Medical evidence Ellen Bury murder

[The Baron]

How comfortable.

You say that the abdominal flaps will have been cut to allow for the uterus to be taken out.

And when you are told that the flaps included the genitals andthat the killer did not simply cut the abdominal wall over the uterus away (which would have sufficed for the job you suggest), but that he actually cut through the vagina in the middle and around it, carving it out from the body and going so far back as to remove part of the buttock, you "donīt see any specific sexually-driven mutilation".

If I wanted to show the boards how badly informed you are and just how far you are willing to go to hide away important facts that you dislike, I couldnīt have shaped a better post than you did right now.

Thank you - you did all the hard work for me!

You're welcome.


The Baron

[Fisherman]

Jackson's body was cut to pieces.

I dont see any specific sexually-driven mutilation.

She was cut to pieces. I will not draw any conclusion depend on pieces here and there.


The Baron

How comfortable.

You say that the abdominal flaps will have been cut to allow for the uterus to be taken out.

And when you are told that the flaps included the genitals andthat the killer did not simply cut the abdominal wall over the uterus away (which would have sufficed for the job you suggest), but that he actually cut through the vagina in the middle and around it, carving it out from the body and going so far back as to remove part of the buttock, you "donīt see any specific sexually-driven mutilation".

If I wanted to show the boards how badly informed you are and just how far you are willing to go to hide away important facts that you dislike, I couldnīt have shaped a better post than you did right now.

Thank you - you did all the hard work for me!

[The Baron]

Jackson's body was cut to pieces.

I dont see any specific sexually-driven mutilation.

She was cut to pieces. I will not draw any conclusion depend on pieces here and there.


The Baron

[Fisherman]

Read this Harry:


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 ― 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.



This man was sexualy insane and a proven sexual mutilator.

Do you realy believe this man had done this sexual mutilation for the first time?

Does any Torso murder have this specific sexual mutilation?



The Baron

No two murders are exact copies of each other. If we were to request that, we need to believe in a different killer for every victim.

The flaps cut from Jacksons abdomen were not only about the abdominal wall. They are described like this by Hebbert:

"The flaps of skin and subcutaneous tissue consisted of two long, irregular slips taken from the abdominal walls. The left piece included the umbilicus, the greater part of the mons Veneris, the left labium magus and labium minus. The right piece included the rest of the mons Veneris, the right labium magus and minus, and part of the skin of the right buttock."

If anything, this brings the damage done to Kelly to mind.

You ask whether any of the Torso victims had something comparable in way of damage. Thereīs your answer. And letīs keep in mind that if you donīt think it is close enough, then neither were any of the Ripper deeds. ALL murders are individual, and it is only when we identify rare similarities that we can say with some certainty that we are dealing with a common killer.

Like the cuts from sternum to groin in the Ripper and Torso murders.

Like the taking away of uteri in the Ripper and Torso murders.

Like the cutting away of the abdominal wall in the Ripper and Torso murders.

Those kinds of things are much more telling than "superficial cuts running down to the pubis".

Ellen Bury seems to have had her vagina cut open to some extent, and THAT has a parallel - this happened to the Pinchin Street victim too.

Maybe it was Bury who did it ...? In September of -89?

[The Baron]

Problem is there were no definitive Ripper murders after Bury left Whitechapel to exonerate him. I think on the balance of evidence, Alice McKenzie probably WAS the same work as the serialist who struck before, which would clearly rule out Bury, as he was already dead. However, it's by no means a sure thing. And that's without opening the can of worms with the 'Torsoripper'.

Bury did live in the East End during the Autumn of Terror, Bury did leave London suddenly after MJK's murder, Bury did commit a post-mortem mutilation murder, Bury did have Ripper-themed graffiti found at his lodgings. Does that make him the Ripper? Absolutely not, but until someone can find a named suspect who ticks those boxes, he's the best of the bunch imo.

Read this Harry:


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 ― 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.



This man was sexualy insane and a proven sexual mutilator.

Do you realy believe this man had done this sexual mutilation for the first time?

Does any Torso murder have this specific sexual mutilation?



The Baron

[Harry D]

Problem is there were no definitive Ripper murders after Bury left Whitechapel to exonerate him. I think on the balance of evidence, Alice McKenzie probably WAS the same work as the serialist who struck before, which would clearly rule out Bury, as he was already dead. However, it's by no means a sure thing. And that's without opening the can of worms with the 'Torsoripper'.

Bury did live in the East End during the Autumn of Terror, Bury did leave London suddenly after MJK's murder, Bury did commit a post-mortem mutilation murder, Bury did have Ripper-themed graffiti found at his lodgings. Does that make him the Ripper? Absolutely not, but until someone can find a named suspect who ticks those boxes, he's the best of the bunch imo.

[Fisherman]

When looking at the web page, it says "Not safe" on my computer. So it has been seen through on the cyber level too, it seems.

[Fisherman]

Yikes. That text (http://williambury.org/blog6/2019/07...n-ripperology/) is not something that I would recommend. If it IS your work, I think the time has come for me to leave this debate. I want some sort of leeway in terms of flexibility of the mind on behalf of people I debate with, and quite frankly, I donīt see it. Or anything related to it.

Letīs call it a day, shall we?

[Fisherman]

"We now know that James Maybrick, Walter Sickert, David Cohen, Jacob Levy, James Kelly and George Hutchinson were not Jack the Ripper, either."

We? Who are we? Patricia Cornwell? Martin Fido? Tracy Iīanson? Or somebody else?

[Fisherman]

Here we go:

"the leading minds in the field have all failed to produce a credible or effective criticism of the Bury ID"

I hasten to say that I donīt consider myself the leading mind in any field, but surely the pointing out that the Bury murder was a domestic in the home of Ellen Bury, not involving any cut throat or any evisceration, and not resulting in a body displayed in a public place but instead in a trunk at home, must surely be both credible and effective? No?

[Fisherman]

Just found this piece on the net, Is it yours, Wyatt?


"It’s been nearly five years now since the first publication of the Bury ID and the ID has stood the test of time within the highly partisan world of Ripperology. There is detailed signature evidence linking William Bury to five of the Jack the Ripper murders. The specific combination of signature characteristics seen in the Ellen Bury murder and these five murders is so rare that it appears not to have been seen elsewhere within the entire pool of murders committed in Victorian Britain. Dr. Stuart Hamilton, a well-regarded forensic pathologist in the UK who has provided expert testimony at trials, concurs that there is signature evidence linking Bury to the Whitechapel murders (1). Copycat and other explanations of the Ellen Bury murder can be reasonably excluded, and there are supporting pieces of circumstantial evidence, such as the posthomicide burning of the victim’s clothes in the fireplace at both the Ellen Bury and Mary Jane Kelly crime scenes, that serve to confirm that Bury was indeed the Whitechapel murderer. Two distinguished lawyers in the U.K., Mark Stewart, QC, and Len Murray, a former solicitor to the Supreme Courts of Scotland, have come forward to affirm that an identification has finally been made in the Jack the Ripper case and that Bury can now be named as the Ripper. Stewart describes the case against Bury as a “classic circumstantial case which like a cable is strengthened with the addition of each individual strand as they are woven together” and Murray, a former defense lawyer, confirms that it has been proven “not just beyond reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt” that Bury was the Ripper (2). The remarks by Stewart and Murray suggest that we not only have enough evidence now to bring Bury to trial for the Ripper murders, but enough evidence to convict him."

Len Murray tells us that Bury has been proven "not only beyond reasonable doubt but BEYOND all doubt" to be the Ripper. And some way further up, we have the clincher:

",,,there are supporting pieces of circumstantial evidence, such as the posthomicide burning of the victim’s clothes in the fireplace at both the Ellen Bury and Mary Jane Kelly crime scenes, that serve to confirm that Bury was indeed the Whitechapel murderer."

I must say that I failed to reaslize the full potential of the clothes-burning. It never hit me that it was clear and unequivocal evidence of guilt on Burys behalf. One lives and one learns.

It will be interesting to read the rest, I can say that much. Here goes!

[Fisherman]

Fisherman, I'm glad to see that you've conceded that the torsos cannot be linked to Jack the Ripper's signature. For me, this closes our discussion about the torsos.

That may be a tad rash, considering that I donīt know what signature you are talking about this time. So many people have had so many ideas abvout what signature the Ripper had or hadnīt that it makes my head spin. So if youīd oblige, please? Which signature are we talking about this time?
On the whole, whether the torsos can be linked to whatever signature you coe up with or not is of no intetrest to me, since the evidence tells us that it was the same man nevertheless.

You claimed that experts had ruled Bury out, and when I challenged you on that, you couldn't name any names. In other words, you were shooting blanks.

You challenged me? I cannot remember that. Then again, I ainīt Bat Masterson or Doc Holliday, so I may not notice when it happens. There are very many experts who rule Bury out, like for example Gareth Williams and Edward Stow, working from the top of my head. Just look at the thread and you will learn a few more. it is not as if Bury is a universally accepted Ripper, you know. Very far from it.

I haven't argued that William Bury was Jack the Ripper because he was spending leisure time in Whitechapel.

No, you have only mentioned it in your listing of what makes him a suspect in your eyes.

The things that I mentioned are all simply supporting pieces of circumstantial evidence.

Nope. They are no such thing at all until we interpret them that way. Having a thimble or two rings is not circumstantial evicence of being a sexuaol serial killer, for example. The points yu made in that list are quite frankly lame.

They can be questioned individually and in isolation, but in accumulation they are painting a picture for us.

You mean that a man who may have been in Whitechapel and who had two rings and who hit his wife and who burned items of clothes and who lived where there was graffito on the walls naming the Ripper - THAT paints a picture of a sexual serial killer? Sorry, I donīt buy it for a minute. What I want is HARD evidence, like large flaps of abdominal walls taken from victims, removed organs, cuts from pubes to ribs - such things. Real reasons to make a link. Matters that are inconceivable as being coincidentally replicated by two serial killers in the same time and town.

The centerpiece of the case against Bury is the signature evidence placing him at five of the East End crime scenes. This is the type of evidence that could be used against Bury in a trial and it is the type of evidence that would help to secure his conviction.

What? There is "signature evidence" placing him at five of the scenes?? Thatīs sensational!! Unless it is along the lines "he cut his wifes belly and that means that whenever we find a woman with a cut belly, we can place Bury on the spot".
Surely, itīs not that kind of thing, is it?

In fact, you cannot place Bury at a single one of the murder spots. But I can place Lechmere on one of them, physically, factually, evidence-based, proven. And I can say that if Lechmere used the two logical routes on offer to get to Broad Street, then Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly all died along those routes. Then I can add that there were THOUSANDS of streets in the East End of London and I can say that the odds for Lechmeres logical routes to work coinciding exactly with these four murder spots are astronomical. And they only rise when we note that the only two murder spots that were NOT along his logical working routes are the only two murders when the victims were NOT killed at the time he walked to work.
Compared to that, Bury is not thin air. He is the absence of air.

You seem like an intelligent man. Why not trade up from a prima facie case to a case that, according to a QC and to a former solicitor for the Supreme Courts of Scotland, is actually winnable? ;-)

Iīve already got that qualification up my sleeve, Iīm afraid. But for the Scottish angle, which I am willing to abstain from. And Iīm not the kind of guy who trades a Rolls Royce for an Trabant. Like you say, Iīm an intelligent man.

PS. Do tell about that "signature"!

[Wyatt Earp]

Fisherman, I'm glad to see that you've conceded that the torsos cannot be linked to Jack the Ripper's signature. For me, this closes our discussion about the torsos.

You claimed that experts had ruled Bury out, and when I challenged you on that, you couldn't name any names. In other words, you were shooting blanks.

I haven't argued that William Bury was Jack the Ripper because he was spending leisure time in Whitechapel. The things that I mentioned are all simply supporting pieces of circumstantial evidence. They can be questioned individually and in isolation, but in accumulation they are painting a picture for us.

The centerpiece of the case against Bury is the signature evidence placing him at five of the East End crime scenes. This is the type of evidence that could be used against Bury in a trial and it is the type of evidence that would help to secure his conviction.

You seem like an intelligent man. Why not trade up from a prima facie case to a case that, according to a QC and to a former solicitor for the Supreme Courts of Scotland, is actually winnable? ;-)

[Fisherman]

Fisherman, you're still not grasping that the Ripper was a signature killer and the evidence simply isn't there to link the torsos to his signature. Talking about Chapman and Jackson doesn't address or override the issues that I raised.

It is not about grasping, my fiery friend - it is about not accepting the bid of the four riders of the Acopalypse you mentioned. And it is about being certin tyhat tehe is evidence to link the torsos to the Ripper without speaking about signatures.

The issues you raised? Letīs have a recap, shall we?

What else do we know? Bury, even though he lived in Bromley-by-Bow, was spending leisure time in Whitechapel...

Not exactly binding evidence, is it?

... having twice been spotted drunk there by James Martin, on one occasion inside and on one occasion outside a pub.

Perhaps not the most damning of evidence.

For some guys, booze and hookers go together like peanut butter and jelly, and what do you know, William Bury had a recent case of venereal disease on his record, too.

Are we being real here? "Venereal disease"? Is that the signature you speak of?

If a guy like Bury was getting drunk in Whitechapel, it shouldn’t be hard to imagine him being involved with hookers in Whitechapel, too.

When are we going to be presented with anything juicy? Never?

Bury had struck his wife Ellen in the face on a street in broad daylight, and so brazenly assaulting a woman in a public place was something that Bury was known to do.

Come on!

It's also worth noting that Bury aligns well with the eyewitness descriptions in the case.

Eh ... we can bank on thousands of guys doing that. There is nothing at all special in Burys case that points to him, descriptionwise.

Two finger rings and a thimble of “very inferior metal” were found in a trunk in Bury's residence, and what do you know, Chapman had a couple of finger rings taken from her, and apparently a thimble, too, as none was found with her body and she would have been expected to own one, given the nature of some of her work.

THERE we have it! THAT must be the clincher, the nail in the coffin! One small problem may be that I have heard the exact same about Tumblety, who supposedly left two cheap brass rings as he died. Makes one wonder just how common they were.
And should we really accept that Chapman MUST have been the owner of that thimble...?

There’s this thing called the Goulston Street Graffito, which many believe was written by the killer, and by golly, there are chalked messages behind Bury’s residence that he apparently wrote, one of which in particular has the same markedly vertical structure as the GSG in Warren’s transcription.

Oh dear. The GSG is not in any shape or form proven to have been the killers work in the fiorst place. And the only leaning I can see is one of trying to make the evidence look like something it is not.

William Bury could have put Ellen Bury's body into the trunk in any one of a number of different ways. So what do we find? Victim on back, legs positioned in a degrading way, and head turned to one side, just as occurred in the two most recent of the canonical murders, Eddowes and Kelly. Amazing, isn’t it?

No, it is not. Ellen Bury was not positiioned the way Eddowes and Kelly were. She was crammed into a trunk in her own home. She was not killed out in the open streets. Whether she ended up on one side or the other in the trunk is of zero interest in that context.

And following the Ellen Bury murder, this William Bury guy burned some of his victim’s clothing in the fireplace, just as occurred in the Mary Jane Kelly murder. How about that?

Yes, how about that? Well, I am not impressed. How about that? How many people do you think burn clothes for whatever reason every year in a town like London?

Letīs move forward and talk about REAL indications now, along the same line:

1. How many eviscerating serial killers do you think surfaced in a town like London during the late 1880:s?

2. How many serial killers do you think cut the bellies of their victims open from sternum to groin in a town like London during the late 1880:s?

3. How many serial killers do you think cut away the abdominal walls from their victims in large flaps in a town like London during the late 1880:s?

Compared to THESE parameters, forgive me for saying that your points look like peanuts beside watermelons. LARGE watermelons, not the mini ones.

Surely - SURELY! - you can see that too? Or are you going to say that there may have been other reasons for "my" similarities than a common killer? If so, how could there NOT have been other reasons for Bury having a thimble in his position...? And frankly, given the character of the similarities I bring to the table, no, there can reasonably only be one explanation - a common killer.

The size of the evidence is collosal in my case, whereas in your case, it fits into a corner of that thimble.

How anybody could not see that is a much trickier riddle than solving the Ripper case in itself.


The only expert I'm aware of who has commented on the signature evidence is Dr. Stuart Hamilton, and he agrees that it links William Bury to the Jack the Ripper murders.

And all the world agrees? I have not seen that particular analysis, and I donīn have to. It is wrong.

I'm not concerned about the people who have been making snarky remarks about suspectologists. We ordinarily review cold cases toward the end of identifying the culprit. Suspectologists are those Ripperologists who have their eyes on the ball. The full-time fence-sitters were never going to deliver the goods in this case...and they didn't.

That is true, and it enables me to leave this debate on a kinder note than the rest of our exchange by agreeing about it. I wish you the best of luck with your Bury research, but I would not invest too much in it if I were you.

Then again, I am not.

[Wyatt Earp]

With the exception of Mackenzie and her excluding from the serie, I hate to say it, but you have a good case there.

Could you elaborate why Mackenzie was not considered a ripper victim and Tabram was ?!

Main problems with McKenzie from a signature standpoint:

1. No overkill

(Ellen Bury: by far the most experienced medical man who examined her body was Dr. Littlejohn and he did not believe that she would have survived her mutilations, so on that basis one could argue that overkill was indeed present in her murder.)

2. Inexplicable deescalation in mutilations

McKenzie's mutilations were shallow and her murderer did not open her abdomen. There is no evident situational explanation for why the Ripper should have changed the arc of his mutilations so significantly after what he had done to Kelly.

(Ellen Bury: there was also significant deescalation in her murder, but unlike with McKenzie, there is an obvious situational explanation for why the Ripper should have changed the arc of his mutilations so significantly with her. It's also worth noting that William Bury did indeed open Ellen Bury's abdomen.)

3. No incapacitation

Keppel et al described Jack the Ripper's "need to immediately incapacitate, subdue and silence all six victims before committing additional degrading brutality against their bodies."

Dr. Phillips, who examined McKenzie's body: there was "no physiological reason why the woman should not have uttered a cry."

(Ellen Bury: William Bury incapacitated Ellen Bury with a blow to the head prior to murdering her.)

4. No degrading positioning of the victim's legs

Arnold reported that McKenzie's body was found lying on its side.

(Ellen Bury: her legs were placed in a degrading position inside the trunk).