Assessing the case against W.H.Bury

[Stewart P Evans]

James Berry

5:Alleged confession to the hangman. Again not written down or recorded and i believe that hangman Berry made no mention of this amazing confession when writing his lifesory.

There is no mention anywhere that Bury confessed to the hangman. James Berry the hangman's memoirs were serialised and they were published after his death (in 1913) in Thomson's Weekly News in 1927. Berry's full account of the execution of Bury is given there.

[johns]

Nice drawing Sam.

How are you lately? Fine I hope.

John

[Sam Flynn]

There was a point made on the old message boards (i.e. only on the cd/dvd rom archives) that the wounds inflicted on Ellen Bury were not as similar to Jack the Ripper's c5 victims

Here's a very rough attempt I made to show the extent of her wounds, based on the contemporary medical reports:



Most of the wounds appear to have been stabs not much more than an inch or so in extent.

The longest abdominal cut was only about 4" long, as I recall.

[revpetero]

Definitely not dismissable.

Bury was without doubt not playing with a full deck.

[The Good Michael]

Though I agree that the murder of Ellen Bury has more disimilarities to the East End murders than not, this doesn't mean that a man capable of killing his wife in the fashion he did, is not capable of doing other murders in a different fashion. Bury isn't very likely in my opinion, but he is hardly dismissable.

Mike

[revpetero]

Chris,

I think you are right. If I recall :-

1 - The throat wasn't slit.

2 - Though the abdomen was cut and intestines showing this was through hacking and stabbing than the more methodical slicing (gutting) of the Canonical.

That is only if memory serves me right


Peter

[truebluedub]

There was a point made on the old message boards (i.e. only on the cd/dvd rom archives) that the wounds inflicted on Ellen Bury were not as similar to Jack the Ripper's c5 victims as the proponents of this theory claim.
I'm relying on memory here (My own disk is wrecked and i haven't got round to ordering a new one).
Kind regards,
Chris Lowe

[brummie]

The case against W.H.Bury seems to consist of the following points: 1:An alleged reference to the Ripper in an inital statement to the desk officer. This statement is not written down or recorded so is at best hearsay and the reference to JTR is to say he wasn't the Ripper so hardly a confession. 2:Character of the man. A drunken wife beater and thief as well as a habitual liar. Not a very nice man but a large step away from serial killer. 3:Method of killing.Strangulation followed by stabbing but without the mutilaions of Ripper victims. Certainly not the horrors inflicted on Kelly, the other victim where the killer had time and privacy of a room. 4:Residence in London at time of killings. Seems to fit,but circumstantial at best, and sure a city the size of London had many comings and goings at that time. 5: Chalk grafiti identifying the house as the home of JTR, which may or may not have been written by Bury(why would he?), and may or may not have been present at the time of the killing. 5:Alleged confession to the hangman. Again not written down or recorded and i believe that hangman Berry made no mention of this amazing confession when writing his lifesory. Conlusion then is although William Bury remains an interesting suspect the evidence is flimsy and the case far from proven.One further point in Euan Macpherson's book he points out the planning and preparation Bury made for killing his wife, hardly the random impulse killings of the Ripper.