Signature Analysis and Bury's Murder of Ellen

[johns]

I also think that some people would rather continue endlessly pontificating about the Ripper case than take Bury seriously as Jack the Ripper.

Cheers John

Agreed.

Add Bury's lame story to the Dundee police and his candidacy as a serious suspect drops even more.

I've always personally thought that if it wasn't for his story that Ellen killed herself and all that nonsense, and he'd been arrested after a regular police investigation, we wouldn't be here now. The JtR murders would have been put down to Bury and that would have been the end of it. Just my 2 cents.

John

[Wyatt Earp]

I agree with a large proportion of what you are saying Wyatt. I think Bury is dismissed as being the Ripper mostly because Ellen Bury's murder wasn't as horrific as Mary Kelly's but also in some cases because people have made and continue to make money from ridiculous suspects. I also think that some people would rather continue endlessly pontificating about the Ripper case than take Bury seriously as Jack the Ripper.

Cheers John

Thanks for that, John. Regarding the mutilations: with signature analysis you focus on the presence of the signature element and not, in this case, on the degree of expression, which can be situation dependent. For example, the seclusion and additional time available to Bury at the Kelly crime scene allowed him to conduct mutilations far in excess of those he had conducted before. In the case of Ellen’s murder, however, things were very different. People knew the two of them lived there. If Bury had conducted Kelly-style mutilations on her, he would have made it clear to everyone that he was the Ripper. He had a strong situational incentive to significantly tone down the mutilations he conducted on Ellen.

[John Wheat]

To Wyatt

I agree with your points on signature analysis. All I was saying is that Ellen Bury's murder not being as horrific as Mary Kelly's seems to be used against Bury as a suspect.

Cheers John

[Cogidubnus]

trying to be objective

I'd be the first to admit that I've started out with Bury from a position of total ignorance...and gradually have developed something of a soft spot for him as a suspect...however, there are a number of genuine obstacles to his candidacy, of which the following are but a sample:-

1) He didn't cut her throat...if only he'd cut her throat...even with Stride he cut her throat...

2) The abdominal wounding is altogether too tentative...he's done enough to insult her body (even that somewhat later than is typical) and a bit's popped out...and it hasn't excited him, or prompted him to further action a la Chapman, a la Eddowes or a la Kelly...not right...not right at all...

3) He's clearly confused and has no escape strategy...in all the canonicals (and non-canonicals for that matter) JtR shows a great alertness and a clean pair of heels...he can escape virtually at an instants notice...yet here he tamely holds onto the body for a week, then tamely gives himself up? Sorry doesn't do it for me...

Don't get me wrong...in many respects he's a cracking suspect (far better than many of the others proposed!)...and I'm truly fascinated by the archived documents Will keeps producing, (I was even more fascinated by the court case Pat Marshall found...and quite amazingly, nobody bit!), but I can't yet believe in him as JtR!

All the best

Dave

[Wyatt Earp]

To Wyatt

I agree with your points on signature analysis. All I was saying is that Ellen Bury's murder not being as horrific as Mary Kelly's seems to be used against Bury as a suspect.

Cheers John

I read you, John. I was riffing on signature analysis there to help explain to people that the degree of Ellen's mutilations should not be a cause of concern.

[Wyatt Earp]

1) He didn't cut her throat...if only he'd cut her throat...even with Stride he cut her throat...

Think about it this way. 1. If he is a copycat, he will definitely cut Ellen’s throat. 2. If he is a serial killer, he might not cut Ellen’s throat (per Keppel et al, MO can change, it’s the signature that remains stable). Number two is the correct choice here. As I’ve already explained, a coincidence theory of Ellen’s murder is not believable (too many coincidences).

2) The abdominal wounding is altogether too tentative...he's done enough to insult her body (even that somewhat later than is typical) and a bit's popped out...and it hasn't excited him, or prompted him to further action a la Chapman, a la Eddowes or a la Kelly...not right...not right at all...

Odious though the prospect may be, put yourself in Bury’s boots for a moment. He could not go very far with the mutilations without giving himself away. His initial remarks at the police station are evidence that he was indeed very concerned about being identified as the Ripper.

3) He's clearly confused and has no escape strategy...in all the canonicals (and non-canonicals for that matter) JtR shows a great alertness and a clean pair of heels...he can escape virtually at an instants notice...yet here he tamely holds onto the body for a week, then tamely gives himself up? Sorry doesn't do it for me...

All this suggests to me is that the murder was unanticipated. Given the history of the couple, we should not be surprised if it occurred during the course of a domestic altercation. If Ellen had threatened to go to the police, he might have felt he had no choice but to kill her then and there. A domestic altercation could have occurred regardless of whether or not he had been cooking up something for her. In his letter of confession, Bury indicated that the murder was unanticipated.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Wyatt

Think about it this way. 1. If he is a copycat, he will definitely cut Ellen’s throat. 2. If he is a serial killer, he might not cut Ellen’s throat (per Keppel et al, MO can change, it’s the signature that remains stable). Number two is the correct choice here. As I’ve already explained, a coincidence theory of Ellen’s murder is not believable (too many coincidences).

Agreed an MO can change...but where in this case does the signature stay stable? The abdominal woundings are as nothing to say MJK (and who's to say something didn't spook the Ripper there and he had even more in mind?)...so what is the "signature"? Well based on the canonicals I'd guess the attention to the left carotid artery, the progressive depth and degree (other than Stride) of abdominal wounding and the way the bodies are left with clothes raised, legs apart and akimbo, a statement saying in effect "just look this, it's what I do and it's what I've done".

With Ellen Bury we have no knife wound on the throat, comparatively minimal abdominal wounding (with a small piece of intestine protruding almost as an afterthought) and a body shut away in a box...not very ripperish as a signature I'd have thought...

Odious though the prospect may be, put yourself in Bury’s boots for a moment. He could not go very far with the mutilations without giving himself away. His initial remarks at the police station are evidence that he was indeed very concerned about being identified as the Ripper.

If he's going to tamely give himself up, then whether for one murder or six, he's very likely going to swing anyway...his defence is clearly something of a forlorn hope (she fell down the stairs drunk, injuring herself, then hung herself and I subsequently mauled her around in anger)...He'd have been better off locking up the flat, running off and starting afresh under a new name elsewhere...

All this suggests to me is that the murder was unanticipated. Given the history of the couple, we should not be surprised if it occurred during the course of a domestic altercation. If Ellen had threatened to go to the police, he might have felt he had no choice but to kill her then and there. A domestic altercation could have occurred regardless of whether or not he had been cooking up something for her. In his letter of confession, Bury indicated that the murder was unanticipated.

That's fine Wyatt...I don't think it was necessarily premeditated to happen precisely when it did, (though I suspect the move to Scotland had the disposal of Ellen as at least part of it's objective)...but that doesn't explain why he didn't simply flee...pre radio and mass communication he'd have had a good chance of making it away on his toes...like JTR did...

I do find Bury interesting, and in my book he's definitely a valid suspect, but without something more I'm afraid I can't personally see him as more than an outside chance.

All the best

Dave

[Abby Normal]

Great posts gentlemen, on either side.

I have always considered bury a valid suspect for the ripper. He is in my top five.

He is a known killer of a woman, used a knife during the crime, was local, his leaving London could explain the cessation of ripper crimes, generally fit witness descriptions, known user of prostitutes and pub frequenter, person of interest at the time, known to be violent,abdominal mutilation.

Cons being no direct evidence linking him to crimes (this is a big one!), post mortem mutilator serial killers do not, if ever, target their significant others-either as a victim or with public abuse, and the way he was caught was very stupid and un ripper like.

The victims wounds, how she was killed and concealed, as I said, we're very unlike the ripper, but possibly explained that this was his wife and also possibly that he was losing it, becoming more desperate, brazen and unraveled. Many serial killers end up like this, Kemper and bundy just a couple of examples off my head, and get caught because of it.

Also, I find it very curious of his preoccupation of not being blamed as being the ripper and then of course there is the writing on the sellar door.....

Bury without a doubt should be considered a viable suspect.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Abby

Hmm...the writing on the sellar door...which alas, owing to said cellar door being outside the flat, (at the foot of some stairs in the open yard at the back of the block), was likely accessible to all and sundry before, during and after the police investigation.

More likely the local jackanapes than the non-local Jack the Ripper I'd have thought!

All the best

Dave

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

Hmm...the writing on the sellar door...which alas, owing to said cellar door being outside the flat, (at the foot of some stairs in the open yard at the back of the block), was likely accessible to all and sundry before, during and after the police investigation.

More likely the local jackanapes than the non-local Jack the Ripper I'd have thought!

All the best

Dave

Hi cog
Yes probably. But intriguing if not, nonetheless.

[Wyatt Earp]

Cons being no direct evidence linking him to crimes

While there is no direct evidence placing Bury at any of the crime scenes, all of the things I mentioned in post 29 would be part of a circumstantial case against him. Keep in mind that signature evidence is admissible in court. The lack of direct evidence is less significant when you have a good circumstantial case (and we do).

post mortem mutilator serial killers do not, if ever, target their significant others

They might if that significant other threatened to go to the police.

and the way he was caught was very stupid and un ripper like.

All of his options were poor.

The victims wounds, how she was killed...as I said, we're very unlike the ripper

You're getting MO confused with signature. See the article by Keppel et al cited in the first post of this thread for the difference between the two. People who use the knife wounds to cluster the C5 and exclude Tabram are making the same mistake. MO can change.

Also, I find it very curious of his preoccupation of not being blamed as being the ripper and then of course there is the writing on the sellar door.....

That Bury was very concerned about being identified as the Ripper should not be doubted. At Bury's trial Lieutenant Parr testified that some of the first words out of Bury's mouth at the police station were "that he got frightened that he would be apprehended as Jack the Ripper" (thanks to Eileen for the trial notes that she posted).

How we make sense of the state of things at the residence in light of that is the real question. If schoolboys chalked the messages, then obviously there is no issue here. If, however, as many of us believe, Bury chalked the messages, then the failure to erase was certainly surprising.

There are two factors to consider. First, the messages were in two different hands and Bury could easily deny having written them. Second, there was a broader pattern of neglect, perhaps indicative of Bury "losing it," of the residence. Ellen's clothes were strewn about. "Lamb noticed a spot of blood on the floor near the box" (Macpherson, p. 24). Lamb "found a knife on the window sill of the room...and...could see that there were small quantities of blood, flesh and hair on it" (p. 25). I guess you could say that William wasn't very good at tidying up when he had company coming over.

Bury without a doubt should be considered a viable suspect.

Copycat or coincidence? Those are your two possible explanations if Bury was not the Ripper, and neither one is believable. See post 29.

It's been a couple of weeks now since I outlined a signature analysis based solution to the case, and I have yet to see a single post here that undermines that line of reasoning. If you and others here want to search for ways to talk yourselves out of Bury and continue your pursuit of the killer, go right ahead. This case has been no more than a recreational whodunnit for a long time now. But you will be wasting your time—William Bury was the Ripper.

[John Wheat]

To Wyatt another good post as usual. I can't help but think that had Bury not gone to Dundee but had stayed in London and murdered Ellen he would have been charged and convicted of the C5 murders.

Cheers John

[Wyatt Earp]

To Wyatt another good post as usual. I can't help but think that had Bury not gone to Dundee but had stayed in London and murdered Ellen he would have been charged and convicted of the C5 murders.

Cheers John

You could be right, John. If Ellen had been murdered in London, it's possible there would have been a more thorough investigation. There should have been an identity parade and the women's trinkets in the trunk should have been shown to the people who knew the victims.

[Wyatt Earp]

Cons being no direct evidence linking him to crimes (this is a big one!)

As a follow-up to this, I'd like to quote from Bill Beadle's dissertation about Bury that is here on Casebook:

"According to a Dundee lawyer who reviewed the case against him which I outlined in The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper: 'Based on the evidence presented here, a Crown Prosecution of William Bury for the Ripper murders would have had every chance of success.'"

Direct evidence is not required for a conviction.

[Boggles]

no direct evidence linking him to the crimes... direct in that he wasnt interviewed by police as a suspect at the time? and he wasnt found in the area with a bloody knife in his hand and a few innards in his pocket while chalking anti jewish slogans on street corners?

Yet i would argue there is more linking this guy to the crime scene than any other suspect we know of.

from evidence sworn on oath, he was known to drink in the pubs in whitechapel, lived a short distance away and left shortly after murders stopped, known to associate with and use the services of prostitutes, broadly the same height/build as witness statements, known to get drunk and violent, with knives, on occasions stayed out all night, and generally regarded by his contemporaries as a complete nutter

This alone makes him the strongest suspect by a country mile, and this is before you consider that he had the very rare (thankfully) impulsive desire to cut up womens genitals.

The only reason he isnt regarded as the strongest suspect by many is because either they dont know about him or they cannot believe that such a low life, a nobody, can be capable of it, despite what we come to learn about serial killers so far