Is Bury the best suspect we have?

[Newbie]

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.

Well, so much for the idea that JtR had intimate knowledge of Whitechapel streets, and could effectively navigate in the dark.

Okay, I'll bite.

Why was Bury so fetched with Whitechapel? Why was he always wandering into Whitechapel to commit the murders?
Bethnell Green was an equally lovely hell hole, was closer, and had plenty of prostitutes - Bow also offering these amenities.
The entire police force was mobilized against you in the Whitechapel area, and yet you insist on doing your killings there - good heavens, why?

What was he doing along Buck's row at 3:30 am, some 3 hours after the pubs had to close by law? Hanging out in the train station?
And why was he getting sauced up near Berner street Saturday night before stumbling out of some pub and killing Liz Stride .....
Bow had no pubs? Maybe the plan was to make the 45 minute walk from Bow, get smashed and then head on out for the killing spree.

The city of London was closer to the crime scenes and had plenty of violent, wife beating drunks with miserable childhoods to your heart's content. Sift through a list there and you're as likely to find the Ripper as with Bury.

If you can't answer these questions, imagining Bury as JtR is absurd.

[John Wheat]

Ah, thank you truly. I do believe the Ripper case deserves a little flair. We’ve spent over a century trudging through the same theories with the same dry bones, it’s about time we let a little blood back into the storytelling.

Now, as for Murry, yes, he’s rising fast in my suspect hall of fame. Not because I know his name, his shoe size, or what pub he drank at. But because he did something no named suspect has ever done:
He acted like the Ripper.

He stepped into Whitechapel with no known connection to the victim.
He killed with controlled violence, no screaming, no chaos.
He left the skirt raised, the throat cut, twice, and the world guessing.

And then, like mist, he vanished.

No trial. No confession. No press frenzy.
Just silence.

Compare that to the suspects we keep dragging into the light, like tired actors begging for a final scene, the wives’ beater, the mentally ill scapegoats barrister, the famous names we can’t stop throwing at the wall, hoping they’ll finally stick. Most of them cracked the moment reality touched them. But Murry? Murry left no cracks. He left questions. Which is what Jack the Ripper was.

And yes, he's faceless. But maybe that’s the point. Maybe Jack was always meant to be seen only by his shadow.

And besides… just between us… Murry didn’t even have a beard. Which, as you might recall, keeps him in a rather exclusive club.

Cheers to that.


The Baron

This is rubbish.

[Ms Diddles]

Ah, thank you truly. I do believe the Ripper case deserves a little flair. We’ve spent over a century trudging through the same theories with the same dry bones, it’s about time we let a little blood back into the storytelling.

Now, as for Murry, yes, he’s rising fast in my suspect hall of fame. Not because I know his name, his shoe size, or what pub he drank at. But because he did something no named suspect has ever done:
He acted like the Ripper.

He stepped into Whitechapel with no known connection to the victim.
He killed with controlled violence, no screaming, no chaos.
He left the skirt raised, the throat cut, twice, and the world guessing.

And then, like mist, he vanished.

No trial. No confession. No press frenzy.
Just silence.

Compare that to the suspects we keep dragging into the light, like tired actors begging for a final scene, the wives’ beater, the mentally ill scapegoats barrister, the famous names we can’t stop throwing at the wall, hoping they’ll finally stick. Most of them cracked the moment reality touched them. But Murry? Murry left no cracks. He left questions. Which is what Jack the Ripper was.

And yes, he's faceless. But maybe that’s the point. Maybe Jack was always meant to be seen only by his shadow.

And besides… just between us… Murry didn’t even have a beard. Which, as you might recall, keeps him in a rather exclusive club.

Cheers to that.


The Baron

Intriguing stuff, Baron!

I'm not at all familiar with Murry as a suspect.

He's not ringing any bells with me at all (but then I do have a tendency to read stuff and then immediately forget what I've read)!

Do you have any pointers?

Am I to take it that you are rating him over Cross and Koz these days then?

And yes, I do indeed recall the elimination by beard hypothesis!

[The Baron]

Hi Baron,

I must say, I'm enjoying this new lyrical style of yours!

Is Murray your prime suspect these days then?

Ah, thank you truly. I do believe the Ripper case deserves a little flair. We’ve spent over a century trudging through the same theories with the same dry bones, it’s about time we let a little blood back into the storytelling.

Now, as for Murry, yes, he’s rising fast in my suspect hall of fame. Not because I know his name, his shoe size, or what pub he drank at. But because he did something no named suspect has ever done:
He acted like the Ripper.

He stepped into Whitechapel with no known connection to the victim.
He killed with controlled violence, no screaming, no chaos.
He left the skirt raised, the throat cut, twice, and the world guessing.

And then, like mist, he vanished.

No trial. No confession. No press frenzy.
Just silence.

Compare that to the suspects we keep dragging into the light, like tired actors begging for a final scene, the wives’ beater, the mentally ill scapegoats barrister, the famous names we can’t stop throwing at the wall, hoping they’ll finally stick. Most of them cracked the moment reality touched them. But Murry? Murry left no cracks. He left questions. Which is what Jack the Ripper was.

And yes, he's faceless. But maybe that’s the point. Maybe Jack was always meant to be seen only by his shadow.

And besides… just between us… Murry didn’t even have a beard. Which, as you might recall, keeps him in a rather exclusive club.

Cheers to that.


The Baron

[Ms Diddles]

Gotcha!!!!!

So let's get this straight: McKenzie might not be a Ripper victim, and that’s your silver bullet? That’s your glorious counter?

Alright, let's play this poor argument. Alice McKenzie isn't a "provable" Ripper victim. Cool. Guess who else isn't? Ellen Bury!

Not a single soul on Earth is calling her one of the canonical five. Not even in the Bury advocating circles.

So if lack of official Ripper status disqualifies McKenzie’s killer… then congratulations, you’ve just obliterated your own boy. Bury's out. Your logic did it. Not me. I’m just here to sweep the ashes.

So congratulations, you’ve just torpedoed your own suspect with the same logic you tried to fire at mine.

But here’s where it gets delicious:

Murry, McKenzie’s killer, still blows Bury off the map:

He murdered in Whitechapel, where the Ripper acted.
He killed a stranger, not a spouse.
He walked into the night, never caught, never seen again.

And now! He has the one thing Bury never will: credibility as a true Ripper candidate.


Bury? He killed his wife at home, freaked out, and turned himself in like a guilty schoolboy.

So when we strip away all the weak arguments, here’s what we’re left with:

Murry is an actual unknown predator, moving like a ghost in the same streets the Ripper haunted, unseen, uncaught, and unprovable, just like the real Ripper.

Bury is a known man who snapped once, got caught immediately, and has no link to any victim that matters.

Murry still breathes suspicion. Bury chokes on his own mediocrity.

He doesn’t deserve to stand near Murry. He barely deserves a mention.



The Baron

Hi Baron,

I must say, I'm enjoying this new lyrical style of yours!

Is Murray your prime suspect these days then?

[John Wheat]

Gotcha!!!!!

So let's get this straight: McKenzie might not be a Ripper victim, and that’s your silver bullet? That’s your glorious counter?

Alright, let's play this poor argument. Alice McKenzie isn't a "provable" Ripper victim. Cool. Guess who else isn't? Ellen Bury!

Not a single soul on Earth is calling her one of the canonical five. Not even in the Bury advocating circles.

So if lack of official Ripper status disqualifies McKenzie’s killer… then congratulations, you’ve just obliterated your own boy. Bury's out. Your logic did it. Not me. I’m just here to sweep the ashes.

So congratulations, you’ve just torpedoed your own suspect with the same logic you tried to fire at mine.

But here’s where it gets delicious:

Murry, McKenzie’s killer, still blows Bury off the map:

He murdered in Whitechapel, where the Ripper acted.
He killed a stranger, not a spouse.
He walked into the night, never caught, never seen again.

And now! He has the one thing Bury never will: credibility as a true Ripper candidate.


Bury? He killed his wife at home, freaked out, and turned himself in like a guilty schoolboy.

So when we strip away all the weak arguments, here’s what we’re left with:

Murry is an actual unknown predator, moving like a ghost in the same streets the Ripper haunted, unseen, uncaught, and unprovable, just like the real Ripper.

Bury is a known man who snapped once, got caught immediately, and has no link to any victim that matters.

Murry still breathes suspicion. Bury chokes on his own mediocrity.

He doesn’t deserve to stand near Murry. He barely deserves a mention.



The Baron

So your using an unknown suspect to show Bury isn't the best suspect we have? Great logic there.

[The Baron]

In all likelihood McKenzie wasn't a Ripper victim.

Gotcha!!!!!

So let's get this straight: McKenzie might not be a Ripper victim, and that’s your silver bullet? That’s your glorious counter?

Alright, let's play this poor argument. Alice McKenzie isn't a "provable" Ripper victim. Cool. Guess who else isn't? Ellen Bury!

Not a single soul on Earth is calling her one of the canonical five. Not even in the Bury advocating circles.

So if lack of official Ripper status disqualifies McKenzie’s killer… then congratulations, you’ve just obliterated your own boy. Bury's out. Your logic did it. Not me. I’m just here to sweep the ashes.

So congratulations, you’ve just torpedoed your own suspect with the same logic you tried to fire at mine.

But here’s where it gets delicious:

Murry, McKenzie’s killer, still blows Bury off the map:

He murdered in Whitechapel, where the Ripper acted.
He killed a stranger, not a spouse.
He walked into the night, never caught, never seen again.

And now! He has the one thing Bury never will: credibility as a true Ripper candidate.


Bury? He killed his wife at home, freaked out, and turned himself in like a guilty schoolboy.

So when we strip away all the weak arguments, here’s what we’re left with:

Murry is an actual unknown predator, moving like a ghost in the same streets the Ripper haunted, unseen, uncaught, and unprovable, just like the real Ripper.

Bury is a known man who snapped once, got caught immediately, and has no link to any victim that matters.

Murry still breathes suspicion. Bury chokes on his own mediocrity.

He doesn’t deserve to stand near Murry. He barely deserves a mention.



The Baron

[John Wheat]

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

In all likelihood McKenzie wasn't a Ripper victim.

[Lewis C]

I of course think that Bury is a much better suspect than Cross, but there is one box that Cross checks that Bury doesn't: Bury has an alibi for the McKenzie murder, but Cross doesn't. That's where this difficult question of whether McKenzie was a Ripper murder is so important. If she was, then Bury, Cohen, Druitt, Hyams, and Tumblety couldn't have been the Ripper. However, if Kelly was the last Ripper murder, then with those 5 suspects we have an explanation for why the murders stopped.

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.