Jack the Ripper is an extremely rare serial killer

[John G]

Hi Observer,
I see a killer out of practice since Miller's Court, why is another matter, hesitant and then disturbed.


Steve

If out of practice, how does that explain Nichols, the first in the series, where the signature characteristic of overkill is present as are the extensive abdominal mutilations?

Where's the evidence the killer was disturbed?

[John G]

Hi Sam,

I don't think the killer of Alice McKenzie had as much time (not that the killer of the Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes had a lot of time) to accomplish extensive mutilations. He did quite a lot of damage in the time allotted with her though, in my opinion.

In the words of Dr. Phillips:

[Coroner] Did you detect any skill in the injuries? - A knowledge of how effectually to deprive a person of life, and that speedily.

That's one explanation, but there's no proof of this and it doesn't adequately explain the lack of neck mutilations. In fact, Keppel (2005) rejected Mackenzie as a Ripper victim because of lack of signature characteristics.

The argument is even stronger in respect of Coles, because in that case wel know the perpetrator was disturbed.

[John G]

I'd question the level of skill, given that Kelly's killer "successfully" excised half a dozen (or more) organs from her body. As to the comparison with McKenzie, I'd only observe that she got off relatively lightly when seen alongside the Chapman, Eddowes and Nichols murders.

But in the case of Kelly the organs were pretty much hacked out, or plucked out. That's materially different from what we see with Chapman and Eddowes, where a significant degree of skill is apparent (Dr Phillips was clearly of this opinion in respect of Chapman and Dr Brown appears to have thought Eddowes' killer could have been a medical student.

"Got off relatively lightly?" You could make the same argument about any possible victim you might care to mention: Wilson, Coles, Mylett, Bury...

[jerryd]

I'd question the level of skill, given that Kelly's killer "successfully" excised half a dozen (or more) organs from her body. As to the comparison with McKenzie, I'd only observe that she got off relatively lightly when seen alongside the Chapman, Eddowes and Nichols murders.

Hi Sam,

I don't think the killer of Alice McKenzie had as much time (not that the killer of the Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes had a lot of time) to accomplish extensive mutilations. He did quite a lot of damage in the time allotted with her though, in my opinion.

In the words of Dr. Phillips:

[Coroner] Did you detect any skill in the injuries? - A knowledge of how effectually to deprive a person of life, and that speedily.

[Sam Flynn]

Moreover, unlike the other C5 murders Kelly's perpetrator demonstrated no skill whatsoever. There could be explanations to explain these anomalies but, on the face of it, it's difficult to reconcile Kelly's murder with Mackenzie's.

I'd question the level of skill, given that Kelly's killer "successfully" excised half a dozen (or more) organs from her body. As to the comparison with McKenzie, I'd only observe that she got off relatively lightly when seen alongside the Chapman, Eddowes and Nichols murders.

[Sam Flynn]

Possibly, but I think if he was trying to implicate the Ripper he would have been more likely to have murdered Ellen whilst they were still living in the East End of London.

I'd suggest that the same would apply if he'd been the real Ripper.

Re the purchase of the rope in Dundee - why didn't he buy a better knife? Or bring his "ripping knife" with him when he upped sticks from the East End, for that matter?

[John G]

In the same way that Ripper people from all over the UK, and elsewhere, sent letters to the police and press purporting to be from the Ripper. If someone could sent a "Ripper" letter placing the killer in Scotland, then why couldn't someone attempt to frame the Ripper for a murder in Scotland?He was a drunk and abusive towards his wife, so it's quite possible that this was another one of those domestic incidents where things just got out of hand.

Possibly, but I think if he was trying to implicate the Ripper he would have been more likely to have murdered Ellen whilst they were still living in the East End of London.

I don't accept this was a simple domestic incident. As Macpherson points out, the murder appeared to have been planned: Bury forged a contract of employment in order to get Ellen to Dundee (if she'd been murdered in London numerous witnesses could have testified to his previous violence towards the victim); whilst in Dundee he was careful to craft a new image for himself, to the extent that witnesses described them as a happily married couple; he bought the piece of cord from Janet Martin's shop on the same day the murder was committed, without explaining what it was for. (Macpherson, 2005).

[John G]

Hi Observer,
I see a killer out of practice since Miller's Court, why is another matter, hesitant and then disturbed.


Steve

But the level of overkill-part of a murderer's signature-was extreme at Miller's Court and therefore on a far greater level than seen in the Mackenzie murder. In fact, the perpetrator must have been in an absolutely frenzy, so in this respect more reminiscent of the Tabram murder. I, therefore, honestly don't think this can simply be dismissed as a killer who is out of practice.

Moreover, unlike the other C5 murders Kelly's perpetrator demonstrated no skill whatsoever. There could be explanations to explain these anomalies but, on the face of it, it's difficult to reconcile Kelly's murder with Mackenzie's.

By the way, do you think the level of abdominal mutilation was any greater in the case of Mackenzie than Ellen Bury?

[Sam Flynn]

Considering the murder took place in Dundee, how could he hope to implicate the Ripper?

In the same way that Ripper people from all over the UK, and elsewhere, sent letters to the police and press purporting to be from the Ripper. If someone could sent a "Ripper" letter placing the killer in Scotland, then why couldn't someone attempt to frame the Ripper for a murder in Scotland?

Another difficulty is that if Bury wasn't the Ripper, then what was the motive for the murder?

He was a drunk and abusive towards his wife, so it's quite possible that this was another one of those domestic incidents where things just got out of hand.

[John G]

There was one four-inch cut that penetrated the abdomen, and several superficial wounds, some of which barely pierced the skin. The term "abdominal wounds" is fair enough, but to call them "mutilations" is perhaps making them sound grander than they really were.

As to why he inflicted them, it's anyone's guess, but mine is as I wrote above - i.e. he strangled her, panicked, had a wild notion to pin the murder on the Ripper, made a half-cocked attempt at ripping, realised he couldn't do it, and stuffed her in the box while he thought of a Plan B.

Considering the murder took place in Dundee, how could he hope to implicate the Ripper? What is odd, though, is that the murder appeared to be planned. However, Bury then seemed to have no idea what to do next: he slept in the same room as the body for six nights, intimating to people in the pub that she was still alive, before eventually walking into a police station and claiming that his wife had committed suicide.

Another difficulty is that if Bury wasn't the Ripper, then what was the motive for the murder?

[Sam Flynn]

We can debate the nature of the abdominal injuries but the most curious thing for me is that they occurred at all. If he killed his wife, presumably just to be rid of her, why the abdominal mutilations?

There was one four-inch cut that penetrated the abdomen, and several superficial wounds, some of which barely pierced the skin. The term "abdominal wounds" is fair enough, but to call them "mutilations" is perhaps making them sound grander than they really were.

As to why he inflicted them, it's anyone's guess, but mine is as I wrote above - i.e. he strangled her, panicked, had a wild notion to pin the murder on the Ripper, made a half-cocked attempt at ripping, realised he couldn't do it, and stuffed her in the box while he thought of a Plan B.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We can debate the nature of the abdominal injuries but the most curious thing for me is that they occurred at all. If he killed his wife, presumably just to be rid of her, why the abdominal mutilations? If he'd have removed her arms and legs, say, we could 'justify' it perhaps by saying that he wanted to make her fit into the trunk more easily. Obviously murder isn't a 'normal' action but abdominal mutilations are a step further.

[Elamarna]

The MO, plus the throat cut, tips it in favour of it being a JTR murder for me. If you were going to "imitate" a Ripper murder, and you had already stalked, then engaged, then cut the throat of a prostitute, I can not see why you would fail to go the whole hog and mutilate your victim ala JTR. In my mind, in McKenzie we have a watered down, Ripper at work.

Hi Observer,
I see a killer out of practice since Miller's Court, why is another matter, hesitant and then disturbed.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'd say it was very unlikely. Bury lived in a different part of the East End and almost certainly frequented different pubs. He was a decade or so younger than Eddowes, and had lived in London for less than a year before Eddowes was killed. The chances of their paths crossing was rather remote.

PS: Don't knock your accent; I think it's one of the most musical in the British Isles

Cheers Sam,

It's strange but I always wince when I hear a Black Country accent on TV. Perhaps it's because it's often exaggerated. One difference I have with you is that where I live the place names are easily pronounceable!

I agree that the chances of Eddowes and Bury knowing each other is pretty remote but of course not impossible. I realise the age difference but if Bury was buying the drinks....who knows. Anyway it's only speculation of course. I won't mention my 'Frank Carter' scenario because that would have been even more remote!

[Elamarna]

Really? One large wound to the lower abdomen that exposed the intestines and several lesser incisions? Think you're splitting hairs here, fella.

There is no indication of an attempt to open the abdomen up, which is present in Chapman, Eddowes and Nichols.

The wounds are superficial similar when compared in detail they are very different.


Steve