Why William Henry Bury may have been Jack

[A P Tomlinson]

....

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.

....

There was conclusivce evidence he murdered his wife, that was never in doubt in the first trial. The jury were sent back because they asked for leniency. It was a Scottish Court where they had the option to find, "Not Proven" as well as "Not Guilty". They didn't. Rather thann choose the leniency of a "Not Proven" they found him guiltly.

As to this acquital you keep referring to. It is NOT REAL. It didn't happen!

Some students in an academic exercise were able to convince a mock jury that the mark on the neck was just as likely a suicide as a murder. Mock or "Moot"cases are held all over the country all the time as teaching aids for Law students.
They do NOT overturn convictions, and often return different verdicts to the originals. They do not provide "acquitals".

The only reason the Bury one made the news was that Dundee were hosting Aberdeen in a competitive "Moot" and chose the Bury case, one of the most famous cases in Scottish law and certainly in Dundee.
Whether it was a slow news week or just got picked up in the general scoop of parochial news, a few nationals picked it up and ran a few lines on it.

Bury has NOT been acquited. Repeating it will not change that. He murdered his wife, sliced her abdomen open exposing her entrails and mutilated her genitals.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Baron,

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

Yes, I’d forgotten about those RD

[The Baron]

Bury has NOT been acquited. Repeating it will not change that. He murdered his wife, sliced her abdomen open exposing her entrails and mutilated her genitals.

To each his own, repeating that he has not been acquitted will not change that either.

Bury was found not guilty in the same court room that convicted him the first time.



"History isn't something that's dead, it's something that's very vibrant, very alive, and today we can still experience it."


The Baron

[The Baron]

The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes ‘acquitted’ and not acquitted.

For God’s sake Baron! That was not a proper trial. It was a MOCK TRIAL. It’s not legally binding. The did a Mock Trial on the JFK assassination a few years ago and the jury found Oswald guilty. I agree with that verdict, many don’t…..but it certainly wasn’t legally binding. Check the archives. It will say William Henry Bury….GUILTY OF MURDER. Nothing has changed.

[A P Tomlinson]

The Baron

Try and read the article, then use that information to get a better understanding of why the headline uses speach marks around the word acquitted.

[The Baron]

I am quite satisfied and totally happy with what I understood.



The Baron

[A P Tomlinson]

To each his own, repeating that he has not been acquitted will not change that either.

Bury was found not guilty in the same court room that convicted him the first time.



"History isn't something that's dead, it's something that's very vibrant, very alive, and today we can still experience it."


The Baron

I once kicked a ball at Wembley, it didn't overturn the 1966 World Cup final result!

It was students playing a competitive game. NOT a legal proceeding. How hard is this to understand?

[Geddy2112]

The did a Mock Trial on the JFK assassination a few years ago and the jury found Oswald guilty.

Of what? Surely not shooting JFK.

[A P Tomlinson]

I am quite satisfied and totally happy with what I understood.



The Baron

Since we are pulling quotes from our srses, "Ignorance IS Bliss..."

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of what? Surely not shooting JFK.

Yup. Oswald was clearly guilty in my opinion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am quite satisfied and totally happy with what I understood.



The Baron

Then you accept that a Mock Trial can’t overrule a real trial and that Bury is legally guilty of killing his wife?

[The Baron]

Bury the Ripper, who is no more able to kill in Whitechapel, didn't want to kill any more in London, didn't want to kill any more in England, didn't want to kill any more on the streets, didn't want to kill any more stranger women, didn't want to cut any more throats, didn't want to stay any more on the run.

He traveled to Dundee, hung his wife, inserted his knife in her belly, stuffed her in a box, and went to the police.

And there are persons who could swear he is the best ripper suspect if not the ripper himself


The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

The first paragraph makes little, if any, sense of course but nothing written above explains the desperation to prove the unprovable? Why the desire to remove Bury from any suspect list? If Bury goes then every single suspect has to go without exception.

Can you prove that Bury wasn’t the ripper?

The answer is categorically no.

That should be the end of it. The ripper was a violent man who killed and mutilated women and consorted with prostitutes. These are facts.

Violent - Bury, yes - Kosminski, no.
Killed - Bury, yes - Kosminski, no.
Mutilation - Bury, yes - Kosminski, no.
Prostitutes - Bury, yes - Kosminski, no.

To partially quote you: “And there are persons who could swear he (Kosminski) is the best ripper suspect if not the ripper himself.”

Who needs irony when arguments are this easy to win.

[The Baron]

-Mentioned by top senior police oficers

Kosminski Yes, Bury No



-Mentally sick, solitary vices

Kosminski Yes, Bury No



-Resident in Whitechapel

Kosminski Yes, Bury No



-Could have killed Mckenzie

Kosminski Yes, Bury No



-Hatred of prostitutes

Kosminski Yes, Bury No



-Identified by a witness

Kosminski Yes, Bury No



-Identified by a City PC

Kosminski Yes, Bury No



-Watched by the police day and night

Kosminski Yes, Bury No




Who needs irony when arguments are this easy to win



The Baron