Rating The Suspects.

[The Rookie Detective]

It would be interesting to know why she attacked him?

I am not sure why she attacked him, but I would imagine it may have concerned him having taken away her child without her consent or permission; in the name of Philanthropy of course

Barnardo was in the habit of taking children away from destitution, but then failing to hand them back when the mother inquired about their child.

Barnardo often used the ploy of sending them off to Canada as an excuse, but there is some suggestion that some children went missing entirely.


A form of philanthropic child trafficking so to speak


RD

[The Baron]

Thanks Lewis. For those who adhere to the Swanson Marginalia, Cohen would be the only foreign-born Jew who was insane and went to a workhouse, followed by confinement in Colney Hatch Asylum just after the C-5 murders and dying shortly afterwards. The other stuff, like having a brother, remains unknown in Cohen's case. And Swanson, like Macnaghten, may have been using his European name instead of an 'anglicized' one.

Hi Scott, but we have a Shawl and a mtDNA match!



The Baron

[JeffHamm]

There are definite similarities between the Mackenzie murder and the C5. It seems probable that her killer was the Ripper or a copycat. Points in favor of a copycat are:

* The large timegap after the Kelly murder.
* The far lesser mutilations, without any indication the murderer was interrupted.
* The body was found two feet from a lamp post. The Ripper liked more darkness than that.

Hi Fiver,

While I am not arguing McKenzie is a victim of JtR, just to consider possible lines of thought to the above differences, with regards to the time gap it seems that if she's not, the timegap post Kelly becomes even larger (as in JtR has stopped killing altogether). While that is often used as a pointer to JtR being out of circulation (dead, incarcerated for another crime, left the area, etc), it is only that, a pointer not proof. So if he was none of those things, then perhaps the cessation of the murders until July of the next year was simply because for much of that time it was winter, and the weather, being cold, etc, made his outdoor mode of killing less viable somehow. Either victims harder to find or it was just too unpleasant for him to be outside prowling the streets at night. Basically, something mundane as the season conditions could potentially influence his behaviour in such a way that he's no longer putting in the time looking for victims.

For the second, there was a lot of activity in the area, with police patrolling around Castle Alley very frequently. While nobody was seen leaving the area as if scared off, whoever killed Alice had a pretty small time window of opportunity given the patrols. Interruption need not be someone comes upon him and he flees, of course, it may simply be he hears something that spooks him (such as the footsteps of a patrolling PC echoing nearby), or even the conditions just make him too jittery - somethings not right about the situation.

That last one connects to the lighting. As you say, JtR favoured darker areas, so the lamp itself might have been what spooked him. He starts cutting and just realises he is too visible in this location.

There are some similarities to consider as well.
She had 2 wounds to the left side of her neck (point of difference, these were stabs "carried forward towards the right", and while this severed the left cartoid artery it was not the throat cutting to the point of near decapitations of many of the C5).
She was found on her back.
It appeared her throat was cut while she was on the ground (as per the C5)
Her clothes were lifted up above the body, displaying her, as many of the C5 were displayed.
She had bruising on her shoulders (which I think Stride also showed).
While the cuts to her abdomen were not as extensive or as deep, her abdomen and privates were attacked.
And victim characteristics and location are both similar.

The reduced throat cutting wounds, combined with the less extensive abdominal wounds, could reflect the knife was different and less suitable to his purposes, but that doesn't mean it was necessarily held by a different person.

Dr. Phillips' opinion was the medical evidence did not suggest a common killer with the C5, but he did qualify that by saying that if other evidence were to point to that conclusion he would not, in effect, not object. Dr. Bond thought the medical evidence was consistent with the C5 sufficiently to suggest it was the same person.

If McKenzie is a victim of a copycat, then obviously it just means JtR was for some reason no longer active, and so with regards to JtR, we have to explain why that was the case.

But, if she is a victim of JtR, then why the time gap and why the reduction in the injuries? I've suggested a couple ideas above, but another occurs to me. If JtR was psychotic (rather than psychopathic), and so has bizarre thinking and thoughts, psychotic episodes do wax and wane. The time gap may reflect JtR's psychotic thinking and compulsions reducing over a period of time, and re-emerging in July of 1889. Psychotic individuals can be glib and chatty, and it can take awhile to really notice the bizarreness of their thought processes, so being psychotic is not the presumed problem with respect to interacting with the woman for long enough to convince them he's "safe" - they aren't gibbering lunatics, those with such sever symptoms would be in an asylum at that time after all. However, I think part of me would be more inclined to suggest he's just got a different knife at this time, and he found it wasn't up to the task he had in mind, resulting in less extensive wounds and in him leaving the scene (that becoming the "interruption", it just wasn't working for him).

Anyway, I just want to repeat, I'm not convinced by those arguments either, but they are the sort of things that make me hesitant to dismiss her case entirely.

Hmmmm, we're getting a bit off-topic though.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course, for the sake of balance; Barnardo appeared to have been on the receiving end of violence himself.

Here's a noteworthy incident that occurred in 1878 (but reported on 2nd Jan 1879) when a prostitute named Clara Rivers did this...



Motive anyone?


(now if Clara Rivers ended up dissappearing at some point; how peculiar would that be?)


RD

It would be interesting to know why she attacked him?

[The Rookie Detective]

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.

Of course, for the sake of balance; Barnardo appeared to have been on the receiving end of violence himself.

Here's a noteworthy incident that occurred in 1878 (but reported on 2nd Jan 1879) when a prostitute named Clara Rivers did this...



Motive anyone?


(now if Clara Rivers ended up dissappearing at some point; how peculiar would that be?)


RD

[Scott Nelson]

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.

Thanks Lewis. For those who adhere to the Swanson Marginalia, Cohen would be the only foreign-born Jew who was insane and went to a workhouse, followed by confinement in Colney Hatch Asylum just after the C-5 murders and dying shortly afterwards. The other stuff, like having a brother, remains unknown in Cohen's case. And Swanson, like Macnaghten, may have been using his European name instead of an 'anglicized' one.

[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