WH Bury Problems

[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°

[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?

[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]

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?

[John Wheat]

-person of interest by contemporary police
-was known to be violent toward women (before the murder of his wife.)
-fits the avg joe profile of most serial killers
-is not ruled out by witnesss descriptions
-known to frequent pubs, prostitutes

Hi Abby

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

Cheers John

[Abby Normal]

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

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. How is a lowly bum like Bury supposed to compare with a Mad Doctor, a Jewish schizo, or even an innocent carman? However, Bury fits the psychological profile for the killer, and like many serial killers he imploded and was the architect of his own demise.

Bury moved to London in late 1887.
Bury lived in the East End during the autumn of terror.
Bury had access to a pony & cart to travel between Bow & Whitechapel.
Bury was known to go missing for days.
Bury left London not long after Mary Kelly's murder.
The murders ceased/subsided after Bury left London.
Bury strangled his wife and performed abdominal mutilations on her corpse.
There was Ripper graffiti left at Bury's household (possible confession?)
Bury feared that he would be arrested as the Ripper
For reasons unknown to us, hangman James Berry believed that Bury was the Ripper.

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.

-person of interest by contemporary police
-was known to be violent toward women (before the murder of his wife.)
-fits the avg joe profile of most serial killers
-is not ruled out by witnesss descriptions
-known to frequent pubs, prostitutes

[John Wheat]

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

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. How is a lowly bum like Bury supposed to compare with a Mad Doctor, a Jewish schizo, or even an innocent carman? However, Bury fits the psychological profile for the killer, and like many serial killers he imploded and was the architect of his own demise.

Bury moved to London in late 1887.
Bury lived in the East End during the autumn of terror.
Bury had access to a pony & cart to travel between Bow & Whitechapel.
Bury was known to go missing for days.
Bury left London not long after Mary Kelly's murder.
The murders ceased/subsided after Bury left London.
Bury strangled his wife and performed abdominal mutilations on her corpse.
There was Ripper graffiti left at Bury's household (possible confession?)
Bury feared that he would be arrested as the Ripper
For reasons unknown to us, hangman James Berry believed that Bury was the Ripper.

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.

Hi Harry

You've pretty much summed up why Bury is far and away the best Ripper suspect.

Cheers John

[Harry D]

If you believe that a poster is a sock puppet of mine, you should report it to the adinistrators, Harry. I have seen sock puppets out here before, and I loathe the use of such things, so you would be doing me a personal favour.

Are you now saying that Bury was an alcoholic who only beat up on hos wife when sober? Is that it?
Because others describe him as a violent drunkenbolt, and I of course jumped to the conclusion that he was given to violence when getting drunk.

Maybe that is all wrong. Maybe he was a drunkenbolt, but given to violence only when sober?

PS. On the topic of the thread, Iīd suggest that you yurself are becoming an increasing problem for Buryīs credibility as a suspect.

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

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. How is a lowly bum like Bury supposed to compare with a Mad Doctor, a Jewish schizo, or even an innocent carman? However, Bury fits the psychological profile for the killer, and like many serial killers he imploded and was the architect of his own demise.

Bury moved to London in late 1887.
Bury lived in the East End during the autumn of terror.
Bury had access to a pony & cart to travel between Bow & Whitechapel.
Bury was known to go missing for days.
Bury left London not long after Mary Kelly's murder.
The murders ceased/subsided after Bury left London.
Bury strangled his wife and performed abdominal mutilations on her corpse.
There was Ripper graffiti left at Bury's household (possible confession?)
Bury feared that he would be arrested as the Ripper
For reasons unknown to us, hangman James Berry believed that Bury was the Ripper.

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.

[Fisherman]

Not really, it's only you and your sock puppet that have a problem.

Let's say that the Ripper was an "alcoholic wife-beater". Is that any better or do you wish to quibble some more?

If you believe that a poster is a sock puppet of mine, you should report it to the adinistrators, Harry. I have seen sock puppets out here before, and I loathe the use of such things, so you would be doing me a personal favour.

Are you now saying that Bury was an alcoholic who only beat up on hos wife when sober? Is that it?
Because others describe him as a violent drunkenbolt, and I of course jumped to the conclusion that he was given to violence when getting drunk.

Maybe that is all wrong. Maybe he was a drunkenbolt, but given to violence only when sober?

PS. On the topic of the thread, Iīd suggest that you yurself are becoming an increasing problem for Buryīs credibility as a suspect.

[Harry D]

Your description of Bury was "a drunken wife-beater", so Iīd say that you were the one who failed to keep Bury on the list of probable killers.

Not really, it's only you and your sock puppet that have a problem.

Let's say that the Ripper was an "alcoholic wife-beater". Is that any better or do you wish to quibble some more?

[Fisherman]

Certainly can.


Medical Research/ Natural Sciences, 35 years in medical schools and public research bodies in the Uk

Not teaching, not so illustrious, backroom staff so to speak, the ones who do the actual research.

worked in various areas of research including, dementia, neoplastic diseases (cancers) muscular development and growth plus loads more.
As you can see no specialization, very general in the field.

Just to make it clear, not medically qualified, but have worked with those who are all my working life, hence I understand/know what Payne-James says is accurate as far as such statements can be.
And why by the way i did not say I would like the views of a second expert in that case.

And 25 years in politics.

anything else ask, no problem.


Steve

Many thanks for that, Steve!

[Fisherman]

Harry D: Let's dispense with the semantics. You latched onto my description of Bury in an attempt to discredit him as a suspect and failed.

Your description of Bury was "a drunken wife-beater", so Iīd say that you were the one who failed to keep Bury on the list of probable killers.

As I said in an earlier post, I have no problems accepting that people taking in alcohol can be careful and silent. They are, however, not drunk in the established meaning of the word.

That was why I pointed out to you that Bury was known as a violent drunkenbolt, something that tallies quite badly with being the Ripper.

I have no wish to "discredit" him as the Ripper. I am not playing games, as you yourself seem to do. I am weighing up the possibilities, and I find Bury lacking in probability for many reasons, reasons that I have given before.

[Elamarna]

Can I ask you, Steve, what is your professional background?

Certainly can.


Medical Research/ Natural Sciences, 35 years in medical schools and public research bodies in the Uk

Not teaching, not so illustrious, backroom staff so to speak, the ones who do the actual research.

worked in various areas of research including, dementia, neoplastic diseases (cancers) muscular development and growth plus loads more.
As you can see no specialization, very general in the field.

Just to make it clear, not medically qualified, but have worked with those who are all my working life, hence I understand/know what Payne-James says is accurate as far as such statements can be.
And why by the way i did not say I would like the views of a second expert in that case.

And 25 years in politics.

anything else ask, no problem.


Steve

[Harry D]

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.

Let's dispense with the semantics. You latched onto my description of Bury in an attempt to discredit him as a suspect and failed.

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

Geez - you learn something new every day.

Depends on the context.

[Harry D]

He didn't kill Mackenzie...

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

Which of the C5 would that be? I can only think of Stride, but even Stride had her throat slashed and not stabbed & dragged like McKenzie.