Best book on Bury?

[Uncle Jack]

I am thinking of buying a book based around Bury being the Ripper and was wondering which one would be best to get - Beadles or McPhersons? I know it would be easier to buy both but thought I would ask the opinions of the experts first.

Thanks

[Sam Flynn]

I'd read Macpherson first, if I were you. Beadle's book is very well written, but he somewhat over-eggs his argument, in my view. He also has several chapters on the deficiencies in other suspect-based theories. Again, these are well done, although some might quail at his critical tone (I don't, personally). The irony is that the case he makes against Bury is hardly watertight, and it's just as full of speculation and "stretched points" as any other. I much prefer Macpherson's more understated approach.

[halomanuk]

MacPherson's for sure Adam.
It is a very good history on the Bury saga and focuses as much on Ellen Bury as William.
It is a book i always enjoy and well done for being interested in Bury as he is a fascinating suspect and my #1 or #2 always.

[The Grave Maurice]

I don't suppose you need any more people telling you this but, if you're only buying one book, it should definitely be MacPherson's. If you can, though, get Beadle's too; it's well worth reading if you're interested in Bury.

[Uncle Jack]

Thanks for all the replies everyone, been most helpful

[johns]

MacPherson's... but note the incorrect birth date for Bury. MacPherson has him down as being born on 20th November 1859 and says that the birth certificate is hard to read.

It's not hard to read and his birthdate is 25th May 1859.

[Sam Flynn]

When John Savage endorses the same Bury book as I do, I know I'm in good company

[Celesta]

Adam,

I think the Beadle book gives a very good feel for the LVP. The MacPherson book is more detailed on Bury's life.

[Wyatt Earp]

Howdy y'all. I wanted to mention that there are two different printings of the Macpherson book (for those of us in the U.S. at least).

I recently obtained a copy of this book via interlibrary loan, and I liked it well enough to purchase a copy. The book that I purchased has a different set of illustrations than the library book (these follow page 96 in both books).

The library book has a number of generic "Jack the Ripper" illustrations (including photos of Eddowes, Kelly and Maybrick) while the book I purchased has a set of Bury-specific illustrations (including drawings of the residence at Princes Street and the sketch of Bury from the Dundee Courier).

I wanted to point this out as those of you who are close students of Bury will want to make sure that you have the latter printing. I've closely inspected both volumes and do not see any publication information that is different (ISBN, barcode, etc. are identical). A spot check of the text in the two printings revealed no differences.

[GregBaron]

Bury Bury or no?

I just finished the Beadle book, it’s very good. I get a kick out of his calling Bury the ripper as if it’s unquestioned. Suspectology with confidence! But it’s well written, researched and organized. He has insights I haven’t heard before which is always a good thing. I’ll mention just a few off the top.

1) The murders ceased in the month of October because of heavy fog.
2) Rose Mylett may have been Bury’s work as he’s a strangler.
3) Not new but ligatures might have been used that were later obscured by the cuts.
4) Tabram different M.O. but same signature, Bury’s early work upon which he learned.
5) His wife may have chalked the ripper messages in Dundee as a threat to keep him from taking her last bits of jewelry. He snapped and offed her.
6) If a copycat why not cut her throat like the rest?
7) Why mutilate when it only points to you as the ripper?
8) Why leave London?
9) Mutilations of wife less severe as his heart was no longer in it like with other serialists.
10) Bury was decently educated and somewhat of a religious nut.
11) Victims were chosen because of their names; a trigger.

There’s more. Just some things that occurred to me. I know we have big Bury advocates out here. Interested in some commentary.


Greg

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Greg,

I would argue against it being a matter of confidence when an author makes a point to overstate his case at every turn. Probably quite the opposite. I enjoyed Beadle's first edition much more than I did his later edition, but prefer MacPherson to them both, although again some of the evidence must be read with a little caution.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[GregBaron]

Agreed...

I would argue against it being a matter of confidence when an author makes a point to overstate his case at every turn. Probably quite the opposite. I enjoyed Beadle's first edition much more than I did his later edition, but prefer MacPherson to them both, although again some of the evidence must be read with a little caution.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I can't disagree with you there Tom but I'm not yet familiar with MacPherson's work. I remain ambivalent about Bury's candidacy...


Greg

[Wyatt Earp]

9) Mutilations of wife less severe as his heart was no longer in it like with other serialists.

I don't agree with this theory. If you look at the medical testimony that was presented at Bury's trial, he performed an initial set of mutilations...and then sometime well after that he went back and did a few more. That's not a guy who has lost interest, that's a guy who's struggling to control an urge. I think he wanted to rip her up, but I think he realized that doing so would only have worsened his predicament.

[Tom_Wescott]

I don't think there's much chance at all that Bury was the Ripper, but he's by no means a ridiculous candidate, so it's good to see a responsible write-up on him, even if it is tinged with the author's personal bias of him having been the Ripper (I'm referring to MacPherson). I can't recommend Beadle's second volume at all, but his first one is a fun, if flawed, read, and there's probably some stuff in there the reader might find of value.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wyatt Earp]

I don't think there's much chance at all that Bury was the Ripper, but he's by no means a ridiculous candidate, so it's good to see a responsible write-up on him, even if it is tinged with the author's personal bias of him having been the Ripper (I'm referring to MacPherson). I can't recommend Beadle's second volume at all, but his first one is a fun, if flawed, read, and there's probably some stuff in there the reader might find of value.

Tom, thanks for the tip on the first book. When there's more than one edition I normally get only the most recent one, but it sounds like there is real reason to get the first one, too. I'll have to track that down.