Is Bury the best suspect we have?

[John Wheat]

PS James can clearly pass for Jew better than Bury, day or night. Who else is there who can do that based on stereotypes?

But it was said that Bury was of Jewish appearance.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Bury v Cross



Early childhood trauma

Bury - Yes

Cross - No


Early criminal behaviour

Bury - Yes

Cross - No


Drink/drugs

Bury - Yes

Cross - No


Connection to prostitutes

Bury - Yes

Cross - No


Violence toward women

Bury - Yes

Cross - No


Knife user

Bury - Yes

Cross - No


Murderer

Bury - Yes

Cross - No


Mutilation

Bury - Yes

Cross - No


Reason for possible cessation of murders

Bury - Yes

Cross - No


Police interest

Bury - Yes

Cross - No



William Henry Bury is a genuine person of interest. Cross isn’t and never was. The ‘case’ against him has been manufactured by people with an agenda and continued by the gullible. He is a non-suspect with absolutely zero to commend him to our attention. His ‘supporters constantly go on about “well he was there” because that’s all that they have. ‘He was there’ like god knows how many others were ‘there’ when they found the victim of a serial killer and not one of them EVER turned out to have been the killer. Bury is in a different league. If he wasn’t the killer (and he might not have been) at least he was the type of person who might have been the killer. To dismiss him, after looking at the rest of the suspects, makes no sense at all.

[Lombro2]

But it was said that Bury was of Jewish appearance.

Okay, then we got it narrowed down to two.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Coincidentally the idea of ‘Jewish appearance’ is one of the many strong points against Maybrick of course.

[John Wheat]

Bury v Cross



Early childhood trauma

Bury - Yes

Cross - No


Early criminal behaviour

Bury - Yes

Cross - No


Drink/drugs

Bury - Yes

Cross - No


Connection to prostitutes

Bury - Yes

Cross - No


Violence toward women

Bury - Yes

Cross - No


Knife user

Bury - Yes

Cross - No


Murderer

Bury - Yes

Cross - No


Mutilation

Bury - Yes

Cross - No


Reason for possible cessation of murders

Bury - Yes

Cross - No


Police interest

Bury - Yes

Cross - No



William Henry Bury is a genuine person of interest. Cross isn’t and never was. The ‘case’ against him has been manufactured by people with an agenda and continued by the gullible. He is a non-suspect with absolutely zero to commend him to our attention. His ‘supporters constantly go on about “well he was there” because that’s all that they have. ‘He was there’ like god knows how many others were ‘there’ when they found the victim of a serial killer and not one of them EVER turned out to have been the killer. Bury is in a different league. If he wasn’t the killer (and he might not have been) at least he was the type of person who might have been the killer. To dismiss him, after looking at the rest of the suspects, makes no sense at all.

Hi Hetlock

I still think Bury often gets dismissed as he was too ordinary. He wasn't a top hated toff. And he wasn't Jewish. He was just an ordinary loser type. He doesn't live up to people's stereotypical views of who Jack might have been.

Cheers John

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Hetlock

I still think Bury often gets dismissed as he was too ordinary. He wasn't a top hated toff. And he wasn't Jewish. He was just an ordinary loser type. He doesn't live up to people's stereotypical views of who Jack might have been.

Cheers John

Hi John,

I tend to think that it’s because his victim was his wife. I can understand why people raise this but, for me, he was still a man provably capable of murder and mutilation to whatever extent. And to have this man living right next to the murder zone, added to the rest of what we know about him, surely makes him of interest? We have many ‘suspects’ that display none of the characteristics that we can apply to him. As you know, of the named suspects, I have always favoured Druitt but we have to look honestly. If we just compare the two men dispassionately Bury ticks way more boxes than Druitt. He ticks way more boxes than the majority of suspects. So for me it’s Druitt, Kosminski (named by senior police officers plus other things) and Bury and Kelly (both violent men who murdered a woman) I wouldn’t bet money on any of them being guilty but the rest are also rans at best for me.

[John Wheat]

Hi John,

I tend to think that it’s because his victim was his wife. I can understand why people raise this but, for me, he was still a man provably capable of murder and mutilation to whatever extent. And to have this man living right next to the murder zone, added to the rest of what we know about him, surely makes him of interest? We have many ‘suspects’ that display none of the characteristics that we can apply to him. As you know, of the named suspects, I have always favoured Druitt but we have to look honestly. If we just compare the two men dispassionately Bury ticks way more boxes than Druitt. He ticks way more boxes than the majority of suspects. So for me it’s Druitt, Kosminski (named by senior police officers plus other things) and Bury and Kelly (both violent men who murdered a woman) I wouldn’t bet money on any of them being guilty but the rest are also rans at best for me.

Hi Herlock

I definitely think Bury and Kelly have to be up there. Not so keen on Druitt and Kosminski but they were suspected by the Police at the time. Also it's worth noting that Ellen was a prostitute when Bury met her.

Cheers John

[Ms Diddles]

Hi Hetlock

I still think Bury often gets dismissed as he was too ordinary. He wasn't a top hated toff. And he wasn't Jewish. He was just an ordinary loser type. He doesn't live up to people's stereotypical views of who Jack might have been.

Cheers John

Hi John,

I'm inclined to agree with this.

If I'm honest, when I first became interested in JTR, I was (subconsciously) resistant to accept Bury as a serious suspect as he just seemed so mundane and, well, thuggish.

He was so unlike the archetypal top-hatted villain that I think I really didn't want it to be him.

Having read a little more, I now have to admit that he ticks a lot (but far from all) the boxes.

Probably more than most of the named suspects.

[rjpalmer]

Early criminal behaviour

Bury - Yes

Cross - No

Hi Herlock,

I don't think of Cross as much of a suspect, but for the sake of accuracy, what is the source for Bury exhibiting "early criminal behaviour"?

Euan Macpherson doesn't mention any documented criminal behavior in Bury's youth, nor does William Beadle. The closest Beadle comes is a claim that Bury was dismissed by an employer, allegedly for theft, in the early-to-mid 1880s, but by that time Bury would have been over 21 years of age.

There's a claim on-line that as a youth Bury robbed and stabbed the Reverend Edward Gough in Stourbridge, but this appears to be apocryphal. I cannot locate any credible source for this claim.

Were you thinking of something else?

Cheers.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I don't think of Cross as much of a suspect, but for the sake of accuracy, what is the source for Bury exhibiting "early criminal behaviour"?

Euan Macpherson doesn't mention any documented criminal behavior in Bury's youth, nor does William Beadle. The closest Beadle comes is a claim that Bury was dismissed by an employer, allegedly for theft, in the early-to-mid 1880s, but by that time Bury would have been over 21 years of age.

There's a claim on-line that as a youth Bury robbed and stabbed the Reverend Edward Gough in Stourbridge, but this appears to be apocryphal. I cannot locate any credible source for this claim.

Were you thinking of something else?

Cheers.

Hi Roger,

It’s a case of me relying on my faulty memory as I was of the impression that he was under 18 at the time. I should have checked. Thanks for pointing out my error.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Roger,

It’s a case of me relying on my faulty memory as I was of the impression that he was under 18 at the time. I should have checked. Thanks for pointing out my error.

no worries herlock. just change it to previous criminal behavior. that makes more sense anyway.

[Herlock Sholmes]

no worries herlock. just change it to previous criminal behavior. that makes more sense anyway.

I’ll compound my own error Abby. When I put ‘childhood trauma’ I was again assuming without checking. I was thinking that Bury was a young boy when his father was killed but he was only around 1. Although his mother did end up in an asylum which could have had its effect on him.

I must learn to stop trusting my own memory Abby.

[The Baron]

if Bury isn't the best suspect we have who is?

You want a real suspect? Forget Bury. That man was a walking disaster who tripped into murder and then confessed like he was late for his own hanging.

The Ripper was a ghost in the fog. Bury was a stain on the carpet.

Now let’s talk about Murry, the shadow who killed Alice McKenzie in Whitechapel after Bury was already rotting in the ground. That’s right. Bury was worm food, and someone was still out there slicing throats in the same damn hunting ground, with the same cold detachment, and then vanishing like smoke.

No wife. No personal drama. No drunken meltdown. Just a stranger on the street, one clean kill,.no capture. Gone.

Every single axis you turn this on, motive, method, geography, behavior, aftermath, Murry blows Bury out of the water.

And somehow we’re still humoring the idea that Bury, the man who couldn’t even get through one botched domestic killing without unraveling, is our best bet?

Murry left mystery.
Bury left a mess.

Murry scared people.
Bury embarrassed them.

So let’s cut the fantasy. Bury was never Jack the Ripper. He was a small, broken man who cracked under pressure. Murry? He was the one who kept the nightmare alive.

That’s who you should be afraid of. That’s who belongs in the suspect seat.

Bury doesn’t belong in the lineup.
He belongs in the punchline.



The Baron