|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Bury, William Henry
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Bury, William Henry
Author: Jon Miller
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 01:45 pm |        | | William Henry Bury has the dubious distinction of being the last man to be hanged judiciously in Dundee, Scotland after being found guilty of the murder of his wife. Bury moved to Dundee from Quickett Street, Bow early in 1889 and there is circumstantial evidence to connect him with the Ripper enquiry. Some material is developed in William Beadle's book published last year which reflects evidence gathered here. Anyone with an interest in developing the case against Bury - who must at least rank with Tumblety as one of the most credible suspects - is invited to contact myself at the below address. |
Author: Jon Miller
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 01:46 pm | | The case against Bury was covered in a book by William Beadle which was published last year and apparently sank without trace after the Tumblety theory emerged. I had researched Bury for several years prior to this and was unaware that Beadle was also working on it, but in any case neither of us have any form of copyright on the story. Bury is also I think mentioned in the A to Z but only very briefly. Beadle's book actually fails to pick up on many other snippets of evidence which link Bury to the murders and like Tumblety he certainly fits the FBI's personality profile.
As claimant's to the capture of the Ripper we in Tayside Police are thinking of compiling a page on Bury as part of our web site - okay I know its blatant advertising! |
Author: Jon Miller
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 01:46 pm | | Firstly I note that in my original update I mentioned that Bury was hanged judiciously! This should of course read 'judicially'although I suppose the original wording might also apply.
A few more details on Bury's background:-
William Henry Bury was born in Wolverhampton in November 1859. He was the youngest of a family of three - two boys and a girl. About 3 months after his birth his father died, and in May 1860 his mother became insane and was committed to Worcester County and City Lunatic Asylum where she died on 30 March 1864. Bury was brought up by a local woman and received a better education than many of his contemporaries. He trained as a lockmaker locally but later moved to East London where he took up trade as a sand and sawdust merchant. On 2 April 1888 he married Ellen Elliot - variously described as a waterproof cloakmaker or domestic servant, and together they set up home in a house in Quickett Street, Bow. The wedding ceremony took place at Bromley Church, Bow. Is there a connection between this and the attack on Emma Elizabeth Smith which is sometime attributed to the Ripper?
Further instalments to come but in the meantime any comments are welcome. |
Author: David Cairns
Monday, 16 November 1998 - 09:56 am | | | I like Bury as a suspect and am interested in hearing more. What did Beadle omit to mention in his book that you think is of importance? |
Author: Odista
Wednesday, 30 December 1998 - 10:35 pm | | | I would like to learn more about Bury too. From what I've read so far, he sounds like a good suspect. Didn't Stuart Evans write an article about him? |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Thursday, 31 December 1998 - 01:21 pm | | Odista -
Both Stewart and Euan Macpherson wrote articles on Bury, but the full-length treatment of him as a suspect is to be found in British writer William Beadle's "JTR: Anatomy of a Myth." (Wat Tyler Books, ISBN 0-9524489-0-4). I can't say I fully accept his case, and prefer the book more for Beadle's reassessment of the Ripper murders and dissection of some dottier theories.
If you can't find the book, or don't wish to go to the trouble of ordering it, you can find an acceptable precis of Beadle's case against Bury in the latest edition (1996) of the "JTR A-Z."
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Calogridis
Tuesday, 06 April 1999 - 08:24 pm | | Howdy All,
Let's not give up on this guy yet. I have a few questions about him, not having read Beadle's book or the two articles mentioned by CM.
1.) I have heard that his wife's murder was very similar to a Ripper murder (e.g. strangulation and mutilation). Just how similar from a medical point of view was this murder to those committed in Whitechapel?
2.) Did Bury have enough knowledge of the East End, and specifically Whitechapel, to have navigated his way through the labyrinth so skillfully? There are those among us who are inclined to believe that the Ripper spent all or most of his life in these surroundings to gain such familiarity.
Thanks y'all for the ideas that you have already mentioned!
Cheers.......Mike |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Wednesday, 07 April 1999 - 01:10 am | | Bury's wife's murder was a typical domestic killing and was followed by some mutilation of her body. She was strangled, but the throat was not cut. She had ten stab wounds, some of which were superficial. The worst of these wounds was in the abdomen, and was four and a half inches long. The intestines protruded from this wound. The stabs were in the abdomen and genital area.
Bury moved to London in October 1887 and worked in Bow. He had lodgings in Quickett Street, Bow. After marrying Ellen in April 1888, they moved into lodgings in Swaton Road, Bow. They subsequently lived at two other addresses in Bow, at 11 Blackthorne Street, and 3 Spanby Road.
I have to say that the supposition that the killer must have great familiarity with the area is a bit of a myth. Sufficient knowledge is quickly gained. I first visited the murder sites in 1967. After a handful of subsequent visits I was able to find my way around the whole area with ease. Not one of the murder sites was more than a minute's walk from a main highway. |
Author: Caroline
Wednesday, 07 April 1999 - 03:54 am | | I tend to agree with you Stewart, regarding those London streets. People who don't know London tend to think it is a huge sprawling city which would take a lifetime to get to know. Nothing could be further from the truth. You only need the Tube if it's cold or rainy. You could take a stroll from West, through the City, to the East, quite easily, in a much shorter time than the Underground Map suggests. I know, I've done it myself often enough over the last 40 years. And I have to admit, I can't get enough of it.
Silly questions, I know, but do we know beyond doubt that Bury killed his wife? And what date did she die?
Love,
Caroline |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Wednesday, 07 April 1999 - 08:14 am | | Hi All,
Mike, Ellen Bury was asphyxiated with a ligature, her body was found with a rope around the neck. The first post-mortem was performed by Drs. Charles Templeman and Alexander Stalker, both police surgeons. They listed the cause of death as strangulation with a rope. To my knowledge, none of the canonical Ripper victims were strangled with a rope.
As far as the mutilations go, a second post-mortem was conducted by a Dr. David Lennox, who, interestingly enough, concluded that Ellen Bury had committed suicide by self-strangulation! The fact that he was hired by Bury's defense counsel may help explain that rather startling conclusion. In any event, Dr. Lennox found a total of 10 knife wounds to the abdomen and pubes, only one of which was deep enough to penetrate the abdominal wall. From his autopsy report:
"A Deep wound in the middle of the stomach beginning 1 1/2 inches above the pubis and extending upwards for 4 1/2 inches. This incision had opened up the abdominal cavity and when the body was found 12 inches of intestines had been protruding from it."
One noticeable difference between the mutilations on Ellen Bury and the East End victims were that Ellen Bury's throat was not cut. Beadle states that these mutilations surpassed those of Polly Nichols, which is certainly arguable.
William Bury is a plausible suspect, as he fits many aspects of the FBI profile: his age, occupation, and drinking habits. He had a history of violence towards women, and unlike many other proposed suspects, is known to have actually killed a woman and mutilated her abdomen. On that last point alone, he is a far more likely suspect than any royals, carriage drivers, or cotton merchants from Liverpool.
My biggest objection to Bury as the Ripper is the way he was caught. After killing his wife, he literally walked right into the hands of the police with an absurd tale that she had committed suicide. In contrast, the Ripper craftily eluded capture for several weeks, time after time getting away from the scenes of murders so invisibly as to be almost phantom-like. The actions of the two were so disparate that it's very unlikely they were one and the same, IMHO, of course.
To answer Caz's questions:
Not such a silly question, there seems to have been considerable disagreement among the 5 doctors that performed or attended post-mortems as to whether the death was a homicide or a suicide. The date I have for Ellen Bury's death is Feb 5, 1889.
BTW, I quite agree about London, one of the world's most walkable cities, IMHO.
I would recommend Beadle's book to anyone wishing to learn more about William Bury. Beadle provides a detailed look at this suspect, and the chapter on the follies of Ripperology alone makes it a worthwhile read.
Cheers,
Jim |
Author: Donald Gow
Monday, 16 August 1999 - 04:22 pm | | Greetings to all. As a Yank only recently wading my way through the various pieces of nonsense and trying to find my way to the truth of the Ripper case, I have as yet developed only the most tentative of suspicions. Most of them, however, fall upon William Bury. As Mr. DiPalma pointed out, Bury fits very well with the psychological profile put forth by the FBI, he was finally convicted of murder and hanged (which partially explains the cessation of Ripper cases...I find it hard to believe that a monster capable of performing the mutilations visited on Mary Kelly would, or could, have simply stopped there) and the fact that he married a prostitute testifies to the obsession he must have carried for the street walking class.
Those of you interested in a condensed version of the case against Bury would do well to consult "The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper" edited by Maxim Jakubowski and Nathan Braund. The book itself is a series of essays by Ripperologists from nearly every camp, and the reading of it is a taste from the entire menu of available theories.
Any of you wishing to contact me may do so at DGOW1@prodigy.net. I would appreciate discussions and exchange of ideas.
Thanks,
Don |
Author: anskov
Wednesday, 03 November 1999 - 09:29 am | | | Like Don, I read about Bury in a condensed format by Beadle in the Mammoth book of JTR. I don't know if it's mentioned in his book (it wasn't in the article) but I found the two instances of chalk writing interesting. There is the famous "Juwes" message scrawled on the Goulston Street doorway. There were also the two chalk messages found in Bury's house after he told the police about his wife. I don't know how large the connection is, but I found the need to write graffiti on two occasions interesting. Any thoughts? |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Thursday, 04 November 1999 - 07:12 am | | Hi anskov:
In "Jack the Ripper: Anatomy of a Myth," the book in which William Beadle proposes William Bury as a suspect, Beadle himself does not claim that the chalk messages in the apartment building where Bury and his wife lived in Dundee were written by Bury. Nor does he claim that the chalked message in Goulston Street was written by his suspect. In fact, in both the chapter in "The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper" and in his book, Beadle says the culprit in the messages written in the Princes Street dwelling was probably Bury's wife Ellen who had intimations that her violent, drunken husband was Jack the Ripper. Thus he contends that she was the one who wrote behind a tenement door in the Princes Street block of flats, "Jack Ripper is at the back of this door" and in the stairway wall leading down to the flat, "Jack Ripper is in this seller" [sic].
Chris George |
Author: Ashling
Thursday, 04 November 1999 - 03:43 pm | | Hi all.
CHRIS: The scenario you quote has always puzzled me. Drunk or not, 3 days seems plenty of time for William Bury to notice the chalk messages & remove them before the police came. If nothing else, he could have leaned against the wall/door & slid slowly to the ground repeatedly. (Sorta like Eddowes after her fire engine performance.) Even if the chalk required soap & water -- Chalk will disappear a lot easier than today's spray paint.
Bury likely wrote the messages in an attempt to blame his (possibly) spur-of-the-moment murder on JtR. Are you sitting on the sidelines on this one, or have you reached a conclusion?
Best regards,
Janice |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Thursday, 04 November 1999 - 04:52 pm | | Hi, Janice:
I have come to no firm opinion about Bury's candidacy as JtR but lean toward his innocence in that regard. As you will have read, Stewart's view is that Bury's killing of his wife was a domestic murder. I am inclined to think so too. The matter of the chalked messages is puzzling. Beadle makes the point that the messages are only mentioned in the newspaper accounts but not in the surviving police reports. Might the reports be an example of enterprising journalists at work? In any case, the little pointers about Bury himself possibly hinting that he may have been Jack do not seem substantial (or verifiable) enough to merit consideration. Moreover, as Stewart wrote, despite the abdominal mutilation, the murder in other respects did not much resemble the Ripper murders. So Bury most probably was not our man.
Chris George |
Author: Raymond Speer
Sunday, 21 November 1999 - 06:40 am | | I was impressed by arguments for William Henry Bury's guilt as I've always been leaning towards the proposition that JtR was a resident of the East End, rather than some transplant from another neighborhood. The strongest counter argument is that Ellen was strangled by a rope and that the knife wounds to her abdomen were trivial on the "Ripper" scale. Had Bury been Jack, one might suppose he would have no need for a rope and Ellen would have been in pieces like Mary Kelly.
But . . .
If the identification of JtR with Bury is correct, that means that, with his murder of Ellen, JtR has for the first time done away with someone who is obviously linked to him. If he tears her apart like Kelly and leaves, even the dimmest detective will see the connection and issue a bulletin for William Henry Bury. So he restrains himself after making the first deep cut (an implausible suggestion, admittedlly, for a maniac to reason in the middle of his act) and decides to fake her suicide! Bury puts a rope around her neck (a deliberate departure from his practices) and goes to the police five days after the murder to tell them that Ellen committed suicide, then he stabbed the body and stuffed it in a trunk.
Would the authentic Jack the Ripper come up with such a lame story? As we aren't sure of his identity, we must admit that we really know nothing about the Ripper's cunning and ingenuity -- maybe he would, maybe he did, attempt such an excuse for his murder of his wife. |
Author: peter martin
Tuesday, 16 January 2001 - 12:13 pm | | I think that as William Henry Bury was self employed and had ample opportunity to get out and murder when it pleased him it's strange that the murders were all carried out at weekends. I think it's more likely to be a man with a regular day job.
Pete |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 11:49 pm | | I was just reading a passage from Justin Atholl's
THE RELUCTANT HANGMAN: THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LIFE
OF A HANGMAN (London, Melbourne, et. al., John
Long Ltd., 1956). It is the biography of James
Berry, the public hangman during the Ripper's
period. He was the man who executed William
H. Bury. On pages 71-72 is the account of this
execution. It says:
"On one occasion he was asked by a Scotland Yard
detective to try and get something out of the
condemned man. The prisoner was twenty - nine
year old William Henry Bury, who was hanged in
Dundee Prison in 1889 for the murder of his wife.
It was an ordinary and sordid-enough crime, but
the special interest of Berry and the police lay
in the suggestion that Bury was in fact the mysterious Jack the Ripper whose crimes had
terrorized the East End.
"Although Bury was executed in Scotland, he had
lived in Whitechapel and had met his wife in London. The connection between Bury and Jack the
Ripper sems to have been rather tenuously based
on the certain similarities believed to have been
found between his handwriting and that of the Jack
the Ripper note, on the fact that at the material
times Bury was in East London and he had been a
horsemeat butcher, thus presumably having the
instruments and skill necessary to have carried out the mutilations. But at the time anxiety to
identify "the Ripper" was so great that any
possibility was grasped.
"Bury seems to have waited for death calmly
enough and wanted nothing more than his pipe and
a glass of beer. Berry said he was instructed
to try and discover whether Bury was responsible
for the Jack the Ripper crimes and he questioned
him with hidden detectives listening. But Bury
gave nothing away - possibly because he had nothing to give away. The best that Berry could
do was to interpret a single remark, "I suppose
you think you are clever to hang ME, but you are
not going to get anything out of me," into an
admission that he was "Jack", and he said that the
detective agreed with him in drawing the inference
that the emphasis on "clever to hang ME" meant that he was someone much more "important" than
an ordinary wife murderer. It is doubtful that
this theory will bear careful examination, but
Berry persisted in his belief. The work of an
executioner must become monotonous, and Berry
welcomed anything which made an execution
"out of the ordinary", and, incidentally, reflected a certain glory on himself. Bury was
perhaps being more subtle than his executioner
realized when he said, "I suppose you think you
are CLEVER to hang me.""
Berry was executioner from 1883 to 1892. In that
period, the most notorious killer he executed
(unless Bury was Jack the Ripper) was Mrs. Pearcey. He is best recalled for his trail of
accidents. In 1885 he misjudged the amount of
rope in a drop for one Robert Goodale, a wife
murderer, so that the prisoner's head was ripped
off. The same thing happened to a murderer named
John Conway, whom Berry "hanged" in 1891. Conway
had cut his throat, and so weakened the muscles
in his neck. Berry also is recalled for attempting to execute John Lee, the Babbacombe
Murderer, in 1885, who three times was put on the
trap of the gallows, and the trap refused to open
when Berry pulled the lever. Lee's death sentence
was commuted to life imprisonment, but he was
released in the early 1900s, and toured music
halls as "the man they could not hang". By then
Berry was an active campaigner against the death
penalty himself, having resigned his job shortly
after the Conway mess. Thus he was not the
executioner who handled Dr. Neill Cream or George
Chapman. |
Author: Ashling
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 05:05 am | | Welcome aboard Jeff and thanks for these interesting tidbits!
Ashling |
Author: Matthew Christensen
Thursday, 12 April 2001 - 06:56 pm | | Last year I'd posted a message regarding the Goulston Street grafitti and the two grafitti messages in Bury's house. I felt I didn't elaborate enough on my ideas on this point. Although the messages in Bury's home are supposed to have been written by Ellen Bury, and the Goulston Street grafitti by the Whitechapel murderer, I find that two separate instances of this type of grafitti interesting. I am wondering if anyone knows how common chalk grafitti was in Victorian London. Would we have seen it all over the walls of Whitechapel or is the Goulston Street message unique?
Of course this raises other questions. If written by JTR (which I tend to think it was), then was he in the habit of carrying chalk around with him all the time? Did he carry it with him that night for this specific purpose?
One last comment; the messages in the Bury home don't neccessarily have to have been written by a frightened Ellen Bury. Perhaps a drunken Bury wrote them to torment Ellen. Just a thought.
Anyway, thanks for reading this. I'm always interested in comments - particularly regarding the presence of grafitti in Victorian London.
Anskov
Please feel free to e-mail me to discuss more: Anskov@yahoo.com |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 13 April 2001 - 08:26 am | | Dear Anskov,
According to Walter Dew (Det Cons in H Division, Whitechapel, at the time of the murders) not only were graffiti common in the east End, but there were several known to him which pretended to be messages from the Ripper. For which reason, as well as the common sense conclusion that a fleeing murderer had better things to do than stand around writing tomfool messages on tenement walls, Dew never took the Goulston Street graffito seriously.
Martin F |
Author: Matthew Christensen
Friday, 13 April 2001 - 02:24 pm | | Dear Martin:
Thanks for the info on graffiti in Victorian London. It's funny; I guess, because it is known that the Ripper stopped at the Goulston St. location to wipe his blade on the piece of Eddowe's apron, I assumed he'd also written the message to incite further confusion. There is also a muddled quality about this message that reminds one of the "From Hell" letter; something more deranged than calculating.
Perhaps I don't give Bury enough credit for cleverness, but I don't feel it would be out of character for him to have written such things on the walls of his lodgings, particularly if he was drunk most of the time. It seems no more foolish than going to the police with the ridiculous story of his wife's death. I contend that if Bury is our man, he committed these crimes more with crazed daring than with brain power.
I'm still getting my feet wet here, so please forgive any ignorance on my part.
Best regards,
Anskov |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 10:36 am | | Looking back over this board, I note a couple of queries challenging the common idea that the Ripper must have been a local man with local topographical knowledge, because Neither Stewart Evans nor Caroline (nor, indeed, I myself) had much difficulty in learning our way round Ripperland pretty quickly in the late 20th century. Setting on one side the FBI profilers' discovery that most repeat killers start their activities in a 'comfort zone' where they feel at home and familiar, without regard to its maze-like or open quality, I'm sure I recall that in the press interview he gave when he had taken over the East End command of the case from Abberline, Moore made a point to the effect that the district included a rabbit-warren of back alleys, and the police had found an almost 'secret' way in and out of one murder site which they felt would have eluded anyone but a local man. Unhappily I don't have the report on my files, so I can't confirm this. I do know that in the mere 25 years I have known the district, it has opened up steadily, making it constantly easier to get around, and deplorably destroying remaining useful Ripper sites, like Church Passage into Mitre Square. I think it would all have been much more confusing to outsiders when Castle Alley (and Tenter Ground as I first knew it) had archway entrances like Gunthorpe Street and when packed terraces lined the narrow footpaths where we now have streets open on one side, or with office building frontages set well back, or lighter and airier public housing developments, and widened footpaths. When I used to give Jack the Ripper walks, I often used to draw walkers' attention to places where the old house-front lines could be seen, showing that frontages had now been pushed back and the roadways made wider with better visibility since the Ripper's day. The P & O building replaced a little warren of housing where Joseph Hyam Levy lived, across from Mitre Square.
So I shouldn't, myself, write off Bury's local knowledge as irrelevant.
With all good wishes,
Martin F |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 04 February 2002 - 07:19 am | | Hi All,
I was chatting to Bill Beadle on Saturday night (he was our speaker at the Cloak & Dagger). He does not read the boards, but he said he would be very happy for me to give you all an update on his work on William Henry Bury.
Since his well-received book, 'JtR: Anatomy of a Myth', Bill has spent three and a half years on more intensive research into Bury, and hopes to have 'Part Two', as he calls it, ready soon. He is very pleased with the new information he has managed to find and put together, and is currently busy putting the finishing touches to three of the chapters. So it looks like Bury fans (and everyone else too of course) can look forward to an entertaining and informative read.
All Bill needs now is a publisher, as he'd much rather not self-publish this time.
I don't mind passing on any messages for Bill, either posted to this board, or via my email address.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jack Traisson
Monday, 04 February 2002 - 04:16 pm | | Hi Caz,
Tell Bill to include an index this time in his book. I will buy it irregardless but it will make it easier to refer to in the future.
Does he still believe that Ellen Bury was responsible for the graffiti at their home in Princes Street?
Cheers,
John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 05 February 2002 - 05:11 am | | Hi John,
I will certainly pass your message on. But I'd imagine an index would be included this time, assuming Bill finds a publisher.
And yes, I'm almost certain he did mention to me that he believed Bury's wife wrote the graffiti at their home. (Bill's talk to the C&D was not actually about Bury though. It was about the Ratcliff Highway murders.)
Love,
Caz |
Author: James Hutchinson
Saturday, 09 February 2002 - 03:24 am | | | The assertion that William Bury cannot be Jack the Ripper just because the manner in which Bury killed his wife is not identical to the way the Ripper killed his victims is highly implausible. Serial killers, ranging from Ted Bundy to Henry Lee Lucas, have often varied their manner of killing to some degree. Besides, the way Bury killed his wife is very similiar to what the Ripper did to his victims. The circumstantial evidence supporting Bury as the killer is the most promising I've seen. The murders started shortly after Bury moved to East London and abruptly ended when he left London a couple of months after Mary Kelly's murder. Most importantly, there is powerful evidence on record that Bury committed a sadistic murder! Why did Bury turn himself in for his wife's murder? Did he really have any other choice?! His wife's family knew how crazy Bury was and Bury knew her family would grow suspicious when they would never hear from her again. Murdering strangers, like prostitutes, is one thing. There is a reasonable chance you can get away with it without getting caught. The disappearance of a close relative automatically puts someone under a huge embrella of suspicion. It's alright to believe that Bury is not the killer, but it's ridiculous to suggest that there is a more probable suspect based on the available evidence. After all the stuff I've seen on TV about Jack the Ripper, I'm shocked that I never heard of Bury until I read Beadle's book. Beadle's theory is the only one that is remotely rational. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 09 February 2002 - 05:56 am | | Hi James,
And of course we have the example of serial killer John Christie, who killed his wife, possibly because she had suspicions about his previous murders, or even came close to finding some remains in their marital home, 10 Rillington Place.
When questions were first asked about his wife's whereabouts, Christie came up with excuses like she was staying with a relative. He ended up moving away and the whole story came out when the new occupier stumbled on human remains.
Christie was eventually executed, but not before poor Timothy Evans, a previous tenant, was hanged for the former's crime - Evans' pregnant wife and baby daughter had been among the victims.
The difference with Jack, of course, is that he killed away from home. But I don't see this as a problem when comparing the two. If anyone close to a serial killer starts causing problems, they have to be got out of the way. Obviously this often leads to the killer's downfall, because of the change from stranger murders to one they are known to be associated with.
I believe, in the case of the Wests, the focus of the investigation to begin with was on establishing the whereabouts of missing daughter Heather.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Saturday, 09 February 2002 - 02:51 pm | | This must have been commented on before, but in case it has been forgotten about, has anyone thought of the difference between serial killers in this way,-- you get one killer who will kill a number of victims, then go to extreme pains to hide each body, from his own sight as well as the law's!!. It can be hard work for them, such as, dismembering and then having to clean up the mess, or is that part of the "fun"?, then you have a killer dissolving his victims in acid, or dropping chopped parts into the sewer, the sea or the river. Seems to me they give themselves a heck of a lot of trouble for such a short time of pleasure. Then you have those who like to keep them at home for company, they don't try to hide them, but if they don't hide them, they can't accept visitors of any kind, and if they do hide them in the house they have to put up with the smell. You have those who kill for a part of their victims body,-- a
souvenir/trophy,-- but they try to hide the body!. Jack the Ripper, or maybe the mysterious journalist should have named him Jack the Joker, certainly never tried any of those ways, he had his night hunting, took his trophy, had his little joke, laughed to himself at the thought of the look on the faces of the stuffed shirts having to try and solve the dirty little puzzle he had set them. He only made one mistake, that was the mess he got into in killing Eddowes, maybe he cut things too fine on that killing, but he did get away, and when once he was away from the scene there was no pinning it on him, he could look forward to a days interesting reading in the paper. Stephen (McCann) I don't admire Jack, I think he was a joker, and he got away with "his funny little games", so there was something about him,-- and all this after 113yrs.
but it would be nice if we could read today that Jack the Ripper paid the price at Strangeways or Brixton, in 1889
Rick |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 09 February 2002 - 06:43 pm | | | Hi Rick, I must say that what you have written above makes a lot of sense to me. Many people who write about crime including those who profile killers never mention much if anything on gameplayers. A good game player with lots of balls can cause havoc.JTR was not short of balls in fact I think he had a spare set!!! If you know how the enemy works and you know his every move before he makes them then he had better look out.JTR had no intention of hiding his victims he wanted them found for effect. They certainly had the effect he desired. |
Author: Vaughan Allen
Friday, 15 February 2002 - 10:31 am | | Caz,
very good to know. LOve Beadle's work personally, though I do wish he'd split the first book into two, so he could have the analysis of the case (which is perspicacious in the extreme) and THEN proposed Bury. Not that I don't think Bury is a good suspect (in fact, as he's the only suspect we know murdered someone in a not-dissimilar way to JtR, he's damn near the top), I just have this aversion to 'suspect' books that are dominated by such theorising.
Vaughan (who is unfortunately far too busy to be contributing as he would like) |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 06 March 2002 - 08:02 am | | Message from Bill Beadle.
Caroline has passed on to me internet comments about Anatomy of a Myth and William Bury since November 1998. Many thanks to everybody for the positive comments and the interesting questions asked and points raised.
Many concern the chalked messages found at 113 Princes Street. Beyond concluding that Ellen wrote them, I didn’t make a lot of them in Anatomy or The Mammoth Book because at the time I myself found them rather confusing and puzzling, particularly the point raised by Janice (‘Ashling’) on November 4th, 1999, as to why Bury failed to expunge the messages. This is indeed a very good question and when my new work is published I hope to clarify it.
It definitely was not a journalistic hoax. The messages were there when the police arrived on the evening of the 10th.
Let me clarify the question of their not being mentioned in police statements (Chris George, November 4th, 1999). The reports were precognitions of evidence made to the Procurator-Fiscal and anything directly linking Bury with the ‘Ripper’ murders had to be excluded as he was not on trial for them. The London police had at that point announced publicly that they did not connect Bury with the ‘Ripper’. This in turn was not a very happy situation for the Dundee police, or the prosecution at Bury’s trial, because they found themselves without a suitable motive for Ellen’s murder.
The Dundee police did acknowledge the messages (see The New York Times of February 12th, 1889), and they also kept a copy of The Dundee Advertiser’s report of February 12th, containing facsimiles of the messages, in their files. The use of newspaper reports to store info is, likewise, endemic to the Met’s files on the ‘Ripper’.
Not in answer to any question, but as a general point, can I just comment on the ‘Ripper’s’ supposed cleverness. The F.B.I (whom I agree with) categorise him not as a cunning, organised murderer, but, overall, a disorganised, impulse killer who was lucky, not clever. I will be expanding very considerably on this in my new work.
Specifically to Jack Traisson (February 4th, 2002) I have enormous sympathy with your point about the index. I know from research how valuable one is. I had to forego one on cost grounds in 1995. This time I shall be trying to find a mainstream publisher and so hopefully we will have an index.
Kindest regards to all
Bill Beadle |
Author: Jack Traisson
Wednesday, 06 March 2002 - 03:51 pm | | Hi Caz,
Thank you very much for passing along our inquiries to Bill Beadle and for posting his responses to them. I think 'Anatomy of a Myth' is one of the better theory books, and I look forward to the new information and analysis.
I understand the costs associated with an index, as Ross Strachan had the same problem when he published 'The JTR Handbook: A Reader's Companion'
Cheers,
John |
Author: Julian Rosenthal
Sunday, 10 March 2002 - 10:32 pm | | G'day Caz,
Thanks for passing that on. Bury is right up there with the genuine supsects and Bill is providing some very valuable information in regard to researching this bloke.
Cheers.
Jules |
Author: William Edward Grace
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 03:48 am | | Hi all,
I am new to the casebook but have pondered over these murders for a while now. Like alot of you Bury's my favorite, (or least favorite suspect as the case may be.)
I have a few queries and I would be much obliged if anyone would like to offer opinions or enlightening threads.
i)How long, by horse and cart, would it take to reach Spanby rd from Georges yd in Whitechapel?
ii)How would he have been able to conceal any evidence, blood stains etc, from his wife Ellen after coming home from a long hard night of murdering people?
iii) Don't most of the reliable witnesses say JTR was 5ft 7', Bury's height - 5ft 3'?
iv)Any news on Beadle's new book?
Thats all for now, carry on. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 08:18 am | | Hi William,
If I can get some answers for you from Bill Beadle I'll post them here.
Love,
Caz |
Author: William Edward Grace
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 06:42 pm | | Another querie,
From the Mammoth book of JTR - Jakubowski et al
'' 19th september 1888 - Sir Warren sends a progress report to the home office, listing three suspects, Issensmith, Puckeridge and an unnamed man suspected by a brothel-keeper.''
Could Martin have been the brothel keeper in question? |
Author: Stuart
Wednesday, 27 November 2002 - 04:36 am | | Just thought I'd throw in my 2 pennyworth about Bury.
In short...IT'S HIM.
No, seriously. He seems the one guy (that I know of) that was in Whitechapel at the time...left soon afterwards...and was convicted of similar in Dundee.
Looking very bad for Mr Bury I'd say.
Are there any photo's of this guy anywhere?
Why is he so low down in the list of suspects I wonder, when there's such a strong case against him?
Why is he not mentioned in some of the Ripper "Bibles" I've read? |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Wednesday, 27 November 2002 - 09:13 am | | Hi Stuart,
Actually, I believe Bury was resident in Bow at the time of the murders, which is some distance away from Whitechapel. It has been theorized that Bury used his pony and cart to travel to Whitechapel to commit the murders, but no evidence has been produced to substantiate that claim.
No photos of Bury are known to exist.
As I mentioned above some 3+ years ago, I think Bury is a plausible suspect, but's that's a far cry from saying that he was definitely the Ripper. The problem with the case against Bury is the same as that against all the other named suspects - there is simply no hard evidence that irrefutably links him to any of the Whitechapel murders.
As to why he is not mentioned in some of the Ripper "Bibles", I believe Mr. Beadle's book was not published until 1995, which would make Bury a relatively recent suspect. Any Ripper work published prior to that time would not have mentioned him.
Hope this helps,
Jim |
Author: Stuart
Wednesday, 27 November 2002 - 10:51 am | | Thanks Jim.
I'd go along with plausible, plus a bit more. A lot more so than Cream, Carrol and quite a few others I'd say.
His "confession" to the Dundee police makes me think him unlikely in one way, but as you say, he is known to have killed and mutilated with a knife. One reason surely for him being a hot suspect.
I personally don't understand the difficulty people have with linking murders when the MO's differ slightly and the injuries differ.
I mean, it's not as if murderers think "Ooh...I'd better slash her neck down to the spine, else the police won't think its me". Or "I'd better mutilate her abdomen in a similar manner to my last victim, so I'm consistent".
I really don't think murderers work like that ALL the time.
The recent sniper shooting in the US did. But they don't always.
JTR was a violent murderer. It may be that when he killed Kelly (if he did) he was extremely angry that day, but on other occasions (when there were less mutilations) either less violent or simply disturbed (Stride?). Let's say Bury was JTR for the minute.
He kills many women.
He decides to kill his wife, but doesn't slash her throat. So what! He didn't wan't to. Perhaps killing her hit him so hard (it's possible) that he didn't need or want to carry on slashing.
May explain his "confession" to the Dundee police.
I don't know.
Trying to add a reply, but can't. Something's gone wrong I guess, so I'm editing this post. Perhaps a moderator can help me out here. |
Author: Dan Norder
Wednesday, 27 November 2002 - 10:39 pm | | Actually, Stuart, later investigation into the Beltway sniper suspects linked them to killings in other geographic areas where the MO differed: multiple gunshots, etc. So that case is actually further proof that serial killers can and do change their methods.
I too think Bury should be considered a lot more credible than most of the suspects put forward. I do have to agree with Jim, though, that the distance is considerable.
Dan |
Author: Stuart
Thursday, 28 November 2002 - 05:27 am | | Aha. I can post a reply now. Most odd. Anyway...I've just had a look at a map of London (big innit?) and Bow doesn't look that far to me.
Especially if he used a horse'n'cart. But that's guesswork.
Thanks for that Dan. I didn't know that about the Beltway sniper.
Is Jon Miller still a poster round here?
He seems very knowlegeable.
:-) |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 28 November 2002 - 09:02 pm | | "...later investigation into the Beltway sniper suspects linked them to killings in other geographic areas where the MO differed: multiple gunshots, etc. So that case is actually further proof that serial killers can and do change their methods."
I don't think Muhammed and Malvo can be considered serial killers in the sense of JtR, Bundy, etc., for a number of reasons. They were basically typical robbers and murderers who hatched a plot to make a fortune by extortion, lacking the psychiatric profile of serial killers. What they did or did not do concerning their M.O., therefore, does not relate to what serial killers do. M & M did not get off on a series of killings, they got off on the prospect of riches.
David |
Author: Stuart
Monday, 09 December 2002 - 09:26 am | | | Another thing that puzzles me about Bury is that I have read somewhere that he was born in Stourbridge (just up the road from me), but an earlier post on this thread says Wolverhampton (a bit further!). Any ideas? |
Author: Stuart
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 05:36 am | | Because I live very near Stourbridge, I thought I'd have a look round the library there.
Nothing interesting yet, but I've only just started.
I've also written to the local paper (Stourbridge News) and they are interested. They know about Bury naturally enough, but when I told them that I'm looking for a photograph of this guy and that no photos are known to exist, they now want to do a piece on my search!
I'm a bit scared. I know next to nothing about Bury or the Ripper in general compared to some, and here I am in the papers!
Ah well...get stuck in I suppose. You never know.
Keep you all posted.
Stu |
|
|
|
|
