William Bury website

[Harry D]

theres more than enough there to conclude that most likley she was a ripper victim.

And not to sound like a stuck record but McKenzie's murder occurring in-between the two Torso cases is mighty strange.

[Abby Normal]

And not to sound like a stuck record but McKenzie's murder occurring in-between the two Torso cases is mighty strange.

yup and that the two series ended at the same time with McKenzie and then pinchin!

[Wyatt Earp]

HI Wyatt


McKenzie was found with her skirt hiked up exposing the abdomen-like most of the other ripper victims.

she also fits the ripper in many other aspects-at night, stranger murder, location, victimology.

she fits MO-cause of death-- severance of left carteroid artery.(unlike Ellen Bury)

and sig-- with post mortem mutilation to the abdomen and specifically a vertical gash.


Bond and monro thought she was a ripper victim.



theres more than enough there to conclude that most likley she was a ripper victim.

Do you think that Keppel and the other three professionals were unaware of these things when they made their assessment?

[Wyatt Earp]

and yet bury with obviously all the time in the world didn't go to town on ellen like the ripper did with Kelly,given the opportunity of committing the murder in a private residence.

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.

and on the contrary-mckenzies murder, being out on the street, the killer dosnt have "ample opportunity" to do so, and very well may have been scared off like with earlier ripper victims.

Of course McKenzie's murderer had ample opportunity. All he had to do was sink his knife in deeper.

[Wyatt Earp]

And not to sound like a stuck record but McKenzie's murder occurring in-between the two Torso cases is mighty strange.

That wouldn't be a very good reason to ignore the forensic evidence in the case, which is telling us that McKenzie was murdered by someone other than the Ripper.

[Abby Normal]

Do you think that Keppel and the other three professionals were unaware of these things when they made their assessment?

who knows? maybe. The average casebooker probably knows more about the case than he does.


I take FBI profiling conclusions with a grain of salt, and for good reason.


now that being said, I don't dismiss it. I see the rippers sig with ellens murder also and somewhat agree with there (and your) assessment.


But wyatt, Im in kind of in weird space here, because I think Bury is one of the more viable ripper candidates-Ive got him in my top tier of only a handful of suspects in that regard, but I also lean toward mckenzie being a ripper victim. so its kind of hard for me to argue to strongly with you!

[Abby Normal]

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.



Of course McKenzie's murderer had ample opportunity. All he had to do was sink his knife in deeper.

Hi wyatt

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.

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.


however, it was his wife, so I could see for psychological reasons why he didn't go through with it. (plus he could have been losing it by this point as well).

McKenzie's murderer was under no such constraint, he could have gone to town on the victim's body without revealing his name.

Iwould posit he was under a lot of constraint as this was a public street murder, and the ripper was anything if not cautious about getting caught red handed.

Of course McKenzie's murderer had ample opportunity. All he had to do was sink his knife in deeper

to me McKenzie murder has all the hallmarks of a ripper who was off his game-sick, drunk, didn't have the right knife etc.


but then again that also kind of applies to bury and the murder of ellen, so there my conundrum. lol

[Wyatt Earp]

Do you think that Keppel and the other three professionals were unaware of these things when they made their assessment?

who knows? maybe. The average casebooker probably knows more about the case than he does.

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

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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.