William Bury website

[Sam Flynn]

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

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Except in Dundee, perhaps

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[Sam Flynn]

when he placed the body in the trunk, he placed it in a sexually degrading position.

Only if you find a jack-in-the-box sexually arousing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

With regard to post #75

2. A change of circumstances could be completely unknown to an observer. This could lead anyone to link an unconnected murder to a series as much as it could lead to ignoring a connected one. It can negate anything.
3. That the ripper incapacitated his victims first was a circumstantial necessity rather than a trait.
4. Very vague in connection with Ellen Bury.
5. Whichever way you cut it - stuffed into a box is not open and on display just because the victim would eventually have been found.
6. To describe being randomly stuffed into a trunk as posing is frankly shoehorning at its worst.
7. Again, being stuffed into a box can’t be described as a sexually degrading position. Shoehorning again I’m afraid.
8. Is a cop out.
9. Ditto.

Mackenzie was a prostitute murdered in the street and left posed with her skirts raised and not vastly dissimilar injuries to the accepted ripper victims. It beggars belief that she can be considered a less likely ripper victim than Ellen Bury. It’s not even close.

[Wyatt Earp]

With regard to post #75

2. A change of circumstances could be completely unknown to an observer. This could lead anyone to link an unconnected murder to a series as much as it could lead to ignoring a connected one. It can negate anything.
3. That the ripper incapacitated his victims first was a circumstantial necessity rather than a trait.
4. Very vague in connection with Ellen Bury.
5. Whichever way you cut it - stuffed into a box is not open and on display just because the victim would eventually have been found.
6. To describe being randomly stuffed into a trunk as posing is frankly shoehorning at its worst.
7. Again, being stuffed into a box can’t be described as a sexually degrading position. Shoehorning again I’m afraid.
8. Is a cop out.
9. Ditto.

Mackenzie was a prostitute murdered in the street and left posed with her skirts raised and not vastly dissimilar injuries to the accepted ripper victims. It beggars belief that she can be considered a less likely ripper victim than Ellen Bury. It’s not even close.

I've provided an analysis that is consistent with the analysis provided by Robert Keppel, one of the world's leading experts on signature evidence, and three other professionals. If you don't want to accept it, that's your prerogative.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The perils of treating ‘experts’ as infallible are obvious. As I’ve said, I consider Bury one of the better named suspects, but I don’t see a flood of experts, criminologists, Ripperologists, ex-Detectives, profilers, psychologists, psychiatrists, lawyers or whoever coming forward to say as you appear to do “ok guys it’s case closed. It’s been solved beyond all reasonable doubt.” I really can’t understand your apparent level of confidence. But maybe I can when I hear the tone of your last response which was basically saying “look, I’ve applied the method which has shown me to be right and that Bury was the ripper. If you’re just going to ignore something that’s beyond debate then that’s your problem.”

Dont you think that this could be said to be your take on applying Keppel’s work? And that you might be seeing matches that aren’t truly there? I certainly find it strange that someone can say that a woman found dead in a box is more ripper-like than Alice Mackenzie.

[Sam Flynn]

I've provided an analysis that is consistent with the analysis provided by Robert Keppel, one of the world's leading experts on signature evidence, and three other professionals. If you don't want to accept it, that's your prerogative.

Keppel et al, who see the frenzied infliction of multiple stab-wounds to the upper half of the body, and the action of making long, targeted cuts to the abdomen as basically the same thing.

[Abby Normal]

Keppel et al, who see the frenzied infliction of multiple stab-wounds to the upper half of the body, and the action of making long, targeted cuts to the abdomen as basically the same thing.

Exactly. The same ones who include stride and tabram yet discount mckenzie.

But again, they dont even bring ellen bury up, so im still havimg a hard time seeing how wyatt earp can keep using there report to include her, unless of course its only to discount mckenzie as a ripper victim, which of course, burt couldnt have murdered.

[John Wheat]

Exactly. The same ones who include stride and tabram yet discount mckenzie.

But again, they dont even bring ellen bury up, so im still havimg a hard time seeing how wyatt earp can keep using there report to include her, unless of course its only to discount mckenzie as a ripper victim, which of course, burt couldnt have murdered.

Ellen Bury's murder was a few months after Kelly's murder unlike McKenzie. In my opinion the amount of time rules out McKenzie as a Ripper victim.