Signature Analysis and Bury's Murder of Ellen

[curious]

She was only around 5'1" and so it wouldn't seem there could be a problem fitting her into the trunk.



No doubt Bury considered that escape route in his deliberations...problem with that of course is "Where's Ellen?" combined with "Gosh, this trunk feels heavy enough to have a body in it!" He decided against it.

Hello Wyatt, Boggles,
Hope you're having a glorious autumn day as we are here!

I've just started reading MacPherson's book on Bury and notice that according to the autopsy that Ellen's left hand was cut in a defense wound.

That she has apparently moved it in an attempt to shield herself from Bury cutting her.

That seems so different from the Ripper murders I was wondering if you have thoughts on that.

Thanks,

curious

[Wyatt Earp]

I've just started reading MacPherson's book on Bury and notice that according to the autopsy that Ellen's left hand was cut in a defense wound.

That she has apparently moved it in an attempt to shield herself from Bury cutting her.

That seems so different from the Ripper murders I was wondering if you have thoughts on that.

By cutting their throats the Ripper "made sure." What's been suggested to us is that Bury didn't need to "make sure" because the murder occurred inside their home, and if it turned out that the strangulation wasn't decisive, he could subsequently and easily resume it until it was. If you accept that explanation of why Bury didn't cut her throat, and it seems reasonable enough to me, then it's easy to understand what occurred here. He thought he had finished her and started carving before he really had finished her. She brought her hand over to resist.

Enjoy your beautiful weather!

[Boggles]

She was only around 5'1" and so it wouldn't seem there could be a problem fitting her into the trunk

That of course depends on the dimensions of the trunk
At the end of the day your orginal post, that he is a good match with the profile of the ripper, is still very strong and i agree.

That seems so different from the Ripper murders I was wondering if you have thoughts on that.

Hi curious - the ripper murders themselves differ in many respects from each other of course but the main way the purpertrator operated, through a blitz attack followed by the sadistic ritualistic mutilations were consistent with the Bury case and also extreamly rare (thankfully). Where you see minor differences, such as the victim fighting back, is notionally quite minor in comparison. Consider the differences between the victims of modern (better documented) serial killers, occasioanlly victims make a fight of it and manage to escape.

But to answer your question i would suggest the lack of throat cutting may be a factor. From things we know about what Ellen said to her neighbours in dundee it is possible she may have known, or suspected him of being the ripper and was therefore more alert than some of his other victims were.

[Wyatt Earp]

That of course depends on the dimensions of the trunk

Ellen was in the larger of the two trunks (Beadle, 2009, p. 246). The larger of the two trunks was 3 x 3 x 2.5 feet (Macpherson, p. 59). 2.5 feet of height was sufficient to lay her on her side in the trunk. 3 x 3 feet was enough room to angle a woman who was only 5'1" into a fetal position in it.

[Boggles]

Wyatt - As promised i found the bit in the article describing the initial discovery and attach this section

The Dundee Advertiser Tuesday February 12th 1889

With some reflection i think your idea about they way Bury left the body is a good one, and you have changed my mind slightly on it. i have always thought it was a bit odd myself but thats all i thought about it.

In any case the article gives the impression that the people at the time assumed it was a case of the body not fitting in properly.

[Mrsperfect]

Premeditated Murder

I believe Bury planned to kill Ellen much earlier than he did. He commissioned a wooden box size 3’ x 3’ x 2 1/2’ which he brought to Scotland, (empty) from London. He may have realised that dead bodies eventually float when thrown overboard a ship. The box would weigh it down. This shows the murder was pre-meditated. He failed to kill her on the journey north, so he planned to do it in Scotland, but not necessarily on that fateful night.

He never had a body to dispose of, prior to Ellen's. It was in his flat and he needed to do something about it. I think we'd be hard pressed to put Ellen into a box that size, without arms and legs all over the place!

He also knew he couldn't get the remainder of Ellen's shares without her signature.....he was finished. The forged document was on him when he was arrested.

Perhaps he thought he'd be famous if he confessed to being JtR........then changed his mind after the reaction of the first policeman he spoke to.

After he was condemned, he seemed to think he wouldn't be hanged, as he was famous in his own mind as JtR.

[Cogidubnus]

It's possible of course that he didn't attempt to box up the body until after rigor had set in, hence the breaking of bones (and presumably joints) to achieve a fit.

It's certainly an interesting and puzzling case...

All the best

Dave

[Boggles]

he didn't attempt to box up the body until after rigor had set i

Good point

I believe some of the medical evidence states that while some of the cuts were inflicted during/just after the murder, others where carried out at a later stage. (if my memory serves) i'll try and dig up the relevent evidence.

If this was the case then it would suggest that he packed her in the box after rigor set in otherwise he would not have had the accessabilty to continue mutilations when he came back to it later?

[Boggles]

So this is an extract of the autopsy report from 2 medical examiners - After going into several pages of details regarding the wounds this bit is mentioned.

For me the handwriting is a little hard to read so if anyone can help me out. but i think it says that some wounds were done immediatly after death and others were done later.

There may be additional evidence supporting the fact that the mutilations were done over a prolonged period, but this is all i can find to hand at the moment.

[Boggles]

I try to make it bigger so it is easier to read

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Boggles

It is indeed difficult but I think it says something like:-

The edges of all the wounds above described were everted and marked throughout by a hue of capillary haemorrhage and we are therefore of opinion that they must have been inflicted during life or very shortly after death while the body still retained its warmth and vital elasticity. The other injuries described were all of recent origin. There were other two (sic) cuts in the abdomen - one two inches to the thinner end of the right anterior superior iliac spine and the other at an almost corresponding level on the opposite side. They....

All the best

Dave

[Boggles]

Thanks Dave - just 1 clarification

The other injuries described were all of recent origin. There were other two (sic) cuts in the abdomen - one two inches to the thinner

There were other two... OR These were other two... ???

therefore refering to the next 2 descriptions as the actual ones which were of recent origin

Damn this doctors writing!

[Cogidubnus]

I think it's the first of your two options Boggles..."there"...I think he meant to write "another" and in haste wrote "other" instead..."there were another two" - which would make perfect sense...

The bits I'm uncertain of are:-
1) The word "hue" which looks to have the dot of an i above
2) "thinner end" because there's a missing "n" and again the dot over "end"

But I can't see what else they could be...having said that, I bet someone out there can!

All the best

Dave

[Wyatt Earp]

I have read a number of comments this year indicating that there is no evidence against Bury, that he is a good suspect but nothing more, that he is a good suspect but probably not the guy, that he is simply the best of a bad pool of suspects (meaning that he is a bad suspect, just not as bad as the others), and so forth. I have been wanting to respond to these comments, and this seems like the appropriate thread in which to do so.

The Ellen Bury murder appears to be a signature match with the Ripper murders. Signature analysis is not something that is “pie in the sky” or “pop psychology”—it is a modern criminological practice and it is accepted in the courts. Given the rarity of the Ripper’s specific combination of signature characteristics, there is a very high probability that William Bury was either a copycat, or the Ripper.

A copycat explanation of Bury can be easily dismissed (there was no cutting of the throat and no abandonment of the body in the Ellen Bury murder). Further, a couple of the signature characteristics linking the Ellen Bury murder to the Ripper murders are subtle and not things we would expect a copycat to reproduce (“victim incapacitated prior to being killed” and the sexually degrading posing of the body in the trunk). What that leaves us with, then, is the very high probability that William Bury was the Ripper.

Maybe it really is just an amazing coincidence that the Ellen Bury murder appears to be a signature match with the Ripper murders. If you take that view, then you also have to accept as a coincidence that Bury lived in the East End at the time of the murders, that he lines up well with some of the witness descriptions, that he was involved with prostitutes, that assaulting a woman in a public space (with a punch to the face, no less) was within his demonstrated range of behavior, that there were women’s trinkets, including two finger rings, “of very inferior metal” in the trunk, that he does goofy things with capitalization in his handwriting and there is goofy capitalization in the GSG, and that he burned some of the victim’s clothes in the fireplace following the murder (something which on the face of it appears to be a very unique posthomicide behavior). There are simply too many coincidences here for a "coincidence" theory of the Ellen Bury murder to be plausible.

Look, there are obvious deficiencies in the case against Bury (e.g., there is no direct evidence placing him at any of the crime scenes nor is there evidence that he was even in Whitechapel on the nights or mornings of the murders). And if people want to dismiss all of the above as no more than theory and speculation, they may do so. But I think a common-sense solution to the Ripper case is right in front of our noses—and it will remain right in front of our noses as all of the talk about crazy Jews, school teachers, quack doctors and “persons unknown” continues on its merry way.

[John Wheat]

I agree with a large proportion of what you are saying Wyatt. I think Bury is dismissed as being the Ripper mostly because Ellen Bury's murder wasn't as horrific as Mary Kelly's but also in some cases because people have made and continue to make money from ridiculous suspects. I also think that some people would rather continue endlessly pontificating about the Ripper case than take Bury seriously as Jack the Ripper.

Cheers John