Local Knowledge

[Tom_Wescott]

More and more I believe that AM was a victim of JtR. This idea of an injury certainly adds a new dimension and could certain explain one or two things i.e. the interval and the type of injuries inflicted.

It's worth noting that 8 months is not a terribly long interval. It only appears so because the earliest murders were so close together. But Kelly followed more than a month from the double event, so a widening of intervals between the murders was already becoming a pattern. Just as likely as an injury would be if the suspect felt a little heat somehow after the Kelly murder.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello, again Tom.

They didn't run into each other because Andrews was already in the alley (at the body in fact) by the time Isaac Jacobs left his house heading to McCarthy's.

Times (London)
Thursday, 18 July 1889

Isaac Lewis Jacobs said - I live at 12 Newcastle place, and am a boot maker. About ten minutes to 1 this morning I left home to buy some supper in M'Carthy's, in Dorset street. I had occasion to pass Newcastle place into Old Castle street. When I got to Cocoanut place a constable ran up to me; I stopped. He said, "Where have you been?" I replied, "I have been nowhere, I am just going on an errand and have just left my home." The constable then said, "Come with me; there has been a murder committed."

EDIT: I wanted to correct a slight error in a previous post by calling Isaac Jacobs' residence on Newcastle Street. It should be Newcastle Place as stated in this news clip.

I wrote that Andrews ran up to Isaac which is precisely what Isaac said in your excerpt, so I don't see any discrepancy here. And two people encountering each other in the street qualifies as 'running into each other', at least on my side of the pond.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Losmandris]

More and more I believe that AM was a victim of JtR. This idea of an injury certainly adds a new dimension and could certain explain one or two things i.e. the interval and the type of injuries inflicted.

[jerryd]

Also, Andrews didn't see Isaacs moments earlier prior to Andrews turning into Castle Alley, which he probably would have done if Isaacs had been leaving Castle Alley.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hello, again Tom.

They didn't run into each other because Andrews was already in the alley (at the body in fact) by the time Isaac Jacobs left his house heading to McCarthy's.

Times (London)
Thursday, 18 July 1889

Isaac Lewis Jacobs said - I live at 12 Newcastle place, and am a boot maker. About ten minutes to 1 this morning I left home to buy some supper in M'Carthy's, in Dorset street. I had occasion to pass Newcastle place into Old Castle street. When I got to Cocoanut place a constable ran up to me; I stopped. He said, "Where have you been?" I replied, "I have been nowhere, I am just going on an errand and have just left my home." The constable then said, "Come with me; there has been a murder committed."

EDIT: I wanted to correct a slight error in a previous post by calling Isaac Jacobs' residence on Newcastle Street. It should be Newcastle Place as stated in this news clip.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom.

What evidence points to this? IIRC there was one news report that got it wrong and stated Issac was headed home with supper. The evidence supports him walking from his home at 12, Newcastle Street, leaving about the same time Andrews arrives at the body (10:50ish), passes into Old Castle Street and up toward Wentworth Street to Cocoanut Place where he was intercepted by Andrews. That has him walking northwards, away from the body.

You're probably right. I recall Andrews hearing footsteps, running out into the street, and running up towards Isaac to ask him where he was going. It made sense to me that Isaacs would have been walking in the direction of Andrews. Also, Andrews didn't see Isaacs moments earlier prior to Andrews turning into Castle Alley, which he probably would have done if Isaacs had been leaving Castle Alley.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[jerryd]

He was found by Andrews walking towards the crime scene, not away from it,

Hi Tom.

What evidence points to this? IIRC there was one news report that got it wrong and stated Issac was headed home with supper. The evidence supports him walking from his home at 12, Newcastle Street, leaving about the same time Andrews arrives at the body (10:50ish), passes into Old Castle Street and up toward Wentworth Street to Cocoanut Place where he was intercepted by Andrews. That has him walking northwards, away from the body.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom,

In your opinion, was this a ripper murder?

What are your thoughts on Alice's killer being Isaac Jacobs, or Sgt Badham?

Cheers, George

Hi George. There's no chance she was killed by 19 year old Isaac. He was found by Andrews walking towards the crime scene, not away from it, and he was holding a plate, so his hands were not in his pockets and were therefore quite visible to Andrews and every single constable who entered Castle Alley (since he remained at the scene until after McKenzie's body was carted off). His hands were completely free of blood whereas McKenzie's killer left bloody handprints on her face and abdomen. Isaacs would not have had time to run away, wash his hands thoroughly, only to come sauntering back towards Andrews whom he (the killer) would have known was on his way towards finding the body. As for Badham, I'm not aware of any argument for his having killed McKenzie nor can I think of a reason to suppose he did or would have. Unless he showed up to the scene with bloody hands. I think there's a good chance she was a Ripper victim. Too many focus on the cuts which could be explained by an insufficient knife, or, as Rookie points out, some sort of injury. Everything else points towards the Ripper.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[GBinOz]

Interesting ideas and I believe your thinking is in the right direction. However, it must be remembered that the killer of McKenzie (who was said to have had broad fingers) was able to squeeze her flesh with such strength that all five fingernails made embedded marks into the flesh of her abdomen. So his hand had strength. An injury to the arm or shoulder would therefore be more likely. Regarding the mutilations to the abdomen, I don't think he was able to get around to making any. McKenzie's clothing was so tight many of the cuts described are evidence of the killer attempting to get his blade under the stays in order to inflict the desired injuries. Which makes me wonder what sort of injury or organ he was going for, since the bottom part of the abdomen (bowels, etc) were exposed. This is one instance where I do feel that he was interrupted by the PC since there's no question he could have heard his footsteps from a distance.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

In your opinion, was this a ripper murder?

What are your thoughts on Alice's killer being Isaac Jacobs, or Sgt Badham?

Cheers, George

[The Rookie Detective]

Interesting ideas and I believe your thinking is in the right direction. However, it must be remembered that the killer of McKenzie (who was said to have had broad fingers) was able to squeeze her flesh with such strength that all five fingernails made embedded marks into the flesh of her abdomen. So his hand had strength. An injury to the arm or shoulder would therefore be more likely. Regarding the mutilations to the abdomen, I don't think he was able to get around to making any. McKenzie's clothing was so tight many of the cuts described are evidence of the killer attempting to get his blade under the stays in order to inflict the desired injuries. Which makes me wonder what sort of injury or organ he was going for, since the bottom part of the abdomen (bowels, etc) were exposed. This is one instance where I do feel that he was interrupted by the PC since there's no question he could have heard his footsteps from a distance.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Thank you kindly for your response Tom, and may I say it's one of the best posts I've ever read.

Your way of thinking just takes it up to another level.

Pure class as always.

[Tom_Wescott]

A potential life changing injury caused by a misplaced cut during the obliteration of MJK, may not only explain the reason why there was a distinct 8 month gap before McKenzie was murdered, but it may also explain why McKenzie's injuries were not even close to the severity inflicted on MJK and Eddowes.

There is a scenario whereby the killer cut himself, was severely ill from an infection, and then after months of recovery finally took to re-commencing operations in July 1889 with McKenzie.

Only this time he lacked the dexterity and physical capabilities required to inflict the level of injuries he had previously delivered upon his previous 2 victims.

That may explain why McKenzie's wounds, body position etc.. were very similar to that of Nichols.

Was the killer going back to basics?

Perhaps the killer had intended to cut and eviscerate McKenzie exactly like he had done with Eddowes, but simply couldn't do what he wanted because of his previous rampage on MJK that all but put an end to his career as a killer of Unfortunates.

What kind of wound could do that?

The more obvious ones i would suggest;

a cut to the tendon of the thumb
a cut to the artery running through the thumb
severance/partial severance of a finger
a cut to the wrist/ lower forearm from a broken blade snapped from the hilt of his knife that unexpectedly rebounded (this may have occurred during the process of trying to decapitate MJK)


One thing the killer almost certainly would never have admitted to; that he had made a botch job and had accidentally cut himself.

Although the idea that a psychopath like the Ripper may also have been an overzealous moron who wasn't as skilled with a knife as he thought he was, makes me chuckle

Interesting ideas and I believe your thinking is in the right direction. However, it must be remembered that the killer of McKenzie (who was said to have had broad fingers) was able to squeeze her flesh with such strength that all five fingernails made embedded marks into the flesh of her abdomen. So his hand had strength. An injury to the arm or shoulder would therefore be more likely. Regarding the mutilations to the abdomen, I don't think he was able to get around to making any. McKenzie's clothing was so tight many of the cuts described are evidence of the killer attempting to get his blade under the stays in order to inflict the desired injuries. Which makes me wonder what sort of injury or organ he was going for, since the bottom part of the abdomen (bowels, etc) were exposed. This is one instance where I do feel that he was interrupted by the PC since there's no question he could have heard his footsteps from a distance.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fiver]

Don’t say that you’ve gone over to the dark side Fiver.

It's an indication of how bad a suspect Charles Cross is. I favor a carman, but am baffled why anyone not profiting from it considers Charles Cross as a credible suspect. There is not one shred of evidence against him.

[Fiver]

Or a Policeman.

A policeman would know his beat well. It's not as wide of a knowledge as a posty or a carman would have. An experienced PC would know multiple beats, but there were few constables who worked for both the City of London and the Metropolitan Police.

[etenguy]

Hi Eten, I’d favour that it was the victims that were more aware of police beats though. I wouldn’t suggest that they were aware of all timings but it would make sense for them to watch a Constable pass by knowing that they were ‘safe’ for 20 or 30 minutes until he was due to pass again.

Good point.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Being injured, but escaping, further increases the chance that the victim was local and went to ground at home. I have favored the idea that the Ripper knew the area well - possibly a posty or a carman.

Don’t say that you’ve gone over to the dark side Fiver.

[The Rookie Detective]

I have also considered that the Ripper may have injured himself during the Eddowes murder. And with the fecal matter on the apron piece, there likely would have been infection. Recovering could explain the gap between the Double Event and the Kelly Murder, though that could also be due to increased police presence or lack of opportunity. Likewise, if McKenzie was a Ripper victim, failing health could explain that gap as well.

So the Ripper might have died of infection. Or he might have recovered, but was scared to risk another infection. Or after being able to fully indulge himself in the Kelly murder, the thrill might have been gone.

Being injured, but escaping, further increases the chance that the victim was local and went to ground at home. I have favored the idea that the Ripper knew the area well - possibly a posty or a carman.

Or a Policeman.