Why William Henry Bury may have been Jack

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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 Baron]

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

[The Rookie Detective]

And let's not forget that Bury has now been acquitted.

Not guilty.

And the police at the time investigated him in relation to the Whitechapel murders and found nothing.

Everything remains is merely theorising, nothing more, which makes Bury a person of interest and not a serious suspect.



The Baron

Putting too much faith in the judgement of thr police at the time is a bit like putting faith in a political party by voting for them; safe in the knowledge that they'll get the job done.

its nieve


At the time there was a lot of anti semitic rhetoric that guided the police into searching for a Jewish lunatic.

The Ripper was likely neither of those.


If Bury had of been Jewish, he would have charged for the Ripper murders the moment he was found to have mutilated his wife post mortem.


The idea that a recent review chose to acquit him is on par with a parole panel allowing out a convicted mass murderer on the premise that he has been behaving well and is no longer a harm to the public.

it's absolutely nonsense.

Bury was an evil ba**ard who took pleasure in what he did and no modern jury can alter the truth of reality for the sake of it.

The only reason he wasn't taken seriously as the Ripper.. was because he wasn't Jewish and it didn't play into the rhetoric of the time.


RD

[GBinOz]

And let's not forget that Bury has now been acquitted.

Not guilty.

And the police at the time investigated him in relation to the Whitechapel murders and found nothing.

Everything remains is merely theorising, nothing more, which makes Bury a person of interest and not a serious suspect.



The Baron

Bury was acquitted of murdering his wife in his recent retrial, on the basis of conflicting medical testimony. In his original trial he was found guilty of murdering his wife, but with a recommendation of mercy, again based on conflicting medical testimony, but the judge over-ruled the recommendation and after reconsideration by the jury, the final verdict was an unqualified guilty of murdering his wife, and the Judge pronounced the death penalty on this verdict .

Neither of these trials concerned themselves with whether Bury was involved in the Whitechapel murders. The latter consideration is proffered on the allegation that the M.O. of Ellen's murder was similar to that of the Ripper. I do not see that similarity, and I have a sufficiency of persons of interest to occupy my time rather than pursuing persons that I don't find of interest, but that is JMO. YMMV.

Cheers, George

[The Baron]

And let's not forget that Bury has now been acquitted.

Not guilty.

And the police at the time investigated him in relation to the Whitechapel murders and found nothing.

Everything remains is merely theorising, nothing more, which makes Bury a person of interest and not a serious suspect.



The Baron

[GBinOz]

Goulston Street would be in Met territory, not the City of London.

Hi RP,

Quite correct, nor was Scion Square. I stand corrected.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Are the two emboldened sentences above quotes? If they are who were they from?

[The Baron]

>> 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

[rjpalmer]

Goulston Street would be in Met territory, not the City of London.

[The Baron]

RE: Isaac Kosminski, Goulston Street, 1891:

It is possible that his usual name was Isaac Joseph. His wife Elizabeth was a born Levy, children were Michael and Betsy. Records show different surnames of Michael and Betsy: Michael Joseph and Betsy Kosminski. Maybe Elizabeth was once married to a Kosminski, daughter Betsy, one cannot be sure, just conjecture.

Karsten.

Great to have you Karsten, thanks



The Baron

[S.Brett]

RE: Isaac Kosminski, Goulston Street, 1891:

It is possible that his usual name was Isaac Joseph. His wife Elizabeth was a born Levy, children were Michael and Betsy. Records show different surnames of Michael and Betsy: Michael Joseph and Betsy Kosminski. Maybe Elizabeth was once married to a Kosminski, daughter Betsy, one cannot be sure, just conjecture.

Karsten.