Jack the Ripper & The Torso Murders

[Lewis C]

Hi LC,

I have to admit that I struggle to take Bury seriously as a person of interest. After murdering his wife he went to the police (some days later) and stated that he awoke from a drunken stupor to find his wife dead with a rope around her neck. An obvious suicide, according to Bury. He then stated that he mutilated her and stuffed her in a box because he was afraid he might be suspected of being JtR....Huh...WHAT??????.

I find it difficult to believe that it was anyone but Bury that was responsible for the chalk graffiti messages. A symptom of his delusions of grandeur, and an attempt to further intimidate his wife. His alleged conversation with his hangman adds to the evidence that he was an attention seeker craving to be thought of as a special person of note.

Description of Bury from the Dundee Courier 12 Feb. 1889:

"In his own clothes he was a fairly decent looking man but in prison garb . . . he strikes one as being weak minded. Bury is of fresh complexion, his hair is dark brown, his moustache and whiskers being a shade lighter. He has a somewhat timid and excitable appearance. Viewed from the side he presents features somewhat of the Jewish or Semite type. He has dark but not heavy eyebrows and his eyes are keen and sharp. His nose is long and prominent, his cheeks thin, and his beard sparse and straggling . . . he appeared a diminutive and insignificant creature."

I tend to agree with the above, and regard Bury as a person of limited intellect, a drunken bully who craved to be thought of as someone special, who murdered his wife in a drunken rage and lacked the intellect to be JtR.

Cheers, George

I note that the description from the Dundee Courier says that he comes across rather differently in prison garb than in his own clothes. So the assessment is dependent on the clothes that he was wearing, which makes it a rather superficial assessment.

[John Wheat]

Hi John,

Bury was also cunning enough to use his wife's inheritance for his own purposes, setting himself up in his own sawdust business, but stupid enough to then squander the proceeds on drunken binges. I see him as, to use the Australian vernacular, a no-hoper, embittered at not receiving the respect to which he felt he was entitled, and desperate to be thought of as someone superior to others. I agree that he may have had some sort of breakdown that lead him to imagine that by assuming a persona of a vicious serial killer he would be perceived as someone to be admired. IMO, rat cunning does not equate to intellect. JMO.

Cheers, George

I still don't think you can rule Bury out on intellectual grounds.

[Fiver]

The Ripper was clever enough to be able to enact his murders without being seen or heard, even when there were potential witnesses close by, and to avoid being caught.

Yes, the Ripper wasn't caught, but how does that imply that he was clever? If anything, his repeated near escapes imply a man who did not learn from his mistakes and escaped based on nothing more than luck.

[GBinOz]

Bury was cunning enough to get his wife up to Dundee falsely claiming he had a job there. Also forging paperwork. Burys actions in Dundee may seem strange however it seems to me that Bury was having some sort of a breakdown by this point.

Hi John,

Bury was also cunning enough to use his wife's inheritance for his own purposes, setting himself up in his own sawdust business, but stupid enough to then squander the proceeds on drunken binges. I see him as, to use the Australian vernacular, a no-hoper, embittered at not receiving the respect to which he felt he was entitled, and desperate to be thought of as someone superior to others. I agree that he may have had some sort of breakdown that lead him to imagine that by assuming a persona of a vicious serial killer he would be perceived as someone to be admired. IMO, rat cunning does not equate to intellect. JMO.

Cheers, George

[New Ford Shunt]

Very fair comments NFS.

The date that Faicloth met Jackson was indirectly stated by him. I would need to double-check my notes, but I believe it was around the 29th November 1888 (I need to confirm that so please don't quote me on that just yet)

Faircloth stated his recollection of when he first made the acquaintance of Jackson.

When we look at the timings, Jackson was due in September; which would have made her around 6 months pregnant at the time of her murder. The evidence from her mother, and all other recorded sources supports this time-frame.

Faircloth states that they soon after traveled together to Ipswich, and so it would appear that Jackson was looking for an escape, or an adventure of some kind; to get away as it were.
Based on the timings, she must have conceived in December/January; ergo, very soon after getting together with Faircloth.

I have no data regarding how or when Victorian women found out they were with child; apart from the obvious. But it would be fair to assume that once Jackson got past her first Trimester, ergo, past 3 months, it's much more likely she would have known she was pregnant. This would then fit in with the timing of her coming back to Whitechapel.

In other words, we know the date that she returned to London, and we know almost certainly that she would have known she was pregnant when she made that journey.

And so, what was her motivation?

Faircloth finished his work after 4 months, but when we combine the fact that they were known for having a tempestuous relationship, it would be fair to state that Jackson may have wanted to be closer to her family once she realized she was pregnant.


RD

Hi RD,

Yes, without doing a trawl on which newspapers reported it, the 29th November 1888 is mentioned, and others just state the end of November (I think there are a couple that say early December too IIRC). On the issue of when Elizabeth fell pregnant we unfortunately have to consider all the following points:

• Hebbert states that the "placenta would indicate that the pregnancy had advanced to between six and seven months" which places his estimate of conception at some point between the start of November and the start of December 1888.
• According to the newspapers, Elizabeth told her mother Catherine that she was due the first week of September. We don't know whether Elizabeth was making an informed statement when she said that or if she was creating a due date to coincide with her leaving Chelsea. IF she was making what she believed to be an informed comment, we have no idea of how she had calculated this. We have to remember that at this time 'Reckoning Tables' and estimates based on 'The Quickening' were still very much in use. Reckoning Tables assumed a Quickening of 4.5 months when in reality the first time a baby may move in utero can be anything from the 3rd to the 6th month (and even that is open to debate). She may have been influenced by midwifery tales from Ireland, so we can't even assume she is basing her statement on lower class social understanding in England at that time. Other than state that Elizabeth was pregnant and was in the mid to late stages of that pregnancy, it's dangerous to speculate further based on this evidence.
• Average modern estimation is 40 weeks based on the first day of your last menstrual period. They obvious key here is the word average as we all know pregnancies can be less than or exceed those 40 weeks. Just because Elizabeth probably met Faircloth on the 29th November (which makes 40 weeks from there the first week in September) we cannot say for certain she fell pregnant as soon as they met, although this is possible. Again, it's impossible to speculate.
• It is possible that Elizabeth may have also been suffering from Polycystic Ovary Syndrome, which can cause irregular or heavy menstrual bleeds, which may have skewed Elizabeth's perception of when she conceived.
• Dr McCoy who first examined the abdomen is reported to have stated that he believed Elizabeth was 8 months pregnant at the time of her death, meaning an even earlier conception date.
• Dr Bond is on record in some of the newspapers as stating he also believed her to be 8 months pregnant, although I would state that as Bond and Hebbert had worked closely on the Westminster Hospital reports, it seems that this maybe more a case of misreporting on the part of the Press - but again, it muddies the waters and makes it extremely difficult to count or discount anything.
• And just when we think things couldn't get more confused Faircloth is reported as saying that he believed her to be 4 months pregnant at the end of April when he left her - meaning conception was around new year.

So, we are up against it, Faircloth may have been the father, or he may not. Elizabeth may have been already pregnant when she left for Ipswich with him, or she may not. Elizabeth may have 'ran away' after less than 24 hours of knowing Faircloth because she already knew she was potentially pregnant and needed for whatever reason to have some stability with Faircloth......or.....she may not.....

[John Wheat]

The Ripper was clever enough to be able to enact his murders without being seen or heard, even when there were potential witnesses close by, and to avoid being caught. How cunning was Bury to claim to the police that his wife had suicided, but he had then inflicted upon her body Ripper like mutilations because he was afraid of being suspected of being the Ripper?

But we've drifted off topic, so back to the Torso murders.

Bury was cunning enough to get his wife up to Dundee falsely claiming he had a job there. Also forging paperwork. Burys actions in Dundee may seem strange however it seems to me that Bury was having some sort of a breakdown by this point.

[The Rookie Detective]

RD, whilst I appreciate your enthusiasm, your speculation regarding 'why Whitechapel' is a leap too far. John Faircloth had secured 4 months work at E R & F Turners Flour Mill in Ipswich. This lasted from the start of December 1888 to the end of March 1889. Turners also had a premises at 82 Mark Lane near Fenchurch Street Station. Jackson and Faircloth spent 5 days in a lodging house in Whitechapel, off the top of my head I don't think the location or name was any more specific than that. It is therefore likely that the reason for 'why Whitechapel' is Faircloth was hoping to obtain work from his employers there. Faircloth remember, went where the work took him. After 5 days they moved to a Mrs Payne's in Millwall.

On the subject of Jackson falling pregnant in Ipswich, this is open for debate. Elizabeth herself stated to her mother that she was due in early September. If we are to believe this, it would roughly tally with her having met Faircloth at the end of Nov/start of Dec. The medical men however, or rather the newspaper reports of what the medical men said (which we should always be cautious of) range from them estimating she was six months pregnant to eight months pregnant when she died. This would put her conceiving at any point between the start of October 1888 and the start of December 1888. Faircloth may well have been the father or equally it was someone else, we simply don't know.

Very fair comments NFS.

The date that Faicloth met Jackson was indirectly stated by him. I would need to double-check my notes, but I believe it was around the 29th November 1888 (I need to confirm that so please don't quote me on that just yet)

Faircloth stated his recollection of when he first made the acquaintance of Jackson.

When we look at the timings, Jackson was due in September; which would have made her around 6 months pregnant at the time of her murder. The evidence from her mother, and all other recorded sources supports this time-frame.

Faircloth states that they soon after traveled together to Ipswich, and so it would appear that Jackson was looking for an escape, or an adventure of some kind; to get away as it were.
Based on the timings, she must have conceived in December/January; ergo, very soon after getting together with Faircloth.

I have no data regarding how or when Victorian women found out they were with child; apart from the obvious. But it would be fair to assume that once Jackson got past her first Trimester, ergo, past 3 months, it's much more likely she would have known she was pregnant. This would then fit in with the timing of her coming back to Whitechapel.

In other words, we know the date that she returned to London, and we know almost certainly that she would have known she was pregnant when she made that journey.

And so, what was her motivation?

Faircloth finished his work after 4 months, but when we combine the fact that they were known for having a tempestuous relationship, it would be fair to state that Jackson may have wanted to be closer to her family once she realized she was pregnant.


RD

[GBinOz]

Hi Herlick george fiver
i include tabram stride and McKenzie so mine is a c7 and of course lean toward the torso ripper. The reason for all of these is that history shows that once a serial killer is caught the extent of there crimes is much more than previously attributed. And also because in terms of the torsos, I find it hard to beleive there were two such cretins operating at the same time.

Hi Abby,

I tend to agree that it is hard to believe that there were two serial killers operating in the same area at the same time, but I can't exclude the possibility that there could have been "one only" murders committed in the same period. But I think that if Stride is to be included as a Ripper victim, so should McKenzie.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

We cannot be sure how intelligent the Ripper was. I'm also not remotely convinced Bury was of low intellect. He was certainly cunning.

The Ripper was clever enough to be able to enact his murders without being seen or heard, even when there were potential witnesses close by, and to avoid being caught. How cunning was Bury to claim to the police that his wife had suicided, but he had then inflicted upon her body Ripper like mutilations because he was afraid of being suspected of being the Ripper?

But we've drifted off topic, so back to the Torso murders.

[John Wheat]

I don't think Bury was the Ripper, but where are there any signs of intellect on the Ripper's part?

We cannot be sure how intelligent the Ripper was. I'm also not remotely convinced Bury was of low intellect. He was certainly cunning.

[Elamarna]

Some excellent points Steve, and I appreciate your comments and feedback immensely.

Regarding Jackson; there is post-mortem evidence to suggest that she did not die as a result of having an abortion, or at the very least, it wasn't her cause of death.

It is documented that she had spoken of having an abortion. I am not sure of the source of this, but I do know that her ex-partner John Faircloth stated that he had tried to convince her not to have an abortion.

That would imply that the couple saw things rather differently, although it's only his word for it, and it may very well have been the case that he encouraged her to have a termination, but he didn't say that openly.

I find it interesting that the place they went to in London, after leaving Ipswich, was Whitechapel

There's an argument that because Jackson never spent a lot of time in Whitechapel; she can't be linked to the Whitechapel murders, or more specifically the Ripper and Torso killings aren't meant to overlap in terms of their Geography.

We appear to be at cross purposes, I was refering to the idea that pregnancy was her driving force, not was an abortion the cause of death, which I believe is still debateable anyway.

As was suggested by New Ford Shunt, the reason for ending up in Whitechapel is very probably work related.

However, it's important to realize that Nichols herself spent considerable time in both Lambeth, Walworth, and Wandsworth.

Lambeth and Wandworth could be considered more Torso killer area than the Rippers and yet Nichols lived in at least 3 areas of London that could be deemed more Torso area than Ripper area.

Indeed, with regards to the areas Mary Ann lived in for much of the latter half of her life.
However, she also spent the first half of her life living in an area to the east of Holdborn, and west of Farringdon.
All of course is covered by "Inside Bucks Row " in great depth.

However, I would not consider the actual areas in which she lived south of the River to be "Torso areas" or anything like it.

In all cases the areas were far further from the Thames than Whitechapel was.
I don't think we should speculate that South of the Thames is Torso and North is Ripper, we have torso parts north of the River, Whitehall, the Regents Canal and Pinchin as you mention below.

I believe Mary Ann was killed in Bucks Row, because she was living in Whitechapel at the time, and had been for close to a couple of months.
There was no connection I can see to any previous address.

The Pinchin Street torso is also closer to Ripper area; than that of the Torso killer.

In other words, the areas that a victim inhabited/visited before their death, are just as important as the location of where they were murdered.

Indeed it is, but we have no idea where the actual murder and dismemberment took place, or for that matter when. I do however wonder about the reports the day before.

With regards to the Torso cases in general, we have no idea if the victims home locations were important or not, as apart from Jackson, we have no idea of who they were.
Hence no knowledge of where they had come from, or even where they had been killed.

Contrast that to the Ripper Victims, all were at the times of their deaths living in Whitechapel, and all were, most accept, killed where they were found, ( although some may disagree).

There is nothing which I can see that says where the victims came from was significant.

However, if some of the 80s Torso victims were not from the London area it might explain why they were not identified.

In terms of your other point regarding the age I stated; it was based on verbal evidence of witnesses at the time, but I have to concede that the age of the Ripper is UNKNOWN, and so I accept your point on that.

I certainly don't have a favoured suspect, and I have tried to remain as objective and impartial as I can, to submit data that should in theory be more reliable. My comment regarding the age of "36" cannot be verified as the truth and so I am grateful to you for highlighting a very important point.

I didn't think you did have a preferred suspect which is why I found giving a pricise age, someone odd.

I am happy to concede in areas that need to be corrected and/or omitted because the truth is more important than any subconscious ego that I may have. In other words, I am more than happy to admit when I am wrong, or have been misleading in my comments.


Thank you again for your feedback


RD

Keep up the posts, enthasim and the speculation, it's how we progress RD.

Steve

[Abby Normal]

I’ve hovered for years on these. I have Tabram as a possible (although I’d lean toward ‘not.’) I have Stride as a possible ( shaded to the more to the probable) And I have Mackenzie as a possible (shaded more strongly toward a ‘not,’ because injuries seem a little ‘half-hearted’ after Kelly) I’ve always thought that it’s possible that she was killed by someone that she knew and who could be linked to her so he added some ‘ripper-like’ cuts to try and make it appear like a ripper murder (increasing his chances of being exonerated if he had alibi’s for the other murders)

Basically though…I don’t know and could be wrong about all three,

Hi Herlick george fiver
i include tabram stride and McKenzie so mine is a c7 and of course lean toward the torso ripper. The reason for all of these is that history shows that once a serial killer is caught the extent of there crimes is much more than previously attributed. And also because in terms of the torsos, I find it hard to beleive there were two such cretins operating at the same time.

[Fiver]

I tend to agree with the above, and regard Bury as a person of limited intellect, a drunken bully who craved to be thought of as someone special, who murdered his wife in a drunken rage and lacked the intellect to be JtR.

I don't think Bury was the Ripper, but where are there any signs of intellect on the Ripper's part?

[The Rookie Detective]

Do you have any actual evidence to support that last point RD, or is it simply opinion.

In a previous post #242 you made a few observations let's call them, I would like to comment on RD.



I have still to see any real evidence to link the 1873 attack to the 1902 attack, and plenty to argue they are not linked, the bodies are treated very differently.

I also still fail to see a solid link between the 73 case and the 1880s cases, but that's a different matter.
It is very possible, if not probable, that some of the mid 80s cases are related to each other, but it's certainly not certain all are.



36?

Sorry, but given we don't know, despite what many claim, who the Ripper was, how can we set such a pricise age?
If we rely on the witness descriptions, and I for one would not as regards age, we could draw up a range or 5- 10 years, but that is about it.
How can we set an exact age, unless we have a suspect in mind? And if we do, then any speculation is subject to confirmaction bias.



Yes that follows if we accept the following:

1. All the Torsos from 1873-1902 are committed by the same person/persons.
I see no evidence to support this I am afraid, just alot of assumptions.

2. That the Whitechapel murders are committed by the same person who perpetrated ALL the torso cases.

The above for me are real issues.
While it may be possible to argue for the 80s Torsos to be linked to the Whitechapel murders, due to the, I believe flawed, argument that two serial killers would be unlikely to be working in London at the same time; attempting to link All the torso cases to one person/persons is unsupported speculation in my view.
( I won't even start to debate if all the 80s Torsos were actually murder or by the same person, and thus not a serial killer).

3. That the Ripper was 36 in 1888, this is simply picking a number out of thin air RD.

I don't mean to sound dismissive my friend, I really do like the degree of enthusiasm (and research) you show on every subject, but surely we should start from:

1. Are all the torso cases linked togeather, and I see no evidence in this thread that they are.

2. Are any of the Torsos linked to the Whitechapel murders, and again, while there is plenty of debate, I see no conclusive, or even non conclusive evidence that they are, simply speculation.

Asigning an exact age to the Ripper will, I am sorry, lead to false conclusions.


Steve

Some excellent points Steve, and I appreciate your comments and feedback immensely.

Regarding Jackson; there is post-mortem evidence to suggest that she did not die as a result of having an abortion, or at the very least, it wasn't her cause of death.

It is documented that she had spoken of having an abortion. I am not sure of the source of this, but I do know that her ex-partner John Faircloth stated that he had tried to convince her not to have an abortion.

That would imply that the couple saw things rather differently, although it's only his word for it, and it may very well have been the case that he encouraged her to have a termination, but he didn't say that openly.

I find it interesting that the place they went to in London, after leaving Ipswich, was Whitechapel

There's an argument that because Jackson never spent a lot of time in Whitechapel; she can't be linked to the Whitechapel murders, or more specifically the Ripper and Torso killings aren't meant to overlap in terms of their Geography.

However, it's important to realize that Nichols herself spent considerable time in both Lambeth, Walworth, and Wandsworth.

Lambeth and Wandworth could be considered more Torso killer area than the Rippers and yet Nichols lived in at least 3 areas of London that could be deemed more Torso area than Ripper area.

The Pinchin Street torso is also closer to Ripper area; than that of the Torso killer.

In other words, the areas that a victim inhabited/visited before their death, are just as important as the location of where they were murdered.


In terms of your other point regarding the age I stated; it was based on verbal evidence of witnesses at the time, but I have to concede that the age of the Ripper is UNKNOWN, and so I accept your point on that.

I certainly don't have a favoured suspect, and I have tried to remain as objective and impartial as I can, to submit data that should in theory be more reliable. My comment regarding the age of "36" cannot be verified as the truth and so I am grateful to you for highlighting a very important point.

I am happy to concede in areas that need to be corrected and/or omitted because the truth is more important than any subconscious ego that I may have. In other words, I am more than happy to admit when I am wrong, or have been misleading in my comments.


Thank you again for your feedback


RD

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

I think he is alluding to the fact that you are still debating with Fish, and Fish has been suspended.

Best regards, George

Oh, that. I was, of course, aware of that, but I'm assuming that this doesn't mean that he's not reading, following the thread. I'm not counting on him to respond once he's 'reinstated', but you never know. And I don't only write stuff for the benefit of the one that I'm responding to, but to anyone who is following the discussion at hand.

Thanks for clearing this up (assuming this is what Mark meant) and I hope you're well, George.

Cheers,
Frank