Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[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.

[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]

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 don´t 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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

[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

[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.

[Harry D]

No, he was on his way to kill...

Aaaand with that, we're done. If you are presupposing guilt on the part of Lechmere, then it doesn't matter what any of us say, you will twist it whatever you want to conform it to your unsubstantiated belief.

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.

I'm saying that Lechmere's route to work that day coincided with a murder victim, it didn't cause one. Had a woman been killed in Buck's Row at that time, then a carman on his way to work in the early hours would've naturally been one of the first to discover the body. If not Lechmere, then Paul.

[Rainbow]

Aaaand with that, we're done

You asked for it Harry.

[drstrange169]

>>So do you want me to or not? Not, I take it?<<

???

I govern what you do? If I'm in error, surely the point of these forums is to correct errors and misconceptions, you don't need my permission.

[Fisherman]

>>So do you want me to or not? Not, I take it?<<

???

I govern what you do? If I'm in error, surely the point of these forums is to correct errors and misconceptions, you don't need my permission.

Ah! Well, then I will just comment on one point from memory. You said that the wound in the neck was not covered, but it would be very odd if it was not since the wounds in the abdomen were. Reasonably, Paul should have seen the gaping hole - it was not pitch dark, since the men saw the bonnet.
I therefore suggest that you are wrong, and that the wound in the neck was indeed covered.
When Paul left, he pulled the dress down, and the covering of the neck may well have followed suit, so to speak.

Ergo, your point that the wound in the neck was not covered is not a fact.

There were heaps of other examples of faulty statements in your text (there normally is) but I really cannot be bothered to look it up tonight. If I can muster the will to do so, I may do it tomorrow.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Cross and Paul, both carmen [but not in the same employ], probably had regular work routines. They would leave home at approximately the same time every morning and take the same route to work.

Inquest: "The other man [Paul] left witness [Cross] soon after. Witness had never seen him before."

Why had they not previously met on their way to work?

Regards,

Simon

[Columbo]

Hi All,

Cross and Paul, both carmen [but not in the same employ], probably had regular work routines. They would leave home at approximately the same time every morning and take the same route to work.

Inquest: "The other man [Paul] left witness [Cross] soon after. Witness had never seen him before."

Why had they not previously met on their way to work?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

I wondered that myself. I figured they would cross paths at least once, but it's possible they saw each other but not clear enough to identify each other. Cross seemed very casual or scared enough to reach out to him. Strange.

Columbo