"...but because you are going to hang me you will get nothing out of me..."

[curious]

Thanks John, I do think this relevant although most of these working class types were probably pretty strong - although small compared to today's behemoths...

curious, your points about the stables are of interest. I have never heard anyone mention any checking of stables or people absconding via horse-and-buggy. If stables were plentiful, one would assume the police scanned them. It may not have been mentioned as it was understood. The logistics of said searches would certainly be intriguing however...


Greg

Hi, Greg,
I agree with you that most likely the stables were scanned -- if they were open, but were they? how did they operate? Were they locked up at night? Did people with animals stabled there have access 24/7? I don't know.

Were the animals unhooked from the vehicles? were both the animals and the vehicles inside?

I suspect the police did scan the stables, and it was just so much a part of the job that it was not mentioned separately. But if a policeman scanned and saw no movement would he actually go inside to check each vehicle? I'm interested in whether a man sleeping off a drunk in a buggy or cart would be visible from a distance.

I don't actually know what sort of vehicle Bury owned or what it looked like, was it big enough to curl up in?

So many questions . . . .

curious

[GregBaron]

Pass on through mate...

To Greg

There is atleast one description of Bury having powerful arms and shoulders. I believe it's somewhere in Beadle's book.

Cheers John

Thanks John, I do think this relevant although most of these working class types were probably pretty strong - although small compared to today's behemoths...

curious, your points about the stables are of interest. I have never heard anyone mention any checking of stables or people absconding via horse-and-buggy. If stables were plentiful, one would assume the police scanned them. It may not have been mentioned as it was understood. The logistics of said searches would certainly be intriguing however...


Greg

[curious]

While the issue of his statement to James Berry is interesting as it seems to mirror the comment of one of the letters sent to the newspapers, that does not validate he even made the statement. He may have made it, but we only have Berry's comment that he did to go on - and it came out in 1910 or so. It has the same impact to me as John Billington's comment that Dr. Neill Cream yelled, "I am Jack...!" as the trap was sprung in November 1892.
I wrote that it is very likely Billington, a practical joker, made up that particular statement for it's effect on listeners. Here Berry was probably considering that he may have executed the real Ripper, and he may have added details "to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative" (as Pooh Bah would have said in THE MIKADO). Oddly enough, Mary Pearcey was also suspected of the murders at one point (as "Jill" the Ripper, naturally), but Berry (who executed Mrs. Pearcey, but felt sorry for her), did not consider it worth while to remind his readers of that.

Jeff

Hello, Jeff,

Good to hear from you.

Like you, I had realized that the quote might have been altered, but had not really considered that there was no statement, but that Berry had created one.

I suppose both are possible.

What I most considered is that people put synonyms from their own vocabulary into "quotes."

I have seen this happen with young women to whom I have quoted 4 weeks as a deadline for their wedding story. They have been positive I've said a month. We gave up and made the deadline a month. Their minds simply translated 4 weeks into a month.

Another example is also directly from my own experience. When I interview people, I write down information as well as record it. But I make it a habit to listen to the recording to insert the quote into a story because quite frequently I will substitute a synonym in the middle of the quote as the young women so often did with the "month."

I has suspected Berry of doing that with "I suppose" instead of using "reckon" -- which is another word we should look for in Bury's writings.

That's the kind of change I would expect to see in a "quote" -- not a statement made of "whole cloth" or totally bogus, which is completely possible, too, of course.

However, in Berry's line of work. I would think that people facing the gallows might be very intense, very memorable. Plus, Berry likely reported back to his superiors, maybe to newspapers (?) and perhaps to British officers who had been sent to check him out. In that case, the conversation might be more deeply ingrained.

Think I'll go back and reread Beale's book. I did manage to find it last night.

curious

[John Wheat]

To Greg

There is atleast one description of Bury having powerful arms and shoulders. I believe it's somewhere in Beadle's book.

Cheers John

[Mayerling]

On the subject of the possible simlarity of the comment by Bury to Berry and it's resemblance to the comment in that October 1888 letter in the newspaper, I forgot to mention this. During the height of the Florence Maybrick Poisoning Trial of 1889 one of the London newspapers received a letter roundly condemning Mrs. Maybrick as a wicked adulterous and probable murderess who did not deserve the growing swll of public support she got. I don't recall the newspaper - it was in a chapter about its author in a book about crime. The writer was one James Canham Read, who was married, with a large family of children, and a good job at one of the London Docks. He was also a ladies man, a philanderer, and an adulterer (so he was a hypocrite). In 1894 he shot and killed his pregnant girlfriend at the village of Prittiwell, and when he found that his attempts to cover it up with an elaborate scheme of secret meetings, and even an alibi, had collapsed, stole a sum of money from his employers, and ran off to the home of another lover he had bigamously married. About a month later he was captured. Subsequently he was tried for the murder, convicted, and hanged.

Read's last words are worth recalling. He was in a state of nervous collapse when taken to the gallows, and looking at it asked, "Will it hurt?"

Jeff

[Mayerling]

I really have no opinion on William Bury as a candidate or not for "Jack", but to me he is one in a specific subset: murderers suspected of being the Ripper (Bury, Pearcey, Deeming, Cream, Holmes, Chapman, etc.). His claims are as valid of comment as the others. That's about it.

While the issue of his statement to James Berry is interesting as it seems to mirror the comment of one of the letters sent to the newspapers, that does not validate he even made the statement. He may have made it, but we only have Berry's comment that he did to go on - and it came out in 1910 or so. It has the same impact to me as John Billington's comment that Dr. Neill Cream yelled, "I am Jack...!" as the trap was sprung in November 1892.
I wrote that it is very likely Billington, a practical joker, made up that particular statement for it's effect on listeners. Here Berry was probably considering that he may have executed the real Ripper, and he may have added details "to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative" (as Pooh Bah would have said in THE MIKADO). Oddly enough, Mary Pearcey was also suspected of the murders at one point (as "Jill" the Ripper, naturally), but Berry (who executed Mrs. Pearcey, but felt sorry for her), did not consider it worth while to remind his readers of that.

Jeff

[curious]

Thanks curious and yes I agree with your contentions.

I assume there were stables around and a buggy might be a good place to clean up etc. I also wonder if any cops checked such places or any horse-and-buggy riders after the murders. Surely bloody clothes and a knife would need to be well hidden by a non butcher. Or maybe the trotters got a free ride(no pun intended).

Do we have any pictures of Bury other than that nondescript courtroom sketch?

Also, I believe it was Dr. Bond who said the killer was strong. I wonder if Bury had the strenght or was just a wimpy loser....


Greg

Greg,
I wonder if he wasn't safer not to move the buggy. Let's say he was the Ripper. He'd just return to the buggy, quickly change clothes and pack the bloody ones back, then crawl into the buggy and curl up, sleeping soundly, or at least feigning sleep if anyone approached. I'm sure he would have awakened slowly and simply had no idea what was going on, appearing too drunk and out of it to raise any suspicions.

Now, thinking on that . . . IF he was found numerous times following Ripper murders, surely that would have raised some questions? But perhaps, he was completely hidden if policemen did check stables . . . I don't know. How would this have worked? Did the police check inside the stables? Did the buggy appear empty?

I would guess that moving buggies might be stopped and checked, but don't know that we've ever seen that mentioned. Do you recall?

I believe there has been previous interest in a photo of Bury and apparently he had a photo made when he and Ellen visited Wolverhampton in the summer of 1888. I don't recall hearing that anyone has ever seen that photo.

We know he was strong enough to get Ellen down and brutalize her, but I don't know about how strong he might have been.

There is one posting that said he worked as a horse slaughterer, but I've not researched that and don't know it to be true. I suspect that occupation would require some strength?

curious

[GregBaron]

Wagons and wimps...

Thanks curious and yes I agree with your contentions.

I assume there were stables around and a buggy might be a good place to clean up etc. I also wonder if any cops checked such places or any horse-and-buggy riders after the murders. Surely bloody clothes and a knife would need to be well hidden by a non butcher. Or maybe the trotters got a free ride(no pun intended).

Do we have any pictures of Bury other than that nondescript courtroom sketch?

Also, I believe it was Dr. Bond who said the killer was strong. I wonder if Bury had the strenght or was just a wimpy loser....


Greg

[curious]

Hi all,

It's been a while since I read the Beadle book but I remember it being interesting. It's definitely worth a read.

Bury seems a good candidate. What I always wonder about is the destruction of his wife and the rather feeble attempt at mutilation. Is this really how Jack would go to the gallows?

Secondly, I also wonder about the logistics of his horse and buggy transportation through Whitechapel. It may be a great strategy for a murderer but I wonder where he parked it during murders, what was in it and whether it drew the attention of anyone in any way?

Just some food for thought...


Greg

Hi, Greg,
Good to hear from you.

I've thought of all that you've mentioned.

To your wonder about how Jack would go to the gallows, I have wondered about the complete lack of an escape plan. Bury's final movements make the man appear almost too stupid to have pulled off the daring Jack escapades.

I'm not sure I have an answer for that, as I have not decided in my own mind one way or the other. I would expect his murder of his wife to be different from his murder of strangers. That could be totally wrong, but I somehow think that.

I also feel that Bury had devolved (is that a word? yep, and the obsolete meaning fits: to cause to roll downward) so much from where he started that yes, any future attempts might be feeble.

I find Ellen's comments on Jack the Ripper to be very intriguing and suggestive.

And the horse-and-buggy situation engrossed me from my earliest days on Casebook when Bury first attracted my attention.

There were stables all over, weren't there? I know so little of how commercial stables worked that I can't speak to this being possible, but I can see Bury parking his pony and cart and possibly sleeping off numerous nights of drinking in the cart. IF he made a habit of that, he had a place to bolt to following a murder. He could have carried a change of clothes and be wearing a different coat and hat IF any policeman came through -- after all, it was just ole William Henry sleeping off his usual snoot-full.

Ellen apparently told people that he was in the habit of staying out all night.

curious

[GregBaron]

Beadle Book bury bury good...

Hi all,

It's been a while since I read the Beadle book but I remember it being interesting. It's definitely worth a read.

Bury seems a good candidate. What I always wonder about is the destruction of his wife and the rather feeble attempt at mutilation. Is this really how Jack would go to the gallows?

Secondly, I also wonder about the logistics of his horse and buggy transportation through Whitechapel. It may be a great strategy for a murderer but I wonder where he parked it during murders, what was in it and whether it drew the attention of anyone in any way?

Just some food for thought...


Greg

[curious]

Hi Curious
I had no clue that Bury could write in several hands(very interesting) though i was surprised after reading about Bury and his personality/background and then seeing his written confession that he could write so well-this apparent loser and thug could write very "professional" and his handwriting was rather, well, elegant. I wonder if there are other examples of his writing in different hands and if any of those match the letter you mentioned and/or dear boss?
or if Bury used the word clever in any of his writings?

I dont know if the word clever was in more common usage then but to me it sounds like it may. But still.... it shows up in a couple of more well known (and generally accepted as possible authentic) ripper letters and his final conversation with Berry-makes you think.

I have always thought Bury as a viable suspect. Known murderer of woman by knife, frequents protitutes, lived in area, seems to fit the description/profile, leaving London could explain murders end etc.

And again, the start of Dear Boss being so similar to the letter you mentioned, the remark to Berry added to the fact that a common trait of pschopaths is the overwhelming feeling of superiority, being so much smarter than everyone else, and these possible connections with Bury about who is clever, more clever, etc. really makes your point very interesting IMHO.

Hi, Abby,
Bury has always interested me because he is at least capable of murder.

In addition to writing well, he also seems to have enjoyed dressing well -- which would tie in with some of the men the victims were seen with.

And something I learned just recently: Catherine Eddowes had lived in Wolverhampton and so did Bury.

Since Eddowes is the one victim who claimed she knew who the Ripper was . . . . I can't help wondering if Bury had a reputation there.

I'm finding Wm. Henry Bury more and more interesting.

curious

[Abby Normal]

Hi, Abby,
Thanks.

Since Bury was apparently known for his ability to write "several hands" I wonder if we could compare the handwriting, but it's an interesting thought that should be checked out.

I did notice the usage of "clever" in the Dear Boss letter, but wondered if perhaps "clever" was used more frequently in 1888 than it is in conversations I have in 2013.

Don't know. Any ideas?

curious

Hi Curious
I had no clue that Bury could write in several hands(very interesting) though i was surprised after reading about Bury and his personality/background and then seeing his written confession that he could write so well-this apparent loser and thug could write very "professional" and his handwriting was rather, well, elegant. I wonder if there are other examples of his writing in different hands and if any of those match the letter you mentioned and/or dear boss?
or if Bury used the word clever in any of his writings?

I dont know if the word clever was in more common usage then but to me it sounds like it may. But still.... it shows up in a couple of more well known (and generally accepted as possible authentic) ripper letters and his final conversation with Berry-makes you think.

I have always thought Bury as a viable suspect. Known murderer of woman by knife, frequents protitutes, lived in area, seems to fit the description/profile, leaving London could explain murders end etc.

And again, the start of Dear Boss being so similar to the letter you mentioned, the remark to Berry added to the fact that a common trait of pschopaths is the overwhelming feeling of superiority, being so much smarter than everyone else, and these possible connections with Bury about who is clever, more clever, etc. really makes your point very interesting IMHO.

[curious]

'Clever' is used by the British as we would use 'smart'. It is taught in language schools and is far more frequently used than Americans would use it. We use is to mean 'conniving' or 'like a fox'. The British don't, or at least it isn't taught that way in school.

Mike

Hi, Mike,
Thanks.

I suspected usage was different, certainly across the years and likely across the pond, as well. Good to have that confirmed.

I see Bury as trying to say "You're not as smart as you think you are," and the letter writer appears to be saying the same thing.

Actually, the writer of the Dear Boss letter is saying exactly the same thing, isn't he?

It's the same theme.

curious

[The Good Michael]

Hi, Abby,
Thanks.

Since Bury was apparently known for his ability to write "several hands" I wonder if we could compare the handwriting, but it's an interesting thought that should be checked out.

I did notice the usage of "clever" in the Dear Boss letter, but wondered if perhaps "clever" was used more frequently in 1888 than it is in conversations I have in 2013.

Don't know. Any ideas?

curious

'Clever' is used by the British as we would use 'smart'. It is taught in language schools and is far more frequently used than Americans would use it. We use is to mean 'conniving' or 'like a fox'. The British don't, or at least it isn't taught that way in school.

Mike

[curious]

Hi Curious
One could compare the handwriting in the letter you mention to Burys to see if there is a match, no?

Also, your point made me think-the Dear Boss letter starts off in a similar fashion.

Hi, Abby,
Thanks.

Since Bury was apparently known for his ability to write "several hands" I wonder if we could compare the handwriting, but it's an interesting thought that should be checked out.

I did notice the usage of "clever" in the Dear Boss letter, but wondered if perhaps "clever" was used more frequently in 1888 than it is in conversations I have in 2013.

Don't know. Any ideas?

curious