Does anything rule Bury out?

[Abby Normal]

Hi all,

Long time...



Bundy always murdered strangers as do most serials....he never confessed until trying to save his own arse and then only to a select few...

What I'd like to see from you Buryites is a logistical analysis. I'm interested in his horse and buggy and where he may have parked it for the various crimes and what he had within it and how he drove off without notice or interrogation by anyone (assuming) etc.

This won't get us anywhere but could make for some very intriguing speculation....


Greg

Hi Greg
His cart in my mind would greatly help him:

he lived in Bow-so for ease in getting back and forth.
If questioned, he had a reason for being out-he was working.
he could use the cart to conceal things, including himself.

I would imagine he would park somewhere nearby, go to a pub, drink and start trolling for victims.

It would serve him as kind of a mobile bolt hole-kind of like how modern serial killers use their cars. except I doubt he picked them up in it! But I guess he could have even done that!

[Errata]

To Errata

I suggest Bury didn't run because he was afraid there would be a manhunt for him as the Ripper. I'm sure I've mentioned this before but maybe Bury tried to move the box himself and wasn't able to, a dead weight isn't light. Maybe Bury's plan was to dump the body along with the box and when this failed he was left with few options.

Cheers John

But even evading a manhunt is better than hanging. It really was ridiculously easy to disappear. Especially if you have up to a week's head start. In truth it's still easy to disappear. But even that's not the point. You have to be either incredibly stupid or incredibly arrogant to think that confessing to mutilating your wife who committed suicide is going to be believed. But that level of stupid or arrogant does not invest the amount of effort into escaping the way Jack did. It was kind of his thing.

Bury screwed up. And that happens. Jack the Ripper was a runner, to the detriment of his mutilations. He rushed, he hurried, and he made damn sure he was not on the scene when people found the body. If Bury was Jack, he should have run. That should have been his primary instinct. But Bury didn't even try. That's very strange, and the only thing that explains it is that running didn't occur to him. But it occurred to Jack all the time. If Bury were Jack, running would have been right up there in terms of how to handle what happened. Lord knows Jack had practice.

Yeah living on the run sucks. But he had time. It was February. Turn all of the heating off and he could have had months before the smell of the corpse alerted anybody. Bu then he could have been established as George Smith in Abilene Texas. Sure they would look for Bury, but how would they find him? What on earth prevented him from running? A manhunt he could have put off for a long time? His reputation? Didn't want to tarnish the family name? He was hanged. Don't most things have to be better than that?

[Errata]

Hi Errata

***

Sorry, but you cant rule bury out (the whole topic of this thread)on the facts surrounding his murder of his wife just because its different. Yes, it appears un ripper like. yes their are differences.
Different circumstances, different mental state etc. Ive said it before-serial killers (and their victims for that matter, humans for that matter) are not robots.


The mere fact that Bury is even a suspect at all is because he MURDERED his wife, in similar enough fashion, and police at that time believed he should be checked out-like any good cop would do.

So the main reason that you and others are arguing what rules bury out is actually what ruled him in.

Actually, I can rule him out and I have. For a lot of reasons. This is not a court of law, nor is this a scientific inquiry. I have said before that neither or a court nor a scientist can rule out the ghost of Ulysses S. Grant as Jack the Ripper. So if we are asked to rule someone out based on that standard, we can't rule out most people who were alive at the time. In which case my money is on Grant, who has the benefit of being all ghostly, able to walk through walls and disappear.

But if we are being asked if we can rule him out for any reason that is remotely logical, of course we can rule him out.

The only concrete similarity between the murder of Ellen Bury and any of the C5 is abdominal mutilation. And it's not even the same kind of mutilation.

That being the case, every other part of that murder, confession, anything at all touching the case is up for debate. I don't think the murder was similar enough to look like Jack the Ripper, I don't Bury behaved like a serial killer, much less Jack the Ripper. I think it was a horrible domestic murder perpetrated by a bully and abuser unable to consider anything other than his own comfort.

I don't think he was Jack. I can make any number of arguments for that opinion. What rules him out in my mind was his reaction after the murder. I don't think anyone with a few bodies under their belt reacts so bizarrely. I don't think Jack was a genius, but I don't think he was that dumb.

Feel free to disagree. I'm fine with that. But as far as I'm concerned, that rules Bury out. It's something of an Occam's Razor thing. Too many ifs are required to make him the Ripper.

[Harry D]

It comes back to what I said before, though: We can't presume what Jack was or wasn't capable of without knowing who he was. Obviously, we can only avail ourselves of the evidence from the murders themselves, but beyond that we don't know what the murderer's state of mind was like after his last victim. This is all based on the fact that the Ripper never got caught, therefore he must've been a master criminal. I still think that he was one lucky boy, attacking and mutilating women on public streets patrolled by the police, or in confined spaces like someone's backyard or a hovel. And all within a localized area, as well. That shows an incredible element of risk or stupidity, but those are narrow margins depending on if the murderer is caught or not.

[Abby Normal]

Actually, I can rule him out and I have. For a lot of reasons. This is not a court of law, nor is this a scientific inquiry. I have said before that neither or a court nor a scientist can rule out the ghost of Ulysses S. Grant as Jack the Ripper. So if we are asked to rule someone out based on that standard, we can't rule out most people who were alive at the time. In which case my money is on Grant, who has the benefit of being all ghostly, able to walk through walls and disappear.

But if we are being asked if we can rule him out for any reason that is remotely logical, of course we can rule him out.

The only concrete similarity between the murder of Ellen Bury and any of the C5 is abdominal mutilation. And it's not even the same kind of mutilation.

That being the case, every other part of that murder, confession, anything at all touching the case is up for debate. I don't think the murder was similar enough to look like Jack the Ripper, I don't Bury behaved like a serial killer, much less Jack the Ripper. I think it was a horrible domestic murder perpetrated by a bully and abuser unable to consider anything other than his own comfort.

I don't think he was Jack. I can make any number of arguments for that opinion. What rules him out in my mind was his reaction after the murder. I don't think anyone with a few bodies under their belt reacts so bizarrely. I don't think Jack was a genius, but I don't think he was that dumb.

Feel free to disagree. I'm fine with that. But as far as I'm concerned, that rules Bury out. It's something of an Occam's Razor thing. Too many ifs are required to make him the Ripper.

Fair enough Errata.
And I actually agree with a lot of what you say, I just don't think its enough
to rule him out.

[GregBaron]

Get off your high horse mate...

His cart in my mind would greatly help him:

he lived in Bow-so for ease in getting back and forth.
If questioned, he had a reason for being out-he was working.
he could use the cart to conceal things, including himself.

I would imagine he would park somewhere nearby, go to a pub, drink and start trolling for victims.

It would serve him as kind of a mobile bolt hole-kind of like how modern serial killers use their cars. except I doubt he picked them up in it! But I guess he could have even done that!

I essentially agree with you Abby but am again wondering about the specifics.

Did he have knives, spare clothes, blood cleaning rags, a bucket of water, a fake mustache and hat etc. in his cart...

Did he park near or far.....far would entail more walking with knife and blood...did he park on Dorset street for MJK, around the corner of Buck's row
with Polly, halfway between Mitre Square and Berner Street for Stride/Eddowes...Did he troll down Ghoulston Street and drop the apron.......or did he do most of his work on foot with a specified getaway location a bit off the murder scenes....?

The buggy adds another layer of possibilities and/or problems....Would a horse freak out at the smell of blood...?

Do cops give a free pass to a dude passing in a cart ?

As far as I know there is no mention of any carts by anyone in any of the murder investigations....

How commonplace were such transports?

Just curious what y'all think about the likelihood of Jtr being a horse-and-buggy man a la Bury...




Greg

[Wyatt Earp]

Actually, I can rule him out and I have. For a lot of reasons.

Sorry, Errata, but you have not ruled Bury out. You might imagine that you have, but you haven't.

You've expressed a variety of personal opinions; "I don't think the Ripper would have done this" and "I don't think the Ripper would have done that" and so forth. All of these opinions can be and often have been reasonably countered.

In some cases, your opinions are misinformed, such as your earlier contention that the absence of a cut throat rules Bury out. In other cases, your opinions have included false information, such as your contention that Bury had been fired just before leaving London.

You have presented no firm and objective basis for ruling out the possibility that William Bury was Jack the Ripper.

[John Wheat]

[QUOTE=Errata;328005 You have to be either incredibly stupid or incredibly arrogant to think that confessing to mutilating your wife who committed suicide is going to be believed. [/QUOTE]

To Errata

The key word there is arrogant. I suggest Bury was arrogant enough to think that confessing to mutilating your wife who committed suicide is going to be believed.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

Actually, I can rule him out and I have. For a lot of reasons. This is not a court of law, nor is this a scientific inquiry. I have said before that neither or a court nor a scientist can rule out the ghost of Ulysses S. Grant as Jack the Ripper. So if we are asked to rule someone out based on that standard, we can't rule out most people who were alive at the time. In which case my money is on Grant, who has the benefit of being all ghostly, able to walk through walls and disappear...

But if we are being asked if we can rule him out for any reason that is remotely logical, of course we can rule him out...

I think it was a horrible domestic murder perpetrated by a bully and abuser unable to consider anything other than his own comfort...

I don't think he was Jack. I can make any number of arguments for that opinion. What rules him out in my mind was his reaction after the murder. I don't think anyone with a few bodies under their belt reacts so bizarrely. I don't think Jack was a genius, but I don't think he was that dumb.

Feel free to disagree. I'm fine with that. But as far as I'm concerned, that rules Bury out. It's something of an Occam's Razor thing. Too many ifs are required to make him the Ripper.

To Errata

The comments about Ulysses Grant are ridiculous. I think you'll find many serial killer were bully's and abusers. Again you mention Bury as being dumb this is your opinion. I think you'll find Bury did run all the way to Dundee. At the end of the day absolutely nothing you or anyone else has mentioned on this thread remotely rules Bury out of being Jack the Ripper.

Cheers John

[Errata]

Sorry, Errata, but you have not ruled Bury out. You might imagine that you have, but you haven't.

You've expressed a variety of personal opinions; "I don't think the Ripper would have done this" and "I don't think the Ripper would have done that" and so forth. All of these opinions can be and often have been reasonably countered.

In some cases, your opinions are misinformed, such as your earlier contention that the absence of a cut throat rules Bury out. In other cases, your opinions have included false information, such as your contention that Bury had been fired just before leaving London.

You have presented no firm and objective basis for ruling out the possibility that William Bury was Jack the Ripper.

Only because you are looking for empirical proof that could not possibly have survived 130 years. My own standards are less demanding. I'm perfectly fine with ruling someone out for being merely very unlikely. Opinions are all we have in this game. Proof doesn't exist anymore.

I think a throat cut does rule Bury out. And I think the loss of his job dictating his decision to move. I was under the impression he was an agent for his supplier. And I got that position mixed up with his getting fired earlier in the year. Mea Culpa. I don't see why the error matters in the slightest since his boss or lack of one has absolutely nothing to do with anything, but whatever.

You have stated the argument that a serial killer can change his MO and patterns if he truly wants to. An argument I have never disagreed with. What you have failed to present is a pressing reason why Jack the Ripper would change his MO in the case of Ellen Bury. I have also stated that an emotional connection to a victim produces more violence from the killer, not less. You ignored that. Yes a serial killer can reign it in. It doesn't happen often, but it happens. But every example to be found in all of Western history there is a very real reason they tone it down. They are interrupted, there is some kind of technical error, like a knife breaks, or he didn't bring the pliers or something. You give no reason. A reason might exist, but you clearly have no idea what it could be. You are arguing that this serial killer behaved in a way that less than 10% of serial killers do, and give no reason why the aberration occurs when there is always a reason.

The fact that it has happened a few times is not a good enough reason to assume it did happen. Some serial killers have killed more than 30 people. Because that has happened are we honor bound to look for even more possible victims to ascribe to Jack? Women are serial killers. Do we need to absolutely rule out the idea that Ellen did this to herself as a sort of deathbed confessional? Or are you convinced that despite the fact that it might be true, Jack didn't kill 50 people, and did not go by the name of Ellen Bury?

You think it was him. I get it. We all get it. In fact I even get that you think I'm insane to disagree with you. Loud and clear. But you cannot ask for a discussion based on something that doesn't exist. Proof.

[gnote]

You think it was him. I get it. We all get it. In fact I even get that you think I'm insane to disagree with you. Loud and clear. But you cannot ask for a discussion based on something that doesn't exist. Proof.

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.

[Wyatt Earp]

Errata, perhaps if I used a specific example, it would help you to understand the mistake you’re making.

There are posters here who feel there are reasons to believe the Ripper was Jewish. There are also posters here who feel there are reasons to believe the Ripper was not Jewish. Certainly it has not been definitely established that the Ripper was Jewish.

I hope you can see, then, that it would be foolish, and perhaps arrogant, for any poster to declare, “William Bury can be ruled out because he wasn’t Jewish.”

This is precisely the mistake, however, that you’ve been making in this thread—you’re confusing your personal opinions with things that are definitely established. You haven’t ruled Bury out, all you’ve done is express your personal opinions.

You seem to believe that the Ripper would have fled the Princes Street crime scene, and you’ve provided some evidence to support your view (“he had always fled before”). I’ve explained why the Ripper might not have fled the Princes Street crime scene, and I’ve provided some evidence to support my view (Lt. Parr’s trial testimony that Bury feared being apprehended as the Ripper). Certainly it is not something definitely established that the Ripper would have fled the Princes Street crime scene.

I hope you can see, then, that it is foolish, and perhaps arrogant, to declare, “William Bury can be ruled out because he didn’t flee the Princes Street crime scene.”

[Wyatt Earp]

You have stated the argument that a serial killer can change his MO and patterns if he truly wants to. An argument I have never disagreed with. What you have failed to present is a pressing reason why Jack the Ripper would change his MO in the case of Ellen Bury…

You think it was him. I get it. We all get it…But you cannot ask for a discussion based on something that doesn't exist. Proof.

Errata, you’re still not grasping how it is that Bury can be identified as the Ripper (I’ve reproduced the argument again, below). It’s not necessary for me to prove anything with Bury. It’s only necessary for me to demonstrate that he cannot be ruled out—and that has been accomplished.

William Bury’s signature as displayed in his murder of Ellen Bury is a close match with Jack the Ripper’s signature as described by Keppel et al.

There are three possibilities:

1. William Bury was a copycat killer.
2. The close signature match was simply a coincidence.
3. William Bury was Jack the Ripper.

For the reasons described in my article, 1 and 2 can be ruled out, but 3 cannot.

Ergo, William Bury was Jack the Ripper.

[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

[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.