Jack the Ripper is an extremely rare serial killer

[John Wheat]

Indeed, but the East End was a large, densely populated area. Strictly speaking, whilst Bury can be placed in the eastern part of the East End, all the canonical Ripper murders happened in the western part. There would have been plenty of potential victims closer to Bury's home, yet not a single canonical Ripper murder happened further east than Bucks Row.

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

He actually used a rope to kill his wife - an important detail.

Good point Sam, I had forgotten about that. It's been a while since I've read about Bury. When I've a 'reading materials gap' I might re-read Bill Beadle's book which I always felt was one of the better Ripper books (I don't know if anyone else agrees with that?)

[Sam Flynn]

The Ripper might have used a ligature to incapacitate his victims.

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.

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?

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.

[Abby Normal]

Possibly, but if any Whitechapel murder was a copycat, it was hers.

And by 'copycat' I simply mean an imitation, motives unknown.

you have no idea how grateful I am that you clarified what you mean by copycat! Your statement should be applied to every time someone says the term "copy cat" when referring to murders.

[Harry D]

So you accept then that McKenzie could have been a Ripper victim.

Possibly, but if any Whitechapel murder was a copycat, it was hers.

And by 'copycat' I simply mean an imitation, motives unknown.

[Abby Normal]

So you accept then that McKenzie could have been a Ripper victim.

hi observer
good point. It really is a conundrum for me anyway in regards to bury/McKenzie/ripper because I think Mackenzie is more than likely a ripper victim, one of the main reasons being the post mortem mutilation to the abdomen. same as Ellen. so I'm confused on this one.

[Observer]

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?

So you accept then that McKenzie could have been a Ripper victim.

[Harry D]

Hello Harry
Bury strangled his wife with a rope, and this was the cause of her death; her neck was otherwise unscathed. This is distinctly different to the Ripper's signature in itself, even before we consider the reality of the knife-wounds.

The Ripper might have used a ligature to incapacitate his victims.

Also, the circumstances aren't the same. Was Ellen's murder premeditated? Bury might have killed her in a fit of drunken rage, instead of setting out to kill her. However, being a creature of habit, he couldn't resist mutilating the body after the act.

As to those, he seems to have inflicted at least two superficial thoracic cuts with a knife, starting at around level of the fifth rib and moving towards the abdomen. There were short, superficial cuts to the abdomen proper, with just one wound, of about 4 inches, which penetrated the abdominal wall sufficient to allow the intestines to bulge out. This one deep wound aside, it looks to me that, far from "ripping", Bury did something more akin to scoring the skin, as one might do when preparing a joint of pork for roasting. Even the one penetrating wound was extremely modest by the Ripper's standards, and all the other wounds appear to have been of a somewhat tentative nature. Not, I'd suggest, like our Jacky's style in any meaningful sense.

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?

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Harry

The only reason I regard Bury as the best suspect is down to verifiable and empirical facts. He was a killer who had a similar signature to the Ripper. He inflicted post-mortem injuries on his victim, targetting the abdomen and sexual organs.

Bury strangled his wife with a rope, and this was the cause of her death; her neck was otherwise unscathed. This is distinctly different to the Ripper's signature in itself, even before we consider the reality of the knife-wounds.

As to those, he seems to have inflicted at least two superficial thoracic cuts with a knife, starting at around level of the fifth rib and moving towards the abdomen. There were short, superficial cuts to the abdomen proper, with just one wound, of about 4 inches, which penetrated the abdominal wall sufficient to allow the intestines to bulge out. This one deep wound aside, it looks to me that, far from "ripping", Bury did something more akin to scoring the skin, as one might do when preparing a joint of pork for roasting. Even the one penetrating wound was extremely modest by the Ripper's standards, and all the other wounds appear to have been of a somewhat tentative nature. Not, I'd suggest, like our Jacky's style in any meaningful sense.

Furthermore, he can be placed in the East End during the Ripper scare and he left not long after the last 'canonical' victim. Objectively speaking, that puts him head and shoulders above any other named suspect.

Indeed, but the East End was a large, densely populated area. Strictly speaking, whilst Bury can be placed in the eastern part of the East End, all the canonical Ripper murders happened in the western part. There would have been plenty of potential victims closer to Bury's home, yet not a single canonical Ripper murder happened further east than Bucks Row.

[Abby Normal]

Thanks for you response, Elamarna.



I'd beg to differ here, actually.

The only reason I regard Bury as the best suspect is down to verifiable and empirical facts. He was a killer who had a similar signature to the Ripper. He inflicted post-mortem injuries on his victim, targetting the abdomen and sexual organs. Furthermore, he can be placed in the East End during the Ripper scare and he left not long after the last 'canonical' victim. Objectively speaking, that puts him head and shoulders above any other named suspect.

Kosminski was referred to by several senior policeman, and possibly was identified by a witness, but there is still no proof that he was anything other than a local loony.

I agree with this. I have bury ahead of koz, but both are in my top tier of valid suspects after hutch and blotchy.

Post mortem mtulilation is rare in serial killers, and both bury and the ripper targeted the abdomen.

If it wasn't for Mackenzie bury would probably be my favorite, or at least tied with hutch.

[Harry D]

Thanks for you response, Elamarna.

Harry this is where it's down to subject views is it not.

I'd beg to differ here, actually.

The only reason I regard Bury as the best suspect is down to verifiable and empirical facts. He was a killer who had a similar signature to the Ripper. He inflicted post-mortem injuries on his victim, targetting the abdomen and sexual organs. Furthermore, he can be placed in the East End during the Ripper scare and he left not long after the last 'canonical' victim. Objectively speaking, that puts him head and shoulders above any other named suspect.

Kosminski was referred to by several senior policeman, and possibly was identified by a witness, but there is still no proof that he was anything other than a local loony.

[Sam Flynn]

We have to put Bury at the 'top table' of Ripper suspects because he was an 'actual' murderer who used a knife to kill his wife in a particularly vicious way.

He actually used a rope to kill his wife - an important detail.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Harry this is where it's down to subject views is it not.

I see the naming of Kosminski by 3 senior officers to be of great significance.
It should also be noted that the theory was known by Littlefield, who says Anderson only thought he knew,

You see the wounds to Burys wife has being significant, I honest do not, I see superficial similarities that's all.

We disagree, and that's fine. Without real evidence, of which there is none, it's impossible to say anyone is probably the killer, but some are nearer the cross over from possible to probable than others.
I put Bury in the higher possibles

All the best

Steve

Hi Steve,

I have to agree. We have to put Bury at the 'top table' of Ripper suspects because he was an 'actual' murderer who used a knife to kill his wife in a particularly vicious way. He used prostitutes and was so situated to be within easy assess of the Whitechapel area.
I also think that the words of senior police officers at the time are often too easily dismissed (usually by authors with different suspects.) Kosminski is the suspect that won't go away. The lunatic eating bread from the gutter whilst hearing voices is not an image that fits our mental picture of the killer. But, as we discussed on Thursday (admittedly in The Ten Bells ) a confusion over his identity could have occurred. Perhaps he had more 'lucid' periods where he could interact with people. Let's face it, he wouldn't have needed to be quoting Byron to charm an East End prostitute down a back alley!
It's difficult to casually dismiss a senior police officer at the heart of the investigation saying that Kosminski was identified as the ripper (or at least as a suspect seen with a victim at the correct time and place.)

[Elamarna]

What named suspect is stronger than Bury?

Harry this is where it's down to subject views is it not.

I see the naming of Kosminski by 3 senior officers to be of great significance.
It should also be noted that the theory was known by Littlefield, who says Anderson only thought he knew,

You see the wounds to Burys wife has being significant, I honest do not, I see superficial similarities that's all.

We disagree, and that's fine. Without real evidence, of which there is none, it's impossible to say anyone is probably the killer, but some are nearer the cross over from possible to probable than others.
I put Bury in the higher possibles

All the best

Steve

[Harry D]

If Ellen's murder had been in London, bury would have probably gone down as the ripper in most people's minds.

Good point, Abby.

I wonder if Scotland Yard would've taken Bury more seriously as a suspect had Ellen's murder occurred on their doorstep?