William Bury: Jack the Ripper

[Guest]

Hi Wulf I think the farmer attack is very interesting as I said before on this threaf. Serial killers often blunder their attacks, particularly the disorganised stereotype.

But the thing is with these prostitutes, then and in more recent times, people only really start to take their complaints seriously when theyve actually been murdered.

[John Wheat]

Fair point John. I assume that the suggestion would be that the throat cutting might obscure ligature marks?

Yes the throat cutting may have obscured ligature marks.

[Ms Diddles]

If they were only similar to Eddowes then why not eliminate Chapman, Nichols etc? Yet if we look at consistent features then throat cutting is the very obvious one and entirely absent in Ellen Bury. The ripper’s victims may have been strangled but they definitely weren’t strangled with a rope. And of course none were concealed. These points tower over the others. I’d say, similarities/dissimilarity’s are 80/20 in favour of the latter imo.

Hi Herlock,

I agree that on balance, the dissimilarities outweigh the similarities, but for me, the simple fact that Ellen had received a wound to the abdomen adds quite a lot of extra points to the similarity score.

It's served no purpose, and was such a specific and statistically unusual thing to do.

That tips the balance to around 65 /35 dissimilarity/ similarity for me.



Cue Jeff reading this, slapping his forehead and groaning at the abuses to mathematical probability above...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I agree that on balance, the dissimilarities outweigh the similarities, but for me, the simple fact that Ellen had received a wound to the abdomen adds quite a lot of extra points to the similarity score.

It's served no purpose, and was such a specific and statistically unusual thing to do.

That tips the balance to around 65 /35 dissimilarity/ similarity for me.



Cue Jeff reading this, slapping his forehead and groaning at the abuses to mathematical probability above...

Hi Ms D,

Yes Jeff would probably be able to work out that it was actually 67.6%/33.4%

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes the throat cutting may have obscured ligature marks.

One point that did come to me last night though John was that the ripper wouldn’t have been concerned about Police/Doctors finding out if he’d used a ligature and so wouldn’t have made any deliberate effort to obscure any marks (plus I’m assuming also that these marks would have become apparent later, like a bruise?) So would the throat cutting in each victim have been likely to have completely obscured any ligature marks or is it likely that some would still have been visible to Doctors at a PM?

[Harry D]

The lack of throat cutting in Ellen Bury's murder is not that decisive when it comes to ruling Bury in or out.

There is a lack of premeditation evident in her death compared to the Whitechapel murders. In Bury's own words he killed his wife on the spur of the moment after a drunken row. The Whitechapel victims had their throats methodically slashed to silence them and facilitate blood flow before the killer raided their bodies. Ellen was not killed in such a manner, but Bury still inflicted post-mortem mutilations soon after according to the MDs. That in itself is quite remarkable. I could understand if Bury stored the corpse and after mulling things over made a feeble attempt to stage a Ripper murder, only to realise he didn't have the heart for it. But the timing of those mutilations could also suggest it was a natural instinct of his, and quite a rare one it is too.

[John Wheat]

One point that did come to me last night though John was that the ripper wouldn’t have been concerned about Police/Doctors finding out if he’d used a ligature and so wouldn’t have made any deliberate effort to obscure any marks (plus I’m assuming also that these marks would have become apparent later, like a bruise?) So would the throat cutting in each victim have been likely to have completely obscured any ligature marks or is it likely that some would still have been visible to Doctors at a PM?

Hi Herlock
I'm not sure if the use of a ligature would have been apparent or if the throat cutting would disguise this.

Cheers John

[Dickere]

Hi Herlock
I'm not sure if the use of a ligature would have been apparent or if the throat cutting would disguise this.

Cheers John

There were bruises on at least some of the necks unless I remember wrongly, so the throat cutting didn't obliterate all else.

[Guest]

the simple fact that Ellen had received a wound to the abdomen adds quite a lot of extra points to the similarity score.

bit worse than that though - extract from one of the medical reports

first mentioned tended slightly upwards.
About three quarters of an inch above this line, below the angle of the left lower jaw, were two small bruises each half an inch in length.

Trunk
There was an incised wound in the centre of the abdomen extending downwards from the umbilicus for four and a half inches. It penetrated the abdominal cavity, and through it protruded part of the omentum and about a foot of intestine, part of which was dry and black from exposure to the air. This cut was ragged towards the lower part.
Commencing at the inner end of the fifth right costal cartilage was a cut running downwards and to the left for seven and a half inches. This was quite superficial, with the exception of the last inch, where it penetrated through the skin into the muscular layer of the abdomen. Half an inch to the right of this, and running parallel to it, was a similar cut five inches in length and superficial throughout. Two inches to the right of, and commencing on a level with the umbilicus was an incised wound three quarters of an inch in length and penetrating through to the muscular layer. From the lower end of the wound opening into the abdomen, on the left side were several superficial cuts little more than penetrating the cuticle, and running down to the pubis.
Running downwards from the centre of the pubis to the outer side of the left labium was an incised wound 2 ½ inches in length penetrating the skin and fat. On the inner side of the right labium was a wound 2 inches in length penetrating the skin. Beginning about an inch behind the anus was an incised wound running forwards and to the left into the perineum, and dividing the sphincter muscle.
At the lower border of the ribs on the left side in the nipple line were two abrasions each an inch in length.
The edges of all the wounds described were everted and marked throughout by a line of capillary haemorhage, and we are therefore of opinion that they must have been inflicted during life or very shortly after death, while the body still retained its warmth and vital elasticity. The other injuries described were all of recent origin. There were other two (sic) cuts on the abdomen – one two inches to the inner side of the right anterior superior iliac spine and the other at an almost corresponding level on the opposite side. They were each about half an inch in length, running downwards and inwards and penetrating to the muscular layer. These were free from any trace of haemorhage.

[Meet Ze Monster]

9. Weak points
JtR would not have walked into a police station and claimed his wife had committed suicide when a cursory examination would reveal she had been murdered.

Possible disassociative behaviour? Would one such as Bury have experienced a kind of mental barrier between his actions and his culpability? It's almost a child-like reaction to being caught misbehaving; "It wasn't me it was Mr Nobody!". It's probably fair to say, he had an arrested development coupled with financial dependence leading to de-masculinated feelings. Not a massive leap for a violent character type like that to be moved to take horrific actions and feel justified.


Bury was too much of a drunk to pull it off.

This is an interesting one. If he was the type of become violent when drunk (surely), he must have also had considerable self control and judgement to remain so incredibly stealthy (think of the miniscule time-frames the killer worked within without being heard). Nonetheless, I lean towards the Ripper (Bury?) using alcohol, to feed his adrenalin and give him the strength to act decisively and without fear. There were no hesitation marks on his victims for sure.


Bury confessed to murdering Ellen so why didn’t he confess to JtR’s crimes?

If he did it, there is a chance Bury in his rage and stupor (disassociation?) experienced no guilt or culpability as, in his mind, the targets were all/always Ellen. He did not value the lives of those women enough, or see them as anything but tulpas of his wife, to acknowledge any wrongdoing. It might be a stretch, but Bury was a sick minded individual.

[Aethelwulf]

One for Herlock to comment on: Did Scotland Yard Clear William Bury? (http://williambury.org/blog6/2021/10...-william-bury/)

Of course, anyone with a modicum of common sense should be able to appreciate that Bury was Jack the Ripper.

[Herlock Sholmes]

One for Herlock to comment on: Did Scotland Yard Clear William Bury? (http://williambury.org/blog6/2021/10...-william-bury/)

Of course, anyone with a modicum of common sense should be able to appreciate that Bury was Jack the Ripper.

Has Mr Earp wrote an article just for me?

I have to say that it’s difficult to take any article seriously, no matter how well written, when it contains this glaring fallacy:

“ Now that Bury has been identified as the Ripper”

Just because ‘a few’ people, or ‘some’ people, however you wish to phrase it, can’t help stating opinion as fact it’s no reason for assuming that everyone should follow suit. I can’t take anyone seriously who says that Bury has been proven to have been the ripper and I’m afraid that you’ll continue to find that 99+% of people who know anything about the case will agree that the case isn’t solved and it’s never likely to be solved. And before someone trots out the tired old cliché about ‘not wanting the case solved’ because it would ruin their hobby or that it would disprove their own suspect, I could just as easily accuse someone of bias in favour of Bury.

I continue to consider Bury a valid suspect worthy of further research but ‘game over?’ Not even close I’m afraid.

The author of the article (Mr Earp no doubt) is right to point out all that he has done which leaves us with a fairly vague picture (no fault of his of course) but what we surely have to keep uppermost in our minds is how utterly desperate the police were to get the ripper off the streets. We have to appreciate the pressure that they were under from above and below. From Politicians, from the Press, from the poor and even from Royalty. So if we accept this undoubted fact is it really likely that the Police, when being presented with a man who killed and mutilated his wife in a house with Jack the Ripper graffiti, a man who until very recently was living in the East End of London and who was known to have been violent and not averse to consorting with prostitutes (the Rippers prey) that they gave him a cursory check over and said “not interested?” Even, as is suggested in the article, some might have felt him a very good suspect?

Surely this doesn’t sound reasonable? Although we have no records left to us isn’t it at least possible, and I’ll go as far as to say likely, that they gave him a serious look? Would they have turned down the opportunity of finally being able to say “we’ve got him!” And so, as the police talked to people that knew Bury and that they would have looked into him to some extent at least then it just can’t be impossible that they found something out that they felt exonerated him of being the ripper. We can express any manner of doubt about this but we can’t dismiss the possibility entirely therefore we cannot claim that it’s known that Bury was the ripper.

Im not anti-Bury; I’m anti-over confidence; I’m anti-stating opinions as fact. Just to illustrate that I’ve never dismissed Bury I made a suggestion a few years ago and I repeated it on Casebook to someone (possibly Sam Flynn?) It wasn’t based on evidence it was simply a suggestion. I’ll repeat it - we know that Eddowes said that she knew who the ripper was so I thought about who it might have been if not John Kelly. Perhaps more likely to have been someone that she saw regularly rather than a one off client so who might have become a regular or even a drinking partner. Someone who might have bought her a few drinks if he was flush? I’m from the West Midland too so I thought about the accent. What if she’d been in a pub and had heard another Black Country accent far from home? As we know, she was from Wolverhampton and Bury was from Stourbridge (both near where I live) So maybe she became friendly with Bury and after a few drinks she got to see him for the nasty piece of work that he very obviously was and began to suspect that he might have been the ripper. I even added a bit. I believe that Eddowes had a pawn ticket in the name of Carter?(or Carter was mentioned somewhere if I’m misremembering - which is very possible) Might Bury have used other names? Might Carter have been appropriate (clever in his eyes) because he made his living from the back of a cart? A bit fanciful I know. But….

I only mention the above just to show that I’m really not biased against Bury. But I’m afraid that it will achieve nothing to keep repeating things like “now that we know that Bury was the ripper” as if it will seep into people’s consciousness until they accept it as fact. Anyone is free to say what they like of course but it won’t achieve a goal. However anyone feels, for the case to be considered solved you’ll need a huge consensus and we’re nowhere near that on any suspect. Even the better ones.

[John Wheat]

Hi Herlock
I see exactly what you're saying. That you believe Bury is a strong suspect. But you don't agree with Wyatt Earp that it is a done deal. To an extent I agree with you. As you know I believe Bury was the Ripper. However I also believe that it is not a done deal. Because the proof isn't there to say Bury was Jack the Ripper.

Cheers John

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock
I see exactly what you're saying. That you believe Bury is a strong suspect. But you don't agree with Wyatt Earp that it is a done deal. To an extent I agree with you. As you know I believe Bury was the Ripper. However I also believe that it is not a done deal. Because the proof isn't there to say Bury was Jack the Ripper.

Cheers John

Hi John,

Exactly. He might have been the ripper for all that I know and he’s one of the very few suspects IMO that merit a second look.

[Harry D]

If not for Alice McKenzie's murder - and possibly the link to the Thames Torso series - I would be fairly comfortable believing William Bury was JTR. But those murders upset the odds of there being more than one post-mortem mutilator haunting the East End.