William Bury website

[Wyatt Earp]

But I don't see it as a remarkably close match. There are a couple of cuts to the abdomen - one deep but short, the other longer but superficial - but that's about it.

Please review post 75.

The Ripper was known primarily as someone who roughly cut open women's abdomens, hence the nickname I guess.

One throat after another had been cut, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, Kelly. If Bury had wanted to pin this murder on the Ripper, he would have cut Ellen’s throat.

It's not inconceivable that he freaked when he realised what he'd done and, in his panic, thought of pinning the murder on the Ripper. When he came to his senses, perhaps he realised that this would never work, and stuffed Ellen into a trunk while he thought of another plan; resignedly going to the police only when he realised there was no way out.

The “panic attack” explanation of the Ellen Bury murder isn’t a viable one. Apart from the reasons I’ve already provided, Bury continued to behave as the Whitechapel murderer he really was well after this supposed panic attack had subsided: he went back to the body and mutilated it further, as though he wanted to do a lot more and was having trouble restraining himself, he burned some of the victim’s clothes in the fireplace, as was done at Miller’s Court, and when he placed the body in the trunk, he placed it in a sexually degrading position.

[Wyatt Earp]

You can’t expect to have your cake and eat it. If you say that signatures/MO’s can change due to a change in the killers circumstances then we simply can’t say, because none of us were there, that the Ripper might not have been affected by ‘circumstances’ when he killed Mackenzie (and I’m not saying that he did.) What if he’d previously sustained an injury which meant that he couldn’t apply enough pressure with the knife. He may also have forgotten to sharpen the blade. A prostitute killed and left on display on a London street certainly looks more ‘ripper’ than a woman in Scotland killed and stuffed into a trunk.

With respect to signature evidence, there has to be “enough there” to make a link. As I showed earlier in this thread, in post 75, the Ellen Bury murder can be closely mapped to the Ripper’s signature, the only variation of consequence being the reduction in the degree of the mutilations, which would have affected Bury’s ability to remove organs. This combination of signature characteristics is so exceedingly rare that it compels us to link this murder to the Ripper, given that a reduction in the mutilations and the use of a different M.O. can readily be explained, and given that alternative explanations of the Ellen Bury murder can reasonably be excluded.

Keppel and the other three professionals reviewed the McKenzie case materials, and determined that there was not enough there to make a link. Further, a copycat explanation of the McKenzie murder cannot reasonably be excluded.

[Wyatt Earp]

Getting caught up…

I’ll again try to clarify the “cut throat” issue in relation to Bury.

We know, from a forensic perspective, that the M.O. of a serial killer can vary among crime scenes. This is an established fact. One of the reasons it can change is that murders can have differing circumstances. At Princes Street in Dundee, William Bury committed a murder within a strikingly different set of circumstances: the victim was his spouse, the murder occurred at his own residence, and he was known by name to be living at this residence by others in the area. Hence, from a forensic perspective, we should not be surprised to see a change in M.O. at Princes Street. No one knows why Bury didn’t use a knife at his residence. We can speculate—perhaps because the victim was his spouse, perhaps because it wasn’t necessary to cut her throat to make sure that she was dead, perhaps because he was apparently no longer in possession of the Whitechapel murder knife at the time of the murder—but the specific reason is unimportant.

Jack the Ripper was known to the British public as a murderer who cut his victims’ throats—this was seen in one murder after another, from Mary Ann Nichols to Mary Jane Kelly (Elizabeth Stride, with a cut throat, was widely considered to be a Ripper victim, even though she wasn’t “ripped”). A person living in 1889 who wanted to duplicate a Jack the Ripper murder would reasonably be expected to cut his victim’s throat—and indeed we see this with the Alice McKenzie murder.

Hence, while the absence of a cut throat is not a worthwhile objection to Bury being the Ripper, it is a worthwhile objection to his being a copycat killer.

[Abby Normal]

But I don't see it as a remarkably close match. There are a couple of cuts to the abdomen - one deep but short, the other longer but superficial - but that's about it.
The Ripper was known primarily as someone who roughly cut open women's abdomens, hence the nickname I guess.Two or three parishes removed from Bury's.He was a drunk who lost it and killed his wife. It's not inconceivable that he freaked when he realised what he'd done and, in his panic, thought of pinning the murder on the Ripper. When he came to his senses, perhaps he realised that this would never work, and stuffed Ellen into a trunk while he thought of another plan; resignedly going to the police only when he realised there was no way out.

Hi sam
thats whats so weird about ellens murder. There was a way out. More so than going to the police with this lame explanation. He could have tried to get rid of her body, dismembered and or taken her out in the trunk and hide it or her body. The only explanation is that he was losing it mentally and or pretty much resigned to the fact the jig was up.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Only to us, in hindsight. At the time, the most compelling aspect of the murders was, surely, the eponymous "ripping" of women's bellies. Even today, that's the one thing that distinguishes JTR from the crowd; throat slashers are relatively common in comparison.

Accepted Gareth. Certainly a consistent feature though.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Except in Dundee, perhaps

[Sam Flynn]

Why didn't Bury the ripper cut Ellen's throat which is the one undeniable, specific and consistent feature of the ripper murders?

Only to us, in hindsight. At the time, the most compelling aspect of the murders was, surely, the eponymous "ripping" of women's bellies. Even today, that's the one thing that distinguishes JTR from the crowd; throat slashers are relatively common in comparison.

[Sam Flynn]

You can't expect to have your cake and eat it.

Except in Dundee, perhaps

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why didn’t Bury the ripper cut Ellen’s throat which is the one undeniable, specific and consistent feature of the ripper murders?

[Sam Flynn]

It isn’t believable that a drunk man who had never demonstrated any particular interest in the Ripper murders would produce such a remarkably close match with the Ripper’s complex combination of signature characteristics.

But I don't see it as a remarkably close match. There are a couple of cuts to the abdomen - one deep but short, the other longer but superficial - but that's about it.

Further, if Bury had wanted to pin this murder on the Ripper, he would have cut Ellen’s throat.

The Ripper was known primarily as someone who roughly cut open women's abdomens, hence the nickname I guess.

Finally, the Ripper wasn’t murdering women all the way up in Dundee, he was murdering women in the East End of London.

Two or three parishes removed from Bury's.

It simply isn’t believable that Bury would have tried to pin this murder on the Ripper, and in fact he did not do so when he went to the police station.

He was a drunk who lost it and killed his wife. It's not inconceivable that he freaked when he realised what he'd done and, in his panic, thought of pinning the murder on the Ripper. When he came to his senses, perhaps he realised that this would never work, and stuffed Ellen into a trunk while he thought of another plan; resignedly going to the police only when he realised there was no way out.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. 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.

You can’t expect to have your cake and eat it. If you say that signatures/MO’s can change due to a change in the killers circumstances then we simply can’t say, because none of us were there, that the Ripper might not have been affected by ‘circumstances’ when he killed Mackenzie (and I’m not saying that he did.) What if he’d previously sustained an injury which meant that he couldn’t apply enough pressure with the knife. He may also have forgotten to sharpen the blade. A prostitute killed and left on display on a London street certainly looks more ‘ripper’ than a woman in Scotland killed and stuffed into a trunk.

Bury is a possible suspect. Better than most named ones yes. But a possible suspect nonetheless. We should be wary of overconfidence.

[Wyatt Earp]

Like I said, it was at most an attempt at a copycat, and not a very good one at that. It's still possible that it was, in the sense of "Oh $hit, I've strangled her! I know, I'll cut her belly a bit to make it look like the Ripper did it"

It isn’t believable that a drunk man who had never demonstrated any particular interest in the Ripper murders would produce such a remarkably close match with the Ripper’s complex combination of signature characteristics. Again, it’s quite possible that this combination was only seen elsewhere with certain Whitechapel victims out of the entire pool of murders committed in Victorian Britain.

Further, if Bury had wanted to pin this murder on the Ripper, he would have cut Ellen’s throat.

Finally, the Ripper wasn’t murdering women all the way up in Dundee, he was murdering women in the East End of London. It simply isn’t believable that Bury would have tried to pin this murder on the Ripper, and in fact he did not do so when he went to the police station.

[APerno]

Well the graffiti was reportedly much older than the murder. I still think Bury or Ellen wrote the graffiti which must increase his likeliness of being the Ripper. Local kids or whoever else being responsible just doesn't seem that likely.

I agree, personally I think Bury's mind snapped. They say that after the murder and right up to the night before his hanging Bury had been very cooperative with the police, but the night before (with CID hiding behind a wall listening) hangman Berry tried to get Bury to confess to the Whitechapel murders, at which point Bury lost control of himself and started spiting all kinds of verbal abuse at Berry, most of which sounded like the trash from the letters posted in the newspapers. Considering this behavior I think Bury may well have been obsessed with JTR and was likely the one who wrote the graffiti.

But I did read one source (and I am embarrassed to say I can't remember where I read it,) that the police had left the house unattended and when they returned it was over run by trill seekers, and it was then that they discovered the graffiti. But to repeat myself, I think Bury's mind had snapped and he was the one writing the graffiti.

Also I am not sure if this is true or not, but Bury supposedly went to the police station (after sobering up) and explained to the cops that his wife was dead and he needed assistance. As he and the police were walking back to the scene Bury quietly added something to the effect: 'Oh, by the way I kind of cut her open after she was dead.' I would love to have seen the look on the cops face during that walk to the apartment.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby, well, if you believe that, then you haven't read enough "true crime." One example, among others, is the case of Jeffery MacDonald, M.D., from February, 1970, when the "Charles Manson"/Helter Skelter murders were still very much in the news. MacDonald's wife and children were horrifically murdered, stabbed repeatedly with knives and ice picks. The word "Pig" was written on the wall in blood. I think his wife was stabbed some 40 times. A dazed and injured MacDonald claimed the house had been invaded in the middle of the night by hippies, who then attacked them. One of these long-haired freaks supposedly said "Acid is groovy, kill the pigs."


Not surprisingly, the police and the prosecutors didn't believe MacDonald's account and he was ultimately convicted and is still in prison, though he does have his supporters. In searching the house after the murders, the police found a magazine with a prominent article about the Manson murders. They concluded that MacDonald lost it, killed his wife, then his children, and then staged the scene to look like it was done by drug-crazed hippies because of the great prominence given to the Tate/Labianca murders in the press.

Besides "signature" is really so much psychobabble. The University of Liverpool did a study and concluded it was pseudo-science and cannot be relied upon. All the best.

Hi rj
thanks for posting i had never heard about that case. I stand corrected.

[John Wheat]

Hundreds of people claimed to be the Ripper in all those hoax letters, but it's a safe bet that none of those was a confession by the killer himself. Some people told the police that they were the Ripper, when they weren't.

But how many of them murdered there wife in a Ripper like fashion?