Dismissed

[Michael W Richards]

Bury, as a Suspect for the Five Murders referred to as The Canonical Group, is on the the same level as any other so-called "Suspect"....someone accused without a shred of evidence tying him to any individual murder within that group let alone the Group as a whole. There are no real Suspects in the strictest sense of that word, there are people of interest....but again, without any identified hard evidence to bring to bear against them.

This whole study has been GIGO on the issue of viable Suspects from the get go.

[Harry D]

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

Yeah... Now I know you're taking the mickey.

[Takod]

Yeah... Now I know you're taking the mickey.

Out of you and your lack of reasoning for why I might be wrong, certainly. Out of Bury as a possible suspect? Sure.

I have no interest in accusing a man who could not have reasonably done the crimes of doing the crimes.

For Bury, there isn't a lack of evidence. There's just a lack of convincing evidence, the evidence that is there is weak.

I named two suspects who were also rather weak as better suspects, not to irritate you, but because they are better suspects.

[Takod]

Keep in mind, the topic of thread is one of dismissal, what pro-Bury people should be looking for is the reasoning why their suspect is dismissed by others, and perhaps provide reasons as to why this reasoning falls flat.

In which case I can either come away persuaded of Bury-as-Ripper or, as it rests right now, Bury-not-as-ripper.

[Wickerman]

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

Like, the Yorkshire Ripper you mean?
He never murdered anyone before.
Never a suspect, interviewed by police nine times, yet only captured because of a fluke.

[Abby Normal]

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,

whats your point? bury cant be the ripper because you believe in the torsoripper? which btw i lean toward. and or alice mckenzie. stop trying to be witty and speak in plain english. last thing we need is another witty moron.
feiganbaums a non starter. and i hope joking about carrol or else your out.

[Abby Normal]

Out of you and your lack of reasoning for why I might be wrong, certainly. Out of Bury as a possible suspect? Sure.

I have no interest in accusing a man who could not have reasonably done the crimes of doing the crimes.

For Bury, there isn't a lack of evidence. There's just a lack of convincing evidence, the evidence that is there is weak.

I named two suspects who were also rather weak as better suspects, not to irritate you, but because they are better suspects.

lol. yeah your out

[John Wheat]

Like, the Yorkshire Ripper you mean?
He never murdered anyone before.
Never a suspect, interviewed by police nine times, yet only captured because of a fluke.

Hi Wickerman

I'm not totally sure what you're getting at here?

[Takod]

whats your point? bury cant be the ripper because you believe in the torsoripper? which btw i lean toward. and or alice mckenzie. stop trying to be witty and speak in plain english. last thing we need is another witty moron.
feiganbaums a non starter. and i hope joking about carrol or else your out.

No, Bury could not have been the Ripper because we're using "postmortem" as the basis for why we believe him to be the ripper - And as far as I am aware, and this might shock some believers in the Bury = JTR, but the Torso severance was very likely done after the victim was dead.

I don't believe the torso person was the same as JTR, no, I focus on the details of the mutilations, and therein lies my reasoning for why Bury could not have been the ripper.

And don't put me out just yet, that's childish. It is not my fault if people focus in on the snark rather than engaging with the evidence I previously contested, what else do you honestly expect from that sort of environment? Wherein one is in or out based not on whether or not they have something valuable to add to the discussion but instead on whether or not one has suggested something so terrible and against popular flow that it seems inconceivable.

Bury is eliminated from potential suspects (as he was at the time) BECAUSE of evidence whereas Feigenbaum and Carroll remain as extremely weak suspects because of a LACK of evidence.

I really don't know what more to say than that, but, regarding being out, I think I'll stay out, for being in seems much worse than being out. Toxic, unconstructive and monolithic environments are not worth participating in, and that which surrounds you shapes you.

[Harry D]

And don't put me out just yet, that's childish. It is not my fault if people focus in on the snark rather than engaging with the evidence I previously contested.

Fine, lets look at the evidence. The crux of the argument would be that Ellen Bury's mutilations were comparatively tame. Had she been mutilated to the level of Chapman, Eddowes, or Kelly, this case would be closed for a lot of people. This is a problem but not an insurmountable one. Unlike the Whitechapel victims, William Bury was shitting on his own doorstep (so to speak). For instance, skeptics highlight the fact Ellen Bury did not carry the Ripper's trademark throat-cut. Well, the modus operandi fits the circumstances. The Ripper victims were mostly killed outdoors. The throat-cuts were necessary to swiftly silence the victim and facilitate exsanguination in order to remove the internal organs. There was no need for the killer to operate this way in the confines of the basement flat, particularly if Ellen Bury was never intended to be a ripper victim but was murdered in the heat of the moment. Even so, the killer had an instinctual urge to take a knife to the abdomen and genitalia shortly after death. Something that served no practical use to the killer.

If I'm reading you right, you're saying that the unknown murder capabilities of other suspects gives them more potential as the killer than Bury's Ripper-like murder? We've seen Bury attempt his version of a Ripper murder and it didn't quite pass muster? Therefore, he must be summarily dismissed because potentially Lewis Carrol might've been an even more violent mutilator than Bury?

[John Wheat]

Fine, lets look at the evidence. The crux of the argument would be that Ellen Bury's mutilations were comparatively tame. Had she been mutilated to the level of Chapman, Eddowes, or Kelly, this case would be closed for a lot of people. This is a problem but not an insurmountable one. Unlike the Whitechapel victims, William Bury was shitting on his own doorstep (so to speak). For instance, skeptics highlight the fact Ellen Bury did not carry the Ripper's trademark throat-cut. Well, the modus operandi fits the circumstances. The Ripper victims were mostly killed outdoors. The throat-cuts were necessary to swiftly silence the victim and facilitate exsanguination in order to remove the internal organs. There was no need for the killer to operate this way in the confines of the basement flat, particularly if Ellen Bury was never intended to be a ripper victim but was murdered in the heat of the moment. Even so, the killer had an instinctual urge to take a knife to the abdomen and genitalia shortly after death. Something that served no practical use to the killer.

If I'm reading you right, you're saying that the unknown murder capabilities of other suspects gives them more potential as the killer than Bury's Ripper-like murder? We've seen Bury attempt his version of a Ripper murder and it didn't quite pass muster? Therefore, he must be summarily dismissed because potentially Lewis Carrol might've been an even more violent mutilator than Bury?

Great post Harry D.

Cheers John

[Abby Normal]

No, Bury could not have been the Ripper because we're using "postmortem" as the basis for why we believe him to be the ripper - And as far as I am aware, and this might shock some believers in the Bury = JTR, but the Torso severance was very likely done after the victim was dead.

I don't believe the torso person was the same as JTR, no, I focus on the details of the mutilations, and therein lies my reasoning for why Bury could not have been the ripper.

And don't put me out just yet, that's childish. It is not my fault if people focus in on the snark rather than engaging with the evidence I previously contested, what else do you honestly expect from that sort of environment? Wherein one is in or out based not on whether or not they have something valuable to add to the discussion but instead on whether or not one has suggested something so terrible and against popular flow that it seems inconceivable.

Bury is eliminated from potential suspects (as he was at the time) BECAUSE of evidence whereas Feigenbaum and Carroll remain as extremely weak suspects because of a LACK of evidence.

I really don't know what more to say than that, but, regarding being out, I think I'll stay out, for being in seems much worse than being out. Toxic, unconstructive and monolithic environments are not worth participating in, and that which surrounds you shapes you.

well you just said that feigenbaum and lewis carrol were better suspects than bury lol so the environment you are in probably consists of unicorns and leprechauns.

[Columbo]

The question should be how and when did Bury become a suspect? Most “suspects” are put forth decades after the murders with no indication they were contemporary suspects by the police.

[Abby Normal]

The question should be how and when did Bury become a suspect? Most “suspects” are put forth decades after the murders with no indication they were contemporary suspects by the police.

hi columbo

bury became a suspect, or at least a person of interest, after he murdered his wife in Dundee in somewhat ripper fashion and it was known that he had just previously been in the area of the east end during the ripper murders. i beleive abberline went up to investigate but nothing really came of it. he became more of a suspect to ripperologists later on. bottom line though he was at least a person of interest at the time of the murders and not some modern fitted up suspect who fits some arm chair detectives profile/theory who has no connection to the case.
hes one of the least weak suspects IMHO.

[Harry D]

i beleive abberline went up to investigate but nothing really came of it.

Hey, Abby. I'm not sure Abberline or anyone went up to Dundee to investigate Bury, but they made some enquiries in London.