Can we definitively conclude that Alice McKenzie was not killed by the Ripper?

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

Good, we agree.



Except this is a thread about McKenzie, and turning it into a full blown repeating of the discussions already held in threads about Chapman's case specifically is going off topic. I used a number of the C5 cases to outline an example of how one can view the same evidence as support for two contrasting assumptions about JtR as that was related to the topic of this thread since we were considering McKenzie as a possible JtR victim, and discussing whether JtR may or may not have had some degree of psychosis. The Chapman bits are presented only as an illustration of that point. If you wish to explore specific aspects of that illustration again, then it would be best to do so in the appropriate thread. But it's been covered pretty well there already.

- Jeff

Only, I am NOT "turning it into a full blown repetition" of previous discussions. I do not WANT any repetition, I am only pointing out that your presentation of the Chapman case was lacking rather sorely informationwise, and that you would not have any point at all if the part you left out is the true representation of the case.

Itīs quite simple, therefore, and we need not make any claims about me doing anything else but adjusting the picture to become a full one.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Abby,

Oh, and of course Ed Kemper was diagnosed with schizophrenia when he was younger. Yet he hung out around with the police, and they quite liked him. He's also known to be very intelligent and sociable. Of course, that original diagnosis was later rejected as Kemper doesn't have a lot of the characteristics of a full blown paranoid schizophrenic, but it hints at some underlying psychosis (or simply a mis-diagnosis, given it was applied when he killed his grandparents at 17).

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

... That is true. If the killer was in the back yard when Cadosch yo-yoed back and forth to his loo, then he was acting decidedly odd. ...

Hi Fisherman,

Good, we agree.

I hope I have managed to explain to you by now why I reacted to your post. Basically, it is about supplying the full picture. You failed to do so. And to me, that is what the boards are for: getting it right, not necessarily when it comes to what actually happened in 1888, but at least in terms of presenting the case as best as we possibly can. We do that better together than on our own, I find, and I am certain that if I had made some sort of decisive point about the character of the killer, basing it on how we "know" that he was not in the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street as day broke, I would have been met by sharp protests. By you, perhaps.

Except this is a thread about McKenzie, and turning it into a full blown repeating of the discussions already held in threads about Chapman's case specifically is going off topic. I used a number of the C5 cases to outline an example of how one can view the same evidence as support for two contrasting assumptions about JtR as that was related to the topic of this thread since we were considering McKenzie as a possible JtR victim, and discussing whether JtR may or may not have had some degree of psychosis. The Chapman bits are presented only as an illustration of that point. If you wish to explore specific aspects of that illustration again, then it would be best to do so in the appropriate thread. But it's been covered pretty well there already.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

it be interesting to know how many other serial killers in history were "highly functioning individuals with psychosis". and ones whos murders coincided with psychotic episodes.

your last paragragh is overly wordy and unneccessarily redundant. just say you can be either right or wrong. lol

Only the last? I tend to be a bit verbose most of the time I thought!


I agree with your first part too. Yes, that would be an interesting bit of research. It's tricky, of course, as one can only study the one's who get caught, and often psychosis, left untreated, will get worse over time (though it will still wax and wane). So the ones we can evaluated will tend to be the more psychotic ones as they are just loopy, and stand out. I don't think JtR was completely in a full blown psychotic break, which you appear to agree with as well. But, for example, Jeffrey Dahmer was diagnosed with (amongst other issues) borderline personality disorder and schizotypal personality disorder. The latter is not schizophrenia, but is characterised by transient periods of psychosis (amongst other things). In other words, we probably are agreeing here, as you've listed Dahmer as an example of what you're thinking of, and Dahmer was diagnosed with what I'm talking about (milder forms of psychosis that come and go - i.e. schizotypic personality disorder type diagnosis; note, not schizoid personality disorder, which is different again).


- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

I can see JtR as a planner, etc as well. What I'm trying to argue is that the evidence doesn't really negate either possibility. The tricky part is that once one views the evidence and considers it from one point of view (i.e. views and interprets the evidence based upon JtR being an "aware planner", let's say), then it can be really hard to drop all those ideas and re-interpret them in the opposite way (i.e. JtR as suffering from psychosis of some sort). However, that's just part of human nature, once we have an explanation that "works" we tend to stop considering alternatives and stick with what we "know". So yes, one could argue that someone who was very aware and planned could very well have produced the evidence we have. The problem is, that the evidence could also arise from someone who is delusional in some ways. I'll make something up here just to illustrate, not to suggest JtR was thinking this per se, he is on a mission to destroy deamons that masquerade as people - and the voices tell him who those people are. Those kind of thoughts do not preclude him from being aware of his surroundings entirely, he might even plan things. But, due to the delusional thoughts, his plans are not really good ones, he miscalculates the level of risk, can become overly focused when he's destroying, or looking for, the deamons and so at his most vulnerable he's less aware of his surroundings. He can still talk coherently to people, he can be charming, etc, but he's got disturbed ideas and makes irrational decisions at times because of them. Eventually, it would be likely that such thinking would indeed result in him becoming obviously mentally unwell, but until then, JtR could be a very "high functioning individual with psychosis".

I don't know, obviously, which of those, if either, is the case. And while I accept you believe one, I would suggest reconsidering the strength of that belief. I don't think your belief is necessarily wrong, but at the same time, I don't think it's necessarily correct either. Same with the psychosis idea, I don't think it's necessarily wrong, but nor is it necessarily correct.

I do think, however, that one can explore ideas based upon either as a starting point since I think both are potentially valid. I just recommend that one keep in mind that the ideas being explored are all built upon having to make a choice, and if that choice is incorrect, the theory that develops from it, no matter how satisfying it may be, comes crumbling down.

- Jeff

it be interesting to know how many other serial killers in history were "highly functioning individuals with psychosis". and ones whos murders coincided with psychotic episodes.

your last paragragh is overly wordy and unneccessarily redundant. just say you can be either right or wrong. lol

[Fisherman]

If you go back and read my post, you'll see that I did not emphasize Chapman as I had just included her murder along with examples from Nichols, Stride, and Eddowes of potential cases where interruption has been suggested. In the case of Chapman that interruption event, Cadoche's visit to the privy, does not seem to have resulted in JtR fleeing, so there was a bit more to explore due to the nature of the example I was using to make a point.

And that is the exact thing I was reacting to: you treated the Chapman case as if it was established that she died at the time when Cadosch made his observations, and you used it to exemplify why you think the killer may need to be looked upon as a delusional thinker.
To me, that means that you "forgot" to point out that we do not even know that the killer was anywhere near Hanbury Street at that time in the morning, for the simple reason that the examining medico categorically rules it out. I want that point to be made too, you see, least we want to have the issue decided on a preconceived notion instead of on the complete evidence.

The point, mentioned earlier in the same post, was whether JtR got away because he was "clever and planning and situationally aware", meaning he detected the person approaching with sufficient time to ensure a safe escape, or was he the opposite type of person, with poor situation awareness, poor decision making due to underestimating risk and he's almost caught a few times because of this. Note, I'm not arguing he had to be psychotic, only exploring the possibility to see if it could work. Cadosche's visit at a time when the murder may very well have been happening needs to be considered a bit more than the other cases because in the other cases mentioned JtR's action was to flee. In this case he doesn't seem to do that.

That is true. If the killer was in the back yard when Cadosch yo-yoed back and forth to his loo, then he was acting decidedly odd. Then again - and that is the whole issue I have - he may NOT have been there (and in my world, it is more or less a given that he was not), and so the grounds on which the construction of a strangely acting killer rest crumble and fall when we look at the whole picture. In fact, I ask myself why you do not reason that the killer was probably NOT there at the time Cadosch was, because it seems his normal response to having other people arrive at the stage was otherwise to flee, with the possible exception of the Nichols case. In that case, there is the possibility that she may have been killed by Lechmere who chose NOT to flee. It must be added, though, that if this was so, then there would have been no subsequent possibilities not to flee - it would look odd if he "found" ALL the bodies.

There's lots of possible reasons, the difference in locations would make it more difficult (the others are out in the open streets, with Chapman he's trapped in a back yard) would be one

Not really, no. Cadosch was not in the same back yard, and so he could not prevent a flight through the back yard door of number 29, would he? Basically, it would offer the killer a BETTER option than the open streets, where any oncomer could see him and follow hos every move, and perhaps even grab him. Cadosch could not do any of that.

- another would be JtR was not situationally aware and didn't notice Cadosche on the other side of the fence (which, of course, reflects the fact I'm exploring things from the starting point of "what if JtR suffered from psychosis"? I'm not saying "he did suffer from psychosis", rather I'm seeing if the events that unfolded preclude him suffering from psychosis, and they do not.

It cannot be ruled out that the killer may have missed out on Cadosch - but it is not very likely. Somebody opening and shutting a door and walking out into the backyard not once but twice when you are a few yards away is very unlikely to go unnoticed on a quiet morning. It is more of a theoretical possibility than a practical one in my world.

So I agree, if we could stick with what is said instead of drawing hasty and misguided conclusions it could prevent some little mud wrestling.

- Jeff

I hope I have managed to explain to you by now why I reacted to your post. Basically, it is about supplying the full picture. You failed to do so. And to me, that is what the boards are for: getting it right, not necessarily when it comes to what actually happened in 1888, but at least in terms of presenting the case as best as we possibly can. We do that better together than on our own, I find, and I am certain that if I had made some sort of decisive point about the character of the killer, basing it on how we "know" that he was not in the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street as day broke, I would have been met by sharp protests. By you, perhaps.

[JeffHamm]

Err - no. I am saying that I myself am convinced that Phillips could never have been as wrong as to allow for Cadosch having overheard the Chapman murder (or part of it), not that it is gospel. I could add that the contemporary police and medical world seemingly shared my view. And I am saying that since you so very clearly emphasized the Chapman murder in your effort to point out that the killer - in your world - seems to have been a delusional thinker, you find yourself on very precarious ground.

I do not think and am not saying that the Chapman case is the only case where it can be reasoned that the killer was nuts, one way or another, by the way: I am saying that the circumstances makes that particular case a poor choice in trying to prove those nuts.

It would be nice if we could stick with what is said instead of drawing hasty and misguided conclusions. If nothing else, it could prevent some little mud wrestling.

If you go back and read my post, you'll see that I did not emphasize Chapman as I had just included her murder along with examples from Nichols, Stride, and Eddowes of potential cases where interruption has been suggested. In the case of Chapman that interruption event, Cadoche's visit to the privy, does not seem to have resulted in JtR fleeing, so there was a bit more to explore due to the nature of the example I was using to make a point. The point, mentioned earlier in the same post, was whether JtR got away because he was "clever and planning and situationally aware", meaning he detected the person approaching with sufficient time to ensure a safe escape, or was he the opposite type of person, with poor situation awareness, poor decision making due to underestimating risk and he's almost caught a few times because of this. Note, I'm not arguing he had to be psychotic, only exploring the possibility to see if it could work. Cadosche's visit at a time when the murder may very well have been happening needs to be considered a bit more than the other cases because in the other cases mentioned JtR's action was to flee. In this case he doesn't seem to do that. There's lots of possible reasons, the difference in locations would make it more difficult (the others are out in the open streets, with Chapman he's trapped in a back yard) would be one - another would be JtR was not situationally aware and didn't notice Cadosche on the other side of the fence (which, of course, reflects the fact I'm exploring things from the starting point of "what if JtR suffered from psychosis"? I'm not saying "he did suffer from psychosis", rather I'm seeing if the events that unfolded preclude him suffering from psychosis, and they do not.

So I agree, if we could stick with what is said instead of drawing hasty and misguided conclusions it could prevent some little mud wrestling.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

hi jeff



not to me. I see it the exact opposite. I see someone who can balance risk incredibly well and is perceptive enough to get what he wants, or as much as he possibly can before having to split. look at stride and Nichols-seems like he bolts (and perhaps before even completing what he really wants to do) because it gets too hot. and pulling this stuff off right under peoples noses and in between police beats-like in mitre square and especially hanbury back yard with chapman. the proof is in the pudding Jeff-the ripper always was perceptive enough to get away in the nick of time.



I can assure you good sir, that I approach the case with no preconceived notions (or suspects for that matter), and taking all the evidence into account and also keep an open mind. As a matter of fact when I first heard of the ripper and started to get into-I did think initially that he was probably more like a raving lunatic type-especially when I first saw how much damage he did to his victims. But as I learned more about the case (and also other serial killer cases in history) it seems to me he is more of a calculating type. A planner, ruser very perceptive and intelligent/street smart. very sane-as much as a serial killer could be considered sane.

and BTW-our discussions on the geo profiling stuff a while back seemed to point to movements before and after kills that took planning and precaution. If were now talking about a killer in the throes of a psychotic break, dosnt all that stuff we talked about go out the window?

Hi Abby,

I can see JtR as a planner, etc as well. What I'm trying to argue is that the evidence doesn't really negate either possibility. The tricky part is that once one views the evidence and considers it from one point of view (i.e. views and interprets the evidence based upon JtR being an "aware planner", let's say), then it can be really hard to drop all those ideas and re-interpret them in the opposite way (i.e. JtR as suffering from psychosis of some sort). However, that's just part of human nature, once we have an explanation that "works" we tend to stop considering alternatives and stick with what we "know". So yes, one could argue that someone who was very aware and planned could very well have produced the evidence we have. The problem is, that the evidence could also arise from someone who is delusional in some ways. I'll make something up here just to illustrate, not to suggest JtR was thinking this per se, he is on a mission to destroy deamons that masquerade as people - and the voices tell him who those people are. Those kind of thoughts do not preclude him from being aware of his surroundings entirely, he might even plan things. But, due to the delusional thoughts, his plans are not really good ones, he miscalculates the level of risk, can become overly focused when he's destroying, or looking for, the deamons and so at his most vulnerable he's less aware of his surroundings. He can still talk coherently to people, he can be charming, etc, but he's got disturbed ideas and makes irrational decisions at times because of them. Eventually, it would be likely that such thinking would indeed result in him becoming obviously mentally unwell, but until then, JtR could be a very "high functioning individual with psychosis".

I don't know, obviously, which of those, if either, is the case. And while I accept you believe one, I would suggest reconsidering the strength of that belief. I don't think your belief is necessarily wrong, but at the same time, I don't think it's necessarily correct either. Same with the psychosis idea, I don't think it's necessarily wrong, but nor is it necessarily correct.

I do think, however, that one can explore ideas based upon either as a starting point since I think both are potentially valid. I just recommend that one keep in mind that the ideas being explored are all built upon having to make a choice, and if that choice is incorrect, the theory that develops from it, no matter how satisfying it may be, comes crumbling down.

- Jeff

[Dr. John Watson]

There are very few things about the Ripper case we can "definitely conclude." This is not one of them.

Dr. John

[Abby Normal]

Same here. For years I dismissed anyone outside the C5 as being a victim. Know I am becoming more and more convinced that both Martha Tabram and Alice McKenzie were in fact victims of the same perpetrator. Its been a difficult assumption to break with.

Tristan

hi los
agree-I have a C7 as far as im concerned including tabram and McKenzie (ididnt as much before). the evidence and similarities, and what we now know about escalation in serial killers leads me to include them. and of course, both were found with there skirts hiked up, like most of the others-showing the rippers main fascination with that anatomy (private parts/midsection).

[Abby Normal]

Yah, I get that. Some of it can depend upon how one interprets JtR's escapes. Did he get away because he was lucid and clever, always alert of his surroundings, etc. Or, did he almost get caught for the opposite reason? There's a good chance that he was interrupted, meaning fled as someone approached, in the case of Polly (we have Lechmere coming down the street at a time JtR may have been at the body), Stride (if you include her, of course; lot's of debate on the notion of interruption there), and Eddowes (PC Harvey being the most likely "interruptor"). Chapman, being in a back yard, by all accounts he may have been mid-murder when Cadosche returned from his second visit to the privy. One would normally think of that as an "interruption", but there's nothing to suggest JtR fled at that moment, raising the question of how aware of his surroundings was he, really? Moreover, since Cadosche had a previous visit to the backyard just a few minutes earlier, at a time when it appears Annie and JtR were talking. Cadosche reports over hearing the word No, but there's no indication this was said with any kind of distress, so probably just part of a conversation of some sort, possibly negotiations but it could be anything. JtR's awareness seems poor, either he missed Cadoche again at that time (calling into question just how aware of his surroundings JtR was) or he did not conclude the "time and place" were dangerous (which is hardly rational). In either case, a delusional thinker makes those actions easier to understand.

Again, I'm just putting out there why I think we cannot rule out JtR as suffering from some psychosis, with delusional thinking. The evidence gets coloured by how we view it, and if we presume a Ted Bundy type, we can see it that way (so maybe he was), but if we consider a psychotic JtR, the evidence is also easily seen in that light. To me, that tells me, the evidence is insufficient to draw a conclusion, as it all looks good pending upon which glasses you put on. Sometimes, when you start from the wrong starting point, the evidence just gets blurry and hard to see, that's when you can start setting that idea aside. As to JtR's mental state, therefore, I think it's important to consider a wide range of possibilities, ranging from some degree of psychosis through to the fully lucid.

- Jeff

hi jeff

Yah, I get that. Some of it can depend upon how one interprets JtR's escapes. Did he get away because he was lucid and clever, always alert of his surroundings, etc. Or, did he almost get caught for the opposite reason? There's a good chance that he was interrupted, meaning fled as someone approached, in the case of Polly (we have Lechmere coming down the street at a time JtR may have been at the body), Stride (if you include her, of course; lot's of debate on the notion of interruption there), and Eddowes (PC Harvey being the most likely "interruptor"). Chapman, being in a back yard, by all accounts he may have been mid-murder when Cadosche returned from his second visit to the privy. One would normally think of that as an "interruption", but there's nothing to suggest JtR fled at that moment, raising the question of how aware of his surroundings was he, really? Moreover, since Cadosche had a previous visit to the backyard just a few minutes earlier, at a time when it appears Annie and JtR were talking. Cadosche reports over hearing the word No, but there's no indication this was said with any kind of distress, so probably just part of a conversation of some sort, possibly negotiations but it could be anything. JtR's awareness seems poor, either he missed Cadoche again at that time (calling into question just how aware of his surroundings JtR was) or he did not conclude the "time and place" were dangerous (which is hardly rational). In either case, a delusional thinker makes those actions easier to understand.

not to me. I see it the exact opposite. I see someone who can balance risk incredibly well and is perceptive enough to get what he wants, or as much as he possibly can before having to split. look at stride and Nichols-seems like he bolts (and perhaps before even completing what he really wants to do) because it gets too hot. and pulling this stuff off right under peoples noses and in between police beats-like in mitre square and especially hanbury back yard with chapman. the proof is in the pudding Jeff-the ripper always was perceptive enough to get away in the nick of time.

Again, I'm just putting out there why I think we cannot rule out JtR as suffering from some psychosis, with delusional thinking. The evidence gets coloured by how we view it, and if we presume a Ted Bundy type, we can see it that way (so maybe he was), but if we consider a psychotic JtR, the evidence is also easily seen in that light. To me, that tells me, the evidence is insufficient to draw a conclusion, as it all looks good pending upon which glasses you put on. Sometimes, when you start from the wrong starting point, the evidence just gets blurry and hard to see, that's when you can start setting that idea aside. As to JtR's mental state, therefore, I think it's important to consider a wide range of possibilities, ranging from some degree of psychosis through to the fully lucid

I can assure you good sir, that I approach the case with no preconceived notions (or suspects for that matter), and taking all the evidence into account and also keep an open mind. As a matter of fact when I first heard of the ripper and started to get into-I did think initially that he was probably more like a raving lunatic type-especially when I first saw how much damage he did to his victims. But as I learned more about the case (and also other serial killer cases in history) it seems to me he is more of a calculating type. A planner, ruser very perceptive and intelligent/street smart. very sane-as much as a serial killer could be considered sane.

and BTW-our discussions on the geo profiling stuff a while back seemed to point to movements before and after kills that took planning and precaution. If were now talking about a killer in the throes of a psychotic break, dosnt all that stuff we talked about go out the window?

[Losmandris]

I admit I think so too, but every time I look at it, I can't really understand why I think that other than because she's not usually considered a ripper victim. That signals a bias in my thinking to me, so in order to try and address that, I try and justify why I think it unlikely, and there's the problem - it's hard to do based upon what we know of her murder alone in comparison with the majority of the C5 without brining in a set of unproven assumptions.

- Jeff

Same here. For years I dismissed anyone outside the C5 as being a victim. Know I am becoming more and more convinced that both Martha Tabram and Alice McKenzie were in fact victims of the same perpetrator. Its been a difficult assumption to break with.

Tristan

[Fisherman]

Oh, this is nice, we actually agree on something! I can see no reason not to consider McKenzie a possible JtR victim, and like you, cannot say that it is a certainty. You've given a good examples as well of a possible "Ripper influenced copy cat" in Bury. I can't speak to the Beadmore example as I'm unfamiliar with it, but will be looking for it now.

- Jeff

I think we agree on a whole lot, actually.

[Fisherman]

No Fisherman, I used the Chapman's case as one to illustrate, it's your assumption that's the only case that could be viewed in such a way, hence you're feet are getting wet.

You're creative thinking skills could, no doubt, find many ways to do so if it suited your purpose, as they do with your ability to continue to assert that Dr. Phillip's qualified estimate of the ToD for Annie is somehow to be viewed as gospel.

- Jeff

Err - no. I am saying that I myself am convinced that Phillips could never have been as wrong as to allow for Cadosch having overheard the Chapman murder (or part of it), not that it is gospel. I could add that the contemporary police and medical world seemingly shared my view. And I am saying that since you so very clearly emphasized the Chapman murder in your effort to point out that the killer - in your world - seems to have been a delusional thinker, you find yourself on very precarious ground.

I do not think and am not saying that the Chapman case is the only case where it can be reasoned that the killer was nuts, one way or another, by the way: I am saying that the circumstances makes that particular case a poor choice in trying to prove those nuts.

It would be nice if we could stick with what is said instead of drawing hasty and misguided conclusions. If nothing else, it could prevent some little mud wrestling.

[JeffHamm]

I think she likely belongs. There were of course other cases, like the Jane Beadmore case, where the killer seemingly was influenced by the Ripper deeds. Personally, I think the Bury case is another example of the same thing, and I am not opposed to the idea that the Ripper graffiti on his walls was written by himself.

Any which way, what I am after is that Beadmore died in County Durham and Ellen Bury in Dundee. And this is what happens when we have a string of murders which arouse national interest; people anywhere within reach of the media may get it into their heads to do the same thing (or what they THINK is "the same thing"). However, since MacKenzie died in the midst of the Ripper killing fields, I find that speaks very much in favour of her belonging. It would otherwise predispose such a character, warming to the murder style - and just by chance, he lives in the exact same area...?

Oh, this is nice, we actually agree on something! I can see no reason not to consider McKenzie a possible JtR victim, and like you, cannot say that it is a certainty. You've given a good examples as well of a possible "Ripper influenced copy cat" in Bury. I can't speak to the Beadmore example as I'm unfamiliar with it, but will be looking for it now.

- Jeff