Signature Analysis and Bury's Murder of Ellen

[John Wheat]

To Digalittledeeeerwatson

I mean't that there is no record of James Kelly killing anyone else.

Cheers John

[Boggles]

Digalittledeeperwatson/Abby Normal - thanks for those corrections

Just to add to points above - if you took any known serial killer, lets say Peter Sutcliiff for instance - look at the range of methods used to kill, the range of mutilations, and ferocity. Some of the attacks where brutal, sometimes they were tentative. This is real life.

For sure there are differences in all the JTR attacks but Ellen Bury was a ripper victim. If the attack happened in Whitechapel or Bow she would be classed as one of the canonical victims. As it was she wasnt and so not even mentioned in the suspect section on this website.

Hindsight is 20/20, and while you or I might have chosen a different way out of the situation

good comment Wyatt i aspire to be as eloquent as you in getting your points across - and this brings to mind for me the problem a lot of people fall into when considering this case, they over-analyze- like elsewhere on this message board people discuss how reliable Lawande is, considering his history and character (the poor guy only saw the ripper for a couple of seconds!) or how that policeman didnt see the bloody apron first time round so the GSG cant be real. Fascinating as it is I believe we often fall into 'wood through the trees' situations, I mean look at Liz Stride.

Edit - not aimed at anyone in particular, we all do it, not complaining either - its fun.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo JW

To Digalittledeeeerwatson

I mean't that there is no record of James Kelly killing anyone else.

Cheers John

Thanks for the clarity.

[Cogidubnus]

If the murder was unanticipated, then he found himself in a real pickle and had no good escape options. We know from his initial remarks at the police station that he was very concerned about being identified as the Ripper. He no doubt had it in his head that if he made a run for it, there might have been a massive national manhunt for him as Jack the Ripper and no stone would have been left unturned in tracking him down.

Hi Wyatt

I don't think the murder was entirely unanticipated...I suspect the move from London was partly to separate his wife from her family and partly in anticipation of eventually discarding her, either through death or other means.

The precise timing may not have been anticipated though.

However, I cannot accept he had no good escape options. This is an age where people still tended to be accepted for who they said they were. Where definitive proof of identity was rarely expected, and in any event often couldn't be provided...

All he had to do was pack his shaving gear, walk to the station and catch a train...more or less to anywhere...shave off his facial hair and make a clean start...disappearing altogether wasn't particularly difficult in those days. We don't even have a photograph of the man - only press sketches and descriptions.

Let me quote a kind of reverse example dating from as late as 1928. In the October of that year there was a rail disaster at Charfield in Gloucestershire. A double train collision was followed by a nasty fire which incinerated fifteen victims - among these were the bodies of two children, who to this day, despite appeals, have never been laid claim to, never identified...they had simply, without any effort of their own, disappeared from sight...so it couldn't have been all that difficult back in 1889 to wilfully disappear...as James Kelly clearly did for years...

All the best

Dave

[Wyatt Earp]

However, I cannot accept he had no good escape options. This is an age where people still tended to be accepted for who they said they were. Where definitive proof of identity was rarely expected, and in any event often couldn't be provided...

All he had to do was pack his shaving gear, walk to the station and catch a train...more or less to anywhere...shave off his facial hair and make a clean start...disappearing altogether wasn't particularly difficult in those days. We don't even have a photograph of the man - only press sketches and descriptions.

Let me quote a kind of reverse example dating from as late as 1928. In the October of that year there was a rail disaster at Charfield in Gloucestershire. A double train collision was followed by a nasty fire which incinerated fifteen victims - among these were the bodies of two children, who to this day, despite appeals, have never been laid claim to, never identified...they had simply, without any effort of their own, disappeared from sight...so it couldn't have been all that difficult back in 1889 to wilfully disappear...as James Kelly clearly did for years...

I am surprised by your lack of confidence in law enforcement here. Look at what happened with Frank Tumblety. He made a run for it and adopted a false name…and when his boat landed in New York, there was someone waiting for him. If the police had made a determination that William Bury was wanted for the Ripper murders, I think they would have found him. And that appears to have been what Bury thought, too.

In post 29 of this thread I showed how a signature analysis based approach can be used to identify Bury as the Ripper. You don’t have to take my word for it—we have a professional legal opinion that a court case against Bury for the Ripper murders would have been a very winnable one. Since that time you have told us what you think the Ripper would have done, and what he wouldn’t have done, but you haven’t actually responded to the substance of my argument. Can you put a dent in that line of reasoning?

[Cogidubnus]

If the police had made a determination that William Bury was wanted for the Ripper murders, I think they would have found him. And that appears to have been what Bury thought, too.

But they didn't...they took a look and decided not to proceed. They decided he wasn't their man...

In post 29 of this thread I showed how a signature analysis based approach can be used to identify Bury as the Ripper. You don’t have to take my word for it—we have a professional legal opinion that a court case against Bury for the Ripper murders would have been a very winnable one. Since that time you have told us what you think the Ripper would have done, and what he wouldn’t have done, but you haven’t actually responded to the substance of my argument. Can you put a dent in that line of reasoning?

The Ellen Bury case is NOT a signature ripper case, for reasons which I and others have quoted throughout this and numerous other threads. What did you think posts #34 and #37 were all about? Nobody has ducked your argument. It's been faced up to and denied. If you choose not to respond, like upon like, that's fine...it's your privilege...but please don't heedlessly accuse others of doing the same...

All the best

Dave

[curious]

I don't think the murder was entirely unanticipated...I suspect the move from London was partly to separate his wife from her family and partly in anticipation of eventually discarding her, either through death or other means.

Dave

Hi, Dave,
Hope all is well with you.

I think Bury's purchase of the cord suggests the murder was premeditated.

However, what I can not understand is why he wanted to separate his wife from her family. I think the money was mostly gone and he had ways to make her give the little remaining to him. So, if he was through with her, why not just walk off and leave her in London?

As you point out, he could easily have disappeared. But he didn't. Why? Any ideas?

Velma

[Wyatt Earp]

But they didn't...they took a look and decided not to proceed. They decided he wasn't their man...

They made a mistake, which we are now fortunately in a position to correct. They did not possess the knowledge about serial killers back then that we possess today.

The Ellen Bury case is NOT a signature ripper case

A professionally developed description of the Ripper’s signature can be found in the article by Keppel et al cited in the first post of this thread. That’s what I’m using—and that’s what you should be using, too. The mapping of the Ellen Bury murder to the Ripper’s signature can also be found in the first post of this thread. It appears to be a very good fit.

What did you think posts #34 and #37 were all about?

Let me put it this way: if you or others here want to improve your understanding of signature, and of the difference between MO and signature, the Keppel article provides some helpful explanations as well. I sometimes see the two terms being used interchangeably here, but they are not the same thing.

[Boggles]

the Keppel article provides some helpful explanations as wel

I once approached Keppel about 5 years ago to get his opinion on William Bury, called him up. He was a gentleman and clearly very clued up with JTR murders and was very interested with the short explanation of Bury as I gave outlining the key points why he was a good candidate. IF I could have funded it he would have come over to look at all key evidence, unfortunately i had to explain i was just an armchair detective and not of any official organisation but perhaps some time in the future we could do this.

[Boggles]

he could easily have disappeared. But he didn't. Why? Any ideas?

Well, if your asking for ideas. Speculative but I personally think she had a pretty good hunch that he was the ripper, and he knew it. There are a few interesting things she said to her neighbours, when this subject was bought up in Dundee. If he was the ripper then you dont have to be very imaginative to guess what kind of hints may have got her thinking. - Whats this blood splatter on your shirt Will? How come the murders always seem to happen when your out all night with your pals? Youve got a hat like that one the ripper was wearing, havent you?

Who knows, In any case Bury was being very cagey about telling his neighbours where he was going. Adelaide?

[Boggles]

I think Bury's purchase of the cord suggests the murder was premeditated.

He also borrowed a chopper, and seemed much put out when his neighbour asked for it back prematurely - see trial notes.

[Boggles]

WRT MO & signature

I sometimes see the two terms being used interchangeably here, but they are not the same thing.

Hi Wyatt. I get your point regards signature and how the killer gets his kicks, but I personally see both the Ellen murder MO and the Signature being very Jack Ripperish. I cant understand why other intelligent people don't (cough Dave!). Take into account the rarity of this kind of attack...

All i can say is lets get some examples of known murders from another serial killer and look at the variation in MO and Signature, I guarantee in the case of lust killers you will find more variation in those than that of Ellen vs. C5 attacks.

[Wyatt Earp]

I’m a lawman, not an attorney, so I thought I’d ask my friend Oliver Wendell Holmes for his opinion on how a trial of William Bury for the Ripper murders might turn out.

“Wyatt,” he said, “Here’s how I see this one playing out. I think a smart prosecution of Bury for the Ripper murders would exclude Tabram and Stride—that would make it easier for the jury and increase the odds of obtaining convictions. While it isn’t the only evidence against Bury, the signature evidence is obviously the key piece. I assume the jury would be given expert testimony that the Ellen Bury murder, for which there is already a conviction, can be linked via signature analysis to the other four as being the work of the same killer, and I assume it would be given expert testimony casting doubt on that linkage. I think the jury would focus on the posthomicide burning of the clothes in both EB and MK, and convict for the Kelly murder.

After that, I think the dominoes would fall. The jury would have decided that the prosecution experts and not the defense experts were the ones who had it right and could be trusted, and I think you’d then see a quick succession of convictions for MN, AC and CE as well. I think the jury would probably want to start with the Kelly murder, since that one was the closest in time to EB and was also an indoor murder. At the end of the day, William Bury would have been pronounced guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the Ripper murders.”

[Mrsperfect]

Perhaps the Police DID know?

I think it's very wrong of us to assume the police dismissed Bury as JtR. What would have happened to him if convicted.........he would have been hanged, correct? Well he was being hanged.......... as a wife murderer!

What panic, commotion, (and expense) would it have caused if the police decided to transport him to London to face the angry mob down there as JtR? Perhaps they thought better of it and left him exactly where he was?

[Wyatt Earp]

I think it's very wrong of us to assume the police dismissed Bury as JtR. What would have happened to him if convicted.........he would have been hanged, correct? Well he was being hanged.......... as a wife murderer!

What panic, commotion, (and expense) would it have caused if the police decided to transport him to London to face the angry mob down there as JtR? Perhaps they thought better of it and left him exactly where he was?

If James Berry's account of the two detectives from Scotland Yard is legitimate—and that’s obviously an “if”—then that would be reason to believe there was some “niche” sentiment that Bury was the Ripper. That’s as far as I would go with it. If Bury had faced trial in London, that would have been a spectacle indeed.