Favoured Suspect...

[Abby Normal]

Anyone who doesn't think Bury is one of the best suspects doesn't know what they are talking about in my opinion.

agree John. and i cant help but think if he had murdered Ellen in london he would have been pegged for the ripper murders. and i agree that police also got thrown off by a number of factors, including that they saw him as just a domestic murderer and the way he tried to cover it up.

[GBinOz]

JtR:
Victims not related to killer.
Victims killed in street (except Kelly)
Victims had throat cut
Victims had abdominal mutilations
Victims left on display with skirts hiked up
Possibly one obscure chalk message away from murder site

Bury:
Victim was wife
Victim killed in home (no comparison with Kelly mutilations)
Victim garrotted
Victims abdominal injuries stated to be inflicted so that would not be thought of as JtR -
Victims body hidden in crate
Two self incriminating chalk messages left at site

There were actually no similarities except the abdominal injuries which Bury claimed were only inflicted to prevent being suspected of being JtR, but were more likely, along with the chalk messages, just attention seeking.

[Abby Normal]

JtR:
Victims not related to killer.
Victims killed in street (except Kelly)
Victims had throat cut
Victims had abdominal mutilations
Victims left on display with skirts hiked up
Possibly one obscure chalk message away from murder site

Bury:
Victim was wife (victim was a woman)
Victim killed in home (no comparison with Kelly mutilations) (so was kelly)
Victim garrotted (victim strangled. stride with her scarf.look at all the ways btk did it
Victims abdominal injuries stated to be inflicted so that would not be thought of as JtR - (why mention jtr???)
Victims body hidden in crate (ill give you that one, although some will argue that she was also hideously displayed)
Two self incriminating chalk messages left at site (again mentions of jtr)

There were actually no similarities except the abdominal injuries which Bury claimed were only inflicted to prevent being suspected of being JtR, but were more likely, along with the chalk messages, just attention seeking.

proven knife post mortem mutilator of a woman via slashed midsection. that alone puts him above the rest. he was there at the time, police suspect and fits the profile and that makes him the least weak.

[John Wheat]

proven knife post mortem mutilator of a woman via slashed midsection. that alone puts him above the rest. he was there at the time, police suspect and fits the profile and that makes him the least weak.

Abby you have put it better than I could. It's also worth noting that Ellen Bury was a Prostitute when Bury met her.

Cheers John

[Abby Normal]

Abby you have put it better than I could. It's also worth noting that Ellen Bury was a Prostitute when Bury met her.

Cheers John

yup, also Bury was a known ruser, and the ripper most certainly rused his victims.

[etenguy]

I have to say that I find Bury an impossible suspect since he was hanged in April 1889 and I believe Alice Mackenzie was a ripper victtim (there is a different thread running about Alice if you want to discuss her), therefore making Bury's candidacy void.

[Mortis]

I don't know how you figure that Ramirez and Kurten didn't change their MO at all, especially Ramirez. With Ramirez, a victim might be strangled, stabbed, shot, bludgeoned, electrocuted, or stomped to death.

I wouldn't really say Ramirez had an MO. He was an opportunistic killer. Closest thing to an MO he had is usually the location being houses.

Nobody is saying that Abberline's conclusions should be taken as gospel or that he was infallible. But as an investigator, he was above average. He was repeatedly and rapidly promoted in spite of having no connections to help him. He was specifically brought in for the Ripper and the Cleveland Street cases. During his career he received 84 commendations and awards.

"Inspector Abberline was portly and gentle speaking. The type of police officer - and there have been many - who might easily have been mistaken for the manager of a bank or a solicitor. He also was a man who had proved himself in many previous big cases. His strong suit was his knowledge of crime and criminals in the East End, for he had been for many years the detective-inspector of the Whitechapel Division, or as it was called then the "Local Inspector". Inspector Abberline was my chief when I first went to Whitechapel. He left only on promotion to the Yard, to the great regret of myself and others who had served under him. No question at all of Inspector Abberline's abilities as a criminal hunter." Walter Dew, 1938

Abberline had a favored suspect, Chapman. While I believe Abberline's theory was incorrect, his theory had more basis than most suspects put forward - he believed Chapman and the Ripper had medical knowledge, the attacks stopped roughly when Chapman left the area, Chapman had threatened his wife with a knife, and Chapman fit some witness descriptions. Unlike most suspectologists, Abberline acknowledged weaknesses in his theory - Chapman's age did not match witness descriptions.

Here's the thing - I can only judge by results and not what someone else said. I find this argument 'well, he was promoted a lot' as a testament to his skills incredibly lacking as there are thousands of examples of good working cops not advancing and vice versa. This is not to say he wasn't a good detective, but it's a pointless argument. We as people living in the present can only judge by historical results recorded.

DeAngelo left lots of evidence and was nearly caught multiple times. He took precautions like wearing gloves, but I have seen no evidence that DeAngelo attempted to misdirect the police, let alone that he succeeded.

No, he did not. I was following the case for 16 years and I can't recall how many theories about who he was and none of them came close. The police didn't even know who did the crimes the ONS/EAR crimes for years and the VR and Maggiore crimes were only connected after he was caught via a ridiculous lucky DNA connection (if you'd read about it you'd know how lucky the police got with it). He came close of being caught a few times but that was mainly due to his risky nature. But as far as crimes go he did a lot to sidetrack the police. From the dog repellent, to the wigs, to changing his voice, to his inane misdirection ramblings, to parking his bike at one location and a car in another for easy escape, to pre-scouting the areas and unloading the guns and knowing where everything was, etc. Back in the day people the most popular theory was that he was an athletic high schooler. His only real mistake was leaving the DNA, but it's hard to say anyone could have predicted how far DNA would advance. He was a highly organized killer who knew police work. JTR, from what we know, - not so much.

[JeffHamm]

Hmmmm,

While Bury's murder of his wife, someone he knows, seems at odds with JtR murdering unknown prostitutes, as Abby outlines there are notable similarities. While reading this, I was struck by some parallels with Ed Kemper, who murdered a number of co-eds who he would offer a ride to and then murder them, sometimes decapitating them as well, and then would disposing of their bodies in the woods/remote areas. However, his final two victims were his mother (whom he killed at home, decapitated, and hid her body in the closet), his motive being his anger towards her (which he also claimed was his motive for his crimes in general, but he's also a very manipulative fellow and often tells people what they want to hear). Anyway, he then called her friend over and killed her and I believe his stated motive there was because she would normally come over and he didn't want her reporting the crime.

Anyway, there are clear differences between the murder of the co-eds and his mother and her friend, in terms of how he comes in contact with the victims, where he leaves the bodies, but there are similarities too, such as he decapitated his mother, and so forth.

So yes, Bury's murder of his wife does differ from JtR's victims in some ways, but on the other hand, it could be argued the differences are a reflection of the difference in the relationship he has with the victims. The JtR victims are unknown to him, and so have to be met out doors, can be left on public display because who they are doesn't connect to him, etc, while his wife, being known to him, is killed at home, needs to be concealed (because she's known to him), and so forth.

I'm not saying that is proof Bury was JtR, and I'm not convinced he was nor am I even arguing that he was, only that to me the differences that often get mentioned are differences of the type that have arose in other cases. So I'm not so sure they are as meaningful as we sometimes suppose.

But not being "meaningful differences" doesn't elevate them to "evidence of guilt", rather it relegates them to the more humble status of "not relevant one way or the other".

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Hmmmm,

While Bury's murder of his wife, someone he knows, seems at odds with JtR murdering unknown prostitutes, as Abby outlines there are notable similarities. While reading this, I was struck by some parallels with Ed Kemper, who murdered a number of co-eds who he would offer a ride to and then murder them, sometimes decapitating them as well, and then would disposing of their bodies in the woods/remote areas. However, his final two victims were his mother (whom he killed at home, decapitated, and hid her body in the closet), his motive being his anger towards her (which he also claimed was his motive for his crimes in general, but he's also a very manipulative fellow and often tells people what they want to hear). Anyway, he then called her friend over and killed her and I believe his stated motive there was because she would normally come over and he didn't want her reporting the crime.

Anyway, there are clear differences between the murder of the co-eds and his mother and her friend, in terms of how he comes in contact with the victims, where he leaves the bodies, but there are similarities too, such as he decapitated his mother, and so forth.

So yes, Bury's murder of his wife does differ from JtR's victims in some ways, but on the other hand, it could be argued the differences are a reflection of the difference in the relationship he has with the victims. The JtR victims are unknown to him, and so have to be met out doors, can be left on public display because who they are doesn't connect to him, etc, while his wife, being known to him, is killed at home, needs to be concealed (because she's known to him), and so forth.

I'm not saying that is proof Bury was JtR, and I'm not convinced he was nor am I even arguing that he was, only that to me the differences that often get mentioned are differences of the type that have arose in other cases. So I'm not so sure they are as meaningful as we sometimes suppose.

But not being "meaningful differences" doesn't elevate them to "evidence of guilt", rather it relegates them to the more humble status of "not relevant one way or the other".

- Jeff

great post jeff.

i was going to mention kemper in my last post, but was in a hurry and was being short.
he also killed his grandparents by shooting them.

william suff , who is one of the closest serials killers i have found to the ripper, killed his own baby.

charlie brandt, another serial killer, also killed his mother, strangers, and his last kills were his niece and WIFE. he then commited suicide.hows that for unpredictable serial killer behavior lol.

the idea that people rule out KNOWN killers like chapman and bury because they didnt kill their victims exactly like the ripper did is crazy to me. history has shown us things like mo, victimology and even sig (based on change due to escalation) can and often do, change.

[GBinOz]

So yes, Bury's murder of his wife does differ from JtR's victims in some ways, but on the other hand, it could be argued the differences are a reflection of the difference in the relationship he has with the victims. The JtR victims are unknown to him, and so have to be met out doors, can be left on public display because who they are doesn't connect to him, etc, while his wife, being known to him, is killed at home, needs to be concealed (because she's known to him), and so forth.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

These deliberations also apply to Deeming.

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

These deliberations also apply to Deeming.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Yes, I believe he killed his family quite brutally as well, so again, differences in how he handles some aspects of the crime could differ quite a bit from the Whitechapel cases due to the situational changes.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

great post jeff.

i was going to mention kemper in my last post, but was in a hurry and was being short.
he also killed his grandparents by shooting them.

william suff , who is one of the closest serials killers i have found to the ripper, killed his own baby.

charlie brandt, another serial killer, also killed his mother, strangers, and his last kills were his niece and WIFE. he then commited suicide.hows that for unpredictable serial killer behavior lol.

the idea that people rule out KNOWN killers like chapman and bury because they didnt kill their victims exactly like the ripper did is crazy to me. history has shown us things like mo, victimology and even sig (based on change due to escalation) can and often do, change.

Hi Abby,

Yes, the idea that all serial killers follow some pre-ordained script is overly subscribed to. Some do have recognizable patterns, but there are others who seem to be little more than chaos personified, committing a wide variety of crimes and using a wide variety of methods.

Although, poisoners as a subset of serial murderers do tend to stand apart, although I would group medical professional murderers, like nurses and doctors who kill patients in with serial poisoners. They tend to be more "hands off", avoiding direct violence and even direct confrontation. They often are sadistic, and enjoy watching the pain and suffering they are causing. JtR, despite the horrific nature of the injuries, doesn't seem to need to have his victims experience pain as he strangles and kills them very quickly, with the injuries post-mortem. I suppose, though, if he strangles them, and enjoys seeing the fear he's causing, then that would be his sadistic thrill, but again, we can't know if that happened, or if he got some enjoyment out of it, etc.

So I agree, murderers like Bury should be considered as the differences between his wife's murder and the JtR cases are explainable quite easily but I would tend to think Chapman being a serial poisoner of his wives makes him unlikely (but never say never of course) because the nature of poisoning, and being around the victim watching them slowly die in agony over weeks, is a very different type of crime than the JtR crimes.

But regardless of whether or not we agree on Chapman, I do agree with your main point, which is the important bit to keep in mind.

I'm familiar with Suff, very nasty. Will have to look up Brandt as the name doesn't sound familiar to me.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Yes, the idea that all serial killers follow some pre-ordained script is overly subscribed to. Some do have recognizable patterns, but there are others who seem to be little more than chaos personified, committing a wide variety of crimes and using a wide variety of methods.

Although, poisoners as a subset of serial murderers do tend to stand apart, although I would group medical professional murderers, like nurses and doctors who kill patients in with serial poisoners. They tend to be more "hands off", avoiding direct violence and even direct confrontation. They often are sadistic, and enjoy watching the pain and suffering they are causing. JtR, despite the horrific nature of the injuries, doesn't seem to need to have his victims experience pain as he strangles and kills them very quickly, with the injuries post-mortem. I suppose, though, if he strangles them, and enjoys seeing the fear he's causing, then that would be his sadistic thrill, but again, we can't know if that happened, or if he got some enjoyment out of it, etc.

So I agree, murderers like Bury should be considered as the differences between his wife's murder and the JtR cases are explainable quite easily but I would tend to think Chapman being a serial poisoner of his wives makes him unlikely (but never say never of course) because the nature of poisoning, and being around the victim watching them slowly die in agony over weeks, is a very different type of crime than the JtR crimes.

But regardless of whether or not we agree on Chapman, I do agree with your main point, which is the important bit to keep in mind.

I'm familiar with Suff, very nasty. Will have to look up Brandt as the name doesn't sound familiar to me.

- Jeff

hi jeff
yes i see your point re chapman, but one has to keep in mind other factors comcerning him... he was generally abusive to his wives, threatened one with a knife and also had the medical background that many think was needed. plus two of tje most knowledgeable people on the case.. Abberline and sugden, both thought he probably was the ripper.

[Sunny Delight]

I don't think Bury is a good suspect. He is probably one of the better ones but that is not saying much when the quality of suspect is so poor. The Ripper was someone who struck vulnerable women who he had easy access too. His motive was sexual gratification with post mortem mutilation and the removal of 'trophies'. Bury was a domestic abuser who murdered his wife in cold blood.

He was discounted by Police at the time. We don't know enough about his movements and life in England to state whether he may have had alibis for the nights in question. He was executed before the killing of Alice McKenzie who many- including myself- believe was a Ripper victim, he went to Police with a **** and bull story about his wife's suicide when he had actually killed her. He displays very little if any of the characteristics the Ripper displayed.

[Abby Normal]

I don't think Bury is a good suspect. He is probably one of the better ones but that is not saying much when the quality of suspect is so poor. The Ripper was someone who struck vulnerable women who he had easy access too. His motive was sexual gratification with post mortem mutilation and the removal of 'trophies'. Bury was a domestic abuser who murdered his wife in cold blood.

He was discounted by Police at the time. We don't know enough about his movements and life in England to state whether he may have had alibis for the nights in question. He was executed before the killing of Alice McKenzie who many- including myself- believe was a Ripper victim, he went to Police with a **** and bull story about his wife's suicide when he had actually killed her. He displays very little if any of the characteristics the Ripper displayed.

he displayed post mortem mutilation of a woman with a knife via gashed midsection ...that alone makes him one of the best of a bad lot. add to that he was a police suspect at the time and was in the area and was your typical avg joe local nobody like most serial killers.

but i do agree that i also think that mckenzie was probably a ripper victim, so theres my conundrum lol.