Does anything rule Bury out?

[Errata]

To DRoy

Exactly what evidence strongly and reasonably suggests we should rule Bury out?

Cheers John

I would say "You mean other than the fact that in no way did he kill like the Ripper, mutilate like the Ripper, react like the Ripper, or behave like the Ripper?"

Except that the only thing you are going to reply with is some version of "But you can't rule him out so nyaaaah"

Which I did, and it seems disrespectful for you to insist that I can't do something I did a few years ago, but I'm a woman. I'm used to that. I'm also used to being told I can't possibly understand science or drive a car. Despite my ability to both rather respectably. I will attempt to soldier on. Another thing I spent most of my life being told I couldn't do.

[John Wheat]

I would say "You mean other than the fact that in no way did he kill like the Ripper, mutilate like the Ripper, react like the Ripper, or behave like the Ripper?"

To Errata

I think that's all debatable. Strangulation followed by abdominal mutilation sounds like the Ripper to me. As for reacting and behaving like the Ripper. Bury's reaction to murdering a spouse was always going to be different to murdering a prostitute. I don't by the he could just go somewhere else argument. In my opinion Bury feared a national manhunt. He seemed to think going to the police with a **** and bull story was his best chance of avoiding the hangman.

Cheers John

[Errata]

To Errata

I think that's all debatable. Strangulation followed by abdominal mutilation sounds like the Ripper to me. As for reacting and behaving like the Ripper. Bury's reaction to murdering a spouse was always going to be different to murdering a prostitute. I don't by the he could just go somewhere else argument. In my opinion Bury feared a national manhunt. He seemed to think going to the police with a **** and bull story was his best chance of avoiding the hangman.

Cheers John

Except that we don't know that the Ripper strangled anyone, though I admit I'm hard pressed to explain some things. And there's certainly no evidence he used a cord.

And the abdominal mutilations were different. Several vertical lines. The Ripper made a long midline incision.

And I'm not sure what there is to fear about a nationwide manhunt. There already was one for the Ripper. One of the best ways to eliminate the possibility of a manhunt would be to not get caught. I can think of five different ways to stage that scene and disappear that would make people think he was a victim as well. Never mind the fact that he could have gotten her out one piece at a time.

If he was really afraid of man hunt, he wouldn't have gone to the cops without exhausting every option. And he didn't. Not even close.

I mean, regardless that this was his wife and not a random woman, he still didn't want to hang.

And here's what really bugs me. He was studying the court process. Like he always knew he was going to come forward, he just wanted to see what his best chance was. The Ripper disappears. That's what he does. It worked for him. In no way does that translate into researching a defense and turning himself in.

Bury was a bizarre guy. He didn't try everything to get away with this murder. He came in with a super lame defense thinking that would save him. And he cannot offer any explanations, nor did he run. And running might have sparked a manhunt, but as long as he was free he wasn't dangling from a noose. And absolutely nothing explains why the possibility of hanging is better than life on the run. If he was the Ripper, he'd been on the run for a long time already. Why would more of it be so terrible that he would rather chance death?

Bury is a killer. And he's a grade A weirdo. But the Ripper? I mean, if I handed you five other men who had also mutilated their wives in some way but n no other way acted like the Ripper, would Bury seem so attractive a suspect?

[John Wheat]

Except that we don't know that the Ripper strangled anyone, though I admit I'm hard pressed to explain some things. And there's certainly no evidence he used a cord...

If he was really afraid of man hunt, he wouldn't have gone to the cops without exhausting every option. And he didn't. Not even close...

Bury is a killer. And he's a grade A weirdo. But the Ripper? I mean, if I handed you five other men who had also mutilated their wives in some way but n no other way acted like the Ripper, would Bury seem so attractive a suspect?

To Errata

There is strong evidence the Ripper strangled victims and some evidence that a ligature was used in at least one of the C5. We don't know wether Bury tried to get rid of the body or not. I suggest maybe he found lifting the body in the box too heavy. Yes Bury is a killer and a grade A weirdo I would expect the Ripper to be a grade A weirdo. How many men do murder there wives and then mutilate there abdomen? And how many of these did so in the late 1800's?

Cheers John

[Errata]

To Errata

There is strong evidence the Ripper strangled victims and some evidence that a ligature was used in at least one of the C5. We don't know wether Bury tried to get rid of the body or not. I suggest maybe he found lifting the body in the box too heavy. Yes Bury is a killer and a grade A weirdo I would expect the Ripper to be a grade A weirdo. How many men do murder there wives and then mutilate there abdomen? And how many of these did so in the late 1800's?

Cheers John

I would bet big money that there were at least 5 abdominal mutilations in England from 1885 to 1895 that didn't have to do with the Ripper.

It's weird, but it's only statistically uncommon.

Of course how I prove this claim is beyond me at the moment since I'm loaded with cold medicine. When the room stops growing I'll see if I can bend what little gray cells I have left to the project.

[John Wheat]

I would bet big money that there were at least 5 abdominal mutilations in England from 1885 to 1895 that didn't have to do with the Ripper.

To Errata

I expect that abdominal mutilations in England from 1885 to 1895 weren't actually very common at all. Five abdominal mutilations in England between 1885 to 1895 really isn't a lot and I doubt there were even five. I also expect that violent murder in London in the late 19th century isn't anything like as common as some make out.

Cheers John

[Wyatt Earp]

Thanks for that everybody. I have only come across Bury a few times so its good to learn a little more.

Batman, you seem to have a good grasp of the MO and signature analysis stuff, so I’m surprised you’re not on board with Bury yet. Have you read my article in Ripperologist? Bury’s signature, as displayed in the murder of his wife, is a close match with JTR’s signature—and Bury wasn’t a copycat. There’s a table at the end of my article which point by point shows how Bury’s signature is virtually identical with the signature of Tabram’s murderer. You seem to be flitting back and forth between Blotchy, Chapman and a medical student in preference to Bury, and I’m not sure why.

There’s no solid basis for privileging Blotchy as a suspect when there is so much uncertainty about Kelly’s time of death. It wasn’t only Maxwell who claimed to have seen Kelly in the morning, there is newspaper evidence that a number of other people saw her in the morning as well (I think David Orsam not too long ago transcribed an article that included this information). You accept a single killer, however none of the other witnesses describe a man with an orange or carroty moustache. Lawende described a man whose moustache was “fair” and “inclining to be sandy.” That doesn’t mean that the man he saw had fair hair on the top of his head, that only means that his facial hair was fair and inclining to be sandy. Bury had dark brown hair but his facial hair was described as being “light sandy coloured.” The moustache that Lawende observed is a match with Bury, not with Blotchy.

Chapman’s signature doesn’t match the Ripper’s signature—at all. Before you go too far down the road with Chapman, I'd encourage you to read Helena's excellent book about him.

According to the poster Prosector, who claims to be a surgeon, basically any man in London could have attended a human dissection. It’s not hard to see how Bury could have been attracted to that, given what he did to his wife’s body. If any man in London could have attended a human dissection, then you’ll never rule any suspect out, including Bury, on the basis of “medical knowledge” or “medical skill” or however you want to put it, nor would there then be a solid basis for privileging a medical student as the Ripper. Even if Bury never attended a human dissection, I think you’re overestimating how difficult it would have been for him to accomplish what is seen in the murders. There’s evidence that Bury had been a butcher and was skilled with his knife. If he had gotten it into his head that he was going to remove organs at his next murder, presumably he would have consulted some medical text or book about human anatomy in advance to figure out where he needed to go, what he needed to do, and how he needed to do it—which could give the illusion that the extractions were performed by a person with a medical background.

If you’re hip to the signature analysis stuff, I think you should be taking a closer look at Bury.

[John G]

Hello,

After reading Euan Macpherson's book some time ago, I considered William Bury to be the strongest candidate for JtR, although I now lean towards Francis Thompson, following Richard Patterson's convincing arguments on the other thread.

Regarding Bury, the first problem is that he may have returned to Wolverhampton, for up to a fortnight, until the 11th August, when he and his wife took lodgings in Spanby Road ; this is based on the evidence of Margaret Corney, although Macpherson believes she may have been mistaken and that they could have returned from Wolverhampton earlier, i.e, to their address in Blackthorn Street. (Macpherson, 2005)

Of course, if Corney is correct then that would mean he couldn't have killed Tabram, although there is obviously some doubt that she was a Ripper victim anyway.

A more serious problem for me was that he was living in Bow. Okay, I realize he had his pony and trap, and therefore could have been a commuter killer- Macpherson speculates that he could have stabled the pony in George Yard-
however, that being the case, why just focus on such a small geographical area? This becomes even more problematical when you consider the increased police presence in Whitechapel following the earlier murders- as Bury had no connection to Whitechapel, and had transport, surely it would have made more sense for him to start targeting victims elsewhere in the East End.

And then, of course, there's a question of witness descriptions. If I remember correctly Bury was relatively short, around 5ft 3in, and only one witness describes a suspect of around that height, Mrs Long.

[Wyatt Earp]

Hi John.

Regarding the trip to Wolverhampton, this is Margaret's testimony from the transcript in the 3/28/89 Evening Telegraph:

“After that they went to Wolverhampton?—Yes, sir. Last August.
They came back again to London?—Yes, sir.
How long were they away?—About a fortnight.”

There is newspaper evidence suggesting that the Burys were at the races at Dunstall Park in Wolverhampton on August 13 or 14 (Beadle claims that was the only time that month that races were held). So it looks like the Burys could have left for Wolverhampton following the Tabram murder and been back in time for the Nichols murder.

You claim that Bury had no connection to Whitechapel, but this is not true. There is trial testimony placing him in Whitechapel in both April 1888 and June 1888. And there are multiple newspaper accounts published during the time when Bury was in custody which suggest that he was well-known in that area. While we don't know the nature of his specific connection to Whitechapel, he does appear to have had such a connection, and that could help to explain his selection of the area as his killing field.

Regarding the height estimates, Bury was about 5'3", but if you add an inch for his boots and another inch or two for his hat, he is right there with the height estimates in the case. Chapman was also wearing boots and headgear, so that would be consistent with his appearing just a little taller than her.

[Wyatt Earp]

I wanted to elaborate on the trial testimony placing Bury in Whitechapel in April 1888 and June 1888. Both of these sightings were made by James Martin and given in his trial testimony as reported in the 3/28/89 Evening Telegraph. The Burys were married on April 2, 1888 and both sightings relate to domestic violence incidents.

“When did the assaults take place?—The first time on the Wednesday after they were married.

What did he do?—He punched her on the face. (Laughter.)

Was that in your house?—No. In Whitechapel—in a public house.”

And subsequently:

“I think you told me that the second occasion was in a public-house in Whitechapel. When was this?

I can’t tell you, but it was a Monday in June.”

So what was Bury doing in Whitechapel? There were public houses in Bow. He didn’t have to go all the way to Whitechapel to find prostitutes. But he seems to have been hanging out in that area for some reason.

[Mrsperfect]

Tabram Murder

[QUOTE=John G;335604]Hello,



Regarding Bury, the first problem is that he may have returned to Wolverhampton, for up to a fortnight, until the 11th August, when he and his wife took lodgings in Spanby Road ; this is based on the evidence of Margaret Corney, although Macpherson believes she may have been mistaken and that they could have returned from Wolverhampton earlier, i.e, to their address in Blackthorn Street. (Macpherson, 2005)

Of course, if Corney is correct then that would mean he couldn't have killed Tabram, although there is obviously some doubt that she was a Ripper victim anyway.


Extract from The Life of William Henry Bury:

The Burys went on holidays to Wolverhampton, (for one week). Bury stayed at an inn in the town on or after 13th August and attended the Dunstall Races with his wife, (13th August was the opening day of the new track and the next race was 14th). Bury even gave the innkeeper’s son his new business card.

While the Burys visited Wolverhampton, they had a portrait made, which shows him with a moustache, but no beard or side-whiskers, (matching the man whom P.C. Smith and William Marshall saw in Berners Street). Bury was showing off his new wife, (with her new jewellery which he bought for her there) and flashing money around. This was after the time Martha Tabram was killed, (7th August). The exact date of this holiday is not known, but they could not have attended the races prior to 13th August.

Regards

Eileen

[Mrsperfect]

I would bet big money that there were at least 5 abdominal mutilations in England from 1885 to 1895 that didn't have to do with the Ripper.

It's weird, but it's only statistically uncommon.

Of course how I prove this claim is beyond me at the moment since I'm loaded with cold medicine. When the room stops growing I'll see if I can bend what little gray cells I have left to the project.

How many abdominal mutilation murders do you think there were in a matter of a few weeks in this part of London?

Regards

Eileen

[Wyatt Earp]

Here’s some additional detail on the second incident with Ellen, in June 1888, from the Telegraph transcript:

“I think you told me that the second occasion was in a public-house in Whitechapel. When was this?

I can’t tell you, but it was a Monday in June.

Can you tell me what he did on that occasion?—Yes; he knocked her down between the upholsterer’s and the public-house.

Just describe to us what he did exactly?—He lifted his hand and struck her.

Did he strike her on the head?—No; on the mouth, and the blow was so severe that the woman fell right off. He would have done it again if I had not come and hit him and knocked him away from her. (Laughter.)

Was he drunk then, too?—Yes, sir.

What had angered him?—He wanted money to order some drink, and she would not give it to him.”

Batman has commented on the utter improbability of there being more than one man with the Ripper’s rare signature on the loose in the East End at that time. Well, Bury owns that sig, he was living in the East End at that time, and he wasn’t a copycat. So I say to you, Batman, if you’re gonna talk it, then walk it—Bury’s your man. There’s no need to drag Blotchy or Chapman or some imaginary “medical student” into this thing.

[Errata]

Here’s some additional detail on the second incident with Ellen, in June 1888, from the Telegraph transcript:

“I think you told me that the second occasion was in a public-house in Whitechapel. When was this?

I can’t tell you, but it was a Monday in June.

Can you tell me what he did on that occasion?—Yes; he knocked her down between the upholsterer’s and the public-house.

Just describe to us what he did exactly?—He lifted his hand and struck her.

Did he strike her on the head?—No; on the mouth, and the blow was so severe that the woman fell right off. He would have done it again if I had not come and hit him and knocked him away from her. (Laughter.)

Was he drunk then, too?—Yes, sir.

What had angered him?—He wanted money to order some drink, and she would not give it to him.”

Batman has commented on the utter improbability of there being more than one man with the Ripper’s rare signature on the loose in the East End at that time. Well, Bury owns that sig, he was living in the East End at that time, and he wasn’t a copycat. So I say to you, Batman, if you’re gonna talk it, then walk it—Bury’s your man. There’s no need to drag Blotchy or Chapman or some imaginary “medical student” into this thing.

Wait, what does this description have to to do with the Ripper's signature?

[Wyatt Earp]

Wait, what does this description have to to do with the Ripper's signature?

The description of the incident with Ellen doesn't relate to the Ripper's signature. I was simply supplying some additional detail about it.