William Bury: Jack the Ripper

[Geddy2112]

Geddy,

This is the post that I said I'd make in the Polly's Skirts thread.

The main reason why I lean toward Bury being the strongest suspect is that he's one of the few reasonable suspects that is known to have killed someone, and his known murder is similar, though not identical, to the Ripper murders. He strangled his wife, and many of the Ripper's murders are thought to have begun with strangulation. He also mutilated his wife to a degree. When he told the police about her death, he mentioned Jack the Ripper. He lived in the general area of Whitechapel at the time of the Ripper murders, and moved away shortly after the Kelly murder. After he moved away, graffiti referring to Jack the Ripper appeared on his new house.

I'm sure you'll be able to find additional reasons in this thread.

Thank you, plus if you look at some threads on the other forums his handwriting is a dead match for some of the letters - food for thought certainly.

[C. F. Leon]

... Unless something turns up….like a diary.

Um, Herlock, I HATE to be the one to break it to you, but a (um) tell-all "diary" HAS (miraculously) appeared...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Um, Herlock, I HATE to be the one to break it to you, but a "diary" HAS (miraculously) appeared...

[Fiver]

Thank you, plus if you look at some threads on the other forums his handwriting is a dead match for some of the letters - food for thought certainly.

That only matters if those letters were authentic, not hoaxes. IIRC, they claimed murders that never happened, which would make them hoaxes.

[The Rookie Detective]

That only matters if those letters were authentic, not hoaxes. IIRC, they claimed murders that never happened, which would make them hoaxes.

This is a key point that is perhaps overlooked in relation to Bury.

If we take Bury and consider him as a Ripper suspect, there are many things that appear to add up and support the idea of him being the culprit.

The biggest sticking point of course is whether one believes that Mckenzie and Coles; and perhaps even Pinchin St, were the work of the Ripper.

Now for the believers of the established 'Canonical 5' Bury is arguably the front runner; in terms of him ticking all the necessary boxes.

The murder, mutilation and dismemberment of his wife in the Spring of 89 is perhaps the actual culmination of his murder spree and the brutal slaying of Kelly just a few months previous may have been his swansong kill and go a long way in explaining why Kelly suffered the most.

There's also the Ripper correspondences...

There are clear similarities in form, handwriting and syntax in some of the key letters that are supposed to have been from the Ripper.

So, let's run with that for a moment and consider the possibility that Bury also wrote Dear Boss etc...


So, we have a man who is as close to being a prime suspect as one could get, with the combination of all the factors that support Bury as the Ripper.


But here's the rub...

What about McKenzie?


Now IF you're not a believer in the Canonical 5, then Bury is clearly innocent because he was hanged in spring 89... and so the suggestion would then be that the man who killed McKenzie was a 'copy cat killer'

So we have Bury being the Ripper who kills his wife as his last kill and then a few months later another man tried to emulate the Ripper by killing McKenzie.

The biggest sticking point with Mckenzie is that she received many superficial cuts that resemble some of the injuries inflicted in the Nichols murder, ergo, the killer may have been disturbed and unable to perform his ritual.


So, we are left with a scenario whereby Bury was the Ripper and Mckenzie was a copy cat.

Case closed?


Hardly.


Now being me; I like to come at it from a different angle...


What if Bury was a man who fantasised about being the Ripper?
Akin to someone like Bachert who was obsessed with the case.

Could Bury have been the author of Dear Boss etc...and had a fantastic whereby he was the Ripper?

The letters have been largely considered as hoaxes over the years, but what if they are genuine fantasy hoaxes; ergo, the author was playing the part of the Ripper through text.
It would perhaps explain why so many letters don't hold up to scrutiny.

Bur for the sake of balance; when Bury was apprehended, it was him who mentioned being concerned people would think he was Jack the Ripper.
Now at face value, that would be a typical concern for a man who had just been found to have mutilated his wife...but there could also be an element of reverse psychology going on here.

Did Bury kill his wife and then hand himself in because he was the Ripper and he had concluded his killing after having the autumn of 88 to try out what he planned for his wife.

The gap between Kelly and Mckenzie is explained perfectly...by Bury being the Ripper.


But going back to my hypothesis...


What if we were to flip this on its head and suggest that it was Bury who was the man who fantasised about being the Ripper, but after he was hanged, the real Ripper then went on to kill Mckenzie and Coles and possibly Pinchin St.

It doesn't explain the gap between Kelly and Mckenzie but it does break the confines of the Canonical 5 and then erase the idea of a PHYSICAL copy cat killer.

Now of course, there's no evidence that Bury did write the letters.

Another key point is...how many letters were there AFTER Bury was hanged?

Ultimately, I think Bury is someone who is grossly underrated and overlooked as the Ripper.

I would go as far as to say that he is arguably the only Ripper suspect that could, would and probably should fit into anyone's top 5 suspects.


That has to count for something



RD

[The Rookie Detective]

Interesting...




Not quite sure how it was believed he would be acquitted?


RD

[GBinOz]

Interesting...




Not quite sure how it was believed he would be acquitted?


RD

Hi RD,

I don't know if you are aware that there was recently conducted a re-trial of William Bury with assessments made by modern forensic experts on the angle of the ligature marks on Ellen's neck. The trial was conducted before a jury with law students representing the prosecution and the defence. The defence presented opinion that the angle of the ligature and the slow strangulation was more consistent with hanging from a low suspension point, and that the slow strangulation was inconsistent with a violent garrotting.

The verdict was acquittal by a margin of 13-2.

Cheers, George

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD,

I don't know if you are aware that there was recently conducted a re-trial of William Bury with assessments made by modern forensic experts on the angle of the ligature marks on Ellen's neck. The trial was conducted before a jury with law students representing the prosecution and the defence. The defence presented opinion that the angle of the ligature and the slow strangulation was more consistent with hanging from a low suspension point, and that the slow strangulation was inconsistent with a violent garrotting.

The verdict was acquittal by a margin of 13-2.

Cheers, George

Would that imply that Ellen Bury committed suicide?

Or that he strangled her slowly?



RD

[GBinOz]

Would that imply that Ellen Bury committed suicide?

Or that he strangled her slowly?



RD

I think that the implication from the jury was that it was likely that he killed her, but he was given the benefit of some doubt due to the conflicting medical opinion.

[The Rookie Detective]

I think that the implication from the jury was that it was likely that he killed her, but he was given the benefit of some doubt due to the conflicting medical opinion.

Ah I see, but could it also suggest the following scenario...


He didn't intially instigate trying to kill her and she did indeed TRY to commit suicide...

...but after he found her he felt somewhat robbed and so chose to then mutilate and dismember her in a bid to hint at him being the Ripper.

We know that some of the injuries were inflicted BOTH before AND after Ellen was dead.


His mention of the Ripper is peculiar enough, but what if his aim was to draw focus onto himself as the Ripper.


Furthermore, if there was indeed conflicting medical evidence, then what does that potentially tell us?

Well, possibly that the murder was more conflicting for Bury than it perhaps should have been.

But psychopathic serial killers don't feel conflicted, their psyche is based on indifference and detachment.

And so it perhaps suggests one of 2 things...

That he was a Ripper fantasist who wrote letters and fantasised about what he wanted to do, and then his wife stole that from him (in his eyes) and so he felt compelled to bring the Ripper name into focus in a bid for him to be associated with or as the Ripper. This scenario suggests he wasn't the Ripper.

But we also have the scenario whereby he was the Ripper and the only reason why he chose to mutilate and not just dismember his wife, was because he was trying to apply his signature to the murder in a bid for everyone to then consider him as the Ripper because he realised that if he simply just killed his wife then he would be overlooked as the Ripper. Therefore, despite his apparent concern that he didn't want everyone to think he was the Ripper, I believe the exact opposite is true.

The question is...WHY did he have to mutilate her?


It is this action of mutilation that is the single biggest clue as to suggest that Bury was the Ripper...and I think he knew that.

Of course, if there is the slightest chance that he only mutilated her to look like a Ripper kill, then it's the work of a copy cat fantasist who wrote a few letters while the real Ripper roamed free to kill over many years.


RD

[GBinOz]

His mention of the Ripper is peculiar enough, but what if his aim was to draw focus onto himself as the Ripper.

That he was a Ripper fantasist who wrote letters and fantasised about what he wanted to do, and then his wife stole that from him (in his eyes) and so he felt compelled to bring the Ripper name into focus in a bid for him to be associated with or as the Ripper. This scenario suggests he wasn't the Ripper.

RD

Hi RD,

The above fits my opinion, that he was a drunken no hoper, desperate to achieve some notoriety, who killed his wife in a drunken rage after her inheritance money ran out. He might have gotten away with it if, instead of mutilating her body and waiting a week, he had immediately reported her death as a suicide to the police. But that might have gone un-noticed as a suicide or just another domestic, and his fantasy was to earn a place in history. Or he could have disposed of her body and disappeared, abandoning his place in the limelight. Once again, not what he wanted. JMO.

Cheers, George

[John Wheat]

Ah I see, but could it also suggest the following scenario...


He didn't intially instigate trying to kill her and she did indeed TRY to commit suicide...

...but after he found her he felt somewhat robbed and so chose to then mutilate and dismember her in a bid to hint at him being the Ripper.

We know that some of the injuries were inflicted BOTH before AND after Ellen was dead.


His mention of the Ripper is peculiar enough, but what if his aim was to draw focus onto himself as the Ripper.


Furthermore, if there was indeed conflicting medical evidence, then what does that potentially tell us?

Well, possibly that the murder was more conflicting for Bury than it perhaps should have been.

But psychopathic serial killers don't feel conflicted, their psyche is based on indifference and detachment.

And so it perhaps suggests one of 2 things...

That he was a Ripper fantasist who wrote letters and fantasised about what he wanted to do, and then his wife stole that from him (in his eyes) and so he felt compelled to bring the Ripper name into focus in a bid for him to be associated with or as the Ripper. This scenario suggests he wasn't the Ripper.

But we also have the scenario whereby he was the Ripper and the only reason why he chose to mutilate and not just dismember his wife, was because he was trying to apply his signature to the murder in a bid for everyone to then consider him as the Ripper because he realised that if he simply just killed his wife then he would be overlooked as the Ripper. Therefore, despite his apparent concern that he didn't want everyone to think he was the Ripper, I believe the exact opposite is true.

The question is...WHY did he have to mutilate her?


It is this action of mutilation that is the single biggest clue as to suggest that Bury was the Ripper...and I think he knew that.

Of course, if there is the slightest chance that he only mutilated her to look like a Ripper kill, then it's the work of a copy cat fantasist who wrote a few letters while the real Ripper roamed free to kill over many years.


RD

I believe Bury couldn't resist mutilating Ellen. Because he was the Ripper.

[chubbs]

I'm a novice, but I've been thinking quite a lot about Mr Bury's character for the past few days. I've ordered the Beadle and the Macpherson books, but haven't got them yet, so currently everything is based on my online reading, which has huge gaps. Apologies in advance if I make any factual blunders (please let me know).

My initial conjectures and responses to 10 questions I've asked myself about Mr Bury...

Q1. What were Bury's 'fundamentals'?
A. He was an orphan. By the time he was a teenager he was also a liar, a thief, untrustworthy (dismissed from jobs for theft). He went on to build on these characteristics to become a violent, cowardly bully who beat his female partner regularly, duplicitous (more than one person commented on how he was able to cover his darker side with a 'niceness'), a charmer when necessary and an alcoholic. Fundamentally, and for whatever reason, he developed into a thoroughly unpleasant person, latterly fuelled by alcohol.

Q2. What happened when Bury arrived in London?
A. I don't yet know why he moved to London in October 1887, but I assume it was to make a better life than the one he had, hawking & selling tat on the streets of Birmingham. He certainly found his level immediately - taking up with Brothel Keeper James Martin, dossing on his premises (stable/house) and selling sawdust from a cart for him (quite probably for next to no wages). Conjecture - I wonder if he was angry with the life he found himself living, believing himself to be 'better than that'?

Q3. Why did Bury form a relationship with Ellen Elliot (a worker - servant/prostitute or both - at Martin's Brothel)?
A. Well, it wasn't out of love, was it? He formed a relationship with Ellen within a few moths of arriving in Bow. He beat her regularly (usually for some of the money she let everyone know she'd inherited) and he'd murdered her within a year. He clearly wanted her for her money.

Q4. Why did Ellen marry Bury at the start of April 1888?
A. God knows! I'm no expert on these things, but it seems to me she was trapped in a highly coercive relationship - it happens quite a lot, even today. The stories about Bury being able to charm people may well be true, enabling him to keep Ellen under his control, to the extent that she agreed to marry him. Within a week of their wedding Bury was caught in the act of pinning Ellen down on a bed, a knife at her throat, threatening to kill her (7th April 1888).

Q5. Did Venereal Disease play a part in the 1888/9 events?
A. From what I've read, Bury was understandably distraught at having contracted VD in 1888 and (so I've read) passing it on to Ellen. I'm not sure about this sequence - it's said the Ellen slept with other men at Martin's house, so could she have had it first? Whatever the sequence of transmission, Bury either contracted VD from a prostitute or from Ellen. The fact is, they both had it. Anyway, given Bury's violent character and his alcoholism, his outrage at having been infected may well have manifested itself in violence towards a woman or women - possibly the one/s he held responsible for infecting him. We know Bury extracted money by being violent to Ellen. Did he also seek revenge for perceived injustices (VD) at the hands of prostitutes by being violent to prostitutes? It's not a great leap, is it?

Q6. Why move to Dundee? A highly suspicious act?
A. Ellen didn't want to go, so Bury invented an elaborate lie about them both having jobs waiting for them in Dundee. He even forged a letter to prove his lie. This persuaded her to accompany him. Only 12 months previously he'd come down from the Midlands to London, to make a life, now he's decided to migrate just about as far from London as possible (with relative ease and not too expensively), whilst still staying in the UK.
Bury lies about where he's going (Australia!) and he organises a couple (?) of large wooden trunks, one of which he asked to be nailed shut when it was still relatively empty.
Brace yourselves, I'm about to speculate here - I wonder if Bury became aware that Ellen suspected he was The Ripper and he needed to kill 2 birds with one stone - 1. Get far away from London. 2. Get Ellen to a place where he could kill her. (I'll come clean here - currently I don't believe that her murder was an unpremeditated, spur of the moment act).

Q7. The day of Ellen's murder (Monday). What 5 things did Bury do?

• He obtained (bought?) a length of rope from a local store.
• He spent a good deal of time in the Public Gallery of the local courthouse - and he seemed very interested in the proceedings.
• He got drunk (maybe Ellen did, too).
• He murdered Ellen, by firstly incapacitating her with a blow from a poker or a length of wood (a poker was found by the fire) then strangling her with the rope he'd bought that day. Conjecture - I don't believe it was a coincidence that he obtained the rope that day. He had one purpose for it.
• He immediately mutilated her stomach and groin region with his penknife, either while she was still alive or very shortly after death, in a most unusual way, very reminiscent of the actions of The Ripper.

Q8. Why did Bury strangulate his wife, whereas The Ripper cut his victims' throats?
If the murder was premeditated (there's evidence that it was), and Bury was Jack the Ripper, why didn't he cut Ellen's throat? Surely that's what The Ripper does, isn't it? This is a jolly good question, and I have an opinion, as follows - Bury has fled from London to distance himself from the Ripper Murders. He wants to evade capture. He needs to eliminate Ellen, but he doesn't want to use JtR's signature of slitting her throat - he wants to dispose of her body or claim she has committed suicide. In his confused mind, he doesn't know which. It's precisely BECAUSE the murder was premeditated that Ellen was strangled and her throat wasn't cut.
So, you say, if Bury didn't want the murder of Ellen to look like a Ripper crime, why did he mutilate her stomach and groin? I'd say, "Good question!". My only explanation is that in his murderous frenzy he reverted to his old ways, finished her off with stomach lacerations one of which was deep enough for her intestines to protrude, then in the next few days, living with a corpse, at some point he couldn't help himself revisiting the body with his knife. Let's not forget, Jack the Ripper was a cunning, but murderous madman.

Q 9. What did Bury do in the days between killing his wife and going to the police? Not in any order...
One thing Bury did was to partially clean Ellen's body (not her very dirty feet, though).
He then, at some point, caused further damage to her corpse with his penknife.
He also burned items in the fire.
He took valuable items, such as jewellery, for himself.
He squeezed Ellen into the wooden packing case he'd had made in London. Firstly he lined it (presumably to help soak up any fluids, then he crammed her into it, then he put stuff around and on top of the corpse, to secure and hide it.
Bury also cleaned up the murder mess. The floor had been recently washed when the police investigated.
He visited the local courthouse again, listening to cases in the Public Gallery.
Conjecture - I think he planned to dispose of Ellen's body in that crate, but it was too heavy for him to shift on his own and/or too tricky to organise with the help of others. I reckon he then turned to Plan B - the laughable 'suicide then I put her in a box' story he went and told to the police

Q10. Why did Bury murder his wife?
Conjecture coming up!... I think he knew that she suspected him of being The Ripper, so he lured her to his chosen bolt hole, Dundee, to kill her. He thought about it for a while, then matters came to a head on that murderous night. Maybe he thought she was about to go to the police? It probably coincided with her money running out, because that's what he was like.

Sorry if I’ve rambled too much and got stuff wrong – I’m trying to pin this bloke down in my head. At least I’ve got it off my chest. Feel free to correct me.

[chubbs]

Q.11 Why didn't Bury simply cut up his wife and dispose of the parts?
A. Maybe he had an inner compulsion that she should be found? Jack the Ripper certainly had this compulsion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Chubbs,

I don’t know if you’re aware of this site but it’s the repository for info on Bury. It’s an excellent site. My only qualm is that the site tends to speak from a position that Bury’s guilt as the ripper has been proven when it clearly hasn’t. He’s a very interesting and valid suspect though (unlike non-starters like Cross)

http://williambury.org/