William Bury website

[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/

[Wyatt Earp]

I have a new post up on the website:

“Postidentification Ripperology”

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

[Scott Nelson]

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

We do?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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

[Herlock Sholmes]

And he couldn't have killed McKenzie!


The Baron

Irrelevant.

As usual.

[John Wheat]

And he couldn't have killed McKenzie!


The Baron

But McKenzie was in all likelihood not a Ripper victim.