William Bury website

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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.

[The Baron]

I should have checked.

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

Try to learn.


The Baron

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[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.