Originally posted by Fisherman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Can we definitively conclude that Alice McKenzie was not killed by the Ripper?
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Losmandris View PostWhat 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
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.
Comment
-
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
Comment
-
Originally posted by Harry D View PostIt'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.Last edited by Abby Normal; 03-03-2020, 04:21 PM.
Comment
-
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".
There was the Lambeth torso in 1902 but it sounds like that was a sloppy job.
Comment
-
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
-
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.
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Michael W Richards View PostThere 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.
- Jeff
Comment
-
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
Comment
-
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
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.
Comment
-
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.
- Jeff
- Likes 1
Comment
-
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.
Comment
Comment