Rating The Suspects.

[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?

[JeffHamm]

Although we can’t be certain whether Mackenzie was a victim or not I think that it has to be said that there appear to be real reasons for doubt. The obvious one is that we see an increase in the level of damage done by the killer from Nichols to Chapman to Eddowes to Kelly and then we get Mackenzie. Why?

Then we get this:

“Neither abdominal cavity opened – or muscular covering divided.”

It difficult to see why someone that had no problem ripping open four previous victims suddenly satisfies himself with this? It surely can’t be blamed on time because we would have to ask why the time wasted on making the scratches? So to me it smacks of someone that didn’t actually want to open up the abdomen which I can’t equate with the ripper.

I’m no medical man but this appears to me to be someone perhaps trying to make this look like a ripper murder. I’ve often wondered if the killer was someone that she knew? Someone who thought that if he made it appear to have been a ripper murder he would be out of the police spotlight if he had alibis for the other murders? Or maybe it was just a disturbed/drunken killer who was simply trying to copy the ripper?

Opinions will continue to differ on this. I’d be more inclined to view this more positively if it had occurred between Tabram and Nichols.

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

[Scott Nelson]

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Amendment 9


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

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

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

Barnado > 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 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 Grainger for medical knowledge as suggested by Jerry Dunlop.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I tend to agree that I should leave it to the c5. It’s impossible to cover every angle. I’m still open for suggested additional criteria though.

[Lewis C]

Since we don't know whether Mackenzie was a Ripper murder or not, and both sides have reasonable arguments for their positions, I think that the best thing to do is for the scoring system to take a neutral position on the question. If Mackenzie was a Ripper murder, then Bury, Druitt, Cohen, Tumblety, and Hyams cannot have been the Ripper, but if MJK was the last Ripper murder, then for those suspects, we have an explanation for why the murders stopped. For most other suspects, it's the other way around: if she was a Ripper murder, they were available to kill her, but if MJK was the last Ripper murder, these other suspects don't give us an explanation for why the murders stopped. So if points are given either for being available for the Mackenzie murder or for giving us an explanation for why the murders stopped, it will favor one or the other view for whether Mackenzie was a Ripper victim. If points are given for both, it will mostly mean every suspect gets a point for one or the other, which wouldn't affect the overall outcome of the rating.

[JeffHamm]

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

Fair enough. It could widen to the point of being meaningless, so perhaps not as useful a bit for a coding scheme as it first appeared.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks Herlock.

The attack happened the early morning hours of February 10th and Grainger appeared at Worship Street on Monday the 11th. It sounds like an error in reporting the correct date of the arrest?

Yes, Alice Graham testified that she’d seen Grainger earlier in the evening of the 9th before seeing him again at 10.00 and making the fateful decision to go drinking with him. I can see where I went wrong….i just skimmed through her testimony instead of reading it properly and saw that she’d seen him for a second time (so I assumed that the second time was another day (the 16th) instead of it being later the same evening) Careless on my part.

I don’t know if Morley got the 16th as the arrest date from source that had the wrong date or whether the 16th was just a typo on his part? He certainly got it wrong though.

[jerryd]

Hello Jerry,

Thanks for the generous comments. It’s always good to get your input on any topic.

I’ve just checked Morley’s suspect book and he says that Forbes-Winslow agreed with Kebbell that Grainger had been a medical student. I don’t know how I missed this when compiling my list. Give me a day or so and I’ll come up with an excuse. I’ll certainly add the point on my next amendment.

Your point about the ID is an interesting one which I considered when checking on Grainger. Morley mentions the article in the Pall Mall Gazette of May 7th 1895 but it’s a pity that there’s no detail as to who the witness was because, as you said, this kind of ID should result in an extra point at least. Because of the lack of detail (and the time gap that you mentioned) I decided against adding a point in some way but I’d be happy to hear thoughts on this.

…

One thing that I did notice in Morley’s book that has had me scratching my head Jerry/anyone. If Grainger was arrested by PC Frazer 352H on the 16th February 1895 how could the story of the arrest have appeared in the Australian newspaper the Port Phillip Herald on the 12th February 1895. Am I missing something? I must be.

Thanks Herlock.

The attack happened the early morning hours of February 10th and Grainger appeared at Worship Street on Monday the 11th. It sounds like an error in reporting the correct date of the arrest?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock,

I wanted to commend you for a fine job conducting this thread. I, personally, think you have been very fair in all decisions to add, delete, amend etc. all the criteria. Thank you for your efforts!

Regarding one of the suspects, William Grant Grainger. I wanted to point out two criteria that will be accepted by some and rejected by others but may be worth some debate in whether to add these two things to the mix. And to preface this I will say, a lot of what we know about Grainger comes from the mouth of his solicitor, but from what I understand his solicitor, George Kebbell, was a very credible man.

1) George Kebbell stated that his client, William Grainger, was trained as a medical man. (Currently we have Grainger as a zero in that category.)
2) Grainger was identified by a witness to be the man seen with a Ripper victim shortly before she was murdered. (I think this should hold a lot of weight, however, there was time between the ID and the murder which takes away some weight also. Misidentification after a period of time for example) Do we add IDed as the perpetrator as a category?

jerryd

Hello Jerry,

Thanks for the generous comments. It’s always good to get your input on any topic.

I’ve just checked Morley’s suspect book and he says that Forbes-Winslow agreed with Kebbell that Grainger had been a medical student. I don’t know how I missed this when compiling my list. Give me a day or so and I’ll come up with an excuse. I’ll certainly add the point on my next amendment.

Your point about the ID is an interesting one which I considered when checking on Grainger. Morley mentions the article in the Pall Mall Gazette of May 7th 1895 but it’s a pity that there’s no detail as to who the witness was because, as you said, this kind of ID should result in an extra point at least. Because of the lack of detail (and the time gap that you mentioned) I decided against adding a point in some way but I’d be happy to hear thoughts on this.

…

One thing that I did notice in Morley’s book that has had me scratching my head Jerry/anyone. If Grainger was arrested by PC Frazer 352H on the 16th February 1895 how could the story of the arrest have appeared in the Australian newspaper the Port Phillip Herald on the 12th February 1895. Am I missing something? I must be.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks for the credit, Herlock. I do want to repeat that I wasn't advocating any of the listed suspects, but only intended to plug UNLIKELY suspects into your rating system for comparison purposes. I chose the particular ones mainly based on availability of information either at the Casebook or Wikipedia and even with that, I was left with several blanks that prevent any real conclusions.

Not surprisingly, Kidney rates high, but only he can only by connected with the Stride Murder. But that's the problem with virtually ALL of the Suspects, isn't it? Even if a suspect can be connected to one murder (or victim in general), no other connection can be found (other than probably being in the West End during the period). I wouldn't be surprised if Jack came into the Police Radar at some point, but probably late in the search, when the concept of JTR was established and he couldn't be connected with more than the murder that they caught him in the area of. (And of course, that doesn't mean that the record would have survived for us to peruse.)

The only one that I would argue to be added to your listing is Ostrog, since he was apparently suspected at some point and should be included just to be eliminated.

Cheers CF. I’ll add Ostrog with the next amendment.

[jerryd]

Herlock,

I wanted to commend you for a fine job conducting this thread. I, personally, think you have been very fair in all decisions to add, delete, amend etc. all the criteria. Thank you for your efforts!

Regarding one of the suspects, William Grant Grainger. I wanted to point out two criteria that will be accepted by some and rejected by others but may be worth some debate in whether to add these two things to the mix. And to preface this I will say, a lot of what we know about Grainger comes from the mouth of his solicitor, but from what I understand his solicitor, George Kebbell, was a very credible man.

1) George Kebbell stated that his client, William Grainger, was trained as a medical man. (Currently we have Grainger as a zero in that category.)
2) Grainger was identified by a witness to be the man seen with a Ripper victim shortly before she was murdered. (I think this should hold a lot of weight, however, there was time between the ID and the murder which takes away some weight also. Misidentification after a period of time for example) Do we add IDed as the perpetrator as a category?

jerryd