What evidence would it take?

[John Wheat]

Fair enough. A little less than a year in the case of Alice, anyway. (Nov. 1888 to July 1889)

Alice was brutally murdered no matter how you look at it. The killer had an extremely tight frame to work in, in her case. I think a lot was done in that short period of time. This may have been the riskiest of all the murders, imo. If one can include Elizabeth Stride in the mix, I think McKenzie can be considered as well.

I disagree.

[jerryd]

I disagree.

I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, but which part do you disagree with?

[Aethelwulf]

Fair enough. A little less than a year in the case of Alice, anyway. (Nov. 1888 to July 1889)

Alice was brutally murdered no matter how you look at it. The killer had an extremely tight frame to work in, in her case. I think a lot was done in that short period of time. This may have been the riskiest of all the murders, imo. If one can include Elizabeth Stride in the mix, I think McKenzie can be considered as well.

Based on the details on Casebook (not sure how accurate that is), the timeframe doesn't sound tight:

12:20 A.M.: Walter Andrews (PC) (272H) enters Castle Alley just as Allen is leaving. Andrews remains in the alley for about three minutes, and again he sees nothing of a suspicious nature.

12:25 A.M.: At about this time, Sarah Smith, deputy of the Whitechapel Baths and Washhouses (which lined Castle Alley) retires to her room. She begins reading in bed, the closed window of her room overlooking the entire alley. Sarah later testifies she heard nothing suspicious until she heard the blow of Andrews' whistle.

12:45 A.M.: It begins to rain in Whitechapel.

12:50 A.M.: Andrews returns to Castle Alley on his regular beat, about twenty-seven minutes having passed since he left the area. This time, however, he discovers the body of a woman lying on the pavement

The pavement beneath the body of Alice McKenzie was still dry, placing her death sometime after 12:25 A.M. and before 12:45 A.M.

[jerryd]

Based on the details on Casebook (not sure how accurate that is), the timeframe doesn't sound tight:

12:20 A.M.: Walter Andrews (PC) (272H) enters Castle Alley just as Allen is leaving. Andrews remains in the alley for about three minutes, and again he sees nothing of a suspicious nature.

12:25 A.M.: At about this time, Sarah Smith, deputy of the Whitechapel Baths and Washhouses (which lined Castle Alley) retires to her room. She begins reading in bed, the closed window of her room overlooking the entire alley. Sarah later testifies she heard nothing suspicious until she heard the blow of Andrews' whistle.

12:45 A.M.: It begins to rain in Whitechapel.

12:50 A.M.: Andrews returns to Castle Alley on his regular beat, about twenty-seven minutes having passed since he left the area. This time, however, he discovers the body of a woman lying on the pavement

The pavement beneath the body of Alice McKenzie was still dry, placing her death sometime after 12:25 A.M. and before 12:45 A.M.

Hi Aethulwulf.

Based on the Times report only of the inquest, one may reach that conclusion. However, when all the reports of the inquest and witness testimony are put together, it paints a completely different picture. It's actually an interesting project, if you're up to it. I learned a lot from doing it myself.

[John Wheat]

I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, but which part do you disagree with?

I just don't buy Mackenzie as a Ripper victim.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If it is true that the Whitechapel Murderer was right-handed and McKenzie's left-handed, then it seems they were not the same.

Anderson himself thought they were not the same:

I am here assuming that the murder of Alice M'Kenzie on the 17th of July 1889, was by another hand... and not the work of a sexual maniac.

That is a remarkable statement for him to make if, as he later claimed, he had already identified a Polish Jew and sexual maniac as the Whitechapel Murderer and if, as he is reported to have claimed, the incarceration of the murderer brought the series of murders to an end - a claim supported by Swanson.

Anderson evidently had not identified the murderer and the last murder had occurred eight months previously, with no-one having been identified since.

[Aethelwulf]

Hi Aethulwulf.

Based on the Times report only of the inquest, one may reach that conclusion. However, when all the reports of the inquest and witness testimony are put together, it paints a completely different picture. It's actually an interesting project, if you're up to it. I learned a lot from doing it myself.

Hi Jerry,

I've no doubt you are right. It is one of my issues with the Farmer write up on here - it misses a lot out. If you actaully read all of the paper reports and witness statements you get a different picture.

[jerryd]

If it is true that the Whitechapel Murderer was right-handed and McKenzie's left-handed, then it seems they were not the same.

Anderson himself thought they were not the same:

I am here assuming that the murder of Alice M'Kenzie on the 17th of July 1889, was by another hand... and not the work of a sexual maniac.

That is a remarkable statement for him to make if, as he later claimed, he had already identified a Polish Jew and sexual maniac as the Whitechapel Murderer and if, as he is reported to have claimed, the incarceration of the murderer brought the series of murders to an end - a claim supported by Swanson.

Anderson evidently had not identified the murderer and the last murder had occurred eight months previously, with no-one having been identified since.

Hello PI.

There were differing opinions from Doctors and Police officials alike in all the cases. For example, Dr. Bond came to a different conclusion about Alice McKenzie than did Dr. Phillips.

From the Ultimate Sourcebook.

"Dr. Phillips showed me a small bruise on the left side of the stomach which he suggested might have been caused by the murderer pressing his right hand on the stomach while he used the knife with his left hand, but I saw no sufficient reason to entertain this opinion."


Then we have the press with their take on things, supposedly gathered from a police theory, which to me suggests a right handed killer. Some of the experts of the day had the killer of the C5 as left handed and some right. Positioning of the killer plays a role of course, was he facing them or behind them? Could he use both hands to accomplish his goal? Nothing seems to be easy and straightforward in these cases, unfortunately.

Echo London Middlesex July 18, 1889

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hello PI.

There were differing opinions from Doctors and Police officials alike in all the cases. For example, Dr. Bond came to a different conclusion about Alice McKenzie than did Dr. Phillips.

Yes.

I was aware of that difference of opinion.

I would pose the following question: why would the Whitechapel Murderer recommence his series of murders after eight months in order to commit one extra murder?

[jerryd]

Yes.

I was aware of that difference of opinion.

I would pose the following question: why would the Whitechapel Murderer recommence his series of murders after eight months in order to commit one extra murder?

A question I cannot answer. We don't know for certain when he began, do we? I have my own take on things as far as why the murders commenced, but lack enough evidence to make it worth arguing over at this point.

[Abby Normal]

A question I cannot answer. We don't know for certain when he began, do we? I have my own take on things as far as why the murders commenced, but lack enough evidence to make it worth arguing over at this point.

hi jerry
I would be very interested to know your take on why the murders began!

[jerryd]

hi jerry
I would be very interested to know your take on why the murders began!

Abby.

Which theory of mine would you like? I can't settle on one in particular.

I meant recommenced. But my point was, maybe the murderer recommenced with the Whitechapel murders from a previous stint and so to pick up again with McKenzie would not be unusual for him.

[Abby Normal]

Abby.

Which theory of mine would you like? I can't settle on one in particular.

I meant recommenced. But my point was, maybe the murderer recommenced with the Whitechapel murders from a previous stint and so to pick up again with McKenzie would not be unusual for him.

no i got ya. thanks! i would say he recommences with pinchin and mckenzie. And then he stops, for good as far as i can tell.
ive never seen any real good argument or explanation on how two seemingly different murder series, torsoman and the ripper, end at the same time, unless of course they were the same man.

[John Wheat]

no i got ya. thanks! i would say he recommences with pinchin and mckenzie. And then he stops, for good as far as i can tell.
ive never seen any real good argument or explanation on how two seemingly different murder series, torsoman and the ripper, end at the same time, unless of course they were the same man.

In all likelihood they don't end at the same time as in all likelihood McKenzie wasn't a Ripper victim and in all likelihood the Torso Killer and Jack were two different killers.

[John Wheat]

Abby.

Which theory of mine would you like? I can't settle on one in particular.

I meant recommenced. But my point was, maybe the murderer recommenced with the Whitechapel murders from a previous stint and so to pick up again with McKenzie would not be unusual for him.

This is all rather fanciful.