William Bury website

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

and just another minor point-Bury seemed to be obsessed with not being blamed as the ripper. odd. why this preoccupation with it? Why even bring it up?add to this the possible writing on his door saying hes the ripper?

whats going on here?

i think these also point to possible guilt. and if he was the ripper-skipping town right after the murder of Kelly to avoid getting caught (getting too hot)-is a narrative that fits with above strange stuff.

[Single-O-Seven]

Hi Abby,

I do think in terms of gashing Ellen's abdomen, Bury couldn't help himself. While JTR undoubtedly killed his victims for the satisfaction he got from the postmortem mutilation, I think Bury killed Ellen because he was just an abusive prick who went too far. The mutilation was not his impulse in that case, but once she was dead he just couldn't help put the knife in her. He held back from going too far with it for reasons I stated before.

SOS

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

I do think in terms of gashing Ellen's abdomen, Bury couldn't help himself. While JTR undoubtedly killed his victims for the satisfaction he got from the postmortem mutilation, I think Bury killed Ellen because he was just an abusive prick who went too far. The mutilation was not his impulse in that case, but once she was dead he just couldn't help put the knife in her. He held back from going too far with it for reasons I stated before.

SOS

agree. I think it may have started as a drunken row. and or maybe she said something accusing him of being the ripper? (this might also fit with his odd saying he wasn't the ripper).

any way it dosnt looked like a planned murder to me.

[Busy Beaver]

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

William Bury was 3 months dead by the time Alice Mckenzie was murdered.

[Harry D]

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.

That’s an interesting ‘what if’, Abby.

And I think S-O-S makes a good argument.

[Single-O-Seven]

That’s an interesting ‘what if’, Abby.

And I think S-O-S makes a good argument.

I agree that Abby makes a great point, too. I certainly feel he would have been investigated further, which may have cracked things open much more. At the very least we would know a lot more about Bury. If he wasn't JTR there may have been better reasons to rule him out. It's a shame he wasn't looked into further while incarcerated and that the police inquiries are no longer available to us. I could also say it's a shame he wasn't made to sit and rot on a death row for a lot longer than a few months - maybe something more would have come out! Justice was swift in the Victorian Era.

[Wyatt Earp]

Herlock, your signature assessment of the Ellen Bury murder is not a sound one. I’ll go through things point-by-point with you.

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

Yes—the Ellen Bury murder is actually a classic case of picquerism. Read the Ellen Bury medical reports. If there were ever a trial of William Bury for the Jack the Ripper murders, I have no doubt that Robert Keppel would be willing to go before a jury and provide expert testimony that William Bury was a picquerist.

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

A seasoned analyst like Keppel understands that a signature characteristic can be absent or it can be reduced or modified in its expression in connection with the specific circumstances of a murder, and we have a whopping change of circumstances at Princes Street, namely, the murder occurred at the subject’s residence, and the subject was known by name to be living there by others in the area. Since these circumstances could reasonably have compelled William Bury to significantly reduce his mutilations, thus affecting the presence or degree of overkill, a seasoned analyst would not attach importance to the lower level of violence to the victim’s body at Princes Street. By the way, overkill may well have been present at the Ellen Bury crime scene. Dr. Henry Littlejohn gave his professional assessment that Ellen Bury would not have survived her mutilations. So while there was no escalation in overkill, we could indeed have a yes to overkill itself being present here.

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

Yes—Dr.Littlejohn testified that Ellen Bury was incapacitated with a blow to the head prior to being murdered.

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

Yes—Keppel et al. reference “use of a knife to penetrate the victims’ bodies and desecrate their sexual regions” in connection with this point. They also reference posing and other mutilation. All of these things occurred at Princes Street.

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

Yes—the important point here, per Keppel et al., is that “this killer obviously left the victims where others would find them.” William Bury accomplished this in Dundee by telling the police the exact location of Ellen Bury’s body.

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

Yes—the Ellen Bury murder was a sexualized murder. Her genital mutilations are described in the two medical reports. When we then find her body in the position that we find it in, when she could have been placed into the trunk in any one of a number of different ways, it is obvious what Bury was doing. Any seasoned analyst would immediately recognize this as sexually degrading posing of the victim’s body. In addition, William Bury tilted Ellen Bury’s head to one side, as was done with a number of the Whitechapel victims. This confirms that William Bury was deliberately manipulating the appearance of Ellen Bury’s body, that is, that he was engaged in posing behavior.

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

Yes—see above, Ellen Bury’s body was placed in a sexually degrading position.

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

As I noted in my comments on overkill, above, a seasoned analyst would take into account the specific circumstances of the murder and focus on the presence and not the degree of mutilations at Princes Street. So while there is a no to escalation, there is a yes with respect to the presence of mutilations.

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

No—but as per the above, an experienced analyst would not attach importance to this.

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

Yes—when William Bury mutilated Ellen Bury’s body, he went for her abdomen, genitals and face, all areas that received attention in the Whitechapel murders.

11) the murders were planned and organized; and maybe

Maybe—you have it right here. We can’t be sure if the Ellen Bury murder was preplanned or not. Given that this was a very different murder, a domestic murder, that could have occurred suddenly and unexpectedly, perhaps in connection with an argument, or perhaps out of a threat by Ellen Bury to report William Bury to the police, I’m not inclined to think that we should attach much importance to the presence or not of preplanning.

What we have here, then, is a remarkably close match with a complex and extremely rare combination of signature characteristics. It seems quite possible that out of the entire pool of murders committed in Victorian Britain, the only murders that would match this specific combination of signature characteristics would be the unsolved murders of certain Whitechapel victims and the solved murder of Ellen Bury. From a purely statistical standpoint, it appears to be a virtual certainty that William Bury was either a copycat killer or Jack the Ripper—and as I’ve shown, Bury wasn’t a copycat. On the remote (very remote) possibility that the close signature combination match could have simply been a coincidence, I ran through a list of supporting pieces of circumstantial evidence at the end of “The Bury ID” that collectively allow us to reasonably exclude that explanation.

I really do think that this case is over, with only the loose ends of the Stride and McKenzie murders to be tied up. In support of my view I’d point out that last year, two distinguished lawyers in the U.K., men familiar with criminal evidence and criminal law, came forward to affirm that an identification has been made in this case, and that Bury can now be named as the Ripper. The signature evidence was one of the things cited. Any Ripperologist in 2019 can responsibly hold the view that this case is already solved.