Does anything rule Bury out?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of the Canonical Five, Eddowes (and Chapman) strikes me as the least likely to have been a regular prostitute. She was in a stable, apparently loving, relationship for one thing, which was more than the other victims could boast. Like many others, she may have resorted to casual prostitution when times got tough, but the idea of her doing so regularly, to the point where she'd have regular clients, somehow doesn't ring true to me.

As for Bury, there was no need for him to seek a regular arrangement with a Spitalfields prostitute, as there were plenty of those closer to home in Bow. There were also plenty of pubs in and around Bow, so the chances of his being in the same pub as Catherine Eddowes at any given time seems pretty slim.

Hello Gareth,

Good points of course but I think that it's at least a possibility but, as I said to Johns, were unlikely ever to know for anything like certain. Maybe she didn't see him as a client? More of an 'admirer' who gave her the occasion bit of cash over a few drinks.
If she'd said that she was about to reveal the rippers identity it's likely that it was someone that he knew.
Just conjecture though.

Regards
Herlock

[Sam Flynn]

Maybe she didn't see him as a client? More of an 'admirer' who gave her the occasion bit of cash over a few drinks.

Maybe, Herlock. However, whether as a client or admirer, there was quite an age-gap between Eddowes and Bury. Perhaps he was her toy-boy

[Herlock Sholmes]

Maybe, Herlock. However, whether as a client or admirer, there was quite an age-gap between Eddowes and Bury. Perhaps he was her toy-boy

Or a gigolo?

Herlock

[Harry D]

I still don't think you can get away from the staggering coincidences in Bury's case. He lived in the East End during the Autumn of Terror, he left the East End not long after the last "canonical" victim. Within a few weeks he murdered his wife and mutilated her abdomen, and graffiti was found at his new residence linking him to the Ripper. I mean, what are the odds? We're talking a couple of months here. Of course, there are valid arguments against him. Why would Bury confine himself to Whitechapel instead of striking somewhere a little closer to home? Why were Ellen Bury's mutilations tamer compared to previous victims? However, I'm sure if you go through some solved serial killer cases you will find behaviour that is inconsistent and unpredictable.

[John G]

Of the Canonical Five, Eddowes (and Chapman) strikes me as the least likely to have been a regular prostitute. She was in a stable, apparently loving, relationship for one thing, which was more than the other victims could boast. Like many others, she may have resorted to casual prostitution when times got tough, but the idea of her doing so regularly, to the point where she'd have regular clients, somehow doesn't ring true to me.

As for Bury, there was no need for him to seek a regular arrangement with a Spitalfields prostitute, as there were plenty of those closer to home in Bow. There were also plenty of pubs in and around Bow, so the chances of his being in the same pub as Catherine Eddowes at any given time seems pretty slim.

One argument is that Bury may have targeted victims in Whitechapel for tactical reasons, i.e. less likely to be recognized. However, that doesn't explain why he didn't focus on a much wider geographical area-Greater London, for example-particularly as he had transport.

Bury's one of my favourite suspects, although I do think there's long odds on him being JtR. That said, many people favour the single killer argument, at least as regards the C5, because of the rarity of this type of crime, meaning it would be too coincidental for there to be more than one killer, as well as there being little precedent for copycat murderers; it's a reasonable argument, despite some apparent differences, such as levels of skill demonstrated.

And yet, Bury was living in East London at the relevant time, and he committed a rare mutilation murder, as well as making a possible confession. But, of course, the usual response to that is, "Oh, but that's just a coincidence-must have been a copycat!"

Seems there might be a contradiction in there somewhere!

[Abby Normal]

One argument is that Bury may have targeted victims in Whitechapel for tactical reasons, i.e. less likely to be recognized. However, that doesn't explain why he didn't focus on a much wider geographical area-Greater London, for example-particularly as he had transport.

Bury's one of my favourite suspects, although I do think there's long odds on him being JtR. That said, many people favour the single killer argument, at least as regards the C5, because of the rarity of this type of crime, meaning it would be too coincidental for there to be more than one killer, as well as there being little precedent for copycat murderers; it's a reasonable argument, despite some apparent differences, such as levels of skill demonstrated.

And yet, Bury was living in East London at the relevant time, and he committed a rare mutilation murder, as well as making a possible confession. But, of course, the usual response to that is, "Oh, but that's just a coincidence-must have been a copycat!"

Seems there might be a contradiction in there somewhere!

Hi JohnG
Burys one of my favored suspects too. and I agree with your argument re location-it seems they were in such a confined location that it was someone local on foot more so than someone coming from Bow who had a cart. maybe he was just comfortable in that area as it was safely far enough from home yet close enough he was familiar with it and could get back home to his bolt hole relatively quickly.

my main beef with Bury is that IMHO McKenzie was probably a ripper victim and he already dead.

[Harry D]

Hi JohnG
Burys one of my favored suspects too. and I agree with your argument re location-it seems they were in such a confined location that it was someone local on foot more so than someone coming from Bow who had a cart. maybe he was just comfortable in that area as it was safely far enough from home yet close enough he was familiar with it and could get back home to his bolt hole relatively quickly.

my main beef with Bury is that IMHO McKenzie was probably a ripper victim and he already dead.

But if any Ripper murder was a "copycat" surely McKenzie was the best fit?

[Abby Normal]

But if any Ripper murder was a "copycat" surely McKenzie was the best fit?

depends on what you mean by copy cat murder.
Do you mean a weak minded individual influenced by the ripper murders who tried to duplicate a ripper murder?
or someone who killed her for their own reasons (jeolosy anger revenge etc) and tried to pin it on the ripper by making it look like one of his crimes?

[Herlock Sholmes]

my main beef with Bury is that IMHO McKenzie was probably a ripper victim and he already dead.

Hi Abby,

You need to keep an open mind and not discount a suspect just because he was a corpse at the time!


Seriously though, I agree that Bury is a realistic candidate. It's been a while since I read Bill Beadle's 'Unmasking....' but I recall thinking at the time that it was one of the better books. I do have the same issue as you but maybe to a lesser extent. I don't think that we can rule out Mackenzie as easily as is usually done.

[Sam Flynn]

It's been a while since I read Bill Beadle's 'Unmasking....' but I recall thinking at the time that it was one of the better books.

It certainly is. Bury bears the distinction of having had two genuinely good books written about him by different authors: Bill Beadle and Euan Macpherson. Given that some suspects don't have one decent book to their name, that's saying something!

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

You need to keep an open mind and not discount a suspect just because he was a corpse at the time!


Seriously though, I agree that Bury is a realistic candidate. It's been a while since I read Bill Beadle's 'Unmasking....' but I recall thinking at the time that it was one of the better books. I do have the same issue as you but maybe to a lesser extent. I don't think that we can rule out Mackenzie as easily as is usually done.

yup. the clincher for me is Mckenzie found with the skirt hiked up-just like the others too (including Tabram) to expose the abdomen and privates-showing a disposition in exposing and targeting the area of the rippers affection.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It certainly is. Bury bears the distinction of having had two genuinely good books written about him by different authors: Bill Beadle and Euan Macpherson. Given that some suspects don't have one decent book to their name, that's saying something!

Too true!

Maybe Druitt is another example? Although I believe that Jack probably hasn't been named yet if I had to throw a name into the 'Ripper lottery hat' it would probably be Monty. There's an air of mystery around him. I need to read the Hainsworth book again but I have so many books to read!

[Sam Flynn]

Maybe Druitt is another example?

I've only read DJ Leighton's book on Druitt, and enjoyed it. I don't know of another good book about Druitt, however.

[John G]

Hi JohnG
Burys one of my favored suspects too. and I agree with your argument re location-it seems they were in such a confined location that it was someone local on foot more so than someone coming from Bow who had a cart. maybe he was just comfortable in that area as it was safely far enough from home yet close enough he was familiar with it and could get back home to his bolt hole relatively quickly.

my main beef with Bury is that IMHO McKenzie was probably a ripper victim and he already dead.

Hi Abby,

To be honest, I'm thinking that whatever happened must have been extraordinary.

Thus, the single killer argument is persuasive, particularly when you consider that the highly respected criminologist, Professor David Wilson, has calculated that there have been only 34 known serial killers in the UK since 1888: https://www.sundaypost.com/news/uk-n...edy-and-needy/

And, of course, that's before you take into account similarities in signature and MO.

Furthermore, outside of crime fiction, copycat killers are virtually unprecedented, so that argument doesn't seem to make sense either.

And yet...If Bury wasn't JtR he must surely have been a copycat, particularly when you take into account the graffiti "confession".

And if Tabram wasn't a JtR victim then it's at least possible , if not probable, that JtR was inspired by that murder: so that's copycat number two.

Stride and Mackenzie? Possibly copycats numbers three and four (Mackenzie more so than Stride, in my opinion.)

Coles copycat number 5?

And what of Austin? Okay, I know she was murdered in 1901 but there are startling similarities with the earlier murders. Thus, her abdomen was mutilated, although not extensively [neither was Mackenzie or Ellen Bury], although according to Dr Dale, "It seems a funny affair, it looks as if something has been passed through her back passage and ground around." This is somewhat reminiscent of the attack on Emma Smith, particularly as there was also a penetrating injury to the womb. She was also "kicked all over the body."

Even more startling the attack occurred in Dorset Street where, of course, Kelly was murdered (35, Dorset Street, to be precise, the same lodging house where Chapman had been ejected on the morning of her murder.)

So how do we explain all of these coincidences and apparent copycat crimes? Could it be down to gang activity? Could two serial offenders be working together? That, at least, isn't unprecedented: see, for example, Duffy and Mulcahy.

Maybe it's time to think outside the box.

[Sam Flynn]

And yet...If Bury wasn't JtR he must surely have been a copycat, particularly when you take into account the graffiti "confession".

The graffiti might just have been a lame-brained attempt to deflect the blame.