What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[Herlock Sholmes]

After further researching, I have no doubt that Alice Mackenzie was a Ripper Victim. Alice Mackenzie was killed by the Ripper several months after Druitt killed himself. Druitt was not the Ripper. Druitt was innocent. Case against Druitt closed.

Why do you keep repeating this self-serving nonsense? You have no doubt.... Ok so it’s game over everyone Stacker has decided that Mackenzie was a ripper victim. Do you want to solve the Wallace case while you’ve got 5 minutes to spare too? Maybe tell us if Lizzie Borden was guilty or not and we can close that one down?

If Mackenzie was a ripper victim then Druitt wasn’t the ripper. Obviously.

Is it anything even approaching certain that Mackenzie was a ripper victim? Obviously not.

Case against Druitt well and truly open and without a single, solitary fact that can discount him. Does that mean that he was the ripper? No it doesn’t but it means that he could have been and anyone who says that he couldn’t have been is simply whistling in the dark.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Druitt is known to have already had 3 different activities that he needed to balance his time with:

Job as Teacher
Job as Barrister
Player in Cricket

Thats right there is an extremely packed schedule that would leave him with almost no time leftover. There are only 24 hours a day, and only 7 days a week. There was no room in his schedule to fit murders such a long distance away from all the locations he was known to be in into his activities.

Another general statement with no basis in fact. We know his movements and there is nothing....nothing to discount him based on his movements or location.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well that defence sure hold water, “Your honour I couldn’t have spent an hour or so to find and kill her, I was a busy man”.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But is that the consensus, that Alice was Ripper victim?

Let alone a certainty.

because the flip side is if Montie was the ripper Alice wasn’t a Ripper victim.

Exactly GUT we can’t just rope in a victim to conveniently discount Druitt. We don’t know if Mackenzie was a ripper victim. At a guess I’d say that if there was a poll there’d me more that said ‘no’ than ‘yes’ (I could be wrong on that of course.) But she’s generally been considered, in the vast majority of books that I’ve read, as not a victim of the ripper.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Can you provide timetables for all these activities, the one's you use to substantiate this argument?
That would help, thanks.

No he can’t.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Look at the MO, and injuries sustained, and then make your own judgement. Either way if you're a Druitt supporter you're going to rule Mackenzie out.

Either that or you might tend to find it difficult to believe that the ripper went from The Butcher of Miller’s Court to the Stomach Scratcher Of Castle Alley?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Most would accept that there has to at least have been a possibility that Stride wasn’t a ripper victim. She was seen having an altercation with the man seen by Schwartz. She screamed but not very loudly. This might have been a regular customer or some kind of acquaintance who cut her throat before Diemschutz arrived in Berner Street. These women were no strangers to violence. Isn’t there a possibility that Mackenzie was killed by an angry punter or acquaintance. This killer, especially if he knew her, it goes without saying wouldn’t want to be connected to her so what better way to avoid attention, whilst the ripper was apparently still at large, than to lift her skirt and make a few perfunctory cuts and scratches to her abdomen. Viola she’s a ripper victim and anyone questioned about her murder would only have to show that he couldn’t have killed any of the other women and he’s in the clear.

[Joshua Rogan]

Either that or you might tend to find it difficult to believe that the ripper went from The Butcher of Miller’s Court to the Stomach Scratcher Of Castle Alley?

This is a strange argument. It's generally agreed that the Ripper was able to go to the extremes he did in Miller's Court because he had the time and privacy to do so. Two things not available in an alley patrolled by two PCs. Can you say that Kelly wouldn't have exhibited similar wounds to McKenzie if Jack had been interrupted after two minutes? Or that Alice wouldn't have ended up exactly as Mary did if she'd had her own room?

[Joshua Rogan]

Exactly GUT we can’t just rope in a victim to conveniently discount Druitt.

But it's ok to rule one out in order to keep a suspect in the frame?

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is a strange argument. It's generally agreed that the Ripper was able to go to the extremes he did in Miller's Court because he had the time and privacy to do so. Two things not available in an alley patrolled by two PCs. Can you say that Kelly wouldn't have exhibited similar wounds to McKenzie if Jack had been interrupted after two minutes? Or that Alice wouldn't have ended up exactly as Mary did if she'd had her own room?

I’d have thought that if Mackenzie’s killer had the time to make the cuts and scratches to her abdomen he’d have had time to make more serious, deeper injuries? Just a greater pressure on the knife. Eddowes injuries were extensive and she was killed in the street with policeman on patrol.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But it's ok to rule one out in order to keep a suspect in the frame?

I don’t know why my posts appear to be unclear Joshua? I’m not discounting Mackenzie to keep Druitt in the frame. The bias should be obvious to all. It’s glaring.

The point (1) made by Stacker (and he’s not alone) - Mackenzie was obviously a ripper victim therefore we can discount Druitt.

The point (2) made by myself - If Mackenzie was a ripper victim then of course we can discount him but as we cannot prove or even assume that Mackenzie was a ripper victim - and many believe that she wasn’t so it’s by no means a ‘wacky’ suggestion - then we cannot categorically discount him.

surely you can see which of points (1) and (2) is the most reasonable and unbiased?

[Joshua Rogan]

I don’t know why my posts appear to be unclear Joshua? I’m not discounting Mackenzie to keep Druitt in the frame. The bias should be obvious to all. It’s glaring.

The point (1) made by Stacker (and he’s not alone) - Mackenzie was obviously a ripper victim therefore we can discount Druitt.

The point (2) made by myself - If Mackenzie was a ripper victim then of course we can discount him but as we cannot prove or even assume that Mackenzie was a ripper victim - and many believe that she wasn’t so it’s by no means a ‘wacky’ suggestion - then we cannot categorically discount him.

surely you can see which of points (1) and (2) is the most reasonable and unbiased?

Perhaps my post was unclear....I was referring to Macnaghton.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Perhaps my post was unclear....I was referring to Macnaghton.

Ok Joshua

[Wickerman]

with regard to the cuts Philips said that most of them were superficial.

I get it, you change my "all" to "most", but my comment was about the abdominal wounds. Most of the Ripper victims had very deep abdominal wounds, even Nichols where nothing was removed.

This is what Phillips wrote:
"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."
So, ALL the abdominal wounds on McKenzie were superficial.

The Coroner asked: "Are the injuries to the abdomen similar to those you have seen in the other cases?"
Dr. Phillips: - "No, Sir".

So that was my argument.
I wasn't talking about the throat wounds.

I don't recall Philips commenting on whether the killer was right or left handed. I could be wrong though

Disregard that, I must have read something wrong. I can't find anything to that effect either, now I look again.

However there were two cuts to the neck, sound familiar? A woman out at at night alone in the early hours found with her throat cut, her clothes drawn up to the neck. As I said, it depends where your loyalties lie when drawing a conclusion as to whether Mackenzie was a Ripper victim , or not

The two wounds to the throat are, in my opinion, indicative of how the Ripper attacked the throat.
However, there is more to a Ripper killing than the cutting of the throat, namely severe abdominal wounds, typically with a view to removing organs. This was not the case with McKenzie. Therefore, at it's most telling point, the comparison with previous Ripper murders fails.

[Wickerman]

Doctors evidence. No signs of semen at the crime scenes.

I would say, no sign of semen internally, as semen can be found at the crime scene, but on her clothes.
Which raises another question, if not found internally, then how long does semen take to dissipate inside the body?