Could Bury have been Astracan Man?

[curious]

Just this morning, the thought of Bury being Astracan Man came and won't go away.


Apparently Bury was shorter than Hutchinson's guess and he was a little younger.

I believe we know:

1. Bury was "foreign" in appearance,
2. Bury liked to dress up. He enjoyed nice clothing.
3. He liked people to think he was more than he was,
4. He and Ellen went to Wolverhampton for the races,
5. He is known to have purchased jewelry for his wife while in Wolverhampton.

Why would he not have also purchased jewelry for himself?

Since it was during the races, would he have purchased "horsey" style jewelry -- the sort he might have thought horse owners themselves would wear? But being an outsider, he would most likely have bought the cheap, flashy stuff sold by vendors that undoubtedly were set up near the tracks.

George Hutchinson, as an out-of-work groom, would have spent a lot of time with the horsey, racing set. He would have been very familiar with items sold by vendors around the tracks. He would have been able to recognize those items in the dark, at a hundred paces. That's why his description could be so complete.

Also, as a groom, Hutchinson would have been watching the rich owners for years and the light spats over dark would have jumped out at him because they were all wrong for the rich character Bury was trying to portray.

Perhaps Hutchinson waited so long outside Kelly's room because he was interested in talking to Astracan Man, maybe see if he had a job or to just figure out who he was as it appeared he frequented the races too.

I suggest that Hutchinson's description threw Bury into a panic. He disposed of the jewelry and clothing detailed in all the papers. He sold his pony and cart and left town, taking Ellen because he knew she would blab about him getting rid of his clothing and jewelry and being out on the nights of the murders.

Does anyone else think Bury is a good possibility for Astracan Man?

[Michael W Richards]

We do already have a suspect that was said to have an astrakhan coat, was in the immediate area of Millers Court, and disappeared without notice on the night Mary was killed. I would think he bear more scrutiny based on those factors than Bury does on speculative ones.

[curious]

We do already have a suspect that was said to have an astrakhan coat, was in the immediate area of Millers Court, and disappeared without notice on the night Mary was killed. I would think he bear more scrutiny based on those factors than Bury does on speculative ones.

The thread on Joseph Isaacs concludes that he was incarcerated the night Kelly was murdered, on evidence found by no less a researcher than Debra A.

If Isaacs was not available on that evening, why not consider other possibilities?

[Michael W Richards]

The thread on Joseph Isaacs concludes that he was incarcerated the night Kelly was murdered, on evidence found by no less a researcher than Debra A.

If Isaacs was not available on that evening, why not consider other possibilities?

I believe Debra found 1 press clipping that suggested he was incarcerated, and she was unable to find a second. That being said, Ill let you discuss Bury's candidacy without interruption. For me he is a non starter in so many ways.

[Harry D]

For me he is a non starter in so many ways.

Surely every Ripper suspect is a non-starter for you, Michael?

[Wickerman]

I believe Debra found 1 press clipping that suggested he was incarcerated, and she was unable to find a second.

Here was the proof, or confirmation if you like, that I uncovered in the Barnet Press.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=357610&postcount=10

That said, there are still a handful of questions that remain unanswered.

[Wickerman]

The thread on Joseph Isaacs concludes that he was incarcerated the night Kelly was murdered, on evidence found by no less a researcher than Debra A.

If Isaacs was not available on that evening, why not consider other possibilities?

Both Dew, in his memoirs, and Christer on Casebook have proposed that Hutchinson mistook the wrong night, but then Mary Cusins would have to have made the same mistake, which only complicates that argument.

However, on the 'wrong night' basis Hutchinson could still have identified Isaacs, not that I'm in favor of that scenario, but it can't so easily be dismissed.
The complication comes in with Sarah Lewis, who's testimony cannot so easily be attributed to the 'wrong night', coupled with the fact she is credited with also seeing a couple walk up the passage while the loiterer was standing in Dorset St., just as Hutchinson claimed.

All together, a very unsatisfactory set of circumstances.

[John G]

This is an interesting thread, especially as I consider Bury to be one of the more plausible candidates. A well-made point about the possibility of him dressing up in his finery for the races, which I hadn't previously considered. And, of course, his wife had inherited £300, a significant sum in 1888, and although he spent some of it on a pony and cart there would no doubt be plenty left over for him to upgrade his wardrobe.

One problem is that we can't be certain of the date that he returned to London; it must have been close to the time of the Kelly murder, but there's still a possibility that he was in Wolverhampton at the relevant time, ruling him out as a possible candidate.

[Michael W Richards]

Surely every Ripper suspect is a non-starter for you, Michael?

Hi Harry,

Well, I can say that I have never seen any evidence for any alleged suspect that would compel me to believe they had anything to do with these crimes. So I suppose youre correct. So far.

edit: I can say that I do favour a suspect for the first 2 victims. Who I believe fits the profile established by those 2 murders. And he was identified as someone in the immediate area of the 2nd murder acting oddly and splattered with blood. But that's not evidence per se, its just matching circumstances and timing.

[Harry D]

Hi Harry,

Well, I can say that I have never seen any evidence for any alleged suspect that would compel me to believe they had anything to do with these crimes. So I suppose youre correct. So far.

edit: I can say that I do favour a suspect for the first 2 victims. Who I believe fits the profile established by those 2 murders. And he was identified as someone in the immediate area of the 2nd murder acting oddly and splattered with blood. But that's not evidence per se, its just matching circumstances and timing.

Hello, Michael.

Yes, I was going to say that the closest you have to a "Ripper" suspect comes from the Mr. Cates school of thought.

My opinion of William Bury hasn't changed. Of all the named suspects he's the best of the lot. He might not have been regarded highly by the senior policemen like Kosminski, or can be definitively placed at the scene like Lechmere, but for me it's a far bigger leap of faith to believe that those two were serial mutilators than it is to connect Bury to Whitechapel.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello, Michael.

Yes, I was going to say that the closest you have to a "Ripper" suspect comes from the Mr. Cates school of thought.

My opinion of William Bury hasn't changed. Of all the named suspects he's the best of the lot. He might not have been regarded highly by the senior policemen like Kosminski, or can be definitively placed at the scene like Lechmere, but for me it's a far bigger leap of faith to believe that those two were serial mutilators than it is to connect Bury to Whitechapel.

I do believe Lynn's man for the first 2 isn't a bad bet Harry, you've got me. What I can say to the balance of your post is that I see great differences from the mutilations of Kate and Mary to those of Polly and Annie, so I don't think assuming there were 2, or more, serial mutilators is really an issue. Yes, 4 women were cut open, but I only see that as the objective of the first 2. I believe its likely the other 2 were mutilated so they would blend in with the existing list of unsolved murders.

To put myself in a killers shoes, if I committed a murder, or decided to commit a murder in London between August and November, I would certainly be tempted to confuse the authorities as to my actual motives by making it look like one of the previous unsolved crimes. I believe that's most evident in the case of Kelly...there is nothing that was done to her that resembles a goal oriented mutilation. Unless the "goal" was simply to cut pieces off her off and out of her. Polly and Annies killer wanted to access the abdomen, and remove some organs based there.

[Harry D]

I do believe Lynn's man for the first 2 isn't a bad bet Harry, you've got me. What I can say to the balance of your post is that I see great differences from the mutilations of Kate and Mary to those of Polly and Annie, so I don't think assuming there were 2, or more, serial mutilators is really an issue. Yes, 4 women were cut open, but I only see that as the objective of the first 2. I believe its likely the other 2 were mutilated so they would blend in with the existing list of unsolved murders.

To put myself in a killers shoes, if I committed a murder, or decided to commit a murder in London between August and November, I would certainly be tempted to confuse the authorities as to my actual motives by making it look like one of the previous unsolved crimes. I believe that's most evident in the case of Kelly...there is nothing that was done to her that resembles a goal oriented mutilation. Unless the "goal" was simply to cut pieces off her off and out of her. Polly and Annies killer wanted to access the abdomen, and remove some organs based there.

It's a valid observation that yourself, Lynn and others have made about the discrepancies between murders. Different skillset, different hand. Makes sense! However, I get the sense from your posts that you believe there was a conspiratorial element to the Stride, Eddowes & Kelly murders? That we have two mutilators, Jacob Isenschmid for Nichols & Chapman, and a cabal of murderers for the rest who were continuing the killings for political reasons?

[Michael W Richards]

It's a valid observation that yourself, Lynn and others have made about the discrepancies between murders. Different skillset, different hand. Makes sense! However, I get the sense from your posts that you believe there was a conspiratorial element to the Stride, Eddowes & Kelly murders? That we have two mutilators, Jacob Isenschmid for Nichols & Chapman, and a cabal of murderers for the rest who were continuing the killings for political reasons?

Heres what I believe, but cannot prove;

1. Elizabeth Stride was killed by a thug who mistook her for a working girl that night and was rudely rebuffed, or by someone who believed she was one of the Unfortunate spies that the police recruited.
2. Kate Eddowes was killed by someone who thought she was going to expose his criminal activities...which I believe did not in fact include the unsolved murders she was to suggest his guilt for, ironically. The wounds inflicted were to simulate earlier murders.
3. Mary was killed by someone she knew intimately, someone whose anger with her is evident in the facial slashing and the general destruction of her. Her wounds were not intended as mimicry, but they filled that bill nicely.

Then you have a murderer of Martha, and the Torsos, and the other 8 women in the Unsolved Murders file. How many men were involved in those crimes?

Its a mistake to think other men were not killing at the very same time this Jack fellow was, particularly when we have evidence that strongly suggests it. People put too much emphasis on the issue of mental health when considering the mutilations, when in fact someone who was completely in control of himself and capable of killing someone could do the very same things to a human being. In modern times that can be seen by people who kill, then mutilate the remains to hide the crime. In some of these cases, it might have been mutilating to hide the murder within other unsolved ones.

[curious]

This is an interesting thread, especially as I consider Bury to be one of the more plausible candidates. A well-made point about the possibility of him dressing up in his finery for the races, which I hadn't previously considered. And, of course, his wife had inherited £300, a significant sum in 1888, and although he spent some of it on a pony and cart there would no doubt be plenty left over for him to upgrade his wardrobe.

One problem is that we can't be certain of the date that he returned to London; it must have been close to the time of the Kelly murder, but there's still a possibility that he was in Wolverhampton at the relevant time, ruling him out as a possible candidate.

Hello, everyone,
Thanks for the comments! I appreciate hearing your thoughts.

John, like you, I consider Bury "one of the more plausible candidates."

However, my memory says that he was in Wolverhampton in August. There was some discussion that he could have killed Martha Tabram on Aug. 7, gotten himself out of town for awhile and attended the races in Wolverhampton, then returned to London in time to have killed Polly Nichols on the 31st.

I believe the research was done on the dates of the races in Wolverhampton in 1888 and the conclusion was there was time.

The interesting thing that hit me today was the horse race connection between Bury's vacation, Hutchinson's being a groom and the horseshoe pin of Astracan Man.

Again, thanks everyone for your thoughts and comments.

[Wickerman]

The interesting thing that hit me today was the horse race connection between Bury's vacation, Hutchinson's being a groom and the horseshoe pin of Astracan Man.

Not that it matters on this thread but, Joseph Isaacs also claimed to be a trainer of horses.