Is Bury the best suspect we have?

[The Baron]

In all likelihood McKenzie wasn't a Ripper victim.

Gotcha!!!!!

So let's get this straight: McKenzie might not be a Ripper victim, and that’s your silver bullet? That’s your glorious counter?

Alright, let's play this poor argument. Alice McKenzie isn't a "provable" Ripper victim. Cool. Guess who else isn't? Ellen Bury!

Not a single soul on Earth is calling her one of the canonical five. Not even in the Bury advocating circles.

So if lack of official Ripper status disqualifies McKenzie’s killer… then congratulations, you’ve just obliterated your own boy. Bury's out. Your logic did it. Not me. I’m just here to sweep the ashes.

So congratulations, you’ve just torpedoed your own suspect with the same logic you tried to fire at mine.

But here’s where it gets delicious:

Murry, McKenzie’s killer, still blows Bury off the map:

He murdered in Whitechapel, where the Ripper acted.
He killed a stranger, not a spouse.
He walked into the night, never caught, never seen again.

And now! He has the one thing Bury never will: credibility as a true Ripper candidate.


Bury? He killed his wife at home, freaked out, and turned himself in like a guilty schoolboy.

So when we strip away all the weak arguments, here’s what we’re left with:

Murry is an actual unknown predator, moving like a ghost in the same streets the Ripper haunted, unseen, uncaught, and unprovable, just like the real Ripper.

Bury is a known man who snapped once, got caught immediately, and has no link to any victim that matters.

Murry still breathes suspicion. Bury chokes on his own mediocrity.

He doesn’t deserve to stand near Murry. He barely deserves a mention.



The Baron

[John Wheat]

Gotcha!!!!!

So let's get this straight: McKenzie might not be a Ripper victim, and that’s your silver bullet? That’s your glorious counter?

Alright, let's play this poor argument. Alice McKenzie isn't a "provable" Ripper victim. Cool. Guess who else isn't? Ellen Bury!

Not a single soul on Earth is calling her one of the canonical five. Not even in the Bury advocating circles.

So if lack of official Ripper status disqualifies McKenzie’s killer… then congratulations, you’ve just obliterated your own boy. Bury's out. Your logic did it. Not me. I’m just here to sweep the ashes.

So congratulations, you’ve just torpedoed your own suspect with the same logic you tried to fire at mine.

But here’s where it gets delicious:

Murry, McKenzie’s killer, still blows Bury off the map:

He murdered in Whitechapel, where the Ripper acted.
He killed a stranger, not a spouse.
He walked into the night, never caught, never seen again.

And now! He has the one thing Bury never will: credibility as a true Ripper candidate.


Bury? He killed his wife at home, freaked out, and turned himself in like a guilty schoolboy.

So when we strip away all the weak arguments, here’s what we’re left with:

Murry is an actual unknown predator, moving like a ghost in the same streets the Ripper haunted, unseen, uncaught, and unprovable, just like the real Ripper.

Bury is a known man who snapped once, got caught immediately, and has no link to any victim that matters.

Murry still breathes suspicion. Bury chokes on his own mediocrity.

He doesn’t deserve to stand near Murry. He barely deserves a mention.



The Baron

So your using an unknown suspect to show Bury isn't the best suspect we have? Great logic there.

[Ms Diddles]

Gotcha!!!!!

So let's get this straight: McKenzie might not be a Ripper victim, and that’s your silver bullet? That’s your glorious counter?

Alright, let's play this poor argument. Alice McKenzie isn't a "provable" Ripper victim. Cool. Guess who else isn't? Ellen Bury!

Not a single soul on Earth is calling her one of the canonical five. Not even in the Bury advocating circles.

So if lack of official Ripper status disqualifies McKenzie’s killer… then congratulations, you’ve just obliterated your own boy. Bury's out. Your logic did it. Not me. I’m just here to sweep the ashes.

So congratulations, you’ve just torpedoed your own suspect with the same logic you tried to fire at mine.

But here’s where it gets delicious:

Murry, McKenzie’s killer, still blows Bury off the map:

He murdered in Whitechapel, where the Ripper acted.
He killed a stranger, not a spouse.
He walked into the night, never caught, never seen again.

And now! He has the one thing Bury never will: credibility as a true Ripper candidate.


Bury? He killed his wife at home, freaked out, and turned himself in like a guilty schoolboy.

So when we strip away all the weak arguments, here’s what we’re left with:

Murry is an actual unknown predator, moving like a ghost in the same streets the Ripper haunted, unseen, uncaught, and unprovable, just like the real Ripper.

Bury is a known man who snapped once, got caught immediately, and has no link to any victim that matters.

Murry still breathes suspicion. Bury chokes on his own mediocrity.

He doesn’t deserve to stand near Murry. He barely deserves a mention.



The Baron

Hi Baron,

I must say, I'm enjoying this new lyrical style of yours!

Is Murray your prime suspect these days then?

[The Baron]

Hi Baron,

I must say, I'm enjoying this new lyrical style of yours!

Is Murray your prime suspect these days then?

Ah, thank you truly. I do believe the Ripper case deserves a little flair. We’ve spent over a century trudging through the same theories with the same dry bones, it’s about time we let a little blood back into the storytelling.

Now, as for Murry, yes, he’s rising fast in my suspect hall of fame. Not because I know his name, his shoe size, or what pub he drank at. But because he did something no named suspect has ever done:
He acted like the Ripper.

He stepped into Whitechapel with no known connection to the victim.
He killed with controlled violence, no screaming, no chaos.
He left the skirt raised, the throat cut, twice, and the world guessing.

And then, like mist, he vanished.

No trial. No confession. No press frenzy.
Just silence.

Compare that to the suspects we keep dragging into the light, like tired actors begging for a final scene, the wives’ beater, the mentally ill scapegoats barrister, the famous names we can’t stop throwing at the wall, hoping they’ll finally stick. Most of them cracked the moment reality touched them. But Murry? Murry left no cracks. He left questions. Which is what Jack the Ripper was.

And yes, he's faceless. But maybe that’s the point. Maybe Jack was always meant to be seen only by his shadow.

And besides… just between us… Murry didn’t even have a beard. Which, as you might recall, keeps him in a rather exclusive club.

Cheers to that.


The Baron

[Ms Diddles]

Ah, thank you truly. I do believe the Ripper case deserves a little flair. We’ve spent over a century trudging through the same theories with the same dry bones, it’s about time we let a little blood back into the storytelling.

Now, as for Murry, yes, he’s rising fast in my suspect hall of fame. Not because I know his name, his shoe size, or what pub he drank at. But because he did something no named suspect has ever done:
He acted like the Ripper.

He stepped into Whitechapel with no known connection to the victim.
He killed with controlled violence, no screaming, no chaos.
He left the skirt raised, the throat cut, twice, and the world guessing.

And then, like mist, he vanished.

No trial. No confession. No press frenzy.
Just silence.

Compare that to the suspects we keep dragging into the light, like tired actors begging for a final scene, the wives’ beater, the mentally ill scapegoats barrister, the famous names we can’t stop throwing at the wall, hoping they’ll finally stick. Most of them cracked the moment reality touched them. But Murry? Murry left no cracks. He left questions. Which is what Jack the Ripper was.

And yes, he's faceless. But maybe that’s the point. Maybe Jack was always meant to be seen only by his shadow.

And besides… just between us… Murry didn’t even have a beard. Which, as you might recall, keeps him in a rather exclusive club.

Cheers to that.


The Baron

Intriguing stuff, Baron!

I'm not at all familiar with Murry as a suspect.

He's not ringing any bells with me at all (but then I do have a tendency to read stuff and then immediately forget what I've read)!

Do you have any pointers?

Am I to take it that you are rating him over Cross and Koz these days then?

And yes, I do indeed recall the elimination by beard hypothesis!

[John Wheat]

Ah, thank you truly. I do believe the Ripper case deserves a little flair. We’ve spent over a century trudging through the same theories with the same dry bones, it’s about time we let a little blood back into the storytelling.

Now, as for Murry, yes, he’s rising fast in my suspect hall of fame. Not because I know his name, his shoe size, or what pub he drank at. But because he did something no named suspect has ever done:
He acted like the Ripper.

He stepped into Whitechapel with no known connection to the victim.
He killed with controlled violence, no screaming, no chaos.
He left the skirt raised, the throat cut, twice, and the world guessing.

And then, like mist, he vanished.

No trial. No confession. No press frenzy.
Just silence.

Compare that to the suspects we keep dragging into the light, like tired actors begging for a final scene, the wives’ beater, the mentally ill scapegoats barrister, the famous names we can’t stop throwing at the wall, hoping they’ll finally stick. Most of them cracked the moment reality touched them. But Murry? Murry left no cracks. He left questions. Which is what Jack the Ripper was.

And yes, he's faceless. But maybe that’s the point. Maybe Jack was always meant to be seen only by his shadow.

And besides… just between us… Murry didn’t even have a beard. Which, as you might recall, keeps him in a rather exclusive club.

Cheers to that.


The Baron

This is rubbish.

[Newbie]

Bury v Cross



Early childhood trauma

Bury - Yes

Cross - No


Early criminal behaviour

Bury - Yes

Cross - No


Drink/drugs

Bury - Yes

Cross - No


Connection to prostitutes

Bury - Yes

Cross - No


Violence toward women

Bury - Yes

Cross - No


Knife user

Bury - Yes

Cross - No


Murderer

Bury - Yes

Cross - No


Mutilation

Bury - Yes

Cross - No


Reason for possible cessation of murders

Bury - Yes

Cross - No


Police interest

Bury - Yes

Cross - No



William Henry Bury is a genuine person of interest. Cross isn’t and never was. The ‘case’ against him has been manufactured by people with an agenda and continued by the gullible. He is a non-suspect with absolutely zero to commend him to our attention. His ‘supporters constantly go on about “well he was there” because that’s all that they have. ‘He was there’ like god knows how many others were ‘there’ when they found the victim of a serial killer and not one of them EVER turned out to have been the killer. Bury is in a different league. If he wasn’t the killer (and he might not have been) at least he was the type of person who might have been the killer. To dismiss him, after looking at the rest of the suspects, makes no sense at all.

Well, so much for the idea that JtR had intimate knowledge of Whitechapel streets, and could effectively navigate in the dark.

Okay, I'll bite.

Why was Bury so fetched with Whitechapel? Why was he always wandering into Whitechapel to commit the murders?
Bethnell Green was an equally lovely hell hole, was closer, and had plenty of prostitutes - Bow also offering these amenities.
The entire police force was mobilized against you in the Whitechapel area, and yet you insist on doing your killings there - good heavens, why?

What was he doing along Buck's row at 3:30 am, some 3 hours after the pubs had to close by law? Hanging out in the train station?
And why was he getting sauced up near Berner street Saturday night before stumbling out of some pub and killing Liz Stride .....
Bow had no pubs? Maybe the plan was to make the 45 minute walk from Bow, get smashed and then head on out for the killing spree.

The city of London was closer to the crime scenes and had plenty of violent, wife beating drunks with miserable childhoods to your heart's content. Sift through a list there and you're as likely to find the Ripper as with Bury.

If you can't answer these questions, imagining Bury as JtR is absurd.

[Newbie]

JtR, the first commuting serial killer. His real buzz was taking the Great Eastern Railway before the killings.

[John Wheat]

Well, so much for the idea that JtR had intimate knowledge of Whitechapel streets, and could effectively navigate in the dark.

Okay, I'll bite.

Why was Bury so fetched with Whitechapel? Why was he always wandering into Whitechapel to commit the murders?
Bethnell Green was an equally lovely hell hole, was closer, and had plenty of prostitutes - Bow also offering these amenities.
The entire police force was mobilized against you in the Whitechapel area, and yet you insist on doing your killings there - good heavens, why?

What was he doing along Buck's row at 3:30 am, some 3 hours after the pubs had to close by law? Hanging out in the train station?
And why was he getting sauced up near Berner street Saturday night before stumbling out of some pub and killing Liz Stride .....
Bow had no pubs? Maybe the plan was to make the 45 minute walk from Bow, get smashed and then head on out for the killing spree.

The city of London was closer to the crime scenes and had plenty of violent, wife beating drunks with miserable childhoods to your heart's content. Sift through a list there and you're as likely to find the Ripper as with Bury.

If you can't answer these questions, imagining Bury as JtR is absurd.

I think you'll find some serial killers kill slightly away from there home rather than for instance the street they live in. It's important to note Bury owned a horse and cart so getting to Whitechapel would have been easy.

[Fiver]

It amazes me when people propose that there were loads of serial killers running about a small area of London at the time. This is highly unlikely.

The Torsoman and the Ripper had distinct enough signatures that I believe they were separate killers. Santa Clara, California of the 1970s had a population of less than 1/50th the population of Victorian London, yet it had serial killers Edmund Kemper, Herbert Mullin, and John Frazier.

[John Wheat]

The Torsoman and the Ripper had distinct enough signatures that I believe they were separate killers. Santa Clara, California of the 1970s had a population of less than 1/50th the population of Victorian London, yet it had serial killers Edmund Kemper, Herbert Mullin, and John Frazier.

But did they all use strangulation? The Post I was originally responding too suggested that Bury might have killed Rose Mylett but was not the Ripper. Mylett was killed by strangulation which of course the Ripper used.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, so much for the idea that JtR had intimate knowledge of Whitechapel streets, and could effectively navigate in the dark.

I never said that he did. Some do though. I see no mystery in any of the rippers escapes at all. He just left the scene. Luck might have come into it to some extent.

Okay, I'll bite.

Why was Bury so fetched with Whitechapel? Why was he always wandering into Whitechapel to commit the murders?
Bethnell Green was an equally lovely hell hole, was closer, and had plenty of prostitutes - Bow also offering these amenities.
The entire police force was mobilized against you in the Whitechapel area, and yet you insist on doing your killings there - good heavens, why?

The entire police force was mobilised against whoever Jack the Ripper was and yet he continued to kill in that area. It’s no less likely for Bury to have operated in that area than any other suspect.

What was he doing along Buck's row at 3:30 am, some 3 hours after the pubs had to close by law? Hanging out in the train station?

Who knows?But someone was in Bucks Row 3 hours after the pubs had closed. It’s no less likely to have been Bury than anyone else.

And why was he getting sauced up near Berner street Saturday night before stumbling out of some pub and killing Liz Stride .....

We don’t know that he did.

Bow had no pubs? Maybe the plan was to make the 45 minute walk from Bow, get smashed and then head on out for the killing spree.

Did Peter Sutcliffe kill on his doorstep? Did Ted Bundy stick to a small area? How can we presume to know what a serial killer was thinking at the time. Surely you can’t be suggesting that no one living outside of that small killing zone could have been the killer? Killing in a confined area where you live increases the likelihood of the killer not just being seen but seen and recognised.

The city of London was closer to the crime scenes and had plenty of violent, wife beating drunks with miserable childhoods to your heart's content. Sift through a list there and you're as likely to find the Ripper as with Bury.

True enough.

If you can't answer these questions, imagining Bury as JtR is absurd.

I have answered them. I’ve also never said that Bury was the ripper but calling him ‘absurd’ just because he didn’t live in that confined area is…absurd.

[Mike J. G.]

Bury is up there for me, but I'm also not entirely convinced that our man is on that list that we have been lumbered with.
Bury, Chapman, Kelly, Kosminski, Levy, for me.

I'm more of the opinion these days that "Jack" was seriously into his necrophilia-type fetishes, along the lines of Gein and Dahmer, with a little Peter Kurten thrown in.

Something triggered this lust for the killer, and helped him realise where his passions were, like roadkill for a young Dahmer and pig butchering for a young Gein.

Jack was probably also a guy like Francois Bertrand, and that other French necrophiliac whose name escapes me, that "played" around with a corpse, a very Mary Kelly looking corpse at that!

I'd be interested to know whether there's anything in Bury's past that can shed light on anything along those lines... Being around a knackering shop, a mortuary, a cemetery, etc...

Obviously it won't happen, but it'd be fascinating to find.

The suspect list, IMHO, isn't great. The trouble is that "the Ripper" was so utterly alien to the press and the police as well as the public, I honestly feel he went completely under the radar. I feel he was questioned, but that was about it. I don't put much stock into the C5, or the Ripper letters.

I hope I'm making sense, I've had a few...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Bury is up there for me, but I'm also not entirely convinced that our man is on that list that we have been lumbered with.
Bury, Chapman, Kelly, Kosminski, Levy, for me.

I'm more of the opinion these days that "Jack" was seriously into his necrophilia-type fetishes, along the lines of Gein and Dahmer, with a little Peter Kurten thrown in.

Something triggered this lust for the killer, and helped him realise where his passions were, like roadkill for a young Dahmer and pig butchering for a young Gein.

Jack was probably also a guy like Francois Bertrand, and that other French necrophiliac whose name escapes me, that "played" around with a corpse, a very Mary Kelly looking corpse at that!

I'd be interested to know whether there's anything in Bury's past that can shed light on anything along those lines... Being around a knackering shop, a mortuary, a cemetery, etc...

Obviously it won't happen, but it'd be fascinating to find.

The suspect list, IMHO, isn't great. The trouble is that "the Ripper" was so utterly alien to the press and the police as well as the public, I honestly feel he went completely under the radar. I feel he was questioned, but that was about it. I don't put much stock into the C5, or the Ripper letters.

I hope I'm making sense, I've had a few...

Making perfect sense Mike. I’m no Bury expert but I’m fairly sure that we don’t have any record of him having any connection to Knackering, Butchery, mortuary or cemetery work although it’s perhaps not impossible that he might have done something in those lines on a casual basis as he lived a fairly unsettled life I think.

As you suggest at the start of your post there’s every chance imo that he’s yet to be named. I have a fairly short list of 4, with another small group of ‘less likely but possible imo.’ There’s just no way to narrow it down and one problem is that there only a very few that we can definitely dismiss due to them having an alibi. An example is Cross. I’m convinced that he wasn’t the killer but we can’t dismiss him with an alibi.