Are William Henry Bury and James Kelly overlooked?

[Marcel Prost]

We all know the “usual suspects” in Ripper discussions — Druitt, Hutchinson, Kosminski, Lechmere, Maybrick, Tumblety, etc. They dominate the threads, and rightly so in some cases, given the theories and historical debate attached to them.

But I can’t help noticing how much less attention two confirmed killers receive: William Henry Bury and James Kelly. Both men actually killed women in ways that, at least on the surface, overlap with the Whitechapel murders.

And yet, when you compare their “thread count” here to the more fashionable suspects, it’s night and day.

I’m not forgetting George Chapman, another confirmed murderer. Chapman gets far more attention than Bury and Kelly, though in truth his profile as a poisoner makes him an unlikely Ripper candidate — very different MO.

Of course, both have big problems as suspects. Bury’s crime looks more like a domestic murder than a serial one, and his wife’s mutilations don’t really match the Ripper’s signature. Kelly, meanwhile, has no direct evidence placing him in Whitechapel and his killing method was different. But still — they were both actual killers of women, unlike some of the other suspects who are endlessly debated here.

Do we undervalue Bury and Kelly in Ripper studies because they don’t have the same mystique or mythology attached to them as Druitt, Maybrick, or Tumblety? Or are they rightly sidelined because their crimes don’t fit the Ripper’s known pattern strongly enough?

Curious to hear everyone’s thoughts.

[The Rookie Detective]

We all know the “usual suspects” in Ripper discussions — Druitt, Hutchinson, Kosminski, Lechmere, Maybrick, Tumblety, etc. They dominate the threads, and rightly so in some cases, given the theories and historical debate attached to them.

But I can’t help noticing how much less attention two confirmed killers receive: William Henry Bury and James Kelly. Both men actually killed women in ways that, at least on the surface, overlap with the Whitechapel murders.

And yet, when you compare their “thread count” here to the more fashionable suspects, it’s night and day.

I’m not forgetting George Chapman, another confirmed murderer. Chapman gets far more attention than Bury and Kelly, though in truth his profile as a poisoner makes him an unlikely Ripper candidate — very different MO.

Of course, both have big problems as suspects. Bury’s crime looks more like a domestic murder than a serial one, and his wife’s mutilations don’t really match the Ripper’s signature. Kelly, meanwhile, has no direct evidence placing him in Whitechapel and his killing method was different. But still — they were both actual killers of women, unlike some of the other suspects who are endlessly debated here.

Do we undervalue Bury and Kelly in Ripper studies because they don’t have the same mystique or mythology attached to them as Druitt, Maybrick, or Tumblety? Or are they rightly sidelined because their crimes don’t fit the Ripper’s known pattern strongly enough?

Curious to hear everyone’s thoughts.

A good post


I think it's more a question of percentages.


Chapman is a very viable suspect, having been p8ving and working in the area at the time; plus he had hands-on surgical experience.
But his vastly different M.O. is what usually sways people away from considering his as the Ripper.
However, he has remained an authentic and constant suspect in the case from day one.

Bury is interesting because he ranks high in the list of viable suspects. His post mortem mutilation of his wife is his single biggest factor in considering him as the Ripper, as well as the fact that his handwriting is strikingly similar to some of the alleged Ripper correspondences. For Canonical 5 believers he is arguably one of the best candidates for the Ripper.
However, if McKenzie was also a Ripper victim, then he wasn't the Ripper.

Kelly is for me one of the most underrated persons of interest in the case. He was good at remaining elusive for periods of time, went by various aliases and his alleged bespoke crafting of a key made from random pieces of material that enabled him to escape incarceration; denotes a man of ingenuity and intelligence.
I personally found him through my own research working at an undertakers in London at the time he was on the run from the authorities. He job enabled him to work with dead on a daily basis. The description of him "routing around" with his knife as he was cutting his wife's throat and murdering her, is also sinister and implies that he was exploring with his knife, which is somewhat reminiscent of a killer being playful and explorative with his victim.
His biggest negative as a Ripper suspect is that the slaying of his wife is more akin to a man having a psychotic episode rather than a psychopath on a mission to slay multiple victims.
But to this day he remains an enigmatic figure in the investigation.
The funeral directors he worked at during his time of hiding, still exists today.


In my opinion, Chapman, Bury and Kelly are all more likely to have been the Ripper when compared to the likes of Maybrick, Lechmere, and even Kosminski. (Aaron)


But there are scores of other viable persons of interest who are hardly known about, or not taken seriously enough.

The likes of...


Henry Hanslope

Albert Bachert

Marks Silverman (who I identified)


These 3 are just examples from the scores of persons of interest, who warrant a much closer look.


One thing is for certain.


IF the Ripper is one of the hundred or so suspects/persons of interest already named in the case, or even if he was a complete unknown; then not everyone is correct in their choice of suspect.

Some avoid suspectology, because there's a high chance of failure, and with zero chance of resolve or closure, but I personally enjoy it, because I'm not scared of failure.

For me, the biggest question is and always has been....

"Who was the Ripper?"

[Abby Normal]

We all know the “usual suspects” in Ripper discussions — Druitt, Hutchinson, Kosminski, Lechmere, Maybrick, Tumblety, etc. They dominate the threads, and rightly so in some cases, given the theories and historical debate attached to them.

But I can’t help noticing how much less attention two confirmed killers receive: William Henry Bury and James Kelly. Both men actually killed women in ways that, at least on the surface, overlap with the Whitechapel murders.

And yet, when you compare their “thread count” here to the more fashionable suspects, it’s night and day.

I’m not forgetting George Chapman, another confirmed murderer. Chapman gets far more attention than Bury and Kelly, though in truth his profile as a poisoner makes him an unlikely Ripper candidate — very different MO.

Of course, both have big problems as suspects. Bury’s crime looks more like a domestic murder than a serial one, and his wife’s mutilations don’t really match the Ripper’s signature. Kelly, meanwhile, has no direct evidence placing him in Whitechapel and his killing method was different. But still — they were both actual killers of women, unlike some of the other suspects who are endlessly debated here.

Do we undervalue Bury and Kelly in Ripper studies because they don’t have the same mystique or mythology attached to them as Druitt, Maybrick, or Tumblety? Or are they rightly sidelined because their crimes don’t fit the Ripper’s known pattern strongly enough?

Curious to hear everyone’s thoughts.

yup. and both were police persons of interest at the time and lived in the area. ive got both in my top five.

[John Wheat]

We all know the “usual suspects” in Ripper discussions — Druitt, Hutchinson, Kosminski, Lechmere, Maybrick, Tumblety, etc. They dominate the threads, and rightly so in some cases, given the theories and historical debate attached to them.

But I can’t help noticing how much less attention two confirmed killers receive: William Henry Bury and James Kelly. Both men actually killed women in ways that, at least on the surface, overlap with the Whitechapel murders.

And yet, when you compare their “thread count” here to the more fashionable suspects, it’s night and day.

I’m not forgetting George Chapman, another confirmed murderer. Chapman gets far more attention than Bury and Kelly, though in truth his profile as a poisoner makes him an unlikely Ripper candidate — very different MO.

Of course, both have big problems as suspects. Bury’s crime looks more like a domestic murder than a serial one, and his wife’s mutilations don’t really match the Ripper’s signature. Kelly, meanwhile, has no direct evidence placing him in Whitechapel and his killing method was different. But still — they were both actual killers of women, unlike some of the other suspects who are endlessly debated here.

Do we undervalue Bury and Kelly in Ripper studies because they don’t have the same mystique or mythology attached to them as Druitt, Maybrick, or Tumblety? Or are they rightly sidelined because their crimes don’t fit the Ripper’s known pattern strongly enough?

Curious to hear everyone’s thoughts.

Hi Marcel

Both Bury and Kelly are definitely overlooked. Bury in particular in my opinion. The only problem with Bury is that Ellen Bury was not mutilated to the same extent as four of the C5. But when you consider that the majority of other suspects are neither proven murderers or post mortem mutilators anyone dismissing Bury for the lack of mutilations to Ellen Bury is in my opinion foolish. The Ripper hunt was so wide ranging that I believe one of the suspects was probably the Ripper and I believe that suspect to be Bury. As for Kelly if the Ripper wasn't Bury then Kelly is the next best suspect.

Cheers John

[The Baron]

We all know the “usual suspects” in Ripper discussions — Druitt, Hutchinson, Kosminski, Lechmere, Maybrick, Tumblety, etc. They dominate the threads, and rightly so in some cases, given the theories and historical debate attached to them.

But I can’t help noticing how much less attention two confirmed killers receive: William Henry Bury and James Kelly. Both men actually killed women in ways that, at least on the surface, overlap with the Whitechapel murders.

And yet, when you compare their “thread count” here to the more fashionable suspects, it’s night and day.

I’m not forgetting George Chapman, another confirmed murderer. Chapman gets far more attention than Bury and Kelly, though in truth his profile as a poisoner makes him an unlikely Ripper candidate — very different MO.

Of course, both have big problems as suspects. Bury’s crime looks more like a domestic murder than a serial one, and his wife’s mutilations don’t really match the Ripper’s signature. Kelly, meanwhile, has no direct evidence placing him in Whitechapel and his killing method was different. But still — they were both actual killers of women, unlike some of the other suspects who are endlessly debated here.

Do we undervalue Bury and Kelly in Ripper studies because they don’t have the same mystique or mythology attached to them as Druitt, Maybrick, or Tumblety? Or are they rightly sidelined because their crimes don’t fit the Ripper’s known pattern strongly enough?

Curious to hear everyone’s thoughts.

Maybe we’ve been looking at the wrong Bury all along.

You know what bugs me about the whole William Bury theory? People keep bending themselves into knots trying to make his profile fit Jack the Ripper, when in reality, there’s someone much closer who makes a far more interesting suspect.. his wife, Ellen Bury.

Think about it. If William really was wrapped up in Whitechapel’s underworld, Ellen would have known. She might have suspected his dealings with prostitutes, maybe even knew some of them personally. Jealousy is one of the oldest motives in the book, and it explains why the attacks feel so vicious and personal.

Mary Kelly’s murder in particular has always stood out as different. What if Kelly wasn’t just 'another victim' but someone William actually favored or grew attached to? Ellen, in a jealous rage, would have had every reason to butcher her in a more extensive, intimate way than the others. That makes more sense than the idea that William suddenly escalated his violence for no reason.

Now, let’s look at how Ellen herself died. William strangled her and hid the body. Everyone says that’s 'proof' he was the Ripper, but flip the picture.. what if he killed her because she was the Ripper? The change in style makes sense then, he wasn’t following the Whitechapel pattern, he was punishing her in his own way.

One can even suggest he killed her 'in her own manner' like a twisted reflection of what she had done.

Then there’s the graffiti in Dundee 'Jack the Ripper is at the back of this door' That’s always been read as William’s confession, but what if it wasn’t? What if he was talking about Ellen.. literally, Jack the Ripper was behind that door.

And let’s not ignore modern hints, one of the so called Ripper letters has been said to show traces of female DNA. People argue about the reliability, but it opens a door nobody wants to look through. Why? Because the idea of a female Ripper doesn’t sit well with most researchers. That bias alone might explain why Ellen has been hiding in plain sight all along.

There’s even precedent, Mary Pearcey, hanged in 1890 for butchering another woman, was rumored at the time to be 'Jill the Ripper' So the idea of a woman committing brutal knife crimes in that era wasn’t unheard of, people just didn’t want to admit it.

So here’s the case in a nutshell:

- Ellen knew about William’s ties to prostitutes.
-Jealousy pushed her into violent acts against them.
-The personal rage explains the ferocity of the murders, especially Kelly’s.
-William eventually discovered it, killed her, and unintentionally left himself branded as the suspect.
-Graffiti and DNA whispers hint toward a female hand.
-The only real reason Ellen isn’t a prime suspect is that history has always refused to see Jack as a Jill.

Maybe the wrong Bury has been wearing the Ripper’s mask all this time.

And here’s the real kicker that nobody who shouts Bury! Kelly! ever wants to face, without a concrete connection to the crimes, it’s all speculation. And if it’s all speculation, then guess what? Nothing makes your speculation any more legitimate than mine.

Let’s be brutally honest, the best known suspects at least have some kind of link to Whitechapel. Maybrick’s diary might be dodgy, but at least it claims to tie him to the East End. Charles Lechmere? The man was literally standing near a body when he was spotted. Kosminski? He’s directly named in police records, with a direct link and identification. Like them or not, these suspects are anchored by something.

Now compare that with William Bury and James Kelly. What’s their grand connection? Oh right, there isn’t one.

Nothing places them in Whitechapel during the murders. Nothing ties them to the crime scenes, the victims, or even the neighborhood in any solid way. They’re suspects in the same sense that Ellen is a suspect, because technically, you can always wave your hands and say, "Well, they could have been there" .. Fantastic logic.

And this is where the Bury as Ripper theory collapses under its own weight. People cling to him because he killed his wife and the crime was 'gruesome' That’s it. That’s the whole case. James Kelly is no better, he escaped an asylum, he lived rough. But again no connection to the Whitechapel killings, no evidence he was even in the right place at the right time. Just vibes, speculation, and people who like his 'madman on the run' storyline because it reads well in a Netflix script.

Without a connection, all you’ve got is a fantasy. And once you accept that, you realize something important, if speculation is all we’ve got, then Ellen Bury is just as valid a suspect as William, in fact, more so, because at least her psychology and her personal circumstances give her an actual motive that fits the crimes.

Here’s the line in the sand, unless you can prove your suspect was even there, your theory is no stronger than smoke. And if all we’re doing is stacking smoke, I’ll take Ellen’s flame over William’s ashes any day.



The Baron

[Marcel Prost]

But there are scores of other viable persons of interest who are hardly known about, or not taken seriously enough.

The likes of...


Henry Hanslope

Albert Bachert

Marks Silverman (who I identified)


These 3 are just examples from the scores of persons of interest, who warrant a much closer look.

Hi RD

Although I am no novice to Ripperology, having frequented Casebook for many years and read Sugden, Rumbelow, Begg, Fido, Skinner and Evans, I must admit that I am unfamiliar with Henry Hanslope, Albert Bachert or Marks Silverman.

Can you tell me more about these three little-known suspects?

Or point me to a thread that discusses them? I would very much like to know more about them.

Cheers,
Marcel Prost

[bonestrewn]

Hi Marcel!

I think that because of JTR's lingering mystique and his overall mythology, people tend to avert their eyes from "obvious" suspects--people who make sense, immediately, as a Ripper suspect because of established facts of their criminal or personal history. A huge part of Jack's appeal is his unknowability, his slipperiness, and I think there is a desire to find a character that seems suited to those qualities: a person who slipped entirely under the radar and vanished into the night from the scene of his own crime, as Lechmere is suggested to have done, for example.

[Marcel Prost]

Hi Marcel

Both Bury and Kelly are definitely overlooked. Bury in particular in my opinion. The only problem with Bury is that Ellen Bury was not mutilated to the same extent as four of the C5. But when you consider that the majority of other suspects are neither proven murderers or post mortem mutilators anyone dismissing Bury for the lack of mutilations to Ellen Bury is in my opinion foolish. The Ripper hunt was so wide ranging that I believe one of the suspects was probably the Ripper and I believe that suspect to be Bury. As for Kelly if the Ripper wasn't Bury then Kelly is the next best suspect.

Cheers John

Hi John

I agree with you, it would be foolish to disregard confirmed murderers who, as Abby Normal said, were persons of interest to the police at the time and were active in the area.

They must be among the strongest suspects, or rather, given the lack of evidence against all of them, among the least weak suspects.

Cheers,
Marcel Prost

[Lewis C]

I don't think that Bury is an underrated suspect in this forum. There are several of us, myself included, who consider Bury either the best suspect or close to it. Outside of this forum, I would agree that Bury is underrated. On Youtube, I'd say that every decent suspect except Aaron Kosminski is underrated.

I agree that known murderers make relatively good suspects. They've proven that they aren't above committing murder, which puts them within the very small percentage of the population that the Ripper was part of. One that I consider an underrated suspect is Frederick Deeming. He probably is little talked about because he was thought at one time to have been either in jail or in South Africa at the time of the Ripper murders, but now we can place him in England at that time. Because at one time he was dismissed as a viable suspect, it makes it hard for him to return to the suspect fold now. He killed 2 of his wives and 4 of his children, and his methods of murder were Stangulation and throat cutting, the same 2 methods that the Ripper used.

Albert Bachert isn't one of my very top suspects, but I do think he's very much worth considering. Here's a link to a book with a chapter each about 11 suspects, one of whom is Bachert, if you want to read up on him: https://zoboko.com/book/wdmwex5l/who...pects-revealed

Charles le Grand is another suspect that I think isn't talked about as much as he should be. Tom Wescott's long article about him can be found in issue 2 of Casebook Examiner (June 2010). I can attach that issue in this thread if anyone would like me to. I downloaded it from the JTR forum.

[rjpalmer]

Curious to hear everyone’s thoughts.

Let me ask you this. If the Dusseldorf Murders or the Yorkshire 'Ripper" case had gone unsolved, and you proceeded by rounding up all the known murderers, how would it have worked out?

In truth, you would have gathered together a great number of killers, but neither Peter Kurten nor Peter Sutcliffe would have been anywhere in sight.

So, the other side of the coin is that after 1888 the press eagerly attached the Ripper's name to many murderers, or to those who didn't murder, but used a knife. As if to ask, "hey--here's a killer--maybe he's the Ripper, too."

In other words, these people became 'suspects' because they murdered (or knifed) and not because they had any provable connection to the evidence. So, to me, the methodology or logic is a little too simplistic.

Bury was among the first to suffer this fate, and is probably the most probable, but there were many others, including Mary Pearcey, Klosowski, Deeming, Cream, Grainger, Feigenbaum, and Cutbush.

James Kelly is somewhat different because he had murdered before 1888 and was on the run.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi John

I agree with you, it would be foolish to disregard confirmed murderers who, as Abby Normal said, were persons of interest to the police at the time and were active in the area.

They must be among the strongest suspects, or rather, given the lack of evidence against all of them, among the least weak suspects.

Cheers,
Marcel Prost

Hi Marcel, this thread was before your time so you may not have seen it.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...g-the-suspects