What happened to Lechmere......

[Pierre]

Pierre

I have to say as regards Lechmere your talking alot of sense.

Cheers John

Thanks John.

And if other things I say, like when I have questions and hypotheses about questionable sources like the GOGMAGOG-letter, do not seem to make as much sense, it is only because I have not presented the data sources giving the ID of the person I think was the killer.

I can also tell you that compared to the sources for the person I think was the killer, the sources for Lechmere are extremely poor. Actually, the sources for all other suspects are extremely poor compared to the sources I have found. And I will show you that later on, even if I donīt get the last bit of data that I would like to have.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Pierre

I have to say as regards Lechmere your talking alot of sense.

Cheers John

Double posted.

[Fisherman]

John Wheat:

I do believe there is a strong possibility that Bury was the Ripper. It is a fact that Bury murdered Ellen Bury in a violent manner strangling her before mutilating her with a knife. This is something Lechmere nor any other alleged Ripper suspect ever did.

Well, thatīs understandable since Bury himself took care of it. However, if what you are trying to convey is that no other Ripper ever strangled a victim and went on to mutilating that victim with a knife, then I would propose that you are expressing yourself badly - all we know is that no such thing is on record. To accept your reasoning, we need to believe that all foul deeds are on record. Much as I would love that to be true, I am acutely aware that it is not.

Bury killed his wife. Have a look how many serialists have killed their wives in a similar manner as they killed their victims. Domestic, singular killings are very far removed from the serial killing of strangers, John.

As for something surfacing to disprove Lechmere's guilt for 100% I think this is unlikely because it is now 2016. However even if this did happen I doubt you would believe it.

Why would I disbelieve something that disproved Lechmeres guilt 100 per cent?
You seem not to know me very well. I always move with the evidence. I have changed my mind repeatedly on a number of matters (Stride, Tabram etc), WHEN THERE WAS REASON TO. It need not be 100 per cent even - itīs enough to present a solution that is better than mine, and I immediately buy it.
I can see how it suits your manner of arguing to paint me out as a totally closed mind. I am, however, nothing of the kind. I am sure that the evidence against Lechmere is very strong and powerful, but that does not mean that I am not ready to change my mind if there is reason to.
However, unbiased judges like Scobie and Griffiths actually concurred with me. I rank that as a lot more convincing than weak and substanceless criticism from a guy suggesting another suspect than mine. You will no doubt agree that this is as it should be.

[John Wheat]

John Wheat:

I do believe there is a strong possibility that Bury was the Ripper. It is a fact that Bury murdered Ellen Bury in a violent manner strangling her before mutilating her with a knife. This is something Lechmere nor any other alleged Ripper suspect ever did.

Well, thatīs understandable since Bury himself took care of it. However, if what you are trying to convey is that no other Ripper ever strangled a victim and went on to mutilating that victim with a knife, then I would propose that you are expressing yourself badly - all we know is that no such thing is on record. To accept your reasoning, we need to believe that all foul deeds are on record. Much as I would love that to be true, I am acutely aware that it is not.

Bury killed his wife. Have a look how many serialists have killed their wives in a similar manner as they killed their victims. Domestic, singular killings are very far removed from the serial killing of strangers, John.

As for something surfacing to disprove Lechmere's guilt for 100% I think this is unlikely because it is now 2016. However even if this did happen I doubt you would believe it.

Why would I disbelieve something that disproved Lechmeres guilt 100 per cent?
You seem not to know me very well. I always move with the evidence. I have changed my mind repeatedly on a number of matters (Stride, Tabram etc), WHEN THERE WAS REASON TO. It need not be 100 per cent even - itīs enough to present a solution that is better than mine, and I immediately buy it.
I can see how it suits your manner of arguing to paint me out as a totally closed mind. I am, however, nothing of the kind. I am sure that the evidence against Lechmere is very strong and powerful, but that does not mean that I am not ready to change my mind if there is reason to.
However, unbiased judges like Scobie and Griffiths actually concurred with me. I rank that as a lot more convincing than weak and substanceless criticism from a guy suggesting another suspect than mine. You will no doubt agree that this is as it should be.

To Fisherman

What I was trying to convey is that it is a fact that Bury murdered his wife by strangling her and then mutilating her. This fact makes Bury either the Ripper or a copycat killer which in my opinion puts him at the top of the Ripper Suspects list.

I assumed/still assume you would not believe anything that disproved Lechmere's guilt because you seem adamant on Lechmere's guilt on what I would call weak evidence.

I don't know who Griffiths and Scobie are. I assume they are judges that agree with your viewpoint. So what? I could name experts that agree with my viewpoint.

Cheers John

[Pierre]

Hi John,

it does not make Bury a Ripper or a copycat killer (killing prostitutes in the street/in yards).

There is nothing connecting Bury to the murders in 1888 except from "living in Whitechapel" and "being a murderer in 1889". A lot of people would have been Jack the Ripper if we use these criteria.

And - if Bury couldnīt keep quiet about the murder on his wife in 1889, why should he have kept quiet about the murders in 1888 if he was the killer?

And also, who did the MacKenzie murder?

Regards, Pierre

[John Wheat]

Hi John,

it does not make Bury a Ripper or a copycat killer (killing prostitutes in the street/in yards).

There is nothing connecting Bury to the murders in 1888 except from "living in Whitechapel" and "being a murderer in 1889". A lot of people would have been Jack the Ripper if we use these criteria.

And - if Bury couldnīt keep quiet about the murder on his wife in 1889, why should he have kept quiet about the murders in 1888 if he was the killer?

And also, who did the MacKenzie murder?

Regards, Pierre

How is Bury not a Ripper or a copycat killer? Bury didn't live in Whitechapel in 1888 get your facts right. Exactly how many people lived in Whitechapel in 1888 and murdered in 1889 were there? My guess is not that many. I don't know who did the MacKenzie murder but I doubt it was Jack the Ripper. I doubt you know too. If you think you do though why don't you tell me?

Cheers John

[John G]

Thanks John.

And if other things I say, like when I have questions and hypotheses about questionable sources like the GOGMAGOG-letter, do not seem to make as much sense, it is only because I have not presented the data sources giving the ID of the person I think was the killer.

I can also tell you that compared to the sources for the person I think was the killer, the sources for Lechmere are extremely poor. Actually, the sources for all other suspects are extremely poor compared to the sources I have found. And I will show you that later on, even if I donīt get the last bit of data that I would like to have.

Regards, Pierre

This isn't a fact, only your subjective opinion.

[Fisherman]

To Fisherman

What I was trying to convey is that it is a fact that Bury murdered his wife by strangling her and then mutilating her. This fact makes Bury either the Ripper or a copycat killer which in my opinion puts him at the top of the Ripper Suspects list.

I assumed/still assume you would not believe anything that disproved Lechmere's guilt because you seem adamant on Lechmere's guilt on what I would call weak evidence.

I don't know who Griffiths and Scobie are. I assume they are judges that agree with your viewpoint. So what? I could name experts that agree with my viewpoint.

Cheers John

A great post. It shows that you are wrong, arrogant and uniformed. Which is a tad worse that I expected, to be honest.

Myself, I sometimes fall into the arrogance trap too. But I try to stay well away from the other two...

[Pierre]

How is Bury not a Ripper or a copycat killer? Bury didn't live in Whitechapel in 1888 get your facts right. Exactly how many people lived in Whitechapel in 1888 and murdered in 1889 were there? My guess is not that many. I don't know who did the MacKenzie murder but I doubt it was Jack the Ripper. I doubt you know too. If you think you do though why don't you tell me?

Cheers John

Hi John,

OK. If you search the British Newspaper Archive, using the words "murder" and "mutilation" from 1877-1887 you get 3.376 articles. You could always start looking at these articles.

And if you search the Old Baileysīs for the same period you get 163 murder cases. If you search by using killings and all subcategories you get 505 cases.

But letīs say you think that Bury was the Jack the Ripper.

Is there any evidence for that?

Is there anything connecting him to the murders?

I can understand the attractiveness of a hypothesis saying Bury was Jack the Ripper just because he lived in Whitechapel and just because he strangled and mutilated his wife. But reality does not present itself so easily. You have to examine Buryīs crime in relation to other crimes. Why?

Because it is very probable that it is a coincidence that Jack the Ripper and Bury was in Whitechapel at the same time. And it is also probably a coincidence that we can observe similarities in the method of killing and mutilating.

And then I also have to point out the importance of examining the crimes of Jack the Ripper in relation to the same data.

Is there evidence for a "Jack the Ripper"?

Is there anything connecting a "Jack the Ripper" to the murders?

I have to say yes, there is. But not "being in Whitechapel" or "murder and mutilate prostitutes". That is not evidence for a "Jack the Ripper".

It is difficult, isnīt it? First we have to prove a Jack the Ripper, then, if we manage to do that, we have to prove that Mr X is this Jack the Ripper.

But I have not been working that way. I happened to find data sources pointing to one person having done the murders which you happen to call the "Ripper-murders" in London. And he happened to be known as Jack the Ripper. And that is the name that he also created for himself. What a coincidence!

Kind regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

A great post. It shows that you are wrong, arrogant and uniformed. Which is a tad worse that I expected, to be honest.

Myself, I sometimes fall into the arrogance trap too. But I try to stay well away from the other two...

This is the type of off topic post that always tend to destroy a discussion - calling people things.

Pierre

[John G]

Hi John,

OK. If you search the British Newspaper Archive, using the words "murder" and "mutilation" from 1877-1887 you get 3.376 articles. You could always start looking at these articles.

And if you search the Old Baileysīs for the same period you get 163 murder cases. If you search by using killings and all subcategories you get 505 cases.

But letīs say you think that Bury was the Jack the Ripper.

Is there any evidence for that?

Is there anything connecting him to the murders?

I can understand the attractiveness of a hypothesis saying Bury was Jack the Ripper just because he lived in Whitechapel and just because he strangled and mutilated his wife. But reality does not present itself so easily. You have to examine Buryīs crime in relation to other crimes. Why?

Because it is very probable that it is a coincidence that Jack the Ripper and Bury was in Whitechapel at the same time. And it is also probably a coincidence that we can observe similarities in the method of killing and mutilating.

And then I also have to point out the importance of examining the crimes of Jack the Ripper in relation to the same data.

Is there evidence for a "Jack the Ripper"?

Is there anything connecting a "Jack the Ripper" to the murders?

I have to say yes, there is. But not "being in Whitechapel" or "murder and mutilate prostitutes". That is not evidence for a "Jack the Ripper".

It is difficult, isnīt it? First we have to prove a Jack the Ripper, then, if we manage to do that, we have to prove that Mr X is this Jack the Ripper.

But I have not been working that way. I happened to find data sources pointing to one person having done the murders which you happen to call the "Ripper-murders" in London. And he happened to be known as Jack the Ripper. And that is the name that he also created for himself. What a coincidence!

Kind regards, Pierre

"Happened to be known as Jack the Ripper"? Pierre, did your suspect change his name to Jack the Ripper by deed poll? Does this constitute the main part of your evidence?

[Pierre]

"Happened to be known as Jack the Ripper"? Pierre, did your suspect change his name to Jack the Ripper by deed poll? Does this constitute the main part of your evidence?

Hi John,

What I am trying to tell you is that you donīt take the historical "Jack the Ripper" first and then try to find out who was Jack the Ripper.

You have to happen to find a killer and then understand he was Jack the Ripper.

And the evidence must show you that "Jack the Ripper" was just his secondary ID.

His true killer ID was much closer to himself than the official image of who Jack the Ripper was.

This was a man with his own problems. And the murders were his way of trying to get back at those who hade created his problems. Actually, I think he succeeded.

That is, if I am not wrong.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

This is the type of off topic post that always tend to destroy a discussion - calling people things.

Pierre

Ah, Pierre - there are many ways to destroy a discussion! You may be aware of that, I believe?

As such, I am not calling John "things". I wrote that he was wrong, as per the "either Ripper or copycat" thing. Apparently, that is your own take too?

I wrote that he was arrogant - that was because he does not accept it when I tell him that I am always prepared to change my mind if the evidence suggests that I need to. No, he replied, I donīt think that you are willing or able to do that. Which is an arrogant thing to say.

I then wrote that he was uniformed - not only is it apparent that he has not seen the docu on Lechmere, he has not read up on Scobie and Griffiths. These two men are very able judges of all matters criminal, and they were both very positive to the idea that Lechmere was the Ripper. Not having read up about them equals being uniformed.

To you, that is calling people names and destroying the thread. To me, it is necessary criticism. The truth sometimes hurt. My assumption is that you may wish to warm to that thought yourself.

Then again, I am the arrogant kind, as I said.

[Hercule Poirot]

Hi John,

What I am trying to tell you is that you donīt take the historical "Jack the Ripper" first and then try to find out who was Jack the Ripper.

You have to happen to find a killer and then understand he was Jack the Ripper.

And the evidence must show you that "Jack the Ripper" was just his secondary ID.

His true killer ID was much closer to himself than the official image of who Jack the Ripper was.

This was a man with his own problems. And the murders were his way of trying to get back at those who hade created his problems. Actually, I think he succeeded.

That is, if I am not wrong.

Regards, Pierre

Hi there Pierre,
Regardless of who may be right or wrong about Lechmere, I must point out a couple of elements you refer to that need to be examined more closely.

The first one is the high risk/chance approach yo uses in a response to Fisherman:

He gets one (1) point for a high risk/chance, half a point (0,5) for a low risk/chance and no (0) point for no risk/chance

It seems to me that a risk/chance analysis would not be the appropriate method to use in this case. Risk analysis involves the probability of seeing a given scenario hapenning and a value for the consequences of it happening. There's no risk nor consequences involved in this case, only a probability of seing a scenario occur. A statistical model close to the Maximum likelihood estimation method or the Monte Carlo method would be more reliable. I believe you simply wanted to make a point by using the expression risk/chance but statistical hypothesis analysis is mich more complex than that.

Secondly when you say 'What I am trying to tell you is that you don't take the historical "Jack the Ripper" first and then try to find out who was Jack the Ripper', isn't totaly true in the case of acheological forensic or historical research.

For example, when Howard Carter began his Carnarvon's Egyptian excavations, he wasn't looking for Tutankhamun's tomb. But as the excavations went on, he figured King Tut might be in the area he was working on and began telling evryone he was looking for him.

in other words, it works both ways.
A. You're looking for something specificaly and apply validation methods on what you actualy find prooving your point.
B. You find something and propose hypotheses using validation methods bringing you to a 'true find' conclusion.

Respectfully
Hercule Poirot

[Pierre]

Ah, Pierre - there are many ways to destroy a discussion! You may be aware of that, I believe?

As such, I am not calling John "things". I wrote that he was wrong, as per the "either Ripper or copycat" thing. Apparently, that is your own take too?

I wrote that he was arrogant - that was because he does not accept it when I tell him that I am always prepared to change my mind if the evidence suggests that I need to. No, he replied, I donīt think that you are willing or able to do that. Which is an arrogant thing to say.

I then wrote that he was uniformed - not only is it apparent that he has not seen the docu on Lechmere, he has not read up on Scobie and Griffiths. These two men are very able judges of all matters criminal, and they were both very positive to the idea that Lechmere was the Ripper. Not having read up about them equals being uniformed.

To you, that is calling people names and destroying the thread. To me, it is necessary criticism. The truth sometimes hurt. My assumption is that you may wish to warm to that thought yourself.

Then again, I am the arrogant kind, as I said.

Hi Fisherman,

(yes, you called him "arrogant". And even if he did not want to understand your preparedness to change your mind about things, calling people things here always gets us off topic.)

Anyway, I have seen your documentary and find it entertaining.

But I am clearly uninformed since I donīt know much about the view of Scobie and Griffiths on the hypothesis of Lechmere being Jack the Ripper.

I found this in a newspaper:

"Dr Andy Griffiths, former head of Sussex Police’s murder squad, said: “There is no doubt that to an investigator, Cross is of tremendous interest.”

James Scobie QC confirmed the evidence would have been enough to take the case to court. He added: “He is somebody who seems to be acting in a way that is suspicious, which a jury would not like.

“When the coincidences mount up against a defendant it becomes one coincidence too many.”"
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/535...ked-the-Ripper

Fisherman, you write here:

"These two men are very able judges of all matters criminal, and they were both very positive to the idea that Lechmere was the Ripper."

Where/are they? Because all I see them say in this article (very unreliable data, only one article) is that

1.Lechmere is of tremendous interest to an investigator
2. Lechmere seems to be acting in a suspicious way
3. ...when the coincidences mount up... (Here he is not particularly mentioning Lechmere or specific coincidences.)

But you say they were both very positive to the idea that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper.

I can not see this in the article, but perhaps you have other sources you could recommend?

Kind regards, Pierre