Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[Fisherman]

Harry D: A man who was on his way to work at the time. Nothing unusual there.


Are you now saying that the main trait of serial killers is to adjust to the norm...?

Or are you saying that there are territories where serialists are disallowed to ply their trade? Like the road to work?

Please elaborate.

[Rainbow]

[QUOTE=Harry D;398899]A man who was on his way to work at the time. Nothing unusual there.

No, he was on his way to kill, he was standing where the bleeding and recently murdered woman was, no one has seen the victim with any other man, Tabram, Chapman, Stride, Eddows, Kelly, .. all have been seen with some person or another before their murders, except Nichols, and she was not the only murdered woman found on his route to 'work'

A man who gave his first two names, his stepfather's surname, and otherwise did nothing else to conceal his identity.

there is no other occasion where he used that different name except at this event, not only that, he may very well used the first name George also

Must try harder.

Must think harder.


[/QUOTE

[Harry D]

If you consider throwing accusations on a man that was seen standing by a freshly bleeding murdered woman at 3:45 am on the morning, who gave a different name , baseless accusations, then YES!!

A man who was on his way to work at the time. Nothing unusual there.

A man who gave his first two names, his stepfather's surname, and otherwise did nothing else to conceal his identity.

Must try harder.

[Rainbow]

By throwing baseless accusations at innocent parties?

If you consider throwing accusations on a man that was seen standing by a freshly bleeding murdered woman at 3:45 am on the morning, who gave a different name , baseless accusations, then YES!!

[Harry D]

the man has paid his life for his guilt, stop blaming him for something he didn't do, and try to find that who escape justice.

By throwing baseless accusations at innocent parties?

[Rainbow]

A few days before the execution, Bury confessed to Reverend Gough that he had killed Ellen. At the urging of Gough, William wrote a confession on 22 April 1889, which he asked to be withheld until after he was dead.

William claimed that he had strangled Ellen without premeditation on the night of 4 February 1889 during a drunken row over money, and that he had tried to dismember the body for disposal the next day but was too squeamish to continue.

He did confess that he had killed Ellen, but not any other woman.

the man has paid his life for his guilt, stop blaming him for something he didn't do, and try to find that who escape justice.

[Fisherman]

In that case, let's include all of the Whitechapel murders for 1888, with a exception made for Emma Smith as she would appear to have been ganged up on. That leaves us with seven murders in roughly nineteen weeks, averaging out to one murder every 2-3 weeks? Then, after December 1888 there's nothing for another seven months. In January 1889 Bury suddenly up sticks to Dundee under false pretenses and within a few weeks there's a strangled & mutilated woman in his house, and Ripper graffiti on his doors, meanwhile all's quiet on the Ripper front in Whitechapel. None of this proves that Bury was the killer, as there could be contributing factors to this downtime, most of which I believe would have been enforced, but when discussing the merits of named suspects we have to examine the pattern of killings and the cause for the sudden cessation. Bury fits the bill perfectly, and the fact he was a proven murderer and mutilator puts him head and shoulders above any other suspect presented so far.

As I said, we donīt know which murders were by the same man, and therefore we cannot establish to what extent the MacKenzie murder fell on a logical or illogical date. End of story.

What we CAN do - and what I did - is to compare what happened to MacKenzie, where it happened and who she was to what happened to Ellen Bury, where it happened and who she was. And when we make that comparison, we come away with the fact that MacKenzie is much more alike the C5 than Ellen Bury is.

And no, Bury is not head and shoulders above any other suspect - other than to a few people who seem to like to stay uninformed.

[Harry D]

Whitechapel had to wait three months after Kelly was killed until Bury strangled his wife. The C5 cover ten weeks and then we get a thirteen week hiatus until the Bury murder.
I think it is not very material if there is a three month or seven month hiatus. Neither murder fits the tempo of the Whitechapel killer anyway. Then again, I think we are missing a vital thing if we do not add the torso murders, since they were reasonably the same killer too.
If that holds true, we get a series of September 1873 - June 1874 - October 1884 - May 1887 - August 1888 - August 1888 - September 1888 - September 1888 - June 1889 (MacKenzie) - July 1889 - September 1889.
So a slow start, a picked up pace, a crescendo around August/September 1888, and a tapering off towards late 1889.
Now, you can always say that the torsos are not proven to be Ripper cases, but in fact, not even the Ripper cases are proven to be Ripper cases.

So in that context, MacKenzie is anything but odd. The important thing to keep in mind is that we cannot prove which victims belong to the series - but we CAN prove that there were totally substantial differences inbetween MacKenzie and Bury, and that these differences make MacKenzie look a far better bid to be a Ripper victim than Bury.

In that case, let's include all of the Whitechapel murders for 1888, with a exception made for Emma Smith as she would appear to have been ganged up on. That leaves us with seven murders in roughly nineteen weeks, averaging out to one murder every 2-3 weeks? Then, after December 1888 there's nothing for another seven months. In January 1889 Bury suddenly up sticks to Dundee under false pretenses and within a few weeks there's a strangled & mutilated woman in his house, and Ripper graffiti on his doors, meanwhile all's quiet on the Ripper front in Whitechapel. None of this proves that Bury was the killer, as there could be contributing factors to this downtime, most of which I believe would have been enforced, but when discussing the merits of named suspects we have to examine the pattern of killings and the cause for the sudden cessation. Bury fits the bill perfectly, and the fact he was a proven murderer and mutilator puts him head and shoulders above any other suspect presented so far.

[Fisherman]

Bury moved to Dundee at the time that the canonical murders ended.

Whitechapel had to wait seven months for its next "Ripper-like" victim, and even longer for the next one. The murders never reoccurred with anything like the same fervour that they did in 1888.

This glaring coincidence cannot be ignored.

Whitechapel had to wait three months after Kelly was killed until Bury strangled his wife. The C5 cover ten weeks and then we get a thirteen week hiatus until the Bury murder.
I think it is not very material if there is a three month or seven month hiatus. Neither murder fits the tempo of the Whitechapel killer anyway. Then again, I think we are missing a vital thing if we do not add the torso murders, since they were reasonably the same killer too.
If that holds true, we get a series of September 1873 - June 1874 - October 1884 - May 1887 - August 1888 - August 1888 - September 1888 - September 1888 - June 1889 (MacKenzie) - July 1889 - September 1889.
So a slow start, a picked up pace, a crescendo around August/September 1888, and a tapering off towards late 1889.
Now, you can always say that the torsos are not proven to be Ripper cases, but in fact, not even the Ripper cases are proven to be Ripper cases.

So in that context, MacKenzie is anything but odd. The important thing to keep in mind is that we cannot prove which victims belong to the series - but we CAN prove that there were totally substantial differences inbetween MacKenzie and Bury, and that these differences make MacKenzie look a far better bid to be a Ripper victim than Bury.

[Elamarna]

Absolutely Harry. But many will ignore it for various reasons.

Hi John,

I will not ignore the gap.

Possible reasons for:


He died- and Alice is not a victim of the same hand---Druitt.


He moved away- and Alice is not a victim of the same hand--Bury, Tumblety.



He was moved away and came back to continue-- Pierre's man.



He was "locked up", during the period after Kelly but released before Mackenzie-- which could fit a Kosminski type, if one thinks there is something in the reports of Cox and Sagar.


He stopped for a period- does happen. this it seems would fit Lechmere theory.



Mackenzie is not by the same killer.


Basically you pays your money and makes a choice.


Steve

[Fisherman]

You really are full of it. I was attempting to say the anger at is aimed at the Lechmere theorists who have a pompous attitude. But that obviously went over you're head. I'm glad you don't enjoy debating with me but the more bullshit you post about the crappy Lechmere theory the more I times I will post pointing that out. I suggest you deal with it or make you're posts more balanced.

How does that detract from the fact that you are angered in your exchanges with me? How is Henry Flower to know where your anger emanates from? I suspect to him, all he sees is your raving on about how I am "full of it" and how the theory is "bullshit" and "crappy" and so on and so forth.
You see, those of us who are not familiar with how your psyche works (and donīt take that as an invitation to tell us) will see what you produce, not why you produce it.

It all comes across as a bit primitive, John.

[John Wheat]

Bury moved to Dundee at the time that the canonical murders ended.

Whitechapel had to wait seven months for its next "Ripper-like" victim, and even longer for the next one. The murders never reoccurred with anything like the same fervour that they did in 1888.

This glaring coincidence cannot be ignored.

Absolutely Harry. But many will ignore it for various reasons.

[John Wheat]

On a general level, I have little or nothing to say to you, but I reserve myself the right to do as I please. Otherwise, we could be faced with a situation where you misinformed and I was unable to correct you, like in the case of the comparison between MacKenzie, Bury and the C5.
Or like when you say that I twist the truth. Compare this, if you will, in your discussion with Henry Flower. Henry first:

"The evidence and arguments about times, routes, statements and lies have been done to death. Clearly, some people find them compelling, others merely interesting, while others seem strangely angered by the very notion that the man found alongside the only Ripper victim who may even have been technically alive at the time of her discovery, and who gave his usually unused alternative name in his testimony, should be considered a person of interest."


...to which you replied:

"I disagree with the anger point. Personally what angers me is the pompous attitude from some Lechmere Theory supporters."

That is a formidably daft answer - you first deny that there is anger involved, and then you say that you are personally angered. Whoops!

Of course, pointing this inconsistency out for what it is will only make me look pompous. Which apparently equates to saying that you are wrong and factually proving it. But there you are.

Now, until you try to spread more disinformation, I will thoroughly enjoy NOT debating with you.

You really are full of it. I was attempting to say the anger at is aimed at the Lechmere theorists who have a pompous attitude. But that obviously went over you're head. I'm glad you don't enjoy debating with me but the more bullshit you post about the crappy Lechmere theory the more I times I will post pointing that out. I suggest you deal with it or make you're posts more balanced.

[John Wheat]

Since there are no gaps in the recorded murders of Bury (he was only ever accused of one murder), there can be no comparison. What remains is that there are many, many more likenesses between the C5 and MacKenzie than between the C5 and Ellen Bury. And that was what the debate was supposed to be about. Youīve had my contribution.

I take it your not going to answer why the gap then? I'm assuming because you can't.

[Harry D]

Bury moved to Dundee at the time that the canonical murders ended.

Whitechapel had to wait seven months for its next "Ripper-like" victim, and even longer for the next one. The murders never reoccurred with anything like the same fervour that they did in 1888.

This glaring coincidence cannot be ignored.