William Bury website

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

[Sam Flynn]

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

[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.

[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.

[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]

Ok, thanks. When someone like Dr. Stuart Hamilton speaks in support of the signature evidence, I think that should give you and Herlock and the Baron and others confidence that this is good evidence and that you can rely on it in making a determination of the Ripper’s identity. I’m not aware of any expert on signature analysis who has questioned Dr. Hamilton’s assessment or my assessment of this evidence. As a field, we need to accept the result in this case, and move on.

Let’s imagine for a moment that we had legitimate DNA evidence placing Aaron Kosminski at 5 of the C6 crime scenes. What would the great debate about whether the Ripper had a medical background matter anymore? It would have been proven that he did not. In the case of William Bury, we have “behavioral DNA” placing him at 5 of the C6 crime scenes. It has been proven now that the Ripper did not have a medical background, was not Jewish and was not a resident of the area, and it has been proven now that McKenzie was not a Ripper victim. None of these debates matter anymore.

Utter drivel.

You can parade as many tame experts that want it makes no difference. Making statements like - we need to accept the results and move on - is blatantly dishonest. One ‘expert’ speaks and that’s it. You need to take off the Bury blinkers. I read through your list of signatures previously and not without a smile. This is shoehorning. Clutching at straws. Are signatures considered by the overwhelming majority as absolutely infallible pointers to guilt. If the answer to that is no - and it is - then you’re confidence is misplaced and probably intentionally so.

Theres not a single, solitary shred of actual evidence that Bury was the ripper. None. He’s of interest because of the type of person that he was, his habits, where he was at the time and the fact that he killed his wife and a vastly different way than his wife.

He killed his wife and stuck her in a box.

[John Wheat]

It's not a big gap compared to other serial killers who have taken breaks or been out of action. It's terribly close-minded to rule victims out on that basis.

Not when you consider the small gaps between the C5 and the extent that Mary Jane Kelly was mutilated.

[Harry D]

I meant a domestic murder not committed by the Ripper. Well in my opinion there is a big gap between the C5 and McKenzie murder and I and others rule McKenzie out on this basis.

It's not a big gap compared to other serial killers who have taken breaks or been out of action. It's terribly close-minded to rule victims out on that basis.

[John Wheat]

She was murdered by her husband, so yeah.



We've been over this, John. Since we don't know the killer's movements, how can we say when he should've stopped/started?

I meant a domestic murder not committed by the Ripper. Well in my opinion there is a big gap between the C5 and McKenzie murder and I and others rule McKenzie out on this basis.

[Harry D]

You don't know Ellen Bury was a domestic murder.

She was murdered by her husband, so yeah.

And if McKenzie was a Ripper murder why the big gap between McKenzie and the C5?

We've been over this, John. Since we don't know the killer's movements, how can we say when he should've stopped/started?

[John Wheat]

Prostitute
Killed in Whitechapel
Unknown killer
Abdomen mutilated
Left carotid artery severed
Skirts raised


Ellen Bury was more likely a domestic than a Ripper murder.

You don't know Ellen Bury was a domestic murder. And if McKenzie was a Ripper murder why the big gap between McKenzie and the C5?

[Harry D]

But McKenzie was in all likelihood not a Ripper victim.

Prostitute
Killed in Whitechapel
Unknown killer
Abdomen mutilated
Left carotid artery severed
Skirts raised


Ellen Bury was more likely a domestic than a Ripper murder.