Could Bury have been Astracan Man?

[curious]

Either that or, in seeing those tender touches(?) we are simply bearing witness to the common methods used by prostitutes to make their potential clients feel comfortable. A client who feels like a stranger is not relaxed, treat him like you are old friends....

Hi, Jon,

I can understand prostitutes being outgoing and welcoming with potential clients. Don't know anything from first-hand experience, but it makes sense from a salesmanship perspective.

To me, the encounter between Astracan Man and MJK reads more like old friends meeting than a new client. From posts here on Casebook, it appears that a number of folks feel that MJK did know her killer quite well in advance of the evening that has gone down in history.

At the moment, I lean toward AM and MJK knowing each other.

[curious]

Thanks for your reply, Curious.

At the risk (and it's a perilous one!) of straying into generic Hutch-debate territory, his "thorough descriptions" are only part of the problem. Of more immediate concern is the sheer unlikelihood of Hutchinson being able even to see these things as the man passed, briefly, close to a gas lamp of negligible illuminating power - allegedly noticing and memorizing all sorts of other small accessories and details of attire at the same time.

With the exception of the horseshoe tie-pin, I would argue that there was little or nothing else about his appearance to suggest a horse-racing interest.

"Astrakhan man" is a very unsubtle attempt, in my view, to pander to popular preconceptions about the ripper's likely appearance; surly, well-dressed, Jewish and carrying a suspicious-looking package. For that reason, and without reflecting at all negatively on Bury as a suspect (who is admittedly one of the more plausible ones), I would personally avoid any comparisons with Astrakhan man.

I would be interested to see a reference to Bury being dark complexioned and Jewish looking (and unbearded, for that matter).

All the best,
Ben

Morning, Ben,
Yes, please, let's tippy toe around the Hutch-debate. :-)


Where We Are with Bury
Bill Beadle

He fitted the description of the man seen with three victims, short, swarthy and respectably dressed with features which, said the Dundee press, could be mistaken for Jewish. When the Burys visited Wolverhampton in August,1888, they had a portrait made which shows him with a moustache but no beard or side-whiskers, matching the man whom P.C. Smith and William Marshall saw in Berners Street, an item well reported in the press. Significantly, when he turned up in Dundee Bury was sporting both.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/ws-bury.html

Hope this helps.

[Wickerman]

Another connection that really intrigues me is the possible familial relationship with Eddowes.

Oh, and the familiarity between Astracan Man and Kelly actually goes along with what I have suspected about JtR -- all the victims had at least seen him around enough not to be afraid of him.

Either that or, in seeing those tender touches(?) we are simply bearing witness to the common methods used by prostitutes to make their potential clients feel comfortable. A client who feels like a stranger is not relaxed, treat him like you are old friends....

[Ben]

Thanks for your reply, Curious.

At the risk (and it's a perilous one!) of straying into generic Hutch-debate territory, his "thorough descriptions" are only part of the problem. Of more immediate concern is the sheer unlikelihood of Hutchinson being able even to see these things as the man passed, briefly, close to a gas lamp of negligible illuminating power - allegedly noticing and memorizing all sorts of other small accessories and details of attire at the same time.

With the exception of the horseshoe tie-pin, I would argue that there was little or nothing else about his appearance to suggest a horse-racing interest.

"Astrakhan man" is a very unsubtle attempt, in my view, to pander to popular preconceptions about the ripper's likely appearance; surly, well-dressed, Jewish and carrying a suspicious-looking package. For that reason, and without reflecting at all negatively on Bury as a suspect (who is admittedly one of the more plausible ones), I would personally avoid any comparisons with Astrakhan man.

I would be interested to see a reference to Bury being dark complexioned and Jewish looking (and unbearded, for that matter).

All the best,
Ben

[curious]

Thanks, Ben and John G, for your input.

Ben, I was/am seeing the racing possibility as a tie when, of course, horses were the transportation of the time and therefore had a much wider function. It just seemed to me that since Hutchinson could so thoroughly describe pieces of jewelry (one of the often voiced objections to his testimony), he had to be very familiar with them. Having been on the racing circuit would explain that. I realize there are other ways, but I believe this one works, too.

Plus, it has been noted here on the boards for quite sometime that Bury did have a dark, Jewish look . . . Since all we have is the drawing of him, it is difficult to be sure.

John, I believe some time ago whoever found the dates of the Wolverhampton races for 1888 determined that they fell at an appropriate time for Bury to commit the Tabram murder, take his holiday (and remove himself from London during the investigation) and be back in town in time for Polly's murder.

Another connection that really intrigues me is the possible familial relationship with Eddowes.

Oh, and the familiarity between Astracan Man and Kelly actually goes along with what I have suspected about JtR -- all the victims had at least seen him around enough not to be afraid of him.

[John G]

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.

Hi Curious,

Yes, of course, you're correct about Bury's residence at the relevant time. It's some time since I read Euan's book and I was getting mixed up (I've been away for a few days so I didn't have the book immediately to hand). He was definitely in London from 11 August when the Burys started a new tenancy with William Smith. However, according to Ellen's sister they went to Wolverhampton for a two week holiday in August, although she may have been mistaken. It is therefore during the time of the Tabram murder, on 7 August, that he could have been away.

[Ben]

Hi Curious,

No, I'm afraid Bury would make a very poor candidate for Astrakhan man, even if the latter wasn't discredited by the police at the time owing the "very reduced importance" ultimately accorded Hutchinson's story. There is obviously no similarity between the dark moustachioed Jewish-looking Astrakhan, and pint-sized Gentile Bury (the "foreign" bit was added by the press to avoid adding fuel to the already prevalent anti-semitic feeling). If the intention is to compare Bury with eyewitness sightings, it would be better to go with one that wasn't discredited and has at least some concession towards similarity. It is to the credit of both MacPherson and Beadle that neither author inferred a Hutchinson connection in their Bury-favouring books.

I note a couple of misconceptions with regard to Hutchinson's supposed employment as a groom. There is absolutely no evidence that this involved racing, or that Hutchinson had ever set foot in a race track in his life; accordingly, the idea that he was familiar with the clothes and accessories worn by the racing social "set" is completely without foundation. It might have been overlooked that horses fulfilled a mundane and functional purpose in 1888 before the invention of motorized transport; they're not the exclusive reserve of the Jolly-Hockeysticks set who might use them today for racing, hunting, or cantering with Pongo and Lottie on the Ashdown Forest.

I doubt very much that Astrakhan's clothing and accessories were "sold by vendors around the tracks", and even if they were, it wouldn't have aided Hutchinson's abilities to see such items in those darkened conditions, let alone recognise and memorise them in additional to a whole host of other, non-horsey details.

I read that Bury liked to dress up, but it's doubtful he was so unstreetwise as to don his fineries when heading into the most crime-infested part of the east end to butcher prostitutes.

Regards,
Ben

[GUT]

G'day Michael

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.

Does that fit with her singing though.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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.