William Bury website

[c.d.]

I don't think anyone disputes that Bagster Phillips was thought of as such cd, do you feel he lacks competence or experience? Having said that I will add that I don't believe any doctor can escape his human limitations, and errors can be made.

Hello Michael,

I have no doubt that he was a competent physician. It is the term "medical authority" that I have trouble with. It implies that his opinion is to be valued more than other physicians in the case and that it cannot be questioned.

Not knowing how he arrived at his opinions, what factors he considered, and whether or not he made certain assumptions really need to be known. And was he ever questioned by anyone attempting to discredit his opinion?

I guess I am saying we should respect his opinion but take it with a grain of salt and don't treat it as the word of God.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

And we have a contemporary medical authority on these cases, having personally inspected 4 of the five victims, that Stride was not killed by Annies killer, or in the same way.

Hello Michael,

How does a doctor become a "medical authority?"

c.d.

I don't think anyone disputes that Bagster Phillips was thought of as such cd, do you feel he lacks competence or experience? Having said that I will add that I don't believe any doctor can escape his human limitations, and errors can be made.

[Wyatt Earp]

Hello Wyatt,

I was referring to the B.S. man after having been seen by Schwartz. If he walks away from the scene without killing Stride he is simply guilty of pushing her. Even if identified and arrested a plausible story would be easy to come by. "I guess I had a little too much to drink that night. I was walking home when this prostitute accosted me and wouldn't take no for an answer. So I shoved her away probably a little harder than I should have. Sorry about that."

Now given a choice between being investigated and not being investigated by the police I can see a serial killer choosing the latter. But I think the point is this -- Misogyny was apparently fairly commonplace in Whitechapel and I simply can't see Abberline saying "What? A woman by herself late at night after the pubs closed got pushed? Drop all other investigations, men. This has to be our man."

But as you point out, I suppose that it is certainly possible that a serial killer would go on to murder her rather than being investigated. It just doesn't seem probable to me.

c.d.

My imagination must be a little darker than yours, as I can easily see it. Violent people tend to solve problems through violence, they tend not to walk away from things as much as others do. I’d also wager that he was a little soggy at that hour, the pubs in the area having just closed. I’ve heard that soggy people sometimes behave impulsively, show poor judgment and are a bit more prone to violence than others. He wouldn’t have known what the police might or might not do, and I think that would have factored into it as well.

[c.d.]

I agree with you that one serial killer might simply walk away from Stride after Schwartz left, hope that Stride wouldn’t give his name to the police, and not be too concerned about the police investigating him.

Do you agree with me that another serial killer might be touchy about being investigated by the police, not want to take a chance on Stride naming him, and decide to whack Stride then and there?

Hello Wyatt,

I was referring to the B.S. man after having been seen by Schwartz. If he walks away from the scene without killing Stride he is simply guilty of pushing her. Even if identified and arrested a plausible story would be easy to come by. "I guess I had a little too much to drink that night. I was walking home when this prostitute accosted me and wouldn't take no for an answer. So I shoved her away probably a little harder than I should have. Sorry about that."

Now given a choice between being investigated and not being investigated by the police I can see a serial killer choosing the latter. But I think the point is this -- Misogyny was apparently fairly commonplace in Whitechapel and I simply can't see Abberline saying "What? A woman by herself late at night after the pubs closed got pushed? Drop all other investigations, men. This has to be our man."

But as you point out, I suppose that it is certainly possible that a serial killer would go on to murder her rather than being investigated. It just doesn't seem probable to me.

c.d.

[Wyatt Earp]

thanks. im having a hard time picturing it. do we know if she was face up or down? I imagine face/frontside up??

The body was on its back. “The head had been pushed into the left-hand corner of the box and turned towards the right” (Macpherson, The Trial of Jack the Ripper, p. 24).

[Abby Normal]

Lt. Lamb only testified that the body, like Kelly’s, was naked except for a chemise, “The right leg was broken in two and doubled back under [the] lid of [the] box,” and “The] left leg [was] bent back so that the foot was over [the] right shoulder,” but that’s obviously a sexually degrading position.

thanks. im having a hard time picturing it. do we know if she was face up or down? I imagine face/frontside up??

[Wyatt Earp]

For what it’s worth, here is Lt. Parr’s trial testimony about what William Bury said about the trunk when Bury arrived at the police station. Bury told him, “On getting up in the morning he found his wife lying on the floor dead and a rope round her neck; and then he said that he got frightened that he would be apprehended as ‘Jack the Ripper,’ and then he cut up the body and packed it in a box where it was still to be found.” (Dundee Courier and Argus, 3/29/89, p.6)

Nothing here indicating that Bury put the body into the trunk with a mind toward transporting it.

A more colorful (approach with caution) account of what Bury said at the police station was published in the Dundee Advertiser shortly after his arrest:

“After looking at the body for a minute or two he was seized with a mad impulse, and, lifting a large knife near by, he plunged it several times into the abdomen. Some time after this he became frightened at what he had done, and the thought occurred to him of concealing the remains. For this purpose he dragged a plain white wooden box to the middle of the floor and prepared it for the reception of the body, and when his arrangements were completed he lifted the corpse and placed it inside the box. He then put on the lid, but left two narrow boards in the centre so loose that they could be easily lifted” (2/12/89, p. 5).

Nothing here, either, to suggest that Bury put the body into the trunk in order to transport it.

[Wyatt Earp]

I expect Bury would have been concerned about Stride identifying him either out of her unhappiness about the incident, or because the police might have pressured her to do so.

Identified him as what? The man who pushed her?

c.d.

I agree with you that one serial killer might simply walk away from Stride after Schwartz left, hope that Stride wouldn’t give his name to the police, and not be too concerned about the police investigating him.

Do you agree with me that another serial killer might be touchy about being investigated by the police, not want to take a chance on Stride naming him, and decide to whack Stride then and there?

[Wyatt Earp]

hey wyatt
I see what your getting at kind of. This is how I see it.
Could a body stuffed in a trunk be indicative of a wish to degrade? yes absolutely.
If it was, could also be in a SEXUALLY degrading position? possibly-but without the perpetrator explicating saying it was the purpose, then it would be hard to come to that conclusion, unless she was placed in the box in obvious sexual position-ie sexual parts front and center, legs spread apart etc.
If this is the case could it be considered DISPLAYED in a SEXUALLY DEGRADING position. I suppose it could, especially if he knew it would be found soon and or he led someone to it, which seems to be the case.

Do we know the position of the body in the box-was there obvious sexual posing? whats the first thing one saw when they opened the box? do we know?

Lt. Lamb only testified that the body, like Kelly’s, was naked except for a chemise, “The right leg was broken in two and doubled back under [the] lid of [the] box,” and “The] left leg [was] bent back so that the foot was over [the] right shoulder,” but that’s obviously a sexually degrading position.

[c.d.]

I expect Bury would have been concerned about Stride identifying him either out of her unhappiness about the incident, or because the police might have pressured her to do so.

Identified him as what? The man who pushed her?

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

To expand on my earlier response, Abby, I don’t see why you couldn’t have posing of a body inside a trunk if, as a perpetrator, you’re confident that the body would be quickly discovered there. It’s important for everyone here to understand that you can have a display murder with an indoor murder. In the case of the Mary Kelly murder, the body was behind a single partition (door). In the case of the Ellen Bury murder, the body was behind two partitions (door and lid of trunk). In both cases, however, the perpetrator could be certain that the body would be quickly discovered.

Let’s assume for a moment that at some point in the proceedings William Bury really did dally with the idea of transporting the body and that his placement of the body into the trunk was a first step in that direction (I don’t think that’s what occurred, as the posing of the body is obvious, and I don’t think he would have posed the body if he intended to transport it, but let’s set that aside). It wouldn’t change anything. While technically it would be a violation of Keppel et al.’s “no attempts were made to move the bodies,” elsewhere Keppel emphasizes that a signature characteristic can be modified, diluted or entirely absent at a given crime scene in connection with the specific circumstances of that murder. William and Ellen Bury were known by name to be living at their Princes Street address by others in the area. If William Bury had simply fled the scene, there would have been a manhunt for him as Ellen Bury’s murderer and perhaps also as the Whitechapel murderer. Under this set of circumstances, then, would anyone here be surprised if Jack the Ripper, in this instance, had decided to abandon body display and instead make an attempt to transport the body away from the scene? Certainly we would not be able to exclude him as being Jack the Ripper if he had taken this action, given the situation. William Bury did not transport the body, though, he made sure that it would be quickly discovered, and so we have no choice but to classify this as a “display” murder and a match on that signature point.

hey wyatt
I see what your getting at kind of. This is how I see it.
Could a body stuffed in a trunk be indicative of a wish to degrade? yes absolutely.
If it was, could also be in a SEXUALLY degrading position? possibly-but without the perpetrator explicating saying it was the purpose, then it would be hard to come to that conclusion, unless she was placed in the box in obvious sexual position-ie sexual parts front and center, legs spread apart etc.
If this is the case could it be considered DISPLAYED in a SEXUALLY DEGRADING position. I suppose it could, especially if he knew it would be found soon and or he led someone to it, which seems to be the case.

Do we know the position of the body in the box-was there obvious sexual posing? whats the first thing one saw when they opened the box? do we know?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. elsewhere Keppel emphasizes that a signature characteristic can be modified, diluted or entirely absent at a given crime scene in connection with the specific circumstances of that murder.

So how can these be reliable signposts if external events, that investigators would in all likelihood have been completely unaware of, can alter them or cause them to occur or nor occur. Movable goalposts are useless.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.

To expand on my earlier response, Abby, I don’t see why you couldn’t have posing of a body inside a trunk if, as a perpetrator, you’re confident that the body would be quickly discovered there. It’s important for everyone here to understand that you can have a display murder with an indoor murder. In the case of the Mary Kelly murder, the body was behind a single partition (door). In the case of the Ellen Bury murder, the body was behind two partitions (door and lid of trunk). In both cases, however, the perpetrator could be certain that the body would be quickly discovered.

But he wasn’t expecting or hoping that the body would have just been discovered by persons unknown because he went to the police and told them about it.

[Wyatt Earp]

while I think Bury is a very valid suspect for the ripper murders, Im with herlock and Harry on doubts how a body can be displayed in a sexually degraded position while stuffed in a trunk. perhaps its possible, but unless wyatt can specifically show how this is so and or quote experts who say this-id need more info to consider.

It seems that stuffing a body in a trunk is the first move to hide and get rid of a body-not display it IMHO.

To expand on my earlier response, Abby, I don’t see why you couldn’t have posing of a body inside a trunk if, as a perpetrator, you’re confident that the body would be quickly discovered there. It’s important for everyone here to understand that you can have a display murder with an indoor murder. In the case of the Mary Kelly murder, the body was behind a single partition (door). In the case of the Ellen Bury murder, the body was behind two partitions (door and lid of trunk). In both cases, however, the perpetrator could be certain that the body would be quickly discovered.

Let’s assume for a moment that at some point in the proceedings William Bury really did dally with the idea of transporting the body and that his placement of the body into the trunk was a first step in that direction (I don’t think that’s what occurred, as the posing of the body is obvious, and I don’t think he would have posed the body if he intended to transport it, but let’s set that aside). It wouldn’t change anything. While technically it would be a violation of Keppel et al.’s “no attempts were made to move the bodies,” elsewhere Keppel emphasizes that a signature characteristic can be modified, diluted or entirely absent at a given crime scene in connection with the specific circumstances of that murder. William and Ellen Bury were known by name to be living at their Princes Street address by others in the area. If William Bury had simply fled the scene, there would have been a manhunt for him as Ellen Bury’s murderer and perhaps also as the Whitechapel murderer. Under this set of circumstances, then, would anyone here be surprised if Jack the Ripper, in this instance, had decided to abandon body display and instead make an attempt to transport the body away from the scene? Certainly we would not be able to exclude him as being Jack the Ripper if he had taken this action, given the situation. William Bury did not transport the body, though, he made sure that it would be quickly discovered, and so we have no choice but to classify this as a “display” murder and a match on that signature point.

[c.d.]

And we have a contemporary medical authority on these cases, having personally inspected 4 of the five victims, that Stride was not killed by Annies killer, or in the same way.

Hello Michael,

How does a doctor become a "medical authority?"

c.d.