Favoured Suspect...

[John Wheat]

There's a scenario whereby Bury wrote the chalk messages in Dundee and was also the author of the Dear Boss letter; his handwriting is pretty close in comparison; as shown by Bern Irca over on Forums.

That would make one automatically claim that it was case closed and that Bury was the Ripper...

However, even if Bury did write Dear Boss and effectively invent the term "Jack the Ripper," it still wouldn't prove he was the man who murdered those innocent women; ergo, the "Whitechapel Murderer."

Imagine a scenario whereby Bury took notice of the murders of Nichols and Chapman, and then felt compelled by them to the point he became obsessed; a Ripper fantasist.

Bachert was also a Ripper fantasist of sorts.

There were likely several men who fantasised that they were the real killer.

After Dear Boss, Bury then writes several more correspondences to keep up with the fantasy... and then at the point he murders his wife, he has a choice to make...
But he soon realises that he doesn't have the balls to either dismember her, or cut her throat down to the bone and instead resorts to making a deliberate post-mortem cut as a means of wanting to feel like the real killer.

But he lacks the attibutes of the real killer and ends up just awkwardly bundling her into a box while he considers his options.

There is also a possibility that his wife was aware he was obseessed with the murders to a macabre level, and chose to commit suicide as a means of escape. Bury then tried to backtrack and make her death as close to a Ripper murder as possible, because he was desperate for his efforts to actually mean something.

He writes the chalk messages as a last attempt for the world to see him as the real killer.

The idea that he told James Berry that he was the Ripper has zero foundations of any proof and in reality Bury went to his death as just another number.

So we have a scenario whereby Bury, the writer of Dear Boss, the inventor of the term "Jack the Ripper" and a man who fantasised about being the killer, was indeed the man who called himself "Jack the Ripper"...but all the while, the real killer (who wrote From Hell) makes no claim to the name "Jack" and goes about his business under the radar...continuing his killings long into the 1890's and possibly beyond.

Bury may have indeed been Jack the Ripper...but that doesn't make him the real Whitechapel murderer, who; unlike Bury, could slice, cut, stab, chop and sever without a moments hesitation.

When Bury inflicted wounds deemed similar to those inflicted by the Whitechapel Murderer, he was aiming to mimic the real killer, but his attempts were lacklustre and I imagine at some point he must have realised that being the real killer was harder than he could ever had envisaged; in a practical sense at least.

Perhaps he should have stuck to writing letters as a confidence trickster and conman, rather than try and be the real Whitechapel Murderer.

If one wants to search for the fantasy and adhere to the myth of "Jack the Ripper," then look no further than Bury, as he's as good a suspect as anyone.

But if one wants to find the truth, and know who actually murdered those poor women; then looking past Bury is a must.

I think your totally wrong. Bury is the best suspect by some distance.

[rjpalmer]

At that point, the author of the gsg - ripper or not - would not have known if the Dear Boss letter would ever see the light of day.

I can see Abby's side of it.

The Dear Boss author fully expected the letter to see the light of day, not only sending it to where it would achieve maximum attention but also politely imploring Central News to keep his letter "back," which of course, would also keep his name back until he had a chance to prove he was the real deal.

"Keep this letter back till I do a bit more work, then give it out straight."

He even drops a clue to how Central News will know it will be him."The next job I do I shall clip the ladys ears off and send to the police officers just for jolly wouldn't you."

Having failed to clip Kate Eddowes' ears off in Mitre Square, he has failed to secure his proof, but with chalk still in pocket, what better way to still demonstrate his authorship than to sign the graffito 'Jack the Ripper'--a name only known to Central News?

Rather than in character, the lack of a bold, bloody flourish to the chalk message might strike others as decidedly out of character when compared to the gleeful 'Dear Boss' author, a person who was clearly in full command of the English language.

[rjpalmer]

Straying off topic...but...

I don't know how much international publicity it has achieved, but the top news story in the U.S. over the past week has been the murder/assassination of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare in Manhattan--shot down by a masked figure who was caught on surveillance video. This led to a great deal of idle speculation about what sort of person the killer would be.

The shooter left messages for the police--engraved on the bullet casings found at the crime scene---and when they found his backpack in Central Park it was filled with Monopoly money which many took to be a mocking joke at the expense of the police and the medical insurance companies.

Because of this, and also due to the lack of sympathy many have for CEOs in the medical industry, he gained a sort of folklore status in social media before his capture (not unlike Jack the Ripper did) some people imagining him as a Robin Hood or Jesse James or John Brown, avenging all those who were ignored or denied by the medical industry. I think it is fair to say that some people were literally cheering him on, which is an odd bit of sociology in itself.

Yet, it's hard not to notice that once captured, and even before his capture judging from the CCTV footage in the restaurant where he was found, there was nothing jocular about him. He raged and shouted during his 'perp walk'-- with a sour and disheveled look on his face--and had been carrying a rambling three-page 'manifesto' that hadn't been sent to anyone---leaving one to wonder if what certain members of the public had previously interpreted as a 'fun loving' and daring attitude may have been entirely misinterpreted and were merely the symptoms of a mental disorder.

This made me wonder. As jocular as the 'Dear Boss' letter seems to many, if the general wisdom is wrong and the letter was written by the killer, how jocular would the person have been in the flesh? With his mask down, would he only seem angry and frightened and confused?

[Abby Normal]

all great points!
thanks caz, rj and frank! fascinating discussion.

and john wheat... yes i do see the similarity between the chalk written gsg and apparent chalk written messages at burys residence in dundee so for me yes another check mark for burys candidacy for the ripper (but a small check mark compared to his other big ones!)

[Mike J. G.]

Isn't an issue with the letters surely the fact that, if I recall correctly, only two of them contain similar handwriting? Wasn't it Dear Boss and Saucy Jack that had the potentially matching scribble?

As far as I remember, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but Dear Boss did not match From Hell as far as the handwriting was concerned.

I don't really put much stock into the GSG. It may have been written by the killer, it may have not. It ultimately doesn't mean a lot, imo. The letters are more straightforward in intent, but they can't all be by the killer.

[Lewis C]

Isn't an issue with the letters surely the fact that, if I recall correctly, only two of them contain similar handwriting? Wasn't it Dear Boss and Saucy Jack that had the potentially matching scribble?

As far as I remember, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but Dear Boss did not match From Hell as far as the handwriting was concerned.

I don't really put much stock into the GSG. It may have been written by the killer, it may have not. It ultimately doesn't mean a lot, imo. The letters are more straightforward in intent, but they can't all be by the killer.

I thought that I remembered that too, that the handwriting of the Dear Boss letter doesn't match that of the From Hell letter.

[The Rookie Detective]

"Dear Boss" and "Saucy Jack" were likely written by the fantasist Bury; ergo, Bury was "Jack the Ripper."

"From Hell" was written by the real Whitechapel Murderer, who butchered several women.

When Bury strangled his wife out of rage and then inflicted a deliberate post mortem abdominal wound, he was living out his fantasy.

But he lacked both the stomach and the balls to carry out the level and severity of cuts and mutilations that the real killer was capable of.

A half-hearted attempt to try and seek some kind of recognition and acknowledgement and retain some control back from his inevitable fate from the hangman's noose.

[FrankO]

hi frank
while i see your point, i disagree somewhat. the writer of dearboss disavows tje name leather apron. the writer of from hell disavows nothing and dosnt give himself a nickname. neither does the writer of the gsg, which was most certainly written by the killer, amd the name ripper was known by then.

serial killers write different things in different circs. the zodiac wrote on the victims car in one of the murders and also wrote different letters to different people with apparently different intentions.

again i see your point. and of course its all speculation, but since i lean toward dear boss being authentic imho the ripper probably gave himself the name. and of course if from hell wasnt written by the killer, then your point is moot. (but again imho probably was).

i see the the three writings thus:
gsg 90% chance authentic
from hell 75%
dear boss/ saucy jack 70%

Hi Abby,

It’s funny – and frustrating at the same time – that we can come up with so many views on one subject, based on the very same information that we’re left with. There’s no solution to be had, but, if we stay open-minded enough, every counter view to your own can help you see something that, perhaps, you didn’t see or even want to see before.

I guess our personal views partly depend on a sort of basic idea that we have of who, or rather, what kind of person, Jack the Ripper was. I don’t know if that’s true for everyone, but for me it is. If one thinks the Ripper was, for example a Bundy type man, then they might think he approached potential victims in a certain way. If one thinks he was more of a Rader type man, then they might see the letter & message writing in one way. If one thinks that he was more of a loner, they might see these two things in a very different way. And the same sort of thing goes for anatomical knowledge. If one thinks he had that (either by having studied it at school or privately), then one might see things differently than if one thinks he didn’t have any anatomical knowledge whatsoever. Or, if that’s even possible, if one has no notion at all of what type of man the Ripper was, if he’s still a blank sheet of paper, if you will, then that might lead to altogether different views still.

Of course, our views are also influenced by all the information itself, as we all weigh every piece of formation on our own scales.

If I’m right about this, then that’s the thing that fascinates me.

Cheers,
Frank

[FrankO]

I can see Abby's side of it.

The Dear Boss author fully expected the letter to see the light of day, not only sending it to where it would achieve maximum attention but also politely imploring Central News to keep his letter "back," which of course, would also keep his name back until he had a chance to prove he was the real deal.

"Keep this letter back till I do a bit more work, then give it out straight."

Hi Roger,

While I can see Abby’s side of it, too, one might also argue that, if the writer wasn’t the killer, he wrote this because he obviously couldn't know if there would be any more work from the real killer, but, after two unheard-of mutilations murders within only 8 days, he nevertheless expected a third to happen soon. If that wouldn’t happen, then no problem, Central News wouldn’t give it out. But if it would, it would be huge. And it was.

He even drops a clue to how Central News will know it will be him."The next job I do I shall clip the ladys ears off and send to the police officers just for jolly wouldn't you."

I don’t think it’s a very strong clue, because he actualy didn’t clip any ears off, only one earlobe, and he didn’t send anything to the police. And he didn’t write anything about Chapman’s murder that only the murderer could (and he knew the police would) know. And the postcard seems to have been written after the double event.

Having failed to clip Kate Eddowes' ears off in Mitre Square, he has failed to secure his proof, but with chalk still in pocket, what better way to still demonstrate his authorship than to sign the graffito 'Jack the Ripper'--a name only known to Central News?

Good point, Roger. Why not sign it ‘Jack the Ripper’ or even ‘the Ripper' or just ‘Jack’? But the name ‘Jack the Ripper’ aside, we might see the bloody rag under the graffito as an authentication of the GSG, just as we might see half the kidney as authentication of the ‘From hell’ letter. I, however, remain undecided with regards to the graffito.

I think our opinion of whether it was written by the killer or not would also depend on how common or not such graffiti was in the neighbourhood. Pity that we don’t have any concrete information about that (that I’m aware of, anyway).

Cheers,
Frank

[John Wheat]

"Dear Boss" and "Saucy Jack" were likely written by the fantasist Bury; ergo, Bury was "Jack the Ripper."

"From Hell" was written by the real Whitechapel Murderer, who butchered several women.

When Bury strangled his wife out of rage and then inflicted a deliberate post mortem abdominal wound, he was living out his fantasy.

But he lacked both the stomach and the balls to carry out the level and severity of cuts and mutilations that the real killer was capable of.

A half-hearted attempt to try and seek some kind of recognition and acknowledgement and retain some control back from his inevitable fate from the hangman's noose.

This is pure supposition. Bury is the best suspect by some distance and may well have been the Ripper.

[Mark J D]

When Bury strangled his wife out of rage and then inflicted a deliberate post mortem abdominal wound, he was living out his fantasy.

But he lacked both the stomach and the balls to carry out the level and severity of cuts and mutilations that the real killer was capable of.

A half-hearted attempt to try and seek some kind of recognition and acknowledgement and retain some control back from his inevitable fate from the hangman's noose.

I'd say the above extract from RD's posting is absolutely right.

M.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have to admit to finding it a little strange that, when considering the paucity of credible suspects, that it can be suggested that Bury is a poor suspect. Compared to whom? We have a man who murdered and mutilated a woman, lived locally and only moved away just after the Kelly murder, was linked to a prostitute, had a childhood trauma, was violent and a heavy drinker. How many of our named suspects so far tick those boxes. Granted, the ticking of boxes doesn’t come anywhere near convicting anyone but if Bury is such a poor suspect then there are no suspects worth even a second glance. I’ve just named 7 points about Bury, only 1 of those can be applied to a ‘suspect’ like Cross. He lived locally, but we know of course that the only point in his favour is his presence which is why “he was there” keeps getting repeated like a parrot squawking “pieces of eight!” This places him at the same level as John Davis or John Richardson or George Hutchinson (and at least Hutchinson can be said to have behaved ‘strangely.’ And Richardson was in conflict with a Doctor’s opinion) That anyone could place Cross or Mann or Hutchinson or Barnett or Hardiman as a likelier suspect than Bury is frankly bizarre. And just to stress, I’m not claiming that Bury was the ripper. But come on! If our current list of suspects is the Premier /Championship UK football leagues then Bury is Man City, Liverpool, Chelsea or Arsenal. Cross is Hull City or Plymouth Argyle at best.

[Mike J. G.]

I have to admit to finding it a little strange that, when considering the paucity of credible suspects, that it can be suggested that Bury is a poor suspect. Compared to whom? We have a man who murdered and mutilated a woman, lived locally and only moved away just after the Kelly murder, was linked to a prostitute, had a childhood trauma, was violent and a heavy drinker. How many of our named suspects so far tick those boxes. Granted, the ticking of boxes doesn’t come anywhere near convicting anyone but if Bury is such a poor suspect then there are no suspects worth even a second glance. I’ve just named 7 points about Bury, only 1 of those can be applied to a ‘suspect’ like Cross. He lived locally, but we know of course that the only point in his favour is his presence which is why “he was there” keeps getting repeated like a parrot squawking “pieces of eight!” This places him at the same level as John Davis or John Richardson or George Hutchinson (and at least Hutchinson can be said to have behaved ‘strangely.’ And Richardson was in conflict with a Doctor’s opinion) That anyone could place Cross or Mann or Hutchinson or Barnett or Hardiman as a likelier suspect than Bury is frankly bizarre. And just to stress, I’m not claiming that Bury was the ripper. But come on! If our current list of suspects is the Premier /Championship UK football leagues then Bury is Man City, Liverpool, Chelsea or Arsenal. Cross is Hull City or Plymouth Argyle at best.

If you look at the suspect list like a list of celebrities, Bury, Kelly and Chapman are like Samuel L Jackson, Jack Nicholson and Al Pacino... Cross is like Joey Essex, or some other bellend from reality television.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you look at the suspect list like a list of celebrities, Bury, Kelly and Chapman are like Samuel L Jackson, Jack Nicholson and Al Pacino... Cross is like Joey Essex, or some other bellend from reality television.

I much prefer your analogy to mine Mike

[caz]

I can see Abby's side of it.

The Dear Boss author fully expected the letter to see the light of day, not only sending it to where it would achieve maximum attention but also politely imploring Central News to keep his letter "back," which of course, would also keep his name back until he had a chance to prove he was the real deal.

"Keep this letter back till I do a bit more work, then give it out straight."

He even drops a clue to how Central News will know it will be him."The next job I do I shall clip the ladys ears off and send to the police officers just for jolly wouldn't you."

Having failed to clip Kate Eddowes' ears off in Mitre Square, he has failed to secure his proof, but with chalk still in pocket, what better way to still demonstrate his authorship than to sign the graffito 'Jack the Ripper'--a name only known to Central News?

Rather than in character, the lack of a bold, bloody flourish to the chalk message might strike others as decidedly out of character when compared to the gleeful 'Dear Boss' author, a person who was clearly in full command of the English language.

As you might expect, I don't accept the argument that IF the ripper wrote Dear Boss and authored the graffito, he'd have gone the whole pantomime villain and signed 'Jack the Ripper' in chalk. Think about it. If he is fully expecting Dear Boss to see the light of day, he must also be anticipating that it might be taken seriously - seriously enough to produce a facsimile of his handwriting, in the hope that someone, somewhere would recognise it and identify the author.

That by itself would not have proved anything because, as history tells us, Dear Boss was and remains widely believed to be the work of a hoaxer. Not nearly enough to hang the joker responsible.

But chalking 'Jack the Ripper' on that wall, before Dear Boss could see the light of day?

He may as well have been signing his own death warrant. And I don't think he really wanted to do that.