Suspect battle: The Wife-Knifers

[John G]

Hi Wyatt,

Thanks for reply, that was a good post. As I've noted I used to consider Bury as a very strong suspect but must admit that, since reading Euan's book some years ago, I Haven't kept up with recent developments- I really must start subscribing to the Ripperologist!

What I think is relevant is the rarity of the kind of murder that Bury committed, particularly when you consider that murder itself was uncommon during the period- only 2 murders were recorded for the entire Whitechapel district for the four years either side of 1888.

And then there's the graffiti "Jack the Ripper is at the back of this door" and "Jack Ripper is in this sellar" that was found in his flat in Dundee. And, of course, the murders started shortly before he arrived in London and ended after he left.

I suppose he could have been a copycat killer but I'm not sure they exist outside of crime fiction!

And I wonder if anyone as tried to prove a connection between Bury and Eddowes; it has always struck me as a big coincidence that they both lived in Wolverhampton.

Cheers,

John

[Defective Detective]

So do you think the case for Bury potentially being the culprit is stronger than that for Kelly?

[John G]

I still think that Bury is a very good suspect. We know he was in East London at the relevant time, that the murder of his wife indicates a similar MO to JTR, and there was incriminating/ confessional graffiti in his flat.

Must admit, I don't know a great deal about Kelly but there seems to be a great deal of speculation concerning this candidate rather than hard evidence, i.e was he even in London at the relevant time? Did he leave for America? Did he commit similar murders there?

[GUT]

And, of course, the murders started shortly before he arrived in London and ended after he left.

Well that would rile him out wouldn't it, if they started before he arrived and ended after he left?

But perhaps a greater issues is the old age question of "which murders". IE if we include Tabram and McKenzie how does he fit then?

[John G]

Well that would rile him out wouldn't it, if they started before he arrived and ended after he left?

But perhaps a greater issues is the old age question of "which murders". IE if we include Tabram and McKenzie how does he fit then?

According to Euan Macpherson's book Bury originally arrived in East London in the autumn of 1887 and left for Dundee in January 1889. However, it does appear that he returned to Wolverhampton for a period, before finally departing for Dundee, but there seems to be conflicting evidence as precisely when that was.

In any event, that would seem to rule him out for Mackenzie and Coles but not necessarily for Tabram or the C5.

[Wyatt Earp]

According to Euan Macpherson's book Bury originally arrived in East London in the autumn of 1887

What Macpherson wrote was "By October 1887, he was living and working in the East End of London" (p.43). We don't know exactly when Bury arrived in East London.

Bury's trial took place in March, 1889. His former employer, James Martin, testified, "I first came to know Prisoner two years ago. He came into my employment in October 1887 as a hawker of sawdust." Martin does not say anything concerning when Bury arrived in London.

Bury and his wife Ellen were on vacation in Wolverhampton for part of August 1888, however we do not know the exact dates of their vacation. The poster johns discovered a newspaper article which suggests they were there after August 13, as Bury attended races at a park which did not open until August 13.

In any event, that would seem to rule him out for Mackenzie and Coles

Bury can be positively ruled out for McKenzie and Coles, as he was already dead by the time they were murdered.

[John Wheat]

But perhaps a greater issues is the old age question of "which murders". IE if we include Tabram and McKenzie how does he fit then?

To Gut

I don't think many people regard McKenzie as a Ripper victim.

Cheers John