Signature Analysis and Bury's Murder of Ellen

[Sam Flynn]

Oh come on Sam, cut me some slack here.....

Once, Ellen confided to Martin and Kate Spooner, (his partner), that her husband often stayed out until the early hours, sometimes disappearing for a couple of days, only to re-appear, the worse for wear and take his temper out on her.

That still doesn't say where he was, Ellen. As I've pointed out on several occasions, there was plenty of scope for a whoring womaniser in Bury's "home town" of Bromley-by-Bow, without his trolling off to Spitalfields on a regular basis. Let's face it, if Jack the Ripper could kill without detection in densely-populated Whitechapel, how much easier would it have been for him to do so in the rather less crowded (but no less prostitute-rich) district of Poplar?

[Mrsperfect]

Here we go again!

That still doesn't say where he was, Ellen. As I've pointed out on several occasions, there was plenty of scope for a whoring womaniser in Bury's "home town" of Bromley-by-Bow, without his trolling off to Spitalfields on a regular basis. Let's face it, if Jack the Ripper could kill without detection in densely-populated Whitechapel, how much easier would it have been for him to do so in the rather less crowded (but no less prostitute-rich) district of Poplar?

Oh come on Sam,

Haven't we been down this road before?

Your same old argument! It's irrelevant if I can prove where Bury went on those nights out...........it doesn't mean he did anything!

This also means that just because I can't prove where he was, it doesn't mean he wasn't committing mayhem. I seem to recall that Martin was an eye witness that Bury went looking for money from Ellen, (who was working in the forbidden area).

I also recall telling you then that Bury didn't know your rules ..........as far as where you say he was allowed to go!

Regards

Eileen

[Wyatt Earp]

I thought I'd give this thread a bump. If you're interested in the topic of this thread and are not currently a subscriber to Ripperologist, you should know that my article, "Identifying William Bury as Jack the Ripper" was published two weeks ago in the August 2014 issue, no. 139. Subscriptions to Ripperologist are free, just send an e-mail to contact@ripperologist.biz.

A few things I wanted to get out of the way:

1. Some people have wondered why Keppel et al consider Elizabeth Stride a Ripper victim when so many of the Ripper's signature characteristics (such as overkill) are not present in her murder. Signature characteristics can be absent at a given crime scene in connection with the specific circumstances of a murder. Keppel et al make clear in their article that they consider the Stride murder to be an interrupted murder, which would explain the absence of many of the Ripper's signature characteristics. The specific evidence for an interrupted murder, or a hurried murder, is the statement of Israel Schwartz, which was taken seriously by the police (i.e., it was Schwartz's arrival that was the interruption or that led to a hurried murder). That said, I have no issue with those who view the Stride murder as an unrelated murder. I think a reasonable person can, for the reasons described in the article, accept that William Bury was the Ripper while at the same time being undecided about the Stride murder, or being of the opinion that she was murdered by someone else. I am not interested in turning this into yet another Stride thread.

2. Some people have questioned the inclusion of "body displayed for others" as one of the Ripper's signature characteristics, pointing out that due to the locations of the murders, it would have been impractical for him to attempt to move the bodies. First of all, some serial killers make an effort to hide bodies and some do not. It's a valid point of comparison. Second, if William Bury had wanted to hide bodies, he would have chosen murder locations that would have facilitated that. For example, Bury owned a horse and cart. If he had wanted to, he could have flashed some cash and taken a prostitute on a wagon ride out in the country, where he could have murdered her and buried or otherwise disposed of her body such that no one would have known that she had been murdered. He had that option available to him. What he instead chose to do was to kill in a very public and blatant way, and to put on a show for other people by spreading the legs of his victims. That's part of who he was as a killer. He behaved the same way at Princes Street in Dundee. Ellen Bury was dead, and he had options as to what to do with her body. What he ended up doing was putting her body in a sexually degrading pose in the trunk, and he then led police to the trunk by virtue of his statement at the police station. He wanted other people to see what he had done with her body. He was who he was. "Body displayed for others" is a valid signature characteristic, and it's a "yes" for both the Ellen Bury murder and the Jack the Ripper murders.

Any questions about the article, fire away.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

In your point 1, by Israel Schwartz, do you mean Louis Diemschutz?

[Wyatt Earp]

In your point 1, by Israel Schwartz, do you mean Louis Diemschutz?

No. Obviously, reconciling Schwartz's statement with the facts of the murder is problematic, which is why many people have doubted it. But it is correct to say that his statement was taken seriously by the police.

[John Wheat]

To Wyatt

Good to see someone talking about Bury rather than the bull about a shawl.

Cheers John

[Andy Conway]

Evans family link

I agree with this, John.

One of the interesting points in my mind is the Evans family connection that both Bury and Eddowes had.

It really makes me pause.

Hello Curious,

This comment about the Evans family connection between Bury and Eddowes rather leapt out at me.

I'm putting the finishing touches to a novel that sees Bury and Eddowes cross paths three months before her death, and I wasn't aware of this possible family connection.

William Beadle, in his book on Bury, states Evans was both the maiden name of Catherine's mother and Bury's maternal grandmother, both living in Wolverhampton, but 'whether there was a family connection I have not been able to discover.'

Are you getting it from here, or is there another source for a definite family link between them?

Thanks in advance.

[Abby Normal]

I thought I'd give this thread a bump. If you're interested in the topic of this thread and are not currently a subscriber to Ripperologist, you should know that my article, "Identifying William Bury as Jack the Ripper" was published two weeks ago in the August 2014 issue, no. 139. Subscriptions to Ripperologist are free, just send an e-mail to contact@ripperologist.biz.

A few things I wanted to get out of the way:

1. Some people have wondered why Keppel et al consider Elizabeth Stride a Ripper victim when so many of the Ripper's signature characteristics (such as overkill) are not present in her murder. Signature characteristics can be absent at a given crime scene in connection with the specific circumstances of a murder. Keppel et al make clear in their article that they consider the Stride murder to be an interrupted murder, which would explain the absence of many of the Ripper's signature characteristics. The specific evidence for an interrupted murder, or a hurried murder, is the statement of Israel Schwartz, which was taken seriously by the police (i.e., it was Schwartz's arrival that was the interruption or that led to a hurried murder). That said, I have no issue with those who view the Stride murder as an unrelated murder. I think a reasonable person can, for the reasons described in the article, accept that William Bury was the Ripper while at the same time being undecided about the Stride murder, or being of the opinion that she was murdered by someone else. I am not interested in turning this into yet another Stride thread.

2. Some people have questioned the inclusion of "body displayed for others" as one of the Ripper's signature characteristics, pointing out that due to the locations of the murders, it would have been impractical for him to attempt to move the bodies. First of all, some serial killers make an effort to hide bodies and some do not. It's a valid point of comparison. Second, if William Bury had wanted to hide bodies, he would have chosen murder locations that would have facilitated that. For example, Bury owned a horse and cart. If he had wanted to, he could have flashed some cash and taken a prostitute on a wagon ride out in the country, where he could have murdered her and buried or otherwise disposed of her body such that no one would have known that she had been murdered. He had that option available to him. What he instead chose to do was to kill in a very public and blatant way, and to put on a show for other people by spreading the legs of his victims. That's part of who he was as a killer. He behaved the same way at Princes Street in Dundee. Ellen Bury was dead, and he had options as to what to do with her body. What he ended up doing was putting her body in a sexually degrading pose in the trunk, and he then led police to the trunk by virtue of his statement at the police station. He wanted other people to see what he had done with her body. He was who he was. "Body displayed for others" is a valid signature characteristic, and it's a "yes" for both the Ellen Bury murder and the Jack the Ripper murders.

Any questions about the article, fire away.

Hi Wyatt
I think Bury is a very viable candidate.

I would love to read your article, however numerous attempts at emailing requesting to receive Ripperologist have been ignored for some reason.
Anything you could do to help would be great!

[Wyatt Earp]

Hi Wyatt
I think Bury is a very viable candidate.

I would love to read your article, however numerous attempts at emailing requesting to receive Ripperologist have been ignored for some reason.
Anything you could do to help would be great!

Abby, thanks a lot for mentioning this. Anyone else out there having this problem? I'm wondering if Adam Wood could respond to this.

[Sam Flynn]

Oh come on Sam,
Haven't we been down this road before?

Yup! That's because it remains true that there were significant numbers of streetwalkers within close striking/escaping-distance in Poplar, without Bury having to go the extra mile (or two) into the depths of Spitalfields in search of prey.

I also recall telling you then that Bury didn't know your rules ..........as far as where you say he was allowed to go!

And well I remember them, Ellen. Thing is, I'm not on about "rules", as such - just logistics.

[Wyatt Earp]

Yup! That's because it remains true that there were significant numbers of streetwalkers within close striking/escaping-distance in Poplar, without Bury having to go the extra mile (or two) into the depths of Spitalfields in search of prey.

Sam, this is not a worthwhile objection to Bury. Some serial killers travel great distances to murder. An example of that would be Israel Keyes.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, this is not a worthwhile objection to Bury. Some serial killers travel great distances to murder.

In the days of the automobile, perhaps, Wyatt, but people weren't quite as mobile in the Late Victorian Period.

An example of that would be Israel Keyes.

Quite so; Keyes used cars, trucks and planes to get around, and was even arrested in a parking lot

Different times, different opportunities, different methods...

[Wyatt Earp]

In the days of the automobile, perhaps, Wyatt, but people weren't quite as mobile in the Late Victorian Period.

Bury owned a horse and cart. He was sufficiently mobile to make the Whitechapel area his killing ground.

Did Keyes have to travel as far as he did to murder? No, he did not. Did Bury have to travel as far as he did to murder? No, he did not. In both cases, however, you have serial killers who preferred to kill at a significant distance from home.

[Sam Flynn]

Profilers and their fellow cod-psychologists have a lot to answer for.

[John Wheat]

Profilers and their fellow cod-psychologists have a lot to answer for.

They do but I don't get why you've mentioned it in this thread Sam.

Cheers John