The Life of William Henry Bury

[Celesta]

Hi Eileen,

You've really been hitting the research. Nice to see you back in action. We've missed your "G'days."

Best,

Cel

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Eileen,

I think this sounds like the work of a professional. Someone who knew just how much pressure to apply.

I don't think we can read any professionalism into someone who pulled a noose around someone's neck and kept it tight until the victim was incapacitated. I think most, if not all, people would be capable of doing that.

[Mrsperfect]

Bury Did A Professional Job!

G'day Sam

I'd have to disagree. It would appear that the doctor is saying that most people would exert too much pressure in strangling someone. I would imagine that a suicide would not struggle, so that's why the doctor thought it was suicide.

Only experience would tell you how much force you would need. Are you saying I have misinterpreted the doctor's views?

Regards

Eileen

Hi Celeste........Thanks!

[Sam Flynn]

Only experience would tell you how much force you would need.

I daresay that "beginner's luck" features rather prominently given the rather simple mechanical challenge of strangling someone with a rope.

Are you saying I have misinterpreted the doctor's views?

Not at all, Eileen - I'm questioning the doctor's conclusions in the first place. By saying that it was almost inconceivable that a homicidal murder involving a noose would leave only rope-marks, perhaps he was overlooking the rather obvious fact that - erm - there was actually a rope involved. That's almost like saying that it was inconceivable, in a case of homicidal shooting, for anything other than bullet-wounds to be present.

[lovejoy]

hi going through casebook i always come across your comments and they are not normally put across in a helpfull way but in an arrogant manor of some know it all maybe your not like that but on the rope thing youve got it completely wrong his saying there should be more marks other than rope if homicidal strangulation thats all your answer is sarcastic and ignorant sam

[Sam Flynn]

hi going through casebook i always come across your comments and they are not normally put across in a helpfull way but in an arrogant manor of some know it all maybe your not like that but on the rope thing youve got it completely wrong his saying there should be more marks other than rope if homicidal strangulation thats all your answer is sarcastic and ignorant sam

It is the damage caused by those who don't think things through before leaping to conclusions, or the ignorance that leads to (or results from) believing everything one reads in biased pro-suspect books, that is all the more unhelpful in this field.

I'm not a "know it all", but I honestly can't see what's wrong in aspiring to learn more. I am, however, a stickler for correctness and clear thinking based on the evidence. Far better to be that way inclined, than to stick one's head up the arse of an agenda-driven theorist and expect to be bathed in the Light of Wisdom from that position.

I also have a wicked sense of humour.

[lovejoy]

my point is proved

[johns]

lovejoy... you're very wrong about Mr Flynn.

I had the pleasure of chatting with Sam at the Wolverhampton conference a few years ago, and found him to be passionate, knowledgeable and earnest. Certainly not arrogant or a know-it-all.

John

[Sam Flynn]

Thank you, John - and reciprocated. It was a genuine pleasure discussing the case with you, too. Let's hope we can do it again some time.

[lovejoy]

hi all .what sort of a reply was it he gave i was correcting his error was i not and he said he likes being a stickler for detail and correctness so why not just answer that simple fact he couldve said thanks for clearing that point or help but no some response out of this planet yours martin he clearly likes telling people they are wrong but when i tell him he dont like it just because someone backs you up dont clear you at all read my comments about your quote about rope and marks

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lovejoy

Your point can be lost when you don`t use any punctuation.

[Sam Flynn]

hi all .what sort of a reply was it he gave i was correcting his error

Which error was that? If someone is strangled by a rope, the marks left behind on the neck will be rope-marks. OK, there will be bruising as well... caused by the rope. Because I fail to mention this trivial point, I get slagged off - is that the deal?

If you'd cared to read my response to Eileen, I was clarifying that I was not doubting her judgment on this matter. Sorry if this aberration on my part wasn't up to my usual "unhelpful" or "sarcastic" standards.

was i not and he said he likes being a stickler for detail and correctness so why not just answer that simple fact

Because you buried what should have been a positive contribution from your good self in a flurry of personal insults against me.

[lovejoy]

hi sam, sorry if you think i insulted you i was being honest and upfront in my feelings about my observations of your comments , im a direct person sorry if i offended you when you first meet people its hard to gauge them the first few times , one can be wrong in opinion .I felt you were ridiculing the doctors comment when i was just trying to clear to you what he meant by it and it wasnt as obvious as what you thought that was all .So i thought you had that point wrong ,please dont harbour any ill feeling towards me ,i bear none.Do you know when a meeting comes up i would like to go to one, what happens there etc.Can you clear your point about theorists everybody has a theory as to who it is dont they , whats yours .

[Sam Flynn]

No problem, Lovejoy - and, for the record, I really don't mind being taken down a peg or two if I genuinely step out of line. Thank you, sir.

My point about theorists? It's just that I've often discerned a tendency to read a plausible argument in a "suspect-based" Ripper book and to fall in love with the theory. Almost exactly like being in love, in fact - in that the theory (or theorist) gets put on a pedestal, and no matter how many faults are pointed out, or how often one does so, the "lover" just can't (or doesn't want to) see them. Any challenge to the theory results in an impassioned rush to defend its honour, and any criticism risks being taken as a personal slight against the "lover" themselves.

What people need to remember is that most suspect-based theorists have a point to prove, and they can be very seductive - and selective - in their reasoning. Theorists, too, can fall in love with their own theories, and can be very reluctant to acknowledge their flaws... they certainly don't go looking for them.

[Moriarty]

No problem, Lovejoy - and, for the record, I really don't mind being taken down a peg or two if I genuinely step out of line. Thank you, sir.

My point about theorists? It's just that I've often discerned a tendency to read a plausible argument in a "suspect-based" Ripper book and to fall in love with the theory. Almost exactly like being in love, in fact - in that the theory (or theorist) gets put on a pedestal, and no matter how many faults are pointed out, or how often one does so, the "lover" just can't (or doesn't want to) see them. Any challenge to the theory results in an impassioned rush to defend its honour, and any criticism risks being taken as a personal slight against the "lover" themselves.

What people need to remember is that most suspect-based theorists have a point to prove, and they can be very seductive - and selective - in their reasoning. Theorists, too, can fall in love with their own theories, and can be very reluctant to acknowledge their flaws... they certainly don't go looking for them.

I once ended up stalking a theory. Wiltshire County Council ended up issuing an injunction.