Does anything rule Bury out?

[GUT]

I'm by no means convinced that Bury was JtR, but he would certainly be in my top three candidates.

I'm not sure he'd even make my top three, but certainly in the hit parade.

[John G]

I'm by no means convinced that Bury was JtR, but he would certainly be in my top three candidates.

[GUT]

Agreed. Any fair-minded, scientific Ripperologist would accept that William Bury is the best named suspect based on the known facts of the case.

Not sure he's the best.

Mainly because I don't think that there s a best.

but up there and I am amazed at how little attention he gets.

[John Wheat]

Agreed. Any fair-minded, scientific Ripperologist would accept that William Bury is the best named suspect based on the known facts of the case.

Absolutely Harry

However on this site many seem to push there own ridiculous theory and there own ridiculous suspect. Still what do you expect?

Cheers John

[wigngown]

Yes, you'd think so!
William Beadles Jack the Ripper Unmasked is an excellent book. Beadle presents a very convincing case against Bury. You probably know the book already, but if not I recommend it. Best regards.

[Harry D]

Bury is one of my favoured suspects. When he was arrested in Scotland, the Mets interest in him, as a suspect, appeared to be lukewarm. The hangman, Berry, was of the opinion that when he hanged Bury he did in fact hang JtR. Quite what he based this belief on I don't know but I suspect it was to embellish the story. They way Bury murdered his wife and the chalked messages puts him head and shoulders above some of the other suspects.

Agreed. Any fair-minded, scientific Ripperologist would accept that William Bury is the best named suspect based on the known facts of the case.

[wigngown]

Bury is one of my favoured suspects. When he was arrested in Scotland, the Mets interest in him, as a suspect, appeared to be lukewarm. The hangman, Berry, was of the opinion that when he hanged Bury he did in fact hang JtR. Quite what he based this belief on I don't know but I suspect it was to embellish the story. They way Bury murdered his wife and the chalked messages puts him head and shoulders above some of the other suspects.

[Mrsperfect]

Ellen's Friends

I mean, it isn't beyond the realm of possibility, but I'd consider it unlikely.

I certainly don't think that a john would have learned a bangtail's name just in the course of a typical encounter. Or, rather, I think more often than not he wouldn't learn it.

What about the possibility that since his wife was a prostitute, she may have chatted about her friends? He may have had to distinguish who she was talking about?

Regards

Eileen

[John Wheat]

No nothing rules Bury out. If you ask Bury is either Jack the Ripper or a copycat killer.

[Harry D]

That's one particular thing I dislike about suspect-based books, when they try to make the most tenuous links between their chosen suspect and the victims, especially in Bury's case because there's already a strong argument for him being the Ripper without all this fluff. I suppose you've got to pad the book out somehow.

[Defective Detective]

To Defective Detective

Surely a serial killer could learn the name of a prostitute and plan to kill that prostitute and mutilate them in an horrific manor. Besides I wouldn't have thought common Mary Jane was that common a name in 1888. Singularly Mary or Jane were probably very common but both together?

Cheers John

I mean, it isn't beyond the realm of possibility, but I'd consider it unlikely.

I certainly don't think that a john would have learned a bangtail's name just in the course of a typical encounter. Or, rather, I think more often than not he wouldn't learn it. Today most prostitutes use pseudonyms, and even change them frequently; at the time, when there were no such things as screen names and e-mail addresses and most instances of transactional sex were initiated through personal contact on the street, it's very much likely that a john wouldn't even learn a trade name. Quite often they'd go about their business without even exchanging the pleasantries of a name.

If you propose that Bury, as the Ripper, knew Mary Jane Kelly before November 1888, that's something else. I don't really like theories that require the Ripper to have known any of his victims - and I really don't think it's necessary for Bury to be a plausible candidate for Jack The Ripper anyway. I think he's a pretty good suspect without the inclusion of that detail.

[John Wheat]

I'd question the idea that a prospective client, Ripper or not, would even necessarily know the name of a prostitute he intends to use. It very possibly wouldn't come up in conversation.

To Defective Detective

Surely a serial killer could learn the name of a prostitute and plan to kill that prostitute and mutilate them in an horrific manor. Besides I wouldn't have thought common Mary Jane was that common a name in 1888. Singularly Mary or Jane were probably very common but both together?

Cheers John

[Defective Detective]

Lets cut to the rub of it either Bury was the Ripper or a copycat killer. On balance I would say he was the Ripper. He fits the pysche profile. Ellens murder is similar to the C5. He moved into London shortly before the Ripper murders started. And went to Scotland shortly after Mary Kelly's murder. His mother was also called Mary Jane which would explain the overkill on Mary Jane Kelly.

I'd question the idea that a prospective client, Ripper or not, would even necessarily know the name of a prostitute he intends to use. It very possibly wouldn't come up in conversation.

That said, I mostly agree with you, except I give equal credence to the copycat notion as to the idea that Bury was the Ripper incarnate. William Bury occupies the top of a short list of dubious merit - plausible Ripper suspects. I still don't believe ultimately he was, but the very fact that absolutely nothing excludes him (real life isn't the film Manhunter, Errata) leads me to believe that Bury must unquestionably be regarded as one of the very best of the named suspects.

Bury and James Kelly top that list for me, with Bury being ever so slightly more likely than Kelly (this might be different if we could get a solid trace on Kelly's whereabouts after January '88). Severin Klosowski is just a little ways down, followed by William Grant Grainger and David Cohen.

All of these men are proven at least to be murderously violent (Cohen), if not murderous (the rest). All were either local or, in the case of Grainger, reasonably familiar with the area.

No other named suspects need apply. Well, maybe Thomas Cutbush, if it can be demonstrated that his apparently harmless piquerism was a deterioration from a more actively violent psychosis.

[John Wheat]

Lets cut to the rub of it either Bury was the Ripper or a copycat killer. On balance I would say he was the Ripper. He fits the pysche profile. Ellens murder is similar to the C5. He moved into London shortly before the Ripper murders started. And went to Scotland shortly after Mary Kelly's murder. His mother was also called Mary Jane which would explain the overkill on Mary Jane Kelly.

[Wyatt Earp]

John, signature characteristics can be reduced in expression or completely absent at a given crime scene in connection with the specific circumstances of that murder. Again, this has been explained to you over and over. If overkill was absent in the Ellen Bury murder—and it’s not clear that it was, as Templeman testified that the mutilations were “not necessarily fatal”—then that can be related to Bury’s need to tone things down. This is not an effective objection to the Bury ID.

Seriously, what is your beef with Bury? You seem to be very hot against him, but you’ve been able to produce nothing that justifies that.