The Bury ID

[An earlier version of this article appeared as “Identifying William Bury as Jack the Ripper” in Ripperologist 139 (2014).]

Introduction

The Jack the Ripper Murders have baffled law enforcement officials and armchair detectives for over 125 years.  In 2005 Robert D. Keppel et al. published a description of Jack the Ripper’s signature utilizing modern principles of crime scene assessment and signature analysis.  The 1889 murder of Ellen Bury by her husband William Bury can be closely mapped to this signature.  Given the rarity of the signature, our ability to rule out alternative explanations of Ellen Bury’s murder and additional information about William Bury from police records, court records, and newspaper reports, we can now confidently identify William Bury as Jack the Ripper.

 

Jack the Ripper’s Signature

Modus operandi refers to “the offender’s actions during the commission of a crime that are necessary to complete the crime” while signature, or the killer’s “calling card,” refers to “those actions that are unique to the offender and go beyond what is necessary to kill the victim” (1).  While MO can change from crime scene to crime scene during the course of a series of murders, the serial killer’s signature remains stable (2).  Individual elements of a serial killer’s signature can vary in how they are expressed, vary in the degree of their expression or be entirely absent at a given crime scene due to the specific circumstances of that murder (3).  Signature evidence is admissible in court (4).

Keppel et al. based their analysis of Jack the Ripper’s signature on material contained in inquest reports, police records, crime scene photographs and other documentary material produced at the time of the murders.  They avoided reliance on newspaper articles due to the lack of authority of these sources (5).  They conducted a modus operandi and signature analysis of the Whitechapel murders, defined as Emma Smith, Martha Tabram, Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes, Mary Jane Kelly, Rose Mylett, Alice McKenzie, the Pinchin Street Torso and Frances Coles.  They were able to link six of these murders, Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly to a common signature.  Using data from the state of Washington’s Homicide Investigation and Tracking System (HITS) database, which suggest the extreme rarity of Jack the Ripper’s specific combination of signature characteristics, Keppel et al. concluded that these six murders were the work of a single assailant (6).  The HITS data, for example, demonstrated that “trauma to the genital area is extremely rare—in less than one tenth of one per cent of all murder cases in the HITS system” (7) and “the combination of characteristics of posing and mutilation occurred in only 0.05% of all murder cases” (8).  While a comparable database for murders in Victorian Britain is not available, there is no evidence to date that Jack the Ripper’s unique signature can be associated with any other Victorian murders apart from the February, 1889 murder of Ellen Bury, for which William Bury was convicted and executed.

Keppel et al. define Jack the Ripper’s signature as containing the following elements:

“1) the injuries sustained by the victims displayed the signature characteristic of picquerism;

2) the killer displayed a level of overkill in each case that escalated over the series;

3) the victims were incapacitated immediately and killed quickly to enable the killer to live out his fantasies;

4) the killer exhibited complete domination over each victim;

5) the victims’ bodies were left open and on display;

6) the victims in this series were displayed in unusual body positions, revealing signs of posing;

7) the victims were left in sexually degrading positions with their legs spread and genitalia exposed to illustrate their vulnerability after death and the killer’s dominance;

8) the killer mutilated his victims and showed increased postmortem mutilation from one victim to the next;

9) the killer evolved to the removal of their organs and body parts, and removed some of them from the crime scenes;

10) the killer targeted specific areas of attack, stabbing and slashing the breasts, genitalia, abdomen, and sexual organs of the victims;

11) the murders were planned and organized; and

12) the combination of these actions created a unique signature with which we can link the six victims of one killer, Jack the Ripper” (9).

The Ellen Bury murder was a domestic murder that occurred at the residence of the couple, possibly in connection with an argument.  The couple was known to live at this residence by others living in the area.  Due to this situation, William Bury needed to modify his behavior as a murderer in order to conceal his identity as Jack the Ripper.  It is this set of modifications, especially his need to deescalate some of his signature behaviors, that has helped to fool investigators and has allowed William Bury to escape identification as Jack the Ripper for nearly 130 years.

 

Account of the Ellen Bury Murder

Unless otherwise indicated, all quotations that follow are from the William Bury trial notes (10) or the Ellen Bury medical notes (11) in the National Archives of Scotland.

In April, 1888 William and Ellen Bury were married in the East End of London.  William Bury was 28 and Ellen Bury was in her early thirties. Throughout 1888 they continued to live in the East End.  In January, 1889 they moved to Dundee, Scotland.  William Bury forged an offer of employment from Malcolm, Ogilvie & Co. in Dundee to persuade Ellen to move with him.  On February 10, 1889, William Bury walked into a police station in Dundee to report the death of his wife.  He spoke to Lt. James Parr.  William Bury said that on the night of February 4, he and his wife had been drinking.  The following morning he said that he discovered the body of his wife, and that she had a rope around her neck.  He indicated that he cut the body and put it into a trunk.  He expressed concern “that he would be apprehended as Jack the Ripper.”  Two officers, Lt. David Lamb and Detective Peter Campbell, visited the residence.  Lt. Lamb found Ellen Bury’s body stuffed inside a trunk.  Lamb stated, “the right leg was broken in two and doubled back under lid of box. Left leg bent back so that the foot was over right shoulder.”  Dr Charles Templeman was called to the scene.  The marks on Ellen Bury’s neck suggested that she had been strangled.  Her abdomen had been mutilated and a foot of intestine was protruding from one of the cuts.  Some of Ellen Bury’s clothing and possessions had been burned in the fireplace of the residence.  William Bury was immediately charged with Ellen Bury’s murder and taken into custody.  During Bury’s trial (Bury’s defense team would argue that Ellen Bury committed suicide by strangling herself), Dr Templeman testified that one of Ellen Bury’s injuries was a “mark on left temporal muscle” which indicated “a blow or fall before death. A stick or poker is more likely than fist to have caused it.”  Dr Henry Duncan Littlejohn confirmed this, testifying, “My opinion is that a struggle having taken place a blow was struck on left temporal muscle.  It is in a hollow and not so likely to have been caused by a fall.  This blow would render deceased either wholly or semi-unconscious.  I think the application of ligature to neck followed producing suffocation and that while deceased moribund the various wounds on the belly and elsewhere inflicted.”

The mutilations performed on Ellen Bury’s body were focused on the abdominal and genital areas.  Her mutilations were described in detail in Dr Templeman’s medical report.  He wrote:

“There was an incised wound in the centre of the abdomen, extending downwards from the umbilicus for four and a half inches.  It penetrated the abdominal cavity, and through it protruded part of the omentum, and about a foot of intestine, part of which was dry and black from exposure to the air.  This cut was ragged towards the lower part.

Commencing at the inner end of the fifth right costal cartilage, was a cut running downwards and to the left for seven and a half inches.  This was quite superficial, with the exception of the last inch, where it penetrated through the skin into the muscular layer of the abdomen.  Half an inch to the right of this, and running parallel to it, was a similar cut, five inches in length and superficial throughout.  Two inches to the right of, and commencing on a level with the umbilicus was an incised wound, three quarters of an inch in length and penetrating through to the muscular layer.  From the lower end of the wound opening into the abdomen, on the left side were several superficial cuts little more than penetrating the cuticle, and running downwards to the pubis.

Running downwards from the centre of the pubis to the outer side of the left labium was an incised wound 2 ½ inches in length, penetrating the skin and fat.  On the inner side of the right labium was a wound 2 inches in length, penetrating the skin.  Beginning about an inch behind the anus was an incised wound running forwards and to the left, into the perinaeum, and dividing the sphincter muscle.

At the lower border of the ribs on the left side in the nipple line were two abrasions each an inch in length.

The edges of all the wounds above described were everted and marked throughout by a line of capillary haemorhage, 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 cuts on the abdomen—one two inches to the inner side of the right anterior superior iliac spine, and the other at an almost corresponding level on the opposite side.  They were each about half an inch in length, running downwards and inwards and penetrating to the muscular layer.  These were free from any trace of haemorhage.”

Dr Templeman also reported, “Over the bridge of the nose was a small incised wound penetrating the skin only, half an inch in length, running obliquely downwards from right to left.”

 

Table 1: Chief Objections to Identifying William Bury as Jack the Ripper

Objection Explanation
Ellen Bury’s throat was not cut The MO of a serial killer can change from crime scene to crime scene
Ellen Bury’s mutilations were relatively minor A signature characteristic of a serial killer can be reduced in its expression due to the specific circumstances of a murder
William Bury could have killed prostitutes closer to where he lived Some serial killers prefer to kill at a distance, and William Bury’s horse and cart gave him the means to do so
Jack the Ripper would not have approached the police Due to Ellen Bury’s mutilations, flight from the crime scene could have led to a national manhunt for William Bury as Jack the Ripper
The evidence against William Bury is purely circumstantial Circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to gain a murder conviction

 

Mapping the Ellen Bury Murder to Jack the Ripper’s Signature

Two previous authors on William Bury, Euan Macpherson (2005) and William Beadle (2009), both raised the issue of a signature match between the Ellen Bury murder and the Jack the Ripper murders, however they did not relate their analyses to the professionally developed description of Jack the Ripper’s signature published by Keppel et al.  Macpherson wrote about a “modus operandi” of strangulation and mutilation (12), while Beadle confined his remarks about signature to Ellen Bury’s mutilations (13).  William Bury’s signature is a close match with the signature described by Keppel et al.  Picquerism, or “sexual pleasure gained by stabbing, cutting, or slicing of another person” (14), is evident in the series of cuts and stabs that were performed by William Bury in Ellen Bury’s abdominal and genital areas.  Most of these occurred around the time of death and two others (the ones described in Dr. Templeman’s report as being free of hemorrhage) were definitely postmortem.  When Dr Templeman testified that Ellen Bury’s mutilations “were not necessarily fatal,” he admitted the possibility that they could have been sufficient to cause death by themselves.  While it is not certain that William Bury’s actions amounted to overkill, his three-pronged attack (blow to the head, strangulation and the mutilations, including a significant cut to the abdomen from which a foot of intestine was protruding) represented excessive violence.  An individual signature characteristic can be “diluted” in its expression or absent in a murder within a series due to the specific circumstances of that murder.  William Bury and Ellen Bury were known by others to live at their residence in Dundee.  William Bury could not conduct mutilations as severe as or more severe than those of Kelly and continue with the progression of mutilations in the Jack the Ripper series without revealing himself as Jack the Ripper.  He was forced to significantly deescalate the mutilations, and to completely abandon his signature behavior of removing organs and other body parts in order to conceal his identity.

William Bury incapacitated Ellen Bury prior to murdering her.  As noted earlier, Dr Littlejohn testified, “My opinion is that a struggle having taken place a blow was struck on left temporal muscle.  It is in a hollow and not so likely to have been caused by a fall.  This blow would render deceased either wholly or semi-unconscious.”  After murdering Ellen Bury, William Bury continued to exert domination and control over his victim.  He conducted degrading mutilations to Ellen Bury’s face, abdominal and genital areas, he placed her body into a trunk, and he burned some of her clothing and possessions in the fireplace of the residence.  Ellen Bury’s body was found in an unusual position inside the trunk.  Books were neatly placed around her body, indicating that William Bury substantially emptied the trunk prior to putting Ellen Bury’s body into it.  Hence, he had the freedom to place her body into the trunk in a variety of different ways.  He placed her body in a bizarre, sexually degrading pose that would be viewed by whomever opened the trunk.  Lt. Lamb testified, “the right leg was broken in two and doubled back under lid of box.  Left leg bent back so that the foot was over right shoulder.”  Ellen Bury was naked except for the chemise she was wearing, which makes the sexual connotation of her pose even more apparent.  As with other victims of Jack the Ripper, her head was tilted to the side (16).  Placing Ellen Bury’s body into the trunk was not an attempt to disguise the location of Ellen Bury’s body, as William Bury directed police to the trunk at the Dundee police station.  His positioning of the body should therefore be viewed as a public display, as he expected others to view the body.

There is conflicting evidence regarding whether or not Ellen Bury’s murder was planned.  The murder weapon, a piece of rope or cord obtained from provision merchant Janet Martin, was obtained within days of and possibly on the same day as the murder, which suggests the possibility of preplanning.  However William Bury and Ellen Bury had only just moved into their Princes Street address in Dundee, and William Bury was obtaining items for the residence on a daily basis from Martin and shopkeeper Marjory Smith.  It is therefore possible that the piece of rope was obtained for some other purpose, but used by William Bury to commit the murder.  In his letter of confession, written just days prior to his execution, William Bury insisted, “I admit that it was by my own hands that my wife Ellen Bury met with her death on 4th Feb in the house 113 Princes Street Dundee by Strangulation.  But I solemnly state before God as a dying man that I had no intention of doing so before the deed was done” (17).  There is no compelling basis to disregard William Bury’s statement.  In addition, William Bury appears to have stayed with Ellen Bury’s body for days before reporting her death to the police, which suggests that the murder was not planned and that he was unsure about what action to take in order to escape from his predicament.  An unexpected murder would have led to poor escape options and would explain William Bury’s decision to attempt to talk his way out of a murder charge by approaching the police, as, based on Lt. Parr’s trial testimony, Bury clearly feared that flight from the crime scene could have led to a national manhunt for him as Jack the Ripper.  Research on serial killers demonstrates that a given signature characteristic may not be present in every murder in a series due to situational differences among the murders.  If Ellen Bury’s murder grew out of an argument, that would explain the absence of preplanning.

 

Table 2: Signature Comparison of the Martha Tabram and Ellen Bury Murders

Signature Characteristic Martha Tabram Ellen Bury
Picquerism yes yes
Overkill ? ?
Incapacitation yes yes
Domination yes yes
Body displayed for others yes yes
Unusual body position yes yes
Sexually degrading position yes yes
Mutilation yes yes
Removal of organs/body parts no no
Genital trauma yes yes
Preplanning yes ?

[Note.  According to Chief Inspector Donald Swanson (33), there was an external injury to Martha Tabram’s genital area (the injury was described as occurring on the private parts).  This was an incised wound.  It was three inches long, one inch deep, and was inflicted with a knife.  This single injury hits the three signature characteristics of genital trauma (the genital area being one of the body areas targeted in the Jack the Ripper series), mutilation and picquerism.  Also, Dr Timothy Killeen, who examined Martha Tabram’s body, does not appear to have expressed an opinion on the presence of overkill.]

 

Discussion

William Bury’s signature is a close match with the signature of Jack the Ripper.  The differences that exist can be attributed to William Bury’s need to conceal his identity as Jack the Ripper and to the possibility that the murder of Ellen Bury was unexpected and arose out of a quarrel.  The information obtained from the HITS database and the absence of any other known Victorian murders containing Jack the Ripper’s specific combination of signature characteristics suggest that Jack the Ripper’s signature is extremely rare and that there is therefore a very high probability that William Bury was either a copycat killer or Jack the Ripper.  A copycat explanation of Bury can be easily dismissed.  He did not cut Ellen Bury’s throat and he did not abandon her body.  He did not go to the police with a story that Jack the Ripper had murdered his wife.  Further, two of the signature characteristics linking the Ellen Bury murder to the Jack the Ripper murders (incapacitation and the sexually degrading posing of the body) are subtle and not things a copycat would be expected to reproduce.  The suggestion that William Bury’s relatively minor mutilations of Ellen Bury could constitute an incomplete and abandoned attempt to attribute the murder to Jack the Ripper can also be dismissed.  The main set of mutilations was conducted around the time of death, in the heat of the moment, and was part of the murder sequence itself.  These mutilations could not have been part of a posthomicide effort to disguise his identity as the murderer.  In addition, two subsequent mutilations, conducted after the time of death, as well as other later behaviors linking William Bury to the Jack the Ripper murders, such as the sexually degrading posing of Ellen Bury’s body in the trunk, are inconsistent with the abandonment of an effort to implicate Jack the Ripper.  What remains, then, is the very high probability that William Bury was Jack the Ripper.  Describing a very high probability falls short of making a positive identification.  What rules out the possibility that the signature match was a coincidence and that William Bury was not Jack the Ripper is the list of corroborating pieces of circumstantial evidence.

William Bury lived in the East End, in Bow, at the time of the Jack the Ripper murders.  While it would have been a significant walk from Bow to the Jack the Ripper murder locations, Bury owned a horse and cart in connection with his work as a self-employed sawdust merchant and so the Whitechapel area would have been within easy striking distance for him.  His work “would have given him a good knowledge of East London” (18).  At Bury’s trial, his former employer, James Martin, provided testimony which indicated that Bury was indeed spending time in Whitechapel in 1888.

William Bury was involved with prostitutes.  He had lived at a brothel, he contracted venereal disease in all likelihood from a prostitute, and he married a prostitute (19).  The Jack the Ripper murder spree began just months after William Bury contracted venereal disease, raising the possibility of an anger or revenge motive being at least partially responsible for the murders (20).

Eyewitness descriptions must be treated with caution, as they often contain inaccuracies, however there are important connection points between William Bury and many of the ones that exist.  William Bury was 5’3½” “in his boots” (21), and wearing a hat, he would have been over 5’4″.  This would put him just a few inches taller than Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes, who were both wearing boots and headgear when they were murdered, and would therefore align him with the height estimates provided by Elizabeth Long and Joseph Levy.  At a little over 5’4”, Bury would also align well with the 5’5” height estimates provided by Israel Schwartz and Caroline Maxwell.  William Bury had a dark complexion (22) and dark brown hair (23), but he had a “fair moustache” (24) and his facial hair was described as “light sandy-coloured” (25).  Long and Maxwell both described a man who was “dark” and Lawende a man whose moustache was “fair” (26) and “inclining to be sandy” (27).  Long described a man “who appeared to be a foreigner” (28) and William Bury was described by a contemporary observer as having “features somewhat of the Jewish or Semitic type” when viewed from the side (29).  William Bury was 29 at the time of the Jack the Ripper murders, which would make him a good fit with the age estimates provided by Schwartz, Lawende and Maxwell.  It is true that Elizabeth Long thought that the man she saw was over 40, but she did not have a good look at his face and it is not unusual for eyewitnesses to make mistakes with age estimates.

William Bury had struck Ellen Bury with a punch or blow to the face in public places on more than one occasion, and so assaulting a woman in a public place was within his demonstrated range of behavior.  Women’s trinkets, including necklets, a thimble and two finger rings “of very inferior metal” (30) were found in a trunk that William Bury kept locked.  Ellen Bury wore good jewelry (31) and it is not reasonable to believe that the necklets and finger rings belonged to Ellen.  The thimble did not apparently belong to Ellen Bury either, as no associated pins or needles were found (32).  William Bury kept this trunk locked, even though he had no apparent reason for doing so.  While it cannot be proven that these trinkets came from the victims in the Jack the Ripper murder series, two finger rings had been taken from Annie Chapman by her killer and no thimble had been found with her body, even though she would have been expected to own one due to the character of some of her work (33), so the cache of items in Bury’s trunk is consistent with that scenario.

The Goulston Street Graffito was written in a schoolboy hand.  At Bury’s trial, his sister-in-law, Margaret Corney, testified that Bury could write in “several hands.”  Two chalked messages (“Jack Ripper is in this seller”  and “Jack Ri(p)per is at the back of this door” ), written in two different, youthful hands and possibly written by William Bury were found at the back of his residence in Dundee following Ellen’s murder.  Like the Goulston Street Graffito, where “Jews” was misspelled as “Juwes,” one of the messages contained a single egregious spelling mistake (“cellar” was misspelled as “seller,” possibly in an attempt to simulate a schoolboy’s inability to correctly spell words).  We know from Bury’s handwriting samples that he would indeed deliberately misspell words (Bury deliberately misspelled “Ogilvy” as “Egilvy” on one occasion in the document that he forged to persuade Ellen to move with him to Dundee).  The messages chalked at the back of Bury’s residence also have the same markedly vertical structure as the Goulston Street Graffito in the transcription that was made by Police Commissioner Charles Warren.  William Bury did not remain in his residence at all times following Ellen Bury’s murder.  If Bury had become concerned about schoolboys possibly breaking into the back of his residence and discovering Ellen’s body while he was away, he could have chalked these messages in order to scare them off.  It’s further worth noting that in William Bury’s handwriting samples there are many instances in which he capitalizes a word that would not normally be capitalized, and in the Goulston Street Graffito a word is capitalized that would not normally be capitalized (“blamed” in the Warren transcription).

Finally, William Bury engaged in the posthomicide behavior of burning some of the victim’s clothing in the fireplace, which parallels what occurred at the Kelly crime scene (34).  This was not an attempt to destroy all of Ellen Bury’s bloodstained clothing, as Ellen’s bloodstained ulster was found inside the trunk containing her body.  By itself this is a devastating piece of corroborating evidence.

While the significance of most of these pieces of circumstantial evidence can be individually questioned, there are too many of them in accumulation to entertain the possibility that the close signature match between the Ellen Bury murder and the Jack the Ripper murders could have been a coincidence.  We can therefore now confidently identify William Bury as Jack the Ripper.

 

Appendix: The Copycat Murder of Alice McKenzie

The Victorian murder that seems closest to Jack the Ripper’s signature is the murder of Alice McKenzie, which occurred in July, 1889, three months after William Bury’s execution.  The McKenzie murder fails to include the signature characteristic of incapacitation.  Jack the Ripper was a murderer who quickly subdued and silenced his victims.  The person who murdered Alice McKenzie was the exact opposite of that.  Dr George Bagster Phillips, who examined McKenzie’s body, wrote that there was “no physiological reason why the woman should not have uttered a cry” (35).  In addition, the signature characteristic of overkill is not present.  Alice McKenzie’s mutilations were relatively mild.  Keppel et al. noted the gradual increase in severity of the mutilations during the course of the Jack the Ripper series (36).  While William Bury had a strong and obvious situational incentive to significantly deescalate his mutilations of Ellen Bury, Alice McKenzie’s murderer does not appear to have had any such incentive.  Finally, Keppel et al. pointed out that the sexually degrading posing of the body became more blatant as the Jack the Ripper series progressed (37).  While the posing of Ellen Bury’s body fits with that progression, the posing of Alice McKenzie’s body, which simply consisted of the drawing up of her clothes (McKenzie’s body was found lying on its side), does not.  The Alice McKenzie murder was a copycat murder and was not the work of Jack the Ripper.

 

References

(1) Keppel, Robert D, Joseph G Weis, Katherine M Brown and Kristen Welch. “The Jack the Ripper Murders: A Modus Operandi and Signature Analysis of the 1888-1891 Whitechapel Murders.” Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling 2.1 (2005), p.14.

(2) Ibid.

(3) Douglas, John E and Corinne Munn. “Violent Crime Scene Analysis: Modus Operandi, Signature, and Staging.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 61.2 (1992), p.3; Bateman, Alicia L and C Gabrielle Salfati: “An Examination of Behavioral Consistency Using Individual Behaviors or Groups of Behaviors in Serial Homicide.” Behavioral Sciences and the Law 25.4 (2007), p.530; Keppel, Robert D and William J Birnes. Serial Violence: Analysis of Modus Operandi and Signature Characteristics of Killers. Boca Raton: CRC, 2009, p.8.

(4) Keppel, Robert D, Joseph G Weis, Katherine M Brown and Kristen Welch. “The Jack the Ripper Murders: A Modus Operandi and Signature Analysis of the 1888-1891 Whitechapel Murders.” Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling 2.1 (2005), p.14; Labuschagne, Gérard. “The Use of Linkage Analysis Evidence in Serial Offense Trials.” Crime Linkage: Theory, Research and Practice.  Ed. Jessica Woodhams and Craig Bennell. Boca Raton: CRC, 2015, pp.200-1.

(5) Ibid., p.2.

(6) Ibid., p.14., pp.19-20.

(7) Ibid, p.18.

(8) Ibid, p.19.

(9) Ibid., pp.19-20.

(10) Trial Transcript from the Trial of William Henry Bury for the Crime of Murder. JC36/3. National Archives of Scotland. 1889.

(11) “Medical Report on Victim by Dr C Templeman and Dr AM Stalker.” Trial Papers Relating to William Henry Bury for the Crime of Murder at 113 Princes Street, Dundee. JC26/1889/15/4. National Archives of Scotland. 1889.

(12) Macpherson, Euan. The Trial of Jack the Ripper. Edinburgh: Mainstream, 2005, pp.171-172.

(13) Beadle, William. Jack the Ripper Unmasked. London: John Blake, 2009, pp.92, 275.

(14) Keppel, Robert D and William J Birnes. Serial Violence: Analysis of Modus Operandi and Signature Characteristics of Killers. Boca Raton: CRC, 2009, p119.

(15) Ibid., p.8.

(16) Macpherson, Euan. The Trial of Jack the Ripper. Edinburgh: Mainstream, 2005, p.24; Beadle, William. Jack the Ripper Unmasked. London: John Blake, 2009, p.24.

(17) Macpherson, Euan. The Trial of Jack the Ripper. Edinburgh: Mainstream, 2005, p.102.

(18) Beadle, William. Jack the Ripper: Anatomy of a Myth. Dagenham: Wat Tyler, 1995, p.162.

(19) Ibid., p.158.

(20) Beadle, William. Jack the Ripper Unmasked. London: John Blake, 2009, p.45.

(21) “Dundee Circuit Court.  The Princes Street Tragedy.”  Dundee Advertiser.  19 March 1889.

(22) “Tragedy in Dundee.”  Dundee Advertiser.  12 February 1889.

(23) “Shocking Tragedy in Dundee.” Dundee Courier and Argus, 12 February 1889.

(24) “Tragedy in Dundee.”  Dundee Advertiser.  12 February 1889.

(25) “The Dundee Murder.” Dundee Courier and Argus, 29 March 1889.

(26) Evans, Stewart P. and Keith Skinner. The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion.N.Y.: Skyhorse, 2009, p.138.

(27) “Is Deeming the Whitechapel Murderer?” Daily Telegraph, 8 April 1892.

(28) Evans, Stewart P. and Keith Skinner. The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion.N.Y.: Skyhorse, 2009, p.110.

(29) “Shocking Tragedy in Dundee.” Dundee Courier and Argus, 12 February 1889.

(30) “Inventory of Articles Found in Accused’s House.” Trial Papers Relating to William Henry Bury for the Crime of Murder at 113 Princes Street, Dundee. JC26/1889/15/5. National Archives of Scotland. 1889.

(31) Beadle, William. Jack the Ripper Unmasked. London: John Blake, 2009, p.266.

(32) Ibid., p.265.

(33) Ibid.

(34) Ibid., pp.245-46.

(35) Evans, Stewart P and Keith Skinner. The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion. N.Y.: Skyhorse, 2009, p.509.

(36) Keppel, Robert D, Joseph G Weis, Katherine M Brown and Kristen Welch. “The Jack the Ripper Murders: A Modus Operandi and Signature Analysis of the 1888-1891 Whitechapel Murders.” Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling 2.1 (2005), p.20.

(37) Ibid., p.16.

 

Updated June 13, 2018

 

—Steve Earp

 

“The Bury ID” © 2018.  All rights reserved.