X X X

You only have sparse data for:
X

So how come you say Lechmere killed:
X X X X X

?

Kind regards, Pierre

I agree with you 100% Pierre. I'm interested to hear Fisherman's response.

Cheers John

[Columbo]

There are alot of things that don't add up with Bury but that doesn't mean he couldn't have been Jack. I don't actually believe Ellen Bury not leaving Bury is particularly relevant. The reasons for Ellen not leaving Bury could apply wether he was the Ripper or not. Bury did kill Ellen in a ripper like fashion though he just didn't mutilate her to the same extent as some of the C5. I'd like to know who you regard as a strong suspect and why?

Point well taken. I was more leaning towards the way he treated her during their marriage, which I understand he was abusive. So she theoretically could've left if things were so bad, especially if she found out he was JTR.

I only say Bury is a weak suspect because of the killing of his wife. What I don't know and need to research is whether Bury had been arrested for any violent crimes.

I don't have a favorite suspect and usually don't favor one because there's no way to prove any of it. Also I live in the states so I can't personally research except what's on the internet.

A lot of my latest threads have favored Lechmere as a person of interest because of Fisherman's research. You have a man found with the body, as well as other inconsistencies outlined elsewhere. Very interesting.

Bury is very colorful and I'm reading more on him, but so far nothing that's made him unusual or interesting enough to pursue as a JTR suspect.

Columbo

[Columbo]

[QUOTE=Pierre;380292]

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.



1. "Fact" 1: The name. You say that you did not construct these things and "they are facts". It is a fact that he used the name Cross. It is not a fact that he used it to hide his real name because he had killed Polly Nichols.That is your construction, i.e. your interpretation. People do not agree with you on that.

Well, some people may not agree, I consider it a possibility.

2. "Fact" 2: the disagreement with the police about what was said. Your interpretation is based on the hypothesis that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper. There are other possible interpretations. So this "fact" is you construction. And other people do not agree with you.

It's a hypothesis, so what's the problem? Prove him wrong.

3. "Fact" 3: "Geographical ties" is a concept you have constructed. It is your interpretation. There are other possible interpretations. What makes you think that Lechmere would have chosen these specific places with "geographical ties"? Is there a functional explanation? Because a problem for him, if he did make those choices and was Jack the Ripper, was that people who lived at those locations could have recognized him. So the functional explanation does not work here.

Gotta call you on this one. At least half the suspects are suspected because of geographical ties. Tumblety, Joe Barnett, Feighenbaum, Kelly. Moot point and highly interpretive.

What about a motive explanation? What would his motive have been for choosing those places? Would it be that he could "explain away" what he did there? This comes very close to your own bias in the interpretations of everything you believe that Lechmere did. And there is not sources confirming such a motive explanation.

If I show you that "A" did the killing, I don't have to show you "A's" the kind of person who could've done the killing. You don't need motive to convict.

4. "Fact" 4. "he had a working trek that may well have taken him past the major part of the murders." That is your interpretation. I have another fact for you, how about this: "He had a working trek that took him to work." That is a well established historical fact, isn´t it?

Could go either way. The Yorkshire Ripper's trek home was one of the reasons he was suspected. So was Gary Rideway's work/home routes.

There you see the difference between a well established historical fact and your "fact".

You really haven't supplied any historical facts. Sorry.

Thank you, Fisherman. But there is a practical side to science. And that practical side tells us that the sources you use have low validity and low reliability and that you use many ad hocs to puzzle together you history about Lechmere, i.e. to achieve some coherence.

Catching killers is not a science, it's an art, and science is used in conjunction with that art, which includes the intuition and experience of the policeman as well as just damn hard work tracking down witnesses, hours of searching through paperwork, stakeouts, evidence gathering, and logical estimations of situations.

But there where at least five murders:
X X X X X

You only have sparse data for:
X

So how come you say Lechmere killed:
X X X X X

?

Kind regards, Pierre

Comments in red above. You should know these things as a historian. by the way what happened to your suspect you never produced? I take that was an April Fool's joke?

Columbo

[Columbo]

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

You're right on that John, and the ones who would be the unhappiest are the ones making money off this case.

Personally if anyone could be proven conclusively of being the Ripper I would jump for joy and then read the threads disputing it. That would be interesting!

Columbo

[Shaggyrand]

by the way what happened to your suspect you never produced? I take that was an April Fool's joke?

Columbo

Ah, you forget that he had a timetable for when he would get his final nail in the coffin piece of data for the suspect that shall not be slandered. As I recall he still has about three months before the historical mists will part and he emerges triumphant... or it will be delayed indefinitely.

[Fisherman]

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...

This post is a good starting point for a pedagogical exercise!

There are a number of things that must be laid down here. To begin with:

I am not saying that it is suspicious per se to find a murder victim. It is not. Just as many people have pointed out, "somebody has to do it".

So why am I speaking about how Lechmere found the body when I point to him as the probable killer of Polly Nichols?

To understand that, we need to turn the tables.

Let´s accept that it is not suspicious at all to be found alone at a murder site, where the death is so close in time as to allow for the finder to have been the killer.

If this was the case, then the police should not waste any time on the finders of freshly dead bodies. If there is nothing at all suspicious about it, then a finder like Lechmere would be on par with Mr X, a hypothetical carman living in Heneage Street who cannot be shown to have been anywhere near the murder site.

They should rank as equally viable for the murderers role, if finding a freshly dead body has no bearing at all on whether you should be regarded as innocent or potentially guilty.

But this is not how it works, is it? We all know that the police of today will take an interest in a person who is found alone with murder victim at a time that allows for this person to have been the killer.

We therefore need to make a distincion here: Much as it is not suspicious per se to find a dead body at a remove in time that allows for the finder to be the killer, it applies that such a person will become what the police call a "person of interest".

In essence, this means that the police needs to look into this person and try to establish the reason for his having been in place at the murder site. When doing this, there are three possible outcomes:

1. The person of interest can provide the police with an explanation that can be verified, or somebody else can testify so as to clear the person of interest from any possible part in the murder. In such a case, the status of being a person of interest seizes to exist for this person.

2. The person of interest cannot provide the police with an explanation that can be verified, and nobody else comes forward to rule the person of interest out. In such an event, the finder will remain a person of interest until the case is solved or until something surfaces to rule the finder out.

3. The person of interest can be shown to have misled or lied, or something surfaces to make the police think (or conclude) that the finder may be involved in the murder. In such a case, the person of interest status is swopped for a suspect status.

In Lechmere´s case, we have no confirmation from Paul that he ever saw or heard Lechmere in front of himself in either Bath Street or Bucks Row. We have information showing us that Lechmere did not use the name he was registered by and otherwise always used when in contact with authorities. We know that PC Mizen claimed that he had been told that there was another PC in place in Bucks Row, and if this holds true, then Lechmere lied his way past Mizen. We know that Lechmere had geographical ties to the murder sites. We know that the victims seemingly died at removes in time that are consistent with Lechmere´s route to work. And we have Mizen saying that the blood was still running from the neck as he saw the body. We can establish that if Lechmere cut the neck as Paul entered Bucks Row, then it would take a minute before Paul arrived at Browns. Then Paul said that it took no more than four minutes from the moment when he first saw Lechmere til the moment when the carmen arrived where Mizen was, and we know that Mizen had approximately a two minute walk to the murder site. If we add this together, we end up with around six, seven minutes. And Jason Payne-James says that a shorter bleeding time than seven minutes is more realistic. That means that if the bleeding went down normally, there is only one fully realistic suspect, and that is Charles Lechmere.

These are the hard facts. Against this stands the false, reoccurring claims that I think that having found the body makes Charles Lechmere a suspect. This is not true - it is the rest of the matter, with the many anomalies that makes the case. Once we have these anomalies, it stands to reason that having been found alone with the body at a time that is consistent with having been the killer is not something that helps Charles Lechmere at all.

To understand how this works, we need to imagine a situation where it was suddenly revealed that John Davies was not the finder of Annie Chapman. If we theorize that the finder was instead William Bury, who had been found alone with Annies body at 3.45 AM while she was still bleeding, I think it is very realistic to say that the proponents of Bury would regard it as case closed.

In such a case, I cannot see the Buryists saying that finding the body is totally innocent, and that it should not burden Bury in any way at all.

That owes to how the people out here are quite willing to see any violent man as a better suspect than any man with no criminal record of violence. And that is true as long as we weigh in no other factors at all. But once we know that there is a man who was found alone with one of the victims at a stage in time that is consistent with this man having been the killer, everything changes. That´s when we have to return to the three listed scenarios above and ask ourselves whether we can clear the carman or not, and whether there is anything that is odd or suspicious about him.

When we put that question to a retired murder squad leader and a barrister with no previous interest in the case, they ended up telling us that the carman is of tremendeous interest and that he would warrant a modern day trial where he would be facing a jury that would not like him.

Now, can we drop the idea that being found alone with a freshly killed body is uninteresting from an investigative point of view? And can we drop the claim that I am saying that any finder of a dead body is automatically a murder suspect?

A discussion where realism, insight and honesty prevails would be much more rewarding.

[Fisherman]

Pierre:

there where at least five murders:
X X X X X

You only have sparse data for:
X

So how come you say Lechmere killed:
X X X X X

A/ I do not say that Lechmere killed anybody - I say that he is the best bid there is for the Nichols murder and the probable killer.

B/ I am also saying that if we identify somebody as the best suspect for the murder of any of the women involved in the Ripper series, then that suspect must by way of extension also be the best bid for all the Ripper murders.

C/ I am also pointing out that Lechmere had geographical ties to all the Ripper murder sites.

[Fisherman]

John Wheat!

You have not answered my question relating to your claim "as for the surrounding World the majority of this site well I'm sure you know what they think of you."

What is it people think of me? I would like you to expand on this! Sounds fascinating...

[John Wheat]

You're right on that John, and the ones who would be the unhappiest are the ones making money off this case.

Personally if anyone could be proven conclusively of being the Ripper I would jump for joy and then read the threads disputing it. That would be interesting!

Columbo

To Columbo

Yes I think many of those that have profited from the case would not be pleased. I also think those that favour the multiple murderers theories would also be annoyed. However there would of course be a number of people that would be pleased the case had been solved. I hope that on this site the majority would be pleased but I really don't know if that would actually be the case.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

John Wheat!

You have not answered my question relating to your claim "as for the surrounding World the majority of this site well I'm sure you know what they think of you."

What is it people think of me? I would like you to expand on this! Sounds fascinating...

To be honest Fisherman l doubt the majority of people on this site would be particularly positive about what they think of you. I could of course be wrong and I'd put money on many thinking you were misguided.

Cheers John

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Columbo;380332]

Comments in red above. You should know these things as a historian. by the way what happened to your suspect you never produced? I take that was an April Fool's joke?

Columbo

Dear Colombo,

My understand is that Pierre is still waiting on one piece of data, which will close the case, and in his words:

"the small field of ripperology may be destroyed."


However I believe we were in a similar position when he first posted


"There is only some very sparse data I need for this and it is probably not impossible to find".


Unfortunately if it is some sort of joke, it stopped being funny long ago, did it not?

So I guess we will be waiting for some considerable time to see if he publishes a name. by which time most will have lost interest, if they have not already done so.


cheers

Steve

[GUT]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;380344]

Dear Colombo,

My understand is that Pierre is still waiting on one piece of data, which will close the case, and in his words:

"the small field of ripperology may be destroyed."


However I believe we were in a similar position when he first posted


"There is only some very sparse data I need for this and it is probably not impossible to find".


Unfortunately if it is some sort of joke, it stopped being funny long ago, did it not?

So I guess we will be waiting for some considerable time to see if he publishes a name. by which time most will have lost interest, if they have not already done so.


cheers

Steve

Long ago.

In fact if Pierre gave us a name now, I'd want a lot more before I even looked at the name.

The one thing he has convinced me if, it that he knows very little in spite of his claimed brilliance in almost any field that comes up.