Why William Henry Bury may have been Jack

[Herlock Sholmes]

This wasn’t a ‘re-trial,’ it was a Mock Trial using Law students for Defence and Prosecution which showed that the modern jury believed that there was sufficient doubt as to justify a ‘not guilty’ verdict.


Professor Sue Black, Forensic Anthropologist, said: “As to the question of whether Bury really did kill his wife, the truth is that he probably did.” Professor Black organised the Mock Trial so I’m unclear as to whether she appeared or not.


Two experts, Professors Clerk and Shepherd testified.


Dr. Clerk believed that Ellen had been: “killed by someone else,” meaning other than by her own hand (not suicide) He also believed that bruising on Ellen’s body indicated a struggle.


Dr. Shepherd however believed that Ellen’s death ‘could’ have resulted from strangling - that Ellen hanged herself from a doorknob.


So to sum up - in a Mock Trial the Jury found sufficient doubt to give a ‘not guilty’ verdict. That’s all.


Of the three Professors (the only three who I can find giving opinions on the subject) two believed that Bury murdered his wife and one expressed doubt. The jury went with the one.


This isn’t even approaching enough reason to exonerate Bury of killing his wife. We are asked to believe that after a drinking session she decides to hang herself on the doorknob and then Bury wakes up to find that his wife has committed suicide so this innocent man decides to repeated stab her in the abdomen with a large knife. Hardly a likely scenario is it? He then stuffs her into a box, breaking her bones in the process.


So has Bury been acquitted as has been claimed here. Clearly and very obviously not. This wasn’t a ‘re-trial,’ it was a Mock Trial. The record states that Bury was found guilty of murder therefore the LAW records him as a murderer. I’d also add that a modern day ‘mock trial’ jury might perhaps have been more keen to come up with an eye catching ‘miscarriage of justice’ verdict; especially knowing that they were entirely free to do so as there were no consequences as a result.

So…William Henry Bury has not been acquitted….ask a Lawyer.


To conclude - even if Bury didn’t murder his wife (and he did) then that still doesn’t justify eliminating him from the list of ripper suspects unless we are introducing a new criteria that only 100% proven murderers are to be considered suspects. Clearly that would be a bit silly. In fact this whole anti-Bury agenda is more than a bit ‘silly’ and smacks of a personal crusade by one person. We certainly can’t name Bury as the ripper but equally we can’t exonerate him. It’s physically impossible to exonerate him. So how is it that we need to keep suggesting that people stop getting carried away with the lengths that they will go to to promote their own suspects? It’s now even got to the stage where pointless contortions are being done to ry and get suspects scratched from lists.

I remember hearing ‘my Dad’s bigger than your Dad,’ when I was a kid. Do we need the same here?

[The Rookie Detective]

Unbelievable.. everytime one says Bury has been now acquitted of his crime, someone has to say but he was convicted in the first trial ....

Astonishing really, the land who convicted him first time later converted the verdict at the same exact spot and in the same court room of the first trial, he is now found NOT GUILTY.

Does a retrial means there was no first trial???

Does converting a verdict mean the recent verdict is the same as the old one????



The Baron

It means that someone has chosen to spend money commissioning a retrial of a crime that had already reached the correct and just conclusion.

The jury system although seriously flawed, is all we have.

The retrial was based on someone observing that multiple newspaper articles at the time wrote that Bury was expected to have been acquitted.

The bandwagon was then jumped on so to speak.

It's clear that Bury's conviction was not unsafe and he deserved to be hanged regardless of whether he strangled Ellen or not.
The fact that he DID mutilate and dismember her body is enough to have found him guilty because IF he didn't strangle her, then WHY mutilate her BOTH PRE & post mortem?

If a man walks into a police station and says that he found his dog unconscious but for reason took a knife and started cutting and mutilating it, and then chose to dismember the dog and hide it in a box for a few days in his house...but then added..."but I didn't kill the dog, I just found it unconscious, it must have tried to kill itself"...

would a reasonable reaction be...

1) okay, he may have butchered his dog and cut it into several pieces, but its unlikely he killed it, because he would have admitted it also.

or

2) this guy is an absolute psychopath and despite admitting to mutilating and dismembering his dog, he's STILL trying to exhibit control by trying to say he didn't kill the dog as a warped form of justification for cutting it to bits

??

As a psychopath, Bury made a crucial error; he tried to exhibit control by claiming that his wife committed suicide.
By claiming this, he further degradates and degrades his wife whilst retaining control of some of the mystery surrounding the events leading up to the killing.

What is one thing that ALL psychopaths do?

They NEVER relinquish control.

The only power that Bury could retain, was to say that he didn't kill his wife, but he insults us by then admitting to mutilating and dismembering her.

He behaves like every psychopath would do and inadvertently; and somewhat ironically, drops his guard by trying to be too clever.


There was said to be conflicting medical evidence, but that is subjective and opinionated.
If of course Bury was the Ripper (and I'm not saying he was) then he was already a master at incorporating strangulation as a means of nullifying his victim. An experienced strangler and mutilator like the Ripper would find it comparatively easy to manipulate a crime scene to blur the lines on the otherwise obvious sequence of events.


In terms of the retrial; if the Bury guilty verdict was found to be "unsafe" then it raises questions as to WHY it was unsafe?
It's also important to note that having "conflicting medical evidence" is not the same as a verdict being found to be "unsafe"

In other words, there are many reasons why a retrial COULD reach an alternative conclusion; perhaps down to police incompetence or bias witness accounts.


Of course, IF the retrial that found Bury was NOT GUILTY was to be redone several times, it is also statistically accurate to state that different jury's would reach opposing verdicts.

Ironically, the jury system is entrenched in a foundation of subconsciously bias and subjective mindsets...because we are all human.

In theory you could run the same trial 100 times and it is likely that the percentage of guilty vs innocent would be split and nothing is ever 100% conclusive.

Imagine if Bury was acquitted at the time after they observed he was a pious man seeking forgiveness and redemption for his sins; ergo, playing the religious card, and then he went away a free man...

...and his wife whom he mutilated so horrifically and whom he cut to pieces, received zero justice?

Suicide or not, Bury deserved to be hanged for cutting his wife to shreds, and no amount of playing the pious Christian at his end was enough to save him from the eternal dammnation he so very much deserved.

Of course, this wonderful modern woke world we live in is perfect for excusing everyone for their behaviour, and so its hardly surprising that he was found not guilty through a modern retrial.
If the newspapers at the time hadn't commented on it being a surprise that he was found guilty, then the retrial would never have been commissioned in the first place.

The reason why it was said to be a surprise that Bury was found guilty at the time, was because he spent considerable time in his cell trying to play the religious redemption card. Fortunately, the jury saw through his act and judged him to be guilty.

Initially they found him guilty, but wanted MERCY granted because he was pious.
But at some point they must have realised that Bury was full of s**t and then the verdict was amended accordingly to guilty by hanging without mercy.


The jury that found Bury not guilty in the recent retrial are the same kind of liberalist morons that would grant parole to a convicted multiple rapist of children because he had been behaving and following his rehabilitation program.

I find it unsurprising that many of those who are given parole go on to reoffend within days of being released.

The modern world still holds on to the idea that everyone can be saved and everyone can be rehabilitated, but the truth is that some people can't be saved, because some people are just plain evil.

The ultimate woke attitude is when we give excuses and reasoning to those who are evil, like a lion tamer who wants to try and tame every lion.

And it's hardly surpsing when one day that same do-gooder lion tamer has his face ripped off because he picked that one lion that didn't want to be labelled as being tamed or controlled, and just fancied having a snack.



RD

[A P Tomlinson]

The Mock trial was an exercise hosted by Dundee University's "Mooting Society" in collaboration with, and against, their chums at Aberdeen University in a sort of "Varcity Trial-Off"
A Mooting Society is group of Law Students who hold mock trials using old evidence and files to hone their debating and presentation skills for when they qualify.

This was NOT a specially commissioned re-evaluation of the case in order to give Bury a posthumous exoneration, it was a competitive exercise during which students got to practise their powers of persuasion on a jury.
Usually such Juries are made up of faculty members who judge the Mooters on their ability to both understand and present a case, and use the evidence to its best effect, rather than on the actual outcome, (of course that IS a factor, but some cases are pretty much unwinnable and that is not held against the students)
But because they were "trying" Dundee's most famous capital trial they solicited some press and publicity awareness for the event and invited interested members of the public to stand in as the Jury.

There was no "New" evidence, and once again the case rested on the mark on the left side of Ellens neck, which - as before, the prosecution argued was an indicator of murder while the defence argued that it meant suicide.

Mooting societies regularly reach the oppositve outcome to how an original trial concluded.

This does not mean the original cases were in any way flawed or faulty or resulted in a miscarriage of justice. They simply show the power of a good argument from a talented lawyer and that having a less able, and less experienced trial lawyer defending or prosecuting can be detrimetal to the case. (See: OJ Simpson, et al)

In terms of relevance to the original case, it's about as useful as knowing that if you play a miniature war game, Napoleon CAN win the Battle of Waterloo!

It most certainly was NOT a *&^%ing ACQUITAL.

[The Rookie Detective]

There is of course one man who may have had a good insight into whether Bury was the Ripper.


The man that hanged him...



Memoirs aside, there was also this interesting and authentic source of information that may have held some clues...

published in 1892...




Would be interesting to know if any copies of Berry's book still exist.

It will almost certainly have a more contextual reference to Bury in there.


Fascinating



RD

[The Rookie Detective]

Mr Berry...

The eccentric public hangman staunchly opposed to Capital Punishment.



Interesting to note that he also publically supported the release of Mrs Florence Maybrick and was adamant of her innocence.

Had she have been found guilty, he would have been the man charged with hanging her.

I have been researching this guy for some time now and am currently writing up a dissertation on him.

One interesting detail about him; was that he always aimed to spend private time with the condemned person shortly before they were due to be hanged, in a bid to give the accused an opportunity to ease their conscience and also to help Berry to have a sense of who he was charged with hanging. It would appear that there was only a very small handful of those he hanged who he wasn't sure were guilty.


RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is of course one man who may have had a good insight into whether Bury was the Ripper.


The man that hanged him...



Memoirs aside, there was also this interesting and authentic source of information that may have held some clues...

published in 1892...




Would be interesting to know if any copies of Berry's book still exist.

It will almost certainly have a more contextual reference to Bury in there.


Fascinating



RD

£2.14 on Kindle.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/My-Experiences-Executioner-James-Berry/dp/1512006688

They also have it on Project Gutenberg RD.

[The Baron]

Some Buryians claim that since Bury's mother was also called Mary Jane, that would explain the overkill on Mary Jane Kelly....


I think that explains why his wife didn't suffer the same degree of mutilation as Kelly, her name was Ellen, completely different..



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why the title ‘Buryian’ ? As far as I’m aware there are only two posters on here that favour Bury outright. John Wheat and Aethelwulf (who now only posts on JTRForums)

So, in a field of weak suspects we have in Bury, a violent man who lived in Bow with easy access to the murder sites, a convicted murderer with a connection to prostitutes who left London just after the murder of MJK. In terms of the type of person that an individual suspect was, Bury leaves Kosminski trailing in dust.

Now, I consider Kosminski a valid suspect, but in terms of balance perhaps someone could explain to me how a violent, lowlife murderer is a poor suspect and yet a long-term ‘lunatic’ whose only link to violence was threatening his sister with a knife is a great one.

Can we for once have some BALANCE.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

There is of course one man who may have had a good insight into whether Bury was the Ripper.


The man that hanged him...



Memoirs aside, there was also this interesting and authentic source of information that may have held some clues...

published in 1892...




Would be interesting to know if any copies of Berry's book still exist.

It will almost certainly have a more contextual reference to Bury in there.


Fascinating



RD

I had this book, but alas, I lent it to someone and never saw it again...

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

You can download it for free here:

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/46579

[Scott Nelson]

Now, I consider Kosminski a valid suspect, but in terms of balance perhaps someone could explain to me how a violent, lowlife murderer is a poor suspect and yet a long-term ‘lunatic’ whose only link to violence was threatening his sister with a knife is a great one.

You may be considering the wrong Kosminski.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You may be considering the wrong Kosminski.

I certainly could be Scott.

I just find it difficult to understand the apparent desperation to eliminate Bury when we have no reason to do it. Apart from opinion of course.

[The Baron]

we have in Bury, a violent man

Like dozens of men

who lived in Bow

Like dozens of men

with easy access to the murder sites

Like dozens of men

a convicted murderer

Not a fact, there is no conclusive evidence that he murdered his wife, and Bury has now been acquitted.

And Wives-Killers do not usually turn to be serial killers.

with a connection to prostitutes

Like dozens of men

who left London just after the murder of MJK

Like dozens of men

And he didn't leave London JUST after the murder of MJK

And the C5 were all killed withen 2 months and 9 days, the Burys arrived at Dundee on the evening of 20 January 1889, two month and 11 days after the murder of MJK

And this whole point is extremely weak, since it is not a fact that MJK was the last Ripper murder, actually the evidence suggests otherwise.

In terms of the type of person that an individual suspect was

A man who was almost always drunk, like dozens of men

Bury leaves Kosminski trailing in dust.

And yet there were no trails of saw dust found near any of the victims



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Me - we have in Bury, a violent man

You - Like dozens of men


Me - who lived in Bow

You - Like dozens of men


Me - with easy access to the murder sites

You - Like dozens of men


Me - with a connection to prostitutes


You - Like dozens of men


Me - who left London just after the murder of MJK


You - Like dozens of men


These comments by you aren’t really worthy of a response. I haven’t at any point said that any of these criteria meant that Bury was guilty but we all look at certain criteria that we feel the killer likely to have had. I listed the above. They are simple points that everyone on here would understand and not bother commenting on. Your responses beggar belief. Again.



Me - a convicted murderer


You - Not a fact, there is no conclusive evidence that he murdered his wife, and Bury has now been acquitted.

Please stop being childish Baron. This has been explained to you in simple terms. This was a Mock Trial not a real one. You CANNOT be acquitted at a Mock Trial. Of the three experts only one felt that she might have committed suicide. The LAW says that Bury is a murderer.



You - And Wives-Killers do not usually turn to be serial killers.


Many things happen that don’t usually happen. Your point is about as weak as it gets.




You - And he didn't leave London JUST after the murder of MJK

You - And the C5 were all killed withen 2 months and 9 days, the Burys arrived at Dundee on the evening of 20 January 1889, two month and 11 days after the murder of MJK


You do realise that ‘just after’ isn’t an exact period of time don’t you Baron? As far as I’m concerned 2 months and 11 days qualifies as just after. If you can find any specific rule of the English language which states that ‘just after’ can’t mean 2 months and 11 days I’ll withdraw the point. I wouldn’t bother wasting your time though.


You - And this whole point is extremely weak, since it is not a fact that MJK was the last Ripper murder, actually the evidence suggests otherwise.

And while you’re looking for the point above you might want to check the dictionary for the meaning of the word ‘evidence.’ If the evidence suggested that Mackenzie was a victim then everyone would agree that she was a victim. Dr. Phillips didn’t think she was, for one. You do remember Dr. Phillips don’t you Baron. He’s the Doctor that you think was a genius for deciding that Chapman was killed earlier but he was also an idiot for saying that Mackenzie wasn’t a victim. Please try and get your story straight.



Me - In terms of the type of person that an individual suspect was


You - A man who was almost always drunk, like dozens of men

How much time did you spend with him?



Me - Bury leaves Kosminski trailing in dust.


You - And yet there were no trails of saw dust found near any of the victims




The Baron

Another classic to compare to the time that you fell for it when Harry D joked about John Richardson had one eye and long hair hanging over the other one. Can it really be true that you thought that I was talking about literal dust.

Baron, why don’t you stop getting carried away with this desperate desire to prove the unprovable. You don’t think that Bury is a good suspect. Absolutely no problem. You’re not alone. You can’t prove that he wasn’t though so why do you feel the need to go to such desperate lengths to do the impossible? It affects your judgment. Just let it go and stop being guided by personal feelings.

[Lewis C]

>> If he had butchered Ellen the way he butchered Kelly, he would have made it clear to everyone that he was the Ripper.

>> So we know that Bury was the Ripper because he did not kill like the Ripper did?


This is exactly the contradiction and twisted logic Buryians don't get, they shouldn't be mad of the Lechmerians when they themselves have the same approach to their suspect.



The Baron

Hi Baron,

Would you care to answer Herlock's question about whether the bold quotes are actual quotes, and if so, who made them?