And now YOU are doing it too...? The time overlap is a mere secondary matter. If the deeds had not had so many commonalities, we would not be discussing a connection at all. THAT is where the true linking possibility lies.
Reasoning that the time issue is the clincher, we need to include any murder within that time span as linked, regardless of the character of the deed, and that would be utter folly.
My Dear Christer,
The arguments you make, while interesting, do not it appears convince all. And it appears that you find such annoying or frustrating..
I and others have listed in detail the reasons why we do not feel these issues are significant, you do not accept those arguments, that's fine.
We all look at the same evidence and then come to different conclusions.
A highly dubious Ripper victim. Besides, one isolated murder does not a flurry make.
In your opinion.
But you posed the question yourself, along the lines of if the Ripper, why didn`t McKenzie`s killer push the knife in a little deeper to open the stomach cavity.
Remember Sadler, who was acquitted because they thought he was too drunk to hold the knife steadily enough to produce the injury Coles received.
From a dissection on this site by Gerald Spicer - The river Thames has long been the end of the road for suicidal lunatics, victims of crime, and those involved in unfortunate accidents. Parliamentary returns for 1882 record that 544 corpses were found in the Thames, of which 277 cases resulted in open verdicts.
The London Times, ran an article on June 15 of that year entitled "Undetected Murders," pointing out that "the facilities afforded by the river for the perpetration of secret murders" was one that need to be addressed. "It is not a pleasant thing to reflect that there may be many ruffians prowling about London who have already committed riverside outrages with impunity, and may be tempted to commit others owing to the general laxity that prevails in our arrangement for ascertaining the causes of suspicious deaths."
From Rainham to Battersea is 20 miles, [and two years between the victims] IE A large stretch of the Thames would it really be unlikely to see a victim,over that time span and distance, when we don't know why they where a victim, was one or more a ritualistic killing like the Thames torso boy of a few years back, one of the victims could have been the result of a domestic where the killer had to cut up and get rid of the body, note the lack of heads as if to stop any identification, perhaps left in a more secure place, or one or more victims could be an operation in a back street surgery gone wrong, or it could be Jack, we simply don't know. But what seems reasonable is the Thames seems to be a perfect place to get rid of a body, and if we argue that not all the bodies where found in or near the river why didn't the killer, if it is indeed one killer why did he not leave all the corpses in the water rather than on land. I am not completely discounting Jack for all the bodies, just making a few thoughts of mine.