William Bury website

[Abby Normal]

I think Bury's murder of his wife and the subsequent mutilation is enough to fit the signature of JTR, adjusted for the fact that it was committed in his home on his own wife. He would know that throat slashing created a horribly bloody mess that would be impossible to completely clean up. He would know the same was true of the mutilations. I suspect he just couldn't help himself, however, and started to make the abdominal cuts because of his intense desire to do that to a dead woman, but stopped himself when he realized it, too, would create a bloody situation difficult to clean up and hide once his wife's absence was noted. I believe he stuffed her in a trunk hoping to dispose of her unseen, then explain her absence by saying she had left him. I also think this is why he held on to her corpse for a few days. He was possibly trying to figure out a way to conveniently remove her, but for some reason he wasn't able to, and so went to the police with a half-baked story that she had killed herself. He undoubtedly hoped this would exonerate him (which it nearly did). Had he slashed her throat, and eviscerated her completely he would know that there would be bloodstains everywhere and even if he did manage to remove Ellen's body unseen, when others (including the police) came looking for her down the road it would cast suspicion on him if that sort of evidence was found in their home. And of course if she had been found that way in his home, it would stamp him immediately as JTR.

These are just some thoughts on why Bury did not go "all out" on Ellen. Add that to any possible psychological difficulties that may have struck him over eviscerating his own wife, it may explain the toned down signature.

Adding this to all the circumstantial evidence linking Bury to Whitechapel and his sudden move, I believe it builds a case that isn't strong enough to say for certain he was JTR, but strong enough to put him above every other suspect out there.

Hi single
great post and for the most part I agree. although I wouldn't go so far as to say hes the best.

and I agree that the circs of the murder taking place in his home and she being his wife is probably why he didnt go all out on her. so why gash her abdoman at all? I would say if he was the ripper-the boy just couldnt help it.

Me and Wyatt have been going back and forth on (my) points against him, but bury does make one of the least weak suspects:


fits witness descriptions
Known to be abusive of women
pub goer
interaction with prostitutes
lived in area
Known killer
post mortem mutilation
gash to abdoman(yes similar sig to ripper!)
contemperary police person of interest
leaving london after the last C5 victim killed

Hes got alot going for him. I cant help but think that if he had murdered Ellen in London he would have been arrested as also being the ripper.

[Abby Normal]

Call me what you will but this to me means little when discussing the murder of Bury’s wife.

Keppel et al. define Jack the Ripper’s signature as containing the following elements:

“1) the injuries sustained by the victims displayed the signature characteristic of picquerism; maybe

2) the killer displayed a level of overkill in each case that escalated over the series; no

3) the victims were incapacitated immediately and killed quickly to enable the killer to live out his fantasies; maybe

4) the killer exhibited complete domination over each victim; maybe

5) the victims’ bodies were left open and on display; no

6) the victims in this series were displayed in unusual body positions, revealing signs of posing; no

7) the victims were left in sexually degrading positions with their legs spread and genitalia exposed to illustrate their vulnerability after death and the killer’s dominance; no

8) the killer mutilated his victims and showed increased postmortem mutilation from one victim to the next; no

9) the killer evolved to the removal of their organs and body parts, and removed some of them from the crime scenes; no

10) the killer targeted specific areas of attack, stabbing and slashing the breasts, genitalia, abdomen, and sexual organs of the victims; no

11) the murders were planned and organized; and maybe

12) the combination of these actions created a unique signature with which we can link the six victims of one killer, Jack the Ripper” (9). no

This list is hardly a ringing endorsement for Bury. And if we say, well he can change things due to the circumstances, then surely this can be used to make anything fit.

All that said, I still have Bury in my top three of names suspects. We still need much more though to lift him above ‘good possible’ suspect.

Hi Herlock
good assessment-and for the most part I agree. and Like you-I have Bury in my top tier of viable suspects. I just think wyatt is over egging the pudding somewhat especially with the displaying bit.

The only point above that I would possibly change is:

10) the killer targeted specific areas of attack, stabbing and slashing the breasts, genitalia, abdomen, and sexual organs of the victims; no

and change to: for the most part. The vertical gash to the abdomen and post mortem mutilation is to me a bigee. Its the signature move of the ripper and shows a fascination with targeting that area. and of course its a very odd and rare trait to be exhibited by killers. Its part of the reason why I consider the torsos, and Mckenzie as possible ripper victims.

[Single-O-Seven]

I think Bury's murder of his wife and the subsequent mutilation is enough to fit the signature of JTR, adjusted for the fact that it was committed in his home on his own wife. He would know that throat slashing created a horribly bloody mess that would be impossible to completely clean up. He would know the same was true of the mutilations. I suspect he just couldn't help himself, however, and started to make the abdominal cuts because of his intense desire to do that to a dead woman, but stopped himself when he realized it, too, would create a bloody situation difficult to clean up and hide once his wife's absence was noted. I believe he stuffed her in a trunk hoping to dispose of her unseen, then explain her absence by saying she had left him. I also think this is why he held on to her corpse for a few days. He was possibly trying to figure out a way to conveniently remove her, but for some reason he wasn't able to, and so went to the police with a half-baked story that she had killed herself. He undoubtedly hoped this would exonerate him (which it nearly did). Had he slashed her throat, and eviscerated her completely he would know that there would be bloodstains everywhere and even if he did manage to remove Ellen's body unseen, when others (including the police) came looking for her down the road it would cast suspicion on him if that sort of evidence was found in their home. And of course if she had been found that way in his home, it would stamp him immediately as JTR.

These are just some thoughts on why Bury did not go "all out" on Ellen. Add that to any possible psychological difficulties that may have struck him over eviscerating his own wife, it may explain the toned down signature.

Adding this to all the circumstantial evidence linking Bury to Whitechapel and his sudden move, I believe it builds a case that isn't strong enough to say for certain he was JTR, but strong enough to put him above every other suspect out there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Call me what you will but this to me means little when discussing the murder of Bury’s wife.

Keppel et al. define Jack the Ripper’s signature as containing the following elements:

“1) the injuries sustained by the victims displayed the signature characteristic of picquerism; maybe

2) the killer displayed a level of overkill in each case that escalated over the series; no

3) the victims were incapacitated immediately and killed quickly to enable the killer to live out his fantasies; maybe

4) the killer exhibited complete domination over each victim; maybe

5) the victims’ bodies were left open and on display; no

6) the victims in this series were displayed in unusual body positions, revealing signs of posing; no

7) the victims were left in sexually degrading positions with their legs spread and genitalia exposed to illustrate their vulnerability after death and the killer’s dominance; no

8) the killer mutilated his victims and showed increased postmortem mutilation from one victim to the next; no

9) the killer evolved to the removal of their organs and body parts, and removed some of them from the crime scenes; no

10) the killer targeted specific areas of attack, stabbing and slashing the breasts, genitalia, abdomen, and sexual organs of the victims; no

11) the murders were planned and organized; and maybe

12) the combination of these actions created a unique signature with which we can link the six victims of one killer, Jack the Ripper” (9). no

This list is hardly a ringing endorsement for Bury. And if we say, well he can change things due to the circumstances, then surely this can be used to make anything fit.

All that said, I still have Bury in my top three of names suspects. We still need much more though to lift him above ‘good possible’ suspect.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. William Bury made no attempt to hide the location of Ellen Bury’s body. He walked into a police station and told the police exactly where it was. He would have fully expected a policeman to open the lid of the trunk and to behold the wonderful things he had done to Ellen’s body. This was a display behavior, not a concealment behavior.

If a man kills his wife and buries her in the garden then, later on, confesses to the police who go and dig her up, is that display behaviour too? I’m sorry, I feel that Bury is one of the very few decent suspects, but this feels very much like shoehorning to me. Most killers would expect their victim to be discovered at some point. Are they all showing display behaviour? We have to accept that stuffing your wife’s body into a trunk does not equate with leaving a woman dead in the street with her skirt raised and her legs apart.

[Wyatt Earp]

First of all in their analysis the cutting of the throat speaks to sig.
And there can be overlap between MO and sig. which the cut throats in the ripper series Surely are. MO to help quiet and kill the victims quickly, possibly also bleed out. Sig in that the ripper like cutting the female body.

Secondly, according to their sig analysis, ellen bury only fits one of the criteria-the cut abdoman.

And There is no displaying of the body as you try to argue. She was stuffed in a box for gods sake. So theres another sig element that dosnt match the ripper.

If you think a cut throat is required for a murder to be considered a “Ripper murder,” you’re simply not understanding the material. Keppel et al. talk about how M.O. can evolve and change to reflect differing circumstances, and they themselves include Tabram, whose throat was not cut, as a Ripper victim. There’s no legitimate objection to Bury here. Your claim that a cut abdomen is the only signature characteristic linking the Ellen Bury murder to the Ripper’s signature is of course inaccurate. Please review Table 2 in “The Bury ID.” http://williambury.org/blog6/the-bury-id/ William Bury made no attempt to hide the location of Ellen Bury’s body. He walked into a police station and told the police exactly where it was. He would have fully expected a policeman to open the lid of the trunk and to behold the wonderful things he had done to Ellen’s body. This was a display behavior, not a concealment behavior.

[Abby Normal]

Keppel and the three other professionals did not look at the Ellen Bury murder. They might not have been aware of it. Certainly it was not a "Whitechapel murder." My major project in “The Bury ID” http://williambury.org/blog6/the-bury-id/ was to map the Ellen Bury murder to the signature description they provided. I show just how closely the Ellen Bury murder fits that description, and how the alternative explanations of the Ellen Bury murder can be reasonably ruled out.



This remark leads me to believe that you still don’t understand the difference between M.O. and signature. The cutting of the throat speaks to M.O. and not to signature.

First of all in their analysis the cutting of the throat speaks to sig.
And there can be overlap between MO and sig. which the cut throats in the ripper series Surely are. MO to help quiet and kill the victims quickly, possibly also bleed out. Sig in that the ripper like cutting the female body.

Secondly, according to their sig analysis, ellen bury only fits one of the criteria-the cut abdoman.

And There is no displaying of the body as you try to argue. She was stuffed in a box for gods sake. So theres another sig element that dosnt match the ripper.

[Wyatt Earp]

mainly though, they don't mention Ellen Bury at all, so I don't see how you can use this article as justification she was a ripper victim.

Keppel and the three other professionals did not look at the Ellen Bury murder. They might not have been aware of it. Certainly it was not a "Whitechapel murder." My major project in “The Bury ID” http://williambury.org/blog6/the-bury-id/ was to map the Ellen Bury murder to the signature description they provided. I show just how closely the Ellen Bury murder fits that description, and how the alternative explanations of the Ellen Bury murder can be reasonably ruled out.

And alot of what they use to link the others via signature analysis dosnt apply to Ellen bury-for example no cut throat and removal of organs.

This remark leads me to believe that you still don’t understand the difference between M.O. and signature. The cutting of the throat speaks to M.O. and not to signature.

[Wyatt Earp]

Im a having trouble understanding your reasoning here.
he wouldn't have been able to display her anyway anyhow without revealing to the world he was her killer-forget about jack the ripper.

Bury displayed what he had done to Ellen’s body to the police—and he was not identified as the Ripper. Bury obviously did not expect to be taken into custody for Ellen’s murder, he must have thought that the police would believe his story.

the ripper was first and foremost a post mortem mutilator who like to cut up women and remove internal organs. and he was also someone who didn't want to get caught, getting away in the nick of time, and giving up continuing if he thought he was in danger of being detected. Bury did the opposite-not very ripper like is it?

I’ve already explained to you why Bury would have toned down the mutilations and abandoned organ removal. Bury evidently did not want to flee the scene as he feared being apprehended as the Ripper, per Lt. Parr’s testimony at Bury’s trial.

the explanation of why Mckenzie wasn't as mutilated because of other circs-the ripper was having a bad day and or was interrupted is totally an explanation. Its as much as an explanation as yours for why ellen wasn't mutilated more.Do you discount stride and eddowes too? seems like you would have too based on your reasoning.

It remains that the McKenzie murder does not fit the Ripper’s signature.

they both can. and not only that Mckenzie can be linked by MO too-ellen bury cannot.

No, in the view of four professionals who performed a signature analysis of the Whitechapel murders, the McKenzie murder cannot be linked to the Ripper’s signature. You haven’t been able to come up with a worthwhile objection to their assessment. I suggest that you accept it and move on. We know that the M.O. of a serial killer can vary among crime scenes, and so there is no legitimate objection to Bury here either. It would not have been necessary for him to cut Ellen’s throat to make sure that she was dead.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Wyatt
ive read through it again. I agree with a lot of it. there are errors and obvious omissions though-no mention of taking away internal organs nor evidence of strangulation for example.


they include Tabram as do I.


they don't go into detail about why the others, including Mckenzie are not linked-they just say they aren't.


mainly though, they don't mention Ellen Bury at all, so I don't see how you can use this article as justification she was a ripper victim. And alot of what they use to link the others via signature analysis dosnt apply to Ellen bury-for example no cut throat and removal of organs.


I cant help but feel if they had included her they would conclude she WASNT a ripper victim.


Thanks again for providing the article.

[Abby Normal]

You're contesting a signature assessment done by four professionals, and you're not even sure if you've read the article? Come on, man! Here's the link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jip.22

thanks wyatt and yes I am sure I have read it now-after reading the howler that confuses the Nichols and chapman murder definitely reminded me lol.


but I will read all again. thanks for providing.

[Abby Normal]

Think about it this way. Because of the specific circumstances of the Princes Street murder, the fact that it took place in Bury’s residence, one of the Ripper’s signature characteristics had to “give.” If Bury had continued with the increase in the degree of the mutilations that we see as the Jack the Ripper series progressed, and removed one or more of Ellen’s organs, he wouldn’t have been able to display the terrible things he had done with the victim’s body to other people, which was one of his signature characteristics, too, without letting the world know that William Bury was Jack the Ripper. If, on the other hand, Bury had continued to display his handiwork to other people, he would have had to significantly tone down the mutilations, and abandon organ removal entirely, in order to keep people from learning that he was the Ripper. So it was inevitable that some element of the Ripper’s signature would give out at Princes Street. As Keppel and Birnes have noted, a signature characteristic can be absent, or it can be diluted in its expression, in connection with the specific circumstances of a murder. It isn’t a legitimate objection to Bury, then, to point out that he toned down the mutilations.

Bury put Ellen’s body in a demented and sexually degrading pose inside the trunk, with a foot of intestine spilling out of her abdomen, and he then led police to the trunk by virtue of his statement at the police station. What a wonderful surprise for whomever opened the trunk. The Ripper was first and foremost a displayer all the way to the end.

With respect to McKenzie, there is no obvious reason why her murderer should have toned down the mutilations. To say that the Ripper was simply having a “bad day” is to provide no explanation at all. When it comes to the Ellen Bury and Alice McKenzie murders, it’s not a pick ‘em. The Ellen Bury murder can be linked to the Ripper’s signature, and the Alice McKenzie murder cannot.

Hi Wyatt

Think about it this way. Because of the specific circumstances of the Princes Street murder, the fact that it took place in Bury’s residence, one of the Ripper’s signature characteristics had to “give.” If Bury had continued with the increase in the degree of the mutilations that we see as the Jack the Ripper series progressed, and removed one or more of Ellen’s organs, he wouldn’t have been able to display the terrible things he had done with the victim’s body to other people, which was one of his signature characteristics, too, without letting the world know that William Bury was Jack the Ripper.

Im a having trouble understanding your reasoning here.
he wouldn't have been able to display her anyway anyhow without revealing to the world he was her killer-forget about jack the ripper.

Bury put Ellen’s body in a demented and sexually degrading pose inside the trunk, with a foot of intestine spilling out of her abdomen, and he then led police to the trunk by virtue of his statement at the police station. What a wonderful surprise for whomever opened the trunk. The Ripper was first and foremost a displayer all the way to the end.

the ripper was first and foremost a post mortem mutilator who like to cut up women and remove internal organs. and he was also someone who didn't want to get caught, getting away in the nick of time, and giving up continuing if he thought he was in danger of being detected. Bury did the opposite-not very ripper like is it?

With respect to McKenzie, there is no obvious reason why her murderer should have toned down the mutilations. To say that the Ripper was simply having a “bad day” is to provide no explanation at all. When it comes to the Ellen Bury and Alice McKenzie murders, it’s not a pick ‘em. The Ellen Bury murder can be linked to the Ripper’s signature, and the Alice McKenzie murder cannot.

the explanation of why Mckenzie wasn't as mutilated because of other circs-the ripper was having a bad day and or was interrupted is totally an explanation. Its as much as an explanation as yours for why ellen wasn't mutilated more.Do you discount stride and eddowes too? seems like you would have too based on your reasoning.

The Ellen Bury murder can be linked to the Ripper’s signature, and the Alice McKenzie murder cannot.

they both can. and not only that Mckenzie can be linked by MO too-ellen bury cannot.

[Wyatt Earp]

yes I believe so-if you can provide link ill take another look.

You're contesting a signature assessment done by four professionals, and you're not even sure if you've read the article? Come on, man! Here's the link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jip.22

[Abby Normal]

Have you read the article by Keppel et al., in which they describe their signature analysis of the Whitechapel murders?

yes I believe so-if you can provide link ill take another look.

[Wyatt Earp]

Since the Ellen Bury murder occurred at Bury's residence, he could not have gone to town on the victim's body without revealing to the world that "William Bury" was Jack the Ripper. McKenzie's murderer was under no such constraint, he could have gone to town on the victim's body without revealing his name.

sure he could have. he could have gotten rid of her body afterward-seems he was already thinking in that direction with stuffing her in the box.

Think about it this way. Because of the specific circumstances of the Princes Street murder, the fact that it took place in Bury’s residence, one of the Ripper’s signature characteristics had to “give.” If Bury had continued with the increase in the degree of the mutilations that we see as the Jack the Ripper series progressed, and removed one or more of Ellen’s organs, he wouldn’t have been able to display the terrible things he had done with the victim’s body to other people, which was one of his signature characteristics, too, without letting the world know that William Bury was Jack the Ripper. If, on the other hand, Bury had continued to display his handiwork to other people, he would have had to significantly tone down the mutilations, and abandon organ removal entirely, in order to keep people from learning that he was the Ripper. So it was inevitable that some element of the Ripper’s signature would give out at Princes Street. As Keppel and Birnes have noted, a signature characteristic can be absent, or it can be diluted in its expression, in connection with the specific circumstances of a murder. It isn’t a legitimate objection to Bury, then, to point out that he toned down the mutilations.

Bury put Ellen’s body in a demented and sexually degrading pose inside the trunk, with a foot of intestine spilling out of her abdomen, and he then led police to the trunk by virtue of his statement at the police station. What a wonderful surprise for whomever opened the trunk. The Ripper was first and foremost a displayer all the way to the end.

With respect to McKenzie, there is no obvious reason why her murderer should have toned down the mutilations. To say that the Ripper was simply having a “bad day” is to provide no explanation at all. When it comes to the Ellen Bury and Alice McKenzie murders, it’s not a pick ‘em. The Ellen Bury murder can be linked to the Ripper’s signature, and the Alice McKenzie murder cannot.