Does anything rule Bury out?

[John G]

John, just a couple of corrections. William Bury did mutilate Ellen’s face. Dr. Templeman wrote, “Over the bridge of the nose was a small incised wound penetrating the skin only, half an inch in length, running obliquely downwards from right to left.” Also, Bury indicated in his confession letter that his murder of Ellen was not planned. If that was the case, if, for example, the murder grew out of an argument, it would not be correct to say that he “targeted” his wife.

William Bury had an obvious situational incentive to tone things down. It makes no sense, then, as an objection to Bury, to recite the ways in which he toned things down.

Hello Wyatt,

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: No one knows the Ripper's motive, and never will. However, we do know that Bury was an abusive wife-beater, capable of murdering women, in contrast to Lechmere the upstanding family man.

Lechmere does not belong to the discussion. We are discussing Bury only. And he was capable of killing hsi spouse. That does not necessarily mean that he was capable of killing OTHER women too! Killng a spouse is a very commont hing, sadly. Killing strangers - as we need to accept tht the Ripper did - is an entirely other matter. Any examples of serialists who finished off a killing series with a built-in escalation by killing their wifes in a less ferocious manner are welcomed...

Ah but of course! Dennis Rader and Gary Ridgway were both married men with kids, weren't they? But as I said before, you have to make a presumption of guilt on Lechmere's part as a premise to your argument. You're putting the carman before the horse, so to speak. Not so with Bury, we know he was capable of murder, and in a similar vein to the Ripper.

There´s Lechmere again - you seem to have a crush on him? Bury was capable of murder on his wife, Harry. And many murders of wifes are ugly stories on account of a dammed-up anger, that manifests itself in an overkill. Whenever we see such an ov erkill, we should theorize that the killer could have been a close aquaintance. Or a serialist.
The combination, though, is rarer than hens teeth.

Bury lived on the outskirts of the area, and had easy access to it with his pony & cart, which he sold in Dec 1888. Serial killers rarely murder on their own doorstep (or on their way to work, for that matter ). Whitechapel was a hotspot for prostitution and drunkenness, was it not? Sounds like the ideal place for a boozehound like Bury, who must've been sleeping around somewhere to end up giving his wife a venereal disease.

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.

As the eminent Martin Fido once said, two of the only real clues that we have on the Ripper are the GSG/apron and the date the murders ostensibly stopped.

We don´t know if the GSG is a Ripper clue.
We know that the apron belonged to Eddowes.
We don´t know that the murderer stopped.

One out of three left.

Martin is a terrific guy, so you got that right.

Well, in the latter case, Bury suddenly upped sticks to opposite end of the UK shortly after MJK's death before his arrest for uxoricide, whereas Lechmere continued living in Whitechapel for another 32 years before dying at a ripe old age of 71.

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?

And Bury did not leave "shortly" after the Kelly murder, he left two and a half months later, arriving in Dundee on January 20:th. A fleeing killer would have been gone in November, preferably before the middle of the month.

Why did Bury specifically target the abdominal area of his wife after killing her? That's a very peculiar thing to do, and I don't think most domestic murderer's initial instinct would be to grab a knife and start mutilating their partner's abdomen.

I am sure they wouldn´t. But that does not make Bury anything else than a man who was aware of how the Ripper had done his work. And he would be one of millions of poeple who had the same knowledge.
If he had killed his wife in early September, the bid would have been a better one. But he would still be a wife-killer, first and foremost, nevertheless.

In summary, Fish wants us to accept that a man without any history of violence or any kind of criminal behaviour is a better suspect than a man who committed a Ripper-esque murder shortly after the C5, simply because he found the first victim (because anything else is just a matter of interpretation).

Well, well - Harry suddenly KNOWS that Lechmere had no history of violence or any kind of criminal behaviour!
This is news! I always thought that all we knew was that no such records have surfaced! And that would put Lechmere precisely on par with a large number of serialists who had no prior convictions or records of criminal activity before they were arrested.
That is what I want and predispose that anybody with a head on their shoulders would accept - that people with no previous convictions can kill.

So that little ploy of your did not work, did it? It more, like, revealed how you reasoned wrongfully.
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.

Advantage Bury, I believe.

Yes, I know you believe that. But that is not how it works, I´m afraid. Place him on one of the crime scenes, and you have an argument. Otherwise, Bury is just one of hunders of suspects where the proponents have chosen a man who they think is of the same tyoe as the Ripper.
The inflation in such behaviour has always depended on how the dearth of any REAL, truly case-related suspects have not ben at hand. Tat has opened up the field for just about anybody who ever insulted a woman and lived within a hundred mile radius from Whitechapel. If they were bad enough eggs, two hundred did as well.

That has changed now. And Bury joins the rest of the bunch in the back seat. He is a person of interest, but not a suspect. As such, he is actually better than most of the others - I would count him into the top ten - but he is nowhere near a man we KNOW was in place. It would not matter if he had flung his wife´s entrails over her shoulder and cut inverted U:s into her cheeks - if you can´t put him on the spot and another theorist CAN put his man on the spot, you are smoked.

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.

[Wyatt Earp]

Perhaps. However, it seems apparent that JtR was on an upward trajectory as regards level of violence inflicted on the victims. Ellen Bury, if a Ripper victim, would therefore represent something of an anomaly, considering her throat wasn't cut, the mutilations were less extensive than Chapman, Eddowes or Kelly, no facial injuries (unlike Eddowes and Kelly), and there was no organ removal. Moreover, it isn't common for serial killers who target strangers to also target members of their own family.

John, just a couple of corrections. William Bury did mutilate Ellen’s face. Dr. Templeman wrote, “Over the bridge of the nose was a small incised wound penetrating the skin only, half an inch in length, running obliquely downwards from right to left.” Also, Bury indicated in his confession letter that his murder of Ellen was not planned. If that was the case, if, for example, the murder grew out of an argument, it would not be correct to say that he “targeted” his wife.

William Bury had an obvious situational incentive to tone things down. It makes no sense, then, as an objection to Bury, to recite the ways in which he toned things down.

[Harry D]

Harry D: There's no two ways about it, Bury is the likeliest suspect we have.

I was contemplating placing a lol smilie here, but I won´t be unnecessarily provocative. Let me just say: No.

With any other suspect, the case against them is based almost entirely on circumstantial evidence with the presumption that the suspect in question could perform these crimes.

With respect, the exact same applies to Bury. Claiming that Bury could have committed the Ripper crimes is an assumption. They were committed out in the open streets and they onvolved people who would have reasonably been strangers.
Murders of spouses are the most common murders there are. The Ripper killings were the most uncommon murders there are, more or less.
The only thing that speaks in favourr of Bury os that we know that he was able to pass the borderline of taking another persons life. But that is something that sadly attaches to very many people.

In Bury's case, that isn't necessary. Not only did Bury murder his wife through strangulation but he performed abdominal mutilations on her corpse.

Strangulation and knife violence is very, very common. Bury had all the time in the world to eviscerate his wife - but he didn´t. He had all the possibilitites in the world to put her on display - but he didn´t. He was looked into byt the police, who concluded thst he was not the Ripper. He confessed to the murder - but to no other murders.

He lived a couple of miles from Whitechapel but had access to a pony & cart, and the canonical murders ended shortly after he left London.

He lived in Bow, where the man hiring his services hosted a brothel. Why would he go to Whitechapel to kill prostitutes?

I was surprised that he was also brushed aside by the police given all that we know about him.

They asked, they investigated and they concluded. Brushing aside is what they do when they have satisifed themselves that they do not have their man.

Then again, it wouldn't be the first time a serial killer has been overlooked by the authorities because he didn't fit their profile.

True, Harry! Bravo! But what was it in Bury´s profile they disliked?

When Klosowski was arrested almost 15 years after the Whitechapel murders for poisoning his wives, Abberline thought they had finally caught the Ripper despite the radical and sudden shift in MO. This might go some way to explaining why Bury was dismissed by the Chief Inspector of the time.

Abberlines suspicions against Chapman? Why? Look, Barnett was quiried - and freed. That´s how it goes. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong, admittedly. But we really can not get much better confirmation of innocence than a police investigation into a person.


Now, Harry, let me tell you what the police look for. Ít is classical, and you will have heard it before: Means, motive and opportunity.

One of these things is more essential than the others: opportunity. If it was not there, then means and motive is of no consequence at all. The fewest suspects have that rare commodity. That is why people go looking for "suspects" who they think had the other two bits.

What did Bury have? Means? Who knows? Maybe, maybe not. We know that he handled knives at times, fair enough, so maybe he had means on the nights in question.

Motive? He arguably would have had such a thing when he killed his wife. And the fewest kill BOTH a set of prostitutes AND their wifes. Ridgway? No. Kürten? Lord, no! Armstrong? No.
So, Harry, who have finished of their serial killing carreers by killing their wifes?

Opportunity? Not that we know of. He lived in Bow. What places him in Whitechapel? Nothing.

A final question: If the police find a person standong alone with a murder victim, and if it cannot be established when he got there and how much time he had with the victim - how do they prioritize?

Do they investigate the man found on the spot, or do they brush him aside and go looking for people whith criminal records?

With my man, they SHOULD have investigated the man found at the spot, but the name tells us they never did. Andy Griffiths, though, tell us how they should have worked: Before Lechmere can be cleared, there is no reason to go to Bow or Dundee at all. Or to any other place ni the whole wide world where criminals dwell.

No one knows the Ripper's motive, and never will. However, we do know that Bury was an abusive wife-beater, capable of murdering women, in contrast to Lechmere the upstanding family man. Ah but of course! Dennis Rader and Gary Ridgway were both married men with kids, weren't they? But as I said before, you have to make a presumption of guilt on Lechmere's part as a premise to your argument. You're putting the carman before the horse, so to speak. Not so with Bury, we know he was capable of murder, and in a similar vein to the Ripper.

Bury lived on the outskirts of the area, and had easy access to it with his pony & cart, which he sold in Dec 1888. Serial killers rarely murder on their own doorstep (or on their way to work, for that matter ). Whitechapel was a hotspot for prostitution and drunkenness, was it not? Sounds like the ideal place for a boozehound like Bury, who must've been sleeping around somewhere to end up giving his wife a venereal disease.

As the eminent Martin Fido once said, two of the only real clues that we have on the Ripper are the GSG/apron and the date the murders ostensibly stopped. Well, in the latter case, Bury suddenly upped sticks to opposite end of the UK shortly after MJK's death before his arrest for uxoricide, whereas Lechmere continued living in Whitechapel for another 32 years before dying at a ripe old age of 71.

Why did Bury specifically target the abdominal area of his wife after killing her? That's a very peculiar thing to do, and I don't think most domestic murderer's initial instinct would be to grab a knife and start mutilating their partner's abdomen.

In summary, Fish wants us to accept that a man without any history of violence or any kind of criminal behaviour is a better suspect than a man who committed a Ripper-esque murder shortly after the C5, simply because he found the first victim (because anything else is just a matter of interpretation).

Advantage Bury, I believe.

[John G]

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.

Hello Wyatt,

Perhaps. However, it seems apparent that JtR was on an upward trajectory as regards level of violence inflicted on the victims. Ellen Bury, if a Ripper victim, would therefore represent something of an anomaly, considering her throat wasn't cut, the mutilations were less extensive than Chapman, Eddowes or Kelly, no facial injuries (unlike Eddowes and Kelly), and there was no organ removal. Moreover, it isn't common for serial killers who target strangers to also target members of their own family.

In fact, Keppel acknowledges some of these issues in trying to establish a link via signature analysis: "The killers(s) of Smith, Mylett, Coles, McKenzie, and the unidentified victim did not engage in the same patterns of escalating signature behaviours exhibited by Jack the Ripper..." (Keppel, 2005).

The same is clearly true of William Bury. However, I agree that there may have been reasons why Ellen was treated differently, although it could be argued that there was no reason why she couldn't have been killed in a radically different way, I.e. if he was concerned that he would be implicated as the Ripper. And of course, this would represent a somewhat illogical and contradictory approach anyway, because he tried to argue that Ellen had committed suicide; the supposed confessions, written in chalk on the door and wall, hardly drew attention away from the Ripper connection, either. In fact, to the contrary they strongly drew attention to a possible connection.

Nonetheless, I accept that Bury can't be ruled out, and the similarities between Ellen's and Eddowes abdominal injuries may be regarded as signigicant, as may the fact that she was murdered almost exactly three months after Kelly, particularly as JtR seemed to have a need to kill frequently. In fact, I still regard Bury as one of very few reasonably plausible candidates.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: There's no two ways about it, Bury is the likeliest suspect we have.

I was contemplating placing a lol smilie here, but I won´t be unnecessarily provocative. Let me just say: No.

With any other suspect, the case against them is based almost entirely on circumstantial evidence with the presumption that the suspect in question could perform these crimes.

With respect, the exact same applies to Bury. Claiming that Bury could have committed the Ripper crimes is an assumption. They were committed out in the open streets and they onvolved people who would have reasonably been strangers.
Murders of spouses are the most common murders there are. The Ripper killings were the most uncommon murders there are, more or less.
The only thing that speaks in favourr of Bury os that we know that he was able to pass the borderline of taking another persons life. But that is something that sadly attaches to very many people.

In Bury's case, that isn't necessary. Not only did Bury murder his wife through strangulation but he performed abdominal mutilations on her corpse.

Strangulation and knife violence is very, very common. Bury had all the time in the world to eviscerate his wife - but he didn´t. He had all the possibilitites in the world to put her on display - but he didn´t. He was looked into byt the police, who concluded thst he was not the Ripper. He confessed to the murder - but to no other murders.

He lived a couple of miles from Whitechapel but had access to a pony & cart, and the canonical murders ended shortly after he left London.

He lived in Bow, where the man hiring his services hosted a brothel. Why would he go to Whitechapel to kill prostitutes?

I was surprised that he was also brushed aside by the police given all that we know about him.

They asked, they investigated and they concluded. Brushing aside is what they do when they have satisifed themselves that they do not have their man.

Then again, it wouldn't be the first time a serial killer has been overlooked by the authorities because he didn't fit their profile.

True, Harry! Bravo! But what was it in Bury´s profile they disliked?

When Klosowski was arrested almost 15 years after the Whitechapel murders for poisoning his wives, Abberline thought they had finally caught the Ripper despite the radical and sudden shift in MO. This might go some way to explaining why Bury was dismissed by the Chief Inspector of the time.

Abberlines suspicions against Chapman? Why? Look, Barnett was quiried - and freed. That´s how it goes. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong, admittedly. But we really can not get much better confirmation of innocence than a police investigation into a person.


Now, Harry, let me tell you what the police look for. Ít is classical, and you will have heard it before: Means, motive and opportunity.

One of these things is more essential than the others: opportunity. If it was not there, then means and motive is of no consequence at all. The fewest suspects have that rare commodity. That is why people go looking for "suspects" who they think had the other two bits.

What did Bury have? Means? Who knows? Maybe, maybe not. We know that he handled knives at times, fair enough, so maybe he had means on the nights in question.

Motive? He arguably would have had such a thing when he killed his wife. And the fewest kill BOTH a set of prostitutes AND their wifes. Ridgway? No. Kürten? Lord, no! Armstrong? No.
So, Harry, who have finished of their serial killing carreers by killing their wifes?

Opportunity? Not that we know of. He lived in Bow. What places him in Whitechapel? Nothing.

A final question: If the police find a person standong alone with a murder victim, and if it cannot be established when he got there and how much time he had with the victim - how do they prioritize?

Do they investigate the man found on the spot, or do they brush him aside and go looking for people whith criminal records?

With my man, they SHOULD have investigated the man found at the spot, but the name tells us they never did. Andy Griffiths, though, tell us how they should have worked: Before Lechmere can be cleared, there is no reason to go to Bow or Dundee at all. Or to any other place ni the whole wide world where criminals dwell.

[Harry D]

There's no two ways about it, Bury is the likeliest suspect we have. With any other suspect, the case against them is based almost entirely on circumstantial evidence with the presumption that the suspect in question could perform these crimes. In Bury's case, that isn't necessary. Not only did Bury murder his wife through strangulation but he performed abdominal mutilations on her corpse. He lived a couple of miles from Whitechapel but had access to a pony & cart, and the canonical murders ended shortly after he left London. I was surprised that he was also brushed aside by the police given all that we know about him. Then again, it wouldn't be the first time a serial killer has been overlooked by the authorities because he didn't fit their profile. When Klosowski was arrested almost 15 years after the Whitechapel murders for poisoning his wives, Abberline thought they had finally caught the Ripper despite the radical and sudden shift in MO. This might go some way to explaining why Bury was dismissed by the Chief Inspector of the time.

[John G]

Bury was a Worcestershire man hailing from Stourbridge to be slightly more exact - but a foreigner he was not! So you are quite correct on that score.

What I commented on was the suggestion that Bury could well have been Blotchy. It sounded like a rather lofty supposition in my ears...

Hello Fish,

Yes, he was born in Stourbridge, which is historically part of Worcestershire but now part of the Metropolitan County of West Midlands-as is Wolverhampton. I've just checked Macpherson and according to his landlady in London, who may have been unreliable, Bury told her that he lived with his uncle in Wolverhampton for many years. He also worked for a lock manufacturer, Osbourne, who had premises in Lord Street, Wolverhampton. In the summer of 1887 he was selling lead pencils and key rings in Snow Hill, Birmingham, also in the West Midlands. In the Autumn of 1887 he left Birmingham for London.

[Wyatt Earp]

there is nothing that ties him to any of the actual crimes.

There's very little to tie any suspect to any of the actual crimes.

That is true. However these do:

kosminsky
Hutchinson
Blotchy
Lech
LeGrande (remember him?)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Fisherman]

Macpherson argued that Bury could have been Mrs Long's suspect, because she referred to a "foreigner", and Bury originated from Wolverhampton so could have been mistaken as such!

Bury was a Worcestershire man hailing from Stourbridge to be slightly more exact - but a foreigner he was not! So you are quite correct on that score.

What I commented on was the suggestion that Bury could well have been Blotchy. It sounded like a rather lofty supposition in my ears...

[John G]

Or Astrakhan man. Or the guy who harassed Sarah Lewis. Or the loiterer outside Millers Court. Or a waiter at the Bricklayers arms. Or the man Stride consorted with there.

It´s a world of opportunities. And moot arguments.

Macpherson argued that Bury could have been Mrs Long's suspect, because she referred to a "foreigner", and Bury originated from Wolverhampton so could have been mistaken as such!

[Fisherman]

To Abbey

Could you go into more detail. Apart from Blotchy we don't know who Blotchy was. Its perfectly possible that Bury was Blotchy.

Cheers John

Or Astrakhan man. Or the guy who harassed Sarah Lewis. Or the loiterer outside Millers Court. Or a waiter at the Bricklayers arms. Or the man Stride consorted with there.

It´s a world of opportunities. And moot arguments.

[John G]

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.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

OK I'll put my head over the parapet...

(a) he didn't cut her throat - JtR did

(b) he employed a ligature - JtR didn't

(C) his abdominal mutilations, such as they were, seem tentative if not imitatory

(D) Does he leave her posed on the street? No he attempts to pack her into a wooden box, breaking her leg in the process...

(E) He's not quick witted - he hangs around for almost a week as if wondering what to do...christ all he had to do was have a shave and catch a train...any train, headed anywhere...this was maybe the last generation that could make a trace-free fresh start - Cadosche did...this guy could've...and didn't...

(F) far from any escape strategy or even hasty risk taking, he eventually wanders down to the local copshop and effectively (though Wyatt Earp denies it) hands himself in...

Is this not enough?

He knew her. Post mortem fantasies might have been different.

[Abby Normal]

To Abbey

Could you go into more detail. Apart from Blotchy we don't know who Blotchy was. Its perfectly possible that Bury was Blotchy.

Cheers John

Hi John
Well that's the conundrum with Blotchy. We really don't know who he was. However, he was described in a very specific way-Blotchy face and red hair/mustache.

I think he fits the description (somewhat) of a lot of other unnamed suspects-sailor man, the other men described around the Fiddymont sighting, ada Wilson attack, pipeman.

he also fits the description of legrande I believe-red hair? if I remember correctly.

I don't think bury was described as having red, or even sandy/fair hair was he?