WH Bury Problems

[John Wheat]

Harry D: What on earth is a "drunkenbolt"? There's no reason to be making up words.

Somebody who is given to drinking alcohol and who is drunk on a regular basis.
Why canīt I make up words when you make up that I use sock puppets?

No, I'm saying that the notion that the Ripper was little more than an alcoholic wife-beater is an ugly truth that doesn't appeal to the imagination.

Oh, but you donīt know that the Ripper WAS little more than an alcoholic wife-beater. And I donīt agree myself that a seemingly lowly man could not have been the Ripper. I know the statistics far too well for that.

How is a lowly bum like Bury supposed to compare with a Mad Doctor, a Jewish schizo, or even an innocent carman?

I think he would compare quite well with the latter two categories.

However, Bury fits the psychological profile for the killer, and like many serial killers he imploded and was the architect of his own demise.

But we donīt know the "psychological profile for the killer". And if you refer to the FBI, they are very ofte very wrong. Profiling is a lot of fun, but very unsafe.
And that "like many serial killers" is a tad odd. Those who implode and shape their own demise are in fact not very common.

Bury moved to London in late 1887.

Can I remind you how you normally say that any number of people may have passed Bucks Row at 3.40 in the morning?

Bury lived in the East End during the autumn of terror.

[B]Can I remind you how you normally say that any number of people may have passed Bucks Row at 3.40 in the morning?

Bury had access to a pony & cart to travel between Bow & Whitechapel.

[B]Can I remind you how you normally say that any number of people may have passed Bucks Row at 3.40 in the morning?

Bury was known to go missing for days.

[B]Can I remind you how you normally say that any number of people may have passed Bucks Row at 3.40 in the morning?

Bury left London not long after Mary Kelly's murder.

[B]Can I remind you how you normally say that any number of people may have passed Bucks Row at 3.40 in the morning?

The murders ceased/subsided after Bury left London.

Did they?

Bury strangled his wife and performed abdominal mutilations on her corpse.

Wonīt go over that again - there are HEAPS of differences, and MacKenzie (killed after Bury was hanged) is a lot better likeness than Ellen Bury.

There was Ripper graffiti left at Bury's household (possible confession?)

So he - or somebody else - knew about the Ripperīs existence? Yippe-kay-yay!

Bury feared that he would be arrested as the Ripper

Letīs face it - the Ripper wasnīt a popular man. To Bury, it would not matter if he was hanged as the killer or as the Ripper. Hanged is hanged.

For reasons unknown to us, hangman James Berry believed that Bury was the Ripper.

He had perhaps read Casebook.

Now all of these points can be dissected individually but when taken as a whole they present us with a named suspect par excellence. To contend otherwise is to deny the facts in front of them.

How much must I cheer? Is it okay of I say that Bury belongs to the top twenty, top thirty suspects? He was the kind of man the police turn to when they find no useful suspect factually connected to the crimes, sort of a second rate category. And donīt get me wrong, it HAS happened that the perpetrators have been found in this category. But to be really viable, they need to be a lot more spot on than Bury, methinks.

How am I doing? Second-rate suspect, not very viable but nevertheless on the list on account of the dearth of worthy candidates. Is that okay?

Who are these thirty suspects ahead of Bury could you name them? And give reasons why they are more viable than Bury?

[Fisherman]

Who are these thirty suspects ahead of Bury could you name them? And give reasons why they are more viable than Bury?

Proven opportunity, John. There is, for example, a time gap of fifteen minutes between when Stride was last seen alive and when she was found dead. During that time gap, any of the people inside the International Working Mens Educational Club had the opportunity to sneak out kill Stride and return back in again.

So maybe Bury needs to step down below the thirty suspect line.

You see, we are approaching the case from very different angles, you and I. I am asking "Who do we know for certain was there? And is there anything among these people that seems odd or outright suspicious?"

That is where Lechmere fits the bill. Of course, some people will say that there is nothing odd at all surrounding the carman, but we will just have to disagree in such a case. I prefer to lean against a man like Griffiths in that case, and he says that there are numerous factors that crave an explanation and that nobody could be prosecuted before he was cleared. That is a confirmation of my own take on things.

You, on the other hand, are doing what the police will generally do in cases where they have no suspect: they will look at the character of the crime and ask themselves: Do we know of any person who has done something similar to this?

And that is where you think Bury fits the bill. I disagree, partly since I find there are far too many factors that do NOT fit the bill, and partly because I am convinced that the man who killed the Ripper victims was identical with the man who killed the Torso victims.

And this is where I think you behave oddly. There are numerous factors that are the same between these two killers:
They both severed the neck of their victims (Bury never did)
They both opened up the abdomens of their victims (Bury did too)
They both took away organs (Bury did not)
They both took rings from their victims (Bury did not)
They both took away part of the colon from some victim/s (Bury did not)
They both took away the abdominal wall in a few large flaps from some victim/s (Bury did not)

So here, we have a very striking resemblance, involving very rare elements - but this time, you are willing to skip your thinking about resemblances, and instead vehemently claim that these two men were NOT one and the same.

To me, it makes absolutely no sense. If we are to look for the Ripper by trying to find a person who does the same things as the Ripper did, then why does that NOT apply when we compare the Ripper and the Torso killer?

And if we are to accept a half-baked suggestion like Bury as the Ripper, basically only on the likeness of having opened up the abdomen, then why would we NOT accept a shared identity between the Ripper and the Torso man, where we have many more likenesses that are even more specific?

Just how does that work, John?

[Rainbow]

To summarize what Harry and John say:

Bury is a very bad person, he is very very bad, so he must be the ripper.

And thats all.

That reminds me of a little story in the school

one time, the window in our classroom was broken, and the teacher asked who did it and no one answered this

then he asked every student to pick up a small paper and to write secretly the name of the one who broke the window..

by reading those papers, almost every student wrote the name of a bad guy in our class who always used to fight other students and hit them

and this boy was punished for breaking the window.. he said he didn't break it, but since he was known as a bad guy, no one had believed him...

at the end of the year, told me my friend that he was the one who broke the window by mistake...

What Harry and John are doing here, is picking up small papers, and writing Bury in it...



Rainbow°

[Harry D]

Identifying a pattern to a series of unsolved murders and cross-referencing them to a perpetrator who has committed a similar crime, along with correlating the cessation of the murders to the suspect's movements, is basic police work. It doesn't mean that Bury was the Ripper but the preponderance of evidence is weightier in this case than the other named suspect, most of which possess no history of physical violence or murder, and in particular post-mortem mutilation.

Also, it's amusing that the "two" biggest detractors of Bury in this thread are both advocates for Lechmere. A man whose only crime was discovering one of the victims. That's it. And it's a point that you have beaten to death. You have no evidence that he was violent, no evidence he was a murderer, no evidence that any contemporaries ever suspected him, no evidence of why the murders de-escalated, nothing. All you have is an argument from ignorance.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: Identifying a pattern to a series of unsolved murders and cross-referencing them to a perpetrator who has committed a similar crime, along with correlating the cessation of the murders to the suspect's movements, is basic police work.

No, itīs secondary police work, and only comes into play of there is no suspect identified who was present and any of the murder sites. That is where the basic police work takes place.

It doesn't mean that Bury was the Ripper but the preponderance of evidence is weightier in this case than the other named suspect, most of which possess no history of physical violence or murder, and in particular post-mortem mutilation.

Opportunity is the key factor, without which you can never convict a person. You seem to believe that absense of evidence is evidence of absense, but this is not so. The "preponderance of evidence" you speak of only comes into play in a measure that is directly relative to the actual likenesses built in. And as there are many, many dissimilarities inbetween what Bury and the Ripper did, the pointing out of Bury leaks badly in many places. It holds little water, Iīm afraid.

Also, it's amusing that the "two" biggest detractors of Bury in this thread are both advocates for Lechmere.

Amusing? How so? Oh, I forgot - you think it is a shooutout, some sort of competition.

A man whose only crime was discovering one of the victims.

Iīm afraid that is no crime at all. And Iīm afraid you are talking out of your behind, since you simply have no idea what crimes Lechmere did or did not perpetrate. We have no recorded crime attaching to him, but that is much in keeping with how other serialists have enjoyed the same status - up until they were caught.

And it's a point that you have beaten to death.

It is a point that must always be kept in mind, so you wuill hear more about it. It is the exact thing I pointed out to you a few lines ago: Opportunity. The one parameter without which you can NEVER convict.
I could not care less if it annoys you, Harry. Get over it, thatīs my advice.

You have no evidence that he was violent, no evidence he was a murderer, no evidence that any contemporaries ever suspected him, no evidence of why the murders de-escalated, nothing. All you have is an argument from ignorance.

There was no evidence that Joachim Kroll was violent, no evidence that he was a murderer, no evidence that his contemporaries suspected him. The same applies for numerous other serialists. It would be utter stupidity not to recognize this. The very fact that they can go on is that they are not looked upon as likely killers, has that not dawned on you, Harry? Have you n ot understood what serial killing is so very often about - grey, meticulous, cautious men. Not fiery drunkards, given to publically presented violence.
And how is it ignorant to point out that he was present at one of the murder sites. Alone with the victim? Precisely how is that ignorant? Please explain. Put some facts behind your allegations.
You like to insult and mock, but you only make a fool of yourself when doing so.

You can answer the same question I asked of John: If similar traits is what catches the crook, then why is it that you do not acknowledge that there are far more and far rarer similar traits inbetween the Ripper and the Torso man, than inbetween the Ripper and Bury?

[Rainbow]

You have no evidence that he was violent, no evidence he was a murderer, no evidence that any contemporaries ever suspected him, no evidence of why the murders de-escalated, nothing. All you have is an argument from ignorance.

Following your logic, and I don't know if I can call it logic at all, Chapman is a better suspect than Bury

Chapman is a serial killer, Bury is not.
Chapman didn't confess to his crimes, Bury did.
Chapman has medical knowledge, Bury has not.
Chapman was a clever one who knows what he was doing, Bury is not, after he put his wife in a box, he didn't know what to do except to go himself to the police.

Are we going to solve the case by such a logic ?! not at all, non of them can be linked to any of the crimes..

and even if Lechmere has a history of violence, is that enough to have a verdict against him , not at all.

Lechmere was there, at the same moment Nichols was dying, where was your Bury then, huh ?!


Rainbow°

[John Wheat]

Proven opportunity, John. There is, for example, a time gap of fifteen minutes between when Stride was last seen alive and when she was found dead. During that time gap, any of the people inside the International Working Mens Educational Club had the opportunity to sneak out kill Stride and return back in again.

So maybe Bury needs to step down below the thirty suspect line.

You see, we are approaching the case from very different angles, you and I. I am asking "Who do we know for certain was there? And is there anything among these people that seems odd or outright suspicious?"

That is where Lechmere fits the bill. Of course, some people will say that there is nothing odd at all surrounding the carman, but we will just have to disagree in such a case. I prefer to lean against a man like Griffiths in that case, and he says that there are numerous factors that crave an explanation and that nobody could be prosecuted before he was cleared. That is a confirmation of my own take on things.

You, on the other hand, are doing what the police will generally do in cases where they have no suspect: they will look at the character of the crime and ask themselves: Do we know of any person who has done something similar to this?

And that is where you think Bury fits the bill. I disagree, partly since I find there are far too many factors that do NOT fit the bill, and partly because I am convinced that the man who killed the Ripper victims was identical with the man who killed the Torso victims.

And this is where I think you behave oddly. There are numerous factors that are the same between these two killers:
They both severed the neck of their victims (Bury never did)
They both opened up the abdomens of their victims (Bury did too)
They both took away organs (Bury did not)
They both took rings from their victims (Bury did not)
They both took away part of the colon from some victim/s (Bury did not)
They both took away the abdominal wall in a few large flaps from some victim/s (Bury did not)

So here, we have a very striking resemblance, involving very rare elements - but this time, you are willing to skip your thinking about resemblances, and instead vehemently claim that these two men were NOT one and the same.

To me, it makes absolutely no sense. If we are to look for the Ripper by trying to find a person who does the same things as the Ripper did, then why does that NOT apply when we compare the Ripper and the Torso killer?

And if we are to accept a half-baked suggestion like Bury as the Ripper, basically only on the likeness of having opened up the abdomen, then why would we NOT accept a shared identity between the Ripper and the Torso man, where we have many more likenesses that are even more specific?

Just how does that work, John?

I said who are these thirty suspects. Please name them. With reason why they are better suspects than Bury. If you can't I'll conclude that Bury is the most viable suspect in your eyes.

[Fisherman]

I said who are these thirty suspects. Please name them. With reason why they are better suspects than Bury. If you can't I'll conclude that Bury is the most viable suspect in your eyes.

If I canīt name them, you will conclude that Bury is the most viable suspect in my eyes?

Jesus Christ, John, what level of debate is that?

I already told you once that to begin with, the people present at the IWMEC are ALL better suspects than Bury, on account of having had the opportunity to kill Stride.
I really will not take the trouble to name them. For one thing, we donīt have all their names, and for another, it does not matter what they were called; itīs their having been in place at a time consistent with the murder of Stride that makes them all better suspects than Bury. Each and every one of them needs to be cleared before there is any reason to look at your man.
The same applies in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street. The tenants there are better suspects than Bury, on account of having been in place when Chapman died. Some will be elderly people, like Amelia Cox for example, but those who were fit and able are certainly better suspects than Bury.

Shall I go on? Or have you understood now?

If so, please take some time to explain to me why Bury is by far the best suspect for the Ripper murders on account of having cut his wifes belly open, when the Ripper and the Torso man are not likely to be the same person, although they are MUCH closer each other in this respect than Bury and the Ripper. Here, we have two men who both cut from sternum to groin, who both sever the neck, and who both take away inner organs, who both remove parts of the colon and who both cut the abdominal wall away in large panes.

If Bury is such a good prospect for the Ripperīs role, then certainly the Ripper and the Torso man must be an even better fit?

If not, please explain how your mind works on the issue.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

Those are some more points in Bury's favour as a suspect.

Cheers John

absolutely.

[Harry D]

Chapman is a serial killer, Bury is not.

Chapman was a serial poisoner. Radically different MO to the one shared by the Ripper and William Bury.

What was Lechmere's MO?

Lechmere was there, at the same moment Nichols was dying, where was your Bury then, huh ?!

Very few serial killers are found in the middle of the street admiring their handiwork, waiting for the first witness to come along.

[Fisherman]

Very few serial killers are found in the middle of the street admiring their handiwork, waiting for the first witness to come along.

Very few serial killers perpetrate their deeds out in the open streets, with policemen and watchmen patrolling very close by. It makes for a radically different backdrop, therefore. Other rules - if we can speak of rules at all - may easily apply.

[John Wheat]

Anyone who thinks a random witness is a better suspect than Bury is at best a buffoon and at worst a complete idiot.

[Fisherman]

Anyone who thinks a random witness is a better suspect than Bury is at best a buffoon and at worst a complete idiot.

Yes, Iīm sure you are right. But you see, Lechmere never was a random witness. He was found alone with a freshly killed Ripper victim.

So Iīm glad to pass your combined buffoon and idiot test.

Now, can you please answer my question: If Bury is a very good suspect on account of what you perceive to be similarities in the method of killing (it boils down to a cut open abdomen), then why would not the Ripper and the Torso man be one and the same, seeing as the similarities inbetween these two men are much larger?

It seems to me you are avoiding that question, John?

[John Wheat]

The MO of the Torso Killer is not that similar. Which Ripper victim had there limbs cut off?

[Fisherman]

The MO of the Torso Killer is not that similar. Which Ripper victim had there limbs cut off?

Ah, but you have yourself told me in the past that the cutting of the limbs was only a means of transportation, so we can rule that out. It may well have been a necessity to be able to discard of the bodies.
And we have such elements in the Bury case too: he broke limbs on his victim - the Ripper never did. He tried to hide his victim - the Ripper never did.

But these are things that may have been governed by the circumstances, so lets look at the damage done to the bodies only, and what we can see when comparing the Ripper and the Torso man:

The cutting of the abdomens, John! From sternum to pubes. The REAL thing - as opposed to Buryīs effort.
And the taking of organs, sexually AND non-secually oriented! The REAL thing - as opposed to Bury who took no organs at all.
The cutting of the neck! The REAL thing, whereas Bury strangled only.
The abdominal flaps - a VERY rare ingredient!
The taking of rings from the victims.

There likenesses are numerically more and much, much greater than inbetween the Ripper killings and Bury, where the only "likeness" is a cut to the abdomen - that looks totally different in the Bury case than it did in the Ripper cases.

So why would we not assume that the killers were one and the same, John, going on your own preferred methodology of comparing the damages? Either you stick to your thinking throughout, or you will be revealed as the top cherry picker on this site ever. And thatīs not saying little!!