Jack the Ripper is an extremely rare serial killer

[Sam Flynn]

I'm talking about the design and the focus of the mutilations, Sam. Why did William Bury mutilate his wife in a manner similar to the Ripper?

But these are very superficial wounds, Harry. I can't honestly see that they could be described as similar to the Ripper, except in the most half-hearted manner. Apart from that one, mere four inch, wound to the lower abdomen, Ellen has practically been tattooed, not ripped. And, I can't over-emphasise this, her throat was unharmed, except by the rope which was the sole instrument of her death.

Where do you stand on Alice Mckenzie? Her mutilations were shallower than Ellen's but people are more open-minded to her as a Ripper victim than they are Ellen.

The most that can be said for her being a potential Ripper victim is that (a) she was killed outdoors; and (b) her throat was cut. There were wounds to her abdomen - which is more than can be said for Liz Stride, by the way - but these were evidently of a superficial nature. On balance, I don't find her abdominal wounds to be sufficiently deep for her to have been a victim of the Ripper. He was a guy who knew what he was doing, and he'd had plenty of practice by the time McKenzie was killed.

[Abby Normal]

The intestines bulged out of that wound, it's true, but that's rather different from the wound exposing the intestines, as we saw in at least three of the Ripper murders. Indeed, it is quite possible that the intestines were forced out when Bury tried to fit the body in the box. Be that as it may, that particular wound was only four inches long, which is scarcely longer than my middle finger. If you're calling that "large", then I refer you to Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly.

As to the other wounds, I've taken description you kindly posted, and underlined where the wounds were described as "superficial".

[ATTACH]18324[/ATTACH]

On the contrary, I'm being accurate and objective. The vast majority of those wounds were superficial, as we can clearly see from the above. The 4" abdominal wound apart, even the very deepest only made it through to the subcutaneous muscle, without penetrating any bodily cavity, and several of them barely scratched the skin ("little more than penetrating the cuticle"). There were even two apparently aimless cuts to the chest ("commencing at the inner end of the fifth costal cartilage" which we do not see in any Ripper murder. Before someone mentions MJK, the cuts to her thorax were purposeful and clearly designed to either remove the breasts or to denude the ribs. With Mrs Bury, however, we have two superficial cuts, only one of which penetrated through the skin to the muscle, and the damage to the subcutaneous muscle only extended for one inch. The other wound which penetrated muscle (the one next to the umbilicus) ran for only three-quarters of an inch. These are small, largely superficial, and somewhat unimpressive wounds by most standards, and are an order of magnitude less severe than what we see in most of the the Whitechapel Murders.

Hi Sam
I see where your coming from on this but I'm with Harry on this one. yes not as bad as previous ripper victims, but post mortem mutilations to the abdomen with a knife nonetheless.

To me, it almost seems like the guy(if the ripper) just couldn't help himself.

[Abby Normal]

With regard to location we can't be sure of the ripper's thinking. Perhaps in selecting Whitechapel rather than Bow he was following the old 'not on your own doorstep' thinking? Perhaps he felt that it would lessen his chance of being recognised? We can't be certain that he would have lived in Whitechapel but by regularly visiting the area he would have gained local knowledge ( which alleys lead where for eg.) I personally don't see Bow as an issue.

HI HS
He was said to have a horse and cart and delivered saw dust to pubs and restuarants-so not only could it explain how he knew WC well but also why it was easy for him to kill farther away from Bow.

[Harry D]

I'm talking about the design and the focus of the mutilations, Sam. Why did William Bury mutilate his wife in a manner similar to the Ripper? Was he trying to pin it on the Whitechapel fiend all the way up in Scotland? Or did he just happen to share the same fetish as an infamous serial killer. The same serial killer who preyed in the same area of London and went quiet when he moved up north. It's one coincidence too many.

Where do you stand on Alice Mckenzie? Her mutilations were shallower than Ellen's but people are more open-minded to her as a Ripper victim than they are Ellen.

[Sam Flynn]

Really? One large wound to the lower abdomen that exposed the intestines and several lesser incisions?

The intestines bulged out of that wound, it's true, but that's rather different from the wound exposing the intestines, as we saw in at least three of the Ripper murders. Indeed, it is quite possible that the intestines were forced out when Bury tried to fit the body in the box. Be that as it may, that particular wound was only four inches long, which is scarcely longer than my middle finger. If you're calling that "large", then I refer you to Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly.

As to the other wounds, I've taken description you kindly posted, and underlined where the wounds were described as "superficial".

Think you're splitting hairs here, fella.

On the contrary, I'm being accurate and objective. The vast majority of those wounds were superficial, as we can clearly see from the above. The 4" abdominal wound apart, even the very deepest only made it through to the subcutaneous muscle, without penetrating any bodily cavity, and several of them barely scratched the skin ("little more than penetrating the cuticle"). There were even two apparently aimless cuts to the chest ("commencing at the inner end of the fifth costal cartilage" which we do not see in any Ripper murder. Before someone mentions MJK, the cuts to her thorax were purposeful and clearly designed to either remove the breasts or to denude the ribs. With Mrs Bury, however, we have two superficial cuts, only one of which penetrated through the skin to the muscle, and the damage to the subcutaneous muscle only extended for one inch. The other wound which penetrated muscle (the one next to the umbilicus) ran for only three-quarters of an inch. These are small, largely superficial, and somewhat unimpressive wounds by most standards, and are an order of magnitude less severe than what we see in most of the the Whitechapel Murders.

[Herlock Sholmes]

With regard to location we can't be sure of the ripper's thinking. Perhaps in selecting Whitechapel rather than Bow he was following the old 'not on your own doorstep' thinking? Perhaps he felt that it would lessen his chance of being recognised? We can't be certain that he would have lived in Whitechapel but by regularly visiting the area he would have gained local knowledge ( which alleys lead where for eg.) I personally don't see Bow as an issue.

[Harry D]

Thanks, Harry. Like I said, largely superficial, tentative wounds.

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

[Sam Flynn]

Perhaps Bury felt comfortable in Whitechapel? As opposed to other areas nearby Bow.

I don't see why should that have been the case.

[Sam Flynn]

Au contraire, Sam.

Thanks, Harry. Like I said, largely superficial, tentative wounds.

[John Wheat]

Indeed so, John, but there were prostitutes and street walkers aplenty within a similar radius of Bury's home, elsewhere in the East End, yet we find no Ripper murders there.

Perhaps Bury felt comfortable in Whitechapel? As opposed to other areas nearby Bow.

[Sam Flynn]

But Sam many serial killers kill in an area slightly away from there home.

Indeed so, John, but there were prostitutes and street walkers aplenty within a similar radius of Bury's home, elsewhere in the East End, yet we find no Ripper murders there.

[John Wheat]

So, what you're basically saying is that a killer/post-mortem mutilator whose mutilations aren't exactly the same/as extreme as the Ripper is a weaker suspect than someone who can't even be proven to have murdered someone at all?

I know totally illogical.

[John Wheat]

What named suspect is stronger than Bury?

None Harry.

[Harry D]

There is no evidence that he did. Even if that were the case, his means of killing was to emphatically cut the throat to effect a swift death. Why he should suddenly switch to the slower method of throttling with a rope so soon after the Autumn of Terror is very hard to understand, and certainly needs a pretty convincing explanation.

The Ripper was killing prostitutes on the street or in the victim's hovel, where they had to be silenced to stop them crying out. It also facilitated exsanguination for the on-the-spot organ removal. William Bury killed Ellen in his own basement flat, where he was in control of the situation.

Pretty much, in that Bury revealed his hand in Dundee which, in a number of details, doesn't look much like the hand of the Ripper.

Au contraire, Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

Yup, I'm a big fan of Beadle's book. Apart from anything else, he's a very fine writer.