William Bury website

[Herlock Sholmes]

You do this often, you post randomly anything, then you check!

Try to learn.


The Baron

That’s a lie. Stop employing the pathetic and dishonest tactic of trying to discredit me or others in an attempt to bolster your own views. At least I’ll admit to an error (which was a very minor one) which is something that I can prove that you refuse to do. It’s called integrity as I’ve pointed out to you numerous times.

[The Baron]

I should have checked.

You do this often, you post randomly anything, then you check!

Try to learn.


The Baron

[Wyatt Earp]

Hi Wyatt

I just don't think the case against Bury is watertight. The signature evidence is not strong enough in my opinion.

Cheers John

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

True, but this can be said of all the Ripper murders.
None are definite, are they ?

I’d agree with that Jon. There’s very little we can be absolutely certain of.

[Jon Guy]

We still can’t disprove or prove anything though based on Mackenzie definitely being the ripper though.

True, but this can be said of all the Ripper murders.
None are definite, are they ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You`re not a Remainer are you, by any chance HS?
I ask because, the latest poll is 41% yes she was a victim of the Ripper, and 33% say no.
In old money, more people think she was a victim of the Ripper

Fair point Jon. I guessed when I should have checked.

We still can’t disprove or prove anything though based on Mackenzie definitely being the ripper.

[Jon Guy]

Hello John,

You’re probably unaware of this but Baron is even more keen on the sweeping statement than most. Especially if he thinks it will eliminate Druitt or devalue anything said by Macnaghten. It’s a bit of an recurring theme with him to say the least. And so in his world there is no debate or discussion.....Mackenzie was categorically a victim of JTR. Proven......case closed.

Of course anyone more reasonable sees that this just isn’t the case. It is something that we cannot know. She might have been, she might not have been. I’d say that more would be against than for. Therefore her murder cannot be used to eliminate anyone. Unfortunately for The Baron.

You`re not a Remainer are you, by any chance HS?
I ask because, the latest poll is 41% yes she was a victim of the Ripper, and 33% say no.
In old money, more people think she was a victim of the Ripper

[Herlock Sholmes]

But McKenzie was in all likelihood not a Ripper victim.

Hello John,

You’re probably unaware of this but Baron is even more keen on the sweeping statement than most. Especially if he thinks it will eliminate Druitt or devalue anything said by Macnaghten. It’s a bit of an recurring theme with him to say the least. And so in his world there is no debate or discussion.....Mackenzie was categorically a victim of JTR. Proven......case closed.

Of course anyone more reasonable sees that this just isn’t the case. It is something that we cannot know. She might have been, she might not have been. I’d say that more would be against than for. Therefore her murder cannot be used to eliminate anyone. Unfortunately for The Baron.

[John Wheat]

And he couldn't have killed McKenzie!


The Baron

But McKenzie was in all likelihood not a Ripper victim.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And he couldn't have killed McKenzie!


The Baron

Irrelevant.

As usual.

[The Baron]

Hi Wyatt

I just don't think the case against Bury is watertight. The signature evidence is not strong enough in my opinion.

Cheers John

And he couldn't have killed McKenzie!


The Baron

[John Wheat]

John, thanks for your remark about the website. What exactly is giving you pause about the case against Bury?

Hi Wyatt

I just don't think the case against Bury is watertight. The signature evidence is not strong enough in my opinion.

Cheers John

[Wyatt Earp]

Hi Wyatt

I believe that in all likelihood Bury was the Ripper and I'm impressed by your website. However I don't think the case against Bury is watertight. The article about signature and the opinions of QC's are interesting. But in my opinion don't prove once and for all that Bury was the Ripper.

Cheers John

John, thanks for your remark about the website. What exactly is giving you pause about the case against Bury?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Experts regularly differ on opinions like this. James Scobie is a well respected QC who apparently believes that there’s a case to answer for Lechmere. Medical experts disagree on the level of medical skill required. There have even been a couple recently who didn’t think that the killer had sufficient time to make the mutilations on Eddowes. So opinions vary. Just because you’ve found a couple that go for Bury does not mean that it’s case closed. This is an extraordinary level of over confidence.

I don’t doubt that signature evidence has been used successfully but this still doesn’t mean that it’s anything approaching foolproof. Geo-roiling has been used successfully but it’s nowhere near foolproof. So again to use signatures to say case closed is over-confidence.

My opinion isn’t due to timidity it’s due to reasoned caution and not the wish to use any tool available to shoehorn a suspect into place. If signatures can change from crime to crime due to changing circumstances (as I believe you’ve stated in the past) then how do we square this when a change of circumstances might of occurred that we aren’t aware of? How can you stand by a point where you suggest that stuffing a woman into a box is sexual posing akin to the ripper victims? There are just too many differences in the ripper murders compared to Bury’s murder of his wife.

Bury was around at the time. He consorted with prostitutes. He was obviously a very unpleasant man and a proven murderer. Therefore, as I’ve said, he’s worth considering. But proven guilty.....not even close.

The emboldened part of my post should read geo-profiling of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let me ask you a question, Herlock.

If you wanted a sound legal assessment of the significance of some evidence linking a person to some crimes, would you turn to a QC and to a former solicitor to the Supreme Courts of Scotland, or would you turn to “Mr. Pickles” on Casebook?

I hope you won’t feel offended if some of us choose to turn to the QC and to the former solicitor rather than to you.

As I noted in the post on my website, signature evidence is admissible in court and has been used to help secure convictions of serial killers. If there is a problem in this field, it isn’t overconfidence, it’s a lack of understanding of and a timidity toward the evidence linking Bury to the Ripper murders, as exemplified in your post.

Experts regularly differ on opinions like this. James Scobie is a well respected QC who apparently believes that there’s a case to answer for Lechmere. Medical experts disagree on the level of medical skill required. There have even been a couple recently who didn’t think that the killer had sufficient time to make the mutilations on Eddowes. So opinions vary. Just because you’ve found a couple that go for Bury does not mean that it’s case closed. This is an extraordinary level of over confidence.

I don’t doubt that signature evidence has been used successfully but this still doesn’t mean that it’s anything approaching foolproof. Geo-roiling has been used successfully but it’s nowhere near foolproof. So again to use signatures to say case closed is over-confidence.

My opinion isn’t due to timidity it’s due to reasoned caution and not the wish to use any tool available to shoehorn a suspect into place. If signatures can change from crime to crime due to changing circumstances (as I believe you’ve stated in the past) then how do we square this when a change of circumstances might of occurred that we aren’t aware of? How can you stand by a point where you suggest that stuffing a woman into a box is sexual posing akin to the ripper victims? There are just too many differences in the ripper murders compared to Bury’s murder of his wife.

Bury was around at the time. He consorted with prostitutes. He was obviously a very unpleasant man and a proven murderer. Therefore, as I’ve said, he’s worth considering. But proven guilty.....not even close.