Alice McKenzie - some details not seen before

[Jon Guy]

Hello Harry
It's all too easy to make allowances/excuses in order to fit a murder into the Ripper series (or to bolster a given suspect's candidacy as the killer, for that matter), but I don't find such arguments convincing.

These are Dr Bond`s reasons: I see in this murder evidence of similar design to the former Whitechapel murders, viz. sudden onslaught on the prostrate woman, the throat skillfully and resolutely cut with subsequent mutilation, each mutilation indicating sexual thoughts and a desire to mutilate the abdomen and sexual organs. I am of opinion that the murder was performed by the same person who committed the former series of Whitechapel murder.

Dr Phillips disagreed but still admitted similarities: After careful and long deliberation, I cannot satisfy myself, on purely Anatomical and professional grounds that the perpetrator of all the "Wh Ch. murders" is our man. I am on the contrary impelled to a contrary conclusion in this noting the mode of procedure and the character of the mutilations and judging of motive in connection with the latter.

I do not here enter into the comparison of the cases neither do I take into account what I admit may be almost conclusive evidence in favour of the one man theory if all the surrounding circumstances and other evidence are considered, holding it as my duty to report on the P.M. appearances and express an opinion only on Professional grounds, based upon my own observation.

[Abby Normal]

I was referring to the tendency for "suspect-pushers" and "victim-pushers" to devise excuses to make their suspect/victim fit, irrespective of whether they stick to the Canon or not.

And some people like to twist words that don’t fit the facts like “excuses” and “superficial”.

How so very different is McKenzie case facts from the others sam:
Same victimology
Knife cut throat
Abdominal post mortem mutilation
Same time frame
Same location
Same time at night
Unsolved
Murdered out on the street
Found with SKIRT HIKED UP


Added to that some of the police and doctor included her as a ripper victim.


The similarities are way more than the differences. Or to use a favorite word of yours superficial-the similarities are way more than the superficial differences.
Differences which are more logistically explained by the ripper having a bad night than to have another throat cutting, prostitute stalking, night working, abdominal targeting, post mortem mutilating, skirt hiking murderer working at the same time and place!

[Joshua Rogan]

These are Dr Bond`s reasons: I see in this murder evidence of similar design to the former Whitechapel murders, viz. sudden onslaught on the prostrate woman, the throat skillfully and resolutely cut with subsequent mutilation, each mutilation indicating sexual thoughts and a desire to mutilate the abdomen and sexual organs. I am of opinion that the murder was performed by the same person who committed the former series of Whitechapel murder.

Dr Phillips disagreed but still admitted similarities: After careful and long deliberation, I cannot satisfy myself, on purely Anatomical and professional grounds that the perpetrator of all the "Wh Ch. murders" is our man. I am on the contrary impelled to a contrary conclusion in this noting the mode of procedure and the character of the mutilations and judging of motive in connection with the latter.

I do not here enter into the comparison of the cases neither do I take into account what I admit may be almost conclusive evidence in favour of the one man theory if all the surrounding circumstances and other evidence are considered, holding it as my duty to report on the P.M. appearances and express an opinion only on Professional grounds, based upon my own observation.

Good post, Jon. The part of Phillips' words that you highlighted is often overlooked.

[Harry D]

I'm not saying you're bending the facts or cherry-picking, Harry, but you are seeking to minimise/excuse the fact that her wounds were nowhere near as severe as even the least-mutilated evisceration victim of Jack the Ripper, viz. "JTR might have been out of practice", or "he might have been interrupted".

I'm not seeking to excuse anything. Those are valid reasons that would justify the difference in severity between McKenzie's murder & the C5, without the need to account for another post-mortem mutilator rearing his head in Whitechapel for one night only.

[Joshua Rogan]

It seems that McCormack's account may have contained a kernel of truth. This is from The Guardian (Boston, Lincs) of 17th August, 1889]

Nice find, Mr B.

[Sam Flynn]

I'm not seeking to excuse anything. Those are valid reasons that would justify the difference in severity between McKenzie's murder & the C5, without the need to account for another post-mortem mutilator rearing his head in Whitechapel for one night only.

The simplest explanation, which needs no excuses whatsoever, is that we're dealing with different killers.

And, incidentally, there are varying degrees of post mortem mutilation. People can slacken the qualifying criteria if they must, but you won't catch me doing it.

[Harry D]

The simplest explanation, which needs no excuses whatsoever, is that we're dealing with different killers.

And, incidentally, there are varying degrees of post mortem mutilation. People can slacken the qualifying criteria if they must, but you won't catch me doing it.

Multiplying the number of postmortem mutilators in the same part of town is hardly the parsimonious solution.

[Sam Flynn]

Multiplying the number of postmortem mutilators in the same part of town is hardly the parsimonious solution.

There's a possibility that he was a copycat - besides, as I've said, there are differing degrees of postmortem mutilations. What happened to Alice McKenzie is hardly worth writing home about, compared to what happened to the least mutilated of the Ripper's victims. Her throat wasn't even sliced through, an act which would have taken her killer no more than a couple of seconds to effect if he'd been inclined, or experienced, to do it. I find it highly unlikely that the "true" Ripper, however rusty, would have hesitated to do so.

Neither, for that matter, is he likely to have failed to press his knife just a smidgeon more forcefully into her belly so as to open the abdominal cavity. The knife must have been in contact with both her throat and belly at some point, and it would have been a simple matter of slightly varying the pressure for him to have cut her more effectively, yet he did not do so.

If he was a copycat, he wasn't a very good one.

[Harry D]

If he was a copycat, he wasn't a very good one.

Good enough to fool Dr. Bond, it seems.

[Sam Flynn]

Good enough to fool Dr. Bond, it seems.

I'd prefer to form my own opinion by sticking to the objective evidence.

[Harry D]

I'd prefer to form my own opinion by sticking to the objective evidence.

And Dr. Bond didn't?

[Jon Guy]

. Her throat wasn't even sliced through, an act which would have taken her killer no more than a couple of seconds to effect if he'd been inclined, or experienced, to do it. I find it highly unlikely that the "true" Ripper, however rusty, would have hesitated to do so.

I`m not sure what is meant by sliced through , but McKenzie had her throat cut down to the bone.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I feel we need to look at Dr Bond's assessment of Alice. He didn't examine the body first hand, he saw the body the day after the post mortem, and it had already begun to decompose, plus Dr Phillips thought that it had been washed. Bond also says "He informed me that the post mortem was completed yesterday [Phillips] & that the wounds on the throat of the woman had been so disturbed that any examination I might make, unassisted would convey no definite information as to the nature of the injuries" . But then goes on to make the assessment that the throat was skillfully & resolutely cut. Could he be sure ? Besides the neck being stabbed twice on the left side and dragged along but not entirely across doesn't sound skillfully and resolutely cut at all. Remember his summing up after MJK "He doesn't even possess the skills of a Butcher". Sounds like a change of heart. He then goes on to comment that "Each mutilation indicating sexual thoughts & a desire to mutilate the abdomen & sexual organs" But the abdomen wasn't mutilated and apart from seven or eight scratches beginning at the navel and pointing toward the genitalia, and
small cut across the mons veneris, neither where the sexual organs. Finally his report was sent to Anderson, who is thought to have took Bond's opinions seriously. But he writes " I am here assuming that the murder of Alice M'Kenzie on the 17th of July 1889, was by another hand. I was absent from London when it occurred, but the Chief Commissioner investigated the case on the spot and decided it was an ordinary murder, and not the work of a sexual maniac.", without mentioning Bond.

[Sam Flynn]

I`m not sure what is meant by sliced through , but McKenzie had her throat cut down to the bone.

To the extent of four inches.

[Sam Flynn]

And Dr. Bond didn't?

There are plenty of examples in the Ripper case where officials, medical or otherwise, formed somewhat contentious opinions.