William Bury: Jack the Ripper

[Aethelwulf]

Even taking into consideration the 5’3½” in boots measurement this still gives us a difference of between 3½ and 5½ inches from a description of the man likeliest to have seen the ripper and the one of the three witnesses paying closest attention. .

Is this really that significant though? Prior to being involved as witnesses had any of those people ever been asked to estimate the height of a stranger based on recollections they were asked for after the fact and did not know would be important at the time? Did they even know their own height in feet an inches? It was late at night, seen from a distance in what probably wasn't great light. Would you be confident to discriminate what is actually a small height difference based on a quick look that you didn't know would be needed later? Can you be sure the cap didn't add any height? Surely anything that hid the hairline would add degree of uncertainty?

I do think Levy is likely to be more reliable, given the context of other witnesses that seem to point to a shorter rather than taller man. He wasn't paying much attention, why would he as he didn't know what was to come. He didn't notice the clothes but could say they were basically the same height. If Lawende was so eagle-eyed he didn't notice that by his description the man would have towered over little Eddowes.

I totally agree Lawende et al. did see the ripper but if you are going to quote Lawende with such certainty you should caveat it with Levy's statement. It is also worth remembering that Bury also fits other descriptions - respectable dress, Jewish look (whatever that means), powerful chest (broad shoulders?).

[Herlock Sholmes]

Bury's height in stocking feet from his prison record for vagrancy is 5'2". A March 19, 1889 article in The Dundee Advertiser notes that Bury was “5 feet 3½ inches in his boots”. I copied this (below) from the Bury website. A useful assessment. It seems more likely tan not to me that the ripper was a short man, not much taller than his victims.

"Does Bury’s revised height of 5’2″ change anything about the relationship between Bury and the various eyewitness descriptions in the Jack the Ripper case? Elizabeth Long said that the man she saw with Annie Chapman was “a little taller than the deceased” (5) (Chapman was 5’0″), so her height estimate continues to be a match with Bury. Joseph Levy said that the man he saw with Catherine Eddowes “might have been three inches taller than the victim” (6) (Eddowes was 4’11”), so his description continues to be an excellent match with Bury as well. Israel Schwartz stated that the man he saw was 5 feet 5 inches. If Bury was 5 feet 3½ inches in his boots, then with the hat he was wearing, he would have been over 5 feet 4 inches tall, so Schwartz’s height estimate remains a very good fit with William Bury, too. Joseph Lawende gave different height estimates for the man that he saw, ranging from 5 feet 7 inches to 5 feet 9 inches, so Bury, at a little over 5’4″ in a hat, is obviously now less of a match with Lawende’s estimate than he was before. Levy and Lawende, however, both looked at the same man. Levy’s estimate is more likely to have been accurate than Lawende’s estimate, as Levy was using a yardstick (the woman) to determine the man’s height. Lawende appears to have simply overestimated the height of the man that he saw."

References

(5) Evans, Stewart P. and Keith Skinner. The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion. N.Y.: Skyhorse (2009): 110.

(6) Ibid., 259.

Was Levy’s estimate really more likely to have been accurate?

“Levy gave evidence at Eddowes's inquest on 11 October.^[2] According to his testimony, he said to Harris, referring to the man and woman, "Look there, I don't like going home by myself when I see those characters about," but he took no notice of them and was unable to give a description. However, he did estimate that the man was about three inches taller than the woman.”

So we have the estimation of a man who took no notice of the pair and couldn’t even give a basic description. Sounds like a fleeting impression to me?

Lawende described a man wearing a peaked cap and not a hat that would have added height.

Again Wolf, Im certainly not using this as a point to dismiss Bury, but all factors have to be considered. Even taking into consideration the 5’3½” in boots measurement this still gives us a difference of between 3½ and 5½ inches from a description of the man likeliest to have seen the ripper and the one of the three witnesses paying closest attention. Certainly nowhere near fatal to the case for Bury but one worth noting at the very least.

[Aethelwulf]

I agree John. Witnesses can certainly be mistaken. The only point that I was making is that if you drew up some kind of points for and against Bury as the ripper then height would be one for the ‘against’ column (bearing in mind the point that you make of course)

Bury's height in stocking feet from his prison record for vagrancy is 5'2". A March 19, 1889 article in The Dundee Advertiser notes that Bury was “5 feet 3½ inches in his boots”. I copied this (below) from the Bury website. A useful assessment. It seems more likely tan not to me that the ripper was a short man, not much taller than his victims.

"Does Bury’s revised height of 5’2″ change anything about the relationship between Bury and the various eyewitness descriptions in the Jack the Ripper case? Elizabeth Long said that the man she saw with Annie Chapman was “a little taller than the deceased” (5) (Chapman was 5’0″), so her height estimate continues to be a match with Bury. Joseph Levy said that the man he saw with Catherine Eddowes “might have been three inches taller than the victim” (6) (Eddowes was 4’11”), so his description continues to be an excellent match with Bury as well. Israel Schwartz stated that the man he saw was 5 feet 5 inches. If Bury was 5 feet 3½ inches in his boots, then with the hat he was wearing, he would have been over 5 feet 4 inches tall, so Schwartz’s height estimate remains a very good fit with William Bury, too. Joseph Lawende gave different height estimates for the man that he saw, ranging from 5 feet 7 inches to 5 feet 9 inches, so Bury, at a little over 5’4″ in a hat, is obviously now less of a match with Lawende’s estimate than he was before. Levy and Lawende, however, both looked at the same man. Levy’s estimate is more likely to have been accurate than Lawende’s estimate, as Levy was using a yardstick (the woman) to determine the man’s height. Lawende appears to have simply overestimated the height of the man that he saw."

References

(5) Evans, Stewart P. and Keith Skinner. The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion. N.Y.: Skyhorse (2009): 110.

(6) Ibid., 259.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm sure Bury was 5ft3 but in any case considering how unreliable witness testimony is and the fact that we don't know if any witnesses actually saw Jack. None of this remotely rules Bury out.

I agree John. Witnesses can certainly be mistaken. The only point that I was making is that if you drew up some kind of points for and against Bury as the ripper then height would be one for the ‘against’ column (bearing in mind the point that you make of course)

[John Wheat]

I think that Ghost’s point is a very valid one and not one that’s easily dismissed. Of all of the potential ripper sightings my own opinion is that the man seen with Eddowes by Lawende, Levy and Harris on the corner of Duke Street and Church Passage would have to have be the likeliest to have actually been the ripper (others might disagree of course.) Lawende’s description of the man’s height varies slightly according to the source but in general it was between 5’7” and 5’9.” If Bury was just 5’2” this is a significant discrepancy of between 5 and 7 inches. No one could suggest that this conclusively rules out Bury of course but I think that, for me, it has to be in the ‘points against’ column when considering him as a suspect.

I'm sure Bury was 5ft3 but in any case considering how unreliable witness testimony is and the fact that we don't know if any witnesses actually saw Jack. None of this remotely rules Bury out.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think that Ghost’s point is a very valid one and not one that’s easily dismissed. Of all of the potential ripper sightings my own opinion is that the man seen with Eddowes by Lawende, Levy and Harris on the corner of Duke Street and Church Passage would have to have be the likeliest to have actually been the ripper (others might disagree of course.) Lawende’s description of the man’s height varies slightly according to the source but in general it was between 5’7” and 5’9.” If Bury was just 5’2” this is a significant discrepancy of between 5 and 7 inches. No one could suggest that this conclusively rules out Bury of course but I think that, for me, it has to be in the ‘points against’ column when considering him as a suspect.

[Christian]

MJK was younger though.

In reality still not a real consideration Dickere

[Dickere]

Some valid points!! But doubt height would be a major factor in overpowering a middle aged intoxicated female victim!! A small man can still be very strong!!

MJK was younger though.

[Christian]

I can see why people think it might be Bury. But his height is a big obstacle, near rule-out for me (if he was 5-2. I would have expected at least one witness to say "very short." It's also seems doubtful that a small killer would go repeatedly with the sort of close-in physical attack that requires overpowering the victim.

The other thing is that it's hard to think of JTR hiding a victim. That's not his style.

Some valid points!! But doubt height would be a major factor in overpowering a middle aged intoxicated female victim!! A small man can still be very strong!!

[Ghost]

I can see why people think it might be Bury. But his height is a big obstacle, near rule-out for me (if he was 5-2. I would have expected at least one witness to say "very short." It's also seems doubtful that a small killer would go repeatedly with the sort of close-in physical attack that requires overpowering the victim.

The other thing is that it's hard to think of JTR hiding a victim. That's not his style.

[Kattrup]

Sorry but the o is very similar to other o’s and the I very similar to other i’s

Compare the o in Sor with the o in from or tother, it is the same letter, whereas the i written differently.

[Aethelwulf]

I've often thought how the high upstroke on the 'I'in the Sir which people mistake for Sor in that letter reminds me of the Juws Vs Jews in the gsg.

and Tother is very black country my mates from those parts he says that alot

Yes I think the 'Irish' angle on From Hell is a load of rubbish to be honest. If someone wanted to give that impression why would they use only two words? When I was reading up about disguised handwriting it seems one of go-to methods is to adopt a grotesque or fantastic style, as per the start of from hell. I think the mistaken 'Sor' stems from a grotesque embellishment of joining the i to the s and r. Alternatively, all the other spelling 'mistakes' are phonetically correct and it could be an attempt at 'Sur' - it could be 'u', even though it looks different from other 'u's. Apparently another characteristic of disguised writing is a lack of consistency in letters as the writer tries to disguise. Same goes for 'prasarved' - the second 'a' looks more like a u and prasurved sounds correct.

[Mark J D]

... the high upstroke on the 'I' in the Sir which people mistake for Sor in that letter...

-- What 'high upstroke'...??

M.

I've often thought how the high upstroke on the 'I'in the Sir which people mistake for Sor in that letter reminds me of the Juws Vs Jews in the gsg.

and Tother is very black country my mates from those parts he says that alot

[Aethelwulf]

Striking similarity!

And Bury is a proven postmortem sexual mutilator.

With the chalked grafitti found there, I think Jack has a big influence on Bury's mind and his fondness of knives, that is if Bury himself was not Jack the ripper.


The Baron

I suspect that if it was ever proven somehow that Bury did in fact pen From Hell, opinion would change from that letter being possibly the only genuine ripper correspondence to definitely a fake!