Ripperologist 159

[Sam Flynn]

Virtue signalling or not, is it possible that Ellen Bury hanged herself? Of course it is. Doesn't mean she did, but it's still possible in light of the evidence, whether Bury had been (mis)sentenced to death or life imprisonment.

[Roy Corduroy]

The recent mock Wm Bury trial was virtue signalling against capital punishment.

Roy

[Herlock Sholmes]

“First, can we, as an investigative body, satisfy ourselves that William Bury was Jack the Ripper? The answer to that is “yes.”

I’ve just read through the thread but found it rather difficult to get past this statement. The answer should have been a categorical ‘no.’

You appear to be arguing for the importance of signatures on the one hand whilst accepting that they can vary greatly from murder to murder or that some signatures can even be absent due to circumstances (but as long as we understand those circumstances we can excuse their absence.) Surely this is rather shaky ground to be driving such confident stakes into?

Bury is, in my opinion, a reasonable suspect. But there is no suspect yet that we can positively link to all of these crimes. Though I’m no expert in the legal system I fail to see how a prosecution could even get a case together that would have the remotest chance of convincing a jury of Bury’s guilt. Far more real evidence would be required. Behavioural evidence surely cannot be considered to carry the same weight as physical evidence? Behaviour is too much a variable; subject to outside influences. And at a distance of 130 years we are in no position to judge those variables.

[David Orsam]

I’ve given you three sources for that in footnote 3 in “The Bury ID.” David, if you intend to be a serious participant in the conversation about the signature evidence linking Bury to the Ripper murders, please consider making some effort to familiarize yourself with the signature analysis literature. A good book for you to obtain would be Serial Violence: Analysis of Modus Operandi and Signature Characteristics of Killers by Keppel and Birnes.

Although you have quoted me saying:

"Firstly, where is your authority that variation is an established characteristic of signature evidence? It will make a nonsense of the word "signature" if that's true."

You appear to have completely missed it when I said:

"Secondly, and far more importantly, do you have even one example of a legal case where signature evidence has been admitted in evidence in a murder case (or even another serious crime) where there are significant variations between the signatures in different crimes?"

You didn't respond to that so I assume you don't have any examples.

As for your response to the first point I don't think I need to look at the book you refer to because in the 2005 Keppel et al article to I read this on page 14:

"Experience and confidence will shape and modify an offender’s MO. Signature characteristics, or a killer’s calling card, are those actions that are unique to the offender and go beyond what is necessary to kill the victim. While MO can change over time and reflect the nature of the crime, signature characteristics remain stable and reflect the nature of offender. Although an offender’s signature may evolve, the core features of the signature will remain constant (Douglas & Munn, 1992a; 1992b; Douglas & Olshaker, 1997; Geberth, 1996; 2003; Keppel & Birnes, 1997; Keppel, 1995a; 1995b; Keppel, 2000; 2004)."

So that seems pretty clear to me. The "core features of the signature will remain constant". If the "core features" of the Ripper's signature were the 11 features listed by the authors of the article, one would have surely expected them to remain constant from murder to murder. But they are not constant in this case.

[David Orsam]

There are two separate questions we need to consider. First, can we, as an investigative body, satisfy ourselves that William Bury was Jack the Ripper? The answer to that is “yes.”

This is just your opinion though. Others might reasonably say that the evidence against him is not firm enough.

No one in this field has been able to put forward an effective criticism of the ID that I’ve published.

Has anyone actually tried? You should not take silence as an admission that your article can't be effectively criticised. Perhaps no-one thinks it is worth taking time to do so. Have you considered that?

It’s a solid ID—the evidence is there and the reasoning is sound.

In your opinion.

Second, could we obtain a conviction of William Bury for the Jack the Ripper murders in a hypothetical trial? That is an open question. It is possible that the signature evidence linking Bury to the Ripper murders would be excluded at a trial, which would obviously lessen the likelihood of obtaining a conviction. It's also possible that it would be included at a trial, which would obviously increase the likelihood of a conviction. You seem preoccupied with the second question, but I’d suggest that in 2018 the more important question is the first one.

Do you mean to say that I seem preoccupied with the first question? As to that, if the signature evidence, which you describe yourself as the "key evidence", was excluded there wouldn't be any realistic chance of a conviction would there? If it was included a conviction is by no means guaranteed by any means - a jury would expect there to be, at the very least, strong circumstantial evidence linking Bury with the Whitechapel murders and would never convict on signature evidence alone, especially not with all the differences which exist. If a conviction is not guaranteed then Adam Wood is surely justified as describing the evidence against Bury as not firm and has not, therefore, made any mistake.

Bury confessed to murdering Ellen, and we have no compelling reason to disregard his confession, but he was recently acquitted of her murder in the mock trial held in Dundee. Should that acquittal cause us as a community to declare him innocent of Ellen’s murder? Of course not. A negative result from a legal proceeding against Bury for the Ripper murders would not “sink” the identification of William Bury as Jack the Ripper.

You seem to be arguing with an imaginary person. I haven't said anything about the mock trial nor do I care what some people in Dundee have concluded about the murder of Ellen Bury.

[David Orsam]

The Ellen Bury murder can be closely mapped to Jack the Ripper’s signature as described by Keppel et al. I demonstrate this in my article, and Table 2 in my article highlights the closeness of the match. The variations that exist are not significant and can easily be explained by the specific circumstances of the murder.

But that's just your opinion. A defence barrister, in arguing to exclude the evidence, would surely say that the variations suggest there were two different murderers. How would a judge (or jury if it came to it) know that you are not cherry picking - focussing on the similarities while ignoring the differences? And how would they know that your explanations for the differences are correct? How would they know that the differences don't mean there are two different murderers? After all, it is only you who claims to be able to explain the differences between the two signatures.

[David Orsam]

I understood his remark to mean that there is no reliable evidence against anyone in the case. That is where I disagreed with him. The signature evidence linking Bury to the Ripper murders is in principle sufficiently reliable to be admissible in court.

I have no idea why you feel the need to substitute the word "reliable" for "firm" but it doesn't make much difference. All you are doing here is confirming exactly what I am saying, namely that you erroneously believe that admissible evidence equates to firm or reliable evidence. This is completely wrong.

Just consider identification evidence. This is a category of evidence which is admissible in a court of law. Yet anyone in the legal world will tell you it is one of the most unreliable forms of evidence.

Admissibility in other words has got nothing to do with whether evidence is reliable. The fact that signature evidence might in theory be admissible in court does not mean that the evidence is reliable nor does it mean that a jury would not reject it out of hand.

I suspect that Adam Wood is perfectly capable of weighing up whether the similarities that exist between the murders of Ellen Bury and those of the victims in Whitechapel are sufficiently close to allow him to form a conclusion as to whether there is sufficiently strong evidence against Bury for the Whitechapel murders. As I keep repeating, whether that evidence is admissible in court or not is neither here nor there.

Basically, it means that Adam has not made a "mistake" and it's just wrong of you to say that he has.

[David Orsam]

Just to make clear for those who aren't following properly, the notion that part of Jack the Ripper's signature characteristic is murdering prostitutes is what Keppell and others say in their 2004 article, "The Jack the Ripper Murders: A Modus Operandi and Signature Analysis of the 1888-1891 Whitechapel Murders." Hence:

"The initial analyses demonstrated that many of the individual characteristics and the combination of the signature characteristics observed in the Jack the Ripper murders were rare. In fact, murderers who stab and kill female prostitutes, leave their bodies in unusual positions, and probe, explore, or mutilate body cavities are extremely rare. It would be extremely unusual to find more than one of these killers, exhibiting that combination of signature characteristics, operating in the same area at the same time."

This is an article that Steve Earp relies on to show that Bury's "signature evidence" was the same as Jack the Ripper's and that such evidence would be admissible in a criminal case against Bury. If you remove "female prostitutes" from the equation, however, then as the authors of the 2005 article admit, the combination of remaining characteristics is less rare.

[Wyatt Earp]

Jack the Ripper's supposed signature was murdering prostitutes, not former prostitutes.

If he was only interested in murdering prostitutes because he had a thing about them, then it was his signature - no question

The serial killer Ed Kemper targeted young college women but then went on to murder a family member. William Bury targeted prostitutes, or women he thought to be prostitutes, and then went on to murder a family member. There’s nothing here in terms of a worthwhile objection to Bury.

[Wyatt Earp]

Wasn't Ellen allegedly a former prostitute?

Yes, she was.

[Wyatt Earp]

Are you seriously suggesting that when Adam Wood referred to the "lack of firm evidence" against Bury he specifically meant the lack of admissible evidence? He was just saying that he doesn't think the evidence against Bury is strong enough to conclude he was Jack the Ripper. That's an opinion. You may disagree with it but it's ridiculous to categorize it as a mistake on the basis that signature evidence is admissible evidence in some jurisdictions in some historical periods.

I understood his remark to mean that there is no reliable evidence against anyone in the case. That is where I disagreed with him. The signature evidence linking Bury to the Ripper murders is in principle sufficiently reliable to be admissible in court.

My simple point was that where there are significant differences between signatures in different murders a prosecutor will have literally no chance of getting the signature evidence admitted. A defence lawyer would tear the argument to shreds. You don't even consider this. It doesn't matter how many reasons you put forward as to why there might be significant differences, those differences kill any admissibility argument. At the very least, one cannot say that signature evidence will be admissible in every single case and, therefore, you cannot say for certain that signature evidence would be admissible in a case against Bury for the JTR murders. So your whole point about admissibility of signature evidence gets you nowhere.

The Ellen Bury murder can be closely mapped to Jack the Ripper’s signature as described by Keppel et al. I demonstrate this in my article, and Table 2 in my article highlights the closeness of the match. The variations that exist are not significant and can easily be explained by the specific circumstances of the murder.

There are two separate questions we need to consider. First, can we, as an investigative body, satisfy ourselves that William Bury was Jack the Ripper? The answer to that is “yes.” No one in this field has been able to put forward an effective criticism of the ID that I’ve published. It’s a solid ID—the evidence is there and the reasoning is sound. Second, could we obtain a conviction of William Bury for the Jack the Ripper murders in a hypothetical trial? That is an open question. It is possible that the signature evidence linking Bury to the Ripper murders would be excluded at a trial, which would obviously lessen the likelihood of obtaining a conviction. It's also possible that it would be included at a trial, which would obviously increase the likelihood of a conviction. You seem preoccupied with the second question, but I’d suggest that in 2018 the more important question is the first one. Bury confessed to murdering Ellen, and we have no compelling reason to disregard his confession, but he was recently acquitted of her murder in the mock trial held in Dundee. Should that acquittal cause us as a community to declare him innocent of Ellen’s murder? Of course not. A negative result from a legal proceeding against Bury for the Ripper murders would not “sink” the identification of William Bury as Jack the Ripper.

Firstly, where is your authority that variation is an established characteristic of signature evidence? It will make a nonsense of the word "signature" if that's true.

I’ve given you three sources for that in footnote 3 in “The Bury ID.” David, if you intend to be a serious participant in the conversation about the signature evidence linking Bury to the Ripper murders, please consider making some effort to familiarize yourself with the signature analysis literature. A good book for you to obtain would be Serial Violence: Analysis of Modus Operandi and Signature Characteristics of Killers by Keppel and Birnes.

Don't be silly.

This is a frustrated remark. Signature analysis falls within the behavioral sciences wing of the forensic sciences. The signature evidence linking Bury to the Ripper murders is real forensic evidence. The evidence shows that the unique combination of homicide-related behaviors demonstrated by William Bury at Princes Street in Dundee can be seen at the locations of a number of unsolved murders in the East End of London. This is the behavioral equivalent of finding Bury’s DNA at these locations, and in combination with other evidence it establishes that he was at these crime scenes and that he was the perpetrator of these murders.

[caz]

I would agree with your use of 'supposed' there, David, as it's not quite the same as a fact. Jack may or may not have cared if his victims were actively soliciting, former prostitutes, or neither, when he struck each one, if he was merely looking for easy female targets. There have been various suggestions that he was thinking of a female relative when killing these women, so nothing is clear cut.

If he was only interested in murdering prostitutes because he had a thing about them, then it was his signature - no question - but then it would presumably have involved an assumption on his part that a victim was in the 'oldest profession' unless she made that crystal clear before he whipped out his weapon.

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

Wasn't Ellen allegedly a former prostitute?

If she was it means, by definition, that she wasn't one when she was murdered.

Jack the Ripper's supposed signature was murdering prostitutes, not former prostitutes.

[Scott Nelson]

Ellen Bury was not a prostitute and was not murdered in or around the Whitechapel area of London.

Wasn't Ellen allegedly a former prostitute?

[David Orsam]

David, when I say that signature evidence is firm enough to be admissible in court, it should be clear to you that I am referencing the reliability status of this class of evidence and not suggesting that because the evidence is admissible that this makes it conclusive of guilt.

No, that's exactly what you WERE suggesting. Look, just look at your own words:

"I need to correct a mistake he made in his editorial. Adam suggests that the evidence against Bury (for the Ripper murders) isn’t “firm.” Signature evidence, which is the key evidence linking Bury to the murders, is firm enough to be admissible in court, and so it’s reasonable to suggest that it should be firm enough for Adam and others in the Ripper community."

You were saying that because signature evidence is admissible in court then it was a "mistake" for Adam Wood to say that the evidence against Bury isn't firm.

It's a pure non-sequitur. The admissibility or otherwise of signature evidence does not affect whether the evidence against Bury is firm or not.

As I said, it is perfectly possible and reasonable for Adam Wood to conclude that Bury was not guilty despite the signature evidence. It's a reasonable view to hold. Yet you call it a "mistake" as if Adam has made some kind of error of fact.

That Bury was Jack the Ripper is no more than an opinion. To disagree with that opinion cannot properly be described as a "mistake".

As I’ve already pointed out, signature evidence by itself is insufficient to establish guilt. My stance is based not only on the position of signature evidence within the U.S. legal system, but also on its position within the legal systems of other countries, such as the U.K., Australia and South Africa (see the 2015 book by Woodhams, Crime Linkage: Theory, Research and Practice, pp.200-1).

It may surprise you to learn that I do not possess a copy of the 2015 book by Woodhams but I can see that pages 200-1 are part of an article by a South African academic called Gerard Labuschagne entitled "The Use of Linkage Analysis Evidence in Serial Offense Trials". If he has cited some UK authorities for the admissibility of signature evidence I cannot fathom why you haven't cited the cases, rather than the book. Just tell us what the cases are.

If Adam Wood is using the word “firm” in some other sense, that would be for him to clarify.

Are you seriously suggesting that when Adam Wood referred to the "lack of firm evidence" against Bury he specifically meant the lack of admissible evidence? He was just saying that he doesn't think the evidence against Bury is strong enough to conclude he was Jack the Ripper. That's an opinion. You may disagree with it but it's ridiculous to categorize it as a mistake on the basis that signature evidence is admissible evidence in some jurisdictions in some historical periods.

You spend a good deal of time questioning the legitimacy of the mapping of the Ellen Bury murder to Jack the Ripper’s signature as described by Keppel et al.

Not true. I have simply been looking at the issue from the angle of whether the "signature evidence" against Bury would have been admissible had he been charged with the Ripper murders (assuming that he was charged in a time period and jurisdiction in which such evidence was admissible). I was saying that the fact that signature evidence may be admissible in general does not mean it is admissible in every case. My simple point was that where there are significant differences between signatures in different murders a prosecutor will have literally no chance of getting the signature evidence admitted. A defence lawyer would tear the argument to shreds. You don't even consider this. It doesn't matter how many reasons you put forward as to why there might be significant differences, those differences kill any admissibility argument. At the very least, one cannot say that signature evidence will be admissible in every single case and, therefore, you cannot say for certain that signature evidence would be admissible in a case against Bury for the JTR murders. So your whole point about admissibility of signature evidence gets you nowhere.

The substance of your critique is that certain signature characteristics vary in how they’re expressed, vary in the degree of their expression or are entirely absent at the Ellen Bury crime scene. However, as I noted in my article, the research on serial killers informs us that a given signature characteristic can vary in how it’s expressed, vary in the degree of its expression or be entirely absent at a given crime scene in connection with the specific circumstances of that murder, and as I have explained, we do indeed possess a ready and obvious explanation for why we should observe variation at the Ellen Bury crime scene.

I haven't even begun to dispute that your explanation for the variations might be correct. I have expressed no opinion on that subject. But unless you can show that the courts are happy to admit signature evidence in one murder which varies from signature evidence in another murder as evidence that the same person carried out both murders then you are sunk.

If you look at the US authorities that were cited in the 2005 article you will see that the signature evidence needs to be virtually identical for it to be admitted.

All you’ve produced, then, is a set of irrational objections to the mapping.

I haven't offered any objections to the mapping.

You compound your mistake by declaring that a court would exclude signature evidence on the basis of variation, when this is actually an established characteristic of this type of evidence.

This is the bit you need to prove. You haven't offered any evidence to support it.

Firstly, where is your authority that variation is an established characteristic of signature evidence? It will make a nonsense of the word "signature" if that's true.

Secondly, and far more importantly, do you have even one example of a legal case where signature evidence has been admitted in evidence in a murder case (or even another serious crime) where there are significant variations between the signatures in different crimes?

Bury was living in the East End throughout the period of the Whitechapel murders. It is ridiculous to suggest that because he committed another murder shortly after he moved from the area, that this should discount him as being the author of the Whitechapel murders.

I haven't said that at all. I haven't been arguing whether Bury is or is not guilty. My point is that a defence barrister would argue that aspects of the supposed signature of JTR are not present in the Ellen Bury murder and would therefore move to exclude signature evidence from being admitted in a case against Bury for the JTR murders.

You seem to be confident that Bury could never be convicted of the Ripper murders

I have said or suggested nothing of the sort.

however William Beadle spoke to an attorney in Dundee who offered a very different assessment of the evidence against him: “Based on the evidence presented here, a Crown Prosecution of William Bury for the Ripper murders would have had every chance of success”

Good for him. But that's just an opinion isn't it? Same as Adam Wood if he said that such a prosecution would not have a chance of success. My point is that he can't be making a "mistake", even if you disagree with him.

We now possess forensic evidence placing William Bury at the crime scenes in the case

Don't be silly.