Bury and the Chalk Messages

[John Wheat]

Yes, it's a funny coincidence that Bury would have Ripper-esque graffiti on his door before he committed a Ripper-like murder.

That's why I doubt it was written before Ellen's murder was discovered.

I think it is significant and indicates that Bury either was the Ripper or a copycat otherwise why right it or why not wipe it off?

[John G]

I find the chalk messages a bit of a conundrum. For instance, if they were written before the murder why didn't Bury simply rub them off, or at least ask the landlord to remove them? If they were written after the murder, therefore amounting to a confession, why did he tell the police Ellen had committed suicide?

[Errata]

I find the chalk messages a bit of a conundrum. For instance, if they were written before the murder why didn't Bury simply rub them off, or at least ask the landlord to remove them? If they were written after the murder, therefore amounting to a confession, why did he tell the police Ellen had committed suicide?

The truth is, we have no idea how common these kinds of graffiti were, because people would clean them off rather than call the cops. It might have been the pentagram of it's day in terms of popularity among errant youth. Or it might have been singular. Kids being kids, I imagine it was somewhat more than less common, and the graffiti was considered annoying, but not frightening. It's a guess, but we also have to consider how house-proud Bury was, because if he was a chronically underemployed drunk, he might not have cared about the graffiti, or even fetishized it as a symbol of yet one more reason his life sucked. People are weird. It doesn't bother me that he didn't take it seriously.

As for why he said his wife killed herself, obviously he did that because he thought he could sell it. He was wrong, but he came pretty close. And he had good reason to think it would work, in a messed up way. Women were perceived as fragile and prone to suicide, making murdering them usually a pretty easy affair. Now, had he pursued the course of evidence that he left, of course he would have done things differently, or come up with a different story. But it's actually pretty common for killers to not do that, and there is a school of thought that claims they can't do that. Whether they don't or can't, the result is the same. Dumb choices.

The graffiti is a really screwy coincedence, and he really ought to have done something about it before going to the cops. But that he didn't isn't a sign of anything other than he didn't think about it. A condition we can easily assign to other aspects of the crime. In fact, if one sentence can sum up the entire affair, it would be that he didn't think about it. So he continues to act the way he acted from the second he laid hands on his wife. Maybe even earlier. That's not a surprise. That's entropy.

[The Good Michael]

Could someone point me to the newspaper articles that deal with the messages? I can't find them and I want to verify their existence.

Thanks,

Mike

[John G]

Could someone point me to the newspaper articles that deal with the messages? I can't find them and I want to verify their existence.

Thanks,

Mike

Yes. Dundee Advertiser, 12 February, 1889. The article stated: "The handwriting is apparently that of a boy and the authorities will probably attach little importance to it. But the writing is older than the discovery of the tragedy and the neighbours were startled and alarmed at the idea that one whom in their terror they associated with the Whitechapel tragedies had been living in their midst "

Interestingly, there is also an article in the Dundee Courier, 15 February, 1889, quoting an interview between a New York Herald journalist and "one of the most prominent heads of the Scotland Yard Police Force."

New York Herald: "Do you credit the man's statement that he is the original Jack the Ripper?"

Inspector: Not for a moment. Were he really the Whitechapel murderer stricken with remorse, we should have a detailed confession of all his crimes. As it is, he merely talks in a rambling incoherent way about being the author of the London Horrors."

[The Good Michael]

Yes. Dundee Advertiser, 12 February, 1889. The article stated: "The handwriting is apparently that of a boy and the authorities will probably attach little importance to it. But the writing is older than the discovery of the tragedy and the neighbours were startled and alarmed at the idea that one whom in their terror they associated with the Whitechapel tragedies had been living in their midst "

Thanks, just the one then? I'll check it out

Mike