Does anything rule Bury out?

[Abby Normal]

Completely different motivation. Serial killers murder for pleasure, a sense of satisfaction or completion. For release. Sometimes it's sexual. Kemper was so damaged that he could not even approach a woman to ask her out. He killed women to have interactions with them. Yes, sexual, but also simply to be in their presence for longer than a minute or two. His fantasy was sexual. It was about forming relationships.

His mother is the one who destroyed is ability to have relationships. That murder was pure revenge. With his grandmother, also a raging bitch, he lost his temper, but by then he had already been molded into the perfect psycopath. His statement to the police as to why he did it was crap. He killed her because she was hurting him, and he made it stop. The only suspicious murder was that of his grandfather. It is possible that he genuinely feared his grandfather's reaction, but given his grandfather's extremely submissive nature, he may have seen the murder as a kindness. He has made some statements about how his grandfather could not live without his grandfather. He may have shot his grandfather to spare him the loss of his wife.

A serial killer might kill someone out of perceived necessity. And they do. All the time. Think about the killers who torture and mutilate women. There have been any number of instances where a serial killer has put down a child in order to do what they want to the mother. They do not do to the children what they do to the mother because that's not their thing. That's not who they are. They'll kill a kid, cut throat, strangulation, bullet to the head, but they don't act out their fantasy on the wrong kind of victim. BTK did treat the children the way he treated adults. His fantasy didn't depend on adults, or females, they just had to capable of feeling pain. Jack needed adult women.

If Jack was like Kemper, then the murder of a family member only happens either by accident, or through blame. If it was by accident, say a fight, there would be no fantasy involved, and no reason to stage it to look like a Ripper crime. If it was by accident then likely he hit her too hard. Nobody accidentally cuts someone's throat. If it was because of blame, like it was with Kemper, then the murder should be spectacular. Kemper did terrible things to corpses. That is his thing. But what he did to his mother would make Freud dance a jig. It was gruesome, it was extreme, it was overkill because he blamed her. He blamed her for ruining his life, and in fact she did. I hate to say this, but she deserved what she got. If you make a serial killer, you should die by his hand. But that murder was so frenzied that he didn't even have it out of his system after he ran out of things to do to her. He called in her best friend. Huge messy symbolic murder. Ellen Bury's murder was relatively tame. Suggestive, but tame. If Bury were Jack, and he was killing his wife for a reason that had nothing to do with his fantasy, the murder would not resemble the C5. If it was because of his fantasy, a close emotional connection to the victim always spells out a spectacular version of past fantasies. It should have been the Broadway version of the Ripper murders. Not some sad resemblance. Bury killing his wife doesn't mean he isn't the Ripper. Bury killing his wife the way he did means he isn't the Ripper.

And Kemper is pretty much a bad example for anything because he is brilliant, articulate, and astonishingly self aware. And has been throughout his life and killing career. He is extremely helpful to researchers, but I still wouldn't be alone in a room with him. We know more about him than any other serial killer, and it is tempting to ascribe his traits to all serial killers. But the Grand Canyon sized gap in the IQs of other killers and Kemper means we can't. Kemper and Rifkin stand alone. They are capable of doing things their counterparts cannot do, their executive functions (barring empathy) are well honed, their reasoning is impeccable, and both have the power to deny themselves when necessary. They arent the average serial killers. I actually feel bad for Kemper. Still wouldn't want to have a coffee with him, but Kemper and Gein are how we know that serial killers can be made, not bred. It's sad.

Also
You seem to be arguing against yourself. You just listed like three different motivations for Kempers murders. Which is exactly my point.
Bury may have murdered his wife in a drunken rage, or because she found out he was the ripper, whatever. And not the same motive as the c5.

And besides the wounds and method in which he killed her are similar enough to the c5.

[Roy Corduroy]

because she found out he was the ripper

Which is what the book proposed.

But hey, that's the neat thing about here. You don't have to read books or anything, just sit down and start typing.

Roy

[Errata]

Errata I too find some of your comments about Kemper rather disturbing. I wouldn't describe Kemper as brilliant. Admitedly he has a high I.Q. but this just proves he knew exactly what he was doing. Why would anyone feel sorry for Kemper he is after all a serial killer? Also why describe Kemper and Rifkin as standing alone? There have been other killers with Hi I.Q.'s for example Melvin Rees, Werner Boost and Lucian Staniak.

Cheers John

I feel sorry for him because his genetics dictated that his life should have been better. His psychopathy was nurture, not nature. Yes he's a serial killer, and I don't sympathize with that. But I know what it's like to be born with an amazing capacity that gets cut off because of something you don't want and don't need. Kemper had a psychotic abusive mother who ruined him. I had childhood onset Bipolar. My crisis doesn't make me a killer, but that doesn't mean I can't recognize someone getting royally screwed when I see it. The world would have been a safer place if his mother hadn't been barking mad. Just like I can't stand child abusers, but on the rare occasion when the abused becomes the abuser, I can sympathize with the abuse without condoning the continuation of abuse.

And Kemper and Rifkin stand alone not just because of their high IQs, but their amazing candor. Both men routinely participate in research and testing, both are incredibly open about their crimes and their motivations, both are curious as to why they are what they are. A high IQ combined with the ability to honestly look inward and we have a LOT of information about serial killers coming from a very small sample. Much of what we know about serial killer hunting patterns comes from Kemper. He is the one they interviewed who really talked about it. But not all killers are like Kemper. Their IQ doesn't matter when they are killing. It matters when they are cooperating. The information we get from Kemper or Rifkin sets them aside. Any act committed by Kemper has a narration. We know what he was thinking and feeling when he killed his mother. He's talked about it. We can't compare him to another killer, because we know Kemper's motives, but we don't know other killers motives. It sets them apart. Kemper and Rifkin are the controls of serial killing. A known quantity. And you can't compare a known quantity to an unknown. We know so much about these two men, that we cannot compare them to other killers without stacking the deck. They stand apart because they are not useful comparisons. Any comparison of the Ripper to Kemper means that we transfer the motives and needs of Kemper to the Ripper. And that's a terrible idea.

[Errata]

Also
You seem to be arguing against yourself. You just listed like three different motivations for Kempers murders. Which is exactly my point.
Bury may have murdered his wife in a drunken rage, or because she found out he was the ripper, whatever. And not the same motive as the c5.

And besides the wounds and method in which he killed her are similar enough to the c5.

My argument was never that Jack the Ripper wouldn't kill his wife. My argument is that he wouldn't kill his wife with a half assed Ripper-esque murder. If Bury was the Ripper and he killed his wife in a rage, he would keep knives out of it so as not to draw suspicion. If he killed his wife because she was a target, he would naturally be a suspect, so he would get it perfect.

Kemper did not kill his grandparents and mother the way he killed co-eds. His family was not his fantasy. He clearly had no desire to rape his dead grandma. Those murders are just different. They don't resemble his other victims. Could have been a completely different killer. And that's typical for a serial killer forced to kill someone outside of their fantasy.

[Harry D]

Does anything rule Bury out?

The short, boring answer is: no. There's nothing ruling Bury out. It's not like a case of the suspect being dead or incarcerated during the murders. As far as we know, Bury was living in the local area at the time.

Here we have a man with a violent temperament, a wife-beater, who up sticks to the other end of the country not long after the murders stop, has Ripper graffiti on his premises, and most importantly the only known suspect we have who's committed a Ripper-esque murder.

Bury is a very compelling suspect.

[John Wheat]

I feel sorry for him because his genetics dictated that his life should have been better. His psychopathy was nurture, not nature. Yes he's a serial killer, and I don't sympathize with that. But I know what it's like to be born with an amazing capacity that gets cut off because of something you don't want and don't need. Kemper had a psychotic abusive mother who ruined him. I had childhood onset Bipolar. My crisis doesn't make me a killer, but that doesn't mean I can't recognize someone getting royally screwed when I see it. The world would have been a safer place if his mother hadn't been barking mad. Just like I can't stand child abusers, but on the rare occasion when the abused becomes the abuser, I can sympathize with the abuse without condoning the continuation of abuse.

Fair enough.

Cheers John

[Wyatt Earp]

My argument was never that Jack the Ripper wouldn't kill his wife. My argument is that he wouldn't kill his wife with a half assed Ripper-esque murder.

This is your argument, but again, it is not in alignment with what we know about the behavior of serial killers. Serial killers can and will drop or curtail signature behaviors in connection with the specific circumstances of a murder. Please accept this.

If Bury was the Ripper and he killed his wife in a rage, he would keep knives out of it so as not to draw suspicion.

Why would you suppose a man in a drunken rage would coolly and carefully calculate all of his actions?

Kemper did not kill his grandparents and mother the way he killed co-eds. His family was not his fantasy. He clearly had no desire to rape his dead grandma. Those murders are just different. They don't resemble his other victims. Could have been a completely different killer. And that's typical for a serial killer forced to kill someone outside of their fantasy.

Look, it’s certainly possible for one or more signature behaviors to be absent from a particular crime scene because of the specific circumstances of that murder—but it’s hardly a knock against Bury being the Ripper that all of these signature behaviors matching him to the Ripper murders are indeed present. In Ellen Bury he murdered a woman in her 30s who had been a prostitute. It should not be difficult to see how he could behave in a similar way with her as he did with his Whitechapel victims.

[Abby Normal]

My argument was never that Jack the Ripper wouldn't kill his wife. My argument is that he wouldn't kill his wife with a half assed Ripper-esque murder. If Bury was the Ripper and he killed his wife in a rage, he would keep knives out of it so as not to draw suspicion. If he killed his wife because she was a target, he would naturally be a suspect, so he would get it perfect.

Kemper did not kill his grandparents and mother the way he killed co-eds. His family was not his fantasy. He clearly had no desire to rape his dead grandma. Those murders are just different. They don't resemble his other victims. Could have been a completely different killer. And that's typical for a serial killer forced to kill someone outside of their fantasy.

Hello Errata

His family was not his fantasy.

Which is exactly my point. She wasn't part of his fantasy.
Which is why.....

he wouldn't kill his wife with a half assed Ripper-esque murder.

[Errata]

This is your argument, but again, it is not in alignment with what we know about the behavior of serial killers. Serial killers can and will drop or curtail signature behaviors in connection with the specific circumstances of a murder. Please accept this.

I accept this. But I don't think you understand what it means.

So let's try this another way. What about the murder of Ellen Bury makes you think that her killer was Jack the Ripper?

[Roy Corduroy]

Pardon me Wyatt as the question was addressed to you,

What about the murder of Ellen Bury makes you think that her killer was Jack the Ripper?

Hi Errata, as explained in the book by Macpherson, William Bury is proposed to be Jack the Ripper. His wife Ellen found out, and he knew she knew, so he resolved to end her life.

Actually there are two books, the other by Beadle, but I prefer Macpherson.

So her murder has nothing to do with escalation, de-escalation, serial killer profiles or any of that. The purpose is to silence her.

Hope this is helpful,

Roy

[Errata]

Pardon me Wyatt as the question was addressed to you,



Hi Errata, as explained in the book by Macpherson, William Bury is proposed to be Jack the Ripper. His wife Ellen found out, and he knew she knew, so he resolved to end her life.

Actually there are two books, the other by Beadle, but I prefer Macpherson.

So her murder has nothing to do with escalation, de-escalation, serial killer profiles or any of that. The purpose is to silence her.

Hope this is helpful,

Roy

I don't mean why, I mean what. We have an unidentified serial killer and an identified murderer. In order to think that an identified murderer is actually an unidentified serial killer without a confession or some tangible evidence, we need something more than a guy who took a life within a year or two of the murders. It is fair to say that there were many men who killed women within three years of the murders. So why is this guy Jack the Ripper and not any of the other men who killed a woman? That's what I'm asking.

[John Wheat]

I don't mean why, I mean what. We have an unidentified serial killer and an identified murderer. In order to think that an identified murderer is actually an unidentified serial killer without a confession or some tangible evidence, we need something more than a guy who took a life within a year or two of the murders. It is fair to say that there were many men who killed women within three years of the murders. So why is this guy Jack the Ripper and not any of the other men who killed a woman? That's what I'm asking.

To Errata

Bury was in London at the time of the murders. He killed Ellen in a similar albeit less brutal manner than the C5.

Cheers John

[Wyatt Earp]

What about the murder of Ellen Bury makes you think that her killer was Jack the Ripper?

My 8-page answer to your question is in Ripperologist 139.

Briefly, this is the structure of the argument:

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.

It is not necessary to know why William Bury murdered Ellen Bury in order to understand and accept this argument.

All the stuff I’ve been harping about here (MO can change from crime scene to crime scene, signature characteristics can be dropped or curtailed in connection with the specific circumstances of a murder, some serial killers prefer to kill at a distance, etc.) pertains to number 3—“We cannot rule out the possibility that William Bury was Jack the Ripper.”

Got it?

“I think the Ripper was Jewish.”

“I think the Ripper lived in Whitechapel.”

“I think the Ripper was single.”

“I think the Ripper had the anatomical knowledge and skill of a medical man.”

“I think the Ripper had a carroty moustache.”

“I think the Ripper was Suspect X.”

All of these are bad objections to the argument I’ve presented, as there is nothing definite about any of these things.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi John

Bury was in London at the time of the murders.

So were millions...London was a big place....Whitechapel on the other hand was very compact...got any proof Bury was specifically a nocturnal frequenter of Whitechapel at the time? No...I thought not...

He killed Ellen in a similar albeit less brutal manner than the C5.

Oh yes? So Ellen, like the others, was killed by manual strangulation, followed by throatcutting? And subsequently there were deep abdominal excavations including the removal of organs?

Rubbish...As the medical evidence makes clear, Ellen was killed using a ligature...there was no throatcutting...there were no deep abdominal excavations, nor any organ removals...such abdominal wounding as there was, appeared tentative...

[Errata]

To Errata

Bury was in London at the time of the murders. He killed Ellen in a similar albeit less brutal manner than the C5.

Cheers John

Right. It's the similarity of the murders. Bury made incisions in his wife's abdomen post mortem.

Jack kills the way he does and mutilates the way he does because he has to in order to fulfill his fantasy. If he does not kill to serve his fantasy, there would be no reason to mutilate the body. If he does kill to serve his fantasy, he goes all out, barring interruption.

If Bury were Jack, and he killed his wife in a rage or out of necessity, it's not about the fantasy. He has no reason to cut up her abdomen. If Bury were Jack and he was killing to act out his fantasy, he would not spare the throat. And would probably do a lot more damage to the abdomen. He had time. He had privacy.

Bury did 1/3 of a Jack the Ripper crime. What does that mean?