Suspect battle: The Wife-Knifers

[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

[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 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.

[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]

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?

[Defective Detective]

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

[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

[Wyatt Earp]

I wonder if there is evidence that her body was posed as there is modern research that suggests that a combination of posing and mutilations occur in only one in every 2,000 murder cases: Kepplel et al. (2005).

Yes, I talk about the posing of Ellen Bury’s body in both the signature analysis thread in the Bury section here and in my Bury article in Ripperologist 139—do you subscribe to Ripperologist?

However, Bury's lack of a proven connection to Whitechapel is still a problem for me, particularly when you consider what a maze the place was and the fact that JTR seemed familiar with the area.

I just cited a newspaper account of the police investigation into Bury which describes him as being “well known” in Whitechapel (i.e., he was a serial killer who was “hiding in plain sight”). At this point in time, I’m afraid that newspaper accounts are the only evidence we have.

And I still feel that, as a commuter killer with his pony and cart, he would have been likely to commit murders over a far wider area.

Not if he wanted the police to believe that the killer lived in Whitechapel—or if he had some specific tie to the Whitechapel area.

In fact, is there evidence of a serial killer living in one district and committing murders exclusively in another nearby district or town?

Colin Ireland comes to mind. I’d have to look into it, but I believe Joel Rifkin lived somewhere on Long Island but drove all the way into Manhattan to find prostitutes. Of course, the Ripper didn’t solely murder women in the Whitechapel area—he also murdered a woman in Dundee, Scotland.

[Abby Normal]

Slight edge to Bury, but both are viable candidates in my second tier of suspects.

[John G]

Hello Wyatt,

I must admit that for a long time Bury was my favored suspect. The fact that he subjected his wife's body to abdominal mutilations is clearly significant- I wonder if there is evidence that her body was posed as there is modern research that suggests that a combination of posing and mutilations occur in only one in every 2,000 murder cases: Kepplel et al. (2005). The victim's throat wasn't targeted, but serial killers sometimes have seriously distorted perspectives which influence behavior: Sutcliffe stopped using a knife for a period because he was offended at being called the Yorkshire Ripper! And, of course, there is the incriminating graffiti. It could be argued that this was a copycat killing but as I've suggested earlier that type of crime seems to exist mainly in the realms of crime fiction.

However, Bury's lack of a proven connection to Whitechapel is still a problem for me, particularly when you consider what a maze the place was and the fact that JTR seemed familiar with the area. And I still feel that, as a commuter killer with his pony and cart, he would have been likely to commit murders over a far wider area. In fact, is there evidence of a serial killer living in one district and committing murders exclusively in another nearby district or town?

[John G]

Given the similarity of the murder of his wife I would have been surprised if he didn't go. If he did then he clearly ruled him out in later favour of Chapman, who can also be ruled out,simply because if there had have been any suspicion of him at the time he committed his murders, then again the police would have gone and spoken to him at some point before his execution. After all if he had have been the Ripper he may well have un burdened his conscience, after all what did he have to lose?

No record, or or no mention by anyone that there was any "suspicion" against Chapman, yet some seek to make him a prime suspect- unbelievable

Yes, I would agree that Chapman is frankly a hopeless suspect. The fact that Abberline seems to have favored him doesn't say very much: he'd retired from the force in 1892, well before Chapman was arrested in 1903. And, of course, it's worth noting that a much more modern West Yorkshire police force seemed convinced that the Yorkshire Ripper was a geordie, referred to as Wearside Jack!

I think George R Sims summed things up nicely: "It is an absolute absurdity to argue that a cool, calculating poisoner like Klosowski could have lived with half a dozen women and put them quietly out of the way by a slow and calculated process after being in 1888 a man so maniacal in his homicidal fury that he committed the foul and fiendish horror of Miller's-Court. A furious madman does not suddenly become a slow poisoner."

[Wyatt Earp]

However, a major problem with Bury as a suspect is that whilst the murders were taking place in Whitechapel, he was living in Bow.

His location outside of the killing zone is a big strike against him, IMO.

No, this is not a worthwhile objection to Bury. As I pointed out in another thread, some serial killers prefer to kill at a significant distance from where they live. That’s just the way it is, guys.

Perhaps Whitechapel was as far as Bury wanted to go or felt comfortable in going. There could have been a certain shrewdness in targeting Whitechapel. The police would naturally have been looking into the possibility that the killer lived in the area. They were not doing door-to-door searches in Bow. According to James Berry, who unfortunately must be approached with a good deal of caution, Bury had spent some time living in the Whitechapel area, so perhaps he targeted that area because of his familiarity with it. Perhaps he picked up his case of vd in the area, and that was why he chose that area to express his fury. Perhaps he had some specific connection to the area, such as a friend who was wittingly or unwittingly helping him. There are a lot of possibilities.

As I explain in my article in the Rip, William Bury can be identified as the Ripper via signature analysis. We have a legal opinion that the evidence is there to convict William Bury of the Ripper murders. Uncertainty about why Bury targeted Whitechapel is not an adequate basis for resisting what we have against Bury.

Didnt Abberline go and interview in Scotland about the Whitechapel murders ?

Trevor, at this point in time we unfortunately only appear to have newspaper sources for the police investigation of Bury for the Ripper murders. These do not suggest that Bury was positively ruled out. This is from the Dundee Courier, as quoted in Beadle’s 2009 book: “The London authorities are not inclined to believe that prisoner was connected with any of the recent atrocities in Whitechapel, as he was well known in the locality, and had never been seen out at any untimely hours” (p.284). I think that anyone who has read Abberline’s rationale for fingering Chapman should doubt his ability to form a correct assessment of Bury. By the way, I very much enjoyed your book, The Evil Within. Good stuff.

[Ghost]

Reading up on Bury, he sounds to me like one of those guys who get arrested and claim to have been on the grassy knoll in Dallas in 1963, It sounds like he was trying to hint at it as a bargaining position for his life. His location outside of the killing zone is a big strike against him, IMO.

I think Kelly is a pretty good candidate.

[GUT]

I would add that I see a huge difference between a domestic killing and the killing of [apparent] strangers, which really makes me doubt either of them.

[Cogidubnus]

Tough choice - Kelly on balance

Kelly and Bury are two of the best named persons of interest, yet ultimately neither really convinces me...but that's a very much subjective personal view...

All the best

Dave