Dismissed

[John Wheat]

Why is Bury a proven murderer and one who murdered his ex Prostitute wife in a similar fashion to the C5 dismissed in favour of suspects who have very little whatsoever going for them?

[Takod]

I dismiss Bury because it seems far more likely to me that he butchered his wife postmortem to make the killing seem like it had been done by Jack the Ripper.

I think he strangled his wife in an argument. He did not want to talk about why he had done it, but it would make a lot of sense if she was turning tricks on the side or something akin to that nature unbeknown to Bury whilst he was deep in drink. He also claims, probably honestly, that the murder was not premeditated, which aids in our understanding of how his wife became strangled in the first place.

He had his entire confession letter to fess up to any other crimes, which seems like a fairly honest letter, for he was certainly a religious man and genuinely feared at the time of writing that without atonement there is no possibility of grace.

[John Wheat]

I dismiss Bury because it seems far more likely to me that he butchered his wife postmortem to make the killing seem like it had been done by Jack the Ripper.

I think he strangled his wife in an argument. He did not want to talk about why he had done it, but it would make a lot of sense if she was turning tricks on the side or something akin to that nature unbeknown to Bury whilst he was deep in drink. He also claims, probably honestly, that the murder was not premeditated, which aids in our understanding of how his wife became strangled in the first place.

He had his entire confession letter to fess up to any other crimes, which seems like a fairly honest letter, for he was certainly a religious man and genuinely feared at the time of writing that without atonement there is no possibility of grace.

I don't agree with any of that Takod but who do you dismiss Bury for in terms of suspects.

Cheers John

[Takod]

I don't agree with any of that Takod but who do you dismiss Bury for in terms of suspects.

Cheers John

Hrm, dunno yet. Everything I've previously rushed my finger towards has come off as unlikely.

I am curious as to why you would think:

1) Why Bury could not have (or was not likely to have) strangled his wife in an argument.

2) Why Bury's confession letter was dishonest (or was likely to have been dishonest)

Cheers,

[Harry D]

Why is Bury a proven murderer and one who murdered his ex Prostitute wife in a similar fashion to the C5 dismissed in favour of suspects who have very little whatsoever going for them?

Come on, John. You've been around long enough to know the main arguments against Bury. The main one being that the mutilations inflicted on Ellen Bury were relatively tame compared to previous victims and there was no signature throat-cut. Some people also attribute murders to the Ripper which occurred after William Bury was dead. Alice McKenzie, for example, ticks more boxes than Ellen Bury (prostitute, throat cut, Whitechapel).

That said, I don't dismiss Bury. I still think he's the best of the named suspects. There may have been mitigating factors which countenance all of those points against him. I contend what Takod said about Bury trying to stage a Ripper murder, because according to the medical examiners the post-mortem mutilations were inflicted soon after death. If there was no premeditation, it could be argued that those mutilations were a rare paraphilia that Bury had in common with the Whitechapel murderer.

I would also speculate that the legendary Ripper being a drunkard who went out with a whimper deters a lot of Ripperologists.

[John Wheat]

Hrm, dunno yet. Everything I've previously rushed my finger towards has come off as unlikely.

I am curious as to why you would think:

1) Why Bury could not have (or was not likely to have) strangled his wife in an argument.

2) Why Bury's confession letter was dishonest (or was likely to have been dishonest)

Cheers,

Hi Takod

I believe that Bury probably killed Ellen because she knew he was the Ripper. This may well have been during an argument. Bury had a history of being dishonest.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

Come on, John. You've been around long enough to know the main arguments against Bury. The main one being that the mutilations inflicted on Ellen Bury were relatively tame compared to previous victims and there was no signature throat-cut. Some people also attribute murders to the Ripper which occurred after William Bury was dead. Alice McKenzie, for example, ticks more boxes than Ellen Bury (prostitute, throat cut, Whitechapel).

That said, I don't dismiss Bury. I still think he's the best of the named suspects. There may have been mitigating factors which countenance all of those points against him. I contend what Takod said about Bury trying to stage a Ripper murder, because according to the medical examiners the post-mortem mutilations were inflicted soon after death. If there was no premeditation, it could be argued that those mutilations were a rare paraphilia that Bury had in common with the Whitechapel murderer.

I would also speculate that the legendary Ripper being a drunkard who went out with a whimper deters a lot of Ripperologists.

Hi Harry D

Of course I'm aware of the arguments against Bury. And I agree with what you said about the legendary Ripper going out with a wimper etc however I'm interested in the specific reasons why people go for other suspects who aren't proven murders etc ahead of Bury.

Cheers John

[Takod]

That said, I don't dismiss Bury. I still think he's the best of the named suspects. There may have been mitigating factors which countenance all of those points against him. I contend what Takod said about Bury trying to stage a Ripper murder, because according to the medical examiners the post-mortem mutilations were inflicted soon after death. If there was no premeditation, it could be argued that those mutilations were a rare paraphilia that Bury had in common with the Whitechapel murderer.

Contrary to this I think he's one of the worst of the named suspects so much so that I find it strange that people on this forum can have such an emphasis on the man. Tunnel vision, I say, tunnel vision!

He argues with his wife. Kills his wife, does some funny cuts to her abdomen, stuffs her in a crate, chalks his residence... and hands himself in - then confesses to a priest.

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

William Bury is clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed.

~

IIRC there are several events where William Bury threatens his wife with a knife, the fact that Ellen could have chalked one, or even both of the messages [say, in a retaliatory or argumentative manner] does not tarnish the text above or its relevance. If anything we can tuck it in as a solid reason why it might have escalated in the manner it did.

~

People want to compare Bury and Kemper. I say nay. They are not alike in the least. Kemper's magnum opus was his mother. Bury's wife was a weak whimper, and given all we know about Bury's life, he did not have the capacity to kill before Ellen, who seems to be a strangulation through rage. By comparison, Jack's carotid chokes are very matter-of-fact and appear to be strictly business.

~

If we want to examine the abdominal and vaginal mutilation, the postmortem reads to me like someone who is vaguely trying to mimic what he can remember from what the paper said, and it also doesn't read like he had the will to fully execute it either. There's too much emphasis on these postmortem mutilations and not enough emphasis on why these postmortem mutilations are not clear and defined.

If we want to play pretend that Bury is Jack the Ripper we need to explain why the injuries aren't even as severe as the ones on say, Tabram, or Nichols, or any of the possible victims for that matter. The only significant postmortem injury I can see is the 4&1/2 inch gash from the belly button downwards from which Ellen's intestines protruded as she decomposed whilst gas and drying and all the decomposition fun stuff pushed them out.

~

I honestly can not see a good reason why Bury is considered a likely or even possible contender. Spousal murder isn't exactly rare, and suggesting Bury committed a crime similar in nature to Jack the Ripper is like comparing Gordon Ramsay's cooking to a McDonalds. They're both murders, just like how they're both food, but that's about it. One is a factory settings crime of passion, mere uxoricide; and then trying to hide it like a puppy that's just crapped on the carpet (BADLY) - The other is heavily pre-meditated, thought about, calculated, the ingredients are weighed - olive oil, in.

They're not comparable in the least.

Same goes for when you compare Kemper to Bury, after Kemper was finished killing his mother he decapitated her and had necrophiliac oral sex with her head.

~

Again, I can not see in the least why William Henry Bury is being accused of murders he could not, nor could he have committed (with what is known about him up until this point).

[Abby Normal]

Come on, John. You've been around long enough to know the main arguments against Bury. The main one being that the mutilations inflicted on Ellen Bury were relatively tame compared to previous victims and there was no signature throat-cut. Some people also attribute murders to the Ripper which occurred after William Bury was dead. Alice McKenzie, for example, ticks more boxes than Ellen Bury (prostitute, throat cut, Whitechapel).

That said, I don't dismiss Bury. I still think he's the best of the named suspects. There may have been mitigating factors which countenance all of those points against him. I contend what Takod said about Bury trying to stage a Ripper murder, because according to the medical examiners the post-mortem mutilations were inflicted soon after death. If there was no premeditation, it could be argued that those mutilations were a rare paraphilia that Bury had in common with the Whitechapel murderer.

I would also speculate that the legendary Ripper being a drunkard who went out with a whimper deters a lot of Ripperologists.

good post harry
sums it up nicely. i think bury is one of the least weak suspects along with a handful of others

[c.d.]

Hello Harry,

"paraphilia"? Go easy with dem big woids der, professor.

c.d.

[Scott Nelson]

Bury killed for money. Plus there wasn't any sawdust found at the Ripper murder scenes.

[John Wheat]

Bury killed for money. Plus there wasn't any sawdust found at the Ripper murder scenes.

From what we know of Bury it seems he hardly worked at all as a sand and sawdust merchant. Also Bury had spent the great majority of Ellen's money by the time he killed her.

[Takod]

If Bury is one of the least weak out of all of the named suspects, then perhaps time would be better invested in an examination of who exactly lived in George Yard Buildings or the near vicinity.

[Harry D]

Contrary to this I think he's one of the worst of the named suspects so much so that I find it strange that people on this forum can have such an emphasis on the man. Tunnel vision, I say, tunnel vision!

I hope you're being ironic.

Find me another suspect who lived in the East End during the Ripper-scare and definitely committed a post-mortem mutilation murder.

Problem with other named suspects is there are too many unknown facts and unknowables that will never be proven.

[Takod]

I hope you're being ironic.

Find me another suspect who lived in the East End during the Ripper-scare and definitely committed a post-mortem mutilation murder.

Problem with other named suspects is there are too many unknown facts and unknowables that will never be proven.

That's funny! If we go for such a vaguery as postmortem mutilation as the key factor as to who is or is not Jack the Ripper then it is certainly not Bury!

And why should we go for postmortem mutilation as the key factor when Anderson states that MacKenzie despite her postmortem injuries was a "normal" murder.

Perhaps you should scroll up and read more, to see reasoning (rather than a claim) as to why Bury could not have been the murder, rather than addressing the claim itself by suggesting that it is ironic.

I'd appreciate it if you addressed my reasoning rather than the claim, since, the reasoning is why I believe the claim. I present the reasoning so that it can face rebuke and I can become educated on the matter which is W.H. Bury - and being someone in the know perhaps you could elucidate for me as to why he is unequivocally the murderer.

I'd like to follow on from this by stating;

Given that the foundation for Bury as JTR is based upon silliness like "postmortem mutilations" as criteria, the Thames Torso Murders and Alice MacKenzie throw a spanner so severe into those works that it crumples the entire foundation. Each one of the other named suspects has no such severe rebuke. Bury can be... buried.

I have no interest in accusing a man who is innocent of crimes that he could not have committed. Unless of course his ghost committed these crimes.

I do hope that you won't suggest once again that I am being ironic, for I am being wholly serious in my assertion that given the foundation supplied Bury could not have nor could ever have been the murderer.

Lewis Carroll and Marriots' Carl Feigenbaum are far more likely to have done the deeds.

Regards,