Originally posted by caz
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Favoured Suspect...
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
hi fiver
do we know why the hangman suspected bury? it really seems odd to me that berry, who wrote a book including all the famous criminals he'd hung, didnt include bury more with the ripper connection. you would think he would have jumped at the chance to write about how he had hung the ripper!
While he may have had suspicions at the time, by the time his book came out in 1892, after Mckenzie, Pinchin St and Coles, it had become clear that the police were still looking for the ripper. This seems to have allayed his suspicions to the point where he considered Bury a just a wife killer.
Cheers, GeorgeThe needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
Hi Abby,
While he may have had suspicions at the time, by the time his book came out in 1892, after Mckenzie, Pinchin St and Coles, it had become clear that the police were still looking for the ripper. This seems to have allayed his suspicions to the point where he considered Bury a just a wife killer.
Cheers, George
Comment
-
Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
Berry may have wanted not to include Bury in his book because it would surely have all become about Berry hanging the Ripper and not everything else that had happened in Berry's life.
Comment
-
Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
It doesn't seem they did though Caz.
You personally believe he is a strong ripper suspect, while the police at the time evidently came to the opposite conclusion. Do you think they would have done so on nothing more than a hunch or a lazy assumption, when so much was at stake? Being able to hang Bury as the ripper, and not just a one-off wife killer, would have been huge.
If you are speculating that they did very little to investigate the JtR angle because you believe further inquiries ought to have led them to see Bury through your eyes, that would be a circular argument, wouldn't it?
Could it not equally have been the case that they did investigate the JtR angle as far as they reasonably could, in the hope of solving a whole series of murders with the one length of rope, but found enough evidence to rule Bury out, or not enough to make a case?
Love,
Caz
XLast edited by caz; 11-28-2024, 04:46 PM."Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov
- Likes 3
Comment
-
Originally posted by caz View Post
But I don't know why they discounted Bury as the ripper, nor how much effort they put into doing so. Do you?
You personally believe he is a strong ripper suspect, while the police at the time evidently came to the opposite conclusion. Do you think they would have done so on nothing more than a hunch or a lazy assumption, when so much was at stake? Being able to hang Bury as the ripper, and not just a one-off wife killer, would have been huge.
If you are speculating that they did very little to investigate the JtR angle because you believe further inquiries ought to have led them to see Bury through your eyes, that would be a circular argument, wouldn't it?
Could it not equally have been the case that they did investigate the JtR angle as far as they reasonably could, in the hope of solving a whole series of murders with the one length of rope, but found enough evidence to rule Bury out, or not enough to make a case?
Love,
Caz
X
Comment
-
Originally posted by caz View Post
But I don't know why they discounted Bury as the ripper, nor how much effort they put into doing so. Do you?
You personally believe he is a strong ripper suspect, while the police at the time evidently came to the opposite conclusion. Do you think they would have done so on nothing more than a hunch or a lazy assumption, when so much was at stake? Being able to hang Bury as the ripper, and not just a one-off wife killer, would have been huge.
If you are speculating that they did very little to investigate the JtR angle because you believe further inquiries ought to have led them to see Bury through your eyes, that would be a circular argument, wouldn't it?
Could it not equally have been the case that they did investigate the JtR angle as far as they reasonably could, in the hope of solving a whole series of murders with the one length of rope, but found enough evidence to rule Bury out, or not enough to make a case?
Love,
Caz
X
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Good afternoon Rookie D,
Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
... a top 10 ...
Last edited by Paddy Goose; 11-29-2024, 05:00 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paddy Goose View PostWho is on your list please?
2) Uh, that's it.
The geography by itself puts him in the Premier League. Alone.
Solved.
M.(Image of Charles Allen Lechmere is by artist Ashton Guilbeaux. Used by permission. Original art-work for sale.)
Comment
-
His ‘being there’ is all there is. John Davis was there too. Alone with a recently killed Chapman. He wasn’t the killer either. Only the gullible or a child could think that Cross was the killer. An appalling, embarrassing suspect. When a suspect requires the manipulation of evidence, 100% deliberate falsification of the evidence, silly imaginary scams, contortions of the English language, deliberate misinterpretations and a list of bizarre and fatuous things that supposedly point to guilt then you know that something fishy is going on. This is a cottage industry created by two men for a reason. Their own benefit. Cross even has his own fan club tv channel - I’m waiting for the merchandise to be advertised. The whole shameful, dishonest, wretched debacle does nothing but bring the subject into disrepute.Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View PostHis ‘being there’ is all there is. John Davis was there too. Alone with a recently killed Chapman. He wasn’t the killer either. Only the gullible or a child could think that Cross was the killer. An appalling, embarrassing suspect. When a suspect requires the manipulation of evidence, 100% deliberate falsification of the evidence, silly imaginary scams, contortions of the English language, deliberate misinterpretations and a list of bizarre and fatuous things that supposedly point to guilt then you know that something fishy is going on. This is a cottage industry created by two men for a reason. Their own benefit. Cross even has his own fan club tv channel - I’m waiting for the merchandise to be advertised. The whole shameful, dishonest, wretched debacle does nothing but bring the subject into disrepute.
Cheers John
Comment
-
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View PostHis ‘being there’ is all there is. John Davis was there too. Alone with a recently killed Chapman. He wasn’t the killer either. Only the gullible or a child could think that Cross was the killer. An appalling, embarrassing suspect. When a suspect requires the manipulation of evidence, 100% deliberate falsification of the evidence, silly imaginary scams, contortions of the English language, deliberate misinterpretations and a list of bizarre and fatuous things that supposedly point to guilt then you know that something fishy is going on. This is a cottage industry created by two men for a reason. Their own benefit. Cross even has his own fan club tv channel - I’m waiting for the merchandise to be advertised. The whole shameful, dishonest, wretched debacle does nothing but bring the subject into disrepute.
M.
(Image of Charles Allen Lechmere is by artist Ashton Guilbeaux. Used by permission. Original art-work for sale.)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mark J D View Post
Uh, I referred specifically and solely to 'the geography'. The above outpouring doesn't engage with that. Why didn't you respond to what was written? Did you not understand my meaning?
M.Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
- Likes 3
Comment
-
Yes, he’s a great suspect. Or is he?
“Don't tell me you swallowed the blood 'evidence' of Fisherman?!”
“Lechmerians want us to believe anything they say,”
“It must be Lechmere's magic,”
“I like to start my daywork by killing cutting and mutilating someone around”
“Fisherman is selling the idea that if Mizen went to the body and found no policeman there,”
“And look how the Lechmerians contradict themselves!”
“This whole theory is based ubon the ignorance of all other parties involved, one has to be an imbecile to believe such nonsense”
“No Fish, that will not work, try harder!”
“Caz post has set an end to this fishy tunnel under logic and facts that you are trying to escape through”
“I read some fairy tales that were much better than this.”
“Sophistry: the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving”
“Lechmere wouldn't have lied to Mizen, then he is risking finding the police over his shoulder.”
“He could have run away, but the Lechmerians want us to believe he injected himself intentionally in the events after killing Nichols,”
“A very disturbed theory, with zero consistency.”
”Lechmerians have failed to bring any single evidence or shred of a clue to justify their claims, they even went to the extreme phantasy and presented Lechmere as the solo ripper-torso murderer of his time, aka Lechmerianismus!”
“If a lechmerian told me: look at Lechmere, all of his actions whithout any single exception were very normal, doesn't that seem suspicious to you? Then I would say he has a better argument than anything was ever produced by Fisherman and his company.”
“If he chose to run away no one ever will be talking now about him, and Paul could have very likely missed the body.”
“Thats why this is a very weak theory, one has first to believe of Lechmere guilt then try to find excuses to keep the flame on:
“Endless excuses to fit Lechmere in.
“But the Lechmerians remained in their subzero state of denial.”
Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
- Likes 2
Comment
Comment