Does anything rule Bury out?

[DRoy]

DRoy, your words ring hollow. The identification I've presented is sound.

Don’t be a late adopter—be one of the cool kids who’s ahead of the curve!

Wyatt,

I could agree with you that your theory is sound, but then we'd both be wrong

By the way, congrats on your article, it was well done. I don't agree with many of your suggestions or conclusions, but it was a good (fictional) story none the less.

I have to agree with Errata, while there is no concrete evidence yet to rule him out, the 'concrete' doesn't seem necessary when the evidence we do have strongly and reasonably suggests he should be ruled out.

Cheers
DRoy

[John Wheat]

This may be true John but then they are copycats or at least Mackenzie is....copycats do exist and perhaps Bury is also one...

Why people copycat is another story entirely and beyond the purview of this, and probably any, thread...

Perhaps Bury originally thought he could blame his murder on the Ripper but then later realized it was a dumb idea that he couldn't pull off anyway...


Greg

To Greg/Wyatt

I think it boils down to was Bury a copycat or was Bury the Ripper? I agree with Wyatt no cut throat means its unlikely Bury was a copycat. Also if Bury was a copycat then why not take the mutilations further?

Cheers John

[GregBaron]

Yeah missed it...

Greg, you must have missed this earlier in the thread:

I did Wyatt and thanks...........

And pretty good points about Bury not being a copycat....

This guy was a psychopath, but commensurate with Errata's opinion, I don't believe he was our psychopath...

I admit I base this solely on intuition ...


Greg

[Wyatt Earp]

This may be true John but then they are copycats or at least Mackenzie is....copycats do exist and perhaps Bury is also one...

Why people copycat is another story entirely and beyond the purview of this, and probably any, thread...

Perhaps Bury originally thought he could blame his murder on the Ripper but then later realized it was a dumb idea that he couldn't pull off anyway...


Greg

Greg, you must have missed this earlier in the thread:

Errata, a couple of things you should keep in mind:

no cut throat = no copycat killer (and “no staged crime scene”)

The “copycat-us interruptus” explanation can also be ruled out. It’s been argued before that Bury panicked, started mutilating Ellen in order to make it look like a Ripper murder, then changed his mind and broke it off. The problem with that argument is that Bury then went on to engage in the behaviors below, which demonstrate that nothing at all had been broken off…

He broke her leg to get her into that demented, sexually degrading pose in the trunk.

He burned some of her clothes in the fireplace.

He went back to the body to perform a couple of additional mutilations, which suggests that he wanted to do a lot more, and was struggling to restrain himself.

William Bury was not a copycat killer.

[Wyatt Earp]

Known murderer with an MO focused on abdominal/genital mutilations

Mutilation pertains to signature and not to MO.

[GregBaron]

Dumbbells and copycats...

I think very few people regard MacKenzie and Coles as Ripper victims. I wouldn't profess to know who 'ripped' MacKenzie and Coles.

This may be true John but then they are copycats or at least Mackenzie is....copycats do exist and perhaps Bury is also one...

Why people copycat is another story entirely and beyond the purview of this, and probably any, thread...

Perhaps Bury originally thought he could blame his murder on the Ripper but then later realized it was a dumb idea that he couldn't pull off anyway...


Greg

[Harry D]

• Known murderer with an MO focused on abdominal/genital mutilations
• Inhabitated the East End area at the time of the murders
• Left the area around the time the murders canonically stopped
• Had graffiti at his new premises linking him to the Ripper

I'm not asserting that Bury was the Ripper as there are valid arguments against him, but to say there's nothing ruling him in is a bit much, in my opinion.

[Wyatt Earp]

but there is nothing that rules him in as being The Ripper either.

DRoy, your words ring hollow. The identification I've presented is sound.

Don’t be a late adopter—be one of the cool kids who’s ahead of the curve!

[DRoy]

Then per the argument I have (once again) described, you should accept that William Bury was Jack the Ripper.

It's ok, Errata, to accept that Bury was the Ripper. The world isn't going to come to an end. There are still plenty of other things to talk about in connection with this case.

Actually Wyatt, what you "have (one again) described" is really just a re-telling of what others before you have written.

No Bury can't be ruled out. He's a suspect for good reason, but there is nothing that rules him in as being The Ripper either.

Cheers
DRoy

[John Wheat]

If Bury was the Ripper, who ripped MacKenzie and Coles.......?

To Greg

I think very few people regard MacKenzie and Coles as Ripper victims. I wouldn't profess to know who 'ripped' MacKenzie and Coles.

Cheers John

[GregBaron]

How many rips attributed?

Hi y'all,


If Bury was the Ripper, who ripped MacKenzie and Coles.......?




Greg

[Wyatt Earp]

Any idiot can tell you that no proof exists at this point to rule out Bury

Then per the argument I have (once again) described, you should accept that William Bury was Jack the Ripper.

It's ok, Errata, to accept that Bury was the Ripper. The world isn't going to come to an end. There are still plenty of other things to talk about in connection with this case.

[John Wheat]

When someone asks people if Bury can be ruled out, we all know that no proof exists. We have no idea who the Ripper was, we don't know how many people he killed, we don't know why he did what he did. We can't rule anyone out technically. That's why it's a mystery, and not a solved crime. So given that we all know that, it becomes reasonable to assume that when someone asks if Bury can be ruled out, they are asking us if we as individuals can rule him out given our own views of the crime. Which I can absolutely do. And it is unreasonable to be required to produce proof that disappeared more than a century ago.

To Errata

I disagree with what you are saying when someone asks if Bury can be ruled out they could mean is there any proof that they couldn't be the Ripper as for example they were not in London at the times of the Ripper murders as some suspects weren't or for instance maybe Bury was in jail during the Ripper murders. Having just reread the first post on the thread it seems this is exactly what Batman meant when he asked if Bury could be ruled out as the Ripper.

Cheers John

[Errata]

Wyatt Earp, I understand what you are saying. I really do. You don't seem to be understanding what I am saying.

Any idiot can tell you that no proof exists at this point to rule out Bury, Hutchinson, Kosminski, Levy, Lechmere, Prince Eddie, or yes, even the ghost of Ulysses S. Grant.

When someone asks people if Bury can be ruled out, we all know that no proof exists. We have no idea who the Ripper was, we don't know how many people he killed, we don't know why he did what he did. We can't rule anyone out technically. That's why it's a mystery, and not a solved crime. So given that we all know that, it becomes reasonable to assume that when someone asks if Bury can be ruled out, they are asking us if we as individuals can rule him out given our own views of the crime. Which I can absolutely do. And it is unreasonable to be required to produce proof that disappeared more than a century ago.

[John Wheat]

Agreed. Discussing/arguing with suspect "advocates" is as worthwhile as talking to evangelicals. It leads absolutely nowhere but the evangelical is happy to talk about it ad nauseam from the lofty position of "you can't 100% prove it wrong".

Therefore it must be correct.

I've already posted that i thought Bury was one of the better suspects but of course that's not near good enough. At this point Wheat and Earp can go participate in a "Does anything rule out Van Gogh" thread.

To Gnote

This thread is titled Does Anything Rule Bury Out? You seem almost surprised that on this thread are people that believe Bury was the Ripper. As previously stated nothing rules Bury out. It is worth noting that neither myself or Wyatt Earp started this thread. As for Van Gogh, I won't claim to be an expert on the life of Vincent Van Gogh but I've been led to believe he wasn't even in the country in 1888 which rules him out.

Cheers John