Jack the Ripper is an extremely rare serial killer

[John G]

Hi Observer,
I see a killer out of practice since Miller's Court, why is another matter, hesitant and then disturbed.


Steve

But the level of overkill-part of a murderer's signature-was extreme at Miller's Court and therefore on a far greater level than seen in the Mackenzie murder. In fact, the perpetrator must have been in an absolutely frenzy, so in this respect more reminiscent of the Tabram murder. I, therefore, honestly don't think this can simply be dismissed as a killer who is out of practice.

Moreover, unlike the other C5 murders Kelly's perpetrator demonstrated no skill whatsoever. There could be explanations to explain these anomalies but, on the face of it, it's difficult to reconcile Kelly's murder with Mackenzie's.

By the way, do you think the level of abdominal mutilation was any greater in the case of Mackenzie than Ellen Bury?

[John G]

In the same way that Ripper people from all over the UK, and elsewhere, sent letters to the police and press purporting to be from the Ripper. If someone could sent a "Ripper" letter placing the killer in Scotland, then why couldn't someone attempt to frame the Ripper for a murder in Scotland?He was a drunk and abusive towards his wife, so it's quite possible that this was another one of those domestic incidents where things just got out of hand.

Possibly, but I think if he was trying to implicate the Ripper he would have been more likely to have murdered Ellen whilst they were still living in the East End of London.

I don't accept this was a simple domestic incident. As Macpherson points out, the murder appeared to have been planned: Bury forged a contract of employment in order to get Ellen to Dundee (if she'd been murdered in London numerous witnesses could have testified to his previous violence towards the victim); whilst in Dundee he was careful to craft a new image for himself, to the extent that witnesses described them as a happily married couple; he bought the piece of cord from Janet Martin's shop on the same day the murder was committed, without explaining what it was for. (Macpherson, 2005).

[Sam Flynn]

Possibly, but I think if he was trying to implicate the Ripper he would have been more likely to have murdered Ellen whilst they were still living in the East End of London.

I'd suggest that the same would apply if he'd been the real Ripper.

Re the purchase of the rope in Dundee - why didn't he buy a better knife? Or bring his "ripping knife" with him when he upped sticks from the East End, for that matter?

[Sam Flynn]

Moreover, unlike the other C5 murders Kelly's perpetrator demonstrated no skill whatsoever. There could be explanations to explain these anomalies but, on the face of it, it's difficult to reconcile Kelly's murder with Mackenzie's.

I'd question the level of skill, given that Kelly's killer "successfully" excised half a dozen (or more) organs from her body. As to the comparison with McKenzie, I'd only observe that she got off relatively lightly when seen alongside the Chapman, Eddowes and Nichols murders.

[jerryd]

I'd question the level of skill, given that Kelly's killer "successfully" excised half a dozen (or more) organs from her body. As to the comparison with McKenzie, I'd only observe that she got off relatively lightly when seen alongside the Chapman, Eddowes and Nichols murders.

Hi Sam,

I don't think the killer of Alice McKenzie had as much time (not that the killer of the Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes had a lot of time) to accomplish extensive mutilations. He did quite a lot of damage in the time allotted with her though, in my opinion.

In the words of Dr. Phillips:

[Coroner] Did you detect any skill in the injuries? - A knowledge of how effectually to deprive a person of life, and that speedily.

[John G]

I'd question the level of skill, given that Kelly's killer "successfully" excised half a dozen (or more) organs from her body. As to the comparison with McKenzie, I'd only observe that she got off relatively lightly when seen alongside the Chapman, Eddowes and Nichols murders.

But in the case of Kelly the organs were pretty much hacked out, or plucked out. That's materially different from what we see with Chapman and Eddowes, where a significant degree of skill is apparent (Dr Phillips was clearly of this opinion in respect of Chapman and Dr Brown appears to have thought Eddowes' killer could have been a medical student.

"Got off relatively lightly?" You could make the same argument about any possible victim you might care to mention: Wilson, Coles, Mylett, Bury...

[John G]

Hi Sam,

I don't think the killer of Alice McKenzie had as much time (not that the killer of the Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes had a lot of time) to accomplish extensive mutilations. He did quite a lot of damage in the time allotted with her though, in my opinion.

In the words of Dr. Phillips:

[Coroner] Did you detect any skill in the injuries? - A knowledge of how effectually to deprive a person of life, and that speedily.

That's one explanation, but there's no proof of this and it doesn't adequately explain the lack of neck mutilations. In fact, Keppel (2005) rejected Mackenzie as a Ripper victim because of lack of signature characteristics.

The argument is even stronger in respect of Coles, because in that case wel know the perpetrator was disturbed.

[John G]

Hi Observer,
I see a killer out of practice since Miller's Court, why is another matter, hesitant and then disturbed.


Steve

If out of practice, how does that explain Nichols, the first in the series, where the signature characteristic of overkill is present as are the extensive abdominal mutilations?

Where's the evidence the killer was disturbed?

[jerryd]

That's one explanation, but there's no proof of this and it doesn't adequately explain the lack of neck mutilations. In fact, Keppel (2005) rejected Mackenzie as a Ripper victim because of lack of signature characteristics.

The argument is even stronger in respect of Coles, because in that case wel know the perpetrator was disturbed.

Hi John,

I'm not sure I know what you mean about lack of neck mutilations? There were differing opinions on whether or not she was a ripper victim. Dr. Bond and James Monro came to the conclusion she was killed by the same hand as the others whereas Dr. Phillips disagreed.

As far as signature characteristics, she was targeted with a knife in the abdomen and genitals and had her throat cut twice. Just not from ear to ear. Her dress was thrown up to her face as in other cases. She was killed in the same general area as the others. I think she has a lot going for her in similarities. The lack of extensive mutilation is possibly, as I stated earlier, due to time constraint. No, I can't absolutely prove he was disturbed, but I feel from the evidence he very well might have been.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam,

I don't think the killer of Alice McKenzie had as much time (not that the killer of the Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes had a lot of time) to accomplish extensive mutilations. He did quite a lot of damage in the time allotted with her though, in my opinion.
[/I]

Quite so, Jerry. In which case, it's a sobering thought to consider what the real Ripper could have done to Ellen Bury, given the time and privacy he had at his disposal.

[Harry D]

Neither Ellen Bury or Alice McKenzie were "perfect" Ripper-esque murders. Ellen Bury's wound was deeper than McKenzie's. Ellen Bury was strangled, while Alice McKenzie's throat was stabbed. McKenzie was a prostitute killed on the Ripper's turf, but Ellen Bury was killed in closer time proximity to the other Ripper victims. It's a toss-up as to which was a Ripper murder or not, but probability-wise it's difficult to accept both as non-canonicals.

[Sam Flynn]

But in the case of Kelly the organs were pretty much hacked out, or plucked out.

We don't have much in the way of opinion in that regard re Kelly. For all we know, the liver, spleen, kidneys, uterus and bladder could have been neatly removed.

[Elamarna]

But the level of overkill-part of a murderer's signature-was extreme at Miller's Court and therefore on a far greater level than seen in the Mackenzie murder. In fact, the perpetrator must have been in an absolutely frenzy, so in this respect more reminiscent of the Tabram murder. I, therefore, honestly don't think this can simply be dismissed as a killer who is out of practice.

John, I disagree. It's a very long gap since Miller's Court, and he is very probably disturbed

Moreover, unlike the other C5 murders Kelly's perpetrator demonstrated no skill whatsoever. There could be explanations to explain these anomalies but, on the face of it, it's difficult to reconcile Kelly's murder with Mackenzie's.

By the way, do you think the level of abdominal mutilation was any greater in the case of Mackenzie than Ellen Bury?

No similar, but one is in the open, probably disturbed, the othervin his own home. All the time in the world to do what he wants.
If all the other murders had been like Alice, it would I think be a stronger argument.

Steve

[Elamarna]

If out of practice, how does that explain Nichols, the first in the series, where the signature characteristic of overkill is present as are the extensive abdominal mutilations?

Where's the evidence the killer was disturbed?

Because Nichols was not the first attack. If that was Tabram, Millwood or Wilson I have no idea. However I am convinced she was not the first.

Evidence of being disturbed?

The blood was still flowing from the Neck wounds, shades of Bucks Row John.
That suggests no more that the killer had only recently left, very possibly when he heard approaching footsteps.

Steve

[John G]

John, I disagree. It's a very long gap since Miller's Court, and he is very probably disturbed


No similar, but one is in the open, probably disturbed, the othervin his own home. All the time in the world to do what he wants.
If all the other murders had been like Alice, it would I think be a stronger argument.

Steve

Yes, and all the time in the world to demonstrate a high level of skill and yet the opposite happens.