Questions about Ellen

[John Wheat]

Would Bury have admitted to Ellen that the job was a con?
Did Ellen know Bury was the Ripper? Not sure. And I'm not sure she could be positive unless he talked during some of his drunken bouts.

And her remark about the Ripper being "quiet now" seems fairly broad and not necessarily telling if people were wanting to discuss the killings with the Burys since they were from the East End.

We don't know enough about Ellen and her intelligence to know if she would have said that in her husband's hearing as a way of letting him know she knew about him . . .

To Curious

I doubt Bury would have admitted that the job was a con as usual Bury would have lied and blamed someone else in this case the employer. I think the "Jack the Ripper is quiet now" is too much of a coincidence and suggests Ellen either knew Bury was the Ripper or suspected he was the Ripper. Ellen probably wasn't that intelligent, she was supposedly illiterate.

Cheers John

[Wyatt Earp]

I doubt Bury would have admitted that the job was a con as usual Bury would have lied and blamed someone else in this case the employer.

At Bury’s trial Marjory Smith testified, “I asked her [Ellen] when alone one day—‘whatever induced you to come here?’ and she answered ‘I will tell you—he goes out at night and stops with his palls and I thought he would be better to come here.’” If Bury fed her some b.s. to explain away the Ogilvie thing, she wasn’t repeating it to other people. I think she knew she’d been conned.

[John Wheat]

At Bury’s trial Marjory Smith testified, “I asked her [Ellen] when alone one day—‘whatever induced you to come here?’ and she answered ‘I will tell you—he goes out at night and stops with his palls and I thought he would be better to come here.’” If Bury fed her some b.s. to explain away the Ogilvie thing, she wasn’t repeating it to other people. I think she knew she’d been conned.

Your possibly right Wyatt.

The "I will tell you—he goes out at night and stops with his palls and I thought he would be better to come here" is interesting just what was Bury up to at night when he was supposedly stopping with his pals? Murdering prostitutes as Jack the Ripper?

Cheers John

[Wyatt Earp]

With respect to “Did Ellen know?”, Ellen’s statement, as reported by Marjory Smith, is interesting on a couple of different levels.

It sounds like Bury was gone from home at night, and possibly overnight, on a regular basis. Hence, Bury being gone from home on the nights of the murders would not necessarily have aroused her suspicions.

If Bury was visiting or staying with pals when he was gone from home at night, then obviously it could have been to the place of one of these pals that he headed following a murder. This would have given him the opportunity to eat his victim’s flesh and clean his clothes as needed before eventually returning home, leaving Ellen in the dark.

If Bury indeed wrote the Lusk letter, and if the piece of kidney did indeed come from Eddowes, then the piece of kidney could have been stored at the place of this friend until Bury decided to mail it out. Perhaps the person Emily Marsh described was Bury’s accomplice. The person that Marsh described sounds a little old to be Bury’s buddy, but perhaps there was some criminal association between the two.

[curious]

To Curious

I doubt Bury would have admitted that the job was a con as usual Bury would have lied and blamed someone else in this case the employer. I think the "Jack the Ripper is quiet now" is too much of a coincidence and suggests Ellen either knew Bury was the Ripper or suspected he was the Ripper. Ellen probably wasn't that intelligent, she was supposedly illiterate.

Cheers John

Illiterate or nearly illiterate?

And while her writing might not have been highly skilled, perhaps she could read.

Doesn't that happen sometimes?

maybe it says more about her education than her intelligence.

curious

[curious]

Or just talking Ellen up and making bury look worse

Interesting . . . That would probably be a possibility at a man's trial for murdering his wife.

We have glimpses into their marriage, but there's no way of knowing what their relationship was really like.

[curious]

Why would Bury be selling junk—these trinkets were described in the police inventory as being “of very inferior metal”—when he had a job as a sawdust merchant? There couldn’t have been any kind of money in that. There’s nothing in the trial testimony that suggests he was selling women’s trinkets. Also, the number of items involved is very small—it doesn’t look like Bury was in the trinket business.

I don't suggest that trinkets would have been a REAL business. But if he were the Ripper, little goodies to pass out (either for free or very "reduced" prices) to potential victims or prostitutes with whom he might be doing business.

From reports, he appeared to spend more time in bars than working. I'm suggesting that at the beginning perhaps he would have justified his investment in cheap trinkets as a possible sideline to his business. That way he could also justify his time spent in bars -- it would still be "business" if the sawdust business was slow.

I realize there's no testimony to suggest this. I'm just looking at Bury, his habits, and how the Ripper might possibly have worked, if he were Bury . . .

That’s a great point—he might well have devised some kind of story for Ellen. But he had been bugging her to move for some time—do you think she would have believed it?

People believe what they want to believe. And she had seen the fancy letter head and letter of employment . . . why would she not? And perhaps she was made to feel guilty. The job went to someone else because she took so long to make up her mind.

You know it would never have been Bury's fault. Ellen would have been the one responsible for losing the job for them.

I’m not sure why he would have told her (unless, as you say, he blurted something out when he was drunk). We have the evidence that he could be gone from home for a couple of days at a time. That would have given him the opportunity to fry up a kidney and clean his clothes before returning home. Also, he had a job that would have brought him into contact with butchers, which could explain the occasional presence of blood on his clothes. We don’t know how often Bury was away from home, and so it’s hard to judge how suspicious Ellen might have become.

I have never hung out with drunks, so I don't really know how they behave. From TV and occasional movies, it would seem that he might get on a bad, down, depressed drunk, perhaps even "Haunted" by the victims. His drunken ramblings might have been very telling.

Does that happen?

I feel that's a good summation and we can't possibly know. Still, Ellen knew when he was gone, and it's possible the times coincided perfectly.

It does interest me that some people on the boards are so very sure and positive of EVERYTHING -- down to the minute of what happened 125 years ago. Unfortunately, I don't pay enough attention to give you down to the minute on my own actions this past week. :-)

curious

[curious]

At Bury’s trial Marjory Smith testified, “I asked her [Ellen] when alone one day—‘whatever induced you to come here?’ and she answered ‘I will tell you—he goes out at night and stops with his palls and I thought he would be better to come here.’” If Bury fed her some b.s. to explain away the Ogilvie thing, she wasn’t repeating it to other people. I think she knew she’d been conned.

Was Ogilvie the supposed employer?

thx,

curious

[Wyatt Earp]

Was Ogilvie the supposed employer?

thx,

curious

Yes, the phony offer of employment was from Malcolm, Ogilvie & Co.

Illiterate or nearly illiterate?

And while her writing might not have been highly skilled, perhaps she could read.

Doesn't that happen sometimes?

maybe it says more about her education than her intelligence.

curious

At Bury’s trial, Ellen’s sister Margaret testified (in connection with the supposed offer of employment), “My sister’s name is also written on it, but it is not her writing. She could not write much. Not so well as that.” Hence, Ellen had at least some ability to write. Macpherson has this: “Very little is known about her early life beyond the fact that she was a sickly child who was often ill and rarely at school. She did not get much of an education, which meant opportunities for her were limited once she was of working age” (p.44).

[Wyatt Earp]

I don't suggest that trinkets would have been a REAL business. But if he were the Ripper, little goodies to pass out (either for free or very "reduced" prices) to potential victims or prostitutes with whom he might be doing business.

Apart from Ellen and her inheritance, I don’t believe we have evidence of Bury ever wooing another woman.

This appears to be the sum total of our knowledge of Bury’s “love life”:

1. v.d.
2. acquitted on a charge of attempted rape

It’s hard to imagine a scenario in which Bury would have been trying to win a woman over by slipping her a thimble of very inferior metal.

[curious]

It’s hard to imagine a scenario in which Bury would have been trying to win a woman over by slipping her a thimble of very inferior metal.

Perhaps for YOU, it's hard to imagine

For me, not so much . . . .

we appear to be totally at opposite ends here.

curious

[Wyatt Earp]

Perhaps for YOU, it's hard to imagine

For me, not so much . . . .

we appear to be totally at opposite ends here.

curious

“Cheap jewellery (as opposed to expensive) and rings are, says Robert Ressler, among the commonest items serial killers take from their victims as souvenirs” (Beadle 2009, p.265).

Women have successfully trained men to do things like buy them drinks, give them candy and give them flowers.

You have not trained us to be carrying around a pocketful of doo dads “for when the moment is right.”

I suspect you’re proposing a very far-fetched scenario. If you could provide some evidence that it was a common behavior among Victorian men to court women by passing out thimbles, sovereign holders and watch keys, I think that would strengthen your case.

[gnote]

I suspect you’re proposing a very far-fetched scenario. If you could provide some evidence that it was a common behavior among Victorian men to court women by passing out thimbles, sovereign holders and watch keys, I think that would strengthen your case.

I have no horse in this race but when evidence is requested i have to question what qualifies as such. If "they" could be (apparently) bought for a loaf of bread i don't think it's a stretch to think some other kind of trinket would suffice.

How would would one provide evidence of common behavior amongst customers of prostitutes at the time?

[Wyatt Earp]

I have no horse in this race but when evidence is requested i have to question what qualifies as such. If "they" could be (apparently) bought for a loaf of bread i don't think it's a stretch to think some other kind of trinket would suffice.

How would would one provide evidence of common behavior amongst customers of prostitutes at the time?

It would have been easier for him to get a prostitute with cash than with a thimble.

And Bury had access to cash.

Beadle writes, “One would have expected Annie Chapman to have had a thimble, as she sometimes earned her living from crochet work, but there is no mention of one among her possessions” (2009, p.265). She was missing rings, and two finger rings, also of very inferior metal, were found in the trunk as well.

While we obviously cannot prove that the items in the trunk came from the victims, the cache of items is consistent with that scenario.

[John Wheat]

It would have been easier for him to get a prostitute with cash than with a thimble.

And Bury had access to cash.

Yes why would Bury pay for a prostitute with trinkets when he could use cash?

Cheers John