Rating The Suspects.

[The Rookie Detective]

No problem RD and Ms D. I’ll add a point with my next amendment.

Thank you kindly for that Herlock


RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

Amendment 10


Kelly > 2 - 2 - 3 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 = 13

Bury > 2 - 2 - 3 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 = 11

Cutbush > 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 = 9

Deeming > 2 - 1 - 4 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 0 - 0 = 9

Hyams > 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 = 9

Grainger > 2 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 1 -1 = 9

Kosminski 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 8

Pizer > 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 = 8

GSC Lechmere > 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 -1 = 8

Barnado > 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 = 8

Chapman > 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 7

Tumblety > 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 = 7

G. Wentworth Bell Smith > 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 2 - 0 - 0 = 7

Cohen > 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 = 7

Kidney > 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 = 7

Thompson > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 = 6

Levy > 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 6

Druitt > 2 - 1 - 0 -1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 5

Barnett > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 = 5

Stephen > 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 -0 = 4

Stephenson > 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 = 5

Bachert > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Cross > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Hardiman > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Hutchinson > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Mann > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Maybrick > 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 = 4

Sickert > 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - = 3

Gull > 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 2


Amendment made

A point added to Barnado for criteria 3 (Violence) after information from RD.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No problem RD and Ms D. I’ll add a point with my next amendment.

[Ms Diddles]

On balance I'm inclined to agree with Rookie D here.

I think this incident does constitute violence towards a woman, and vote that Dr B be awarded another point accordingly.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD,

I’ll throw that one out there for a consensus view. It seems that this might have been a hard push/heel of the hand type of thing?

Yes, it was a deliberate shove to her breasts which threw her backward.

He repeated it a second time

It's not violence with a knife of course, but still a direct and deliberately repeated assault on a young woman.
She was left with bruising on her chest, which goes to show the amount of force exerted.

It is also the fact that Barnardo was actively encouraging violence against the father of the girl he assaulted. He was the ringleader and his "Barnardo's Boys" were encouraged to carry out an assault.

This highlights that he not only endorsed violence, but he was also violent towards a defenseless woman.
I would argue that just because he didn't have a knife or a weapon of some kind, doesn't mean that he didn't act violently.
It may (or may not) have been a "one off" but it still happened.

Put into context, If I went out onto the street and audibly encouraged a gang to assault a man, and then I physically shoved a young woman so hard in her breasts that she fell backwards and left bruising on her chest...and then I repeated the physical action again a 2nd time....would I be considered capable of violence towards a woman?

Regardless of how much "good" Barnardo may have done, he was also known to be an arrogant egotistical narcissist who DID assault a woman physically and with intent to cause harm.
He also endorsed and was actively involved in the kidnapping of children from their destitute mothers; with the promise of saving them, and yet did it without consent of the mother. He was so sure of himself he even admitted it in court and was cleared.
He appeared in court on over 50 separate occasions.

The philanthropy card may have been acceptable back then to use as an excuse to be above the law, but nowadays he would be seen for what he did.


If he can't receive a point, or even an acknowledgement for the fact he was violent towards a woman, then it makes a mockery of the entire process.

Being physically violent towards a woman once...is once too many.


RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock


Can you please amend the data to reflect that Barnardo should have a '1' for violence and not a '0'




Many thanks



RD

Hi RD,

I’ll throw that one out there for a consensus view. It seems that this might have been a hard push/heel of the hand type of thing?

[The Rookie Detective]

Herlock


Can you please amend the data to reflect that Barnardo should have a '1' for violence and not a '0'




Many thanks



RD

[JeffHamm]

Hi George and Jerryd!

Thanks for those links. I have some reading to do, and may have read some of these already awhile back when McKenzie came up before (which I think is when the idea of interruption hit home, once I realised how busy the area was, and how close the police were to the crime scene, apparently when it actually happened too!).

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Thanks George.

I had two follow up threads in addition to the one you linked, which may be of interest.

Was Alice McKenzie technically alive? - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century (jtrforums.com)

and

Castle Alley-A new perspective - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century (jtrforums.com)

The Technically Alive thread has the most detail if anyone is interested. It is rather long.

You mentioned the three officers, George. I think it is first important to mention that a couple letters had been received by the police and Albert Bachert prior to the McKenzie murder stating the ripper was about to re-commence operations. Extra men had been brought in and the beats re-arranged to put men in the alley more often. DI Reid stated the alley was hardly left alone for five minutes. Add to that there was a fixed officer just outside the entrance to Castle Alley at Whitechapel Road, That entrance, by the way, was VERY narrow.

It was a very tight timeframe for the murderer.

Thanks for those links Jerry. When I read the first thread I formed the impression that you may have entertained some suspicions regarding the three officers concerned. I have to re-read that thread, but I recall at the time that I thought that there was some suggestion that Badham may have been coming from the direction of the body when he met Allen. Perhaps I should have deferred that question until I read your follow up threads?

Cheers, George

[jerryd]

One last point for McKenzie and how tight the timeframe would have been. Hope not to derail the thread.

Please take a close look at the sketch and photograph below. The first is the murder scene where the "X" is on the door of David King and Sons. Notice up above how the building is slightly higher than the Wash House beside it. The Wash Houses are sandwiched in between the School (far right in that picture) and the murder scene building.



Now, in this photograph is the Three Crowns Pub on the left and where the small pole is on the right is where Badham met PC Andrews at 12:48ish. The brick building at the forefront of this photograph on the right, is the school. Looking down the alley you will see the Wash Houses on the right (lighter colored building with the barrow in front (The next building down would be the murder site. (notice the roof slightly taller than the Wash Houses building). That's how close Andrews and Badham were to the murder site.

[jerryd]

Thanks George.

I had two follow up threads in addition to the one you linked, which may be of interest.

Was Alice McKenzie technically alive? - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century (jtrforums.com)

and

Castle Alley-A new perspective - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century (jtrforums.com)

The Technically Alive thread has the most detail if anyone is interested. It is rather long.

You mentioned the three officers, George. I think it is first important to mention that a couple letters had been received by the police and Albert Bachert prior to the McKenzie murder stating the ripper was about to re-commence operations. Extra men had been brought in and the beats re-arranged to put men in the alley more often. DI Reid stated the alley was hardly left alone for five minutes. Add to that there was a fixed officer just outside the entrance to Castle Alley at Whitechapel Road, That entrance, by the way, was VERY narrow.

It was a very tight timeframe for the murderer.

[GBinOz]

While I'm not convinced McKenzie was a victim of JtR, at times I do wonder. My understanding is that there were people or police very close at hand at the time of the murder though, as in just up the road.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

There were three policemen in the area, Allen, Andrews and Sgt Baugham (Badham), the latter also being involved with the aftermath of the Chapman and MJK murders. Jerry Dunlop has a very interesting and informative thread here:

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-victims/other-possible-victims/alice-mackenzie/23672-something-doesn-t-add-up-alice-mackenzie-the-time-of-death

He examines the confusing and somewhat contradictory evidence given by these three officers. Only 6 pages, so not an onerous read.

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

Agreed Jeff. I’d describe my position as - I’m more inclined to say that she wasn’t a ripper victim but I’m not saying that she couldn’t have been.

I do find the scratches strange though Jeff. Could this have been a sign of hesitation before the main cut? Or could they have been a spur of the moment effort to make the injuries look worse?

Yah, I am of a similar view.

As for the scratches, it is hard to say. If they are fingernail marks, which I think is the general idea, then maybe it reflects a desire to inflict even more personally involved damage? That could be a JtR thing, the desire to get even more physically involved in the damage (which the mutilation and removing of organs and flesh from the bodies does - puts him directly in contact with the destruction - without even a knife between him and his victim). Or maybe it was just something incidental to this specific encounter and not necessarily "by design", which would be something that says nothing in particular about who her killer was.

Either way, it is something that differs from the C5 with regards to her case, but whether that reflect JtR trying new things or if it reflects a different killer, is unclear - at least to me, but a lot is unclear to me, hence my wishy washiness.

- Jeff

[Lewis C]

It looks like Cohen is still stuck in the middle. Somebody please try to move him up.

Hi Scott,

Cohen currently has a zero for police interest despite the fact that he first became a suspect because Martin Fido thought that he was the person most likely to be Anderson's Polish Jew suspect. I consider Cohen to be one of the stronger suspects in part because I think there's a good chance that Fido was right about that. We can't be sure that there was police interest in Cohen, but we also can't be sure there was police interest in Aaron Kosminski - Swanson and MacNaughton said "Kosminski", not "Aaron Kosminski". Kosminski is given a point, so unless "Kosminski" on the list means just that - Swanson's Kosminski, and not necessarily Aaron Kosminski - if Kosminski gets a point for police interest, maybe Cohen should too, or at least half a point.

[Herlock Sholmes]

While I'm not convinced McKenzie was a victim of JtR, at times I do wonder. My understanding is that there were people or police very close at hand at the time of the murder though, as in just up the road. If so, there is a very good possibility that the reduction in the mutilations reflect her killer (whether JtR or not), realizing this only after he started attacking her abdomen - basically it may be another case of interruption. Given all of the JtR murders could involve him almost getting caught (Nichols, as Cross/Lechmere and Paul may have interrupted him; Chapman with Cadosche; Stride with Deimshutz; Eddowes with PC Harvey or Morris), attacking in such risky conditions is not exactly unusual for JtR.

On the other hand, she appears to have been stabbed in the neck (twice though) rather than cut down to the bone. The opinions of both medical and police were divided as to whether or not she was a victim of JtR as well.

However, as I say, I'm not pushing the idea that McKenzie must be a victim of JtR, but also, I'm not sure the reduction in the mutilations necessarily means she isn't. Also, I think the fact that both the police and medical opinion was divided means some thought she was and others did not, so we can't really draw any direction from that other than clearly there were some reasons to consider both possibilities, which probably means we too should keep an open mind as to both possibilities.

- Jeff

Agreed Jeff. I’d describe my position as - I’m more inclined to say that she wasn’t a ripper victim but I’m not saying that she couldn’t have been.

I do find the scratches strange though Jeff. Could this have been a sign of hesitation before the main cut? Or could they have been a spur of the moment effort to make the injuries look worse?