I studied law and a mock case like this one are a great way to learn. Would be fun to see History Hit do something like this again. Perhaps even with medical students.
@@haleynixon6017 they mentioned it very quickly in the video that they r students. I'm American so idk what mock trials are like in Scotland but, man, what a great experience for them! I spotted 2 in particular that I think will make excellent attorneys some day. (They all will I'm sure I just mean 2 were particularly confident)
Incredible to see how modern forensic analysis can still shed new light on cases over a century old. It's like watching history and science collide right before our eyes!
SENSATIONLIST DOC. (Check Wikipedia for the truth)..Conveniently leaves out all the CRITICAL details and WITNESS statements from London and Dundee. Just days before Bury had been observing Dundee court cases, buying rope and discussing strangulation. Drained the wifes money.
But I do t think they did a thorough job - burnt clothes in the hearth rope on the floor mutilated body in box ? So much more evidence And William should have been called to testify
There is another suspicious character who killed his wife who was also from Bow at one time. His name was William Burrett and you can find his crime on the old Bailey. He disembowelled his partner and he was living with her while her job was as a prostitute. He hanged for his crime against his partner. The women were asked to leave the courtroom because the details of the case were so grim. The fatal wound was that in her abdomen and she had been stabbed 7 times.
I hadn’t heard about this bloke! Down the Rabbit Hole I go! Is there a specific page, Book or documentary on William Burrett that you can recommend? Thanks
@@simonortonthe text of the message was transcribed by a policeman so as to preserve the message so there would have been no original suspect handwriting to match
The letters could have been compared. However, nothwithstanding the fact that no one knows who wrote three or four most important letters, before the deluge of fake letters after the police shared knowledge of the original letter's existence, I suspect a comparison was done and no comparison made. Moreover, like the graffito in London, who knows if these two scribblings were recorded. If not, we do not know they even existed. But the inclusion of the tour guide talking about the Jack letters, for me, points to a failed comparison being made. Bury didn't commit the Ripper murders. The MO just does not match. And there's no solid evidence at all.
The attempt to hide the body is a signature not associated with the ripper murders. So I could see two reasons for this: attempts to disguise a suicide for the victim to receive proper burial or an opportunist trying to mimic ripper murders that has more remorse than the actual ripper murder.
The fact it was his wife might have forced him to go to these means though because it’s far not likely he would get connected the death and blamed for her death
I dont think the Ripper had a sense of remorse. Its likely he wanted the bodies to be found. I don't think remorse was a sensation he would have been familiar with in any part of his life.
Yes that’s what I’m saying-he attempted to hide the body/stage the scene this time because he knew he would be connected to the murders. Nothing to do with remorse. I’m definitely not saying he is Jack the Ripper but I’m just saying we shouldn’t right it off because the actions after the killing and placement of the body was different to the others-I’m just saying that there is a possible explanation for this difference that doesn’t neccassarily discount him from the other murders.
There's a pretty obvious difference between this and the ripper murders though, if Bury was the ripper. All the victims in London were prostitutes not connected with him ... this was HIS wife ... in HIS home
The defense managed to distill this down to single point: the ligature marks having an upward slope or note. But that isn't all the evidence you had. You haven't got a body an inconclusive ligature mark. You've got a body stuffed in a box, that's been mutilated, and has a plethora of injuries over and above that one point. Why is this woman, who allegedly hung herself, stuffed in a box with multiple wounds? Because she was murdered, that's why. The defense managed to burn this down to a single point of contention, and the prosecution did a terrible job letting them get away with it. But no, he wasn't Jack the Ripper. He was just an abusive spouse who murdered his wife. As abusive spouses often do.
Fully agree. And even if the ligature mark WAS rising, couldn't it simply be the case that the person strangling her was taller/in a higher position than her at the time? That perhaps he'd already knocked her down to her knees and was standing behind her when he strangled her? I'm confused why that possibility wasn't even mentioned in what we saw here. It would also have been interesting to have heard reference to other cases where another person has mutilated the body of someone who has killed themselves and then placed them into a box, breaking their legs in the process, because that seems a most bizarre reaction to say the least and I cannot imagine there is much - if any - evidence to support it. This poor woman was murdered. Maybe afterwards, in desperation, he wanted to make it seem like the Ripper (hence the writing on the wall and door), but there was no Jack the Ripper here, just an evil, abusive man who murdered his wife.
He killed before and after 1888 too. It was not limited to just 1888. The killer was Charles Allen Lechmere. But you are correct about the killing spree taking place in 1888 because those are the killings usually associated with Jack the Ripper.
Very interesting and well presented recreation of a cause celebre from long ago. My one problem was that the captioning had a great difficulty with the Scottish dialect. I hope those needing captioning were not put off by the sometimes bizarre captions 😮
@@andrewleah1983 sorry, but it’s not still illegal or murder and even the Catholic Church has changed its stance and allows burial on sanctified ground. Nobody EVER gets prosecuted for suicidal thoughts or attempts nowadays.
I'm a big fan of Dr Richard Shepherd, his book Unnatural Causes has to be one of the best-written and most fascinating books I've read. Brilliant to see him here giving evidence and bringing this case to life.
FYI: Some channel patrons may get early access to these videos. They may comment on them before the videos goes public. The comments are then published when the video is published. This is true for me on another channel.
So much fun and very learning for everyone including the students………. You all have GOT to do more of these. It could change the way we see our past court cases. Therefore, could help us solve current and/or future proceedings.
Very cool video. I felt bad for the first kid who was questioning the doctor. He seemed very nervous and several of the questions he asked didn't really make sense or were just silly. Like when he asked the doctor how, in his personal experience, people usually reacted while being strangled. He then asked the doctor how common it was for suicidal strangulations to end up with a wound to the abdomen and inside a box. Those are obviously circumstances very specific to this one case and are basically irrelevant anyway because the guy already admitted to mutilating the body and putting it in a box.
Please someone tell Mick Preicely he needs to slow down when his speaks during his tour. It’s impossible to follow him!! How can tourists whose first language isn’t English understand a word he says? 😂
I thought the same thing, even for people speaking English it's way too fast you can't reflect or think on anything he says, might as well go to a library and read books on it, then go to these locations.
interesting how Bury, did not commit any "Ripper" style murders on the streets of Dundee. Considering serial killers don't just stop. And the only killing in all the days there was of his wife.
This shows us that cases are won and lost on presentation of the case, not necessarily on the facts. The circumstances of this clearly and strongly suggest the man murdered his wife. His refusal to try and account for why he had mutilated her corpse and packed her into a box, only give more support to murder. If I were trying this case I would paint a plausible narrative. The wife is upset with being moved away from home and lodged in a squalid flat, her husband drinking away her money, and the subsequent violence. In a rage he strangles her and mutilates her body. Perhaps he was Jack the Ripper, maybe he confessed to her and she wrote it on the walls. Maybe he did so in his drunken state. He packs her body up with the idea of smuggling it out and dumping it, before fleeing town. As he sobers up, he realized how implausible that he could get rid of her body without notice, or have enough resources to get far away without being caught. So he concocts a tale of suicide and hopes for a lucky jury. In the second trial, that is what he got.
This is a good illustration of why you don't just rely on forensic experts: they're never going to say that something *couldn't* happen, which leaves too much room for doubt in the jury's mind. The prosecution needed to present a theory and they also needed to remind the jury that Elizabeth was a victim even before she died. As we saw in America at the O.J. Simpson trial, if the jury has more sympathy for the accused than they do for the victim, they are likely to ignore all kinds of evidence, no matter how conclusive it is. But of course this was for an anatomy program, so of course the forensic pathologists ran the show.
Here is another very plausible explanation. Ellen, realizes she has married and followed a poor excuse for a man, that her life could not get any worse, that she is now penniless, more or less alone, and at the mercy of a drunken abuser. No longer willing to suffer such a life she hangs herself. William comes home drunk out of his gourde and finds his wife killed herself. Being the drunken abuser he is he then grabs a knife and stabs her several times while cussing at his bad luck for marrying such a weak and thankless woman. He rescues her from prostitution, gives her a house and a legitimate life, and she thanks him by killing herself. He then drags a wooden box into his living room and forces her body inside doing whatever is necessary, ie: breaking her legs. When he awakes from his drunken stupor he realizes his nightmare wasn’t actually a nightmare but reality instead. Seeing how badly he mutilated the body he is now embarrassed and shocked. So, he goes to the police and reports his wife’s death. The reason he doesn’t testify is because he is embarrassed at his drunken tirade and feels guilty for driving her to suicide. He is also afraid of being linked to the Jack the Ripper murders. He is afraid that speaking about how brutal and heartless he was with the body might cause the jury to make connections that aren’t really there. Especially so with what was written outside his flat.
@@ZurlHammerdoom Fancy story. Except she wasn't a prostitute. And who wrote that Jack The Ripper message outside of their rooms? Was it her, telling the world that he had confessed to her that he was Jack? Did he return to find her packing to leave him? Anyone can tell stories. Here the kids did a poor job of putting on a trial.
Jack the Ripper’s victims were all Prostitutes. He exhibited an extreme hatred toward them. I’ve always felt he had an incident with one that caused him embarrassment or may have gotten an STD. Could this guy have been him? Maybe, although they were also a couple of other candidates as well.
It's as confounding as the times when some gruesome act has been perpetrated, the police oftimes receive a plethora of subjects walking into the police station or calling in to plead their guilt. We laymen ask, "Why would any sane person do such an act of taking credit for heinous acts?" I dunno. Makes absolutely no sense to me.
Innocent people confess to crimes all the time. It’s not hard to imagine that if this guy did murder his wife, he probably had some sort of break, and that being the case, something was likely seriously wrong with him, which could also have led to a false delusion that he was Jack. The better question would be if the guy WERE Jack the Ripper, why confess after murdering his wife? He’s killed several people and gotten away with it fine. There’d be no reason to confess now. He was new in the area, in a time before phones and internet, and before modern forensics. All he would have had to do was hide her body and flee. She’d have never been identified, and he could start over somewhere else.
@@walkawaycat431 Yeah I remember reading a book about Donald "Pee Wee" Gaskins and it was clear he was a very evil man and committed horrific crimes. Towards the end of his confessions it became clear to me he was just making things up as he went along to become infamous and secure his place in history. He succeeded. Just like you get the real old timers in the US admitting on their deathbeds that they're D.B Cooper or the Zodiac Killer, I suppose they think it'll make them immortal if they're constantly talked about and books written about them etc
The attorneys for both defense and prosecution drove me crazy-all of them asked the same questions multiple times. The physicians were exceedingly patient with them. As an RN I know that I take what I know for granted.
Unfortunately the sound track is way too loud and distracting, as often is the case. Maybe investigate the psychology behind noise on your audience. Less is definitely more.
Personally I think the most viable suspect is William Lechmere. He was first on the scene for the first canonical victim, he acted suspiciously at the scene, gave a false name, and his route to work/home/to family was in close proximity to all five canonical victims. He knew the area like the back of his hand. The lack of extreme brutality with Polly Ann Nichols compared to the other victims suggests the killer was interrupted during the killing.
It's notable that neither pathologist would give a definitive answer as to whether the ligature was self-inflicted. Without photographs, we've no way to ascertain whether the ligature line was rising or not, and even if it was, that doesn't mean it was self-inflicted. Here's a thought experiment: We know that Burry would hit his wife. Imagine that they were arguing and he hit her, then after he struck her she stumbled back and fell, either to the bed or the floor. As she rolled over to push herself up, he forced her down and pinned her in place with a knee to the small of her back. He then wrapped something around her neck, pulling upward as he tightened it. In that case, the ligature would leave a rising line, even though she didn't hang. Having said that, the program overall was well done, and I'd like to see someone dig a little deeper into this guy's life.
"Was Jack The Ripper Actually Caught?" Yes, both literally and metaphorically. His name was Charles Allen Lechmere (the guy who was found at the scene of Polly Nichols murder). QC James Scobie agrees the evidence collected is sufficient for a modern murder trial.
False. The so called case against Lechmere is based on make belief. It's all about he could have done this and he could have done that. As for actual evidence to tie him to the murders there is none. Pretend time is not the same as factual evidence. We don't have anything to link Lechmere to The Ripper murders. Nothing and if you claim there is then spit it out. I've watched the house of Lechmere channel. Same thing, make belief and could have and nothing more. The only suspect who can be linked to two of the murders more than Lechmere mind you is the man who is the prime suspect. Kosminski, and even with the DNA on the shawl connected to the Eddowes murder, even with the witness probably Schwartz identifying Kosminski as the man who attacked Liz Stride. Even with that we still can't say it was him.
@@iseveer Indeed, though Polly Nichols is considered a canonical victim. But if a former detective superintendent and barrister of highest order say he was, then he very likely was indeed.
I've read so many books on Jack the ripper, but this story is by far the sorriest case of a suspect, there's nothing at all to suggest William Bury was jack the ripper,,,,it's pathetic
@@Heygoodlooking-lk9kg bury wasn’t the Ripper police did decent job an every chance they stoped jack an sent him to asylum serial killers don’t just stop killing Jacob levy for me was more likely jack
@@Heygoodlooking-lk9kg What I think the programme demonstrates is that evidence for any individual being Jack the Ripper is scant. A list of potential suspects is reeled off and the only evidence against them is circumstantial. Same with Bury. He was in the right place at the right time. The murders ceased when he moved to Dundee. When his wife died he mutilated the body in a manner similar to The Ripper. The graffiti on the walls is suggestive but no more. Was Bury The Ripper? He could have been but so could hundreds of others. More interesting was the trial and the forensic evidence. The Ripper aspect is secondary really.
It's like watching an episode of the Faeroes of Egypt and big treasures buried one place, and the archeologist looking at the location and saying in the end of the show..."it's plausible but we don't know, evidence points both ways, but we cannot be sure, maybe it's been removed" The same thing with Jack the Ripper mystery, it will remain a mystery, even 136 years after (the 1888 year)
a good video, and a fun addition of a "trial". But i find that they left out many key questions in their questioning of the experts. And also the question, could he have been framed. It sound like its all a work based on the assumption "he did it" now find me the evidence to sentence him. Instead of investigating and ruling out all possible alternatives. Sure it could have been done, but left out of this video. But going back to the "trial" i still feel like it was done bad over all, and the students should have gone a bit further in their questions to the experts. And no one brings up the other stuff, even the jury in the video have a talking point "he said to the police he found her on the floor, if she had hanged he should have found her haning by the rope". Well not if some else one cut the rope and later mutilated her and stuffed her into the box. This case with the lack of information in the video, is far from "he did it", and come across with a huge tunnel vision of "he did it". And when we talk about jack the ripper", It more plausible that Francis Tumblety was "jack the ripper" than this guy. Any way a good and interesting video even though i having more questions of how the people in it can be so sure he murdered his wife. =)
Well may be, may be not? It's likely that Jack looked very ordinary and was probably a labourer. He was apt at using a knife, and I'm sure he had severe mental health problems.
I’d love to see more things like this. I’d be curious to know how many people would be convicted in today’s justice system. It’s also excellent practice for students.
Wonderful historical coverage video about [Jack the ripper] story ....a horrible story created by wavering wagged amongst ( harlots murdered, a newspaper 📰 exploited, location in dirty - night darknesspoorly-humbled habitant streets in London... 19th century years...
Production specific comment, not video specific. You guys desperately need someone to help you improve the quality and consistency of your videos' audio (I'm not looking for a job lol). The content is outstanding, but the audio is sometimes a huge pain. Just because the in-camera and narrative voices sound good on one system in one environment, doesn't mean that quality translates to others. It's frustratingly inconsistent between and within different videos you post. The start of this video sounds great on headphones, but terrible on laptop speakers. The background music stomps all over Dan's narration. The audio problems you're facing are not new problems, they've been solved many (many) times before.
A really bad prosecution witness with the medical examiner did the trick. He was def very unsure of himself and flip floppy. He also didn't give good explanations for his findings which created the reasonable doubt. He kinda of talked about this when he said SLIGHTLY but he should have and could have said even if it was a door handle or something else in the house the ligiture mark still would have been higher than where it was based on the angle and the place was said to be bare so what reasonable explaination is there for those marks other than him. That coupled with the dismemberment and body placement he was DEF guilty. The 1st jury got it RIGHT imo
@@LucasMoore88 The problem is that for every answer he was basically "I'm 99% sure, but can't rule out a different answer completely" so the defence used that to leverage doubt on everything he said. I'm with you; 100% guilty in my mind.
I want to know who he is, because I want to know why he stopped. And if he didn't stop ,why he changed his method of killing, and why he started his killings in the first place.
The killer either died or was incarcerated. I think the police knew he was gone since they reduced the extra patrols in White Chapel within just a couple of weeks of Mary Kelly's death. Less time than the gap between the double event and Mary Kelly's death.
We have so much better science today. Not foolproof, of course, but the doctors and crime lab people would have given the jury many more facts than could be had in 1888. Fascinating to see what the doctors were able to conclude from the autopsy files.
Yeah, BUT... what's with the Ripper's knowledge about anatomy and his butcher-like skillset? Where does that fit in? What Bury did to the corpse of his wife was rather simple (if one would want to call it that way), in comparison to the London murders... I dunno. I'm not convinced.
Given their history, she may have been intoxicated when she was strangled or strangled herself. The mutilation does seem to point to something more sinister. Very interesting. While I doubt he was the Ripper, he may have been influenced by the news accounts, especially since he lived in the area. The bruises are also interesting. And a slight rise in a ligature could also be caused by someone taller standing or even kneeling behind the victim.
I remember reading that not long after the murders stopped a series of almost identical killings happened in a foreign city ( i cannot recall which one ) and some believe this was Jack having escaped justice here…..
The is some analysis of Francis Tumblety, a quack Doctor and salesman. Apparently the "from Hell" letter is consistent with Francis Tumblety's writing, and contains Irish contractions that he would think of.
Four Jack experts were asked who they thought Jack was. Two believed it was Francis Tumblety, an American. One declined to say. The fourth expert's suspect was easily the least plausible of all those ever cited. The circumstantial evidence pointing to Tumblety is overwhelmingly convincing and the Metropolitan Police have for well over a century known this, having fluffed their only chance to arrest him.
If I’m pushed, I’d say Bury is my most likely suspect. The sudden departure to Dundee after Kelly’s murder as well as his regular drinking binges and staying away from home for nights on end while they lived in East London don’t bode well for him. However I can’t help thinking he may have been a Ripper copycat seeking to elevate his notoriety. Either way he’s by far the most likely known name of all the supposed Ripper suspects to be the guilty party.
As a sequel, why not consider the trial of Dr James Gloster? For those who missed my 1999 article, 'Dr Who?' (published in the late Nick Warren's 'Ripperana' magazine), a more recent exposition can be found in 'A Case of Mother's Ruin', available through Amazon. All roads do not lead to Dorset Street, as Stephen Knight supposed, but to Pennsylvania, via Pimlico.
JTR drives me nuts, it spins my mind around trying to figure it out. My latest research is on Hyam Hyams. Few comments of Lechmere, he will be my next stop. I hear so many diffrent opinions, generally it is considered to be Kosminski.
You ever have people use the wrong words and you just feel the need to correct them? People are hanged, not hung. If isn't, 'she hung herself.' It is, 'she hanged herself.'
@@Byrenious To be fair, I was directly quoting the old saying which is why I said "men" & not "people". I knew someone would get *hung* up on that aspect though.
I have my doubts of him being Jack the Ripper...trying to hide the body was different...but then again, Jack likely never murdered someone that was in direct association with him either. I'm curious if there was ever a toxicology report in Bury's murder...it wouldn't be outside the possibility that he made her unable to fight back with all sorts of chemicals or poisons, thus invalidating the defense's primary case. It's definitely a case where you cannot reasonably that Bury for-sure killed his wife. Incredibly interesting video!
There'd be no need for toxicology. What isn't mentioned is that in the end Bury wrote a letter confessing that he killed his wife by strangulation. If you consider how Bury cut open his wife's privates and backside, as detailed in the official medical reports, it's the same as the ripper: Ellen Bury: ‘On the inner side of the right labium was a wound 2 inches in length, penetrating the skin. Beginning about an inch behind the anus was an incised wound running forwards and to the left, into the perinaeum, and dividing the sphincter muscle'; Running downwards from the centre of the pubis to the outer side of the left labium was an incised wound 2 ½ inches in length, penetrating the skin and fat. Eddowes: ‘The incision went down the right side of the vagina and rectum for half an inch behind the rectum' Eddowes had a stab to her groin; Bury stabbed each groin on Ellen once. He penetrated through her abdominal wall and created a rip with a jagged edge. There were numerous other cuts and stabs. Martha Tabram had a three inch cut to her privates. Bury was clealry the ripper
Yes murder was quite common back then especially unsolved murder. Unless they basically caught you in the act or you had a strong eyewitness you couldn't be convicted of a crime. That was even if I'm not mistaken before fingerprints. The only thing that said Jack the ripper report the one thing that made his murders still remembered today while the other unsolved murders are not remembered, is Jack the ripper mutilated. Also he took body parts away something the average killer did not do. Jack the ripper was a thrill killer while the average murder in London at the time was probably profit motivated.
If you ever get a chance read James Bland's True crime diaries for criminals such as Mrs Dyer who was a baby farmer being convicted by the police at this time.
Im not sure why this wasnt mentioned but surely this theory needed to be considered. He kills his wife in drunken rage or whatever but he strangles her. Panics and now looking for a way to hide his guilt. He knows all about Jack the Ripper and decides if i write something on the wall saying its Jack that might be decieving and believable. To make it look realistic he needs to mutealate her body. He now also keeps himself quiet hoping his plan foola everyone
first off i have been studying serial murder and forensics for years and after seeing what has been done to this case over the years it made me mad because i do not think it's right that people make money off the victims of crime unless it's been solved or they solve it. that being said myself and a few other researched this case to find the killer and solve the case but we are doing it to stop the greed of man. I did a lot of research on this case learning about the areas, the lighting, the weather at the time of the murders things like that i knew that i could not use anything but the facts of the case and then use the tools of today in order to find the ripper. believe it or not it was not hard to find the ripper. The reason police back then did not find him is because they had no idea what a serial killer was or how to catch one. He was right under their nose just as he said he was. now i will tell you why i would be ranting and that is because the reason this case is not solved is because the authors, newspaper writers and armchair detectives do not have the skill or the know how to find a serial killer and through the years they have written books and added suspects that have nothing to do with the case and they added stuff to sell their books so they have muddied the waters a lot just to make money and another sad thing is even ex detectives have jumped on the money wagon. anyway, as i said i found Jack the ripper he was a man named George Hutchinson we are 100% sure on this, he fits in every way to what we know as a lust killer. He lived on Commercial and Wentworth Street right in the middle of all the murders, he knew the area well, he saw the victims every day, He even knew two of the victims this is very important because a lust killer will try and target victims, they do not know but if they do kill a known victim, they will always cover or destroy the face and sometimes the whole body to depersonalize the victim. we also believe that he only wrote two of the letters, the first letter that was sent came on Sept 17th and he gave his trade name, he also sent the from hell letter and it was not sent to a surgeon it was sent to Mr. Lusk who was head of the vigilance committee. this was a sex crime but Jack never has sex with the victims so his DNA would not be found on the victims. Jacks Penis was his knife. as for the shall they say was Kate Eddowes well that can't be proved and even if it was i am sure you would find lots of different DNA on it as most of the victims only had the clothes on their backs. we would never know this man's name had it not been for a lady named Sara Lewis who saw him standing across from that opening you showed leading to Mary Kelly's flat at 2 a.m. as she was going to her friends flat. after George learned he had been seen it had been three days since the murder and the inquest had just ended it was enough to scare him into making a statement to police as to why he was there. in this statement we found all kinds of red flags. the one thing that usually gets serial killers caught is their EGO and we see his ego in this statement it shows he has been listening to what was being written and talked about. at the start of the murders people were blaming a Jew and that is why he wrote the message on the wall. He also brings up that a man gave Mary Kelly a handkerchief and made sure to say it was red he says that because when he was seen talking to Kate Eddowes the witness said he was dressed as a sailor and had on a red handkerchief. Then they were saying the killer was a rich toff down slumming, so he tells of seeing this well-dressed man with Mary Kelly after Mary had asked to barrow money from him and he told her he had none. he tells how well dressed this guy was and he was very detailed he even said the man had a large gold pocket watch on a gold chain with a red stone. now you should see this red flag as you brought up that Mary lived on the most dangerous street in all of London, the police would only go down that street in groups of three.no man in his right mind would let that gold watch be seen as he would have been mugged. George said he knew Mary and had given her money before now if you knew a person and you were the last person to see them and then find out they had been killed by a killer all of London was looking for you would be running to police but not George he only came forward three days after the murder when he heard he was seen. We believe George was out hunting that night but had to stick close to home because of all the police out looking for him and he was getting worried he would not be able to get a victim until Mary came up and asked him for money, now on a normal day this would not have bothered him as his victims were older drunk women Mary was 25 and pretty she was in the wrong place at the wrong time. he stalked her waited until the coast was clear and made his move. We also believe he killed a lot more than 5 we think he not only killed the 11 others but also was the torso killer. We are trying to find where he went when he left London in 1891 when the murders stopped when we find him, we will then look for new victims as he would not have stopped killing once we find them, we will then link him to one or more and that will be enough for the courts and the world. we will never write any books or movies or documentaries because we did this for the victims and their families and to stop the greed.
Some believe William Gull was JTR...or possibly Prince Albert Victor Duke of Clarence & Avondale who suffered greatly from syphillis. Gull was a surgeon who obviously had the medical knowledge however.
I studied law and a mock case like this one are a great way to learn. Would be fun to see History Hit do something like this again. Perhaps even with medical students.
I was wondering if they were law students! I figured they are all so young and must had been practicing what they were in school for. How neat!
@@haleynixon6017 they mentioned it very quickly in the video that they r students. I'm American so idk what mock trials are like in Scotland but, man, what a great experience for them! I spotted 2 in particular that I think will make excellent attorneys some day. (They all will I'm sure I just mean 2 were particularly confident)
How about they put Charles Allen Lechmere on trial. The only suspect that can be placed directly at a crime scene.
Could see if Hitler was guilty
Incredible to see how modern forensic analysis can still shed new light on cases over a century old. It's like watching history and science collide right before our eyes!
True and it's awesome
Nonsense no one is dealing in fact just their own thoughts
@@anthonyroberts8308I was going to say that. Still proves nothing.
SENSATIONLIST DOC. (Check Wikipedia for the truth)..Conveniently leaves out all the CRITICAL details and WITNESS statements from London and Dundee. Just days before Bury had been observing Dundee court cases, buying rope and discussing strangulation. Drained the wifes money.
Getting Aberdeen vs Dundee Unis students to retrial Bury is such a great idea - and great experience for the students. Very impressive!
I would like to see more of these type of documentries, very interesting and well done
Charles Allen Lechmere.
I loved the student lawyers ❤
@@margaretlumley1648 Watch "The Missing evidence: Jack the Ripper"
But I do t think they did a thorough job - burnt clothes in the hearth rope on the floor mutilated body in box ? So much more evidence And William should have been called to testify
another great program! enjoyed the uni kids' mock court session
There is another suspicious character who killed his wife who was also from Bow at one time. His name was William Burrett and you can find his crime on the old Bailey. He disembowelled his partner and he was living with her while her job was as a prostitute. He hanged for his crime against his partner. The women were asked to leave the courtroom because the details of the case were so grim. The fatal wound was that in her abdomen and she had been stabbed 7 times.
I hadn’t heard about this bloke! Down the Rabbit Hole I go! Is there a specific page, Book or documentary on William Burrett that you can recommend? Thanks
Are you referring to William Bury?
No he wasn't Jack the Ripper, those murders are of occult character.
😮😮
Could be!! Your opinion is as good as mine. We're both thinking!!
This absolutely fascinating...I would like to see more of this re-trial in it's whole. Thank you for this video.
I'm surprised the graffiti on the wall and the door was not compared to William Bury's handwriting and to Jack the Ripper's letters.
Of course it wasn't - it was washed off almost as quickly as it was written on
@@simonortonthe text of the message was transcribed by a policeman so as to preserve the message so there would have been no original suspect handwriting to match
Plus they were never able to prove the writing on the wall was by jack or was just random graffiti…. They washed it off to prevent public uproar
@@triplesunofone spot on
The letters could have been compared. However, nothwithstanding the fact that no one knows who wrote three or four most important letters, before the deluge of fake letters after the police shared knowledge of the original letter's existence, I suspect a comparison was done and no comparison made.
Moreover, like the graffito in London, who knows if these two scribblings were recorded. If not, we do not know they even existed. But the inclusion of the tour guide talking about the Jack letters, for me, points to a failed comparison being made.
Bury didn't commit the Ripper murders.
The MO just does not match. And there's no solid evidence at all.
I went on a Jack the Ripper tour in the early 1980's and my interest in the subject was fuelled from then on.
Back in the 1980s John Montacute Druit seemed to be the most popular suspect.
Cool?
Cool!
The attempt to hide the body is a signature not associated with the ripper murders. So I could see two reasons for this: attempts to disguise a suicide for the victim to receive proper burial or an opportunist trying to mimic ripper murders that has more remorse than the actual ripper murder.
The fact it was his wife might have forced him to go to these means though because it’s far not likely he would get connected the death and blamed for her death
I dont think the Ripper had a sense of remorse. Its likely he wanted the bodies to be found. I don't think remorse was a sensation he would have been familiar with in any part of his life.
Yes that’s what I’m saying-he attempted to hide the body/stage the scene this time because he knew he would be connected to the murders. Nothing to do with remorse.
I’m definitely not saying he is Jack the Ripper but I’m just saying we shouldn’t right it off because the actions after the killing and placement of the body was different to the others-I’m just saying that there is a possible explanation for this difference that doesn’t neccassarily discount him from the other murders.
@@pheart2381 agreed
There's a pretty obvious difference between this and the ripper murders though, if Bury was the ripper. All the victims in London were prostitutes not connected with him ... this was HIS wife ... in HIS home
The defense managed to distill this down to single point: the ligature marks having an upward slope or note. But that isn't all the evidence you had.
You haven't got a body an inconclusive ligature mark. You've got a body stuffed in a box, that's been mutilated, and has a plethora of injuries over and above that one point. Why is this woman, who allegedly hung herself, stuffed in a box with multiple wounds?
Because she was murdered, that's why.
The defense managed to burn this down to a single point of contention, and the prosecution did a terrible job letting them get away with it.
But no, he wasn't Jack the Ripper. He was just an abusive spouse who murdered his wife. As abusive spouses often do.
Fully agree. And even if the ligature mark WAS rising, couldn't it simply be the case that the person strangling her was taller/in a higher position than her at the time? That perhaps he'd already knocked her down to her knees and was standing behind her when he strangled her? I'm confused why that possibility wasn't even mentioned in what we saw here. It would also have been interesting to have heard reference to other cases where another person has mutilated the body of someone who has killed themselves and then placed them into a box, breaking their legs in the process, because that seems a most bizarre reaction to say the least and I cannot imagine there is much - if any - evidence to support it. This poor woman was murdered. Maybe afterwards, in desperation, he wanted to make it seem like the Ripper (hence the writing on the wall and door), but there was no Jack the Ripper here, just an evil, abusive man who murdered his wife.
💯💯
I love when Dr. Dame Sue Black makes an unexpected appearance!
Your man, the tour guide, is definitely on the gear 💯
That being said i would love to be apart of his tour😊
That was great & very believable by everyone playing their parts. Good work.
Within the first minute there is a mistake. Jack The Ripper was active in the Autumn of 1888, not 1889.
The scene took place after the murder spree. Pay attention
@@shaunisaacs2994still makes no difference he’s open preamble says a killing spree took place in 1889 which is incorrect.
Exactly! 1889😂
He killed before and after 1888 too. It was not limited to just 1888. The killer was Charles Allen Lechmere.
But you are correct about the killing spree taking place in 1888 because those are the killings usually associated with Jack the Ripper.
1888* A mistake straight away 😅
Excellent episode. The forensic rehash was fantastic.
Very interesting and well presented recreation of a cause celebre from long ago. My one problem was that the captioning had a great difficulty with the Scottish dialect. I hope those needing captioning were not put off by the sometimes bizarre captions 😮
Wherever the absolutely BRILLIANT Prof. Sue Black is involved, I want to be there.
They haven’t mentioned society’s attitude and the laws attitude about suicide, it was illegal in those days, including attempts.
Correct. Suicides could end up being buried in an independently run place,such as the one in Dicken's Bleak House.
It’s still illegal. It’s still murder.
@@andrewleah1983 sorry, but it’s not still illegal or murder and even the Catholic Church has changed its stance and allows burial on sanctified ground. Nobody EVER gets prosecuted for suicidal thoughts or attempts nowadays.
@@andrewleah1983 dosent matter if its illegal and a person does it, if they do, the law enforsment cant do anything
@@andrewleah1983 No it isn't, suicide is suicide, murder is murder, they're two different things.
I'm a big fan of Dr Richard Shepherd, his book Unnatural Causes has to be one of the best-written and most fascinating books I've read. Brilliant to see him here giving evidence and bringing this case to life.
Background music too loud and distracting from the narrative. Otherwise, great!
It's fascinating how people comment on an hour long vid negatively only 6-8 minutes with it only being posted 10 minutes ago. Interesting.
FYI: Some channel patrons may get early access to these videos. They may comment on them before the videos goes public. The comments are then published when the video is published. This is true for me on another channel.
@@jprehberger Indeed, however they are usually marked as such. Not two minutes into the video.
Lol good catch! Too many assume then assert 😉. I enjoy reserving conclusions until I get all info.
@@kariannecrysler640 I kinda chock it up to trolldom or keyboard warriors of some sort, but I agree.
@@Hillbilly001 lol
"To be on the safe side I'm going to convict you of murder anyway." 😆
Love a documentary on JTR.
So much fun and very learning for everyone including the students………. You all have GOT to do more of these. It could change the way we see our past court cases. Therefore, could help us solve current and/or future proceedings.
It's interesting to see they have the original constable who escorted William Bury into court.
😂😂😂😂
Thank you thank you thank you for not making this documentary all about the crime scene photos!
I think I could stand only around 5 mins with the author/tour guide lol
I was knackered just listening to him. Slow it down mate!
Thank you for such an awesome video! ❤
I would like to hear a profiler comment on if Bury's personality matches the one the ripper would likely have.
Excellent post, thank you. Jack got away with it. I really did like the mock court case as this shows how learning and experience can change things.
Gawd, I could listen to Dr Shepherd read a phone book ❤❤❤❤
I listened to his book Unnatural Causes on audible and it was fantastic.
Very cool video. I felt bad for the first kid who was questioning the doctor. He seemed very nervous and several of the questions he asked didn't really make sense or were just silly. Like when he asked the doctor how, in his personal experience, people usually reacted while being strangled. He then asked the doctor how common it was for suicidal strangulations to end up with a wound to the abdomen and inside a box. Those are obviously circumstances very specific to this one case and are basically irrelevant anyway because the guy already admitted to mutilating the body and putting it in a box.
any chance you can get a balance with the volume. Narrator is twice the volume of anyone else
Please someone tell Mick Preicely he needs to slow down when his speaks during his tour. It’s impossible to follow him!! How can tourists whose first language isn’t English understand a word he says? 😂
English in England What says you ¿ .
I thought the same thing, even for people speaking English it's way too fast you can't reflect or think on anything he says, might as well go to a library and read books on it, then go to these locations.
lol just me watching this video on 2x speed and keeping up just fine
I’m from Glasgow, he was speaking too slow
he is either on speed or just super duper nervous.
I can't get past the mutilation - you don't mutilate a suicide victim. Especially your wife. That's very clearly rage.
From this description of Bury I think he was mentally sick so may not act "normally"
If he wrote that stuff, he may have had a plan to blame it on Jack the Ripper but changed his story.
I think Bury was guilty of murdering his wife but I don't think he was Jack the Ripper.
The audio is an issue. The music and background sound drown out the voices speaking.
interesting how Bury, did not commit any "Ripper" style murders on the streets of Dundee. Considering serial killers don't just stop. And the only killing in all the days there was of his wife.
He targeted victims outside of his neighborhood.
I did this "Jack the Ripper" tour and I can recommend it very much 😎🧐😊
This shows us that cases are won and lost on presentation of the case, not necessarily on the facts. The circumstances of this clearly and strongly suggest the man murdered his wife. His refusal to try and account for why he had mutilated her corpse and packed her into a box, only give more support to murder.
If I were trying this case I would paint a plausible narrative. The wife is upset with being moved away from home and lodged in a squalid flat, her husband drinking away her money, and the subsequent violence. In a rage he strangles her and mutilates her body. Perhaps he was Jack the Ripper, maybe he confessed to her and she wrote it on the walls. Maybe he did so in his drunken state. He packs her body up with the idea of smuggling it out and dumping it, before fleeing town. As he sobers up, he realized how implausible that he could get rid of her body without notice, or have enough resources to get far away without being caught. So he concocts a tale of suicide and hopes for a lucky jury.
In the second trial, that is what he got.
This is a good illustration of why you don't just rely on forensic experts: they're never going to say that something *couldn't* happen, which leaves too much room for doubt in the jury's mind. The prosecution needed to present a theory and they also needed to remind the jury that Elizabeth was a victim even before she died. As we saw in America at the O.J. Simpson trial, if the jury has more sympathy for the accused than they do for the victim, they are likely to ignore all kinds of evidence, no matter how conclusive it is. But of course this was for an anatomy program, so of course the forensic pathologists ran the show.
Here is another very plausible explanation.
Ellen, realizes she has married and followed a poor excuse for a man, that her life could not get any worse, that she is now penniless, more or less alone, and at the mercy of a drunken abuser. No longer willing to suffer such a life she hangs herself.
William comes home drunk out of his gourde and finds his wife killed herself. Being the drunken abuser he is he then grabs a knife and stabs her several times while cussing at his bad luck for marrying such a weak and thankless woman. He rescues her from prostitution, gives her a house and a legitimate life, and she thanks him by killing herself. He then drags a wooden box into his living room and forces her body inside doing whatever is necessary, ie: breaking her legs.
When he awakes from his drunken stupor he realizes his nightmare wasn’t actually a nightmare but reality instead. Seeing how badly he mutilated the body he is now embarrassed and shocked. So, he goes to the police and reports his wife’s death.
The reason he doesn’t testify is because he is embarrassed at his drunken tirade and feels guilty for driving her to suicide. He is also afraid of being linked to the Jack the Ripper murders. He is afraid that speaking about how brutal and heartless he was with the body might cause the jury to make connections that aren’t really there. Especially so with what was written outside his flat.
@@ZurlHammerdoom Fancy story. Except she wasn't a prostitute. And who wrote that Jack The Ripper message outside of their rooms? Was it her, telling the world that he had confessed to her that he was Jack? Did he return to find her packing to leave him?
Anyone can tell stories. Here the kids did a poor job of putting on a trial.
@@janerkenbrack3373 the video states she was prostitute working for James whatever his name is, the sawdust trader.
What is that hand held projector the tour guild is using?
Thank you for showing this very interesting
I wish a psychologist would comment on why a wife killer might pretend to be Jack the Ripper. Was he a nobody who wanted to be notorious?
Jack the Ripper’s victims were all Prostitutes. He exhibited an extreme hatred toward them. I’ve always felt he had an incident with one that caused him embarrassment or may have gotten an STD. Could this guy have been him? Maybe, although they were also a couple of other candidates as well.
It's as confounding as the times when some gruesome act has been perpetrated, the police oftimes receive a plethora of subjects walking into the police station or calling in to plead their guilt.
We laymen ask, "Why would any sane person do such an act of taking credit for heinous acts?"
I dunno. Makes absolutely no sense to me.
He was being executed anyway. Why not become infamous. Charles Allen Lechmere is the best suspect by far.
Innocent people confess to crimes all the time. It’s not hard to imagine that if this guy did murder his wife, he probably had some sort of break, and that being the case, something was likely seriously wrong with him, which could also have led to a false delusion that he was Jack. The better question would be if the guy WERE Jack the Ripper, why confess after murdering his wife? He’s killed several people and gotten away with it fine. There’d be no reason to confess now. He was new in the area, in a time before phones and internet, and before modern forensics. All he would have had to do was hide her body and flee. She’d have never been identified, and he could start over somewhere else.
@@walkawaycat431 Yeah I remember reading a book about Donald "Pee Wee" Gaskins and it was clear he was a very evil man and committed horrific crimes. Towards the end of his confessions it became clear to me he was just making things up as he went along to become infamous and secure his place in history. He succeeded. Just like you get the real old timers in the US admitting on their deathbeds that they're D.B Cooper or the Zodiac Killer, I suppose they think it'll make them immortal if they're constantly talked about and books written about them etc
He isn’t Jack the Ripper
I agree. I know.
Poor lad died for nothing 😅
@@anandvenugopal3764DNA just solved the case.
The attorneys for both defense and prosecution drove me crazy-all of them asked the same questions multiple times. The physicians were exceedingly patient with them. As an RN I know that I take what I know for granted.
Unfortunately the sound track is way too loud and distracting, as often is the case. Maybe investigate the psychology behind noise on your audience. Less is definitely more.
I do not remember even hearing it.
Personally I think the most viable suspect is William Lechmere. He was first on the scene for the first canonical victim, he acted suspiciously at the scene, gave a false name, and his route to work/home/to family was in close proximity to all five canonical victims. He knew the area like the back of his hand. The lack of extreme brutality with Polly Ann Nichols compared to the other victims suggests the killer was interrupted during the killing.
The tour guide would be better suited as an auctioneer.
Really enjoyed that! I'd have doubt too.
Dang, another suspect. I guess EVERYBODY was Jack the Ripper.
It's notable that neither pathologist would give a definitive answer as to whether the ligature was self-inflicted. Without photographs, we've no way to ascertain whether the ligature line was rising or not, and even if it was, that doesn't mean it was self-inflicted. Here's a thought experiment: We know that Burry would hit his wife. Imagine that they were arguing and he hit her, then after he struck her she stumbled back and fell, either to the bed or the floor. As she rolled over to push herself up, he forced her down and pinned her in place with a knee to the small of her back. He then wrapped something around her neck, pulling upward as he tightened it. In that case, the ligature would leave a rising line, even though she didn't hang. Having said that, the program overall was well done, and I'd like to see someone dig a little deeper into this guy's life.
"Was Jack The Ripper Actually Caught?" Yes, both literally and metaphorically. His name was Charles Allen Lechmere (the guy who was found at the scene of Polly Nichols murder). QC James Scobie agrees the evidence collected is sufficient for a modern murder trial.
False. The so called case against Lechmere is based on make belief. It's all about he could have done this and he could have done that. As for actual evidence to tie him to the murders there is none.
Pretend time is not the same as factual evidence. We don't have anything to link Lechmere to The Ripper murders. Nothing and if you claim there is then spit it out. I've watched the house of Lechmere channel. Same thing, make belief and could have and nothing more.
The only suspect who can be linked to two of the murders more than Lechmere mind you is the man who is the prime suspect. Kosminski, and even with the DNA on the shawl connected to the Eddowes murder, even with the witness probably Schwartz identifying Kosminski as the man who attacked Liz Stride. Even with that we still can't say it was him.
I agree.
That doesn't mean he's guilty and even if he was guilty of that one murder it still doesn't mean he killed anybody else
@@iseveer Indeed, though Polly Nichols is considered a canonical victim. But if a former detective superintendent and barrister of highest order say he was, then he very likely was indeed.
Completely agree. Look into it and you’ll realise how implausible it is for JTR to have been anyone else.
I've read so many books on Jack the ripper, but this story is by far the sorriest case of a suspect, there's nothing at all to suggest William Bury was jack the ripper,,,,it's pathetic
Neither was back then, but when he said himself that he murdered his wife and how, it was clear that he wasn't Jack the Ripper.
Wasn’t pathetic at the time as back in 1888 they sent inspector abberline to investigate bury himself
@@danwelham shows how much idea abberlibe had doesn't it,,,, again pathetic
@@Heygoodlooking-lk9kg bury wasn’t the Ripper police did decent job an every chance they stoped jack an sent him to asylum serial killers don’t just stop killing Jacob levy for me was more likely jack
@@Heygoodlooking-lk9kg What I think the programme demonstrates is that evidence for any individual being Jack the Ripper is scant. A list of potential suspects is reeled off and the only evidence against them is circumstantial. Same with Bury. He was in the right place at the right time. The murders ceased when he moved to Dundee. When his wife died he mutilated the body in a manner similar to The Ripper. The graffiti on the walls is suggestive but no more. Was Bury The Ripper? He could have been but so could hundreds of others. More interesting was the trial and the forensic evidence. The Ripper aspect is secondary really.
The re-trial must have been such a cool thing for everyone involved!
It's like watching an episode of the Faeroes of Egypt and big treasures buried one place, and the archeologist looking at the location and saying in the end of the show..."it's plausible but we don't know, evidence points both ways, but we cannot be sure, maybe it's been removed"
The same thing with Jack the Ripper mystery, it will remain a mystery, even 136 years after (the 1888 year)
I like this theory. It's more plausible than a lot of the others.
Great way of showing how the turn out would be.
Id love to do that tour.
a good video, and a fun addition of a "trial". But i find that they left out many key questions in their questioning of the experts. And also the question, could he have been framed. It sound like its all a work based on the assumption "he did it" now find me the evidence to sentence him. Instead of investigating and ruling out all possible alternatives. Sure it could have been done, but left out of this video.
But going back to the "trial" i still feel like it was done bad over all, and the students should have gone a bit further in their questions to the experts. And no one brings up the other stuff, even the jury in the video have a talking point "he said to the police he found her on the floor, if she had hanged he should have found her haning by the rope". Well not if some else one cut the rope and later mutilated her and stuffed her into the box. This case with the lack of information in the video, is far from "he did it", and come across with a huge tunnel vision of "he did it".
And when we talk about jack the ripper", It more plausible that Francis Tumblety was "jack the ripper" than this guy.
Any way a good and interesting video even though i having more questions of how the people in it can be so sure he murdered his wife. =)
Well may be, may be not? It's likely that Jack looked very ordinary and was probably a labourer. He was apt at using a knife, and I'm sure he had severe mental health problems.
Aaron Kosminski
@@mrripper2u314Charles cross
@@mrripper2u314*letchmere
I’d love to see more things like this. I’d be curious to know how many people would be convicted in today’s justice system. It’s also excellent practice for students.
Ambience music is too high...
Hellsteeth Illustration does a fantastic map of the Whitechapel murders.
having a posthumous trial is pointless. wouldn’t hurt him at all. but i think that bury is one of the better suspects
Wonderful historical coverage video about [Jack the ripper] story ....a horrible story created by wavering wagged amongst ( harlots murdered, a newspaper 📰 exploited, location in dirty - night darknesspoorly-humbled habitant streets in London... 19th century years...
I expected the judge to say "The bad news is you were already executed 130 years ago" 😄
26:35 The discoveries at his residence show him to be crude and "unprofessional". I don't think The Ripper would work that way 🤔
He sounded like he was copy catting Jack the Ripper.
Production specific comment, not video specific. You guys desperately need someone to help you improve the quality and consistency of your videos' audio (I'm not looking for a job lol). The content is outstanding, but the audio is sometimes a huge pain. Just because the in-camera and narrative voices sound good on one system in one environment, doesn't mean that quality translates to others. It's frustratingly inconsistent between and within different videos you post. The start of this video sounds great on headphones, but terrible on laptop speakers. The background music stomps all over Dan's narration. The audio problems you're facing are not new problems, they've been solved many (many) times before.
@@Blo0dyLeVi It's a PC running Neumann studio monitors that are calibrated to the room, which has bass traps and broadband absorbers.
Having watched the whole thing I really don't understand why the jury had any doubt at all.
A really bad prosecution witness with the medical examiner did the trick. He was def very unsure of himself and flip floppy. He also didn't give good explanations for his findings which created the reasonable doubt. He kinda of talked about this when he said SLIGHTLY but he should have and could have said even if it was a door handle or something else in the house the ligiture mark still would have been higher than where it was based on the angle and the place was said to be bare so what reasonable explaination is there for those marks other than him. That coupled with the dismemberment and body placement he was DEF guilty. The 1st jury got it RIGHT imo
@@LucasMoore88 The problem is that for every answer he was basically "I'm 99% sure, but can't rule out a different answer completely" so the defence used that to leverage doubt on everything he said. I'm with you; 100% guilty in my mind.
Impressive dramatic representation of these tragedies ⚖️
🙏✝️
I want to know who he is, because I want to know why he stopped. And if he didn't stop ,why he changed his method of killing, and why he started his killings in the first place.
The killer either died or was incarcerated. I think the police knew he was gone since they reduced the extra patrols in White Chapel within just a couple of weeks of Mary Kelly's death. Less time than the gap between the double event and Mary Kelly's death.
im from dundee great vid
We have so much better science today. Not foolproof, of course, but the doctors and crime lab people would have given the jury many more facts than could be had in 1888. Fascinating to see what the doctors were able to conclude from the autopsy files.
Yeah, BUT... what's with the Ripper's knowledge about anatomy and his butcher-like skillset? Where does that fit in? What Bury did to the corpse of his wife was rather simple (if one would want to call it that way), in comparison to the London murders... I dunno. I'm not convinced.
Nobody will ever ever ever know who the real jack the ripper and its total insanity to even try
Of course but what is your opinion?
@@jameswatts632 he's far gone out of sight nobody is gonna know who he is coz he's one of free masons
Given their history, she may have been intoxicated when she was strangled or strangled herself. The mutilation does seem to point to something more sinister. Very interesting. While I doubt he was the Ripper, he may have been influenced by the news accounts, especially since he lived in the area. The bruises are also interesting. And a slight rise in a ligature could also be caused by someone taller standing or even kneeling behind the victim.
Brilliant i had 1 thought! What if the wife wrote the messages on the wall?
Yeah I thought that & if she did maybe that's why he murdered her?
12:33 he talks way to fast and its annoying... i couldn't stay
I remember reading that not long after the murders stopped a series of almost identical killings happened in a foreign city ( i cannot recall which one ) and some believe this was Jack having escaped justice here…..
Was it in New York in the US?
New Jersey.
@@lindahodge5024 Thanks!
San Francisco around 1900 too
H.H. Holmes
The is some analysis of Francis Tumblety, a quack Doctor and salesman. Apparently the "from Hell" letter is consistent with Francis Tumblety's writing, and contains Irish contractions that he would think of.
Four Jack experts were asked who they thought Jack was. Two believed it was Francis Tumblety, an American. One declined to say. The fourth expert's suspect was easily the least plausible of all those ever cited. The circumstantial evidence pointing to Tumblety is overwhelmingly convincing and the Metropolitan Police have for well over a century known this, having fluffed their only chance to arrest him.
If I’m pushed, I’d say Bury is my most likely suspect. The sudden departure to Dundee after Kelly’s murder as well as his regular drinking binges and staying away from home for nights on end while they lived in East London don’t bode well for him. However I can’t help thinking he may have been a Ripper copycat seeking to elevate his notoriety. Either way he’s by far the most likely known name of all the supposed Ripper suspects to be the guilty party.
My god, that tour guide is annoying. He talks so fast he sounds like he's trying to be an auctioneer.
I thought that was brilliantly done. Excellent.
As a sequel, why not consider the trial of Dr James Gloster? For those who missed my 1999 article, 'Dr Who?' (published in the late Nick Warren's 'Ripperana' magazine), a more recent exposition can be found in 'A Case of Mother's Ruin', available through Amazon. All roads do not lead to Dorset Street, as Stephen Knight supposed, but to Pennsylvania, via Pimlico.
JTR drives me nuts, it spins my mind around trying to figure it out. My latest research is on Hyam Hyams. Few comments of Lechmere, he will be my next stop. I hear so many diffrent opinions, generally it is considered to be Kosminski.
You ever have people use the wrong words and you just feel the need to correct them?
People are hanged, not hung.
If isn't, 'she hung herself.' It is, 'she hanged herself.'
"Coats are hung. Men are hanged." That was the phrase that used to be used to distinguish the two.
That mistake irks me for some reason too.
Because people are stupid and the influence of Americanisms being inflicted upon this country.
@runlarryrun77 to be fair, some men are hung too. I'd say people are hanged
@@Byrenious To be fair, I was directly quoting the old saying which is why I said "men" & not "people".
I knew someone would get *hung* up on that aspect though.
I like too be corrected,I want to know,correct me😅
I thought the basement flat didn't have a fire ?
Cracking start, 1889 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Oh Dan.....schoolboy error.
I really like to take a tour with Mick exellent tour guide
I have my doubts of him being Jack the Ripper...trying to hide the body was different...but then again, Jack likely never murdered someone that was in direct association with him either. I'm curious if there was ever a toxicology report in Bury's murder...it wouldn't be outside the possibility that he made her unable to fight back with all sorts of chemicals or poisons, thus invalidating the defense's primary case. It's definitely a case where you cannot reasonably that Bury for-sure killed his wife. Incredibly interesting video!
There'd be no need for toxicology. What isn't mentioned is that in the end Bury wrote a letter confessing that he killed his wife by strangulation. If you consider how Bury cut open his wife's privates and backside, as detailed in the official medical reports, it's the same as the ripper:
Ellen Bury: ‘On the inner side of the right labium was a wound 2 inches in length, penetrating the skin. Beginning about an inch behind the anus was an incised wound running forwards and to the left, into the perinaeum, and dividing the sphincter muscle'; Running downwards from the centre of the pubis to the outer side of the left labium was an incised wound 2 ½ inches in length, penetrating the skin and fat.
Eddowes: ‘The incision went down the right side of the vagina and rectum for half an inch behind the rectum'
Eddowes had a stab to her groin; Bury stabbed each groin on Ellen once. He penetrated through her abdominal wall and created a rip with a jagged edge. There were numerous other cuts and stabs.
Martha Tabram had a three inch cut to her privates.
Bury was clealry the ripper
Yes murder was quite common back then especially unsolved murder. Unless they basically caught you in the act or you had a strong eyewitness you couldn't be convicted of a crime. That was even if I'm not mistaken before fingerprints. The only thing that said Jack the ripper report the one thing that made his murders still remembered today while the other unsolved murders are not remembered, is Jack the ripper mutilated. Also he took body parts away something the average killer did not do. Jack the ripper was a thrill killer while the average murder in London at the time was probably profit motivated.
If you ever get a chance read James Bland's True crime diaries for criminals such as Mrs Dyer who was a baby farmer being convicted by the police at this time.
Looks like a young Elon Musk sitting in front of person asking questions
I remember good old Sawdust 💯
Nice Sharing good velog ♥️❤️
Pls stay connected
Im not sure why this wasnt mentioned but surely this theory needed to be considered.
He kills his wife in drunken rage or whatever but he strangles her.
Panics and now looking for a way to hide his guilt.
He knows all about Jack the Ripper and decides if i write something on the wall saying its Jack that might be decieving and believable.
To make it look realistic he needs to mutealate her body.
He now also keeps himself quiet hoping his plan foola everyone
Really interesting, never heard of this one before
first off i have been studying serial murder and forensics for years and after seeing what has been done to this case over the years it made me mad because i do not think it's right that people make money off the victims of crime unless it's been solved or they solve it. that being said myself and a few other researched this case to find the killer and solve the case but we are doing it to stop the greed of man. I did a lot of research on this case learning about the areas, the lighting, the weather at the time of the murders things like that i knew that i could not use anything but the facts of the case and then use the tools of today in order to find the ripper. believe it or not it was not hard to find the ripper. The reason police back then did not find him is because they had no idea what a serial killer was or how to catch one. He was right under their nose just as he said he was. now i will tell you why i would be ranting and that is because the reason this case is not solved is because the authors, newspaper writers and armchair detectives do not have the skill or the know how to find a serial killer and through the years they have written books and added suspects that have nothing to do with the case and they added stuff to sell their books so they have muddied the waters a lot just to make money and another sad thing is even ex detectives have jumped on the money wagon. anyway, as i said i found Jack the ripper he was a man named George Hutchinson we are 100% sure on this, he fits in every way to what we know as a lust killer. He lived on Commercial and Wentworth Street right in the middle of all the murders, he knew the area well, he saw the victims every day, He even knew two of the victims this is very important because a lust killer will try and target victims, they do not know but if they do kill a known victim, they will always cover or destroy the face and sometimes the whole body to depersonalize the victim. we also believe that he only wrote two of the letters, the first letter that was sent came on Sept 17th and he gave his trade name, he also sent the from hell letter and it was not sent to a surgeon it was sent to Mr. Lusk who was head of the vigilance committee. this was a sex crime but Jack never has sex with the victims so his DNA would not be found on the victims. Jacks Penis was his knife. as for the shall they say was Kate Eddowes well that can't be proved and even if it was i am sure you would find lots of different DNA on it as most of the victims only had the clothes on their backs. we would never know this man's name had it not been for a lady named Sara Lewis who saw him standing across from that opening you showed leading to Mary Kelly's flat at 2 a.m. as she was going to her friends flat. after George learned he had been seen it had been three days since the murder and the inquest had just ended it was enough to scare him into making a statement to police as to why he was there. in this statement we found all kinds of red flags. the one thing that usually gets serial killers caught is their EGO and we see his ego in this statement it shows he has been listening to what was being written and talked about. at the start of the murders people were blaming a Jew and that is why he wrote the message on the wall. He also brings up that a man gave Mary Kelly a handkerchief and made sure to say it was red he says that because when he was seen talking to Kate Eddowes the witness said he was dressed as a sailor and had on a red handkerchief. Then they were saying the killer was a rich toff down slumming, so he tells of seeing this well-dressed man with Mary Kelly after Mary had asked to barrow money from him and he told her he had none. he tells how well dressed this guy was and he was very detailed he even said the man had a large gold pocket watch on a gold chain with a red stone. now you should see this red flag as you brought up that Mary lived on the most dangerous street in all of London, the police would only go down that street in groups of three.no man in his right mind would let that gold watch be seen as he would have been mugged. George said he knew Mary and had given her money before now if you knew a person and you were the last person to see them and then find out they had been killed by a killer all of London was looking for you would be running to police but not George he only came forward three days after the murder when he heard he was seen. We believe George was out hunting that night but had to stick close to home because of all the police out looking for him and he was getting worried he would not be able to get a victim until Mary came up and asked him for money, now on a normal day this would not have bothered him as his victims were older drunk women Mary was 25 and pretty she was in the wrong place at the wrong time. he stalked her waited until the coast was clear and made his move. We also believe he killed a lot more than 5 we think he not only killed the 11 others but also was the torso killer. We are trying to find where he went when he left London in 1891 when the murders stopped when we find him, we will then look for new victims as he would not have stopped killing once we find them, we will then link him to one or more and that will be enough for the courts and the world. we will never write any books or movies or documentaries because we did this for the victims and their families and to stop the greed.
Dan Snow's voice is just not suited for the narrator of this presentation.
Hallelujah! I was starting to think it was only me picking up on that.
Also, Mick needs to slow down, a lot.
Some believe William Gull was JTR...or possibly Prince Albert Victor Duke of Clarence & Avondale who suffered greatly from syphillis. Gull was a surgeon who obviously had the medical knowledge however.