Does anything rule Bury out?

[John G]

John, we know that the MO of a serial killer can vary among crime scenes, and so the absence of a cut throat is not “evidence” that Ellen Bury was murdered by someone other than the Ripper. It’s been explained to you over and over that this is a nonsense objection to Bury. Let it go, John.



No, what we are left with is an ID that you and others have failed to knock down. “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em,” John—it’s time for you to board the Bury Express!



The two are not on equal footing, Abby. I’ve demonstrated how Bury can be identified as the Ripper, and no one has been able to put a dent in that demonstration. With respect to McKenzie, there’s nothing definite that she was a Ripper victim. Phillips looked at the body and said no, Keppel and his team looked at the signature and said no. Your opinion that McKenzie was a Ripper victim does not “rule Bury out.”



Johns, thanks for posting this. It’s interesting that a couple of days after murdering Tabram, Bury is changing his address, and then right after that he’s going on a vacation and getting out of the area entirely. Perhaps simply a busy week, perhaps he was nervous after committing this murder.

Hello Wyatt,

And as I've explained you seem to be resorting to circular reasoning. Thus, if Ellen's throat was cut you would no doubt argue that the murder was identical to the Whitechapel crimes and therefore proof that Bury is the Ripper. However, because the throat wasn't cut you argue that the crime wasn't identical to the Whitechapel crimes, therefore it couldn't be a copycat and, on that basis, Bury must be the Ripper!

The cutting of the he throat cutting was, in any event, not just part of the killers MO but an integral signature characteristic. This is because the extensive neck mutilations inflicted on Nicholls, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly went far beyond what was necessary to incapacitate them; they were virtually decapitated.

Keppel, 2005, clearly cites this as a signature characteristic: "Third, characteristic of this killer's signature was overkill, to have complete control and domination over his victims. Jack the Ripper administered an excessive of fatal wlunds, which went above and beyond what was necessary to kill the victim's."

[johns]

Johns, thanks for posting this. It’s interesting that a couple of days after murdering Tabram, Bury is changing his address, and then right after that he’s going on a vacation and getting out of the area entirely. Perhaps simply a busy week, perhaps he was nervous after committing this murder.

My own thoughts on this are that Tabram was Bury's (and the Ripper's) first murder and he simply didn't know what to do, so he just moved house to avoid any police mooching about. The trip to Wolvo was a showing off exercise.

After subsequent murders he didn't bother with such practices and grew in confidence and savagery.

Then after Ellen's murder he probably thought he could get away with any old nonsense such as telling Dundee Police that she'd committed suicide and writing graffiti at the flat.

Just my thoughts.
Johns

[Wyatt Earp]

Yes, I agree Bury can't be ruled out, in fact I still regard him as one of the few plausible suspects, however, there is nothing like conclusive evidence against him. For instance, you argue that the fact Ellen's throat wasn't cut is evidence that Bury wasn't a copycat. But this is circular reasoning because, equally, it's evidence that Bury wasn't the Ripper.

John, we know that the MO of a serial killer can vary among crime scenes, and so the absence of a cut throat is not “evidence” that Ellen Bury was murdered by someone other than the Ripper. It’s been explained to you over and over that this is a nonsense objection to Bury. Let it go, John.

Ultimately, what we're left with a wife murderer who inflicted a deep abdominal wound on his wife and who once lived close to Whitechapel. Still better evidence than against most other suspects, but far from conclusive.

No, what we are left with is an ID that you and others have failed to knock down. “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em,” John—it’s time for you to board the Bury Express!

Hi Wyatt
well that's the conundrum isn't it? If you come at it from the suspect side of it than it rules out McKenzie as a ripper victim, but if you come at it from a victim standpoint then that rules out Bury!!

The two are not on equal footing, Abby. I’ve demonstrated how Bury can be identified as the Ripper, and no one has been able to put a dent in that demonstration. With respect to McKenzie, there’s nothing definite that she was a Ripper victim. Phillips looked at the body and said no, Keppel and his team looked at the signature and said no. Your opinion that McKenzie was a Ripper victim does not “rule Bury out.”

Tabram murdered on 7th August.

Bury and Ellen moved to a new address in Spanby Road on 11th August

Dunstall Park opened for its first ever race meeting on 13th August which is the meeting Bury went to.

A "busy" week but that seems to be what happened.

Johns, thanks for posting this. It’s interesting that a couple of days after murdering Tabram, Bury is changing his address, and then right after that he’s going on a vacation and getting out of the area entirely. Perhaps simply a busy week, perhaps he was nervous after committing this murder.

[johns]

Hi all.

I don't usually bother getting drawn into discussions. I usually just post my findings or thoughts and leave it at that but I'll repost this snippet from the Express and Star newspaper dated Wednesday 13th February 1889 which says at the bottom that Bury and Ellen stayed in Wolverhampton for a week and frequented the horse racing at Dunstall Park.

Tabram murdered on 7th August.

Bury and Ellen moved to a new address in Spanby Road on 11th August

Dunstall Park opened for its first ever race meeting on 13th August which is the meeting Bury went to.

A "busy" week but that seems to be what happened.

Johns

[Boggles]

I would just note that a witness, Margaret Corney, testified that the Burys went to Wolverhampton on a two week holiday sometime in August. Now,we know that William started a new tenancy in London on the 11th of August, so there is a possibility that Bury wasn't present in London on the date of Tabram's murder, August 7th

An important point, but see 'Johns' work on this on this forum (and he puts it a lot better than i ever could) that if he was at the races (as witnesses have said) then its the 2 weeks between the Tabram and Nichol murders that he was out of town. He posted his findings on this message board.

[Boggles]

I havent followed the debate in close detail to know who exactly im replying to but i will just pick up on a few of these interesting points

and many perform their first killings in close proximity to their homes, even. Read Kim Rossmo´s work on geographical profiling and you will see what I am talking about.

Which is why the assault on Ada Wilson should be interesting for anyone considering Bury, as took place within 200 ft of where he lived at the time and the description of assailant (though pitifully little) is a reasonable match.

The hard facts involve how it is not possible to place Bury in Whitechapel at any one time of his life

Not correct we have a witness at his trial who swore on oath that he was drunk in a pub in Whitechapel and assaulted his wife when she came to look for him.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

Yes, Harry makes a good point. From a geographical profiling perspective JtR was a marauder. And although this type of killer is likely to murder within a familiar area, he is less likely to kill too close to home (for obvious reasons). Bow was just a couple of miles from Whitechapel so, considering Bury had a pony and cart, it may well have been within his comfort zone (William Beadle even suggested that George Yard was an ideal place to park a pony and cart.)

I would just note that a witness, Margaret Corney, testified that the Burys went to Wolverhampton on a two week holiday sometime in August. Now,we know that William started a new tenancy in London on the 11th of August, so there is a possibility that Bury wasn't present in London on the date of Tabram's murder, August 7th.

However, Corney is the only witness to the Wolverhampton visit, and there's ckearly a possibility she may have been mistaken.

Regarding Mackenzie, I used to think she was probably a Ripper victim, but now I'm undecided. The abdominal mutilations were very superficial, unlike the deep wounds inflicted on the earlier Whitechapel victims, and Ellen Bury. There is no evidence she was strangled, unlike some of the C5 victims, and Ellen, and the neck injury was far less severe than four of the C5 victims, but more so than Stride: of course, unlike Stride the carotid artery was completely severed.

Nonetheless, if McKenzie was a Ripper victim I think he was probably ill or incapacitated in some way, which at least might explain the discontinuance of the murders

Hi JohnG
Yes I agree. or extremely intoxicated. It seemed more sloppy, not as efficient. However, not so sure if it would be the last. I think the torso victims, including the Pinchon torso a few months later, may have been the same work as the ripper. But we don't need to rehash that argument that me and you have already done! ; )

[Fisherman]

Harry D:
Why wouldn't he? Serial killers like to put a relatively safe distance between themselves and their killing field. Bury was close enough to frequent Whitechapel, but far enough away to keep the heat off his own doorstep.

But did you not just say that he lived on the outskirts of Whitechapel, Harry? How is that putting a "relatively safe" distance between him and his killing field?
You can´t eat the cake and have it, I`m afraid.
The generalisation that serial killers like to put a safe distance between themselves and their killing grounds is something you just made up. Most serialists who are not transients are easy enough to couple to their killing grounds, and many perform their first killings in close proximity to their homes, even. Read Kim Rossmo´s work on geographical profiling and you will see what I am talking about.

In the end, Harry, it is a bit odd that somebody who argues that a serial killer will not kill on his own doorstep, suddenly accepts that the man he proposes as Jack the Ripper killed one of his victims inside his own house and stuffed her in a box in his own cellar, whereupon he went to the police and tipped them off.
How you are going to make these things dovetail with each other is something I am looking forward to with great anticipation.

In any case, that's a good question. There are many curiosities about Bury as a Ripper candidate, but alike yourself I don't hang my hat on a particular man.

Aha. Well, I could have sworn you favour Bury.

I could probably venture a guess at why Bury behaved the way he did, but that's speculative territory.

It would be interesting to hear anyway, so venture away, by all means, Harry.

However, I will stand by my belief that based on the hard facts alone, Bury is the best suspect out there. No other suspect is known to have committed a Ripper-like murder who can be placed in the East End at the time.

The hard facts involve how it is not possible to place Bury in Whitechapel at any one time of his life. Bow is as close as you will get.
The hard facts also involve how I can place Lechmere not only in the East End - I can place him in Whitechapel. And not only can I place him in Whitechapel, I can place him in Buck´s Row. And not only can I place him in Bucks Row, I can place him outside Browns Stable Yard. And not only can I place him outside Browns Stable Yard - I can place him there at the exact time when Polly Nichols was lying outside the yard, bleeding from her freshly cut neck.

These are the hard facts that apply. Bury killed his wife - millions of men have killed their wifes throughout history. There is not a more common type of murder.
He killed her by means of strangulation, a very common way of killing women.
At the time he killed his wife, the papers had for many months been filled with reports about eviscerated women, despatched by Jack the Ripper. There was inspiration aplenty around.

This, and this only, is the "hard facts" that makes you think Bury was the Ripper.

Is it good enough? No, it is not.

Does that make Bury a bad suspect?

It does not even make him a suspect. It makes him a person of interest.

Does that mean that he is way down the list of possible Ripper candidates?

Not at all - he is at the very top, and so he should be. But that is on account of the sad state of the rest of the conglomerate of persons of interest.

I think we need to place Bury among the best prospects. He should be up there together with Lechmere and Kosminski.

Kosminski is on the list on account of having been pointed to by the leading men of the contemporary investigation.

Bury is there because he has a combination of details attaching to his name: he WAS a killer, he DID live close enough to the Ripper killing fields to be able to be the killer and he DID open up the abdomen of the one and only victim we know he killed. The combination is rare.

Lechmere is there because he is proven to have had opportunity to kill one of the Ripper victims, plus his testimony is filled with matters that make him look - as James Scobie worded it - suspicious. He seemingly lied about his name - it was not his registered one and not the one he otherwise used with authorities. And there are implications that he lied his way past the police.

If we were to leave this all in the hands of the police and tell them the reasons for our respective suspicions, they would do exactly what I do: they would note Kosminski and Bury and make them persons of interest. And they would investigate them if it proved that Lechmere was innocent, Kosminski going before Bury.
But they would not investigate Bury and Kosminski until they had cleared Lechmere. Until that happened - IF it happened - Lechmere would be the prime suspect.

You don´t see a police force who has a suspect who is tied all alone to a murder place at the more or less exact remove in time when the victim was killed, run off in search of other men who have no ties to the murder spot at all. That just doesn´t happen, not today.

In 1888, though, it apparently did.

There isn't an shred of evidence that suggests Lechmere was anything other than a hardworking family man, let alone a violent serial killer. If there is, then you have yet to show it.

There is not shred of evidence disproving that he was a violent man, a dog tormentor, a psychopath, a wife beater, a child molester, a fraudster and a pick-pocket. If there is, you have yet to show it.

On the face of it, he appears to have been a hardworking provider for his family and lived a life without incident before dying of old age.

On the face of it, many serialists seemed like amiable, nice guys.

That doesn't mean that Lechmere couldn't have led a double life as a serial killer, but if there's nothing to support it other than the fact he found the first victim, the burden of proof rests with you.

The fact that he found the first victim does actually NOT per se support that he was a serialist. His name-swop, the Mizen scam and the blood evidence, his work trek geography, taken together with how nobody else was seen in the vicinity are the real pointers.

Finding a body is not suspicious per se. But when OTHER things are added, having been at the place at the approximate time the victim died and with no real alibi is not something that will help you. And it IS a better indicator of a need to investigate a person than a murder committed by somebody else who cannot be tied to the murder area at all.

[John G]

Hi Wyatt
well that's the conundrum isn't it? If you come at it from the suspect side of it than it rules out McKenzie as a ripper victim, but if you come at it from a victim standpoint then that rules out Bury!!

I believe that both Alice and Ellen are similar enough to be ripper victims-so when I look at both victims and try to balance who was MORE like a ripper victim, I come to the conclusion that its McKenzie.

Now when it comes to your 3 point list if forced-I would have to pick number two-its a coincidence. Now could Bury in a weakened state of mind been influenced by the ripper crimes and mutilated her abdomen? sure.

Could he have been the ripper, and McKenzie murdered by someone else similarily influenced by the ripper crimes? sure.

I just still lean towrd Mckenzie being a ripper victim.

However-Harrys simple,concise statement that he is the only ripper suspect who murdered someone in similar fashion who can be placed in the East End-is a powerful one and has made me rethink Bury as a suspect(he had fallen a bit with me recently) and ticked him back up a bit in my mind.

Hello Abby,

Yes, Harry makes a good point. From a geographical profiling perspective JtR was a marauder. And although this type of killer is likely to murder within a familiar area, he is less likely to kill too close to home (for obvious reasons). Bow was just a couple of miles from Whitechapel so, considering Bury had a pony and cart, it may well have been within his comfort zone (William Beadle even suggested that George Yard was an ideal place to park a pony and cart.)

I would just note that a witness, Margaret Corney, testified that the Burys went to Wolverhampton on a two week holiday sometime in August. Now,we know that William started a new tenancy in London on the 11th of August, so there is a possibility that Bury wasn't present in London on the date of Tabram's murder, August 7th.

However, Corney is the only witness to the Wolverhampton visit, and there's ckearly a possibility she may have been mistaken.

Regarding Mackenzie, I used to think she was probably a Ripper victim, but now I'm undecided. The abdominal mutilations were very superficial, unlike the deep wounds inflicted on the earlier Whitechapel victims, and Ellen Bury. There is no evidence she was strangled, unlike some of the C5 victims, and Ellen, and the neck injury was far less severe than four of the C5 victims, but more so than Stride: of course, unlike Stride the carotid artery was completely severed.

Nonetheless, if McKenzie was a Ripper victim I think he was probably ill or incapacitated in some way, which at least might explain the discontinuance of the murders

[Abby Normal]

Abby, objecting to the Bury ID by saying “I think McKenzie was a Ripper victim” is like objecting to it by saying “I think the Ripper was Jewish,” “I think the Ripper lived in Whitechapel,” “I think the Ripper had a medical background” or “I think Anderson and Swanson knew the Ripper’s identity.” There’s nothing definite about any of these things, and so they all constitute ineffective objections to the Bury ID.

I’ve demonstrated how Bury can be identified as the Ripper. This community is expert at dismantling proposed solutions to the case, but during the year since I published my article no one in the field has been able to produce an effective rebuttal of it. We can therefore reasonably conclude: 1) McKenzie was not a Ripper victim, 2) the Ripper was not Jewish, 3) the Ripper did not live in Whitechapel, 4) the Ripper did not have a medical background and 5) Anderson and Swanson did not really know the Ripper’s identity.

I’ll put the same question to you that I recently put to John. What if anything are you contesting in the below?

Hi Wyatt
well that's the conundrum isn't it? If you come at it from the suspect side of it than it rules out McKenzie as a ripper victim, but if you come at it from a victim standpoint then that rules out Bury!!

I believe that both Alice and Ellen are similar enough to be ripper victims-so when I look at both victims and try to balance who was MORE like a ripper victim, I come to the conclusion that its McKenzie.

Now when it comes to your 3 point list if forced-I would have to pick number two-its a coincidence. Now could Bury in a weakened state of mind been influenced by the ripper crimes and mutilated her abdomen? sure.

Could he have been the ripper, and McKenzie murdered by someone else similarily influenced by the ripper crimes? sure.

I just still lean towrd Mckenzie being a ripper victim.

However-Harrys simple,concise statement that he is the only ripper suspect who murdered someone in similar fashion who can be placed in the East End-is a powerful one and has made me rethink Bury as a suspect(he had fallen a bit with me recently) and ticked him back up a bit in my mind.

[Abby Normal]

Most people regard the murder of Ellen as not being severe enough, but I have read the medical reports on Ellens murder, and i posted them on this forum. The mutilations are well documented and I have no doubt that Bury had the same underlying motivations. And its very very rare. Keppel did a numerical study on it, with a view to make Tabram C6, and he found that these kind of mutilations are exceedingly rare and had no doubt that Tabram as a ripper victim. He didnt know about Ellen.

For me two people like Bury and JTR living in the same area at the same time is very unlikely. There is a witness statement in the trial notes that he was drunk and violent in Whitechapel on at least one occasion so we can tie him to the scene.

Chalk graffiti is one thing, it adds flavour to the case. I imagine that after murdering he stopped for a piss and scrawled graffiti on a wall. Thats what thus guy might have done. At best its interesting, but it dosent move Bury case forward.
We need more, just one thing to tie him to the victims and I believe it is out there somewhere.

Good post.
and yes I have always thought that her wounds were similar enough to the ripper victims.And yes, if there is anything (contact wise-Not sig)that can be found that ties him to any of the ripper victims than that would be HUGE IMHO!

[John G]

Hello Wyatt,

Yes, I agree Bury can't be ruled out, in fact I still regard him as one of the few plausible suspects, however, there is nothing like conclusive evidence against him. For instance, you argue that the fact Ellen's throat wasn't cut is evidence that Bury wasn't a copycat. But this is circular reasoning because, equally, it's evidence that Bury wasn't the Ripper.

The lack of a throat cut may be evidence of a killer's need to de-escalate but, again, it might also indicate a different killer. In fact, the throat mutilations inflicted on the Whitechapel victims are clearly a signature characteristic as they went far beyond a need to simply incapacitate and overpower the victims-they actually amounted to virtual decapitations; and, of course, it was a ritual that the killer persistently repeated. But, as I've noted before, with Ellen we don't see even a token attempt to target the throat-even McKenzie had a carotid artery severed.

Of course, there are various possibilities that might explain these anomalies-Sutcliffe once explained the reason for not inflicting his characteristic abdominal wound on a victim as feeling stigmatized at being referred to as the Yorkshire Ripper!-but equally they might indicate a different killer.

Ultimately, what we're left with a wife murderer who inflicted a deep abdominal wound on his wife and who once lived close to Whitechapel. Still better evidence than against most other suspects, but far from conclusive.

[Wyatt Earp]

However, where does that leave Bury? Well, to begin with I think it questionable that his "signature" represents a close match. My understanding is that the abdominal wounds were significantly less pronounced than even the earlier Whitechapel Victims. And, of course, the throat wasn't cut at all. Now this is clearly of some importance because, as I've noted earlier, the neck wounds of four of the C5 victims were so severe as to amount to a virtual de-capitation. This level of overkill clearly went far beyond what was necessary to overpower and disable the victims, and therefore must be regarded as part of the killer's signature, and not just MO. And it's a signature component entirely absent in Ellen Bury's case.

John, there’s a table at the end of my article in Ripperologist where I show how closely the Ellen Bury murder can be mapped to the signature described by Keppel & Co. As for the other stuff, we’ve been through it all before. Signature characteristics can be reduced in expression or entirely absent at a given crime scene in connection with the specific circumstances of that murder. If overkill was absent in the Ellen Bury murder, that can be related to Bury's need to deescalate. We know that the MO of a serial killer can vary among crime scenes, and so the absence of a cut throat in the Ellen Bury murder cannot be used to exclude Bury.

Could Ellen Bury be a copycat? I don't think it can be entirely ruled out.

Yes it can—Ellen Bury’s throat wasn’t cut.

And, of course, the Dundee Courier article actually states that Bury told the Lieutenant that he was Jack the Ripper, or a Jack the Ripper.

The paper got it wrong—we have Lt. Parr’s trial testimony as to what was actually said.

Somehow, I doubt that the real Jack would have been so eager to draw attention to himself that way, and Bury's conduct is pretty much inexplicable considering that, from the outset, he insisted his wife had committed suicide.

Again, John, we’ve been through this all before. There’s nothing about how things ended with Bury that rules him out. The California coed killer not only went to the police, he actually confessed to murder, which is something even Bury didn’t do.

[Boggles]

The truth of this simple, concise statement has really made an impression on me.

Most people regard the murder of Ellen as not being severe enough, but I have read the medical reports on Ellens murder, and i posted them on this forum. The mutilations are well documented and I have no doubt that Bury had the same underlying motivations. And its very very rare. Keppel did a numerical study on it, with a view to make Tabram C6, and he found that these kind of mutilations are exceedingly rare and had no doubt that Tabram as a ripper victim. He didnt know about Ellen.

For me two people like Bury and JTR living in the same area at the same time is very unlikely. There is a witness statement in the trial notes that he was drunk and violent in Whitechapel on at least one occasion so we can tie him to the scene.

Chalk graffiti is one thing, it adds flavour to the case. I imagine that after murdering he stopped for a piss and scrawled graffiti on a wall. Thats what thus guy might have done. At best its interesting, but it dosent move Bury case forward.
We need more, just one thing to tie him to the victims and I believe it is out there somewhere.

[Abby Normal]

Umm... you brought Lechmere into this, not me. Behold:



I would happily drop him from the conversation. We're talking about suspects, after all.



Why wouldn't he? Serial killers like to put a relatively safe distance between themselves and their killing field. Bury was close enough to frequent Whitechapel, but far enough away to keep the heat off his own doorstep.



Are you adding Tabram to the tally? For the record I don't consider her a canonical victim, which would make strike #5 Mary Kelly in my book.

In any case, that's a good question. There are many curiosities about Bury as a Ripper candidate, but alike yourself I don't hang my hat on a particular man. I could probably venture a guess at why Bury behaved the way he did, but that's speculative territory. However, I will stand by my belief that based on the hard facts alone, Bury is the best suspect out there. No other suspect is known to have committed a Ripper-like murder who can be placed in the East End at the time.



Oh... that Lechmere silence didn't last long.

There isn't an shred of evidence that suggests Lechmere was anything other than a hardworking family man, let alone a violent serial killer. If there is, then you have yet to show it.



On the face of it, he appears to have been a hardworking provider for his family and lived a life without incident before dying of old age. That doesn't mean that Lechmere couldn't have led a double life as a serial killer, but if there's nothing to support it other than the fact he found the first victim, the burden of proof rests with you.



Good luck with that.

Hi Harry

No other suspect is known to have committed a Ripper-like murder who can be placed in the East End at the time.

The truth of this simple, concise statement has really made an impression on me.

In contemplating it-and the simple truth of it-has elevated Bury in my mind.