Lack of Threads

[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]

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]

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.

[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

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

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]

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 thatīs 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]

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

[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]

John.
Shaggyrand, on the other thread has defined the problems adequately.
The details of Bury's method in killing his wife are not the same as the Whitechapel murderer.

You appear to repeat the same generic description, "Strangulation followed by Mortem mutilation", I believe to avoid going into specifics which would make it difficult for you to explain the fact the methods were very different.

In one post you assert the method was the same, yet when challenged you admit they were not the same, because then he would have been arrested for being the Ripper......inconsistent.

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.

[Wickerman]

John.
Shaggyrand, on the other thread has defined the problems adequately.
The details of Bury's method in killing his wife are not the same as the Whitechapel murderer.

You appear to repeat the same generic description, "Strangulation followed by Mortem mutilation", I believe to avoid going into specifics which would make it difficult for you to explain the fact the methods were very different.

In one post you assert the method was the same, yet when challenged you admit they were not the same, because then he would have been arrested for being the Ripper......inconsistent.

[John Wheat]

Hi John, I guess opinions differ as to what creates a strong suspect as opposed to a weak suspect. Bury killed his wife, to my mind there are no similarities about his method that make him a viable "Jack the Ripper", as opposed to just another wife murderer.

Police at the time investigated the matter but did not seem to consider Bury a viable suspect.

True enough.

To Wickerman

Strangulation followed by Mortem mutilation sounds like the Ripper to me.
And if Bury wasn't the Ripper or a copycat there are alot of coincidences as I have outlined on the other . I doubt I will change your mind on how strong a suspect Bury is.

Cheers John

[Wickerman]

All the suspects you mention are all what I would consider weak suspects.

Cheers John

Hi John, I guess opinions differ as to what creates a strong suspect as opposed to a weak suspect. Bury killed his wife, to my mind there are no similarities about his method that make him a viable "Jack the Ripper", as opposed to just another wife murderer.

Police at the time investigated the matter but did not seem to consider Bury a viable suspect.

True enough.

[Pierre]

Many weak suspects get plenty of threads on this site how come Bury who I would consider to be the strongest suspect has relatively few threads?

Perhaps they are trying to bury Bury?

Regards, Pierre

[Azarna]

The number of threads about a given suspect is more likely to correlate to other factors rather than the likelihood that the suspect is actually JTR.

Those factors could include:

how sensational the suspect is - Prince Eddy, Stickert, etc
media coverage - the DNA on the shawl for example
how open the evidence is to heated discussion - the Cross/Lechmere name or whether Richardson could have seen a body..
how much evidence there actually is - few discussions if nothing to actually discuss in any detail
trends - various suspects are "en trend" immediately following a new book, tv documentary, new evidence etc