William Bury website

[Herlock Sholmes]

I haven’t conflated anything with anything, Harry. I’ve reiterated that the facts clearly support a conclusion that the body was posed (we already know that the body was being posed from the turning of the victim’s head to one side, which wouldn’t have been necessary in order to fit her body into the trunk), and I’ve expressed confidence that someone like Keppel would quickly come to the same conclusion, based on his crime scene assessments that I’ve seen.

No it doesn’t and you know it. She was stuffed into a trunk. Why do people usually stuff bodies into trunks? What does crime history tell us about this or do we ignore the inconvenient? Can you state for an absolute fact that the positioning wasn’t entirely random? No you can’t. The position of the head is irrelevant. Head pointed this way or that? Foot pointed this way or that? Left arm hand upward or downward? You’re reading tea leaves and seeing what you want to see.

And you’ve expressed confidence that a dead man, if alive, would have agreed with you. Of course he would have. Very convincing.

Bury could have put the body into the trunk in any one of a number of different ways. So what do we find? Victim on back, legs positioned in a sexually degrading way, head turned to one side, just as occurred in the two most recent of the canonical murders, Eddowes and Kelly. That’s striking. Compare with McKenzie’s body, which, according to Arnold’s police report, was found lying on its side.

Exactly!!! Any number of random ways. If he’d have pointed the head the other way due to necessity or pointed a foot in the opposite direction would you have said “oh well obviously he wasn’t staging the body?” It’s impossible to read anything into a body being stuffed into a box except for possibly a) the nature of the injuries, b) any method of binding, c) evidence from the clothing or d) the reason for the killer doing so in the first place.

In the Dundee Courier article, Stewart and Murray only made general remarks regarding the legal strength of the case against Bury.

General remarks. Ok.

A calm, reasoned assessment of Bury as a suspect is always welcome. Unfortunately you appear to have become a zealot on the subject. Debating with you is like debating someone who thinks the Earth is 6000 years old I’m afraid. You will admit to no doubts. This level of ludicrous over-confidence should be a warning to all.

[Harry D]

I haven’t conflated anything with anything, Harry. I’ve reiterated that the facts clearly support a conclusion that the body was posed (we already know that the body was being posed from the turning of the victim’s head to one side, which wouldn’t have been necessary in order to fit her body into the trunk), and I’ve expressed confidence that someone like Keppel would quickly come to the same conclusion, based on his crime scene assessments that I’ve seen.

Bury could have put the body into the trunk in any one of a number of different ways. So what do we find? Victim on back, legs positioned in a sexually degrading way, head turned to one side, just as occurred in the two most recent of the canonical murders, Eddowes and Kelly. That’s striking. Compare with McKenzie’s body, which, according to Arnold’s police report, was found lying on its side.

In the Dundee Courier article, Stewart and Murray only made general remarks regarding the legal strength of the case against Bury.

Okay, so Stewart and Murray were speaking generally and did not comment on the positioning of the body when reaching their conclusion that this was a sexual homicide?

I would assume that there are only so many ways to cram a body into a trunk. Also, the Ripper's victims were purposely killed where they would be found by others. Presumably, Bury placed Ellen into the trunk because he intended to dispose of the body. If that wasn't the case, why store her there in the first place?

[Wyatt Earp]

There’s no ‘routine.’ It’s called staying within the bounds of reason. It’s called not exaggerating. Its called not letting bias run away with you. You should try it.

Ive said numerous times that I think that Bury is a suspect worth looking at. I’ve never simply dismissed him. My ‘issue’ is when you say something like “and because we now know that Bury was the ripper...” It’s not an exact quote but it’s certainly accurately what you said...more than once. So I don’t think I’m alone, in fact I’d say that 99% would agree with me, in saying that this ‘fact’ is untrue. Being ‘solved’ to the satisfaction of yourself and a few others, no matter how knowledgeable, is not a case of ‘game over’ and if you can’t see and accept that point then a Mount Everest of reason and logic won’t help.

We all know that things like profiling, and signatures are nothing like foolproof and yet you appear to consider them as such. They are tools which can help but which can also fail us. And so jumping up and down and proclaiming ‘game over’ just because one of those tools might appear to some to point in one direction is a simple over-confidence on the part of someone promoting a suspect. In other words...bias.

Finally, your point about Ellen Bury being sexually posed in a trunk. I’ve genuinely never heard such blithering nonsense before. This is evidence of your desire to promote Bury run amok. Her body is wedged into a trunk for gods sake! Obviously she has to have her limbs forced into such a position so that she fits inside. How can anyone possibly say that the position she was in was the result of posing and not necessity? You could bring forward 100 ‘experts’ on this point and every one would be wrong. Categorically, absolutely and without a single shred of doubt wrong. This is shoehorning pure and simple. It’s desperation.

And on the same point. Yes maybe Bury was anticipating the shock/horror of someone discovering the body but obviously there’s an alternative explanation. That, as do most men who kill their wives, Bury was intending to dispose of the body. Let’s face it, leaving it where it was would have been a confession and the ripper had shown no previous indications of a desire to be caught. Quite the opposite in fact. If any killer had been discovered to have his wife’s murdered body in a trunk what would have been the generally opinion; then or now?

So I’ve mention two points, and there are more in your list, where there are alternative and reasonable explanations and yet every time you go for the one that tends toward incriminating Bury. All that I’m doing Wyatt is staying within the bounds of reason. Of accepting logical alternatives. Of not getting completely carried away. You have a theory which you on which you appear to disapprove of criticism.

Two well regarded legal figures have put their reputations on the line and stated that the evidence is there to support a conviction of Bury for the Ripper murders, and you have no answer, Shoehorn, except to keep repeating your nonsensical views of the evidence.

[Wyatt Earp]

Did Stewart and Murray claim that the storage of the body was sexual posing or are you conflating that into everything else?

I haven’t conflated anything with anything, Harry. I’ve reiterated that the facts clearly support a conclusion that the body was posed (we already know that the body was being posed from the turning of the victim’s head to one side, which wouldn’t have been necessary in order to fit her body into the trunk), and I’ve expressed confidence that someone like Keppel would quickly come to the same conclusion, based on his crime scene assessments that I’ve seen.

Bury could have put the body into the trunk in any one of a number of different ways. So what do we find? Victim on back, legs positioned in a sexually degrading way, head turned to one side, just as occurred in the two most recent of the canonical murders, Eddowes and Kelly. That’s striking. Compare with McKenzie’s body, which, according to Arnold’s police report, was found lying on its side.

In the Dundee Courier article, Stewart and Murray only made general remarks regarding the legal strength of the case against Bury.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Shoehorn Leghorn strikes again, lol. I have your routine on here pegged now: ignore the facts that bear on an issue, and just keep saying “shoehorning” over and over.

Your posts in this thread have been a total failure.

There’s no ‘routine.’ It’s called staying within the bounds of reason. It’s called not exaggerating. Its called not letting bias run away with you. You should try it.

Ive said numerous times that I think that Bury is a suspect worth looking at. I’ve never simply dismissed him. My ‘issue’ is when you say something like “and because we now know that Bury was the ripper...” It’s not an exact quote but it’s certainly accurately what you said...more than once. So I don’t think I’m alone, in fact I’d say that 99% would agree with me, in saying that this ‘fact’ is untrue. Being ‘solved’ to the satisfaction of yourself and a few others, no matter how knowledgeable, is not a case of ‘game over’ and if you can’t see and accept that point then a Mount Everest of reason and logic won’t help.

We all know that things like profiling, and signatures are nothing like foolproof and yet you appear to consider them as such. They are tools which can help but which can also fail us. And so jumping up and down and proclaiming ‘game over’ just because one of those tools might appear to some to point in one direction is a simple over-confidence on the part of someone promoting a suspect. In other words...bias.

Finally, your point about Ellen Bury being sexually posed in a trunk. I’ve genuinely never heard such blithering nonsense before. This is evidence of your desire to promote Bury run amok. Her body is wedged into a trunk for gods sake! Obviously she has to have her limbs forced into such a position so that she fits inside. How can anyone possibly say that the position she was in was the result of posing and not necessity? You could bring forward 100 ‘experts’ on this point and every one would be wrong. Categorically, absolutely and without a single shred of doubt wrong. This is shoehorning pure and simple. It’s desperation.

And on the same point. Yes maybe Bury was anticipating the shock/horror of someone discovering the body but obviously there’s an alternative explanation. That, as do most men who kill their wives, Bury was intending to dispose of the body. Let’s face it, leaving it where it was would have been a confession and the ripper had shown no previous indications of a desire to be caught. Quite the opposite in fact. If any killer had been discovered to have his wife’s murdered body in a trunk what would have been the generally opinion; then or now?

So I’ve mention two points, and there are more in your list, where there are alternative and reasonable explanations and yet every time you go for the one that tends toward incriminating Bury. All that I’m doing Wyatt is staying within the bounds of reason. Of accepting logical alternatives. Of not getting completely carried away. You have a theory which you on which you appear to disapprove of criticism.

[Harry D]

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.”

Did Stewart and Murray claim that the storage of the body was sexual posing or are you conflating that into everything else?

[Wyatt Earp]

Thanks for those links Wyatt. Interesting content.

Cheers John

Thanks, John.

[Wyatt Earp]

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.

Shoehorn Leghorn strikes again, lol. I have your routine on here pegged now: ignore the facts that bear on an issue, and just keep saying “shoehorning” over and over.

Your posts in this thread have been a total failure.

[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.

[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

[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/

[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.”

[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

[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]

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