Why William Henry Bury may have been Jack

[FrankO]

Hi Frank

Fair enough. Obviously I don't agree but fair enough.

Cheers John

I won't hold it against you, John. Everybody has his own views and opinions, that's the problem when the evidence we're left with is so little and regularly contadictive or vague.

Cheers,
Frank

[GBinOz]

Hi John,

Even though what you write is true, it doesn't change my view. In fact, with all the writing and verbally suggesting he was the Ripper, the abdominal cuts give me the impression that he did that to suggest he was the Ripper. It all eems a bit too contrived to me. But that's just my view.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

That's also my view. Suggestion without admission. Very much contrived. No disrespect to your opinion John.

Best regards, George

[A P Tomlinson]

Hi Frank

It's important to note that the abdominal cuts were made sometime after Ellen Bury had been strangled. Maybe Bury/Jack couldn't resist some mutilation.

Cheers John

Didn't the committee of coroners finally agree that the knife wounds had been made within ten minutes of her death?

I don't recall the source, (else I'd cite it...) but I'm sure that I read that the initial examination concluded the ten minute thing.
Then a more senior pathologist examined her a day or so later and said there was a problem with that, and that they were inflicted at a later time, due to the knife wounds not being everted. But then the doctors who did the intial exam pointed out that the wounds HAD been everted at the time of their examination, and the senior doctor basically said, "Oh, in that case then yes... the 10 minute window sounds fair enough"

It stuck in my mind because its one of the few instances where two authorities disagreed on something, then came to a civil and fairly clear agreement after some simple exchange of data... Imagine that!

What amazes me the most about Bury, and I'm in no way convinced he was The Ripper, is that here we have a man who strangles a woman, then cuts her up, then when the option to just leave her body in the street is unavailable, he performs some of the most dehumainsing and despicable acts one can imagine conducting on a stranger let alone a family member, makes several references to Jack the Ripper, jumps in public at the mentioon of Jack the Ripper, and has Jack the Ripper graffiti in his house... and its STILL the guy whose entire case against him consists of, found a body and gave his stepfathers surname at an inquest who has the masses on Youtube crying out for justice.
Weird world...

[The Baron]

Didn't the committee of coroners finally agree that the knife wounds had been made within ten minutes of her death?

I don't recall the source, (else I'd cite it...) but I'm sure that I read that the initial examination concluded the ten minute thing.
Then a more senior pathologist examined her a day or so later and said there was a problem with that, and that they were inflicted at a later time, due to the knife wounds not being everted. But then the doctors who did the intial exam pointed out that the wounds HAD been everted at the time of their examination, and the senior doctor basically said, "Oh, in that case then yes... the 10 minute window sounds fair enough"

It stuck in my mind because its one of the few instances where two authorities disagreed on something, then came to a civil and fairly clear agreement after some simple exchange of data... Imagine that!

What amazes me the most about Bury, and I'm in no way convinced he was The Ripper, is that here we have a man who strangles a woman, then cuts her up, then when the option to just leave her body in the street is unavailable, he performs some of the most dehumainsing and despicable acts one can imagine conducting on a stranger let alone a family member, makes several references to Jack the Ripper, jumps in public at the mentioon of Jack the Ripper, and has Jack the Ripper graffiti in his house... and its STILL the guy whose entire case against him consists of, found a body and gave his stepfathers surname at an inquest who has the masses on Youtube crying out for justice.
Weird world...

Hi Tom,

Bury confessed to his crime and took his punishment, he was hanged to death.

But what about the man who performed some of the most dehumainsing and despicable acts on Mckenzie ?!

Why should Bury be hanged twice for something he didn't commit, is it because we cannot find the true perpetrator?


The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fallacies are being perpetuated here just because someone desperately wants to eliminate Bury from a list of suspects. In any list and in any poll conducted among any group of people with a knowledge of the Whitechapel murders Bury would be included, and usually near to the top. Find me any poll with no Bury in it.

Bury can’t be eliminated from any list unless that list is tailored specifically to eliminate him; which is what is being done here. How happy would some people be if the rest of us said that Coles was undoubtedly a victim, therefore we eliminate Kosminski? Would that be considered a fair and reasonable statement? Of course it wouldn’t, but it would be fair for someone to say ‘it’s my opinion that Coles was a victim so I personally have to eliminate Kosminski from my own list.’ So the same should only be said regarding Mackenzie - ‘it’s my opinion that Mackenzie was a victim so I personally have to eliminate Bury from my own list.’

Balance is often a problem. Ripper suspects aren’t football teams or family members and shouldn’t be defended as such. We don’t know who the ripper was and probably never will. Could it have been Bury? Yes. Could it have been Kosminski? Yes. Could it have been Cohen? Yes. Could it have been Kelly? Yes. Could it have been Druitt? Yes. Could it have been Levy? Yes. Could it have been Tumblety? Yes……And so on…..

[FrankO]

I won't hold it against you, John. Everybody has his own views and opinions, that's the problem when the evidence we're left with is so little and regularly contadictive or vague.

Cheers,
Frank

Contradictive?! Contradictory!

[Fiver]

Just as an aside, people often bring up Mackenzie, it’s debatable and that’s fine. People bring up Tabram, it’s debatable and that’s fine. We discuss Stride (who only had her throat cut) it’s debatable and that’s fine. Why does no one mention Coles? A gap of time…yes, but I could suggest any number of speculated explanations for that.

A gap of time, no signs of strangulation, no posing the body, no mutilation, no trophies taken. We can't eliminate the possibility that Coles' murderer was interrupted by PC Thompson, but if he was, I'd expect another attempt at a double event so the Ripper could indulge in his full signature.

[The Rookie Detective]

A gap of time, no signs of strangulation, no posing the body, no mutilation, no trophies taken. We can't eliminate the possibility that Coles' murderer was interrupted by PC Thompson, but if he was, I'd expect another attempt at a double event so the Ripper could indulge in his full signature.

The man who cut Coles throat was absolutely interrupted by PC Thompson...


The PC heard footsteps leaving the scene hurriedly as he approached Coles

PC Thompson observed that Coles looked straight at him as he approached; a look of shock on her face. Coles was still fighting for her life as the officer approached.

It was the very first time that PC Thompson had covered that particular beat, the very first time. It could be said that the man who murdered Coles was caught unawares.

(in a peculiar parallel, the PC who found the Pinchin Street torso was also on his very first beat. He was placed on the beat at very short notice after his seargent did a last minute swap...for whatever reason)


The only reason why PC Thompson was unable to chase the man who cut Coles throat was because he was duty bound to stay with the victim and wasn't permitted to chase. This was reinforced by the fact that Coles was still alive when he got to her. He later stated that the look she gave him stuck with him and haunted him.

It's also a cruel twist of fate that PC Thomson was subsequently stabbed to death on the street.

Did he get the closest to catching the real Ripper; or at least, catching the Ripper in the act?


Everything about the Coles murder suggests that PC Thompson interrupted the man who cut Coles throat.



RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

A gap of time, no signs of strangulation, no posing the body, no mutilation, no trophies taken. We can't eliminate the possibility that Coles' murderer was interrupted by PC Thompson, but if he was, I'd expect another attempt at a double event so the Ripper could indulge in his full signature.

You could be right Fiver. But what if he’d run away, tripped on a kerbstone and injured himself so that he had to go home?

[The Baron]

"However, his conviction rested on conflicting medical evidence and Bury has now been “acquitted” following a mock trial overseen by Lord Matthews, a Supreme Court judge."

"The defence argued that the angle of the ligature mark supported Bury’s claim that his wife took her own life by “self strangulation” and the cuts to her body were made after her death."

So here you have it John, Bury is not even a proven murderer.. what else do you have against this innocent man?


The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok, so now a mock trial trumps a real trial? When did that come into being?

Five doctors examined Ellen’s body and they were unanimous in that she was strangled from behind.

So, the alternative, presented above is….

Bury and his wife drink heavily. Bury falls asleep. Ellen decides to commit suicide by putting a rope around her neck and pulling backward hard enough and long enough to strangle herself. Bury wakes to find the body. He doesn’t call a doctor. He plunges a large knife into her abdomen several times then breaks her bones in order to fit her into a box because he fears that he’ll be arrested as the ripper. He tells a police officer at the station this but minutes later he changes his story to detectives….no mention of JtR and he only stabbed her once.

Bury was an obvious murderer and found so by a court of law. How desperate can someone be to try and eliminate someone from a list of JtR suspects? Why would anyone be so keen to do so?

A question….which won’t be answered…..remind me when Kosminski was proven a murderer? Or is this the usual ‘apply different criteria to different suspects to achieve an agenda’ approach? Again.

[John Wheat]

"However, his conviction rested on conflicting medical evidence and Bury has now been “acquitted” following a mock trial overseen by Lord Matthews, a Supreme Court judge."

"The defence argued that the angle of the ligature mark supported Bury’s claim that his wife took her own life by “self strangulation” and the cuts to her body were made after her death."

So here you have it John, Bury is not even a proven murderer.. what else do you have against this innocent man?


The Baron

Herlock has said it better than I could.

Cheers John

[GBinOz]

Ok, so now a mock trial trumps a real trial? When did that come into being?

Five doctors examined Ellen’s body and they were unanimous in that she was strangled from behind.

Hi Herlock,

While that is true, it does not quite represent the actual situation.

The prosecution presented expert testimony that Ellen was garrotted from behind. The defence maintained that the angle of the ligature, and the medical opinion that there was an extended period of strangulation indicated that Ellen had been suspended over a period of time from a low suspension point, such as a door knob. Note that doorknobs at the time tended to be at chest height rather than the modern trend towards waist height. The jury of the time was on the horns of a dilemma on this evidence but voted for guilty with a recommendation for mercy on the basis of conflicting medical evidence. The Judge was having none of that, and the revised verdict was guilty. In the modern recreation the verdict was not guilty, for the same reasons.

It was reported that Bury expected a verdict of not guilty, and was surprised at the verdict to the contrary. I find myself at a loss as to how he could have expected empathy from the jury when, instead of reporting the suicide of his wife immediately following the incident, he chose to mutilate her body and break her limbs to fit her into a crate, upon which he was reported to have subsequently played cards with some acquaintances before reporting to police 5 days later.

It would be difficult to evoke much sympathy for this man, given his distinct resemblance to a drunken little no hoper who took advantage of a woman for the sole purpose of bleeding her for her inheritance. But on what evidence could he achieve his fantasy of promotion from this lowly status to that of of a world renown serial killer? Basically that he owned a horse and cart that would reduce his transit time between Bow and White chapel, and that he left Bow two months after the murder of MJK, which was also only a month after the attack on Annie Farmer and the murder of Rose Mylett.

Whatever the polls may indicate on Bury, and Kelly for that matter, I am happy to stand apart from those opinions, which will no doubt not come as a surprise to those on this forum who are acquainted with my tendency to follow the road less travelled. JMO, YMMV.

Cheers, George

[The Rookie Detective]

Here are 2 separate accounts from newspaper articles at the time...





At the time the conflicting medical evidence was prevalent and initially the jury did recommend mercy based on said conflicting medical evidence.


But clearly they felt it was a wrong decision and they subsequently came to change their judgement.


Regardless of any modern review or mock trial; it is clear that Bury deliberately mutilated his wife post mortem and exhibited a degree of overkill in his efforts regardless of his mental state at the time.


It is however quite apparent and IMO strikingly obvious that regardless of how she came to become deceased; by his hand or her own, he still chose to mutilate and dismember her post mortem.

This action is reminiscent of the Ripper, but not exclusively.


I kind of agree with both sides here as I feel there's n element of truth in what George is saying, but also concur with Herlock's summary.

When we add into the mix the work undertaken by Bern Irca over on Forums on Bury's handwriting; it is also apparent that Bury's handwriting closely resembles that if some of the Ripper correspondences.

So we have handwriting that's similar, chalking at this residence and an alleged self confession in part...


Does this make Bury the Ripper?


Well surprisingly; I think it does not.


But what it does indicate is a man who possibly fantasised about being the Ripper.

Hence why Bury deliberately mutilated and dismembered his wife post mortem.
It is clearly an attempt at Bury trying to use reverse psychology by declaring that he was concerned that he would be thought of as Jack the Ripper....and yet HE is the one who sets the scene for that to happen in the first place.

I think Bury knew exactly what he was doing and had planned to dispatch his wife and make it look like he was the Ripper, but not directly.

In reality; despite his efforts, he his still not regarded as the Ripper by the majority of those who study the case, although it can also be said that Bury could, would and should make anyone's top 10 suspect list.


Ultimately there's just something niggling about the idea of Bury having been the Ripper.
Of course, if we consider MJK as the final victim and exclude Mckenzie, Cole and Pinchin St, then the case for Bury is strengthened because once he is hanged then the Killing stopped.

But for me, the slaying of Mckenzie was a calling card kill of the Ripper who wanted to remind people he was very much still on the scene.

I don't believe Bury was the Ripper but I DO believe he wanted to make it look like he was the Ripper. At the time he mutilated his wife, all of the canonical 5 murders had occurred and the wounds documented in the press; an easy go to guide for a man who wanted to gain infamy by being a copy cat mutilator.


The jury is out on Bury but I feel the more recent mock trial that George mentions, is nothing more than smoke and mirrors and is based on the fact that the initial jury were indeed torn about whether to convict a guilty without mercy verdict.
Bury deserved no mercy for what he did to his wife post mortem; whether he strangled her or not.

And no modern woke jury is able to use a mock trial to alter the fact he was a vile piece of work that deserved what he got.
We give his wife a great disservice by trying to find excuses for why Bury should have received mercy.

What he deserved was to be hanged and to fade into obscurity.


RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

While that is true, it does not quite represent the actual situation.

The prosecution presented expert testimony that Ellen was garrotted from behind. The defence maintained that the angle of the ligature, and the medical opinion that there was an extended period of strangulation indicated that Ellen had been suspended over a period of time from a low suspension point, such as a door knob. Note that doorknobs at the time tended to be at chest height rather than the modern trend towards waist height. The jury of the time was on the horns of a dilemma on this evidence but voted for guilty with a recommendation for mercy on the basis of conflicting medical evidence. The Judge was having none of that, and the revised verdict was guilty. In the modern recreation the verdict was not guilty, for the same reasons.

It was reported that Bury expected a verdict of not guilty, and was surprised at the verdict to the contrary. I find myself at a loss as to how he could have expected empathy from the jury when, instead of reporting the suicide of his wife immediately following the incident, he chose to mutilate her body and break her limbs to fit her into a crate, upon which he was reported to have subsequently played cards with some acquaintances before reporting to police 5 days later.

It would be difficult to evoke much sympathy for this man, given his distinct resemblance to a drunken little no hoper who took advantage of a woman for the sole purpose of bleeding her for her inheritance. But on what evidence could he achieve his fantasy of promotion from this lowly status to that of of a world renown serial killer? Basically that he owned a horse and cart that would reduce his transit time between Bow and White chapel, and that he left Bow two months after the murder of MJK, which was also only a month after the attack on Annie Farmer and the murder of Rose Mylett.

Whatever the polls may indicate on Bury, and Kelly for that matter, I am happy to stand apart from those opinions, which will no doubt not come as a surprise to those on this forum who are acquainted with my tendency to follow the road less travelled. JMO, YMMV.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Accepted of course but the point that I was trying to make is that ‘we’ cant assume that he wasn’t a murderer. The mutilation of her body after death must add weight to the suggestion that he was also her killer?

Ive also got no issue with your assessment on likelihood of him being the ripper. I suppose that a phrase that might reflect the situation more accurately could be that he is ‘one of the less weak suspects?’