Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    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.
    It appears by some witness evidence, Richardson and Cadosche and Davis, that we have a time framework for the state of that yard, within which the murder of Annie occurred. Philips estimate was incorrect, likely because of the much more rapid cooling due to the body being splayed open. Its feasible that this may have been his first time to make a call on a body found like that. But we can surmise pretty comfortably that a body wasn't there at 4:45, that someone was in that yard by that fence at 5:10ish, and that Annie was found in that yard around 6, by the fence.
    Michael Richards

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Losmandris View Post
      What would the inclusion of Alice as a 'definite' victim have on thinking about the case? Would certain suspects be eliminated or would it change any of the beliefs around the mental state of the murder, for example?

      Tristan
      hi los
      it would rule out druitt, dr T, bury and chapman(I think-wasn't he in America at this time?). anyway at least three major suspects-so it shouldn't surprise people that those who favor these suspects rule out McKenzie.

      re mental state-maybe that like many non crazy serial killers in history, the ripper took an extended period off for whatever reason.
      "Is all that we see or seem
      but a dream within a dream?"

      -Edgar Allan Poe


      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

      -Frederick G. Abberline

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        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
        I would say that the murders of Polly then Annie are the most probable by one man Trevor. They match in virtually every aspect, the Only difference being the degree of abdominal mutilation, which can be easily comprehended if one imagines Polly was his first victim and he chose to attack in too open an area to get the time he needed alone. Annie and Polly do share a lot, but the differences are more pronounced than with Polly-Annie, in my opinion. I once asked Stewart when he posted here how many victims he saw by one man...he said 2, perhaps 3. Im not sure which 2 he grouped for sure, I didn't ask, but I do see 2 or maybe 3 as the most probable numbers.
        Michael Richards

        Comment


        • #79
          It's too coincidental to me that Elizabeth Jackson, Alice McKenzie and the Pinchin Street torso all happened within a few weeks of each other, particularly as prior to that it was several months before any murder activity.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Harry D View Post
            It's too coincidental to me that Elizabeth Jackson, Alice McKenzie and the Pinchin Street torso all happened within a few weeks of each other, particularly as prior to that it was several months before any murder activity.
            I agree Harry-and good point. And then both torso and ripper series inexplicably end, seemingly for good. IMHO I think most probably it was the torsorippers (same man) last "spree".
            Last edited by Abby Normal; 03-03-2020, 04:21 PM.
            "Is all that we see or seem
            but a dream within a dream?"

            -Edgar Allan Poe


            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

            -Frederick G. Abberline

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

              I agree Harry-and good point. And then both torso and ripper series inexplicably end, seemingly for good. IMHO I think most probably it was the torsorippers last "spree".
              Agreed, but we can't get people to agree on the C5 let alone the Torsos & non-canonicals

              There was the Lambeth torso in 1902 but it sounds like that was a sloppy job.

              Comment


              • #82
                For some time now I've had the notion of Jack being a soldier flittering around at the back of my mind.
                Not because of Pearly Poll's grandstanding, but mainly because of the timings and the sudden nature of the end of the murders.
                By the late 1880s the reforms the Liberal government had brought in meant that soldiers were no longer treated like Wellington's "...scum of the Earth" from the Napoleonic and Indian campaigns, and were rotated in and out of garrison more regularly and didn't need to die or be invalided out to get respite from the British Army's varied involvements with other countries...
                It's quite possible that Jack was sent out to Egypt at the end of 1888 and was free to indulge his bloodletting to his hearts content. He may even have been identified by one of his colleagues and spirited away to save the regiment's disgrace...

                (Bringing it back round to the topic...)
                But if Alice was one of Jack's victims, the time lapse may have been due to a posting overseas and his lack of practice may have been why the result was not so efficient as he had been before. (Of course it could have been a spell in prison, or a bout of illness, but something has me interested in the squaddie theory...)

                And it is by no means a "Theory" with any substantive supporting evidence, and I wish I had the time and resources to be able to investigate and research the historical regimental postings and movements related to the local garrisons. Just to see if anything fit the pattern. If only to dismiss the idea from my mind.

                If anyone has pursued this line of thinking before and it's documented in a book, I'd love to have a read of anything that dips it's toe in that murky water and would really appreciate it if anyone knows of any such material.

                Comment


                • #83
                  There is a simple way to deduce whether Alice Mackenzie was killed by Jack the Ripper....do you believe the various Investigators who were on record as saying that the Ripper was actually identified, or institutionalized? If you do, Alice wasn't killed by him. If you don't, then its possible.
                  Michael Richards

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                    Agreed, but we can't get people to agree on the C5 let alone the Torsos & non-canonicals

                    There was the Lambeth torso in 1902 but it sounds like that was a sloppy job.
                    The fact that Torsos predate the Ripper crimes by years, happen during that Fall of 1888"spree", and then post date them by years again...does that overall span indicate more than 1 man was responsible for just the Torsos in LVP London? Which of course would make one man for all Torsos and Ripper crimes a fallacy.
                    Michael Richards

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                      On that we agree fully.

                      - Jeff
                      I'm glad a bit humour helped resolve an argument. Incidentally, I can be found outside the "Kings Head" most afternoons, if anyone fancies a 'sensible duscussion'.. .
                      Them's the vagaries.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                        There is a simple way to deduce whether Alice Mackenzie was killed by Jack the Ripper....do you believe the various Investigators who were on record as saying that the Ripper was actually identified, or institutionalized? If you do, Alice wasn't killed by him. If you don't, then its possible.
                        Well, given the various investigators all seem to point to different individuals, I tend to think they each had their beliefs but that those beliefs were not based upon proof. Each may have had various bits of suggestive evidence, and "gut feelings", or even just found their particular suspect compelling in some way that they then convinced themselves they must be JtR. We all do that sometimes, end up with exceptionally strong beliefs that, when it comes right down to it, isn't really based upon solid evidence. So, I think it is entirely possible that their identified suspects could very well not have been JtR, making McKenzie a possible victim. If it were possible to conclude she was, that would back up my point. But, unfortunately, it's unlikely that conclusion could be drawn with the degree of certainty required to do that. Of course, it is also the case that if it were possible to conclude that one (or more, if you go with the multiple Jacks) of the police were correct, then McKenzie is not a victim of JtR. But without one of those conditions being met, McKenzie may or may not be a JtR victim, and if she's not, the police could also be incorrect.

                        - Jeff

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                          Well, given the various investigators all seem to point to different individuals, I tend to think they each had their beliefs but that those beliefs were not based upon proof. Each may have had various bits of suggestive evidence, and "gut feelings", or even just found their particular suspect compelling in some way that they then convinced themselves they must be JtR. We all do that sometimes, end up with exceptionally strong beliefs that, when it comes right down to it, isn't really based upon solid evidence. So, I think it is entirely possible that their identified suspects could very well not have been JtR, making McKenzie a possible victim. If it were possible to conclude she was, that would back up my point. But, unfortunately, it's unlikely that conclusion could be drawn with the degree of certainty required to do that. Of course, it is also the case that if it were possible to conclude that one (or more, if you go with the multiple Jacks) of the police were correct, then McKenzie is not a victim of JtR. But without one of those conditions being met, McKenzie may or may not be a JtR victim, and if she's not, the police could also be incorrect.

                          - Jeff
                          So yes - she may or may not have been a Ripper victim. And basically, I think everybody out here with some sort of insight is aware of that. What I would add is that it is perilous to invest in the beliefs of the contemporary police on account of how poorly understood many vital factors were at the time.Just criticism can be levelled at the police in combination with how they were sometimes slack, but we really cannot criticize them from not being versed in the criminal psychology behind serial murder and the impact of different paraphilia. These shortcomings would nevertheless have had a tremendeous impact on the odds of the police clearing up the cases we study, and we may do well not to take too much pride in having the victorian police on our side in different matters.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                            Well, given the various investigators all seem to point to different individuals, I tend to think they each had their beliefs but that those beliefs were not based upon proof. Each may have had various bits of suggestive evidence, and "gut feelings", or even just found their particular suspect compelling in some way that they then convinced themselves they must be JtR. We all do that sometimes, end up with exceptionally strong beliefs that, when it comes right down to it, isn't really based upon solid evidence. So, I think it is entirely possible that their identified suspects could very well not have been JtR, making McKenzie a possible victim. If it were possible to conclude she was, that would back up my point. But, unfortunately, it's unlikely that conclusion could be drawn with the degree of certainty required to do that. Of course, it is also the case that if it were possible to conclude that one (or more, if you go with the multiple Jacks) of the police were correct, then McKenzie is not a victim of JtR. But without one of those conditions being met, McKenzie may or may not be a JtR victim, and if she's not, the police could also be incorrect.

                            - Jeff
                            I can see evidence for a suggestion that in some cases the opinions were perhaps intentional misdirection, practiced by men who made their living behaving in just such a manner. If there is information to be suppressed or withheld, who better to do that than the elite members of the national security branches?

                            My personal belief is that Alice represents a verification that other people than just the mythical Jack could, and did, kill and mutilate street women during that period. And I believe that maintaining some semblance of control was paramount to the authorities, necessitating some creative story narration, or spin, at times.
                            Michael Richards

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                              So yes - she may or may not have been a Ripper victim. And basically, I think everybody out here with some sort of insight is aware of that. What I would add is that it is perilous to invest in the beliefs of the contemporary police on account of how poorly understood many vital factors were at the time.Just criticism can be levelled at the police in combination with how they were sometimes slack, but we really cannot criticize them from not being versed in the criminal psychology behind serial murder and the impact of different paraphilia. These shortcomings would nevertheless have had a tremendeous impact on the odds of the police clearing up the cases we study, and we may do well not to take too much pride in having the victorian police on our side in different matters.
                              Indeed, there have been many advances in criminal investigation since 1888, as well as medical, and, well, pretty much everything pertinent. We know more about how to interview witnesses to get more reliable information, we know more about what requires skill, we know more about how to preserve and investigate a crime scene, and all sorts of things. That's a result of the research and studies that have been done, and from which we've gleaned new ideas and insights. The police of the time did the best they could given the knowledge and technology available at the time.

                              - Jeff

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                The interpretation of evidence is still subjective. Yes...science has provided many more tools to use to identify criminals, but unless a specific sequential and undeniable answer is available in the scientific data, its still up to Police work and interpretation. Crimes were solved back then, don't assume that a less advanced methodology prevents similar outcomes. Crimes were solved...without blood analysis, or hair fibers, or tire impressions, or fingerprints, or acquired historical databases on criminal activities, ...murders were still solved. To presume that the investigators of these crimes were incapable of solving these crimes due to the lack of modern forensics isn't an accurate portrayal of LVP policework or ability to accurately interpret what is given.

                                In many ways these investigators were more free in their ability to interpret data, because they didn't have the constraints of modern forensic tools.
                                Michael Richards

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X