The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

[Harry D]

Yo, Harry D.,

Just noticed your picture appears to have had a sex change. What is up with that? Did you finally get the money for the operation?

c.d.

My avatars are gender-fluid. You know how important wokeness is to me.

[c.d.]

Yo, Harry D.,

Just noticed your picture appears to have had a sex change. What is up with that? Did you finally get the money for the operation?

c.d.

[Harry D]

A good summary to which I will make three points:

1) Only after Bury's documented appearance in the east end in Oct 87 do the first potential 'hindsight' early ripper attempts/murders take place (Millwood, Wilson, Tabram)
2) After Bury leaves the east end there are no further murders that the police and medical men unanimously attribute to the ripper
3) Who here has the genuine expertise, rather than armchair pontificating, to say Keppel et al., (2005) are wrong to exclude Mackenzie? I know it is the populist thing to say 'we've had enough of experts' but if anyone has the credentials to do so' let's see them and get your analysis through academic peer review and published in a relevant journal

Keppel, Robert D, Joseph G Weis, Katherine M Brown and Kristen Welch. “The Jack the Ripper Murders: A Modus Operandi and Signature Analysis of the 1888-1891 Whitechapel Murders.” Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling 2.1 (2005): 1-21.

Those are valid points. Bury's arrival in the East End and sudden departure do seem to align with the spate of attacks and the last canonical murder. If not for McKenzie and the potential links between the Whitechapel murders & Thames Torso series, I would be fairly satisfied that Bury was JTR. Of course, none of us could definitely state the identity of the killer, Bury would be the only known suspect who inhabited the East End at the time with a history of post-mortem abdominal mutilation whose movements line up with the killings.

Did Bury up sticks to Dundee because he was feeling the heat from the police, or did he just want to take his wife as far away as possible from her family, so he could continue to manipulate and abuse her with impunity?

Was Ellen Bury's murder premeditated and Bury had some half-baked, wetbrained idea to pass her off as a Ripper victim, or did he just happen to share the same pathology as the murderer roaming loose back in London? Maybe the Ripper murders had imprinted on Bury's mind in some way. Jane Beadmore's killer made a similar claim.

Putting those questions aside, within a couple of months in 1889 we have a Ripper-like murder AND a Torso murder take place in Whitechapel. And that's not forgetting Elizabeth Jackson's murder a month or so earlier. That's two flurries of activity in 1888 and 1889 where the Ripper murders and Torso murders overlap. I don't think anyone in good faith could fail to appreciate the significance of this.

[JeffHamm]

Well, we know there was at least one "copycat" murder. Jane Beadmore on Sept 1888 in County Durham. I suppose the bone of contention for this thread is who was the copycat murder: Ellen Bury or Alice McKenzie? One of them exonerates Bury, the other does not. Ellen Bury's murder has some similarity to Jane Beadmore's insomuch that they were both killed by lovers. Were these crimes of passion? Bury and Beadmore were both said to have been killed in drunken rages. Alice McKenzie, on the other hand, appears to have been chosen at random. Like the canonical victims, she was a low-class prostitute murdered and mutilated on the streets of Whitechapel, by a silent killer who had the uncanny knack of fading into the shadows.

Unless all three of them were the work of "copycats" but each multiplication of murderers stretches credulity.

Hi Harry D,

Jane Beadmore's case was, if I recall, quickly dismissed as being related to the Whitechapel murders based upon the medical examination. I've never seen any proper description of her case though, or what it was that set her apart (or even the extent of her injuries). She was murdered by her lover, if I recall correctly. It does make me wonder, though, how common was it in such crimes (murdered by a lover, spouse, etc), for there to be signs of "overkill", rage attacks on the body. JtR would not be the first to have desecrated a corpse, but previous cases were probably between individuals with a relationship, and so would be viewed as reflecting a burst of violent emotions, etc. With JtR, the lack of an apparent connection to the victims (stranger murders), yet showing signs that would otherwise suggest a personal relationship (anger towards a lover, etc), was the most shocking aspect of the series to Victorian sensibilities. One can comprehend anger between people who have a relationship, and condemn a person for how they express their anger, but for someone to engage in such extreme mutilations on a complete stranger left nothing to anchor comprehension on.

I'm not suggesting that abdominal mutilations, etc, were run of the mill stuff, but it wouldn't surprise me to find there were other cases where individuals committed some pretty extreme actions on their victims. What we're lacking is information about what "overkill" looked like in the 1800s. Without knowing that, we can only compare Bury's and McKenzie's murder to the C5 and do not have a reference point for what "not-JtR but with overkill" murders look like. What if Bury and McKenzie look a lot like those (the not-JtR group)? What if they don't? What if one does and the other doesn't? and so forth.

I guess, what I'm getting at, is we're trying to decide if a case is, or is not, more like a JtR case or more like a non-JtR case with post-mortem damage, and we're trying to do that without knowing what non-JtR cases look like. We presume non-JtR cases are devoid of any post-mortem damage, and while I suspect that is probably the case most of the time, what we really want to know is "when post-mortem damage occurs, what does it generally look like, and what makes JtR's activities stand out".

- Jeff

[Aethelwulf]

A good summary to which I will make three points:

1) Only after Bury's documented appearance in the east end in Oct 87 do the first potential 'hindsight' early ripper attempts/murders take place (Millwood, Wilson, Tabram)
2) After Bury leaves the east end there are no further murders that the police and medical men unanimously attribute to the ripper
3) Who here has the genuine expertise, rather than armchair pontificating, to say Keppel et al., (2005) are wrong to exclude Mackenzie? I know it is the populist thing to say 'we've had enough of experts' but if anyone has the credentials to do so' let's see them and get your analysis through academic peer review and published in a relevant journal

Keppel, Robert D, Joseph G Weis, Katherine M Brown and Kristen Welch. “The Jack the Ripper Murders: A Modus Operandi and Signature Analysis of the 1888-1891 Whitechapel Murders.” Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling 2.1 (2005): 1-21.

Additionally, Ellen's injuries are, to my mind, far more reminiscent of the ripper than Mckenzie - a ragged wound in the abdomen with intestine hanging out and an a very specific injury that is bizarrely identical to one on Eddowes.

Given the 'novelty' of the autumn of terror, other like-minded nutters could have been inspired. Just look at the 200 odd ripper letters - what if just one of those was moved to action and waited until the main police presence had died down. I also don't subscribe to the ripper just sailing off quietly into the sunset of the 1890s.

[Aethelwulf]

Well, we know there was at least one "copycat" murder. Jane Beadmore on Sept 1888 in County Durham. I suppose the bone of contention for this thread is who was the copycat murder: Ellen Bury or Alice McKenzie? One of them exonerates Bury, the other does not. Ellen Bury's murder has some similarity to Jane Beadmore's insomuch that they were both killed by lovers. Were these crimes of passion? Bury and Beadmore were both said to have been killed in drunken rages. Alice McKenzie, on the other hand, appears to have been chosen at random. Like the canonical victims, she was a low-class prostitute murdered and mutilated on the streets of Whitechapel, by a silent killer who had the uncanny knack of fading into the shadows.

Unless all three of them were the work of "copycats" but each multiplication of murderers stretches credulity.

A good summary to which I will make three points:

1) Only after Bury's documented appearance in the east end in Oct 87 do the first potential 'hindsight' early ripper attempts/murders take place (Millwood, Wilson, Tabram)
2) After Bury leaves the east end there are no further murders that the police and medical men unanimously attribute to the ripper
3) Who here has the genuine expertise, rather than armchair pontificating, to say Keppel et al., (2005) are wrong to exclude Mackenzie? I know it is the populist thing to say 'we've had enough of experts' but if anyone has the credentials to do so' let's see them and get your analysis through academic peer review and published in a relevant journal

Keppel, Robert D, Joseph G Weis, Katherine M Brown and Kristen Welch. “The Jack the Ripper Murders: A Modus Operandi and Signature Analysis of the 1888-1891 Whitechapel Murders.” Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling 2.1 (2005): 1-21.

[Harry D]

Yah, I'm not a big fan of the copy-cat to distract idea either, and I can't actually think of an example. I was, though, sort of thinking McKenzie being murdered by someone without known connections to her though. Still, it just runs the risk of taking the fall for all the Ripper murders. The alternative (apart from her being a JtR victim that is) is that someone who was fascinated by the ripper crimes, and then having just murdered someone, explores the idea, etc. I'm not really convinced by any of these lines of thought, though.

Well, we know there was at least one "copycat" murder. Jane Beadmore on Sept 1888 in County Durham. I suppose the bone of contention for this thread is who was the copycat murder: Ellen Bury or Alice McKenzie? One of them exonerates Bury, the other does not. Ellen Bury's murder has some similarity to Jane Beadmore's insomuch that they were both killed by lovers. Were these crimes of passion? Bury and Beadmore were both said to have been killed in drunken rages. Alice McKenzie, on the other hand, appears to have been chosen at random. Like the canonical victims, she was a low-class prostitute murdered and mutilated on the streets of Whitechapel, by a silent killer who had the uncanny knack of fading into the shadows.

Unless all three of them were the work of "copycats" but each multiplication of murderers stretches credulity.

[JeffHamm]

I notice that in one of your earlier posts you seem to be strongly of the opinion that most of the suspects don't add up to anything - I think you said something like there isn't enough information to get that far (i.e., favouring one suspect over another). That is a perfectly reasonable position, yet I can't help thinking that your knowledge of the man, who IMO is the stand out suspect, is pretty negligible. I remain of the opinion that if you look at all of the suspects in a dispassionate and objective manner, it was Bury. That was my approach and having looked at all of the suspects I'm now very strongly of the opinion (and you could argue that I have since lost my objectivity) that he was the ripper - no maybe or perhaps. It was him.

Hi Aethelwulf,

You're correct, I've not read much on Bury, and what I did read was quite some time ago and on the boards here. From what I recall, there was nothing that really linked him to the case, other then he eventually killed his wife, and mutilated the body, and put it in a box. Chalk message was found implicating him as JtR, but no evidence he or his wife actually wrote it. He is, at least, known to be violent, and willing to cut into a corpse, so that makes him more interesting than some others. And don't take this the wrong way, but everyone thinks their suspect is the best one, because if they didn't, they would pick the one they thought was better wouldn't they!

- Jeff

[Aethelwulf]

While one might wonder if we can draw inferences about Victorian London from a study of crimes in modern Krakow, it is interesting to note how many of those characteristics fit Bury's situation, for example, which would weaken the argument that his known dismemberment of his wife increases his "suspect status". I wouldn't go so far as to say it weakens his suspect status although it could, but that would require a lot more data and a more complicated study.

- Jeff

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28677377/

I notice that in one of your earlier posts you seem to be strongly of the opinion that most of the suspects don't add up to anything - I think you said something like there isn't enough information to get that far (i.e., favouring one suspect over another). That is a perfectly reasonable position, yet I can't help thinking that your knowledge of the man, who IMO is the stand out suspect, is pretty negligible. I remain of the opinion that if you look at all of the suspects in a dispassionate and objective manner, it was Bury. That was my approach and having looked at all of the suspects I'm now very strongly of the opinion (and you could argue that I have since lost my objectivity) that he was the ripper - no maybe or perhaps. It was him.

[JeffHamm]

I've never really subscribed to this idea of copy-catting to cover up one's crime. The police would always follow the standard procedure of checking the antecedents of the victim and any persons who might have wished them harm. By inflicting Ripper-like injuries, the murderer was only inviting a possible conviction for the rest in the series, provided he didn't have a cast-iron alibi. After all, Sadler was investigated as a possible Ripper suspect despite the fact Frances Coles was not mutilated.

Yah, I'm not a big fan of the copy-cat to distract idea either, and I can't actually think of an example. I was, though, sort of thinking McKenzie being murdered by someone without known connections to her though. Still, it just runs the risk of taking the fall for all the Ripper murders. The alternative (apart from her being a JtR victim that is) is that someone who was fascinated by the ripper crimes, and then having just murdered someone, explores the idea, etc. I'm not really convinced by any of these lines of thought, though.

I believe medical opinion was divided at the time, with some of the view McKenzie was a Ripper victim, and others ruled her out.

Just wondering where you got that Bury dismembered his wife? He mutilated her corpse and bundled her into a wooden box. There was no dismemberment.

Oh, I thought he had, in order to get her in the box? My mistake if that's not the case.

- Jeff

[Harry D]

It's also what makes McKenzie of interest, but also why the reduced severity of her mutilations makes the connection more difficult to be sure of (coupled with the fact the JtR murders were highly publicized, the more "tentative" wounds performed on McKenzie have to include the consideration of someone trying to cover their tracks and copy-catting to the extent they could bring themselves to do it).

I've never really subscribed to this idea of copy-catting to cover up one's crime. The police would always follow the standard procedure of checking the antecedents of the victim and any persons who might have wished them harm. By inflicting Ripper-like injuries, the murderer was only inviting a possible conviction for the rest in the series, provided he didn't have a cast-iron alibi. After all, Sadler was investigated as a possible Ripper suspect despite the fact Frances Coles was not mutilated.

While one might wonder if we can draw inferences about Victorian London from a study of crimes in modern Krakow, it is interesting to note how many of those characteristics fit Bury's situation, for example, which would weaken the argument that his known dismemberment of his wife increases his "suspect status".

Just wondering where you got that Bury dismembered his wife? He mutilated her corpse and bundled her into a wooden box. There was no dismemberment.

[JeffHamm]

Interesting points Jeff, but I wanted to reply to this one in particular.

I'm no authority on the Thames Torso murders. I'm still hoping that someone more versed in the case like Debra A will produce a book on the subject one day. At any rate, in some of the cases it appears that the dismemberment and disposal goes beyond mere transportation. We know that Elizabeth Jackson's case was ruled as a "wilful murder", and I fail to see how some of the others could have been botched medical operations/accidental deaths. Body parts were left in the Shelley Estate, the soon-to-be HQ of New Scotland Yard, and another in Ripper territory. I don't think the perpetrator picked these dumping grounds on a whim. They wanted them to be found, which goes against the concept of accidental cover-up.

Hi Harry D,

It's very possible, and probably likely, that at least some of the torso cases are the result of deliberate murder. It's not out of the question that all of them were. What I meant was, as far as I know, the actual cause of death was not determined, and therefore we cannot say we know for sure if a given case was a murder, or accident, etc. Moreover, even if we decide we think they all were murders, it's not clear they were all murders by the same person.

Linkage analysis is extremely complicated, and a lot of things have to be considered (It's also not an area I'm an expert in, so keep that in mind here). But, somethings are pretty straight forward. The more common something is, the harder it is to be sure two crimes are linked. The types of mutilations, committed in the streets, probable strangulation (at least to silence) etc, that we see with JtR is extremely rare, to the point that at least 4 of the C5 are pretty safe bets, Stride being the obvious exception. It's also what makes McKenzie of interest, but also why the reduced severity of her mutilations makes the connection more difficult to be sure of (coupled with the fact the JtR murders were highly publicized, the more "tentative" wounds performed on McKenzie have to include the consideration of someone trying to cover their tracks and copy-catting to the extent they could bring themselves to do it). As for Stride, her crime shows many commonalities (similar throat wound to Eddowes, just a bit shallower), similar crime scene, similar timing (I mean really, 45 minutes before Eddowes, one can't get more similar than that), similar victimology, similar lack of sound/struggle, etc, which tends to point to her inclusion, but the lack of further injuries is what makes her inclusion (in my view) less convincing (I'm on the fence with regards to Stride, as you probably can tell). Those apply to McKenzie as well, to various degrees, and so again, I think she's worth seriously considering.

Because dismemberment for disposal purposes is not as uncommon as one might think (it's not an everyday thing, but it's been resorted to by a much larger group than those who engage in abdominal mutilations), and because it has been resorted to during stranger murders, known associate murders (family members, friends, etc), serial offenders, non-serial offenders, and so on it's not as strong an indication of linkage. It's certainly not "nothing", and is something to take note of, but it would require other aspects that also suggest a common offender.

I tried to find some research on this, and I did find an article, although it's written in Polish (which I can't read) but where the abstract is in English, so that's good for me. Over 50 years, they examined 30 cases in which a body was dismembered (these were all the cases in Krakow, which has a population of 766K in 2019 according to Dr. Google; London, in 1881 was 4.7M, and by 1891, 5.6M. Anyway, 30 case/50 years/0.766M people works out to 0.6 cases/year/0.766 million people, or about 0.78/year/million people. So, if the rates were similar in London in the 1880s, we might expect to see around 4 dismemberments/year. The cases in the study appear to be all unrelated (single cases), but I'm not positive on that as I can't read the full article to get the fine details; there's no mention of a multiple offender though. The majority of the dismemberment cases were the result of family conflict, 6 reflected mental illness, and 3 had a sexual motive (and also, only 3 were stranger murders, but as it's the abstract only, I don't know if those two 3's are the same 3 or not). Also, the dismemberment almost always occurred at the same location as the murder, which appears to be the offender's residence. Again, this indicates that dismemberment points to a disposal motive in the vast majority of cases, and also points towards there being a close relationship between victim and offender. (But most murders involve a close relationship between offender and victim, so that conclusion would need to examine the data with that in mind, and I don't know how they did their statistics. If they didn't control for the fact that most murders have that close relationship, their conclusion would be suspect).

While one might wonder if we can draw inferences about Victorian London from a study of crimes in modern Krakow, it is interesting to note how many of those characteristics fit Bury's situation, for example, which would weaken the argument that his known dismemberment of his wife increases his "suspect status". I wouldn't go so far as to say it weakens his suspect status although it could, but that would require a lot more data and a more complicated study.

Anyway, I've put the link to the article below, though it's just the abstract. It's a freely available for download article, though, so if anyone reads Polish, and has a desire to read up on such things and give us a summary, go for it!

- Jeff

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28677377/

[Michael W Richards]

-- To me, this is also exactly what happened with Stride.

M.

I believe that Blackwell gives you a pretty decent recreation for Strides murder, how long it took and how it took place. And its like none of the other murders in the Unsolved Murder file, let alone the Canonical Group. Grabbed scarf from behind, twisted it, slide knife across throat, let go of scarf. 2 seconds.

In Alices murder we see the benchmarks for Jack...the biggest hurdle is that weve been told Mary Jane was the last victim of Jack.

[Aethelwulf]

Necrophilia is also possibility

- Jeff

I shudder to think what Bury could've been getting up to during those four days he lived with Ellen's body

[Harry D]

The torso crimes, though, are harder to connect. Trevor has pointed out, we don't even know for sure the victims were murdered (in the sense that their death was the intention of their killer; if they died as a result of a botched abortion, for example, then their death was accidental, and the dismemberment reflects a disposal motive).

Interesting points Jeff, but I wanted to reply to this one in particular.

I'm no authority on the Thames Torso murders. I'm still hoping that someone more versed in the case like Debra A will produce a book on the subject one day. At any rate, in some of the cases it appears that the dismemberment and disposal goes beyond mere transportation. We know that Elizabeth Jackson's case was ruled as a "wilful murder", and I fail to see how some of the others could have been botched medical operations/accidental deaths. Body parts were left in the Shelley Estate, the soon-to-be HQ of New Scotland Yard, and another in Ripper territory. I don't think the perpetrator picked these dumping grounds on a whim. They wanted them to be found, which goes against the concept of accidental cover-up.