Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why weren't the police interested?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Harry D
    replied
    Originally posted by Wyatt Earp View Post
    I don't view his behavior as a stumbling block. These are strange cats, and if the Ellen Bury murder arose out of an argument and was unexpected, he suddenly found himself in a set of circumstances he hadn't anticipated and had never faced before.
    Hello, Wyatt.

    Did Bury mutilate the body and write the graffiti at the back of the house to make this look like a Ripper murder? Was he drunk out of his skull at the time? Perhaps when he sobered up he had a change of plan, forgot to remove the graffiti, and decided to walk into the cop-shop with his ludicrous cover story? Either way, whether the murder was premeditated or not, whether he was the Ripper or not, his actions defy all explanation.

    One would imagine that an experienced serial killer like the Ripper would've gone on the run, hopped on a boat, something. I know we've been down this road before and you'll argue that Bury was afraid of a manhunt etc. That doesn't ring true to me, why the police would suddenly attribute this to the Ripper simply because the murderer fled the scene. If anything, this line of reasoning invalidates such an argument, because you believe he was the Ripper in spite of the fact he went to the cops.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wyatt Earp
    replied
    Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
    Could you not also argue that, as he was already a condemned man, he had nothing to lose by admitting to any other murder(s) he might have committed?
    He seems to have been hoping for a late reprieve. His appeal was only denied by Lord Lothian three days before his execution. It's also possible he was hoping for a last-minute on-the-scaffold stopping of the execution.

    His remarks to James Berry (about his not getting anything out of him because he was to hang him), if true, could be construed as hinting at a willingness to make a deal, but when that didn't trigger anything, he could have simply decided to stay silent.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    It doesnt matter what the crime is the non questioning criteria still applies !

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Like I said, I was only guessing, but Bridewell made the same deduction as I had.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    The rule is, that once arrested, the prisoner shall not be asked any question concerning the crime for which he is charged.

    As you can see, in this case the question would concern another crime, but so long as the prisoner was cautioned first, I don't see why he couldn't be questioned.
    It doesnt matter what the crime is the non questioning criteria still applies !

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • John G
    replied
    Originally posted by Wyatt Earp View Post
    John, thank you for asking. My article appeared in the August 2014 issue. A week after my article came out, the Kosminski DNA extravaganza hit the airwaves, and that was the end of William Bury for a while, lol.
    Thanks, Wyatt, I'll try and access it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bridewell
    replied
    Originally posted by Wyatt Earp View Post
    Once Bury was convicted, he would have had no incentive to respond to police questions—he was already a condemned man.
    Could you not also argue that, as he was already a condemned man, he had nothing to lose by admitting to any other murder(s) he might have committed?

    Leave a comment:


  • Bridewell
    replied
    Originally posted by Wyatt Earp View Post
    This is a question for our legal eagles here. Once Bury was charged with Ellen’s murder, which took place immediately, wouldn’t it have been “hands off” so far as additional police questioning was concerned?
    I certainly lay no claim to being a 'legal eagle' (GUT is the man for that perhaps). As for questioning after charge (seen from the modern perspective) there is a prohibition on questioning after charge, but only with regard to the charged offence. So, as I understand matters, Bury could not be questioned about the murder of his wife but there would be nothing to prevent his being asked about the JtR murders.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wyatt Earp
    replied
    Originally posted by John G View Post
    Hi Wyatt,

    Could you let me know what issue of Ripperologist the article's in as I would be really interested in reading it.
    John, thank you for asking. My article appeared in the August 2014 issue. A week after my article came out, the Kosminski DNA extravaganza hit the airwaves, and that was the end of William Bury for a while, lol.

    Leave a comment:


  • John G
    replied
    Originally posted by Wyatt Earp View Post
    Actually, the Ellen Bury murder was indeed Ripper-like, as I demonstrated in my article in Ripperologist. It is a close match with Jack the Ripper’s signature as described by Keppel et al. Keep in mind that signature evidence is a class of evidence and can be admitted in court.



    He probably thought he could get away with relatively minor mutilations…and he was right.



    Bury can be identified as the Ripper through a straightforward process of elimination that is in keeping with what we know about the behavior of serial killers. As I’ve indicated, the Ellen Bury murder is a close match with the Ripper’s signature. There are three possibilities: 1) William Bury was a copycat killer, 2) the close signature match was simply a coincidence, or 3) William Bury was Jack the Ripper. As I detailed in my article, 1 and 2 can be ruled out, but 3 cannot. William Bury was not simply a wife murderer, he was also Jack the Ripper.
    Hi Wyatt,

    Could you let me know what issue of Ripperologist the article's in as I would be really interested in reading it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wyatt Earp
    replied
    Originally posted by Harry D View Post
    Bury's odd behaviour after the murder of his wife is the one stumbling block when it comes to his legitimacy as a suspect. He doesn't strike me as a man used to getting away with murder.
    I don't view his behavior as a stumbling block. These are strange cats, and if the Ellen Bury murder arose out of an argument and was unexpected, he suddenly found himself in a set of circumstances he hadn't anticipated and had never faced before.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wyatt Earp
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    When it is pointed out that he didn't "actually" do anything Ripper-like to his wife, you tell me that is because he didn't want to be identified?
    So why suspect him in the first place?
    Actually, the Ellen Bury murder was indeed Ripper-like, as I demonstrated in my article in Ripperologist. It is a close match with Jack the Ripper’s signature as described by Keppel et al. Keep in mind that signature evidence is a class of evidence and can be admitted in court.

    I thought you said he didn't want to give himself away?
    Now you are saying he did give himself away.
    Apparently then, he didn't outsmart the police.
    He probably thought he could get away with relatively minor mutilations…and he was right.

    Bury is only another wife murderer, nothing more.
    Bury can be identified as the Ripper through a straightforward process of elimination that is in keeping with what we know about the behavior of serial killers. As I’ve indicated, the Ellen Bury murder is a close match with the Ripper’s signature. There are three possibilities: 1) William Bury was a copycat killer, 2) the close signature match was simply a coincidence, or 3) William Bury was Jack the Ripper. As I detailed in my article, 1 and 2 can be ruled out, but 3 cannot. William Bury was not simply a wife murderer, he was also Jack the Ripper.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Wyatt Earp View Post
    Bury and his wife were known to be living at that residence by others in the area. He could not fully “open her up” without revealing himself to everyone as Jack the Ripper.
    I thought he was suspected by some precisely because of what he did to his wife?
    Read the first line here on Casebook, Suspects.
    Reasons for suspicion: Similarities between the murder of Ellen Bury and Ripper victims.

    When it is pointed out that he didn't "actually" do anything Ripper-like to his wife, you tell me that is because he didn't want to be identified?
    So why suspect him in the first place?


    he succeeded in fooling both the police at the time and those who continue to raise this objection today.
    Ironically, the same could be said about Lewis Carrol, Maybrick, Sickert, Gull, and all the rest who successfully fooled the police.


    Let’s put ourselves in Abberline’s shoes for a moment. You’ve been searching for the Ripper for months. A man is FINALLY taken into custody for a murder in which the victim’s abdominal and genital areas have been mutilated, and there’s a foot of intestine protruding from her abdomen (i.e., she’s been “ripped”).
    I thought you said he didn't want to give himself away?
    Now you are saying he did give himself away.
    Apparently then, he didn't outsmart the police.

    Only the doctors involved in the Whitechapel murders would be able to compare the wounds to see if they indicate the same method, or level of expertise.
    The police are not able to prove anything, all they are there for is a confession, and they had been the recipients of too many "confessions" as it was.

    Bury is only another wife murderer, nothing more.

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    Bury's odd behaviour after the murder of his wife is the one stumbling block when it comes to his legitimacy as a suspect. He doesn't strike me as a man used to getting away with murder.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wyatt Earp
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    William Bury must have known the details of the Whitechapel murders as much as anyone else at that time. Why then did he randomly stab and slash at his wife's abdomen, when he could have opened her up in true Ripper fashion?
    I’ve already dealt with this in my article in Ripperologist and also previously here on Casebook. Bury and his wife were known to be living at that residence by others in the area. He could not fully “open her up” without revealing himself to everyone as Jack the Ripper. It’s really as simple as that. He evidently couldn’t resist the temptation to mutilate, but by toning down the mutilations, he succeeded in fooling both the police at the time and those who continue to raise this objection today.

    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    I doubt Scotland Yard believed those stabs & slashes were the mark of Jack the Ripper.
    If they had, the presence of Dr. Phillips would have been the clue. As far as I know, Phillips did not journey to Dundee in connection with this crime.
    Let’s put ourselves in Abberline’s shoes for a moment. You’ve been searching for the Ripper for months. A man is FINALLY taken into custody for a murder in which the victim’s abdominal and genital areas have been mutilated, and there’s a foot of intestine protruding from her abdomen (i.e., she’s been “ripped”). You discover that the murderer just moved to Dundee a few weeks ago and had been living in the East End throughout the Ripper murders. You find evidence he’d been hanging out in Whitechapel, even though he lived a fair distance away in Bow. You find out that he’d been involved with prostitutes. You know that rings were taken from Chapman, and lo and behold, you find two rings, among other items “of very inferior metal,” at the bottom of his trunk. And you notice that after murdering his victim, he threw some of her clothes into the fireplace, just as was done at the Kelly crime scene.

    If this guy was not investigated properly—and without authoritative police records it is hazardous to make that claim—then all I can say is this: “Absolutely amazing.”
    Last edited by Wyatt Earp; 06-09-2015, 03:04 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wyatt Earp
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    The rule is, that once arrested, the prisoner shall not be asked any question concerning the crime for which he is charged.

    As you can see, in this case the question would concern another crime, but so long as the prisoner was cautioned first, I don't see why he couldn't be questioned.
    Wickerman, thanks for clarifying that.

    For any who might be interested, William Beadle provides an overview of the police investigation into Bury in Chapter 12 of his book, Jack the Ripper Unmasked. Beadle thinks that Bury was indeed interviewed, but not until very late in the game. You’ll recall that the executioner James Berry indicated that two detectives from Scotland Yard had come up to Dundee just prior to Bury’s execution.

    Beadle writes, “it would have made little sense for them to have travelled all that way and not interviewed Bury themselves. [Crime reporter]Norman Hastings, who makes no mention of the hangman’s story, implies that an interview did take place in which Bury simply stonewalled” (p. 304). As I’ve suggested, Bury would have had no incentive to cooperate with a police interview once he’d already been sentenced to death.

    It’s important to keep in mind that we lack authoritative sources for the police investigation into Bury. We’re reliant on newspaper sources, which have to be treated with caution.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X