William Bury website

[Sam Flynn]

Let’s imagine for a moment that we had legitimate DNA evidence placing Aaron Kosminski at 5 of the C6 crime scenes...

Sorry, the ripperological construct is the Canonical Five, because - rightly or wrongly - there were five ("and five only") Ripper victims named as such by Macnaghten. Whether they were Ripper victims or not is another matter, but we can't just tack on one or more victims of our choice and renaming it the "C6", "C7" etc. It's not our canon to change.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There’s also a world of difference between DNA evidence and signature evidence. You can’t alter the DNA at a crime scene due to a change in circumstances as you can with a signature. DNA is accurate to an incredibly high, scientifically proven level. Signatures are not. They are a possible guideline. A potential pointer. No more. And as was in evidence in a much earlier post these signatures can be and have been manipulated to fit. The notion that Ellen Bury was sexually posed in a trunk is arrant nonsense for example.

[Wyatt Earp]

Sorry, the ripperological construct is the Canonical Five, because - rightly or wrongly - there were five ("and five only") Ripper victims named as such by Macnaghten. Whether they were Ripper victims or not is another matter, but we can't just tack on one or more victims of our choice and renaming it the "C6", "C7" etc. It's not our canon to change.

The “C6” was simply shorthand, Sam. I could have written, “Let’s imagine for a moment that out of the Martha Tabram, Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes and Mary Jane Kelly crime scenes, we had legitimate DNA evidence placing Aaron Kosminski at five of them.” Etc.

[Sam Flynn]

Ah! Well, you could have said "the C5 and Tabram".

[Herlock Sholmes]

The “C6” was simply shorthand, Sam. I could have written, “Let’s imagine for a moment that out of the Martha Tabram, Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes and Mary Jane Kelly crime scenes, we had legitimate DNA evidence placing Aaron Kosminski at five of them.” Etc.

Again, let’s be clear, there is a big difference between signature evidence which can be disputed and debated and is subject to interpretation and DNA which produces accuracies of millions to one backed by solid science. The two are in a very different league. One has repeatedly shown to be accurate whilst the other leads to ludicrous suggestions like a body can be posed sexually by being stuffed into a trunk! A system that allows for change from scene to scene due to a change in circumstances. We might ask then how do we know that some particular signature might not have been an intended one but one that was employed by the killer due to a change of circumstances. Far too many potentially moving goalposts on this one I’m afraid.

[Wyatt Earp]

In post 75 of this thread I explained why we should conclude that Ellen Bury’s body was deliberately placed in a sexually degrading position in the trunk. I’ll provide a more detailed, step-by-step explanation here.

1. Was Ellen Bury’s body found in a sexually degrading position in the trunk?
Yes, that is self-evident. According to Lt. David Lamb’s testimony at Bury’s trial, her body was “quite naked” except for a chemise, her “right leg was broken in two and doubled back under [the] lid of [the] box” and her left leg was “bent back so that the foot was over [the] right shoulder.”

2. Can we be confident that William Bury was the person who placed the body into the trunk?
Yes. He admitted to the Dundee police that he placed the body into the trunk, and there are no other plausible candidates.

Ok, so we’ve quickly established that William Bury placed the body into the trunk in a sexually degrading position. The only question, then, is whether he deliberately placed it into that position or whether it could have wound up in that position by accident or necessity. Let’s review the facts.

3. Was William Bury under some constraint of time, such that he might have been forced to hurriedly shove the body into the trunk?
No. The body was inside William Bury’s residence, and there was no limit to the time he had available to him.

4. Were the contents of the trunk such that it might have been necessary to place the body into that position?
No. The trunk had substantially been emptied prior to the placement of the body into it (there was only a skirt and a petticoat beneath the body), meaning that William Bury could have placed the body into the trunk in any one of a number of different ways.

5. Is there independent evidence that William Bury was carefully arranging the contents of the trunk and not haphazardly shoving things into it?
Yes. Books and items of clothing were tightly packed around the body inside the trunk.

6. Is there independent evidence that William Bury was deliberately posing the body?
Yes. He tilted the head of the body to one side, as was done with a number of the Whitechapel victims.

7. Is there independent evidence that there was a sexual component to the Ellen Bury murder?
Yes. Ellen Bury’s genitals were mutilated. The genital mutilations are described in detail in the two medical reports on the Bury website. The Ellen Bury murder was clearly a sexual homicide.

Taking all of the above into account, it is obvious that William Bury deliberately placed Ellen Bury’s body into the trunk in a sexually degrading position.

A sufficiently unique signature characteristic or combination of signature characteristics can have extraordinary identifying power. The police and the courts both know this, even if some in the Ripper community do not. And that is exactly what we have in “The Case of William Bury and the Whitechapel Murders.” Use of the term “behavioral DNA” is entirely appropriate here. Again, Dr. Stuart Hamilton, a highly regarded forensic pathologist, agrees that there is signature evidence linking Bury to the Ripper murders.

The road to the Ripper’s identity does not go through Robert Anderson’s unbelievable claim, or through Swanson or Druitt “family stories,” it goes through the facts and evidence in the case, which are telling us that William Bury was Jack the Ripper. It is disappointing to see Ripperologists so attached to their pet suspects and pet views of the case that they are willing to completely ignore the clear and powerful forensic evidence linking Bury to the Ripper murders.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In post 75 of this thread I explained why we should conclude that Ellen Bury’s body was deliberately placed in a sexually degrading position in the trunk. I’ll provide a more detailed, step-by-step explanation here.

1. Was Ellen Bury’s body found in a sexually degrading position in the trunk?
Yes, that is self-evident. According to Lt. David Lamb’s testimony at Bury’s trial, her body was “quite naked” except for a chemise, her “right leg was broken in two and doubled back under [the] lid of [the] box” and her left leg was “bent back so that the foot was over [the] right shoulder.”

2. Can we be confident that William Bury was the person who placed the body into the trunk?
Yes. He admitted to the Dundee police that he placed the body into the trunk, and there are no other plausible candidates.

Ok, so we’ve quickly established that William Bury placed the body into the trunk in a sexually degrading position. The only question, then, is whether he deliberately placed it into that position or whether it could have wound up in that position by accident or necessity. Let’s review the facts.

3. Was William Bury under some constraint of time, such that he might have been forced to hurriedly shove the body into the trunk?
No. The body was inside William Bury’s residence, and there was no limit to the time he had available to him.

4. Were the contents of the trunk such that it might have been necessary to place the body into that position?
No. The trunk had substantially been emptied prior to the placement of the body into it (there was only a skirt and a petticoat beneath the body), meaning that William Bury could have placed the body into the trunk in any one of a number of different ways.

5. Is there independent evidence that William Bury was carefully arranging the contents of the trunk and not haphazardly shoving things into it?
Yes. Books and items of clothing were tightly packed around the body inside the trunk.

6. Is there independent evidence that William Bury was deliberately posing the body?
Yes. He tilted the head of the body to one side, as was done with a number of the Whitechapel victims.

7. Is there independent evidence that there was a sexual component to the Ellen Bury murder?
Yes. Ellen Bury’s genitals were mutilated. The genital mutilations are described in detail in the two medical reports on the Bury website. The Ellen Bury murder was clearly a sexual homicide.

Taking all of the above into account, it is obvious that William Bury deliberately placed Ellen Bury’s body into the trunk in a sexually degrading position.

A sufficiently unique signature characteristic or combination of signature characteristics can have extraordinary identifying power. The police and the courts both know this, even if some in the Ripper community do not. And that is exactly what we have in “The Case of William Bury and the Whitechapel Murders.” Use of the term “behavioral DNA” is entirely appropriate here. Again, Dr. Stuart Hamilton, a highly regarded forensic pathologist, agrees that there is signature evidence linking Bury to the Ripper murders.

The road to the Ripper’s identity does not go through Robert Anderson’s unbelievable claim, or through Swanson or Druitt “family stories,” it goes through the facts and evidence in the case, which are telling us that William Bury was Jack the Ripper. It is disappointing to see Ripperologists so attached to their pet suspects and pet views of the case that they are willing to completely ignore the clear and powerful forensic evidence linking Bury to the Ripper murders.

I missed this post. You’ve expended far more effort in trying to shoehorn Bry into the frame than Bury himself did to get Ellen into the trunk. It beggars belief. Whatever position Ellen was in when inside that trunk was the result of trying to fit her into the trunk in the first place. How can you possibly be so selective? Her leg was broken which any investigator would see was to get her into the trunk.

So after your first two points the rest are pointless. You are determined to shoehorn Bury in at any cost. You cannot deduce sexual posing from a body wedged into a trunk. It’s impossible.

[Harry D]

Although I still have my doubts that Bury was the Whitechapel murderer, namely the post-canonical murders and the Torso connection, I occasionally find myself coming back to him. We have a murderer living in the east end during the autumn of terror, who took off unexpectedly to Scotland not long after Mary Kelly's murder, committed a ripper-esque murder, had ripper graffiti at his home and was allegedly worried about being labelled the Whitechapel fiend. Ellen Bury had sustained mutilations to her face, abdominal and genital area, not to the same extent as the canonical series, but it had the same pathology. The mutilations were inflicted shortly after death, suggesting this was not something Bury deliberated on for long. Alice McKenzie's mutilations were also tame compared to previous victims. Were both of them the work of copycats? What are the odds of that?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’d certainly agree that Bury has to be considered Harry. I think that he’s one of the very few that deserves to be thought of as a suspect. My only issue with promoting a suspect is the tendency towards shoehorning and I can’t help thinking that this is the case when trying to suggest the Ellen Bury was ‘sexually posed’ when her body was stuffed inside a trunk with her legs bent unnaturally to make her fit. This was obviously done for practical reasons and not for display

[Harry D]

I’d certainly agree that Bury has to be considered Harry. I think that he’s one of the very few that deserves to be thought of as a suspect. My only issue with promoting a suspect is the tendency towards shoehorning and I can’t help thinking that this is the case when trying to suggest the Ellen Bury was ‘sexually posed’ when her body was stuffed inside a trunk with her legs bent unnaturally to make her fit. This was obviously done for practical reasons and not for display

No argument there, Herlock. You witness it constantly in suspect books, although I often wonder if it's mostly there as padding. The facts are plain enough in Bury's case. I think McKenzie was closer to a Ripper murder, with situational factors to justify the lack of overkill, whereas Bury could've butchered his wife to his heart's content if he wanted to, although I recognise there are theories for that too.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No argument there, Herlock. You witness it constantly in suspect books, although I often wonder if it's mostly there as padding. The facts are plain enough in Bury's case. I think McKenzie was closer to a Ripper murder, with situational factors to justify the lack of overkill, whereas Bury could've butchered his wife to his heart's content if he wanted to, although I recognise there are theories for that too.

Absolutely Harry. I think that there’s always a possibility of over-reaching when we look at the pros and cons of suspects and victims. A year or two ago I did it intentionally (though purely hypothetically) in regard to Bury. I was thinking about Eddowes alleged claim to have known who the ripper was and my suggestion was that maybe this ‘someone’ could have been Bury? Eddowes and Bury were from the same neck of he woods (near to where I live) so I wondered if they might have run into each other in a pub? Maybe their accents drew them to each other. Maybe Bury became a regular? Maybe she came to know that he was a violent man? Maybe she came to suspect him?

Maybe a few too many maybe’s

[Wyatt Earp]

I missed this post. You’ve expended far more effort in trying to shoehorn Bry into the frame than Bury himself did to get Ellen into the trunk. It beggars belief. Whatever position Ellen was in when inside that trunk was the result of trying to fit her into the trunk in the first place. How can you possibly be so selective? Her leg was broken which any investigator would see was to get her into the trunk.

So after your first two points the rest are pointless. You are determined to shoehorn Bury in at any cost. You cannot deduce sexual posing from a body wedged into a trunk. It’s impossible.

The only problem you have is that the facts don’t support your conclusion, they support a conclusion that the body was deliberately placed in that degrading position. Them facts is pesky things ain’t they?

The Ellen Bury murder was a sexual homicide. Someone who actually knows how to assess this kind of evidence, like Keppel, would take one look at the position of that body and tell the jury that it was posed.

Dr. Stuart Hamilton is a forensic pathologist who has provided expert testimony at numerous trials. He agrees that the signature evidence links William Bury to the Jack the Ripper murders. Is he shoehorning too? According to whom, the expert on signature analysis, “Herlock Sholmes” on Casebook? What a joke.

Two well regarded legal people, Stewart and Murray, have indicated that we have enough evidence now to convict Bury of the Ripper murders. I don’t honestly care if you’re willing to accept the result in this case or not. What I care about is if you’re able to come up with an effective criticism of what I’ve presented with Bury.

You have tried and you have failed, and so all you can do is continue with your empty cries of “shoehorning.”

[Wyatt Earp]

Since I last posted on here, there have been three content additions to the Bury website.

Some speculation on what could have motivated Bury to commit his Whitechapel murders:

“Was Ellen the Real Target?”

http://williambury.org/blog6/2019/09/13/was-ellen-the-real-target/

Also,

“Minor Upgrade of the Bury ID”

http://williambury.org/blog6/2019/12/16/minor-upgrade-of-the-bury-id/

“Bury and the Smith Murder”

http://williambury.org/blog6/2020/01/23/bury-and-the-smith-murder/

[John Wheat]

Since I last posted on here, there have been three content additions to the Bury website.

Some speculation on what could have motivated Bury to commit his Whitechapel murders:

“Was Ellen the Real Target?”

http://williambury.org/blog6/2019/09/13/was-ellen-the-real-target/

Also,

“Minor Upgrade of the Bury ID”

http://williambury.org/blog6/2019/12/16/minor-upgrade-of-the-bury-id/

“Bury and the Smith Murder”

http://williambury.org/blog6/2020/01/23/bury-and-the-smith-murder/

Thanks for those links Wyatt. Interesting content.

Cheers John

[Herlock Sholmes]

The only problem you have is that the facts don’t support your conclusion, they support a conclusion that the body was deliberately placed in that degrading position. Them facts is pesky things ain’t they?

The Ellen Bury murder was a sexual homicide. Someone who actually knows how to assess this kind of evidence, like Keppel, would take one look at the position of that body and tell the jury that it was posed.

Dr. Stuart Hamilton is a forensic pathologist who has provided expert testimony at numerous trials. He agrees that the signature evidence links William Bury to the Jack the Ripper murders. Is he shoehorning too? According to whom, the expert on signature analysis, “Herlock Sholmes” on Casebook? What a joke.

Two well regarded legal people, Stewart and Murray, have indicated that we have enough evidence now to convict Bury of the Ripper murders. I don’t honestly care if you’re willing to accept the result in this case or not. What I care about is if you’re able to come up with an effective criticism of what I’ve presented with Bury.

You have tried and you have failed, and so all you can do is continue with your empty cries of “shoehorning.”

Drivel. You can’t wedge someone into a trunk and call it deliberate placement in a degrading position. She was placed in a position so that she could fit into the trunk. You don’t display somebody by putting them in a box. I can’t recall any of the Ripper victims in London being parcelled up by the murderer. Or have I missed one? This is infantile nonsense. You’ve found a couple of people that think Bury might have been the ripper and you shout “case closed.” This is not how things work. It’s all over because the case has been solved to the satisfaction of half a dozen people. You need a sense of proportion. Blatant shoehorning.