WH Bury Problems

[Fisherman]

But drinking, and even being drunk, to a point, does not necessarily mean one would be careless, noisy or tripping over his own movements. Some times drinking supplies those who do it with artificial confidence, and once they achieve that they stop drinking and move on to whatever they needed the artificial confidence for, be it murder, a job interview, or the ability to talk to a pretty girl at the bar. He didn't have to be a staggering, obviously-drunk kind of drinker. Just one who used it give himself a buzz and steel his nerves, while largely maintaining control of his faculties.

Agreed all over - but Harry´s original statement: "one of the most infamous and elusive killers in history was actually a drunken wife-beater", does not exactly point to somebody who simply steadied his nerves with a sip of port...

[Elamarna]

Fisherman and Harry D

I see a couple of very good reasons to think Long and Cadosh were wrong: The were both adamant that they did NOT have the times wrong, referring to how they had checked with nearby clocks. And they were bot in conflict with the assessment of Phillips.

True, but we also have Richardson, who's statement fits far better with Cadosch and Long than with Phillips.

I am doing no such thing. I am saying that when people get drunk, they will normally get loud. And I will add that murders perpetraded by drunk people are very often cases of non-premeditated manslaughter.

Having worked with several alcoholics over the years, they often appear sober, and certainly are not loud when in their normal condition

Thanks for that. You will note how Keppel works from the very reasonable presumption that drunk people make for detectable killers. And basically, that is the exact point I am making - drunk people are NORMALLY loud people, drunk people will NORMALLY be quite easy to detect when killing somebody, drunk people will NORMALLY not hande a knife with utter precision and skill.

The fact that we may always find the odd exception to the rule is something I pointed to earlier, saying that it is strange how originators of such suggestions regularly forget what the normal outcome is, replacing it with joy over having found a rare exception.

I tend to agree with you about drunks Fisherman.

Alcoholics are a different matter as I mentioned above.

Indeed the two I worked with for many years, could only perform there jobs correctly when not sober, they were very well organized and able to carry out complex procedures in the laboratory.

To those who did not know them they would appear not to be drunk,it would only be when one got close enough to smell the alcohol on their breath that one would know they had been drinking.

They were what I gather are called functioning alcoholics and the same could not be applied to all obviously.

Can I see the killer as a casual drunk? possible but unlikely, given all the killer had to do.

Can i see the killer as a functioning alcoholic,...... certainly.!


Steve

[Harry D]

Agreed all over - but Harry´s original statement: "one of the most infamous and elusive killers in history was actually a drunken wife-beater", does not exactly point to somebody who simply steadied his nerves with a sip of port...

The term "drunken" is a relative one, Fish.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna:

True, but we also have Richardson, who's statement fits far better with Cadosch and Long than with Phillips.

Been over that a thousand times. And each of those thousand times, Phillips has always seemed the sensible man to me. Richardson was all over the place, with the possible exception of the backyard stairs...


Having worked with several alcoholics over the years, they often appear sober, and certainly are not loud when in their normal condition

There are all sorts of drunkards, but what is involved in the characterization of "drunken wife-beater" is not a cautious, careful and silent man. That´s all I´m saying.


I tend to agree with you about drunks Fisherman.

Alcoholics are a different matter as I mentioned above.

And indeed, "drunken wife-beater" was the description I reacted to.

Indeed the two I worked with for many years, could only perform there jobs correctly when not sober, they were very well organized and able to carry out complex procedures in the laboratory.

To those who did not know them they would appear not to be drunk,it would only be when one got close enough to smell the alcohol on their breath that one would know they had been drinking.

They were what I gather are called functioning alcoholics and the same could not be applied to all obviously.

All of this is quite well-known. Steve. Once again, they would not be described as drunken.

Can I see the killer as a casual drunk? possible but unlikely, given all the killer had to do.

Can i see the killer as a functioning alcoholic,...... certainly.!

Can I see the killer as a "drunken wife-beater"? No.

[Fisherman]

The term "drunken" is a relative one, Fish.

"Drunken" is not compatible with a stealthy, cautious and meticulous pattern of acting.

However, it is utterly stupid to prolong the debate. The killer was in all probability not acting as a drunken man, but he could have been under the influence of alcohol nevertheless.

There, Harry. It is that simple.

It can be added that both Burys employer and his landlady apparently described him as a violent drunk - and that at the very least seems incomparable with the killings of the Ripper.

[John Wheat]

Am I? I would say that if there was a 9 out of 10 chance that the Ripper drank before he murdered, it would still apply that this killer probably belonged to the last tenth.
Statistics are useful many times, but in this case, we have specific reasons to think that the killer was not drunk. The total lack of noise, the ability to sneak in and out unnoticed, the skilful cutting performed all speak of a killer who was not under the influence.

I know that you really, really, really, REALLY want me to be wrong, John, and I can only say that it didn´t work this time either.

Maybe in the future, though! Who knows?

Bullshit. You're wrong. A 1 in 2 chance of being under the influence of alcohol. And the comparative sloppiness in some of the cuts of some of the victims suggests various states of inebriation in the murders of different victims.

[Rainbow]

Why is Bury even in the suspects list ?!

Better to remove him from here..

The man had killed his wife while he was drunk, went to the police at his free will, confessed to his guilt and payed his life for it.

End of the story.

Move on gentlemen......


Rainbow°

[Harry D]

"Drunken" is not compatible with a stealthy, cautious and meticulous pattern of acting.

You choose to interpret 'drunken' as paralytic. All it means is that he was under the influence, as Bundy admitted to being when he was killing.

It can be added that both Burys employer and his landlady apparently described him as a violent drunk - and that at the very least seems incomparable with the killings of the Ripper.

No, it doesn't. Quite the opposite.

Why is Bury even in the suspects list ?!

Let's see...

Known murderer, committed abdominal mutilation, lived in the East End during the Autumn of Terror, left London shortly after the last canonical murder. If we're basing our analysis as objectively as possible on the known facts (and not our imaginations *cough*) then no one can deny that Bury is the most fitting of the named suspects available.

[Rainbow]

Alice Mackenzie is a Ripper victim until proven otherwise.

He confessed to his guilt, we are looking for that one who escaped justice.

Move on...



Rainbow°

[Harry D]

Alice Mackenzie is a Ripper victim until proven otherwise.

That's highly debatable.

He confessed to his guilt, we are looking for that one who escaped justice.

If Bury was the Ripper, he did escape justice for those crimes.

Move on...

No one's stopping you.

[Rainbow]

If Bury was the Ripper, he did escape justice for those crimes.

And what would you do, kill him twice ?!

[Harry D]

And what would you do, kill him twice ?!

Very droll. If Bury was the Ripper, he took that secret to his grave and the victims never found official justice.

[Rainbow]

He didn't kill Mackenzie...

Mackenzie is more a ripper victim than some of the C5 plus Tabram...

Let the man rest in peace.... We should remove him from the list of suspects..



Rainbow°

[Fisherman]

Bullshit. You're wrong. A 1 in 2 chance of being under the influence of alcohol. And the comparative sloppiness in some of the cuts of some of the victims suggests various states of inebriation in the murders of different victims.

Do you think you can manage to produce a post where you don´t write "bullshit"? It seems a bit limited to me.

As for statistics, John, they do not work the way you suggest. Less than ten per cent of all serial killers are eviscerators. Do you think it therefore applies that the Ripper wasn´t one?

You can cut extremely sloppily and be completely sober. It is very much harder to cut extremely skilfully and be drunk.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: You choose to interpret 'drunken' as paralytic.

No, that was YOU interpreting it for me and putting words in my mouth, as per usual.
Under influence must not mean drunken, but drunken must mean under influence.

No, it doesn't. Quite the opposite.

Aha - so violent drunkards ARE silent, stealthy, careful people.

Geez - you learn something new every day.