Originally Posted by curious
After reading through Information on Alice McKenzie and pondering it, I have arrived at a "no" it's not likely she was a victim of the man we call Jack the Ripper.
My no is based on Dr. George Bagster Phillips' inquest testimony on Day 3, Wednesday, August 14th, 1889:
There were five marks on the abdomen, and, with the exception of one, were on the left side of the abdomen. The largest one was the lowest, and the smallest one was the exceptional one mentioned, and was typical of a finger-nail mark. They were coloured, and in my opinion were caused by the finger-nails and thumb nail of a hand. I have on a subsequent examination assured myself of the correctness of this conclusion.
[Coroner] Are the injuries to the abdomen similar to those you have seen in the other cases? - No, Sir. I may volunteer the statement that the injuries to the throat are not similar to those in the other cases.
The fingernail marks were, of course, from a hand being placed on her abdomen. Not sure if you're thinking the fingernail marks were the actual cuts to the abdomen. They were not.
Seven inches below right nipple commenced a wound seven inches long, in a downwards direction inclining first inwards then outwards. Deepest at upper part. Wound in abdomen but abdominal cavity not opened. Scoring the right side of abdomen are seven dermal marks tailing inwards to the major wound, and seven similar scorings between this wound and the pubis, one distinctly becoming deeper over the pubis.
There was also a small cut over the mons veneris
To me, these wounds are of a "doodling" nature, comparable to what the killer of Eddowes did to her face and eyelids. The wounds to Alice's abdomen were all done post mortem and targeted the abdomen and genital area. Her skirt was thrown up to her chin as in other cases. Although the neck wound appears to be different than the other victims, it is similar in that there were two cuts to the throat as in other cases.