William Bury website

[John Wheat]

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

[Wyatt Earp]

The disease of over-confidence is spreading. To say that Bury can be proven as the ripper is utter nonsense. To say that it’s over to the satisfaction of a handful of people is not even approaching sufficient. It’s not in the same country as sufficient. Absolutely nothing changes as far as Bury is concerned. He’s worth considering. That’s all.

And by the way, simply adopting the tactic of repeating statements like.....now that Bury has been identified as the Ripper, what’s next for ripperology?.....you will not subliminally force people into accepting what you’re saying. The discussion about signatures can never prove anything. It’s like profiling. Some kind of magic placebo. Malleable and subjective.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"We now know that Aaron Kosminski, Montague John Druitt and Francis Tumblety were not Jack the Ripper."

We do?

No we don’t.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The disease of over-confidence is spreading. To say that Bury can be proven as the ripper is utter nonsense. To say that it’s over to the satisfaction of a handful of people is not even approaching sufficient. It’s not in the same country as sufficient. Absolutely nothing changes as far as Bury is concerned. He’s worth considering. That’s all.

And by the way, simply adopting the tactic of repeating statements like.....now that Bury has been identified as the Ripper, what’s next for ripperology?.....you will not subliminally force people into accepting what you’re saying. The discussion about signatures can never prove anything. It’s like profiling. Some kind of magic placebo. Malleable and subjective.

[Wyatt Earp]

"We now know that Aaron Kosminski, Montague John Druitt and Francis Tumblety were not Jack the Ripper."

We do?

It's over, Scott. Per Stewart and Murray, we now have enough evidence to convict Bury of the Ripper murders.

[Scott Nelson]

"We now know that Aaron Kosminski, Montague John Druitt and Francis Tumblety were not Jack the Ripper."

We do?

[Wyatt Earp]

I have a new post up on the website:

“Postidentification Ripperology”

http://williambury.org/blog6/2019/07/31/postidentification-ripperology/

[Wyatt Earp]

Latest posts:

“New Edition of Macpherson Book”

http://williambury.org/blog6/2019/02/27/new-edition-of-macpherson-book/

“Some Handwriting Characteristics of the Princes Street Graffiti”

http://williambury.org/blog6/2019/04/24/some-handwriting-characteristics-of-the-princes-street-graffiti/

[John Wheat]

Exactly. The same ones who include stride and tabram yet discount mckenzie.

But again, they dont even bring ellen bury up, so im still havimg a hard time seeing how wyatt earp can keep using there report to include her, unless of course its only to discount mckenzie as a ripper victim, which of course, burt couldnt have murdered.

Ellen Bury's murder was a few months after Kelly's murder unlike McKenzie. In my opinion the amount of time rules out McKenzie as a Ripper victim.

[Abby Normal]

Keppel et al, who see the frenzied infliction of multiple stab-wounds to the upper half of the body, and the action of making long, targeted cuts to the abdomen as basically the same thing.

Exactly. The same ones who include stride and tabram yet discount mckenzie.

But again, they dont even bring ellen bury up, so im still havimg a hard time seeing how wyatt earp can keep using there report to include her, unless of course its only to discount mckenzie as a ripper victim, which of course, burt couldnt have murdered.

[Sam Flynn]

I've provided an analysis that is consistent with the analysis provided by Robert Keppel, one of the world's leading experts on signature evidence, and three other professionals. If you don't want to accept it, that's your prerogative.

Keppel et al, who see the frenzied infliction of multiple stab-wounds to the upper half of the body, and the action of making long, targeted cuts to the abdomen as basically the same thing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The perils of treating ‘experts’ as infallible are obvious. As I’ve said, I consider Bury one of the better named suspects, but I don’t see a flood of experts, criminologists, Ripperologists, ex-Detectives, profilers, psychologists, psychiatrists, lawyers or whoever coming forward to say as you appear to do “ok guys it’s case closed. It’s been solved beyond all reasonable doubt.” I really can’t understand your apparent level of confidence. But maybe I can when I hear the tone of your last response which was basically saying “look, I’ve applied the method which has shown me to be right and that Bury was the ripper. If you’re just going to ignore something that’s beyond debate then that’s your problem.”

Dont you think that this could be said to be your take on applying Keppel’s work? And that you might be seeing matches that aren’t truly there? I certainly find it strange that someone can say that a woman found dead in a box is more ripper-like than Alice Mackenzie.

[Wyatt Earp]

With regard to post #75

2. A change of circumstances could be completely unknown to an observer. This could lead anyone to link an unconnected murder to a series as much as it could lead to ignoring a connected one. It can negate anything.
3. That the ripper incapacitated his victims first was a circumstantial necessity rather than a trait.
4. Very vague in connection with Ellen Bury.
5. Whichever way you cut it - stuffed into a box is not open and on display just because the victim would eventually have been found.
6. To describe being randomly stuffed into a trunk as posing is frankly shoehorning at its worst.
7. Again, being stuffed into a box can’t be described as a sexually degrading position. Shoehorning again I’m afraid.
8. Is a cop out.
9. Ditto.

Mackenzie was a prostitute murdered in the street and left posed with her skirts raised and not vastly dissimilar injuries to the accepted ripper victims. It beggars belief that she can be considered a less likely ripper victim than Ellen Bury. It’s not even close.

I've provided an analysis that is consistent with the analysis provided by Robert Keppel, one of the world's leading experts on signature evidence, and three other professionals. If you don't want to accept it, that's your prerogative.

[Herlock Sholmes]

With respect to signature evidence, there has to be “enough there” to make a link. As I showed earlier in this thread, in post 75, the Ellen Bury murder can be closely mapped to the Ripper’s signature, the only variation of consequence being the reduction in the degree of the mutilations, which would have affected Bury’s ability to remove organs. This combination of signature characteristics is so exceedingly rare that it compels us to link this murder to the Ripper, given that a reduction in the mutilations and the use of a different M.O. can readily be explained, and given that alternative explanations of the Ellen Bury murder can reasonably be excluded.

Keppel and the other three professionals reviewed the McKenzie case materials, and determined that there was not enough there to make a link. Further, a copycat explanation of the McKenzie murder cannot reasonably be excluded.

With regard to post #75

2. A change of circumstances could be completely unknown to an observer. This could lead anyone to link an unconnected murder to a series as much as it could lead to ignoring a connected one. It can negate anything.
3. That the ripper incapacitated his victims first was a circumstantial necessity rather than a trait.
4. Very vague in connection with Ellen Bury.
5. Whichever way you cut it - stuffed into a box is not open and on display just because the victim would eventually have been found.
6. To describe being randomly stuffed into a trunk as posing is frankly shoehorning at its worst.
7. Again, being stuffed into a box can’t be described as a sexually degrading position. Shoehorning again I’m afraid.
8. Is a cop out.
9. Ditto.

Mackenzie was a prostitute murdered in the street and left posed with her skirts raised and not vastly dissimilar injuries to the accepted ripper victims. It beggars belief that she can be considered a less likely ripper victim than Ellen Bury. It’s not even close.

[Sam Flynn]

when he placed the body in the trunk, he placed it in a sexually degrading position.

Only if you find a jack-in-the-box sexually arousing.