Why William Henry Bury may have been Jack

[GBinOz]

I certainly have no issue with you not having Bury on your list George because i know that you won’t have formed your opinion in line with an agenda. It’s an honestly held opinion based on your own judgment and experience. 136 years and we really don’t have a strong suspect. We have a long list composed largely of ‘suspects’ for whom there’s no reason to suspect them of being involved. And a few of greater interest to some but not all. I do agree that there’s little point in debating one suspect against another though as it’s the equivalent of you and Frank staying silent for a month and the rest of us heatedly debating which of you owns the most pairs of shoes.

Well.....Frank may own more pairs of shoes....but mine are definitely more stylish....just kidding, of course.

A thoughtful and well measured post Mike.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I am experiencing some concern that you may have formed the opinion that I am suggesting that Bury may have been innocent of his wife's murder. I can offer an absolute assurance that I do not believe this to be the case. The defence did an excellent job of creating doubt in the mind of the jury on the basis of the conflicting medical opinion, but the Judge rightly instructed them that it was their job to deliver a guilty or not guilty verdict, and his job to determine the sentence based on the presented evidence.

While I don't have a list of suspects for the Whitechapel murders, I do have a list of persons worthy of further consideration. I am aware of the fact that my exclusion of Bury from that list places me in the minority, but I have never felt uncomfortable with membership of that group.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

I didn’t think that you were suggesting Bury’s innocence. I wasn’t helping matters in terms of clarity because I was talking of the opinion of another poster whilst not mentioning him. My overall point is that it shouldn’t be assumed, or suggested with any great authority, that Bury might not have killed his wife purely on the basis of an opinion to the contrary.

I certainly have no issue with you not having Bury on your list George because i know that you won’t have formed your opinion in line with an agenda. It’s an honestly held opinion based on your own judgment and experience. 136 years and we really don’t have a strong suspect. We have a long list composed largely of ‘suspects’ for whom there’s no reason to suspect them of being involved. And a few of greater interest to some but not all. I do agree that there’s little point in debating one suspect against another though as it’s the equivalent of you and Frank staying silent for a month and the rest of us heatedly debating which of you owns the most pairs of shoes.

[GBinOz]

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

Hi RD,

A well assessed and balanced post. The retrial provided an opportunity for a modern forensic assessment of the evidence, but it turned out to be very similar to the original. I struggle to believe that a man in possession of his faculties could image that he could convince anyone that the mutilation of his wife's body was a reasonable re-action to her suicide. Had he not done this, and reported the death immediately, the jury may well have acquitted him. Such is the price of an anticipated place in history, which he appears to have acquired.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

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?’

Hi Herlock,

I am experiencing some concern that you may have formed the opinion that I am suggesting that Bury may have been innocent of his wife's murder. I can offer an absolute assurance that I do not believe this to be the case. The defence did an excellent job of creating doubt in the mind of the jury on the basis of the conflicting medical opinion, but the Judge rightly instructed them that it was their job to deliver a guilty or not guilty verdict, and his job to determine the sentence based on the presented evidence.

While I don't have a list of suspects for the Whitechapel murders, I do have a list of persons worthy of further consideration. I am aware of the fact that my exclusion of Bury from that list places me in the minority, but I have never felt uncomfortable with membership of that group.

Cheers, George

[A P Tomlinson]

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

He didn't exactly confess to his crime though, did he.
He made up some half-arsed **** and bull story about discovering her body following her committing suicide, and that he felt compelled to poke a few holes in her with a knife. He then snapped her bones and hid her in a box... because it suddenly occured to him that that whole business of him slicing her torso and attacking her genitals with a knife might get him into trouble. (I wonder why he thought that???)

Bury, along with quite a few others, assumed he would avoid the hangman's rope.
He "took his punishment" in the same way that one might take a bird dumping a turd on them from overhead... didn't see it coming till it was too late to avoid.

[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?’

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

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 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

[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.

[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!