Could Bury have been Astracan Man?

[Aethelwulf]

Wulf thinking about a thread on that other JTR postcard, uploading Burys copperplate style of the forged employment letter Vs his casual casual hand?
WOuldnt mind people's impartial view on that, to me a closer match than the from hell letter which was heavily disguised

yes do it. no harm. don't know if i mentioned it before but there is a paper about disguised handwriting where it was found some people can so completely disguise their hand as to be unrecognizable. If anyone could have done it, Bury could, given his background. I actually find the tone of the ealing postcard more disturbing than from hell (kidney aside). There is also something very juvenile about the last word 'ripper' that reminds me of the chalk messages in dundee.

[Harry D]

Back on Mckenzie, 1888 whitechapel society was a melting pot of all sorts trauma, social injustice and ills and probably lots of misfits who could have accessed the most desperate and vulnerable women. We know that multiple mutilators in the same place and time are rare, but if there was one time and place it could have happened, it must be late Victorian whitechapel.

The problem with that is Alice McKenzie fits the victimology and geoprofile of the Whitechapel murders. Ellen Bury has more in common with Jane Beadmore in that she was murdered and mutilated by her lover far outside of London.

[Aethelwulf]

The problem with that is Alice McKenzie fits the victimology and geoprofile of the Whitechapel murders. Ellen Bury has more in common with Jane Beadmore in that she was murdered and mutilated by her lover far outside of London.

It's not a reasonable or sensible comparison though. It seems that Beadmore's killer was a local man without a connection to Whitechapel.

As I said further, the injuries to Ellen Bury were inflicted by a proven mysoginst who was in very easy reach of whitechapel throughout 1888, who carried a knife, drank in Whitechapel, used prostitutes, fits many of the witness descriptions in various ways, associated with chalk messages, fits the FBI profile of the killer in pretty much every way, presence and absence bookends the murders (and leaves whitechapel in an inexplicable move to dundee), some clear handwriting similarities with from hell, used a very similar MO on his wife as Tabram (blow to the head, strangulation, penknife). must be a very strong suspect for attacking wilson. He murdered a woman in the early hours, burned her clothes in the fire, she was wearing only a chemsie (same crime scene features as Kelly).

The difference with Bury and all the other suspects (IMO) is that only a very small leap of faith is needed to conclude that we was the killer.

[Harry D]

It's not a reasonable or sensible comparison though. It seems that Beadmore's killer was a local man without a connection to Whitechapel.

As I said further, the injuries to Ellen Bury were inflicted by a proven mysoginst who was in very easy reach of whitechapel throughout 1888, who carried a knife, drank in Whitechapel, used prostitutes, fits many of the witness descriptions in various ways, associated with chalk messages, fits the FBI profile of the killer in pretty much every way, presence and absence bookends the murders (and leaves whitechapel in an inexplicable move to dundee), some clear handwriting similarities with from hell, used a very similar MO on his wife as Tabram (blow to the head, strangulation, penknife). must be a very strong suspect for attacking wilson. He murdered a woman in the early hours, burned her clothes in the fire, she was wearing only a chemsie (same crime scene features as Kelly).

The difference with Bury and all the other suspects (IMO) is that only a very small leap of faith is needed to conclude that we was the killer.

I take all of those points on board. I've argued them myself. There's a case to be made for Bury, no fair-minded poster can deny that. I would like to echo what someone else said: if it wasn't for Alice McKenzie's murder I'd be happy to accept Bury as the Ripper. There would never be a definitive answer but the guy who fled the East End in the winter of 1888 and mutilated his wife shortly after would be the best shout.

However, McKenzie's murder is the fly in the ointment, for more suspects than just Bury. She was an unfortunate, she was murdered in Whitechapel, her left carotid artery was severed, her abdominal area was targeted, and her skirts were raised. She cannot be ruled out.

I would also argue that William Bury had more motive for staging a copycat murder than Alice McKenzie's unknown killer.

[Abby Normal]

I take all of those points on board. I've argued them myself. There's a case to be made for Bury, no fair-minded poster can deny that. I would like to echo what someone else said: if it wasn't for Alice McKenzie's murder I'd be happy to accept Bury as the Ripper. There would never be a definitive answer but the guy who fled the East End in the winter of 1888 and mutilated his wife shortly after would be the best shout.

However, McKenzie's murder is the fly in the ointment, for more suspects than just Bury. She was an unfortunate, she was murdered in Whitechapel, her left carotid artery was severed, her abdominal area was targeted, and her skirts were raised. She cannot be ruled out.

I would also argue that William Bury had more motive for staging a copycat murder than Alice McKenzie's unknown killer.

bingo Harry
totally agree and i find myself saying the exact same thing-if it just wasnt for mckenzie! but i find her very hard to dismiss as a ripper victim.

[Aethelwulf]

I would also argue that William Bury had more motive for staging a copycat murder than Alice McKenzie's unknown killer.

On the one hand it is said Bury can't be the ripper, he was a copycat, on the other hand he can't be the ripper because the injuries aren't as severe. Both can't be true. If Bury was a copycat the one thing he would have definitely done was cut Ellen's throat. What I said further up, Bury wasn't bothered about the killing, just the ritual. Mckenzie's killer did what he thought was the signature (cutting the throat) but couldn't stomach the ritual aspect.

What it comes down to Bury's geography, nature/profile and that the injuries to ellen have far more in common with the ripper.

Also, Bury did something so simple yet effective that still seems to completely baffle people today - he moved several hundred miles away. I suspect a lot of people see no further than the word 'Dundee' when they read about Bury. It seems so incongruous that the ripper met his end in Dundee.

[Harry D]

On the one hand it is said Bury can't be the ripper, he was a copycat, on the other hand he can't be the ripper because the injuries aren't as severe. Both can't be true. If Bury was a copycat the one thing he would have definitely done was cut Ellen's throat. What I said further up, Bury wasn't bothered about the killing, just the ritual. Mckenzie's killer did what he thought was the signature (cutting the throat) but couldn't stomach the ritual aspect.

What it comes down to Bury's geography, nature/profile and that the injuries to ellen have far more in common with the ripper.

Also, Bury did something so simple yet effective that still seems to completely baffle people today - he moved several hundred miles away. I suspect a lot of people see no further than the word 'Dundee' when they read about Bury. It seems so incongruous that the ripper met his end in Dundee.

I would agree that Bury wouldn't need to slice Ellen's throat. It could be theorised that the throat-cutting was not a ritualistic element of the Whitechapel murders, rather a means of silencing the victim and exsanguination. No need for that in the Bury's basement squat.

It is also noteworthy that Ellen's mutilations were inflicted shortly after death.

But Ellen's mutilations were tame compared to the Whitechapel victims. Many commenters on the Mary Kelly murder have tried to establish a personal connection between killer and victim, because he went overboard. While I don't necessarily subscribe to that belief, there's nothing more personal than husband and wife. It's interesting that we don't see this kind of slaughter evident in Ellen Bury's murder from a guy who had no qualms butchering women.

At least with Alice McKenzie the argument could always be made that the killer was interrupted, spooked or simply not prepared that night. Bury, on the other hand, was uninterrupted with his victim but failed to recreate anything approaching Kelly or even Eddowes' murder.

Did Bury flee to the other end of the country because he feared capture, or did he want to get Ellen as far away from her family as possible so he could continue to abuse her, or did he already have her murder in mind?

A serial killer's instinct is to run from the scene of the crime, but Bury didn't. He basically handed himself into the police. He had enough of a head-start to get on the first boat out of there, and chose not to. Surely that's preferable to a suicidal trip to the police station?

Who's to say this wasn't just another horrible domestic murder influenced by the Ripper, like Jane Beadmore's?

[Aethelwulf]

I would agree that Bury wouldn't need to slice Ellen's throat. It could be theorised that the throat-cutting was not a ritualistic element of the Whitechapel murders, rather a means of silencing the victim and exsanguination. No need for that in the Bury's basement squat.

It is also noteworthy that Ellen's mutilations were inflicted shortly after death.

But Ellen's mutilations were tame compared to the Whitechapel victims. Many commenters on the Mary Kelly murder have tried to establish a personal connection between killer and victim, because he went overboard. While I don't necessarily subscribe to that belief, there's nothing more personal than husband and wife. It's interesting that we don't see this kind of slaughter evident in Ellen Bury's murder from a guy who had no qualms butchering women.

At least with Alice McKenzie the argument could always be made that the killer was interrupted, spooked or simply not prepared that night. Bury, on the other hand, was uninterrupted with his victim but failed to recreate anything approaching Kelly or even Eddowes' murder.

Did Bury flee to the other end of the country because he feared capture, or did he want to get Ellen as far away from her family as possible so he could continue to abuse her, or did he already have her murder in mind?

A serial killer's instinct is to run from the scene of the crime, but Bury didn't. He basically handed himself into the police. He had enough of a head-start to get on the first boat out of there, and chose not to. Surely that's preferable to a suicidal trip to the police station?

Who's to say this wasn't just another horrible domestic murder influenced by the Ripper, like Jane Beadmore's?

I think for McKenzie and Ellen Bury you need to ask are there any mitigating circumstances that might account for the differences. For McKenzie I don’t think you can suggest interruption as he did quite a bit to a low level. Any one of those scratches could have been made into a proper incision. A blunt knife seems unrealistic if the knife he had could cut her throat. I can’t see the ripper going anywhere unprepared, especially after such a long break. The whole thing just doesn’t stack up in my opinion. They key difference for me is that there is nothing especially diagnostic that ties the injuries to anything else the ripper did. Anyone inspired by the ripper could have done what was dome to McKenzie. Some of the most disturbing and clearly sexually motivated wounds on Ellen Bury are extremely similar to Eddowes. IMO, everything we know about Bury outweighs McKenzie.

For Ellen Bury I would argue there are mitigating circumstances. It was his wife who he had known for almost a year. More significantly I think is the location. He was known to have travelled from the east end. A repeat of Kelly could only have resulted in the biggest manhunt in police history I suspect. Bury would have gone from well off to a life on the run, living in the shadows. He could have gone anywhere, but realistically, could he have got away with it? His description would have been rapidly circulated. Any boats travelling long distances could easily have been searched when they docked. What he saw and heard during those two days listening to court cases before he went to the police must have persuaded him he could get away with it. I do think he planned to kill Ellen in Dundee, just not the way it transpired.

I can imagine Ellen frustrated Bury greatly. A misogynist beholden to his wife for his money and status was only going to result in brutality IMO. Perhaps Bury had a lifelong festering hatred of women and his marriage to Ellen tipped him over the edge. Perhaps once she was gone he just gave up.

I also don’t think Bury moving to Dundee to get Ellen away from her family stacks up. Bury assaulted his wife on numerous occasions throughout 1888, in public and in front of witnesses, and didn’t leave. James martin also said he regularly saw Ellen with a disfigured face. Ellen’s sister told him off and he still wasn’t bothered. He clearly wasn’t bothered who knew what he was doing, so why would he suddenly up sticks and leave all the way to Dundee just to carry on abusing her? The one key exception being when his landlady threatened to call the police after the knife incident – this was only a few days after the Wilson attack. Guilty conscience I wonder?