William Bury

[How Brown]

Here's a link to a site that discusses the MacPherson book on William Bury...

www.rjerrard.co.uk/law/mains/mains1.htm - 40k -

[How Brown]

Thread for discussion of William Henry Bury ( 1859-1889 ) hanged in Dundee for the February '89 murder of his wife,Ellen.

A definitely ascertainable aficianado of chalk...Bury's basement wall and apartment door had references to Jack The Ripper etched on them.

[captjojo]

I'm just curious why this guy isn't discussed in more detail on these forums. I can't believe he doesn't have a sticky. Is there some reason he is not given more consideration? I would also love any info anyone has about why the authorities and the time considered him not viable as a suspect.

This guy seems like a really likely candidate in my own estimation. His wife was strangled and then mutilated in a way that closely resembles the ripper M.O. (intestines removed, etc.) He moved away from Bromley on Bow right about the time the ripper killings stopped...the aforementioned poorly spelled chalk marks....

Not to mention that he fits the general profiles fairly well...orphaned quite young...his wife was a former prostitute herself...and a weird detail that stood out to me is that a former landlady mentioned that he had a habit of creeping up behind women and startling them....which is something that former wives and girlfriends of both Ted Bundy and Gary Ridgeway commented on as well...(a strangle/mutilator and a strangler of prostitutes)...

anyway, anyone know why he was ruled out at the time and gets so little mention now?

[captjojo]

this is a fairly convincing article if it can be supported with sources...

http://www.whitechapelsociety.com/Journal/dec05_article.htm

[How Brown]

Dear Capt:

The ball is in your court and by all means elaborate or express your views on Bury.

If you have read MacPherson's book on Bury and have excerpts to share,by all means do so.

Thanks for resurrecting this thread.:)

[Raven]

Thought I would post this, I am glad this thread has been resurrected as well :kiss:

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/ACC9-Bdle-1i2.jpg

[Kim Ross]

Rubbish. He wasn't JTR.

[captjojo]

Well based on what Robert Keppel has written on the subject it would seem that the killer's signature is quite rare statistically in criminal data bases, and the murder of Bury's wife fits it pretty much down the line...so the odds of there being two killers using that precise signature in such close proximity and in such a close time frame seem pretty astronomical.

from the abstract on Keppel's piece (he's the guy who worked the Bundy task force and later consulted on many serial killer cases and conducted the infamous interview with Bundy regarding the Greenriver case)...

"An evaluation of the murders revealed that six of those murders were linked by a number of distinct, personal signature characteristics, including picquerism, overkill, incapacitation, domination and control, open and displayed, unusual body position, sexual degradation, mutilation, organ harvesting, specific areas of attack, preplanning and organization, and a combination of signature features. The signature characteristics observed in these infamous Jack the Ripper murders were compared to a 1981-1995 cohort of 3359 homicide cases from Washington State's HITS database. The analysis revealed that the signature displayed in six of the Whitechapel murders was extremely rare. There were only six records of female victims, one a prostitute, with probed, explored, or mutilated body cavities. There were only two cases, both females who were not prostitutes, where the body was left in an unusual position and body cavities were explored, probed, or mutilated."

she had been strangled and her abdomen had been ripped open by a wound beginning 1½ inches from the pubis and extending upwards for 4 ½ inches, the wound was so severe that 12 inches of intestines were protruding through her stomach. Apart from the wound to the abdomen there were a total of nine other knife wounds to the body.

Other than the body not being left in the open it fits to a T...she is "displayed" in a way when the box is opened and he does want her to be discovered just like Jack because he leads the police to her body.


From what I've been able to read there is a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing to this suspect and very little to refute it. The London killings took place in precisely the time frame that he lived there. He killed his prostitute wife with not only the same M.O. but the same signature (meaning what is done above in beyond what is needed to commit the crime)....

I see people dismiss him out of hand regularly, but never any support for why he should be dismissed. This holds true from the detectives of the day to a number of modern sources.

[captjojo]

I just keep coming back to this guy. As per the discussion of strangulation, this guy strangled his wife before mutilating her, something that was most likely not public knowledge about the ripper crimes. There were also the poorly spelled chalk messages on the walls, similar perhaps to the one near the piece of Eddowes apron which we know the police went to lengths to conceal from the public. I'd love to have confirmation as to the source of the rumor that there were rings in his flat that were similar to those missing from Eddowes.

Then there's the observation in The Trial of Jack the Ripper that it can be said of Bury,
The crimes began after he came to the East End
The crimes ended after he left the East End
He has been proven capable of committing a similar murder
He had the opportunity to commit the crimes (often missing from home for large stretches of time during period of murders, access to cart and pony to travel from Bow to Whitechapel)...

Can that be said of any other suspect?
And combine it with the observations above...I'd have to say he comes away for me as far and away the prime suspect.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Jojo,I just keep coming back to this guy. As per the discussion of strangulation, this guy strangled his wife before mutilating her, something that was most likely not public knowledge about the ripper crimes.From what we know of the Ripper crimes there was never any hint of a rope or ligature being used, whereas Bury used a rope to strangle his wife.

Also, from what we know of the Ripper crimes, there were very few - if any - stabs on the bodies of the victims, only substantial cuts and long, raking abdominal wounds. The opposite is true of the murder of Ellen Bury. One might wish to include Tabram - but then she had significantly more stab wounds than Ellen Bury, and her abdomen wasn't lacerated by even a fraction, as it was in Bury's case.
He had the opportunity to commit the crimes often missing from home for large stretches of time during period of murdersThat is almost entirely speculative, unfortunately. I can't recall seeing a single contemporary report that states that Bury went AWOL for large periods of time during the murders.access to cart and pony to travel from Bow to WhitechapelThere would have been plenty of prostitutes within a smaller radius of Bow, without Bury needing to stray so far west as central Whitechapel, Spitalfields and the City of London to find a victim. The use of a horse and cart would thus seem somewhat unnecessary, except as a rhetorical device to more easily justify locating Bury in Ripper territory.

[captjojo]

Some good points there. However, to my understanding Ellen Bury's abdomen was in fact slashed open with intestines protruding per Dr. Templeman's post mortem.

As far as manual vs. ligature strangulation, the first thought that comes to mind is Gary Ridgeway who most definitely did both in the course of his crimes. That and as also speculated a scarf could have been used as ligature in at least one of the ripper crimes.

The mere use of strangulation makes the likelihood that Bury was a copycat less so in that based on public reports at the time, it would appear that the Ripper had cut throats. That and the chalk messages, the one of which in the Ripper crimes was concealed from the public, seem to me to be very strong pieces of evidence.

Modern law enforcement regularly use the withholding of some evidence from the public as a way to rule out copycats and false confessors. The fact that we may be able to find at least two facts in the Bury crime that match things in the Ripper case that were not made public is quite compelling to me.

[captjojo]

The idea that Bury's whereabouts were unaccounted for comes from the testimony of James Martin at the trial for the murder of Ellen, who stated that she sometimes had to go out looking for him because he had been gone for two or three days at a time.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello, and thanks for the kind words!Some good points there. However, to my understanding Ellen Bury's abdomen was in fact slashed open with intestines protruding per Dr. Templeman's post mortem.Indeed it was, Captain, but only to the extent of 3 or 4 inches in length - and that was the longest wound inflicted on her. By Ripper standards this was practically keyhole surgery. It's worth noting, in that regard, that the "Canonical Five" Ripper victims each sustained longer cuts to their throats than Ellen Bury sustained to her abdomen.

[Adam_Douglas]

Im not an expert - but from what I have read William H Bury does strike me as a very likely suspect.

He can be placed in the physical location of the murders at the time they were committed.

He matches the pyschological profile of the killer

His move away and subsequent execution explain the end of the murders (and I think that the murders did end in 1888 is a very strong argument against any suspect who was alive and at liberty after this time)

He is known to have killed a woman and mutilated the body in a way that was similar to the JTR killings

He is reported to have been obsessed with the JTR case (for example the writing left at his house)

_

He had the proven opportunity to commit the crimes, he is known to have killed a woman in similar fashion, he matched the physical appearance of some of the contemporary witness reports... maybe he doesnt make as good a story as Gull, or Maybrick, etc... but from what I have studied, he seems the most likely suspect to me

[How Brown]

Adam:

Nice post,my friend.

Bury does seem to meet all the requirements we are looking for doesn't he?

I enjoyed the part of your post: "maybe he doesnt make as good a story as Gull, or Maybrick, etc.."....and the inference that had he been "prominent", we might have seen some films about him already. I am certain we would.

If you get a chance and at your leisure of course...take charge of this section of the site on Bury and I will assist you developing it. If you have MacPherson's book, quote from it if you would be so kind.

Thanks Adam...

How

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Adam,He can be placed in the physical location of the murders at the time they were committed.He actually lived at Spanby Road, Bromley, and the nearest acknowledged "Ripper" murder site (Buck's Row) was about 2 miles away. The subsequent murder sites were all between 2.5 and 3 miles away from base, so we can't truly place him in the physical location of any of the murders. Added to which, there were places such as Stepney and the nearby docklands where significant numbers of prostitutes worked, which were within much easier striking distance of where Bury lived, whilst still being at a safe distance away from his home (1-1.5 miles).

[How Brown]

Sammy:

Excellent points and all true...and I was referring to the type of man we were looking for. Someone with a history of violence towards women and a few sandwiches short of a picnic upstairs.

Plus he mutilated his victim.

[Sam Flynn]

How, Adam

I'm not saying that Bury is an implausible suspect in the scheme of things - on the contrary, he's one of the best in a very bad bunch. I honestly don't think he's our man, though - mainly for the reasons given above.

[How Brown]

Basically,I agree Sam. But as you said, he's one of the best in a bad bunch. He's definitely worth keeping on the front burner of suspect or suspicious dudes.

One thing I always think of is why guys like Bury didn't seem to get much attention back in the earlier days of Ripperology.

[Sam Flynn]

One thing I always think of is why guys like Bury didn't seem to get much attention back in the earlier days of Ripperology.I guess it's because the case got comparatively little press coverage, at least in the mainsteam journals. This perhaps illustrates another caveat, when dealing with the "canonical suspects", in that they were the ones who got the lion's share of the attention early on, whether in newspapers or in memoirs. It's amazing to consider how, a hundred years or more later, the writers of the time can still shape the way we think today.

[Adam_Douglas]

Reading a bit more about Bury, he does seem to me to be a good candidate... he was the right type of man (or the wrong type of man) in the right place.

There is no real evidence to link him with the crimes, but it seems to me that there may never be anymore. I read an essay by someone called William Beadle which suggested that as William Bury kept a horse for his sawdust business he may have stabled it at a horse yard in the heart of the murder locations - and certainly he MIGHT have done as far as I can see he might just as easily have not done.

From other things I have read there were many "copycat" murders after 1888, and the killing of Bury's wife, while similar to the Jack the Ripper killings superficially also had important differences. The authorities in Dundee seemed to take seriously the possibility of him being Jack the Ripper and the authorities in London didnt.

MacPherson in his book tries to make the story fit into his interpretation: that Bury planned to kill his wife and went to Dundee deliberately to do it, and planned everything in a calculated way - but then having killed her could think of no better course of action than claiming that she had strangled herself and that he had mutiliated the corpse after death... this makes no sense to me. From surviving letters it is obvious that Bury was literate and at least not an imbecile... it seems impossible to think that he would plan out a murder and then come up with such a hare brained "exit strategy"

Even reading MacPherson's version, it seems far more obvious to me that this was a violent relationship, and that Bury was a deeply violent and troubled man, and finally something in him snapped. He very clearly had terribly damaged self esteem and tried to compensate this by tyrannising his wife, and ultimately I think he would have killed her as an act of power and self assertion.

There was no confession at the end (but maybe again this made him powerful, going to his death cheating them all of the truth) - and probably nothing that could ever concretely tie him to the killings

And yet I can easily fit him into the killings in my own mind. He was the right type of person, he was in the area and he surely had form. He killed his wife and then mutilated the corpse. Jack the Ripper - according all evidence - killed his victims quickly and then mutilated the corpses.

Bury married in April 1888, Martha Tabram was killed in August 1888. Could marriage, and the opportunity to act out his violent fantasies of domination and mistreatment, to vent his self hatrid and misert, have "shaken something lose" in Bury and sent him on a murderous path? It is entirely possible. He was a shy man, a sneak and a thief and a cheat, who disliked work and liked drink, always in and out of petty trouble... we probably will never know a lot of his history but for a man of his physchological make up, it is easy to imagine that his relationships before marriage may have been stunted and infrequent - perhaps mainly with prostitutes who he grew to hate as he seemed to hate himself. Marrying did not ease his problems and bring him peace, but maybe instead set him over the edge - and the more he hit his wife the more he wanted to hit or rip of worse.

We know that he threatened his wife with a knife, and slept with a knife under his pillow - in those times carrying a knife probably wasnt unsusual - and this is no proof of anything, but it does at least show the kind of fetishism with the murder weapon that a killer might excercise.

It is easy to think that after the ghastly mutiliation of Mary Kelly (or "Julia" dying in Mary's place) that Bury was somehow broken. His nerves already stretched to breaking point, surely tormented by guilt, paranoid that his wife maybe suspected... he fled to Dundee - his personality seemed to change also, becoming meeker and less violent to his wife. But his personalty by now was too broken to change, and after some argument, some threat perhaps, he kills his wife, and tries to rip up her body... but he cant just flee the crime scene, and the guilt and torment come on him again, he writes his confession in chalk on the door of his house and then sleep walks into custody - at the last minute the cheat and sneak in him trying to come up with some ridiculous excuse.

And there ends Jack the Ripper - no grand theory, no master criminal - but a pathetic wife beater who became a wife killer, a snivelling drunk wretch of a man, who abandond his natural gifts and intelligence in a downward spiral of self abuse and then destruction.

__

Of course, all of that is just a story - there isnt much evidence for it, only things suggestive that Bury was the KIND of man that Jack the Ripper likely was.

Reading more about him I think I feel the same as I did when I started out. There is no real evidence to try him upon... but circumstantial - that he was present in East London at the time of the killings and fled when they are usually accepted to have ended; that he killed his wife in a way that is similar to the murders; that he had the opportunity to commit the killings; that he had Jack the Ripper on the mind (which he would if the killing was a copycat of course, or if simply the "Jack the ripper is in the seller" graffiti was simply an expression of his own guilt at his wife's murder)...

I certainly do feel - compared to drug addled cotton merchants, supposedly mad royal doctors, black magicians and builders of orphanages - Bury seems a far more likely candidate. He is someone who's known deeds and personality do fit in with these killings - both their horror and their squalor. But I admit there is nothing that makes me say I can be any degree SURE that he was Jack the Ripper.

I have mostly talked above as if people knew the basic story of what William Bury did, but if anyone wants to talk about the story at a more fundamental level, I would be happy to provide benefit of my very limited knowledge, and quote or pass on any of the facts from the books or articles on him I have!




Hi

I do have the Euan MacPherson book, its the next one I am goin to read! At first I just got whatever books they had in the library, and got a pretty mixed bunch (I wasnt much impressed with "Uncle Jack"...) but now I feel like I know enough to know what I want to read next.

I think this community is great and I look forward to get a lot out of it and developing my own idea's and learn from other people who know a lot more about the case from me - so if there is anything I can do to contribute towards in any way such as that that would be great!

Adam

Adam:

Nice post,my friend.

Bury does seem to meet all the requirements we are looking for doesn't he?

I enjoyed the part of your post: "maybe he doesnt make as good a story as Gull, or Maybrick, etc.."....and the inference that had he been "prominent", we might have seen some films about him already. I am certain we would.

If you get a chance and at your leisure of course...take charge of this section of the site on Bury and I will assist you developing it. If you have MacPherson's book, quote from it if you would be so kind.

Thanks Adam...

How

[How Brown]

Here's an article regarding Bury....which I want to touch on...

New Haven Register
Feb. 12,1889...
William Bury's Confession. Crazed by Drink, He Imitates


http://docs.newsbank.com/s/HistArchive/ahnpdoc/EANX/11B2C32DC74501F8/0F20FECAAFCBE6ED

[How Brown]

Within the article...just in case anyone overlooks it...is this statement:

The theory of the police officials is that Bury's wife knew of facts connecting him with the East End atrocities and that she took him to Dundee in the hope of preventing a recurrence of the crimes.

Whether or not the above statement was true or not is not possible to determine, I think we all will agree.

It smacks of the statement made by Sir Robert Anderson regarding the theory that............low class Polish Jews would protect one of their own...or that a family of the former would protect one of their intimates.... in that here in the case of the murdered Ellen Bury, someone,an intimate or family member is alleged to have concealed facts which may have implicated her husband, the murderous W.H.Bury...and took action to prevent his capture or at least questioning regarding the WM.......
In fact, according to Euan Macpherson in his book on Bury...which I just recieved today...Ellen Bury is said to have mentioned to a lady named Mrs. Smith on page 74, Chapter 7 of the book..."Jack The Ripper is taking a rest now.." when Mrs. Smith brought up the subject of Jack The Ripper to both William and Ellen Bury....possibly inferring that Ellen "knew" William may have committed murder in the East End.

There's no way to prove the police theory....but it was printed anyway, without the protestations of any "Mentor".

This is the sort of thing that apparently goes over some people's heads. That the police did have theories which sometimes made suggestions,in this case towards an actual victim after she had been murdered, which can be seen as insensitive....but based on hands on experience or information obtained from police work during the time of the murders.

However insensitive ( the police theory) it was or may appear to be, the statement was not made out of a hatred or loathing for Ellen Bury. It was not made out of some preconcieved notion that a woman...a prostitute...a venerally infected woman...all attributes of the deceased Ellen Bury...was indicative of all women...but one woman alone, similar to the statement of SRA regarding a subset of certain Jews.

Whether Anderson was right or wrong isn't the gist of this post, but rather that the police & press mentioned the nationalities and ethnicities of individuals without fail in many circumstances...and despite Mrs. Bury's nationality not being mentioned in the New Haven article, it does infer that she aided and abetted one of her own... much akin to the way SRA referred to a segment of a people or perhaps a family within a segment of a people aiding and abetting one of theirs....

[How Brown]

In my brief...and Nina's likewise...reading of the book on Bury yesterday...something struck me about a few things that I read.

First of all, as you know...there was the offer of a pardon made after the murder of Mary Kelly to anyone with information which would lead to the conviction of the murderer of MJK.

Secondly...and shortly after the Kelly murder...you'll remember I mentioned that a Mrs. Smith stated that Ellen Bury, the wife of W.H.Bury, stated that Mrs. Bury said, "Jack the Ripper is taking a rest..." Of course, we cannot prove that this comment was made in a way to indicate Mrs. Bury slyly referred to her own husband as being Jack The Ripper and his possible culpability in the WM.

Third....The offer of a pardon in the Nov. 9th murder is the first time in the 10 week saga of the WM that any sort of attempt of this nature was presented.... There are possibly/probably other very good reasons the offer was made with no doubt. It does,however, coincide with the departure from the area by Bury and his wife...

Four....the police, according to the article I provided a link to, two posts prior, had a theory that perhaps Mrs. Bury did know of his connection to the WM and for this reason she took him to Dundee,Scotland.

Does anyone else have thoughts on these or other points regarding Bury? I tried in vain to contact a man named John Lockett yesterday to see if he would care to participate on the Forums,as he is or was a Bury researcher....but maybe one or two of you are more well versed in this murderer than I am.

Any thoughts?

[How Brown]

If you have the fine book by Euan Macpherson, "The Trial of Jack The Ripper"...please turn to page 33.

At the bottom of this page, Mr. Macpherson states...

" On February 13th, the Courier proposed the slightly different theory that Bury ' had been connected with some crime in the Metropolis; that he and his wife, who was also cognizant of this,fled to Dundee, and that on account of his wife threatening to become informer he had killed her..."

Mr.Macpherson then says, "Although the story ran in Dundee newspapers, it was not picked up by any newspapers in London.."

He then provides the reader with an article published in the Dundee Courier on February 15th, which quotes a New York Herald correspondent and one of the most prominent heads of Scotland Yard. Essentially, the official from Scotland Yard states that an alleged admission or statement made by Bury as to the effect he was Jack The Ripper was "not for a moment" taken seriously.

Here's my question:

In the New Haven newspaper from February 12th that I found yesterday....the source for that article DID emanate from London....and DID state that "The theory of the police officials is that Bury's wife knew of facts connecting him with the East End atrocities and that she took him to Dundee in the hope of preventing a recurrence of the crimes."

Unless some new information has been uncovered lately regarding Mr. Macpherson's declaration that the police took an "extraordinarily complacent attitude" towards Bury's possible involvement with the East End murders......then it is clear that the information found in the February 13th Dundee, Scotland newspaper did emanate from London, since its almost verbatim what the February 12th New Haven (Ct.,USA) newspaper stated one day prior.... and which did emanate from London.

Therefore, is this a new finding worth mentioning or is it old hat that the police in London DID at least court a theory as to why Bury was in Dundee and that he may have been considered a contemporary suspect by at least someone in the Scotland Yard force?

Once more, here is the link to the newspaper article which mentioned the London theory prior to the Courier article of the 13th and two days prior to the disclaimer by a Scotland Yarder on the 15th of February,1889.

New Haven Register
Feb. 12,1889...
William Bury's Confession. Crazed by Drink, He Imitates


http://docs.newsbank.com/s/HistArchi...20FECAAFCBE6ED (http://docs.newsbank.com/s/HistArchive/ahnpdoc/EANX/11B2C32DC74501F8/0F20FECAAFCBE6ED)

Where's that Mr. Begg at ????

[How Brown]

Back to my man Sam Flynn's statement:

"He actually lived at Spanby Road, Bromley, and the nearest acknowledged "Ripper" murder site (Buck's Row) was about 2 miles away. The subsequent murder sites were all between 2.5 and 3 miles away from base, so we can't truly place him in the physical location of any of the murders. Added to which, there were places such as Stepney and the nearby docklands where significant numbers of prostitutes worked, which were within much easier striking distance of where Bury lived, whilst still being at a safe distance away from his home (1-1.5 miles)." Sam

Okay....he lives two miles or so from Bucks Row. Therefore, if we toss out the generally accepted concept that the Ripper lived within closer proximity ( all these damned profiling shows:banghead:) to the general killing fields of the East End.....the Ripper is more apt to "eat where he craps" than "take his business elsewhere".

I suppose Sam's argument is a good one,but dependent on the unlikeliness of Bury being able to make a half hour walk ( a man walking at 5 miles an hour will walk 2 1/2 miles in 30 minutes). I think he could.

I think its also a good idea ( because its my idea,of course ) that a man like Bury...if not necessarily Bury...would want to go fishing where there are more fish...hence the Spitalfields/Whitechapel area.

Anyone else want to help me gang up on Sam here? Or gang up on me?

[Adam_Douglas]

I think I can sum up my view:

I dont think there is any definite evidence that links Bury with the killings directly.

I think it is likely that his wife had suspicions that he was the killer, but this is not definite proof

Bury clearly did have the opportunity to commit these crimes. He was in the right place at the right time.

In my opinion, the killer was the type of man which Bury was. He was capable of murder, he committed a killing with marked similarities to the JTR murders, he himself was to some degree obsessed with the killings (the message scrawled on his door).

__

I dont think we will ever know for sure, but to me Bury is a very good suspect.

[How Brown]

Adam:

Your summation pretty much mirrors mine regarding Bury.

I think that his wife...who had to be a little damp upstairs...by taking such awful (and public) abuse...and yet having money(wherewithall) to leave the creep...was like other women who had abusive husbands and probably very naturally envisioned her own sad sack spouse as being the Whitechapel Murderer. We know some women as well as men suspected intimates and that may be the case here with Ellen Elliot.

[Adam_Douglas]

Also, even though the murders didnt happen on his doorstep, he was in the immediate area and would have worked in that area most likely.

Many people believe Druitt to be a credible suspect although he was in Brighton on the day of one of the murders playing cricket; or Maybrick who lived in Liverpool - on this basis it seems strange to me that anyone could argue that the fact Bury lived a couple of miles away was evidence AGAINST him as a suspect.

[How Brown]

I concur. I figured it to be either a half hour walk or perhaps a little more for someone used to walking....unlike some of us...like Sam Flynn.

I don't have an issue with the distance,Adam...nor the location that the theoretical Bury-as-Ripper decided to strike was not the most immediate area containing prostitutes.

Good points,my friend.

[Adam_Douglas]

I concur. I figured it to be either a half hour walk or perhaps a little more for someone used to walking....unlike some of us...like Sam Flynn.

I don't have an issue with the distance,Adam...nor the location that the theoretical Bury-as-Ripper decided to strike was not the most immediate area containing prostitutes.

Good points,my friend.

And we know that Bury had a horse and cart and was regularly out all night... sleeping off the effects of a rough drinking session at the stable, so to me the timing and location all fits. Also that the murders in London stopped when he moved North.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi How, I suppose Sam's argument is a good one,but dependent on the unlikeliness of Bury being able to make a half hour walk ( a man walking at 5 miles an hour will walk 2 1/2 miles in 30 minutes). I think he could.My point had more to do with the fact that one could walk a few blocks in that part of town and be in a totally different area. To travel two and a half miles from or to Whitechapel was to pass through an area that housed - what? - over a hundred thousand people. He might as well have been in another country. I think its also a good idea ( because its my idea,of course ) that a man like Bury...if not necessarily Bury...would want to go fishing where there are more fish...hence the Spitalfields/Whitechapel area. There were more prostitutes in Bow and Poplar than there were in the Ripper's killing-fields, though. If Bury wanted (arguably more) fruitful fishing grounds, he could have dropped his line closer to home and still remained anonymous, such was the population density of the East End.

To have strayed 2.5 miles from home in order to kill was not only dangerous - necessitating, as it would, being out on the open road for half an hour or more after a murder - but totally unnecessary.

[Sam Flynn]

And we know that Bury had a horse and cart and was regularly out all night... sleeping off the effects of a rough drinking session at the stableThat's only speculation, I'm afraid, Adam. There is no evidence that he was out all night on a regular basis, and even then what's to say that he didn't frequent the pubs in Bromley itself? We certainly don't know where Bury was on the nights of the Ripper murders, and in point of fact we don't even know that he was in London on those dates. Additionally, and as far as I can recall, there is no evidence that he made a habit of "sleeping it off" in a stable either.Also that the murders in London stopped when he moved North.
The Ripper murders seem to have stopped some three months before he went North, which is hardly knife-edge (pardon pun) timing; furthermore, the Ripper may have continued long after Bury had been hanged.

[Adam_Douglas]

That's only speculation, I'm afraid, Adam. There is no evidence that he was out all night on a regular basis, and even then what's to say that he didn't frequent the pubs in Bromley itself? We certainly don't know where Bury was on the nights of the Ripper murders, and in point of fact we don't even know that he was in London on those dates. Additionally, and as far as I can recall, there is no evidence that he made a habit of "sleeping it off" in a stable either.


We dont know certainly where ANYONE was 130 years ago on a given night I would wager.

What we do know is that Bury lived in East London, that he was a murderer who killed with a knife, that he had the Jack the Ripper crimes on his mind, and that his wife gave statements which were recorded by first hand sources that her husband often stayed out all night (so I must contradict you on that point).

Given that he lived in London and worked in London, and given his class and situation, it is impossible to imagine he was not within striking range of each killing.

We cannot place him with a knife in hand kneeling over the corpose, of course; but he is somewhat closer than most other suspects.

[Sam Flynn]

What we do know is that Bury lived in East London, that he was a murderer who killed with a knife, that he had the Jack the Ripper crimes on his mindWith respect, we don't know that. What we have is a story that Bury seemed to get twitchy in the presence of a man reading a report about the Ripper in a Dundee pub. That may have had more to do with the fact that Bury knew his wife was in a somewhat mangled condition back at the flat, than any preoccupation with the Ripper.his wife gave statements which were recorded by first hand sources that her husband often stayed out all night (so I must contradict you on that point).My main quibble was with the idea that Bury made a habit of "sleeping off" a night's heavy drinking in a stable - for which I can't recall a primary source. Not that there are that many first-hand sources, of course. Unfortunately, such facts as exist are indifferently referenced in books on the subject, which makes it difficult to tell fact from reconstruction.We cannot place him with a knife in hand kneeling over the corpose, of course; but he is somewhat closer than most other suspects.True, Adam - but the evidence is patchy, and authors are wont to fill the gaps with ideas of their own. We need to be ultra-careful with statements like "there's evidence Bury did X", or "Bury was a proven Y", when such "evidence" or "proof" might only have been speculation to start with.

This is especially dangerous where a given author has already made up their mind that Bury must have been the Ripper.

[Adam_Douglas]

1 - When I say that Bury had the Ripper crimes on his mind I mean the graffiti on the door of his flat in Dundee. It could not have been written by anyone after his wife's murder (as after the murder was discovered the door was guarded by police), and his wife could not write (and had been dead some days before the killing was discovered)... the only credible explanation is that Bury wrote himself. It does not mean he was guilty, but it is certainly evidence that the crimes of Jack the Ripper weighed heavily upon him.

2 - It is true we dont know he slept in a stable, but we do have evidence that he often stayed out all night, and that he was a heavy drinker. It is enough to say that if he stayed out all night on the night of the murders this would have fitted in with his general pattern of behaviour.

__

I dont think I have made unreasoanable assumptions, and I have not supported many of the leaps of logic made by MacPherson... my argument remains that Bury was a murderer who used a knife, who lived in East London when the killings took place and left around the time they ended, who fitted some of the contemporary witness reports.

Again, there is and probably never will be any definite link to him and the killings ad certainly none has been shown so far - but while some believe in Masonic conspiracies or harmless cricketers or any Jew that they can be found about the time being guilty, I find Bury a far stronger candiate for these awful crimes.

A Murderer who used a knife
A short, dark, man with a moustache
A man who wrote on his own door "Jack the Ripper lives here" after strangling his wife and stabbing the dead body with a knife
A violent drunkard who lived in East London at the time of the killings and moved away after

__

I will take this as evidence above a junk dealers "found" diary or Walter Sickert's paintings being spooky, anyday.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Adam,1 - When I say that Bury had the Ripper crimes on his mind I mean the graffiti on the door of his flat in Dundee... the only credible explanation is that Bury wrote himself. It does not mean he was guilty, but it is certainly evidence that the crimes of Jack the Ripper weighed heavily upon him.Or he half-heartedly considered "framing" Jack the Ripper for his wife's murder? To my mind, the graffiti certainly isn't evidence that the crimes of Jack the Ripper weighed heavily upon him.2 - It is true we dont know he slept in a stable, but we do have evidence that he often stayed out all night, and that he was a heavy drinker. So were many in the East End and, lest we not forget, there were plenty of pubs in Bromley-by-Bow in which this particular drunk might have fed his habit.my argument remains that Bury was a murderer who used a knife, who lived in East London when the killings took place and left around the time they ended.He strangled his wife, subjected her to a few superficial stabs and one cut of a few inches in extent, after having left East London nearly three months after the Kelly murder. I'm not gainsaying you, just stating the facts with an appropriate degree of perspective - which is important. It's relatively easy to perceive a match if we look at the generality, but when we zoom in on the specifics it all starts to look a bit tenuous.

You're quite right in believing him a more likely suspect than some, but when we look at precisely what Bury did - as well as where, how and when he did it - the case against him is less than convincing.

[Adam_Douglas]

Hi Adam,Or he half-heartedly considered "framing" Jack the Ripper for his wife's murder? To my mind, the graffiti certainly isn't evidence that the crimes of Jack the Ripper weighed heavily upon him.So were many in the East End and, lest we not forget, there were plenty of pubs in Bromley-by-Bow in which this particular drunk might have fed his habit.He strangled his wife, subjected her to a few superficial stabs and one cut of a few inches in extent, after having left East London nearly three months after the Kelly murder. I'm not gainsaying you, just stating the facts with an appropriate degree of perspective - which is important. It's relatively easy to perceive a match if we look at the generality, but when we zoom in on the specifics it all starts to look a bit tenuous.

You're quite right in believing him a more likely suspect than some, but when we look at precisely what Bury did - as well as where, how and when he did it - the case against him is less than convincing.


Sam, you can look at everything two ways of course.

I admit that there is no strong evidence to link Bury to the murders.

But the questions I ask myself are:

How any oher men do we know of who we can place in East London at the time of the murders, who match the best "short, stout, blotchy face, moustache" descriptions of the killer, who have a proven record of violence against women, who is known to have moved away at the same time the killings ended, who is known to have killed a woman and then mutilated the body with a knife, who wrote "Jack the Ripper" on his own door?

The evidence against ANY suspect after this length of time will be weak and asily shaken, and we will never know the truth, but I think we can say defintely:

Bury had the opportunity to commit these murders

Bury was a murderer

__

Even those two facts alone make him a stronger candidate than most of the candidates that are thrown about (including Maybrick, Druitt, Sickert, etc)

[Currerbell]

I read for the first time about this suspect last night in the 'Mammoth Book of JTR', a chapter written by William Beadle, and he does seem a pretty good suspect that deserves more attention...

I did get quite convinced from all the evidence, if you can call it that, or how he met a lot of the known facts of the case as discussed below.

It says Ellen was fairly rich with something around 20k in todays money, now thats an awful lot so if its true, and I know Bury took a lot of it for drink etc, but I believe everything a woman owned became the property of her husband upon marriage, so the dosh would be his...why would he carry on 'working' if they had all that money?

[SirRobertAnderson]

Hi Adam,Or he half-heartedly considered "framing" Jack the Ripper for his wife's murder?

The messages, or more accurately the facsimiles we have of the messages, would imply to me "Jack lives here" as opposed to "Jack struck here".


Jack the Ripper
is at the back
of this door.

Jack
Ripper
is in this
seller

[Currerbell]

Im surprised they werent rubbed off the wall a la Galston St incase it provoked fear in the people of Dundee...