Is Bury the best suspect we have?

[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

[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]

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]

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

[Lombro2]

But it was said that Bury was of Jewish appearance.

Okay, then we got it narrowed down to two.

[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.

[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.

[Lombro2]

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

[Lombro2]

You prefer the criminal classes for this job rather than the toff with a top hat. But at least you don’t go Continental. What’s your opinion on that?

[John Wheat]

Getting rubbished? Now you know how Ike feels.

But Bury may well have been the Ripper as for Maybrick no chance whatsoever.

[The Rookie Detective]

Henry Hanslope


He...

Allegedly raped his own 13 year old daughter.
Violently assaulted his own mother
Threatened to cut his wife's throat with a knife.

He also had a penchant for being theatrical.

He regularly presented himself as a plain clothed police detective and obtained access to various music halls at various times.

He was of no fixed abode.

He was 40 at the time of the murders.

At aged 40, he is found living in Miller's Court, room 11 to be exact.


Room 11 was directly opposite Mary Kelly's room.


He gave his profession as a "market porter"


I personally believe he was the man who left the court and was spoken to by police on the morning of Kelly's murder.


It's stated a man from room 3 was spoken to; but I found an article that states a market porter from room 11.


Debra A, Belloc (and the late Mr Chris Scott) are the ones who know about Hanslope better than anyone.


There's no evidence that he was a resident in November 1888, but he was there at some point aged 40, and there has never been an identification of the porter who was stopped and questioned by police as he left the court the morning after the murder.

If it was Hanslope, then I believe he was the killer.


He would have had full view of room 13, including knowledge of the broken window.


We know for certain that at some point in 1888 he did occupy room 11.


He considered himself an actor (he had theatrical experience in his youth) and his impersonating a police detective is a detail that could have lent itself to women believing he was someone they could trust.


The biggest issue against Hanslope having been the Ripper, is that he spent a lot of time in and out of workhouses. There's some evidence to suggest he was in a workhouse at the time of the earlier murders.
But it all depends on whether workhouse inmates could come and go, or whether they were essentially incarcerated.

If the latter, then it's less likely that Hanslope murdered the earlier victims.

But as a copycat killer, he ticks every box.

Did Hanslope wait for the court to become quiet, wait for Kelly's room to go into darkness, and then sneak out and enter her room via the broken window as she slept?

Hanslope could have taken out all his warped fantasies on her and then quietly sneaked back into his room and cleaned up.

The next morning he leaves the court, is stopped by police and says he's staying in a room in the court, but room 3 and 11 get mixed up. Unless there were 2 market porters; on residing in each room.


Of all the places the police wouldn't think to look for the killer, would be the very room directly opposite room 13.

Everyone was trying to work out how the killer entered and exited the court unseen, but what if he didn't leave at all, and just went next door?


Lots to consider

[John Wheat]

People aren’t ignoring him because they're blind, they're ignoring him because the case against him reeks of weaknesses.

A loser drunk who may or may not have killed his wife, because even that is not watertight, and cracked under guilt? That’s not Jack the Ripper that’s a two bit domestic tragedy.

He notified the police before anyone asked, hid nothing well, and left the body in his own damn flat. If Bury is your best theory, you're not solving a mystery, you’re just lowering the bar until it hits the floor. The only "ripping" he ever did was his own life apart, sloppily and loudly.



The Baron

But Bury did mutilate his wife's abdomen so that's Ripping. Also if Bury isn't the best suspect we have who is?

[The Baron]

I'd suggest that Bury isn't favoured by many because he was an ordinary loser type. As opposed to a top hated toff.

People aren’t ignoring him because they're blind, they're ignoring him because the case against him reeks of weaknesses.

A loser drunk who may or may not have killed his wife, because even that is not watertight, and cracked under guilt? That’s not Jack the Ripper that’s a two bit domestic tragedy.

He notified the police before anyone asked, hid nothing well, and left the body in his own damn flat. If Bury is your best theory, you're not solving a mystery, you’re just lowering the bar until it hits the floor. The only "ripping" he ever did was his own life apart, sloppily and loudly.



The Baron

[Abby Normal]

Another possible explanation about why he admitted to killing his wife but not to being the Ripper was because the evidence or case for him killing his wife was far stronger than that for him being the Ripper. He admitted to killing his wife because that was undeniable.

In your last paragraph, I see no conflict: both could be true. It could be that he left London because his wife's money ran out, and the killings stopped because he left London.

I remember awhile back in this forum, it was argued that Bury was smart. I forget what the case for that was. I can't prove this, but my sense is that he was less intelligent than some suspects, but more intelligent than Aaron Kosminski.

hi lewis
good post and agree. bury was a conman and able to fool people, so there is a modicum of intelligence in that. also, if youve seen his letters, he was able to write extremely well and his penmanship was very good. again indicative of intelligence. i couldn't believe this violent drunken thug was able to write like that. strange dude, seemingly a walking contradiction.

[Lewis C]

The police at the time were under pressure to solve these murders and sent detectives to interrogate Bury. It would have been to their advantage to have been able to announce that the case had been solved, but they didn't. We can't know the details of their interrogation, but perhaps they found that Bury could not relate vital details of the murders, so it was determined that he was merely a fantasist. Bury finally admitted to murdering his wife, so with the gallows as his future why would he have not admitted to being the Ripper? Perhaps because he couldn't provide those vital details.

There was a reported conversation between Bury and the hangman, but this may have been apocryphal, as if the hangman had been persuaded by this alleged conversation he would surely have mentioned it in his book. But he didn't.

Much is made of the timing of his departure from London, but this was also the time that his wife's inheritance money had run out. Additionally he had a crate custom made for his journey north, almost like he had plans for its future use in the disposal of a wife who had out served her purpose. A despicable person by any measure, but too stupid to have been Jack.

Another possible explanation about why he admitted to killing his wife but not to being the Ripper was because the evidence or case for him killing his wife was far stronger than that for him being the Ripper. He admitted to killing his wife because that was undeniable.

In your last paragraph, I see no conflict: both could be true. It could be that he left London because his wife's money ran out, and the killings stopped because he left London.

I remember awhile back in this forum, it was argued that Bury was smart. I forget what the case for that was. I can't prove this, but my sense is that he was less intelligent than some suspects, but more intelligent than Aaron Kosminski.