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

[JeffHamm]

So, when assessing whether the killer was likely lucid or not, you mainly use the backyard scene from 29 Hanbury Street to conclude that he is more likely than not a delusional thinker.

And all the while, Phillips´conclusion is that the killer was nowhere even near the backyard at the stage you refer to. He had been gone for hours when Cadosch made his loo excursions.

Talk about not thin, but non-existant ice...

On the core issue, I agree that we cannot rule out that the killer was psychotic. But to me, a psychotic killer who leaves no clues, who acts silently, who subdues blitz-style, who manages to escape again and again in spite of the police presence on the streets is quite simply much less likely than an organized killer who combines stealth and risktaking in an unprecedented manner.

And his ability to sneak in and out of the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street under cover of the night bears witness to that.

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

[Fisherman]

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

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...?

[Fisherman]

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

So, when assessing whether the killer was likely lucid or not, you mainly use the backyard scene from 29 Hanbury Street to conclude that he is more likely than not a delusional thinker.

And all the while, Phillips´conclusion is that the killer was nowhere even near the backyard at the stage you refer to. He had been gone for hours when Cadosch made his loo excursions.

Talk about not thin, but non-existant ice...

On the core issue, I agree that we cannot rule out that the killer was psychotic. But to me, a psychotic killer who leaves no clues, who acts silently, who subdues blitz-style, who manages to escape again and again in spite of the police presence on the streets is quite simply much less likely than an organized killer who combines stealth and risktaking in an unprecedented manner.

And his ability to sneak in and out of the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street under cover of the night bears witness to that.

[JeffHamm]

No we cant definitively conclude McKenzie wasn't a Ripper victim but I think it's unlikely.

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

[JeffHamm]

thanks jeff
I guess my issue with the ripper being overtly mentally ill and that if we are coinciding his psychotic episodes with the murders, i cant really see a lucid enough killer able to pull off something like the double event, being able to always get away clean (sometimes in just the nick of time), and being able ruse victims and make them feel comfortable hes a normal punter-especially with someone like Mary Kelly who may have brought him back with her to her own place.
I suppose its possible, I just don't see it. im thinking more Dahmer, bundy and kemper and less chase or mullins.

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

[John Wheat]

No we cant definitively conclude McKenzie wasn't a Ripper victim but I think it's unlikely.

[Abby Normal]

That's one hypothesis, and certainly not one that's been disproven. On the other hand, psychosis isn't disproven either. Psychosis doesn't mean he had to be a babbling idiot, or otherwise "avoidable". Delusional thoughts and ideas that JtR may have had need not have made him someone who would be automatically avoided by the victims. It's often assumed that psychosis must manifest in such a way that he would be noticed, but that assumption is incorrect. As a result, there's no way to be sure JtR was, or was not, psychotic. We probably can rule out someone so out of touch that their delusions were readily apparent, that I agree with, but that only rules out some forms of psychotic episodes, not all of them. Unless the case is solved, both avenues are open and reasonable possibilities.

- Jeff

thanks jeff
I guess my issue with the ripper being overtly mentally ill and that if we are coinciding his psychotic episodes with the murders, i cant really see a lucid enough killer able to pull off something like the double event, being able to always get away clean (sometimes in just the nick of time), and being able ruse victims and make them feel comfortable hes a normal punter-especially with someone like Mary Kelly who may have brought him back with her to her own place.
I suppose its possible, I just don't see it. im thinking more Dahmer, bundy and kemper and less chase or mullins.

[MrBarnett]

Thanks for this Mr Barnett! All new to me.

Tristan

You’re welcome, Tristan.

Not sure it helps in the search for her killer, though.

Gary

[Losmandris]

ALICE PITTS/KINSEY 1845 - 1889



1832

14th October: Charles Pitts and Martha Watson are married in Whittlesey St. Mary, Cambridgeshire, near Peterborough.


1841

Census: Charles Pitts, 30, a servant, is recorded living in Minster Close, Peterborough. The household includes his wife, Martha, also 30, and three children: William, 8; John, 3; Martha, 1.


1845

8th March: Alice Pitts is born in the Precincts of Peterborough Minster (Cathedral). Her parents are Charles, a 'footman', and Martha, (formerly Watson). Martha is the informant on Alice's birth certificate and her address is given as 'Precincts Peterboro'.

4th April: Alice is christened in the Precincts of the Cathedral of Peterborough. Her father is described as a 'servant'. The family surname is recorded as 'Pits'.


1851

Census: Alice Pitts is recorded at the family home in the Peterborough Cathedral Precincts. The household consists of :

CharlesPitts/Head/45/Post Office Messenger/Lincolnshire, Edenham

MarthaPitts/Wife/40/Cambridgeshire, Whittlesey

William/Son/18/Apprentice Cabinetmaker/Cambridgeshire, Whittlesey

John/Son/13/Scholar/Northamptonshire, Peterborough

Martha/Daur/11/Scholar/ditto

Jane/Daur/8/Scholar/ditto

Alice/Daur/6/Scholar/ditto

Charles/son/4/at home/ditto

Thomas/son/1/at home/ditto

John Graham/Lodger/21/Fireman/ Cumberland, Carlisle


1860 (approx)

According to the informant Mrs Strickland, who was interviewed in 1889, the 15-year-old Alice worked for her in her refreshment rooms in St. John Street, Peterborough.


1861

Census: The Pitts family are still resident in the Minster Precincts, but Alice is no longer living with them. Charles is again shown as a Post Office messenger. One notable addition to the household is a 2-week-old granddaughter, Annie Pitts, who is the illegitimate child of Alice's sister, Jane.


Census: Alice Pitts, aged 17, place of birth, Northamptonshire, Peterborough, is to be found in the household of a master brazier named Edward Miller in High Cross Street, Leicester where she is employed as a house servant.


1863

October 11th: Alice Pitts marries Joseph Kinsey, a 24-year-old chair maker at All Saints Church, Leicester. Alice's father is recorded as Charles Pitts, a postman. The marriage is announced in the Peterborough Advertiser.


1866

21st July: A child, Joseph James, is born to Joseph and Alice Kinsey. The place of birth is given as 'Freeman's Common, St Mary' and the birth is registered on 4th August in the West Leicester registration district. Joseph's occupation is given as 'Chair and Cabinet Maker'.

12th October: Joseph James dies at 4, Joseph Street, St. Mary, Leicester. The informant is his mother, Alice, who was present at the death. Cause of death is given as 'marasmus', a form of malnutrition.


1867

18th February: Joseph Kinsey dies, aged 25, at 4, Joseph Street. His occupation is given as 'cabinet and chair maker' and the cause of death as 'phthisis' (possibly TB). The informant is Alice Kinsey, who was present at the death. Notices of Joseph's death are printed in several local newspapers.

1871

Census: Charles and Martha Pitts are still resident in the Peterborough Minster Precincts. Charles's occupation is given as 'Gardener'. Two of their sons are living with them - Thomas, 21, a carpenter and James, 15, an errand boy. Also in the household are a boarder named John Charity (15/errand boy/ born Peterborough) and a lodger, Robert Combie (25/Sgt 57 Regiment/born Ireland)


1873

31st October: A 27-year-old, laundress named Alice McKenzie is convicted of 'D & R' at Southwark police court. She is fined 10s and sentenced to 7 days imprisonment with hard labour, which she serves in Wandsworth Prison. One previous conviction is noted, but no details are given. Her description is:

Height: 5ft 4 1/2 ins
Hair: Auburn
Eyes: Hazel
Complexion: Pale
Other Marks: Scar under left eye
Weight in: 10st 9lb
Weight out: 10st 9lb

She is released on 6th November, 1873


1875

13th August: Alice McKenzie, aged 29, the widow of Joseph, a carpenter, is admitted to the Whitechapel Infirmary. She has been brought in by P.C. 169H from Leman Street police station and the cause of her admission is recorded as 'Ill and destitute'. An intriguing note in the remarks column says 'See police rept'. She is discharged on 20th August, 1875.


1877

June 14th: Alice McKenzie, aged 31, the widow of Joseph, a carpenter, is admitted to the Whitechapel Infirmary. The cause of her admission is given as 'ulcer'. Her place of residence is shown as 3(?) Lower Keat Street. She is discharged on 23rd June, 1877.


1st August: Alice Mackenzie, aged 32, a hawker of St George (Southwark) parish, is admitted to the St George Workhouse, Mint Street, Southwark. She has been brought in by P.C. 110L having been charged with being drunk. She is discharged the same day, 'removed (?) by P. C. 256L.'


1878

March Quarter: Charles Pitts dies in Peterborough, aged 74.

26th June: A 32-year-old laundress named Alice Taylor or McKensey is convicted at Southwark police court of being 'drunk in a thoro'fare'. She is fined 5s and sentenced to 7 days imprisonment with hard labour, which she serves in Wandsworth Prison. One previous conviction is noted, but no details are given.

Her description is:

Height: 5ft 5ins
Hair: Dk brown
Eyes: Hazel
Complexion: Fresh
Other Marks: Scar on forehead. Lost tip of left thumb.
Weight in: 11st 6lb
Weight out: 11st 6lb

She is released on 2nd July, 1878.


1881

Census: Aged 73, the widowed Martha Pitts is still resident in the Peterborough Cathedral Precincts. Her son, John, a 43-year-old widower, is the only other member of the household. John's occupation is given as 'watch jobber'.


1883

11th August: Alice McKenzie, 37, the widow of Joseph, a cabinet maker, is admitted to the Whitechapel Infirmary. The cause of her admission is given as 'ulcerated stamma(?)'. Her place of residence is given as 36, Flower and Dean Street. She is discharged on 24th August.

5th November: Alice McKenzie, 37, the widow of 'John?' a carpenter is admitted to the Whitechapel Infirmary. She has been brought there by P. C. 267H, having been 'found in Dorset Street'. The cause of her admission is given as alcoholism. She is discharged on 16th November.

20th December: Alice McKenzie, 37, the widow of 'John?', a carpenter, is admitted to the Whitechapel Infirmary having been brought there by P. C. 162H from Leman Street police station.The cause of her admission is alcoholism and fits. She is discharged on 23rd December.


1885

December Quarter: Martha Pitts dies in Peterborough, aged 74. According to the 1889 Boston Guardian article, at the time of her death Martha was living in the same small house near Minster Yard that the family had occupied for many years.


1889

January: An 'Alice McKenzie, tramp' is arrested for causing a disturbance in a butcher's shop in Long Causeway, Peterborough, very near the Minster Precincts. The woman claims to be from Scotland. Although it's tempting to assume that this was Alice Kinsey, there are several press reports of a drunken 'Alice McKenzie, tramp' falling foul of the law in various parts of the country, some of which concern incidents occurring after Alice Kinsey's death. That said, one small detail reported by the Boston Guardian - the tramp's 'hazel eyes' - matches Alice Kinsey.

Thanks for this Mr Barnett! All new to me.

Tristan

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Cracking stuff MrBarnett.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Tristan,

We know a fair bit about Alice’s background.

ALICE PITTS/KINSEY 1845 - 1889



1832

14th October: Charles Pitts and Martha Watson are married in Whittlesey St. Mary, Cambridgeshire, near Peterborough.


1841

Census: Charles Pitts, 30, a servant, is recorded living in Minster Close, Peterborough. The household includes his wife, Martha, also 30, and three children: William, 8; John, 3; Martha, 1.


1845

8th March: Alice Pitts is born in the Precincts of Peterborough Minster (Cathedral). Her parents are Charles, a 'footman', and Martha, (formerly Watson). Martha is the informant on Alice's birth certificate and her address is given as 'Precincts Peterboro'.

4th April: Alice is christened in the Precincts of the Cathedral of Peterborough. Her father is described as a 'servant'. The family surname is recorded as 'Pits'.


1851

Census: Alice Pitts is recorded at the family home in the Peterborough Cathedral Precincts. The household consists of :

CharlesPitts/Head/45/Post Office Messenger/Lincolnshire, Edenham

MarthaPitts/Wife/40/Cambridgeshire, Whittlesey

William/Son/18/Apprentice Cabinetmaker/Cambridgeshire, Whittlesey

John/Son/13/Scholar/Northamptonshire, Peterborough

Martha/Daur/11/Scholar/ditto

Jane/Daur/8/Scholar/ditto

Alice/Daur/6/Scholar/ditto

Charles/son/4/at home/ditto

Thomas/son/1/at home/ditto

John Graham/Lodger/21/Fireman/ Cumberland, Carlisle


1860 (approx)

According to the informant Mrs Strickland, who was interviewed in 1889, the 15-year-old Alice worked for her in her refreshment rooms in St. John Street, Peterborough.


1861

Census: The Pitts family are still resident in the Minster Precincts, but Alice is no longer living with them. Charles is again shown as a Post Office messenger. One notable addition to the household is a 2-week-old granddaughter, Annie Pitts, who is the illegitimate child of Alice's sister, Jane.


Census: Alice Pitts, aged 17, place of birth, Northamptonshire, Peterborough, is to be found in the household of a master brazier named Edward Miller in High Cross Street, Leicester where she is employed as a house servant.


1863

October 11th: Alice Pitts marries Joseph Kinsey, a 24-year-old chair maker at All Saints Church, Leicester. Alice's father is recorded as Charles Pitts, a postman. The marriage is announced in the Peterborough Advertiser.


1866

21st July: A child, Joseph James, is born to Joseph and Alice Kinsey. The place of birth is given as 'Freeman's Common, St Mary' and the birth is registered on 4th August in the West Leicester registration district. Joseph's occupation is given as 'Chair and Cabinet Maker'.

12th October: Joseph James dies at 4, Joseph Street, St. Mary, Leicester. The informant is his mother, Alice, who was present at the death. Cause of death is given as 'marasmus', a form of malnutrition.


1867

18th February: Joseph Kinsey dies, aged 25, at 4, Joseph Street. His occupation is given as 'cabinet and chair maker' and the cause of death as 'phthisis' (possibly TB). The informant is Alice Kinsey, who was present at the death. Notices of Joseph's death are printed in several local newspapers.

1871

Census: Charles and Martha Pitts are still resident in the Peterborough Minster Precincts. Charles's occupation is given as 'Gardener'. Two of their sons are living with them - Thomas, 21, a carpenter and James, 15, an errand boy. Also in the household are a boarder named John Charity (15/errand boy/ born Peterborough) and a lodger, Robert Combie (25/Sgt 57 Regiment/born Ireland)


1873

31st October: A 27-year-old, laundress named Alice McKenzie is convicted of 'D & R' at Southwark police court. She is fined 10s and sentenced to 7 days imprisonment with hard labour, which she serves in Wandsworth Prison. One previous conviction is noted, but no details are given. Her description is:

Height: 5ft 4 1/2 ins
Hair: Auburn
Eyes: Hazel
Complexion: Pale
Other Marks: Scar under left eye
Weight in: 10st 9lb
Weight out: 10st 9lb

She is released on 6th November, 1873


1875

13th August: Alice McKenzie, aged 29, the widow of Joseph, a carpenter, is admitted to the Whitechapel Infirmary. She has been brought in by P.C. 169H from Leman Street police station and the cause of her admission is recorded as 'Ill and destitute'. An intriguing note in the remarks column says 'See police rept'. She is discharged on 20th August, 1875.


1877

June 14th: Alice McKenzie, aged 31, the widow of Joseph, a carpenter, is admitted to the Whitechapel Infirmary. The cause of her admission is given as 'ulcer'. Her place of residence is shown as 3(?) Lower Keat Street. She is discharged on 23rd June, 1877.


1st August: Alice Mackenzie, aged 32, a hawker of St George (Southwark) parish, is admitted to the St George Workhouse, Mint Street, Southwark. She has been brought in by P.C. 110L having been charged with being drunk. She is discharged the same day, 'removed (?) by P. C. 256L.'


1878

March Quarter: Charles Pitts dies in Peterborough, aged 74.

26th June: A 32-year-old laundress named Alice Taylor or McKensey is convicted at Southwark police court of being 'drunk in a thoro'fare'. She is fined 5s and sentenced to 7 days imprisonment with hard labour, which she serves in Wandsworth Prison. One previous conviction is noted, but no details are given.

Her description is:

Height: 5ft 5ins
Hair: Dk brown
Eyes: Hazel
Complexion: Fresh
Other Marks: Scar on forehead. Lost tip of left thumb.
Weight in: 11st 6lb
Weight out: 11st 6lb

She is released on 2nd July, 1878.


1881

Census: Aged 73, the widowed Martha Pitts is still resident in the Peterborough Cathedral Precincts. Her son, John, a 43-year-old widower, is the only other member of the household. John's occupation is given as 'watch jobber'.


1883

11th August: Alice McKenzie, 37, the widow of Joseph, a cabinet maker, is admitted to the Whitechapel Infirmary. The cause of her admission is given as 'ulcerated stamma(?)'. Her place of residence is given as 36, Flower and Dean Street. She is discharged on 24th August.

5th November: Alice McKenzie, 37, the widow of 'John?' a carpenter is admitted to the Whitechapel Infirmary. She has been brought there by P. C. 267H, having been 'found in Dorset Street'. The cause of her admission is given as alcoholism. She is discharged on 16th November.

20th December: Alice McKenzie, 37, the widow of 'John?', a carpenter, is admitted to the Whitechapel Infirmary having been brought there by P. C. 162H from Leman Street police station.The cause of her admission is alcoholism and fits. She is discharged on 23rd December.


1885

December Quarter: Martha Pitts dies in Peterborough, aged 74. According to the 1889 Boston Guardian article, at the time of her death Martha was living in the same small house near Minster Yard that the family had occupied for many years.


1889

January: An 'Alice McKenzie, tramp' is arrested for causing a disturbance in a butcher's shop in Long Causeway, Peterborough, very near the Minster Precincts. The woman claims to be from Scotland. Although it's tempting to assume that this was Alice Kinsey, there are several press reports of a drunken 'Alice McKenzie, tramp' falling foul of the law in various parts of the country, some of which concern incidents occurring after Alice Kinsey's death. That said, one small detail reported by the Boston Guardian - the tramp's 'hazel eyes' - matches Alice Kinsey.

[MrBarnett]

Does the fact that we know just so little about Alice McKenzie have an impact on whether she is considered a victim of JtR? We hardly know anything of her background and her movements on night in question are patchy at best.

Tristan

Hi Tristan,

We know a fair bit about Alice’s background.

[Losmandris]

Does the fact that we know just so little about Alice McKenzie have an impact on whether she is considered a victim of JtR? We hardly know anything of her background and her movements on night in question are patchy at best.

Tristan

[Michael W Richards]

If one or more of the Canonical Group was done by someone other than this Jack fellow, then there may be a reason we see a similar style murder again the following year. Because if someone other than Jack killed Polly or Annie or Kate or Mary, then we would have 2 Unfortunate killers who also mutilate, pm. Even if the man we commonly refer to as Jack was just a "spree killer",...by definition it which would suggest long lapses between attacks would be unlikely... that could explain why we see yet another murder so reminiscent of a Canonical. His style is close enough to have his work mistaken for Jacks.

It would also explain why there are important differences evident in some of the womens murders in the C5.

[Harry D]

But there could have been more than one killer as many suggest, so if that be the case how can you argue for or against that scenario with Mckenzie? or any of the other victims for that matter. In my opinion, the only victims that have enough in common by their killers MO are Chapman and Eddowes

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If there was a single killer, we cannot know his physical or mental state in July 1889. We also don't know if he had been incarcerated or sent to a workhouse for a period of time before he was back on the streets, or some serial killers have cooling-off periods for various reasons. McKenzie's murder might have been a spur of the moment thing and he was not suitably equipped for the job. Who knows?

All I know is that McKenzie's murder had the signature characteristics of previous murders, and murders of this nature were not common. Attempted murders and petty assaults happened but only a few women had their throats slit and bodies mutilated on the streets of Whitechapel. Alice McKenzie was one of them. For that reason, I don't believe she can be ruled out. Personally, I think she was murdered by the same hand as the C5.