Does anything rule Bury out?

[Fisherman]

John Wheat: To Fisherman

I assume you mean caught serial killers. Although where did you get this 95% statistic?

By looking at the cases one by one. Very few serial killers attack their own and kill them.
Do you disagree?

And yes what would a known drunk and user of prostitutes be doing in the early hours of the morning in Whitechapel? I also assume Bury would say he'd been working. Followed by drinking.

Why would he not drink and use prostitutes in Bow?

[John Wheat]

John Wheat: To Fisherman

I assume you mean caught serial killers. Although where did you get this 95% statistic?

By looking at the cases one by one. Very few serial killers attack their own and kill them.
Do you disagree?

And yes what would a known drunk and user of prostitutes be doing in the early hours of the morning in Whitechapel? I also assume Bury would say he'd been working. Followed by drinking.

Why would he not drink and use prostitutes in Bow?

There are exceptions to the alleged 95% of serial killers. Ed Kemper springs to mind. I suggest Bury felt more comfortable in a location away from home where he would be less likely to be suspected.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

There are exceptions to the alleged 95% of serial killers. Ed Kemper springs to mind. I suggest Bury felt more comfortable in a location away from home where he would be less likely to be suspected.

Cheers John

Exceptions? There are five per cent to make use of for people like Ed Kemper. But the fact remains that it is very, very rare to find serial killers who kill spouses or relatives.

I have noted the suggestion that Bury would have killed in Whitechapel so as to deflect suspicion. However, the argument works from a supposition that he was the killer. What I asked was "Why would he go to Whitechapel at 3.30 in the mornings if he was not the killer? What errand would he logically have?"

[John Wheat]

To Fisherman
I suggest Bury would be drinking into the early hours. Surely a lack of an alibi shouldn't suggest he isn't guilty though. I would say an alibi such as travelling to work is just that an alibi. Suggesting a lack of guilt.

Cheers John

[John G]

Exceptions? There are five per cent to make use of for people like Ed Kemper. But the fact remains that it is very, very rare to find serial killers who kill spouses or relatives.

I have noted the suggestion that Bury would have killed in Whitechapel so as to deflect suspicion. However, the argument works from a supposition that he was the killer. What I asked was "Why would he go to Whitechapel at 3.30 in the mornings if he was not the killer? What errand would he logically have?"

Hi Fisherman,

But what about George Chapman? Perhaps it's more accurate to say that it's uncommon for serial killer's to target both people they know, i.e. relatives, as well as complete strangers (Chapman, of course, only targeted his wives, at least as far as we know.)

Of course, if Bury was JtR then he could have had a different motive for killing his wife, i.e. she found out about his murderous activities. However, in such circumstances would she still have been killed in a similar manner to the Whitechapel victims?

[Fisherman]

John Wheat: To Fisherman
I suggest Bury would be drinking into the early hours.

But why in Whitechapel, if he was not the killer?

Surely a lack of an alibi shouldn't suggest he isn't guilty though.

Of course not - who suggested it did...?

Are we agreed that serial killers very rarely kill their own relatives and wives?

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

Couldn't agree more, although I'm not particularly impressed with the case against Bury.

On the general point, at Mitre Square JTR would have been long gone by the time the police began their search of the area - judging by the times given - e.g. Halse. In my mind, unless disturbed he would have simply stood up and walked down the street. It certainly didn't take a criminal mastermind to evade capture in those days.

[Fisherman]

John G: Hi Fisherman,

But what about George Chapman? Perhaps it's more accurate to say that it's uncommon for serial killer's to target both people they know, i.e. relatives, as well as complete strangers (Chapman, of course, only targeted his wives, at least as far as we know.)

Serial killers who only kill their own relatives are very, very rare.

Serial killers who kill a mixture of their own relatives and strangers are very, very rare.

So no matter how we look upon it...

Of course, if Bury was JtR then he could have had a different motive for killing his wife, i.e. she found out about his murderous activities. However, in such circumstances would she still have been killed in a similar manner to the Whitechapel victims?

Interesting question - and impossible to answer. I donīt think we can exclude that he would have killed in the same manner, at any rate. As it stands, he killed in a semi-lookalike manner.

If the reason for killing his wife was to stop her from spilling the beans, itīs kind of odd that he went to the police himself afterwards ...

[John Wheat]

John Wheat: To Fisherman
I suggest Bury would be drinking into the early hours.

But why in Whitechapel, if he was not the killer?

Surely a lack of an alibi shouldn't suggest he isn't guilty though.

Of course not - who suggested it did...?

Are we agreed that serial killers very rarely kill their own relatives and wives?

Yes but I'm suggesting he was the killer. Yes we are agreed Serial Killers rarely kill there own relatives and wives but it has happened. Besides there are no absolutes with serial killers.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

John Wheat: Yes but I'm suggesting he was the killer.

Then your reasoning becomes very circular, Iīm afraid.

Yes we are agreed Serial Killers rarely kill there own relatives and wives but it has happened. Besides there are no absolutes with serial killers.

Indeed! It is however of great interest to note how very deviant Bury would have been if he killed both strangers and his wife. Plus why did he not eviscerate his wife? Whenever the Ripper had some time on his hands, it seems he did eviscerate.
He may look like a good fit on the surface of things, but once we start digging a bit deeper, one obstacle after another are added to the picture.

[John G]

John G: Hi Fisherman,

But what about George Chapman? Perhaps it's more accurate to say that it's uncommon for serial killer's to target both people they know, i.e. relatives, as well as complete strangers (Chapman, of course, only targeted his wives, at least as far as we know.)

Serial killers who only kill their own relatives are very, very rare.

Serial killers who kill a mixture of their own relatives and strangers are very, very rare.

So no matter how we look upon it...

Of course, if Bury was JtR then he could have had a different motive for killing his wife, i.e. she found out about his murderous activities. However, in such circumstances would she still have been killed in a similar manner to the Whitechapel victims?

Interesting question - and impossible to answer. I donīt think we can exclude that he would have killed in the same manner, at any rate. As it stands, he killed in a semi-lookalike manner.

If the reason for killing his wife was to stop her from spilling the beans, itīs kind of odd that he went to the police himself afterwards ...

Hi Fisherman,

Of course, Bury claimed his wife had committed suicide, and that he'd subsequently inflicted the abdominal injuries because this had made him angry. And, if he was JtR, perhaps he was arrogant enough to believe he'd get away with it.

Interestingly, Dr Lennox told the court he believed that it was a case of suicide, not homicide and, bizarrely, after finding Bury guilty of murder the jury initially recommended mercy, partly on account of the "conflicting medical evidence"!

[Single-O-Seven]

John Wheat: Yes but I'm suggesting he was the killer.

Then your reasoning becomes very circular, Iīm afraid.

Yes we are agreed Serial Killers rarely kill there own relatives and wives but it has happened. Besides there are no absolutes with serial killers.

Indeed! It is however of great interest to note how very deviant Bury would have been if he killed both strangers and his wife. Plus why did he not eviscerate his wife? Whenever the Ripper had some time on his hands, it seems he did eviscerate.
He may look like a good fit on the surface of things, but once we start digging a bit deeper, one obstacle after another are added to the picture.

If his wife knew or suspected him to be JTR and was prepared to out him, could this have not been a driving force to make him snap and do her in, regardless how commonly serial killers turn on their spouses? The minor, Ripper-esque mutilations came about for the simple reason that he now had a dead woman and an urge to fill, and so filled it as little as he could allow himself. His reasons for not going all-out with the mutilations could be simply that he felt some fear or guilt for having killed his wife, or knew that he would likely be pegged as the Ripper if her murder looked too much like a Ripper crime, something he wanted to avoid by killing her in the first place. Just some idle speculations...

[John Wheat]

John Wheat: Yes but I'm suggesting he was the killer.

Then your reasoning becomes very circular, Iīm afraid.

Yes we are agreed Serial Killers rarely kill there own relatives and wives but it has happened. Besides there are no absolutes with serial killers.

Indeed! It is however of great interest to note how very deviant Bury would have been if he killed both strangers and his wife. Plus why did he not eviscerate his wife? Whenever the Ripper had some time on his hands, it seems he did eviscerate.
He may look like a good fit on the surface of things, but once we start digging a bit deeper, one obstacle after another are added to the picture.

Never mind circular logic you seem to be indicating a guilty person would have an alibi which is illogical at best. Of course other suspects for instance Lechmere have no problems with them being the Ripper.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

Of course, Bury claimed his wife had committed suicide, and that he'd subsequently inflicted the abdominal injuries because this had made him angry. And, if he was JtR, perhaps he was arrogant enough to believe he'd get away with it.

Interestingly, Dr Lennox told the court he believed that it was a case of suicide, not homicide and, bizarrely, after finding Bury guilty of murder the jury initially recommended mercy, partly on account of the "conflicting medical evidence"!

If anything, that removes the deed even further from the Ripper deeds!

[Fisherman]

Never mind circular logic you seem to be indicating a guilty person would have an alibi which is illogical at best. Of course other suspects for instance Lechmere have no problems with them being the Ripper.

Whatever it is you are saying, I donīt understand it. Why would I say that guilty persons have alibis...? Normally, itīs the other way around.

Suggestion: Keep Lechmere out of the picture and discuss Bury instead!