Lust Murder

[Ashkenaz]

An interesting read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lust_murder

[John Wheat]

Lust murders don't seem very common to say the least. Surely this strengthens Bury's candidacy?

[Rainbow]

From the same link above:

"Fantasies are a key component in lust murders and can never be completely fulfilled. The lust killer will have a fantasy that continues to evolve over time and becomes increasingly violent as he struggles to fulfill it. "

We can see how Jack's fantasies evolved between Nichols and Kelly..

In the case of Bury being the ripper, and after turning Kelly into a thousand pieces, he only enjoyed and got satisfied by inserting his knife a little bit in his wife's abdomen.. and to complete his fantasies, he hid her in a box and went to the police ( exactly the opposite of the true Jack, who poses his victims and run away from the police )

Saying Bury was Jack the Ripper IS what I call ridiculous.


Rainbow°

[John Wheat]

From the same link above:

"Fantasies are a key component in lust murders and can never be completely fulfilled. The lust killer will have a fantasy that continues to evolve over time and becomes increasingly violent as he struggles to fulfill it. "

We can see how Jack's fantasies evolved between Nichols and Kelly..

In the case of Bury being the ripper, and after turning Kelly into a thousand pieces, he only enjoyed and got satisfied by inserting his knife a little bit in his wife's abdomen.. and to complete his fantasies, he hid her in a box and went to the police ( exactly the opposite of the true Jack, who poses his victims and run away from the police )

Saying Bury was Jack the Ripper IS what I call ridiculous.


Rainbow°

But with Ellen Bury she was his wife someone where he would be the expected killer. Unlike the C5. That quotes wrong as regards Jack anyway unless you're saying Jack didn't kill Elizabeth Stride?

[Harry D]

From the same link above:

"Fantasies are a key component in lust murders and can never be completely fulfilled. The lust killer will have a fantasy that continues to evolve over time and becomes increasingly violent as he struggles to fulfill it. "

We can see how Jack's fantasies evolved between Nichols and Kelly..

In the case of Bury being the ripper, and after turning Kelly into a thousand pieces, he only enjoyed and got satisfied by inserting his knife a little bit in his wife's abdomen.. and to complete his fantasies, he hid her in a box and went to the police ( exactly the opposite of the true Jack, who poses his victims and run away from the police )

Saying Bury was Jack the Ripper IS what I call ridiculous.


Rainbow°

And yet if Bury had planned to strangle his wife and frame it as an accidental strangulation, he unnecessarily complicated things by mutilating her remains. As they say, old habits die hard.

[Fisherman]

And yet if Bury had planned to strangle his wife and frame it as an accidental strangulation, he unnecessarily complicated things by mutilating her remains. As they say, old habits die hard.

Perhaps Bury strived to be clever enough to make the murder of his wife look like something not in the remotest way similar to a Ripper murder. But in such a case, one would wonder why - if he reasoned he would probably get nailed, he would face the gallows anyway, so why not add the mutilation he supposedly wanted very much to perform?

Now, we all know that it is suggested that he reasoned "please, please, PLEASE, may I add just a little mutilation? Some teensy-weensy little poking about with my knife at her abdomen? Old habits dying hard an all that. In such a case, it would make no sense that he did not go further - he was blowing his cover anyway, wasn´t he? Why not indulge - if he WAS the Ripper?

Here´s another suggestion: Things go west, and Bury kills his wife. He knows he is in trouble, so he asks himself "how do I deflect the guilt?". Then he gets an idea - let´s try and blame it on the Ripper!
In the end, though, having messed up on all accounts, he get´s desperate and goes to the police, realizing that he cannot cope with what he has done.

To me, that fits in every way. Including how I think the Ripper killed after Bury was dead and gone - Liz Jackson was one of the three victims to loose her abdominal wall to her killers knife, Chapman, Kelly and Jackson were therefore with near certainty victims of the same killer. So unless Bury rose from the grave....

Nah.

[Harry D]

Or perhaps at that point William Bury's mind was breaking. It would explain why he suddenly wanted to escape the East End and move 500 miles to another country. There was no job in Dundee, it was all a ruse. I don't know if the murder of Ellen Bury was premeditated or not, the evidence is inconclusive, but it's perfectly conceivable that after killing his only companion left in the world, Bury snapped and like many serial killers proceeding him, he entered self-destruct mode. After all, it wasn't some random prostitute this time, this was his wife, the dynamic had changed. He still couldn't resist mutilating her body to some extent, because that came naturally to him. Rather than fess up to the murder, he went to the police and tried to blag it out. And let's not forget that it almost worked.

[Fisherman]

Or perhaps at that point William Bury's mind was breaking. It would explain why he suddenly wanted to escape the East End and move 500 miles to another country. There was no job in Dundee, it was all a ruse. I don't know if the murder of Ellen Bury was premeditated or not, the evidence is inconclusive, but it's perfectly conceivable that after killing his only companion left in the world, Bury snapped and like many serial killers proceeding him, he entered self-destruct mode. After all, it wasn't some random prostitute this time, this was his wife, the dynamic had changed. He still couldn't resist mutilating her body to some extent, because that came naturally to him. Rather than fess up to the murder, he went to the police and tried to blag it out. And let's not forget that it almost worked.

Yes, we can always play the "he-broke-down-and-we-should-not-expect-any-logic-at-all-card". I am a bit unused to it, since it is always demanded from me to present a completely logical, rational and optimized action plan for Lechmere.

[Harry D]

Yes, we can always play the "he-broke-down-and-we-should-not-expect-any-logic-at-all-card". I am a bit unused to it, since it is always demanded from me to present a completely logic and optimized action plan for Lechmere.

There was a serial killer who abducted one woman, took her back to his home, let her get a good look at the place, and then let her escape. Completely illogical behaviour from a serial killer but he did it nonetheless and it sealed his fate.

[Fisherman]

There was a serial killer who abducted one woman, took her back to his home, let her get a good look at the place, and then let her escape. Completely illogical behaviour from a serial killer but he did it nonetheless and it sealed his fate.

That may be Bobby Joe Long you are thinking of. Others have done just about the same, like Peter Kürten.

But if we are to identify serialists by illogical and irrational behavior, resulting in large inconsistencies, we will not get far, Harry. What´s your angle? "If it does not seem to be true, it can be anyway?"

[Harry D]

That may be Bobby Joe Long you are thinking of. Others have done just about the same, like Peter Kürten.

But if we are to identify serialists by illogical and irrational behavior, resulting in large incinsistencies, we will not get far, Harry. What´s your angle? "If it does not seem to be true, it can be anyway?"

My "angle" is that we cannot state unequivocally what the killer would've done when we have no idea who he was. For example, people often dismiss Bury because the mutilations he inflicted weren't as extensive as the Whitechapel victims, instead of focusing on the fact he mutilated his wife in the first place. Something that could be described as a rare paraphilia for a killer to have. Then we have to factor in that Bury did live on the outskirts of Whitechapel during the murders. Two miles isn't far to walk (notwithstanding his horse and cart), and it puts a safe distance between Bury's home and the killing field. Bury was a drinker who was known to go missing for days, and it stands to reason that such a man would visit one of the sleazier parts of the East End for debauchery. So we have a man who cannot be geographically ruled out, with a known violent temperament, who left London under false pretenses after 1888, and committed a Ripper-esque murder at his new home. I know none of this convinces you, because you have your own "angle" as it were, but I'm not going to let the inexact science of criminal profiling to dissuade me from what is a very compelling suspect.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: My "angle" is that we cannot state unequivocally what the killer would've done when we have no idea who he was.

Oh, but I DO have an idea who he was. A very good one. And it´s not Bury.

For example, people often dismiss Bury because the mutilations he inflicted weren't as extensive as the Whitechapel victims, instead of focusing on the fact he mutilated his wife in the first place.

So how do you stand on how the torso killer and the Ripper inflicted the same type of mutilations, both of them differing in the same manner from what Bury did?

Something that could be described as a rare paraphilia for a killer to have.

Indeed - not to mention how rare it would be to have TWO killers inflicting the exact same type of mutilations!

Then we have to factor in that Bury did live on the outskirts of Whitechapel during the murders. Two miles isn't far to walk (notwithstanding his horse and cart), and it puts a safe distance between Bury's home and the killing field.

Yes, let´s factor that in. How many people did live on these outskirts, by the way?

Bury was a drinker who was known to go missing for days, and it stands to reason that such a man would visit one of the sleazier parts of the East End for debauchery.

Does that follow? I never knew. Were there no pubs and prostitution nearer to his home? Or was Whitechapel a more likely place for a drunken man to go to, than to his local pubs and prostitutes?

So we have a man who cannot be geographically ruled out, with a known violent temperament, who left London under false pretenses after 1888, and committed a Ripper-esque murder at his new home.

A somewhat Ripperesque murder, Harry. Rather slightly somewhat so. A really Ripperesque murder does not involve the Mrs, but it DOES involve a cut neck and innards taken away, plus the murder is committed elsewhere than in the killers home. For starters.

I know none of this convinces you, because you have your own "angle" as it were, but I'm not going to let the inexact science of criminal profiling to dissuade me from what is a very compelling suspect.

I won´t take Bury off your hands, Harry. You are welcome to him, for reasons mentioned above.

[Sam Flynn]

He still couldn't resist mutilating her body to some extent

To a very minor extent. Besides, mutilation is one thing, deliberately removing organs is quite another.

[John Wheat]

Yes, we can always play the "he-broke-down-and-we-should-not-expect-any-logic-at-all-card". I am a bit unused to it, since it is always demanded from me to present a completely logical, rational and optimized action plan for Lechmere.

You never do present anything logical as regards Lechmere though.

[John Wheat]

How is a proven wife murderer with an almost identical M.O. to Jack eg Strangulation followed by post mortem mutilation not a better suspect than a random witness who found a body?