Favoured Suspect...

[The Rookie Detective]

Firstly aren't you contradicting yourself? And as you don't know who the Ripper was how do you know it wasn't Bury?

I am suggesting a balance.

I agree that Bury is a viable and valid suspect for being the man who called himself "Jack the Ripper."

He would fit into a top 10 fairly comfortably IMO

My point however, is that the man who called himself."Jack the Ripper" and gave birth to the term through a letter, may not be the same man who murdered the victims.

When we use the term "Jack the Ripper" we are in effect believing that the Dear Boss letter is authentic, as this was the first written reference to the term.

In other words...If the Dear Boss letter wasn't written by the real killer, then Jack the Ripper is a false label that is attributed to the actual Whitechapel murderer, who would have been a different man entirely.

I am suggesting that Bury may have indeed been "Jack the Ripper" because his handwriting is remarkablely close to the Dear Boss letter.

However, this doesn't make Bury the Whitechapel murderer; which should be the term used for the man who committed the murders.

The term "Jack the Ripper" was a label that was then applied to the murderer; albeit incorrectly IF the Dear Boss letter was no more than the work of a fantasist.


It is sometimes hard to distinguish between trying to chase the man, rather than chasing the myth.


Interestingly, Bury makes reference to "Jack the Ripper"...as does Maybrick (if the watch is authentic)

but it's not the men who claim to be "Jack" that necessarily have the most to say about the murders.

The real killer wouldn't need to directly reference being "Jack"

If Bury would have said "Whitechapel killer" instead of "Jack the Ripper" then his candidacy for being the real killer would be amplified considerably.

This is based on the fact that there's no evidence connecting the term "Jack the Ripper" with any of the murders, because the real killer didn't use the term to label himself; he wouldn't need to.


Unless of course the killer loved the label so much that he chose to steal if from the author of Dear Boss; in which case the waters are then muddied.

Take a room full of egotistical soccer players playing for "Ripper FC" and ask them "Who's the best player in the room?"

Now while the likes of the players Bury and Maybrick may claim to be the man; or in the case of Bury, that he's not, just to get a reaction...

...The actual best player in the room doesn't need to respond to the question of who's the best player, and he doesn't need a label to validate any insecurities he may have.

He simply is the best player, and rather than make noise, he works in the shadows and goes about his business quietly without the need to follow anyone else.

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis C,

Aren't you overlooking Deeming?

With both Bury and Deeming we see the certain murder of family members along with the suspicion of the serial killing of strangers. Bury used strangulation. Deeming used strangulation and throat cutting, the latter being more similar to the ripper technique. Both attempted to hid the body(ies) of family members to escape the consequences. Bury subsequently revealed the body, whereas Deeming never did - neither did JtR. Both fitted the FBI profile. Both were disposing of people who had out served their purpose. Bury chose to advertise with the chalk graffiti, Deeming did not, and JtR's possible chalk graffiti was obscure at best, and certainly not self implicating.

The divergent aspect being relied upon for Bury is the abdominal attack. While I can see a killer using similar techniques with family and strangers to achieve the actual deaths, I am not persuaded that the killer would have felt the urge to perpetrate the eviscerations on family members that drove him to visit such injuries on the strangers.

I see the abdominal attack by Bury as inconsistent with the differentiation between family and stranger, but perfectly consistent with his fantasy of attempting to be perceived as a person of notoriety rather than an insignificant drunken parasite.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

I agree that if the Ripper had killed family members, he wouldn't necessarily have done it in the same way that he killed strangers. After all, I think George Chapman is one of the better suspects, and he killed in a completely different manner from the Ripper. The way I look at it is that differences don't necessarily mean that a suspect wasn't the Ripper, but if there are similarities, that makes me more inclined to suspect that person. You make a good point about Deeming being similar to the Ripper in that he both strangled and cut throats, while Bury just strangled, but I see mutilation as being such an unusual thing to do that that outweighs Deeming's similarity of both throat cutting and strangling. I still think Deeming is one of the best suspects, but not ahead of Bury.

I do think that Bury seeking notoriety is a definite possibility, but in a case where all of the suspects are weak, that being merely a definite possibility isn't enough to keep Bury from being a better suspect than all of the others.

Cheers, Lewis C

[Lewis C]

Thanks george
that report is way too tenuous for me RE deeming being in WC at the time. Hopefully more turns up.

and yes I have seen the movie it is excellent. Have you seen the Raven? Excellent time piece thriller about a serial killer in Baltimore while Poe was there murdering people the same way as they die in his stories . One of my favorites.

Hi Abby,

I agree that the report that George cited about Deeming being in WC at the time is inconclusive. However, In Paul Begg's review of Roger Millington's book about Deeming in Ripperologist 142, Begg said that Robin Napper showed that Deeming was in Britain at the time of the murders, after having said that he wasn't in prison. I think that would put Deeming in a similar situation to James Kelly and Druitt: all 3 were in Britain at the time of the murders, none of them can be proven to have been in London at that time, but all 3 of them could have been.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

I agree that the report that George cited about Deeming being in WC at the time is inconclusive. However, In Paul Begg's review of Roger Millington's book about Deeming in Ripperologist 142, Begg said that Robin Napper showed that Deeming was in Britain at the time of the murders, after having said that he wasn't in prison. I think that would put Deeming in a similar situation to James Kelly and Druitt: all 3 were in Britain at the time of the murders, none of them can be proven to have been in London at that time, but all 3 of them could have been.

thanks lewis ill need to look into this deeming stuff a bit more, i was under the impression the consensus is still that its highly likely that he was in prison or out of country at the time of the ripper murders. we know bury, chapman and kelly were and druitt close enough.
but yeah deeming is promising, its just close proximity and a high likelihood of it are important to me when assessing suspect validity.

[Barnaby]

I was convinced it was (INSERT ANY REASONABLE SUSPECT) for awhile.