Does anything rule Bury out?

[Harry D]

Lechmere does not belong to the discussion. We are discussing Bury only.

...

There´s Lechmere again - you seem to have a crush on him?

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

With my man, they SHOULD have investigated the man found at the spot, but the name tells us they never did.

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

Bury lived in Bow. It is not on the outskirts of Whitechapel, it is some way east of it, beyond Mile End. So why would Bury go to Whitechapel to find hiomself prostitutes to kill, when he had them close by in Bow? That is not what serialists normally do.

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.

If the killer did not leave after strikes 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, why wouod he feel an urge to do so after strike 6? Is that what we normally see with serialits who work in a restricted area? Do they normally stay or do they move?

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.

Well, well - Harry suddenly KNOWS that Lechmere had no history of violence or any kind of criminal behaviour!

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.

You are of course trying to establish that Lechmere was a good man without knowing anything at all about it, and without being able to find out. The best of luck with that.

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.

Now, Harry, I sense that this will not lead up to any useful debate, so I will leave the field wide open to you. JUst mind that you don´t do the "Lechmere was a proven honest and good man" ploy again, or I will take you up on it.

Good luck with that.

[John G]

Hello Wyatt,

I don't believe that the question of the Ripper having medical skill/knowledge, can be determined with any degree of certainty, particularly as even modern experts are divided on this issue.

Of course, the question as to whether McKenzie was a Ripper victims is also crucial to Bury's candidacy. I've changed my mind about this a number of times, but now I tend to think she probably wasn't. The difficultly is that, if she was a victim, we have to accept three propositions. Firstly, that the killer substantially de-escalated the level of violence. And not just from Kelly, either, as the level of overkill-a crucial part of JtR's signature-is significantly less pronounced than even the first C5 victim, Nicholls. For instance, the abdominal wound was not "unduly deep", and there was no attempt at organ removal, unlike Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. The neck was targeted, but nothing like to the extent of four of the C5 victims, where the neck injuries were so severe it could be argued that they amount to an attempted decapitation (in fact, McKenzie's neck injuries were significantly less severe than Stride's.)

Secondly, we would have to accept that the killer went into a kind of semi-retirement for over a half a year, even though he had hitherto been killing much more frequently.

And thirdly, after returning for one more less violent kill, like a sort of encore, he then decides to retire for good and is never heard from again.

On balance, therefore, I now think it more likely that McKenzie was not a Ripper victim.

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.

Could Ellen Bury be a copycat? I don't think it can be entirely ruled out. Firstly, if Ellen wasn't a copycat, then McKenzie probably was, therefore such a phenomenon was clearly possible. Secondly, possible confessional statements by Bury could be suggestive of a copycat, or at least a killer inspired by JtR. Thus, we have the chalk graffiti in the apartment, and Bury's statement to Lieutenant Parr that he thought he would be arrested as Jack the Ripper. 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.

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.

And them we have the fact that Bury seemed visibly surprised when Lieutenant Parr detained him, i.e. in order to check the truth of his statement. In other words, he seemed to think the police would accept his somewhat implausible story without question. So the question is: would the real JtR be that obtuse?

[Wyatt Earp]

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?

William Bury’s signature as displayed in his murder of Ellen Bury is a close match with Jack the Ripper’s signature as described by Keppel et al.

There are three possibilities:

1. William Bury was a copycat killer.
2. The close signature match was simply a coincidence.
3. William Bury was Jack the Ripper.

For the reasons described in my article, 1 and 2 can be ruled out, but 3 cannot.

Ergo, William Bury was Jack the Ripper.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

Not sure. However, I can only assume that Euan properly checked his sources! Interestingly, he also cites a report in the Dundee Courier, concerning what Bury is alleged to have said to the investigating police officer, Lieutenant Lamb:"When they were alone the man, who appeared much excited, said he was "Jack the Ripper" or "a Jack the Ripper" or something to that effect." The Dundee Advitiser records a different version of the same incident: " In the course of further conversations he made a remark about Jack the Ripper but the Lieutenant did not understand what Bury meant and did not wish at that stage to inquire."

Thanks JohnG for that.
However, it all sounds a little bit too unsure to me to invest much in it.

[John G]

Has that article ever been located and verified?
also, could the area where that was written be accessed by the outside without going through a door or gate?Ie-could someone who didn't live there come from outside and write it? was it out side or inside?

Hi Abby

Not sure. However, I can only assume that Euan properly checked his sources! Interestingly, he also cites a report in the Dundee Courier, concerning what Bury is alleged to have said to the investigating police officer, Lieutenant Lamb:"When they were alone the man, who appeared much excited, said he was "Jack the Ripper" or "a Jack the Ripper" or something to that effect." The Dundee Advitiser records a different version of the same incident: " In the course of further conversations he made a remark about Jack the Ripper but the Lieutenant did not understand what Bury meant and did not wish at that stage to inquire."

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

In respect of the chalk writing, Euan Macpherson cites an article in the Dundee Advertiser, 12th Feb, 1889. The article states:"The back premises are led to a dirty stair, at the foot of which on an old door is the following written in chalk-Jack Ripper [sic] is at the back of this door. At the back of this door, and just at the turn of the stair, there is the inscription-Jack Ripper is in this seller. [sic]" The article also states, "The handwriting is apparently that of a boy and the authorities will probably attach little importance to it. But the writing is older than the discovery of the tragedy and the neighbours were startled and alarmed at the idea that one whom on their terror they associated with the Whitechapel tragedies had been living in their midst."

Euan discounts the boy theory, arguing that it was probably based on the spelling and grammatical mistakes. And, as he points out, only William Bury had entered the apartment from the time of the murder to the discovery of the body, a period of seven days. And once the murder had been discovered there was always one policeman on duty at the scene of the crime, suggesting that there was no opportunity for anyone else to have written the statement. (Macpherson, 2005).

Of course, if it was old writing then why didn't Bury erase it when he took possession of the apartment? However, it does raise the question as to whether it could have acted as an inspiration for the murder

Has that article ever been located and verified?
also, could the area where that was written be accessed by the outside without going through a door or gate?Ie-could someone who didn't live there come from outside and write it? was it out side or inside?

[John G]

Hi JohnG
wasn't the writing on the door apocraphyl? I don't think its proven that it actually existed?

anyway if its true, I don't think Bury wrote it. He was afraid of being thought of as the ripper and denied it so again him writing it doesn't jibe. In all likelihood some neighborhood kids wrote it-sounds like something kids would do.

Has anyone put forth it might have been written by his wife because she knew-maybe that was the trigger that set him off to kill her?

Hi Abby,

In respect of the chalk writing, Euan Macpherson cites an article in the Dundee Advertiser, 12th Feb, 1889. The article states:"The back premises are led to a dirty stair, at the foot of which on an old door is the following written in chalk-Jack Ripper [sic] is at the back of this door. At the back of this door, and just at the turn of the stair, there is the inscription-Jack Ripper is in this seller. [sic]" The article also states, "The handwriting is apparently that of a boy and the authorities will probably attach little importance to it. But the writing is older than the discovery of the tragedy and the neighbours were startled and alarmed at the idea that one whom on their terror they associated with the Whitechapel tragedies had been living in their midst."

Euan discounts the boy theory, arguing that it was probably based on the spelling and grammatical mistakes. And, as he points out, only William Bury had entered the apartment from the time of the murder to the discovery of the body, a period of seven days. And once the murder had been discovered there was always one policeman on duty at the scene of the crime, suggesting that there was no opportunity for anyone else to have written the statement. (Macpherson, 2005).

Of course, if it was old writing then why didn't Bury erase it when he took possession of the apartment? However, it does raise the question as to whether it could have acted as an inspiration for the murder

[Boggles]

you make a very good point about circumstances impacting on a serial killer's MO. A very good example of this is Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper.

On the topic of the Yorkshire Ripper having a chat with someone who was in Leeds a few streets away at the time that poor student was killed, I asked her what she thought when they caught they guy. She said 'we were all surprised he was just a lorry driver from Bradford, we all thought he would be someone more important'.

MY point is - I think the reason why a lot of people discount Bury is they have preconceived notions that JTR must have been a criminal mastermind to evade capture. Its very hard for people to move from this.

Personally I think anyone of low cunning and recklessness, fueled by alcohol and drugs, could have done it and got away with it. And we see plenty of that in Bury, along with the much rarer quality of actually wanting to do it.

And regards Ellen - lets not forget he almost got off scot free

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

I think you make a very good point about circumstances impacting on a serial killer's MO. A very good example of this is Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper. Thus, according to Professor Glenn Wilson, his signature was "a deep wound to the stomach of the victims inflicted with a screw driver after hitting them in the head with a hammer". It is argued that this fetish derived from a Victorian exhibit that he became fascinated with in a waxwork museum: the exhibit showed a series of female torsos with windows in their belly illustrating the "nine stages of pregnancy." And, according to his brother, he would linger at the exhibit with a strange grin on his face. It's possible, therefore, that he was trying to replicate this hole in the belly when inflicting the injuries.

Nonetheless, Dr Bandara represented a significant deviation from this signature (there were serious head injuries, but no abdominal wounds, and an attempt had been made to strangle her). Sutcliffe Subsequently explained: " I didn't have any tools to finish her, so I used the rope to strangle her, but I was overcome with remorse so I didn't finish her off. I apologised to her and left her there. " In other words, he deviated from signature because he'd forgotten his knife/screwdriver! In fact, on that basis maybe Mylett shouldn't be ruled out as a JtR victim.

Margurite Walls, an earlier victim, was also initially ruled out, incorrectly, as a Sutcliffe vuctim because she wasn't stabbed but strangled (with the same ligature that was used on Bandara). Sutcliffe explained the reason for the change in the method of killing: " Because the press and media had attached a stigma, I had been known as the Yorkshire Ripper which to my mind didn't ring true at all. It was just my way of killing them but actually I found the method of strangulation was even more horrible and took longer." He therefore deviated because he felt stigmatized at being called the Yorkshire Ripper!

Regarding whether Bury was a copycat. Written on a door in chalk, at Bury's residence, were the words, " Jack Ripper [sic] is at the back of this door". And at the back of the door the words, "Jack Ripper is in this seller [sic]."

Now, if the words were written by Bury was it a confession? And, if so, why did he subsequently tell the police that his wife had committed suicide? Had he changed his mind about confessing? Or could it imply that he was inspired by JtR's murders, at least on a subliminal level, possibly even seeing himself as JtR? But again, why did he subsequently deny he'd committed the murder. If not written by Bury, then why didn't he rub it off, particularly as it seemed to represent damning evidence against him? It's very confusing, as is Bury!

I agree with you about copycats, by the way. In fact, the only place where they are common seems to be crime fiction!

Hi JohnG
wasn't the writing on the door apocraphyl? I don't think its proven that it actually existed?

anyway if its true, I don't think Bury wrote it. He was afraid of being thought of as the ripper and denied it so again him writing it doesn't jibe. In all likelihood some neighborhood kids wrote it-sounds like something kids would do.

Has anyone put forth it might have been written by his wife because she knew-maybe that was the trigger that set him off to kill her?

[John G]

Hi JohnG
I agree with you in general about escalation/ de-escalation and serial killers staying with a very similar MO/sig through out and many times evolving-but not enough to be able to rule people out as suspects. They change and sometimes its circumstances-not necessarily with the psychology.

Speaking of change-on another thread we were discussing William Suff-the Riverside (CA) prostitute killer-whom also just happens to be, I believe, the closest (along with Dahmer) to the ripper that Ive found.

His first murder was his infant child.

Re copy cat. If Bury was not the ripper-then the similar MO is merely consequential. If anything he was constantly saying he was not the ripper and didn't want to be thought of as being the ripper-so that dosnt jibe with him copying the ripper crimes for whatever reason.

There is no precedent for a serial/ killer trying to make his murder look like that of a another killer to deflect suspicion.

Yes they stage murders to make it look like another motive and yes I could see week minded individuals being affected by another killers work. And yes some murders look like other murders by pure accident.

But a true "copy cat"? nope. there about as real as a Unicorn.

Hello Abby,

I think you make a very good point about circumstances impacting on a serial killer's MO. A very good example of this is Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper. Thus, according to Professor Glenn Wilson, his signature was "a deep wound to the stomach of the victims inflicted with a screw driver after hitting them in the head with a hammer". It is argued that this fetish derived from a Victorian exhibit that he became fascinated with in a waxwork museum: the exhibit showed a series of female torsos with windows in their belly illustrating the "nine stages of pregnancy." And, according to his brother, he would linger at the exhibit with a strange grin on his face. It's possible, therefore, that he was trying to replicate this hole in the belly when inflicting the injuries.

Nonetheless, Dr Bandara represented a significant deviation from this signature (there were serious head injuries, but no abdominal wounds, and an attempt had been made to strangle her). Sutcliffe Subsequently explained: " I didn't have any tools to finish her, so I used the rope to strangle her, but I was overcome with remorse so I didn't finish her off. I apologised to her and left her there. " In other words, he deviated from signature because he'd forgotten his knife/screwdriver! In fact, on that basis maybe Mylett shouldn't be ruled out as a JtR victim.

Margurite Walls, an earlier victim, was also initially ruled out, incorrectly, as a Sutcliffe vuctim because she wasn't stabbed but strangled (with the same ligature that was used on Bandara). Sutcliffe explained the reason for the change in the method of killing: " Because the press and media had attached a stigma, I had been known as the Yorkshire Ripper which to my mind didn't ring true at all. It was just my way of killing them but actually I found the method of strangulation was even more horrible and took longer." He therefore deviated because he felt stigmatized at being called the Yorkshire Ripper!

Regarding whether Bury was a copycat. Written on a door in chalk, at Bury's residence, were the words, " Jack Ripper [sic] is at the back of this door". And at the back of the door the words, "Jack Ripper is in this seller [sic]."

Now, if the words were written by Bury was it a confession? And, if so, why did he subsequently tell the police that his wife had committed suicide? Had he changed his mind about confessing? Or could it imply that he was inspired by JtR's murders, at least on a subliminal level, possibly even seeing himself as JtR? But again, why did he subsequently deny he'd committed the murder. If not written by Bury, then why didn't he rub it off, particularly as it seemed to represent damning evidence against him? It's very confusing, as is Bury!

I agree with you about copycats, by the way. In fact, the only place where they are common seems to be crime fiction!

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Yes, I seemed to have made an uncharacteristic error in my previous post by stating that Bury was in Dundee at the time of the McKenzie murder-as you point out he was actually dead, although I was technically correct as his body was interred within the walls of Dundee Prison!

De-escalation is still something of a problem for me: I realize that serial killers do sometimes de-escalate. However, with JtR, if the C5 and Tabram are accepted, there is a clear pattern of escalation-from stabbing (Tabram), to throat cutting and abdominal mutilation (Nicholls), progressing to evisceration and organ removal Chapman and Eddowes), and finally to complete destruction of the body and multiple organ removal (Kelly). This is also why Keppel rejected Smith, Mackenzie, Mylett and Coles, I.e because the killer "did not engage in the same pattern of escalating signature behaviours as exhibited by Jack the Ripper". Nonetheless, I agree that this doesn't rule Bury out, but in my view it significantly weakens his candidacy (I think JtR may have been similar to Sutcliffe and Kemper, both of whom seemed to be acting out fantasies, and neither were prone to tone down the level of violence.)

Normally I would agree with you about copycats, but in this case we're left with something of sales conundrum: if McKenzie was a Ripper victim, then Ellen Bury was probably a copycat; However, if she wasn't then she was probably a copycat. Then there's Austin, who may also have been a copycat, or alternatively a Ripper victim! It's so confusing!

Hi JohnG
I agree with you in general about escalation/ de-escalation and serial killers staying with a very similar MO/sig through out and many times evolving-but not enough to be able to rule people out as suspects. They change and sometimes its circumstances-not necessarily with the psychology.

Speaking of change-on another thread we were discussing William Suff-the Riverside (CA) prostitute killer-whom also just happens to be, I believe, the closest (along with Dahmer) to the ripper that Ive found.

His first murder was his infant child.

Re copy cat. If Bury was not the ripper-then the similar MO is merely consequential. If anything he was constantly saying he was not the ripper and didn't want to be thought of as being the ripper-so that dosnt jibe with him copying the ripper crimes for whatever reason.

There is no precedent for a serial/ killer trying to make his murder look like that of a another killer to deflect suspicion.

Yes they stage murders to make it look like another motive and yes I could see week minded individuals being affected by another killers work. And yes some murders look like other murders by pure accident.

But a true "copy cat"? nope. there about as real as a Unicorn.

[John G]

Hi Wyatt
I agree with you about de escalation-I don't think its a valid point. Ellen was killed in enough of a similar fashion as the rest. We know serial killers de escalate, change MO, evolve sigs, quit, lay dormant, etc. etc.

Theres also no such thing as a copy cat killing-that's Hollywood stuff.

Mckenzie is more of a fit IMHO than Ellen as a ripper victim and not just because of sig. But that being said any difference to the other victims could be explained by any number of reasons-he was interrupted, got cold feet, was extremely inebriated, was sick.

Also, when I said that nothing ties Bury to any of the ripper crimes-I meant physically. As far as we know, he cant be placed in the immediate area-the closest we can place him is Bow. He was not a suspect during the murders, not mentioned in any of the record-nothing physical links him to the crimes.
yes he was a person of interest, which is a valid tick mark in his suspecthood for me-but only later after he killed his wife. I think the subsequent murder of McKenzie may have dropped him off the suspect list then as it has for me now (a bit).

fascinating discussion BTW all.

Hi Abby,

Yes, I seemed to have made an uncharacteristic error in my previous post by stating that Bury was in Dundee at the time of the McKenzie murder-as you point out he was actually dead, although I was technically correct as his body was interred within the walls of Dundee Prison!

De-escalation is still something of a problem for me: I realize that serial killers do sometimes de-escalate. However, with JtR, if the C5 and Tabram are accepted, there is a clear pattern of escalation-from stabbing (Tabram), to throat cutting and abdominal mutilation (Nicholls), progressing to evisceration and organ removal Chapman and Eddowes), and finally to complete destruction of the body and multiple organ removal (Kelly). This is also why Keppel rejected Smith, Mackenzie, Mylett and Coles, I.e because the killer "did not engage in the same pattern of escalating signature behaviours as exhibited by Jack the Ripper". Nonetheless, I agree that this doesn't rule Bury out, but in my view it significantly weakens his candidacy (I think JtR may have been similar to Sutcliffe and Kemper, both of whom seemed to be acting out fantasies, and neither were prone to tone down the level of violence.)

Normally I would agree with you about copycats, but in this case we're left with something of sales conundrum: if McKenzie was a Ripper victim, then Ellen Bury was probably a copycat; However, if she wasn't then she was probably a copycat. Then there's Austin, who may also have been a copycat, or alternatively a Ripper victim! It's so confusing!

[Abby Normal]

There is forensic evidence (signature evidence) placing William Bury at the Tabram crime scene, the Nichols crime scene, the Chapman crime scene, the Eddowes crime scene and the Kelly crime scene. With the signature evidence, we not only have evidence that Bury was at these locations, we have evidence that he actually committed these murders. In the case of the Kelly crime scene, we have additional evidence—the posthomicide burning of the victim’s clothes in the fireplace at both Princes Street and Miller’s Court—that tells us he was there. Signature evidence can be admitted in court and it is real criminal evidence that William Bury committed these murders.

Another way to put it would be this: we have circumstantial evidence, not direct evidence, placing Bury at the murder locations. Bury’s behavioral fingerprint is on display at all of these crime scenes.

For Bury to have been present at the Stride crime scene, there must have been something unusual about that situation, and that is exactly what Schwartz’s statement gives us, evidence that something unusual occurred (Schwartz’s intrusion). The description that Schwartz provided would have fit a lot of men in Victorian London, and one of them is William Henry Bury. For reasons I’ve recently outlined elsewhere, I think that Bury was the probable murderer of Stride.



John, we know that a signature characteristic of a serial killer can be deescalated or entirely absent at a given crime scene in connection with the specific circumstances of that murder. Bury had an obvious situational incentive to tone down the mutilations, in that people knew that he and Ellen lived there. If he had gone berserk with her, as he did with Kelly, he would have made it clear to everyone that he was the Ripper. There is therefore no valid “deescalation” objection to Bury.



So far as McKenzie goes, Keppel is one of the world’s leading experts on signature analysis, and he and his team said “no” to McKenzie from a signature standpoint. I’ve explained why the Ellen Bury murder is the better signature fit of the two, and the Ellen Bury murder is the only one of the two that cannot reasonably be viewed as a copycat murder, in that Ellen Bury’s throat was not cut. The McKenzie objection to Bury is also not a worthwhile one.

Hi Wyatt
I agree with you about de escalation-I don't think its a valid point. Ellen was killed in enough of a similar fashion as the rest. We know serial killers de escalate, change MO, evolve sigs, quit, lay dormant, etc. etc.

Theres also no such thing as a copy cat killing-that's Hollywood stuff.

Mckenzie is more of a fit IMHO than Ellen as a ripper victim and not just because of sig. But that being said any difference to the other victims could be explained by any number of reasons-he was interrupted, got cold feet, was extremely inebriated, was sick.

Also, when I said that nothing ties Bury to any of the ripper crimes-I meant physically. As far as we know, he cant be placed in the immediate area-the closest we can place him is Bow. He was not a suspect during the murders, not mentioned in any of the record-nothing physical links him to the crimes.
yes he was a person of interest, which is a valid tick mark in his suspecthood for me-but only later after he killed his wife. I think the subsequent murder of McKenzie may have dropped him off the suspect list then as it has for me now (a bit).

fascinating discussion BTW all.

[Abby Normal]

There are obvious similarities with some of the Whitechapel Murders. For instance, Ellen Bury was strangled as, in all probability, were some of the Whitechapel victims. Of course, a ligature was used in Ellen's case, but this might simply amount to a refinement of technique, I.e. change of MO. Macpherson also argues that, without the presence of the ligature, Bury wouldn't have been able to argue that his wife hung herself.

The mutilations were fairly deep, and it has been argued more extensive than in the case of Nichols. William Beadle points out that there were 12 inches of intestines protruding from the abdomen, which is similar to injuries inflicted on Eddowes, where 24 inches of intestines were protruding. Moreover, Beadle also states that there were mutilation to the genitalia, which also occurred in the case of the Whitechapel victims (see Keppel, 2005).

Of course, we also have a possible confession:"Jack Ripper is behind this door", written in chalk on the door of the flat, and "Jack Ripper is in this seller" (sic), written on a wall.

However, a significant difficulty is that Ellen Bury would represent a major de-escalation from Kelly. Moreover, evidence suggests a clear pattern of escalation in the case of JtR. Nonetheless, Beadle argues that Ellen Bury represented the start of a new cycle.

Could Ellen Bury have been a copycat? Copycat serial killings are extremely rare, however, a major difficulty is that Bury couldn't have killed Alice McKenzie, as he was in Dundee at the time, and if she wasn't killed by JtR then surely she must have been a copycat killing. This argument is therefore somewhat self defeating.

Hi JohnG
Bury couldn't have killed Alice Mckenzie because he was dead. She was killed in July and he was hanged in April.

One of the main reasons Bury has fallen a bit on my scale is that Mckenzie is a probable ripper victim IMHO.

Howver, I also agree that Ellen was killed and mutilated similar to the other ripper victims!

So you have to ask yourself- which one is more likely to be a ripper victim?
MO and sig is similar, but not exact, so that's a wash for them both.

All things considered-I lean much more in favor of McKenzie, which would rule Bury out of course. But if she wasn't, and its possible, then Bury is a good suspect in my book.

[Wyatt Earp]

Thanks for the reply. The difficulty as I see it is that if Bury's motivation for killing his wife was an argument, or that he simply grew tired of her, then that is obviously very different to what motivated JtR, who may well have been acting out fantasies that developed over a period of years. In other words, different motives imply different killers, or at least there is no reason to suppose they are the same killer.

There’s no reason to suppose that serial killers are incapable of murdering someone in connection with a domestic dispute. If Ellen knew that Bury was the Ripper, or if she had strong suspicions in that direction, and if during the course of an argument she threatened to go to the police, Bury might have felt he had no choice but to kill her on the spot. To be honest, though, it’s not even necessary to pose such a scenario. People have been known to murder each other for some extremely stupid reasons. He and Ellen could have simply been arguing about cashing in Ellen’s jewelry when things got out of hand. Bury had a temper and it’s very possible he was drunk when he murdered her.

And if you argue that Bury toned things down because he wanted to disguise his signature, then the supposed confessions, written in chalk on the door and wall, obviously make no sense on this context. In fact, it could equally be argued that he initially intended to implicate JtR, but then changed his mind, claiming instead that his wife committed suicide.

Bury made a strange decision to go to the police with a story suggesting that Ellen committed suicide when he had Ellen’s body stuffed into a trunk in a demented pose, with a foot of intestine spilling from it. His failure to erase the chalkings was also strange (although it should be noted that, inasmuch as the messages were in two different hands, he could easily deny having written them), as was his leaving the knife he’d used on Ellen sitting on the window sill with blood and flesh and hair still on it. It’s possible, like other serial killers, he was “losing it” at the very end. Once Bury made the decision against flight, he in effect became a trapped man, and it’s possible this was taking a toll on him mentally.

A copycat or “implicate the Ripper” explanation of what occurred can be ruled out. If this was a prehomicide decision to implicate, Bury would have cut Ellen’s throat when he murdered her and he would have gone to the police with some story appropriate to that. If this was a posthomicide decision to implicate, he would have gone back to the body and cut her throat (also, the fact that nearly all of the mutilations occurred around the time of death and were part of the murder sequence itself speaks against such a posthomicide decision). The “he started to make it look a Ripper murder, but then changed his mind and broke it off” explanation can also be ruled out. A couple of the mutilations were conducted sometime after the main set, meaning that he would have gone back to the body to perform additional mutilations after he had supposedly broken things off. Other posthomicide behaviors linking Bury to the Ripper murders, the sexually degrading posing of Ellen’s body in the trunk, and the burning of some of her clothes in the fireplace, also would have occurred after he had supposedly broken things off.

It's also worth pointing out that Kemper murdered his mother in a remarkably similar way to his earlier co-ed murders, thus maintaining a remarkably consistent signature. Therefore, the fact that they were related didn't mean that, from his perspective, she merited special or different treatment. In fact, if anything she represented an escalation from the previous murders.

The signature on display in the Ellen Bury murder can be closely mapped to the signature described by Keppel et al—the Ellen Bury murder was indeed remarkably similar, from a signature standpoint, to his earlier murders. Kemper was different from Bury. Kemper called up the police and confessed to murder. Bury, on the other hand, tried to avoid being charged with murder. He toned the mutilations down to avoid being recognized as the Ripper and he went to the police with a story suggesting that Ellen took her own life.

Nonetheless, I find it interesting that Ellen suffered facial injuries-thanks for this info as it was something I was unaware of. And, as I noted earlier, it has been argued that the abdominal mutilations were similar to Eddowes' injuries, although, of course, not nearly so severe. And if it is argued that Ellen was a copycat killing, or even a pastiche of the Whitechapel murders, then I have to say that Bury doesn't strike me as being nearly intelligent enough to methodically recreate a JtR-style murder.

To summarize, there is clearly nothing that completely rules Bury out as a suspect. However, as Fisherman suggests in his post, does the evidence simply make him a person of interest, like a myriad of other suspects, or should he be elevated to the status of a real contender.

John, Bury can be confidently identified as the Ripper through a straightforward process of elimination. What if anything are you contesting in the below?

William Bury’s signature as displayed in his murder of Ellen Bury is a close match with Jack the Ripper’s signature as described by Keppel et al.

There are three possibilities:

1. William Bury was a copycat killer.
2. The close signature match was simply a coincidence.
3. William Bury was Jack the Ripper.

For the reasons described in my article, 1 and 2 can be ruled out, but 3 cannot.

Ergo, William Bury was Jack the Ripper.