Why William Henry Bury may have been Jack

[GBinOz]

No one knows who wrote the "From Hell" letter. Even if it was written by Bury how would that down grade him as a suspect?

While it is true that no one knows who wrote the "From Hell" letter, even if it was written by Bury, it would not upgrade him as a suspect.

[John Wheat]

Nothing, just some Buryians claim there are similarities between Bury's handwriting and this letter.

The author of this letter says he fried and eat the Kidney of his victim.


But Bury didn't eat anything of his wife, not even her small finger!


Anyone who believes the "From Hell" letter was written by the ripper, should erase the name Bury from his list.


I expect the usual trade mark of yours: We just don't know.



The Baron

Ridiculous post. No one knows who wrote the "From Hell" letter. Even if it was written by Bury how would that down grade him as a suspect?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nothing, just some Buryians claim there are similarities between Bury's handwriting and this letter.

The author of this letter says he fried and eat the Kidney of his victim.


But Bury didn't eat anything of his wife, not even her small finger!


Anyone who believes the "From Hell" letter was written by the ripper, should erase the name Bury from his list.


I expect the usual trade mark of yours: We just don't know.



The Baron

So you think it’s better to state that we know something that we can’t possibly know rather than be honest and admit that we don’t know?

You’ve just illustrated your entire approach to the subject Baron.

I’ll stick to the honest approach thanks.

[The Baron]

I haven’t a clue if the letter was genuine or not or who wrote it. I can’t think of any way that letter points to or away from any suspect.

Why?

Nothing, just some Buryians claim there are similarities between Bury's handwriting and this letter.

The author of this letter says he fried and eat the Kidney of his victim.


But Bury didn't eat anything of his wife, not even her small finger!


Anyone who believes the "From Hell" letter was written by the ripper, should erase the name Bury from his list.


I expect the usual trade mark of yours: We just don't know.



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Do you think Bury might have written the "From Hell" letter Herlock?!


The Baron

I haven’t a clue if the letter was genuine or not or who wrote it. I can’t think of any way that letter points to or away from any suspect.

Why?

[The Baron]

Do you think Bury might have written the "From Hell" letter Herlock?!


The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is that a reference to Mackenzie? Who in all likelihood wasn't a Ripper victim.

But she can be roped in when convenient John. And apparently, if one person says that she was definitely a victim then that’s good enough. I’ll say it again…who needs balance?

[Lewis C]

Any why is it strange? Because you said so?! Even historian Philip Sugden chose his side, do you know better than Abberline and Sugden?!


Your post is just running in circles and summons of sagas as an attempt to avoide addressing the substantial idea, I bet you think you nailed it.



The Baron

I don't think Sugden really considered Bury. It appears to me that he looked at Chapman, Druitt, Aaron Kosminski, and Ostrog, and concluded that Chapman was the best suspect of those four.

[Lewis C]

John Littlechild presumably hand-wrote that note at the bottom of his typewritten letter to George Sims. I say 'presumably' because it seems to have been added as an afterthought. I proposed the possibility that it was Sims himself who wrote this note on Littlechild's letter along with the hand-written editorial corrections to the typescript in the letter.

Thank you, Scott.

[John Wheat]

At least they can count John



The Baron

Is that a reference to Mackenzie? Who in all likelihood wasn't a Ripper victim.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Any why is it strange? Because you said so?! Even historian Philip Sugden chose his side, do you know better than Abberline and Sugden?!


Your post is just running in circles and summons of sagas as an attempt to avoide addressing the substantial idea, I bet you think you nailed it.



The Baron

I’ve just shown that you keep cherrypicking. You haven’t made a single valid point. Not one.

[The Baron]

Abberline makes a strange choice in favouring a poisoner

Any why is it strange? Because you said so?! Even historian Philip Sugden chose his side, do you know better than Abberline and Sugden?!


Your post is just running in circles and summons of sagas as an attempt to avoide addressing the substantial idea, I bet you think you nailed it.



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Typical auto-post, one can heardly make head or tail from, as if the words get mixed randomly together..

Macnaghten Anderson Kosminski Druitt Bury Chapman Sutcliffe Abberline ...

I say wait until the match ends and try again?


The Baron

It’s very simple and written in plain English. To put it in an even simpler form it’s an illustration of how you repeated move the goalposts to suit your own purpose.

Abberline makes a strange choice in favouring a poisoner….but you note him for dismissing Bury. So he shows pour judgment on Chapman but good judgment on Bury. It’s a case of cherrypicking.

In a recent post elsewhere, when discussing the merits of Kosminski, you pointed out that he was named by Macnaghten (as a plus point) and yet when it’s mentioned that Macnaghten favoured Druitt he becomes an idiot or a liar. Again…cherrypicking.

And finally, you have repeatedly derided Macnaghten, as the proposer of Druitt, because he’d had another job before joining the police (I believe that you kept calling him the Tea Planter as a term of derision) and yet the person who proposes the suspect that you favour, Anderson, also had another job before joining the police (a barrister) but this is fine. Again, very obvious cherrypicking.

I hope that was easy enough to understand?

[Scott Nelson]

John Littlechild presumably hand-wrote that note at the bottom of his typewritten letter to George Sims. I say 'presumably' because it seems to have been added as an afterthought. I proposed the possibility that it was Sims himself who wrote this note on Littlechild's letter along with the hand-written editorial corrections to the typescript in the letter.

[Lewis C]

So…..Abberline shows questionable judgment in favouring Chapman but his judgment was fine when rejecting Bury. That rings a bell. Like when it was pointed out that Macnaghten mentioned Kosminski which was commended by the person mentioning it whilst at the same time denigrating Macnaghten for mentioning Druitt. We see a trend of selectivity. Macnaghten (naming Druitt) dismissed because he wasn’t a career police officer and yet Anderson (naming Kosminski) is absolutely fine even though he wasn’t a career police officer. The pattern is obvious and the agenda is clear.

Sutcliffe was also ‘neglected’ by the police after been talked to 9 times and he was 100% guilty. And unless it’s believed that this was the only time that the police have ever been wrong then I fail to see the point in mentioning it in the first place.

Weak points. Trying to dismiss Bury is an exercise in futility. One person thinks he’s a poor suspect. Who cares? Ripperology is becoming a breeding ground for bias, for opinions based on personalities and a lack of balance.

Hi Herlock,

Speaking of Abberline, didn't he say that Robert Anderson didn't know who the Ripper was, he only thought he did? Abberline's opinion about Anderson's suspect is just as valid as his opinion about Bury.