William Bury: Jack the Ripper

[Geddy2112]

Geddy,

This is the post that I said I'd make in the Polly's Skirts thread.

The main reason why I lean toward Bury being the strongest suspect is that he's one of the few reasonable suspects that is known to have killed someone, and his known murder is similar, though not identical, to the Ripper murders. He strangled his wife, and many of the Ripper's murders are thought to have begun with strangulation. He also mutilated his wife to a degree. When he told the police about her death, he mentioned Jack the Ripper. He lived in the general area of Whitechapel at the time of the Ripper murders, and moved away shortly after the Kelly murder. After he moved away, graffiti referring to Jack the Ripper appeared on his new house.

I'm sure you'll be able to find additional reasons in this thread.

Thank you, plus if you look at some threads on the other forums his handwriting is a dead match for some of the letters - food for thought certainly.

[C. F. Leon]

... Unless something turns up….like a diary.

Um, Herlock, I HATE to be the one to break it to you, but a (um) tell-all "diary" HAS (miraculously) appeared...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Um, Herlock, I HATE to be the one to break it to you, but a "diary" HAS (miraculously) appeared...

[Fiver]

Thank you, plus if you look at some threads on the other forums his handwriting is a dead match for some of the letters - food for thought certainly.

That only matters if those letters were authentic, not hoaxes. IIRC, they claimed murders that never happened, which would make them hoaxes.

[The Rookie Detective]

That only matters if those letters were authentic, not hoaxes. IIRC, they claimed murders that never happened, which would make them hoaxes.

This is a key point that is perhaps overlooked in relation to Bury.

If we take Bury and consider him as a Ripper suspect, there are many things that appear to add up and support the idea of him being the culprit.

The biggest sticking point of course is whether one believes that Mckenzie and Coles; and perhaps even Pinchin St, were the work of the Ripper.

Now for the believers of the established 'Canonical 5' Bury is arguably the front runner; in terms of him ticking all the necessary boxes.

The murder, mutilation and dismemberment of his wife in the Spring of 89 is perhaps the actual culmination of his murder spree and the brutal slaying of Kelly just a few months previous may have been his swansong kill and go a long way in explaining why Kelly suffered the most.

There's also the Ripper correspondences...

There are clear similarities in form, handwriting and syntax in some of the key letters that are supposed to have been from the Ripper.

So, let's run with that for a moment and consider the possibility that Bury also wrote Dear Boss etc...


So, we have a man who is as close to being a prime suspect as one could get, with the combination of all the factors that support Bury as the Ripper.


But here's the rub...

What about McKenzie?


Now IF you're not a believer in the Canonical 5, then Bury is clearly innocent because he was hanged in spring 89... and so the suggestion would then be that the man who killed McKenzie was a 'copy cat killer'

So we have Bury being the Ripper who kills his wife as his last kill and then a few months later another man tried to emulate the Ripper by killing McKenzie.

The biggest sticking point with Mckenzie is that she received many superficial cuts that resemble some of the injuries inflicted in the Nichols murder, ergo, the killer may have been disturbed and unable to perform his ritual.


So, we are left with a scenario whereby Bury was the Ripper and Mckenzie was a copy cat.

Case closed?


Hardly.


Now being me; I like to come at it from a different angle...


What if Bury was a man who fantasised about being the Ripper?
Akin to someone like Bachert who was obsessed with the case.

Could Bury have been the author of Dear Boss etc...and had a fantastic whereby he was the Ripper?

The letters have been largely considered as hoaxes over the years, but what if they are genuine fantasy hoaxes; ergo, the author was playing the part of the Ripper through text.
It would perhaps explain why so many letters don't hold up to scrutiny.

Bur for the sake of balance; when Bury was apprehended, it was him who mentioned being concerned people would think he was Jack the Ripper.
Now at face value, that would be a typical concern for a man who had just been found to have mutilated his wife...but there could also be an element of reverse psychology going on here.

Did Bury kill his wife and then hand himself in because he was the Ripper and he had concluded his killing after having the autumn of 88 to try out what he planned for his wife.

The gap between Kelly and Mckenzie is explained perfectly...by Bury being the Ripper.


But going back to my hypothesis...


What if we were to flip this on its head and suggest that it was Bury who was the man who fantasised about being the Ripper, but after he was hanged, the real Ripper then went on to kill Mckenzie and Coles and possibly Pinchin St.

It doesn't explain the gap between Kelly and Mckenzie but it does break the confines of the Canonical 5 and then erase the idea of a PHYSICAL copy cat killer.

Now of course, there's no evidence that Bury did write the letters.

Another key point is...how many letters were there AFTER Bury was hanged?

Ultimately, I think Bury is someone who is grossly underrated and overlooked as the Ripper.

I would go as far as to say that he is arguably the only Ripper suspect that could, would and probably should fit into anyone's top 5 suspects.


That has to count for something



RD

[The Rookie Detective]

Interesting...




Not quite sure how it was believed he would be acquitted?


RD

[GBinOz]

Interesting...




Not quite sure how it was believed he would be acquitted?


RD

Hi RD,

I don't know if you are aware that there was recently conducted a re-trial of William Bury with assessments made by modern forensic experts on the angle of the ligature marks on Ellen's neck. The trial was conducted before a jury with law students representing the prosecution and the defence. The defence presented opinion that the angle of the ligature and the slow strangulation was more consistent with hanging from a low suspension point, and that the slow strangulation was inconsistent with a violent garrotting.

The verdict was acquittal by a margin of 13-2.

Cheers, George

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD,

I don't know if you are aware that there was recently conducted a re-trial of William Bury with assessments made by modern forensic experts on the angle of the ligature marks on Ellen's neck. The trial was conducted before a jury with law students representing the prosecution and the defence. The defence presented opinion that the angle of the ligature and the slow strangulation was more consistent with hanging from a low suspension point, and that the slow strangulation was inconsistent with a violent garrotting.

The verdict was acquittal by a margin of 13-2.

Cheers, George

Would that imply that Ellen Bury committed suicide?

Or that he strangled her slowly?



RD

[GBinOz]

Would that imply that Ellen Bury committed suicide?

Or that he strangled her slowly?



RD

I think that the implication from the jury was that it was likely that he killed her, but he was given the benefit of some doubt due to the conflicting medical opinion.

[The Rookie Detective]

I think that the implication from the jury was that it was likely that he killed her, but he was given the benefit of some doubt due to the conflicting medical opinion.

Ah I see, but could it also suggest the following scenario...


He didn't intially instigate trying to kill her and she did indeed TRY to commit suicide...

...but after he found her he felt somewhat robbed and so chose to then mutilate and dismember her in a bid to hint at him being the Ripper.

We know that some of the injuries were inflicted BOTH before AND after Ellen was dead.


His mention of the Ripper is peculiar enough, but what if his aim was to draw focus onto himself as the Ripper.


Furthermore, if there was indeed conflicting medical evidence, then what does that potentially tell us?

Well, possibly that the murder was more conflicting for Bury than it perhaps should have been.

But psychopathic serial killers don't feel conflicted, their psyche is based on indifference and detachment.

And so it perhaps suggests one of 2 things...

That he was a Ripper fantasist who wrote letters and fantasised about what he wanted to do, and then his wife stole that from him (in his eyes) and so he felt compelled to bring the Ripper name into focus in a bid for him to be associated with or as the Ripper. This scenario suggests he wasn't the Ripper.

But we also have the scenario whereby he was the Ripper and the only reason why he chose to mutilate and not just dismember his wife, was because he was trying to apply his signature to the murder in a bid for everyone to then consider him as the Ripper because he realised that if he simply just killed his wife then he would be overlooked as the Ripper. Therefore, despite his apparent concern that he didn't want everyone to think he was the Ripper, I believe the exact opposite is true.

The question is...WHY did he have to mutilate her?


It is this action of mutilation that is the single biggest clue as to suggest that Bury was the Ripper...and I think he knew that.

Of course, if there is the slightest chance that he only mutilated her to look like a Ripper kill, then it's the work of a copy cat fantasist who wrote a few letters while the real Ripper roamed free to kill over many years.


RD

[GBinOz]

His mention of the Ripper is peculiar enough, but what if his aim was to draw focus onto himself as the Ripper.

That he was a Ripper fantasist who wrote letters and fantasised about what he wanted to do, and then his wife stole that from him (in his eyes) and so he felt compelled to bring the Ripper name into focus in a bid for him to be associated with or as the Ripper. This scenario suggests he wasn't the Ripper.

RD

Hi RD,

The above fits my opinion, that he was a drunken no hoper, desperate to achieve some notoriety, who killed his wife in a drunken rage after her inheritance money ran out. He might have gotten away with it if, instead of mutilating her body and waiting a week, he had immediately reported her death as a suicide to the police. But that might have gone un-noticed as a suicide or just another domestic, and his fantasy was to earn a place in history. Or he could have disposed of her body and disappeared, abandoning his place in the limelight. Once again, not what he wanted. JMO.

Cheers, George