Rating The Suspects.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi John,

so you think Mckenzie's murder with..

same victimology, same location, same time frame-night, unsolved, killed with a knife, throat cut, left carteroid artery severed, two cuts to the neck, neck cut while lying on the ground, abdomen, pelvic and privates cut(ripped), High level police officer James Monro who arrived at the scene of the murder at the time believed she was a ripper victim, Dr. Bond believed she was a ripper victim,, found lying on the back, with skirt pushed up-like the other victims including Tabram, the cuts on her abdomen compared to Polly Nichols almost identical, same two directions horizontal and vertical, seven inches below right nipple commenced a wound seven inches long, in a downwards direction inclining first inwards then outwards. Deepest at upper part. Wound in abdomen but abdominal cavity not opened. Scoring the right side of abdomen are seven dermal marks tailing inwards to the major wound, and seven similar scorings between this wound and the pubis, one distinctly becoming deeper over the pubis with a cut over the mons veneris


... is in all likelihood was not a ripper victim ???



The Baron

Spot on Baron, well said!


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Jeff

I see what your saying but we shouldn't in my opinion exclude suspects who were dead when Mckenzie was killed or give suspects extra points as they were alive when Mckenzie was murdered. I still think its best to stick with the C5. Otherwise why not include The Torso Murders and why not Carrie Brown?

Cheers John

I see your point and I feel your fear, but its okay to question the credibility of the generic "C5"

The "C5" has IMO been arguably the greatest restrictive hindrance to the Ripper case as a whole.

It takes a lot to move the goalposts and I respect that many many Ripperologists make the choice to not allow themselves to look outside the C5 window and see what else is out there.


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi all

Frankly I think this is a bit silly. In all likelihood Mackenzie and Coles were not Ripper victims. I think we should just stick to the C5. Maybe minus Stride though.

Cheers John

Mckenzie is closer to be a Ripper victim than Stride, but the only reason Mckenzie is excluded is because it doesn't fit into the chronology of the bias MJK narrative of her having been the last Ripper victim.



RD

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Jeff,

But how is it to be established when the murders ceased? If we look at the victims where the was a suspected interruption, Nichols, Stride, McKenzie and Coles, then Stride is the odd woman out. The others were killed in lonely places, but Stride was murdered next to a Club with a function in full progress. I've always thought that if Coles, and McKenzie, are to be excluded, logically Stride has to also be excluded as a JtR victim. YMMV.

Best regards, George

Completely concur with this post, absolutely excellent!


Coles generally always gets the brush off because of the timing.

But... IF she was a Ripper victim, then the implications are considerable because it immediately eradicates several key suspects in one go.


The excuse that her killer must have been a 'copy cat' also serves to explain away the timing issue.

There is no evidence to suggest that there was ever a Ripper copy cat killer operating in the same area.

But for the sake of balance...
The biggest clue to suggest that Coles was perhaps not a Ripper victim; is supported by the fact that the woman who accompanied Coles shortly before her murder was punched full on in the face by the man who Coles then walked off with.
It is almost certain that THIS man was Coles killer; but IF so then why would the Ripper take the risk of knowing he could be identified by the woman who he had just punched in the face?
This goes against the idea of the Ripper being a man who operated in silence, in the shadows and with discretion.

On that basis it reduces the likelihood that Coles was a Ripper victim, although the assault on Coles female acquaintance is reminiscent of the actions taken by the man who was alleged to have assaulted Stride.

Therefore, Coles and Stride are closer together than we realise and so IF Stride is to be considered, then Coles should also be included too.
Or we negate Coles and dismiss Stride also.

IMO these murders are coupled...

Nichols and McKenzie
Stride and Coles
Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly

Tabram is questionable



RD

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Yah, that is tricky. I was thinking for say Druitt, one could award 1 point as his suicide is after the C5, but before the later possible victims. Someone who becomes "out of circulation" after the later possibilities might be given 1.5 or 2 (depending upon the weight one puts on those cases), while someone who is around and free for decades gets 0. Something like that maybe, to take in to account the range of opinions?

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

The C5 is somewhat restricting considering that it was essentially a figment of MacNaghten's imagination introduced to preserve the viability of his favoured suspect. There were 11 Whitechapel murders. Were there two Jacks? Jack the Greater with 6 kills and Jack the lesser with only the C5? Or were serial killers colliding with each other in the streets?

According to some we could add Ellen Bury to the list of Ripper victims, and then there's Sarah Brown, murdered on the same night as the double event by her husband, John Brown, who "walked directly to the Rochester-row Police-station where he told Inspector Fairey that he had murdered his wife by cutting her throat. He handed the inspector a large Spring-backed clasp knife, which had marks of blood upon it and described how he had twice stabbed the woman in the neck.

Detective-sergeant Waldock, of the Criminal Investigation Department, was at once despatched to investigate the matter, and found the deceased, with her head nearly cut from her body, in a pool of blood near the fireplace.

Dr. Archer, who examined the body, expressed the opinion that great force must have been employed to have cut the woman’s throat in such a shocking way, for there were two distinct gashes.".

Sounds very much like the aftermath of Ellen Bury's murder except Sarah had the trade mark double throat cut, where as Ellen's throat was not cut.

I rather thought that your earlier proposal for negative points was a good idea, but still the big problem is determining the cut off for the conclusion of the JtR murders, and the distribution of victims amongst potential suspects.

Cheers, George

[John Wheat]

Without Ellen Bury's murder, who is not one of the C5, would you be now believing that Bury is the most likely suspect?



The Baron

No but as I said it's best to stick with the C5.

[John Wheat]

Hi John,

so you think Mckenzie's murder with..

same victimology, same location, same time frame-night, unsolved, killed with a knife, throat cut, left carteroid artery severed, two cuts to the neck, neck cut while lying on the ground, abdomen, pelvic and privates cut(ripped), High level police officer James Monro who arrived at the scene of the murder at the time believed she was a ripper victim, Dr. Bond believed she was a ripper victim,, found lying on the back, with skirt pushed up-like the other victims including Tabram, the cuts on her abdomen compared to Polly Nichols almost identical, same two directions horizontal and vertical, seven inches below right nipple commenced a wound seven inches long, in a downwards direction inclining first inwards then outwards. Deepest at upper part. Wound in abdomen but abdominal cavity not opened. Scoring the right side of abdomen are seven dermal marks tailing inwards to the major wound, and seven similar scorings between this wound and the pubis, one distinctly becoming deeper over the pubis with a cut over the mons veneris


... is in all likelihood was not a ripper victim ???



The Baron

I think Mckenzie is not a Ripper victim. Why the time gap?

[GBinOz]

This poll on JtRForums asks who was the most likely non-canonical victim - Tabram scored 78% while Mackenzie scored just 6%.

Same topic as above posted on here - Tabram 73%, Mackenzie 14%.

Hi Herlock,

What was the vote for Ellen Bury?

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Doubting or being undecided on Mackenzie isn’t an unusual position.

This one is from 2010 and scores - 42% yes, 31% no, 27% undecided.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/victims/non-canonical-victims/alice-mackenzie/4082-mckenzie-ripper-or-not#post4082

This more recent one is from 2016 and scores - 29% yes, 36% no, 36% undecided.

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-victims/other-possible-victims/alice-mackenzie/26419-poll-alice-mackenzie-ripper-victim-or-not#post26419

This poll on JtRForums asks who was the most likely non-canonical victim - Tabram scored 78% while Mackenzie scored just 6%.

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/jack-the-ripper/polls/1033-who-is-the-most-likely-other-ripper-victim#post1033

Same topic as above posted on here - Tabram 73%, Mackenzie 14%.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/victims/general-victim-discussion/5545-poll-whoch-non-canon-did-jack-kill#post5545

Polls aren’t proof of anything of course but they do show that more people say no and not sure than say yes. Whether Mackenzie was a victim or not is an unknown.

Bond did think that she was a victim but Phillips didn’t. Munro did but Anderson didn’t. Unknown.

[The Baron]

I still think its best to stick with the C5

Without Ellen Bury's murder, who is not one of the C5, would you be now believing that Bury is the most likely suspect?



The Baron

[The Baron]

Hi all

Frankly I think this is a bit silly. In all likelihood Mackenzie and Coles were not Ripper victims. I think we should just stick to the C5. Maybe minus Stride though.

Cheers John

Hi John,

so you think Mckenzie's murder with..

same victimology, same location, same time frame-night, unsolved, killed with a knife, throat cut, left carteroid artery severed, two cuts to the neck, neck cut while lying on the ground, abdomen, pelvic and privates cut(ripped), High level police officer James Monro who arrived at the scene of the murder at the time believed she was a ripper victim, Dr. Bond believed she was a ripper victim,, found lying on the back, with skirt pushed up-like the other victims including Tabram, the cuts on her abdomen compared to Polly Nichols almost identical, same two directions horizontal and vertical, seven inches below right nipple commenced a wound seven inches long, in a downwards direction inclining first inwards then outwards. Deepest at upper part. Wound in abdomen but abdominal cavity not opened. Scoring the right side of abdomen are seven dermal marks tailing inwards to the major wound, and seven similar scorings between this wound and the pubis, one distinctly becoming deeper over the pubis with a cut over the mons veneris


... is in all likelihood was not a ripper victim ???



The Baron

[John Wheat]

Hi John,

I tend to agree, but the idea of a coding scheme like this isn't to code who fits my beliefs best, but who matches JtR while allowing for some range in error as to when the series ended. Suspects who we could explain why the killings stopped after McKenzie, for example, would still have an explanation whether we are right or wrong to exclude her, while suspects like Druitt, who we can explain an end after the C5 requires McKenzie not be part of the series. So one could say the former is "safer" because we can explain the end of the series regardless of our belief about McKenzie being right or wrong while the latter depends on us making the right call.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff

I see what your saying but we shouldn't in my opinion exclude suspects who were dead when Mckenzie was killed or give suspects extra points as they were alive when Mckenzie was murdered. I still think its best to stick with the C5. Otherwise why not include The Torso Murders and why not Carrie Brown?

Cheers John

[JeffHamm]

Hi all

Frankly I think this is a bit silly. In all likelihood Mackenzie and Coles were not Ripper victims. I think we should just stick to the C5. Maybe minus Stride though.

Cheers John

Hi John,

I tend to agree, but the idea of a coding scheme like this isn't to code who fits my beliefs best, but who matches JtR while allowing for some range in error as to when the series ended. Suspects who we could explain why the killings stopped after McKenzie, for example, would still have an explanation whether we are right or wrong to exclude her, while suspects like Druitt, who we can explain an end after the C5 requires McKenzie not be part of the series. So one could say the former is "safer" because we can explain the end of the series regardless of our belief about McKenzie being right or wrong while the latter depends on us making the right call.

- Jeff

[John Wheat]

Hi George,

Yah, that is tricky. I was thinking for say Druitt, one could award 1 point as his suicide is after the C5, but before the later possible victims. Someone who becomes "out of circulation" after the later possibilities might be given 1.5 or 2 (depending upon the weight one puts on those cases), while someone who is around and free for decades gets 0. Something like that maybe, to take in to account the range of opinions?

- Jeff

Hi all

Frankly I think this is a bit silly. In all likelihood Mackenzie and Coles were not Ripper victims. I think we should just stick to the C5. Maybe minus Stride though.

Cheers John

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

But how is it to be established when the murders ceased? If we look at the victims where the was a suspected interruption, Nichols, Stride, McKenzie and Coles, then Stride is the odd woman out. The others were killed in lonely places, but Stride was murdered next to a Club with a function in full progress. I've always thought that if Coles, and McKenzie, are to be excluded, logically Stride has to also be excluded as a JtR victim. YMMV.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Yah, that is tricky. I was thinking for say Druitt, one could award 1 point as his suicide is after the C5, but before the later possible victims. Someone who becomes "out of circulation" after the later possibilities might be given 1.5 or 2 (depending upon the weight one puts on those cases), while someone who is around and free for decades gets 0. Something like that maybe, to take in to account the range of opinions?

- Jeff