Does anything rule Bury out?

[John G]

With Bury there are two logical conclusions the first being he was Jack. The second being he was the Worlds first copycat killer.

But why must he be either or? Thus, there have been other killers that have mutilated there victims, such as both McKenzie's and Austin's killers, assuming they weren't the same person. And, as Bury didn't even attempt to cut Ellen's throat, it could be argued he was neither.

[John Wheat]

But why must he be either or? Thus, there have been other killers that have mutilated there victims, such as both McKenzie's and Austin's killers, assuming they weren't the same person. And, as Bury didn't even attempt to cut Ellen's throat, it could be argued he was neither.

Well if Bury isn't Jack or a copycat killer then there are alot of coincidences: The chalkings, what Bury said to the police, the way Ellen Bury's murder is similar to the C5, James Berry the hangman believing he was the Ripper, Bury matching all the psyche profiles, Bury moving to London a short while before the Ripper murders started, Bury leaving London a short while after Mary Kelly's murder.

[The Good Michael]

Are you saying you think Bury was the Worlds first copycat killer?

Yes I am. Because just like the C5, he strangled her and put her in a box and didn't cut her throat in the privacy of his own home. So it's definitely a copyc...wait.

Mike

[John Wheat]

Yes I am. Because just like the C5, he strangled her and put her in a box and didn't cut her throat in the privacy of his own home. So it's definitely a copyc...wait.

Mike

To The Good Michael

I would respond to this however my previous post to John G seems apt in response to this post.

Cheers John

[Errata]

Well if Bury isn't Jack or a copycat killer then there are alot of coincidences: The chalkings, what Bury said to the police, the way Ellen Bury's murder is similar to the C5, James Berry the hangman believing he was the Ripper, Bury matching all the psyche profiles, Bury moving to London a short while before the Ripper murders started, Bury leaving London a short while after Mary Kelly's murder.

The chalkings accuse him of being the Ripper. Which is something that should be explained, but whose explanation is likely entirely mundane. Bury did not confess to being Jack the Ripper. Nor did he implicate himself in those crimes. So while his statements are certainly damning for the case against him for killing his wife, it has nothing to do with the Ripper. Ellen Bury's murder is not similar to the C5. It has a couple of similarities, which is a subtle but big difference. Unless James Berry spent a good amount of time talking to the condemned man before his death, he can believe what he likes. He had no information. As for moving to and away from London roughly within the right time frame, it's pretty rough, and you are still talking about 3-500000 people that could apply to, none of whom are the Ripper.

The big damning evidence hear is really how he killed his wife. And it's not close enough to be that damning. It's just not. And the graffiti was I grant you weird, but that is the only honest to god coincidence in everything you said. Everything else is just regular chance.

[John Wheat]

The chalkings accuse him of being the Ripper. Which is something that should be explained, but whose explanation is likely entirely mundane. Bury did not confess to being Jack the Ripper. Nor did he implicate himself in those crimes. So while his statements are certainly damning for the case against him for killing his wife, it has nothing to do with the Ripper. Ellen Bury's murder is not similar to the C5. It has a couple of similarities, which is a subtle but big difference. Unless James Berry spent a good amount of time talking to the condemned man before his death, he can believe what he likes. He had no information. As for moving to and away from London roughly within the right time frame, it's pretty rough, and you are still talking about 3-500000 people that could apply to, none of whom are the Ripper.

The big damning evidence hear is really how he killed his wife. And it's not close enough to be that damning. It's just not. And the graffiti was I grant you weird, but that is the only honest to god coincidence in everything you said. Everything else is just regular chance.

To Errata

The chalkings are not likely mundanely explained they could have been written by Bury ergo Ripper or copycat, Ellen Bury because she thought he was the Ripper ergo Bury is likely the Ripper, someone else who thought he was the Ripper ergo Bury is likely the Ripper or a big coincidence, someone who didn't think Bury was the Ripper which begs the question why and is a massive coincidence. We don't know what Bury said to James Bury but again its a massive coincidence Berry thought he was the Ripper if he wasn't. As for Ellen Bury's murder strangulation followed by post mortem mutilation sounds like the C5 to me. Again it seems a massive coincidence if Bury wasn't the Ripper or a copycat killer.

Cheers John

[wigngown]

If Bury was JtR, and I think there's a very good chance he was, I don't think he would have given himself up by killing Ellen exactly as he'd done with those poor women in Whitechapel. JtR was many things, but stupid wasn't one of them.

[The Good Michael]

If Bury was JtR, and I think there's a very good chance he was, I don't think he would have given himself up by killing Ellen exactly as he'd done with those poor women in Whitechapel. JtR was many things, but stupid wasn't one of them.

Following your logic then, he wouldn't have written anything in chalk on the door about his being the Ripper, nor would he have left it there had anyone else written it. Yes?

Mike

[wigngown]

Who said HE wrote it? Did HE see it?

[The Good Michael]

I gave two choices, he or someone else. Are there others? If he didn't see two chalked messages on his own back door, he was fairly dull.

Mike

[wigngown]

yes, you did indeed give two choices, I can count. In reply, I specifically asked who said he'd written them and further asked whether or not he'd seen them. I presume from your reply that you can't answer either question. huh?

[The Good Michael]

yes, you did indeed give two choices, I can count. In reply, I specifically asked who said he'd written them and further asked whether or not he'd seen them. I presume from your reply that you can't answer either question. huh?

The first question has no meaning to what I posted. If someone said he wrote the words, it wasn't me. The 2nd question is already answered. Really you ought to stop being defensive.

Mike

[wigngown]

Perhaps you should stop asking questions in such a lofty manner, the underlying inference being that people haven't considered the blindingly obvious. Sorry but its an Atypical symptom of being a Teacher.

[The Good Michael]

Perhaps you should stop asking questions in such a lofty manner, the underlying inference being that people haven't considered the blindingly obvious. Sorry but its an Atypical symptom of being a Teacher.

So instead of considering that you may have taken my question the wrong way, you immediately go on the attack? That makes no sense to me. You said that the Ripper wasn't stupid or something to that effect. I pointed out that to either write the chalk messages or to not see them doesn't bear that out. There is no evidence that Bury was bright. I would suggest the opposite. If the Ripper was smart and Bury wasn't, there's hole in the Bury case. I think Bury is a weak candidate. After ready Beadle's absolutely Barnum and Bailey dissertation, I gleaned nothing that sways me. As Errata says, if the chalk messages were really there, that is something odd.

People take their suspects to seriously and they all have major holes.

Mike

[wigngown]

Attack?! Good grief. Had I wanted to I could have pointed out that if, according to you, Bury didn't see two chalked messages on his own back door, he was fairly dull. Incorrect. Had Bury seen the messages and not removed them, now that would have been fairly dull. But we don't know if he seen them, or had written them, do we? There is no evidence that Bury was bright, so you conclude he wasn't? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's not about anything other than you posting comments which infer that you alone have the monopoly on common sense. Did you not think I'd considered the chalk messages? Why didn't you just say, in your opinion, Bury is a weak candidate? Bury is a better candidate than some, and not as good as others. I think we are finished with this debate.