Does anything rule Bury out?

[Pierre]

Why the massive gap between Kelly and Mackenzie then?

People travel.

[John Wheat]

Hello John
All the circs that night point to mary and her killer knowing each other. The killer was lying low.

and also, it maybe the only time, the killer was totally satisfied with the experience, indulging his full fantasy, so maybe he was satiated for a while.

It's still a large gap though. I'm not convinced by your points at all. If you're ruling Bury out purely because you believe Mackenzie was a Ripper victim you're on shaky ground.

[Abby Normal]

Why the massive gap between Kelly and Mackenzie then?

Hello John
All the circs that night point to mary and her killer knowing each other. The killer was lying low.

and also, it maybe the only time, the killer was totally satisfied with the experience, indulging his full fantasy, so maybe he was satiated for a while.

[John Wheat]

Agree. Mackenzies the stickler for me too, as I think she was probably a ripper victim.

Why the massive gap between Kelly and Mackenzie then?

[Abby Normal]

If it weren't for Alice McKenzie, I'd be fairly set on Bury as the Ripper. However, he remains the best named suspect we have on the balance of evidence.

Agree. Mackenzies the stickler for me too, as I think she was probably a ripper victim.

[Harry D]

I still think nothing rules Bury out and a lot rules him in.

If it weren't for Alice McKenzie, I'd be fairly set on Bury as the Ripper. However, he remains the best named suspect we have on the balance of evidence.

[John Wheat]

I still think nothing rules Bury out and a lot rules him in.

[johns]

Thanks for that. Very interesting.

[curious]

Hi.

This story sounds very interesting. Can you point me to more information on it please? Thanks

Hi, Johns,
Sorry. Should have documented that. I know better.

Was surfing at the time and my brain just tucked that away -- you know how brains work.

http://listverse.com/2015/10/31/10-serial-killing-long-haul-truckers/

Keith Hunter Jesperson

He also wrote graffiti and communicated with the media.

Here is another interesting case of a serial killer who unraveled and got careless, killing his roommates, one of whom was a cousin.

His MO changed drastically when he killed the people he knew. Unless the authorities find other killings, he was dormant for a long time.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/10/13/truck-driver-indicted-four-deaths/73904402/

curious

[johns]

In just the past week or so, I've read of a serial killer who got away with murder for years -- until he killed his girlfriend.

Hi.

This story sounds very interesting. Can you point me to more information on it please? Thanks

[Abby Normal]

Hi, Harry D,
If Bury were JtR, maybe he did not think he had anywhere to run.

All the other women had been strangers, anonymous, and could not be tied to him. He could leave them and walk away, and the women could not be traced to him.

However, once he killed Ellen, everyone had to know who he was. Perhaps he killed her in a drunken rage, began the mutilation and came to himself, which accounts for the mutilations being less. Plus, she was his wife. Wouldn't that likely make a difference? Perhaps since he knew he was the Ripper, it never occurred to him that the cops would not immediately recognize his work.

So, once the Ripper had killed Ellen, she was tied to him and now everyone would know who the Ripper was. They knew what he looked like.

He and Ellen had moved to Dundee, and even there people were talking about the Ripper. Bury seemed to always think himself more than he was. If he was known in Dundee, is it possible he thought JtR was known everywhere -- that there was no where to run?

So, he sat in that foul basement and pondered. As he thought, he drank, he returned to the corpse, he came to, he pondered. Perhaps he had outsmarted the police before and thought he could again.

In just the past week or so, I've read of a serial killer who got away with murder for years -- until he killed his girlfriend.

BTW, I don't think he intended to kill Ellen. He brought her to Dundee with him because she knew who he was. However, the big boxes he had constructed were for show -- to make people think they had a lot more than they did. Today, people with the need to display do so with expensive luggage -- Bury used extra big trunks.

Just my musings,

curious

I like your musings.

plus if the local brats had scribbled that graffiti on his door-might have lead to some what your talking about.

[curious]

Which ties into my theory that Bury's mind was unraveling. I'm looking for a logical explanation for Bury as the Ripper. Killing his wife might have been the last straw, hence his decision to visit the police instead of making a break for it.

Hi, Harry D,
If Bury were JtR, maybe he did not think he had anywhere to run.

All the other women had been strangers, anonymous, and could not be tied to him. He could leave them and walk away, and the women could not be traced to him.

However, once he killed Ellen, everyone had to know who he was. Perhaps he killed her in a drunken rage, began the mutilation and came to himself, which accounts for the mutilations being less. Plus, she was his wife. Wouldn't that likely make a difference? Perhaps since he knew he was the Ripper, it never occurred to him that the cops would not immediately recognize his work.

So, once the Ripper had killed Ellen, she was tied to him and now everyone would know who the Ripper was. They knew what he looked like.

He and Ellen had moved to Dundee, and even there people were talking about the Ripper. Bury seemed to always think himself more than he was. If he was known in Dundee, is it possible he thought JtR was known everywhere -- that there was no where to run?

So, he sat in that foul basement and pondered. As he thought, he drank, he returned to the corpse, he came to, he pondered. Perhaps he had outsmarted the police before and thought he could again.

In just the past week or so, I've read of a serial killer who got away with murder for years -- until he killed his girlfriend.

BTW, I don't think he intended to kill Ellen. He brought her to Dundee with him because she knew who he was. However, the big boxes he had constructed were for show -- to make people think they had a lot more than they did. Today, people with the need to display do so with expensive luggage -- Bury used extra big trunks.

Just my musings,

curious

[Sam Flynn]

Paul Harrison, an expert eviscerater, also consulted by Trevor Marriott (he assisted Dr Calder), observed: "To work in such an intricate manner, and to remove the kidney carefully and the uterus without damaging the surrounding tissue would be very difficult."

He did damage the tissue surrounding the kidney and uterus, though. There were evidently accidental punctures/stabs to the organs immediately in the vicinity of the left kidney, only part of the uterus was excised (with a stump left in the body), and Eddowes' descending/sigmoid colon had been cut.

In fact, Dr Calder and Paul Garrison, in controlled experiment, attempted to remove a kidney using a six inch Victorian knife. Having made an initial incision, similar to the one inflicted on Eddowes, they found it impossible to remove the kidney with that size of knife.

We don't know exactly what knife the Ripper used.

The problem was not only with the knife itself, but also on account of the abdominal cavity filing with blood (in the case of Eddowes there would have been even more blood as she'd just been killed.

There would have been less blood, as she'd had her neck slashed open. I've pointed this out to Trevor in the past; his experiments, though commendable, really ought to have replicated the conditions as closely as possible, but they didn't. Having said that, it would be unethical to exsanguinate a living being by slitting their throat, so it's probably just as well they didn't try!

And the perpetrator had the added disadvantages of working in darkness and under time pressure.

I'll grant you that, but I'm pretty sure a surgeon/medical-student would have coped much better. For one thing, a person with actual "skill" wouldn't have faffed around with that enormous incision from sternum to pelvis, and hoiking all those intestines out of the way, merely to get to the uterus. (I know he took the kidney as well, but he didn't do that with Chapman, and she was disembowelled to the same degree.)

Anyway, how does all this relate to Bury?

[Sam Flynn]

The inquest report also makes it clear that Dr Brown thought Eddowes' perpetrator had exhibited a significant amount of skill

It's noteworthy that Brown refers more to knowledge than to skill, in fact, the specific reference to "skill" is in the Coroner's question, not Brown's reply. I've underlined the relevant bits:

Coroner: Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill?
Dr Brown: He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.
Coroner: Would the removal of the kidney, for example, require special knowledge?
Dr Brown: It would require a good deal of knowledge as to its position, as it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane.

What people tend to overlook, however, is Coroner's next question, namely, "Would such a knowledge be likely to be possessed by some one accustomed to cutting up animals?", to which Brown responds "Yes". This, perhaps, explains the origin of the "butchers' cuts" recalled by Churton Collins in his memoirs.

Whether we're talking about "anatomical skills" (whatever they are), "anatomical knowledge" or knowledge of butchery, that doesn't mean that the killer was a medical student or practitioner, nor that Brown ever said he was. He certainly doesn't say so in any primary source that I'm aware of.

[John G]

Thanks for that, John, although I'm not sure how much store we should set by Churton Collins' memoirs, written almost a quarter of a century after the Ripper murders, and 17 years after his meeting with Dr Brown. For what it's worth, the memoirs go on to report Brown as saying "...but that [the killer] was also a butcher, as the mutilations slashing the nose, etc., were butchers' cuts." As any butcher will no doubt tell you, them's not butchers' cuts.

Perhaps Brown actually mentioned butchers, but Churton Collins got his wires crossed. By the same token, whilst Brown might have said that the killer had "undoubted" anatomical knowledge, perhaps Collins surmised from this that the killer would have to have formally studied anatomy. Therefore (thinks Collins), Brown must have meant that the Ripper was a medical student.Not according to Collins' memoirs, who states that Brown "[saw] most of the corpses just after they were murdered, conducting postmortems, etc."

It's evident that Churton Collins' memoir should be treated with extreme caution.

Hi Gareth,

Although the memoirs were written some time after the meeting with Dr Brown, it's obvious that they were based upon contemporaneous notes: this is evident from the opening line, "Yesterday, Wednesday, April [1905]..."

The inquest report also makes it clear that Dr Brown thought Eddowes' perpetrator had exhibited a significant amount of skill:

Coroner: "Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill?"

Dr Brown: " He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them."

Coroner: "Would the removal of the kidney, for example, require special knowledge?"

Dr Brown: "It would require a good deal of knowledge as to its position, as it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane."

And Edward Neal, a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist, consulted by Trevor Marriott, opined: "It would require more medical knowledge to understand the need to severe the mesentery of the gut in order to identify the kidney and remove it." (Marriott, 2013)

Paul Harrison, an expert eviscerater, also consulted by Trevor Marriott (he assisted Dr Calder), observed: "To work in such an intricate manner, and to remove the kidney carefully and the uterus without damaging the surrounding tissue would be very difficult." (Marriott, 2013).

In fact, Dr Calder and Paul Garrison, in controlled experiment, attempted to remove a kidney using a six inch Victorian knife. Having made an initial incision, similar to the one inflicted on Eddowes, they found it impossible to remove the kidney with that size of knife. The problem was not only with the knife itself, but also on account of the abdominal cavity filing with blood (in the case of Eddowes there would have been even more blood as she'd just been killed. And the perpetrator had the added disadvantages of working in darkness and under time pressure.