Why William Henry Bury may have been Jack

[FrankO]

Hi John,

I am perfectly fine with us agreeing to disagree. We all have our opinions. I see that as the reason we are here discussing them. You have selected your suspect on the basis of your assessment of the evidence. I don't know who the ripper was, but my assessment leads me to believe that it is unlikely to have been Bury. I don't have a preferred suspect, but have persons of interest, and persons who I have assessed as less likely. My likeliest person of interest is Mr U.N. Known. I would add that if Jack's victims are to be restricted to the C5, then the majority of the Whitechapel victims were at the hand(s) of others.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

I agree with you. Had Bury put his money more where his mouth was - or, as we say in Dutch: no words, but deeds - I might have been able to believe Bury was the Ripper. As it stands, the spoken & written words in the murder on his wife give me too much the impression that Bury wished to convey the notion that he was Jack the Ripper. Why, if he actually was him (or just wanted to be seen as him), didn't he let his knife speak more clearly?

Best regards,
Frank

[Sam Flynn]

I would add that if Jack's victims are to be restricted to the C5, then the majority of the Whitechapel victims were at the hand(s) of others.

Sometimes, pointing out the obvious makes a useful point... as this example demonstrates.

[John Wheat]

Hi John,

I am perfectly fine with us agreeing to disagree. We all have our opinions. I see that as the reason we are here discussing them. You have selected your suspect on the basis of your assessment of the evidence. I don't know who the ripper was, but my assessment leads me to believe that it is unlikely to have been Bury. I don't have a preferred suspect, but have persons of interest, and persons who I have assessed as less likely. My likeliest person of interest is Mr U.N. Known. I would add that if Jack's victims are to be restricted to the C5, then the majority of the Whitechapel victims were at the hand(s) of others.

Cheers, George

Fair enough George.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

OK John, so here it is for you, there is a time gap between Kelly's ans Ellen's murder too! 3 months John and no Killing, 3 months!!!! 3 months John


The Baron

It's not as large as the gap between Mckenzie and also Rose Mylett may have been a victim of Jack/Bury too.

[GBinOz]

Hi George

I don't agree with what you are saying. We will have to agree to disagree. Although if Bury wasn't the Ripper who was? I still think Bury is like Sutcliffe was until he was finally caught. Eg dismissed as a serial killer despite being the best suspect.

Hi John,

I am perfectly fine with us agreeing to disagree. We all have our opinions. I see that as the reason we are here discussing them. You have selected your suspect on the basis of your assessment of the evidence. I don't know who the ripper was, but my assessment leads me to believe that it is unlikely to have been Bury. I don't have a preferred suspect, but have persons of interest, and persons who I have assessed as less likely. My likeliest person of interest is Mr U.N. Known. I would add that if Jack's victims are to be restricted to the C5, then the majority of the Whitechapel victims were at the hand(s) of others.

Cheers, George

[The Baron]

There is a time gap and in all likelihood Alice McKenzie was not a Ripper victim.

OK John, so here it is for you, there is a time gap between Kelly's ans Ellen's murder too! 3 months John and no Killing, 3 months!!!! 3 months John


The Baron

[John Wheat]

Luckily we have an answer to this question!

Alice Mckenzie's Killer!


The Baron

There is a time gap and in all likelihood Alice McKenzie was not a Ripper victim.

[The Baron]

And John, don't tell me there was a time gap, there wasn't.

The Ripper didn't sign a contract with Whitechapel community and ripperologists to produce a Killing every month.


The Baron

[The Baron]

if Bury wasn't the Ripper who was?

Luckily we have an answer to this question!

Alice Mckenzie's Killer!


The Baron

[John Wheat]

Hi John,

There are many sources, which contain contradictions, particularly from the press, as usual, but my understanding is that Parr stated that Bury did not confess to being the ripper.

I fully agree that there is a profound difference between the street attacks and a domestic murder. The former presents no obligation to conceal the crime, quite the opposite in fact, but the later is obliged to either conceal the crime or suffer the consequences. Bury's murder of Ellen seems pre-meditated, as the method of concealment, the crate, and the rope was in place before the murder. Deeming also planned his domestic murders in advance, but carried through with the concealments and continued to endeavour to escape justice. Bury made the preparations but then chose to abandon his plan and, four days later, present the police with what seems to me to be a totally bizarre story, and this is a big part of why I think he was a wife murderer, but not a serial killer. However, I will concede the possibility of his involvement in the Rose Mylett murder (only), that possibly being the reason for his departure from London.

As for Alice McKenzie:
She had two cuts to the vital areas of her neck.
She had abdominal cuts.
She was found with her dress hiked up and her legs and lower abdomen exposed.
There are conflicting reports of whether she was found on her side, like Stride, or on her back like Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, and I wonder whether someone altered her position after the discovery of her body.
It was thought that her attacker was interrupted.
IMO there is an over emphasis on time gaps, as they are evident in the careers of other serial killers.

For Ellen Bury:
There was no knife attack to the throat. This is a vital signature of all the ripper murders, and those of Deeming.
IMO, the abdominal cuts were out of place in a domestic wife slaying. Deeming cut the throats of his both wives and most of his children, but did not resort to mutilation. On the night of the double event another woman, Sarah Brown, was murdered by her husband. Shortly before midnight John Brown walked into Rochester Row police station and handed the Inspector a clasp knife with blood on it. Sarah Brown was found with her throat cut, but no other injuries. I think that the abdominal injuries visited upon Ellen, and the chalk graffiti, were his attempts to draw attention to himself, to create the suggestion that he may have been the ripper, but with out the admission - all in the quest for notoriety and self importance. JMO.

Cheers, George

Hi George

I don't agree with what you are saying. We will have to agree to disagree. Although if Bury wasn't the Ripper who was? I still think Bury is like Sutcliffe was until he was finally caught. Eg dismissed as a serial killer despite being the best suspect.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Maybe Bury was lying about being too squeamish to continue. I'll grant that calmly giving himself up isn't what I would expect JtR to do.

Hi Lewis C,

If he was Jack, I agree he was lying. If he wasn't Jack, the strangulation had achieved his purpose of ridding himself of a wife whose financial usefulness had expired. The only reason I can think of in such circumstances is that he was pursuing a fantasy of being seen as someone of importance.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Hi George

Could you give your source as to what Bury said? I was under the impression that Bury mentioned the Ripper in a drunken state and that we don't know exactly what Bury said. When looking at Ellen Bury's murder I think it's important to bear in mind that Bury couldn't mutilate Ellen and leave her on the streets of Dundee. As she was his wife and not a prostitute with nothing tying him to her. I'm not sure why you believe Mckenzie is a far more likely Ripper victim than Ellen Bury. There's the time gap to explain for a start.

Cheers John

Hi John,

There are many sources, which contain contradictions, particularly from the press, as usual, but my understanding is that Parr stated that Bury did not confess to being the ripper.

I fully agree that there is a profound difference between the street attacks and a domestic murder. The former presents no obligation to conceal the crime, quite the opposite in fact, but the later is obliged to either conceal the crime or suffer the consequences. Bury's murder of Ellen seems pre-meditated, as the method of concealment, the crate, and the rope was in place before the murder. Deeming also planned his domestic murders in advance, but carried through with the concealments and continued to endeavour to escape justice. Bury made the preparations but then chose to abandon his plan and, four days later, present the police with what seems to me to be a totally bizarre story, and this is a big part of why I think he was a wife murderer, but not a serial killer. However, I will concede the possibility of his involvement in the Rose Mylett murder (only), that possibly being the reason for his departure from London.

As for Alice McKenzie:
She had two cuts to the vital areas of her neck.
She had abdominal cuts.
She was found with her dress hiked up and her legs and lower abdomen exposed.
There are conflicting reports of whether she was found on her side, like Stride, or on her back like Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, and I wonder whether someone altered her position after the discovery of her body.
It was thought that her attacker was interrupted.
IMO there is an over emphasis on time gaps, as they are evident in the careers of other serial killers.

For Ellen Bury:
There was no knife attack to the throat. This is a vital signature of all the ripper murders, and those of Deeming.
IMO, the abdominal cuts were out of place in a domestic wife slaying. Deeming cut the throats of his both wives and most of his children, but did not resort to mutilation. On the night of the double event another woman, Sarah Brown, was murdered by her husband. Shortly before midnight John Brown walked into Rochester Row police station and handed the Inspector a clasp knife with blood on it. Sarah Brown was found with her throat cut, but no other injuries. I think that the abdominal injuries visited upon Ellen, and the chalk graffiti, were his attempts to draw attention to himself, to create the suggestion that he may have been the ripper, but with out the admission - all in the quest for notoriety and self importance. JMO.

Cheers, George

[kjab3112]

I’m going to try to be unbiased (I’ve no preference but as a human there will inevitably be some unconscious bias)

• Was Bury capable physically? Yes, he disposed of his wife’s body in a box, even if not responsible this suggest capacity physically
• Was he present in London at the time? Possibly, we don’t know when he returned from the West Midlands
• Does he have the physical skills? His wife was murdered and then her limbs broken to dispose of the body. Although similar I’d suggest lacking skill
• Does he match witness statements? Short with a beard, not ruled out but not definite!

I’d suggest person of interest, but little more (dependent on further investigation).

The graffiti and his statement are damning, but not definitive. Ellen was not killed in a clean and silent way, unlike the canonical 5. Killer yes, Jack no

[Lewis C]

Had Bury walked into the police station on the night of Ellen's death and reported her as a suicide, IMO he may have gotten away with it. The jury at the time, and also in the case of the recent retrial, drew the conclusion that there was too much conflicting medical evidence to come to a clear verdict, the latter actually acquitting him. Instead he walked into Dundee police station and reported a suicide, and then added that he had mutilated the body to attempt disposal but had become too squeamish to continue, and was now afraid that it may be thought that he was Jack the Ripper. I find myself un-persuaded that the man who was far from squeamish in the C5 murders, and had evaded all attempts to deduce his identity, suddenly develops a weak stomach and calmly gives himself up? He had the packing case pre-prepared and could have disposed of her body and disappeared. But instead he appears to have sought some notoriety for his actions.

Hi George,

Maybe Bury was lying about being too squeamish to continue. I'll grant that calmly giving himself up isn't what I would expect JtR to do.

[Herlock Sholmes]

From a few sparse notes that I made whilst reading the Macpherson book we have - Bury goes to the police station on Sunday 10th February at 6.50 and speaks to Lieutenant James Parr. Parr said that Bury appeared sober but Bury said that he’d been drinking. He said that he and his wife had been drinking on the 4th and he woke to find her dead with a rope around her neck. He was then seized with an impulse to stab her in the abdomen several times with a large knife. He then panicked that the police might think that he was the ripper so he put her body into a box.

Parr then took Bury upstairs to the Detective department where he talked to Lamb and Campbell. Bury said that he’d only stabbed her once and made no mention of JtR. He was searched and they found a penknife. Apparently The Dundee Advertiser said the Bury made a remark about JtR but that the Lieutenant didn’t understand what he meant, but the Dundee Courier said that Bury had said that he was JtR or ‘a JtR’.

I don’t have the books by Beadle or Macpherson with me to check the facts although they will all be on the Bury website.