Is Bury the best suspect we have?

[Abby Normal]

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.

hi fiver
in fairness, california in the 70s was the serial killer capital of the universe. of all time. while violence was high in victorian london murder was rare, and Serial Killers rare as hens teeth.

there were so many serial killers in california in the 70s, some even had the same nickname. lol

[C. F. Leon]

Is Bury the best suspect we have?

Dear God, by the Blessed Saint Abberline, I hope not...

[John Wheat]

im really surprised at all the negativity around Bury for the ripper. Especially the loser nobody reasons. I mean its practically a description from central casting. and fbi profile of a local avg joe. most serial killers end up being like that.

gein, dahmer, rader, suff, chikitilo, kemper, Brant etc etc.

kemper even unravelled at the end like bury, killing his mother and her friend and then turning himself in. So did brant, killing his wife and niece and then hanging himself.

Bury is exactly the type.

I totally agree with this Abby. Bury was an average Joe loser type.

[Herlock Sholmes]

im really surprised at all the negativity around Bury for the ripper. Especially the loser nobody reasons. I mean its practically a description from central casting. and fbi profile of a local avg joe. most serial killers end up being like that.

gein, dahmer, rader, suff, chikitilo, kemper, Brant etc etc.

kemper even unravelled at the end like bury, killing his mother and her friend and then turning himself in. So did brant, killing his wife and niece and then hanging himself.

Bury is exactly the type.

Me too Abby. It sounds like someone has read a book on Ted Bundy and has assumed that all serial killers are highly intelligent, good looking, well-dressed, sophisticates. I scent an ‘eliminate at all costs’ agenda going on which is difficult to understand as it gets us nowhere. Do we really need to keep repeating that we don’t know who this guy was?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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!

Hi Ms D.

I don’t know what research has been done on Murray but he was mentioned in a letter from the Governor of HMP Newcastle on October 5th 1888.

(It appears to have been sent in request for information about someone called Duncan or possibly Donkin who had confessed to the Whitechapel murders)

Sir, re Whitechapel Murders

I have today had my attention called by a man named Murray – a Solicitor’s Clerk of Newcastle – to a paragraph headed “A Strange Story”, which appeared in a local Newspaper on Tuesday last (vide copy enclosed) The person to whom the “Story” refers I have reason to believe is a man who was twice committed to this prison, particulars of whose previous convictions are enclosed, showing his description at that time. He was educated at college for the medical profession, but he turned out wild & lived more or less a dissolute life. His wife obtained a divorce from him and since then he is known to have frequented the low parts of London, being very impecunious. His manners
manners and address are those of a gentleman, and his anatomical knowledge is said to be considerable. It may be that the recent horrible murders committed in London are the work of the person to whom I refer, & were he found I could identify him as being the man who was twice in my custody. I give you these particulars as it appears to me that the man to whom I refer should be traced, and the same coming forcibly before me today I have felt it my duty to put you in possession of them for the information of the Home Office if you should think it well to place them before that department.

I have the honor to be, Sir, Your obedient Servant [FMTooley(?)]

Governor R.S. Mitford Esq Prison Commissioner Whitehall London S.W.

Murray was clearly a Newcastle man so I’m unsure how it’s known that he frequented the ‘low parts of London.’ It doesn’t state why he was incarcerated twice.

[Ms Diddles]

Hi Ms D.

I don’t know what research has been done on Murray but he was mentioned in a letter from the Governor of HMP Newcastle on October 5th 1888.

(It appears to have been sent in request for information about someone called Duncan or possibly Donkin who had confessed to the Whitechapel murders)

Sir, re Whitechapel Murders

I have today had my attention called by a man named Murray – a Solicitor’s Clerk of Newcastle – to a paragraph headed “A Strange Story”, which appeared in a local Newspaper on Tuesday last (vide copy enclosed) The person to whom the “Story” refers I have reason to believe is a man who was twice committed to this prison, particulars of whose previous convictions are enclosed, showing his description at that time. He was educated at college for the medical profession, but he turned out wild & lived more or less a dissolute life. His wife obtained a divorce from him and since then he is known to have frequented the low parts of London, being very impecunious. His manners
manners and address are those of a gentleman, and his anatomical knowledge is said to be considerable. It may be that the recent horrible murders committed in London are the work of the person to whom I refer, & were he found I could identify him as being the man who was twice in my custody. I give you these particulars as it appears to me that the man to whom I refer should be traced, and the same coming forcibly before me today I have felt it my duty to put you in possession of them for the information of the Home Office if you should think it well to place them before that department.

I have the honor to be, Sir, Your obedient Servant [FMTooley(?)]

Governor R.S. Mitford Esq Prison Commissioner Whitehall London S.W.

Murray was clearly a Newcastle man so I’m unsure how it’s known that he frequented the ‘low parts of London.’ It doesn’t state why he was incarcerated twice.

Thanks for this, Herlock!

I've not seen it before, so Murray is a new one on me!

[Abby Normal]

i thought "Murry" was barons nickname for an unknown killer ghost?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks for this, Herlock!

I've not seen it before, so Murray is a new one on me!

I could remember his name either. I don’t know if he’s been looked into though. I see no reason for believing that he killed anyone though.

[Lewis C]

There is an entry on this site from Christopher Morley's book about a man named Thomas Murray. I'm not sure, but I think it's a different Murray from the one mentioned in the last few posts. Here's the text of that page:

"Robert W. House, while conducting research at the London Metropolitan Archives in London, discovered an interesting individual named Thomas Murray. Murray had been admitted to an asylum, 8 June 1889. He was 30 years of age, single, with no occupation, though had previously been a bottler. His residence was given as 11 Burdett Street, Devons Road East. The cause of his insanity was given as sexual and alcoholic excesses, and he was described as dangerous to others. His sister, Ann Murray, stated that he was dangerous to live with, and repeatedly threw furniture around and threatened to kill her and their mother. He also threatened violence to children in the street, because he believed they were calling him Jack the Ripper. He also believed his neighbours called him Jack the Ripper. It was said of him, 'He remains very suspicious, and when alone says he hears voices'."

https://casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/cjmorley/137.html

[Lewis C]

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 like your named suspect list. All five are among my top nine named suspects. And I agree that The Ripper might be someone that we don't know about.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is an entry on this site from Christopher Morley's book about a man named Thomas Murray. I'm not sure, but I think it's a different Murray from the one mentioned in the last few posts. Here's the text of that page:

"Robert W. House, while conducting research at the London Metropolitan Archives in London, discovered an interesting individual named Thomas Murray. Murray had been admitted to an asylum, 8 June 1889. He was 30 years of age, single, with no occupation, though had previously been a bottler. His residence was given as 11 Burdett Street, Devons Road East. The cause of his insanity was given as sexual and alcoholic excesses, and he was described as dangerous to others. His sister, Ann Murray, stated that he was dangerous to live with, and repeatedly threw furniture around and threatened to kill her and their mother. He also threatened violence to children in the street, because he believed they were calling him Jack the Ripper. He also believed his neighbours called him Jack the Ripper. It was said of him, 'He remains very suspicious, and when alone says he hears voices'."

https://casebook.org/ripper_media/bo...orley/137.html

Hi Lewis,

I just checked Morley’s suspect book and there are actually three.

1. Thomas Murray - the one found by Rob House that you’ve already mentioned.
2. John Murray - a man found drunk and disorderly in Wolverhampton on October 11th 1888. He was just wandering around saying that he was Jack the Ripper.
3. John Murry - a 38 year old labourer from Soho Square who was charged, in October 1888 with intent to defraud the GNR by not buying a train ticket. And also with assaulting a ticket collector. Murry was drunk at the time and had claimed to be Jack the Ripper when the ticket collector confronted him. Murry claimed that he’d fallen asleep drunk and gone past his stop.

What seems a little strange is that in his excellent and exhaustive book Morley fails to mention the Murray that the governor of HMP Newcastle mentions as a possible suspect (even though there appears little to recommend him)


The one previously mentioned on this thread was Murry, a drunk on a train who told a ticket collector he was Jack. We have no evidence that he was ever in Whitechapel; we have no evidence that he was ever more violent than a physical altercation with a railway official; we can’t connect him in any way to Alice Mackenzie or indeed any of the victims or even prostitutes in general. And I see no description of what he looked like so it’s difficult to see how we can deduce his facial hair or lack of it.

He sounds about as good a suspect as Charles Cross. A non-starter. Well…as all they have is ‘Cross was there,’ perhaps we should add ‘Murry was undoubtedly alive at the time.’

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve just had it pointed out to me by Roger Palmer that Murry wasn’t actually the suspect he was the informant. A piece of careless reading on my part which was well spotted by Roger.

[Newbie]

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.

Again, a guy living in Bow doing all his murders in Whitechapel? Why? There are plenty of prostitutes on streets distant from one's own in Bow or nearby Bethnell Green. Especially when Whitechapel is mobilized against you and you are not familiar with the area.

The double event .... that was committed by someone who knew the streets intimately, not by someone from Bow who hitches up the old mule and cart and heads off. Anyone who doesn't know the streets intimately would have gotten lost .... particularly at night - I've been there. If Bury had hitched up old Bessie on that night to eventually make his get-away, he wouldn't have been able to find his way back to Berner street. Its too ridiculous to consider.

As far as anyone knows, he was employed at a business selling sawdust in Bow or he was unemployed. People pushing Bury have to get their act together and propose some connection between that business and establishments in Whitechapel - otherwise, Bury might as well lived on the moon. All these wonderful psychotic traits are useless if you cannot find that connection.

No connections and you end up doing your killings between 3 and 4 am in Whitechapel? If he's there in Whitechapel to drink and carouse, the bars are closed around midnight (12:30) due to the licensing act of 1872, and Bury liked to drink. Wait 3 - 4 hours to kill? The other option is getting up early in the morning heading out at 2:30 am, towards Whitechapel, to commit the murders. If he had no business in Whitechapel, that's an extremely disciplined killer.

BTW, where does he park the horse and cart during all this time? Seems like an unneeded headache - preferrable to just make the 45 minute walk instead of the 20 minute horse and cart ride.

The larger issue is whether the killer was up late at night or just getting up in the morning (& probably going to work). I'm generally convinced he's just getting up; the double event being of a person who had the following day off, and had the leisure to choose his time.

[Newbie]

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.

Well, your consistent in refusing to answer any and all questions directed your way. This time you propose a candidate and created a list to supposedly argue towards his superior validity, and then refuse to answer questions, giving your old they've been answered routine.

Suddenly he's not a candidate to be the ripper you say? Does this mean you are backing away from Bury?

And btw, Lechmere had childhood trauma: step dad was an alcoholic whose death certificate listed the symptoms of organ failure due to heavy drinking. Remember our little discussion on this last time I was here? Do you think its fun and laughter living with a step dad who drinks himself to death by the middle 30s?

I got this little tidbit from the American association for marriage and family therapy:

https://www.aamft.org/AAMFT/Consumer_Updates/Children_of_Alcoholics.aspx

Children of alcoholics may be exposed to chaos, uncertainty, instability, inconsistent discipline, emotional and physical neglect, arguments, instability of parents’ marriage, disorganization, violence and/or physical and sexual abuse, emptiness, loneliness, the terror of repeated abandonment, or the witnessing of violence or abuse to others. The family environment may be characterized by tension, fear, and shame--feelings that may become connected with the child’s sense of self. It is often difficult to determine whether a child’s problems are directly linked to parental alcoholism, separate, or a combination.

Did you notice the possibility of sexual abuse being a consequence of an alcoholic parent? And what exactly was Lechmere's 17 year old daughter doing living with grand ma? One possibility is that it is a family dealing with sexual molestation .... wouldn't you agree? This sort of nasty behavior is often passed down from old victim to new victim within families.

[Lombro2]

I have to agree with you, Newbie.

Other than "being English", Bury and the list are rubbish.