William Bury: Jack the Ripper

[The Baron]

Hi Baron,

As you are probably aware, there are problems with the Anderson/Swanson suspect. Swanson said that he was interred in an asylum after the MJK murder and died shortly after his interment. Aaron Kosminski was interred in Colney Hatch on 4 Feb 1891 and died in 1919. The Anderson/Swanson suspect more closely fits the Fido suspect, Martin Kaminsky/David Cohen. The Seaside Home didn't open until Mar 1890, some 18 months after the double event. We don't know who the witness was: Lawende who said he wouldn't recognise the suspect if seen again, Harris who said he saw nothing, Levy who was suspiciously secretive, or Schwartz. The first three only saw a man talking to a woman near where the murder took place. Hardly conclusive. At least Schwartz saw an incident which may have led to the murder of Stride, but then there is disagreement about Stride being a ripper victim, so even if Schwartz identified Aaron, he may not have been JtR, or even killed Stride. The other theory that has been put forward it that Anderson may have confused Campbell's identification of Sadler as the man who sold him a knife in a Sailor's Home with the failed identification attempt by Lawende of Sadler as the ripper.

Coming back to the tread at hand, Bury had a history of violence culminating in at least one murder that we know about. Kosminski was considered to be an amiable imbecile with a record of one incident of a family threat and threatening an asylum attendant with a chair when the attendant tried to force him to bathe. It is possible that Aaron incurred unjustified police surveillance and suspicion by his family after an identification by Schwartz as BSM when the actual killer was Parcelman.

Cheers, George

Bury was not identified, Kosminski was identified.
Bury couldn't have killed Mckenzie, Kosminski could have killed her.



Most of your post are speculations and digging in a gray area.



The Baron

[GBinOz]

Most of your post are speculations and digging in a gray area.

The Baron

Really? The speculation regarding Sadler was put forward by Evans and Rumbelow. My only speculation was my last sentance. Would you care to elaborate on the other speculations and gray areas, other than your contention that Lawende was probably the witness at the seaside?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The problem with Lawende as the witness is that he was later wheeled out to look at Sadler and later Grainger. Why would they have done that if he’d already identified the ripper?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Bury was not identified, Kosminski was identified.
Bury couldn't have killed Mckenzie, Kosminski could have killed her.



Most of your post are speculations and digging in a gray area.



The Baron

Mackenzie is a grey area to everyone else but you. Abby believes that she was a victim of Jack but I doubt that he, like you, would say 100%. Your saying that she was 100% a victim. There’s only one reason why you are so ‘confident about Mackenzie and we all know what that reason is.

[Herlock Sholmes]

your boy Koz wasnt a convicted murderer either. and the ripper and bury were both cowards, they both picked on women for crying out loud. but i agree about mckenzie, I lean toward her being a ripper victim.

He pretends that he hadn’t been caught out by his own words Abby.

[GBinOz]

Mackenzie is a grey area to everyone else but you. Abby believes that she was a victim of Jack but I doubt that he, like you, would say 100%. Your saying that she was 100% a victim. There’s only one reason why you are so ‘confident about Mackenzie and we all know what that reason is.

I don't. What is the reason?

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

. And Kos is not my "boy", he had been identified by the only witness who saw the murderer

But, as Bury was a murderer and he wasn’t, then Bury must be ‘miles ahead’ of him as a suspect.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't. What is the reason?

Cheers, George

Because Baron knows that, of the named suspects, I prefer Druitt. Baron has a proven obsession with me (as illustrated again here George, where on a thread about Bury he shows up and makes his ‘miles ahead of Druitt’ comment.) Obviously if Mackenzie was proven to have been a victim then Druitt would have to be dismissed as a suspect. So of course he claims it’s 100% certain that Mackenzie was a ripper victim. I’ve always admitted the possibility that he might have been but that it’s a point that’s been debated without conclusion for years. It’s par for the course with him George.

[Fogelpa]

The problem with Lawende as the witness is that he was later wheeled out to look at Sadler and later Grainger. Why would they have done that if he’d already identified the ripper?

Could they have used Schwartz? Or is that unlikely since he disappears from record after his statement?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Bury was not identified, Kosminski was identified

Never named by Anderson. Mentioned only once, in pencil, years later by Swanson. Not a single existing record of any identification. The identity of the witness never mentioned. And facts stated incorrectly by both.

Isn’t it strange that you make a huge thing about MacNaghten describing Druitt as a 41 year old Doctor and yet you conveniently ignore Anderson’s mistakes.

You should take a step back and view things more objectively. All suspects have their positives and negatives. Why don’t you simply do that as most of us try to instead of deciding first. Your thinking is clearly “Herlock favours Druitt…..I dislike Herlock….therefore I’ll desperately try anything to try and dismiss Druitt.”

Thankfully most posters on here take a more open-minded, sensible, less personal approach to the subject.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Could they have used Schwartz? Or is that unlikely since he disappears from record after his statement?

To be honest Fogelpa there isn’t a great list of potential candidates for the witness. It’s tended to be Lawende or Schwartz. Someone else might be able to say if someone else has been suggested though. I can’t recall of the top of my head.

Welcome to Casebook by the way.

[Fogelpa]

To be honest Fogelpa there isn’t a great list of potential candidates for the witness. It’s tended to be Lawende or Schwartz. Someone else might be able to say if someone else has been suggested though. I can’t recall of the top of my head.

Welcome to Casebook by the way.

Thank's Herlock!

[John Wheat]

Never named by Anderson. Mentioned only once, in pencil, years later by Swanson. Not a single existing record of any identification. The identity of the witness never mentioned. And facts stated incorrectly by both.

Isn’t it strange that you make a huge thing about MacNaghten describing Druitt as a 41 year old Doctor and yet you conveniently ignore Anderson’s mistakes.

You should take a step back and view things more objectively. All suspects have their positives and negatives. Why don’t you simply do that as most of us try to instead of deciding first. Your thinking is clearly “Herlock favours Druitt…..I dislike Herlock….therefore I’ll desperately try anything to try and dismiss Druitt.”

Thankfully most posters on here take a more open-minded, sensible, less personal approach to the subject.

Hi Herlock
While I favour Bury as the Ripper I must remark that Druitt is still what I would term a sensible suspect. Eg suspected at the time. Committed suicide shortly after Mary Kelly was murdered. Kosminski less so in my opinion but again still what I would term a sensible suspect. Although the man that ate food from the gutter seems a long way from Jack the Ripper. In my opinion it's nice to debate suspects such as Bury, Druitt, Kosminski etc rather than debate witnesses who have been turned into suspects or persons who can't be placed in London in 1888.

Cheers John

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock
While I favour Bury as the Ripper I must remark that Druitt is still what I would term a sensible suspect. Eg suspected at the time. Committed suicide shortly after Mary Kelly was murdered. Kosminski less so in my opinion but again still what I would term a sensible suspect. Although the man that ate food from the gutter seems a long way from Jack the Ripper. In my opinion it's nice to debate suspects such as Bury, Druitt, Kosminski etc rather than debate witnesses who have been turned into suspects or persons who can't be placed in London in 1888.

Cheers John

Hello John,

Yes Bury is certainly a suspect worth discussing and researching. All have pros and cons of course. Personally I’ve always said that if I was forced to put my last penny on it I’d hedge that the ripper was yet to be named. Some Pawnbroker’s assistant from Bethnal Green or Labourer from Stepney. I don’t think that we’ll ever know to everyone’s satisfaction. Unless something turns up….like a diary.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As I haven’t re-read any Bury books lately could someone confirm that Ellen had actually worked as a prostitute? I’d never rely on Wiki for anything of course but I did just notice that it only said ‘probably a prostitute’ on there. Is there confirmation of this?