Why William Henry Bury may have been Jack

[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.

[The Baron]

The Baron

[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

[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

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

You can download it for free here:

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

[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...

[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.

[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]

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.