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

[Fisherman]

Where wolf? Ah, there wolf!

[Abby Normal]

From the amount of similarities, it seems probable that McKenzie's killer was the Ripper or someone attempting to imitate him. If McKenzie's killer was the Ripper, the massively reduced amount of mutilation might be a sign of illness or that the Ripper is no longer getting the same thrill that he got out of previous killings.

I do think that McKenzie's killer was not the Ripper based on one significant difference from the C5. The C5 (plus Tabram) were all killed when there was little or no moonlight. McKenzie was murdered the night of 16-17 July, 1889, which would have had a lot more moonlight than any of the C5 killings.

That conclusively rules out the ripper being a werewolf!

[Fiver]

hi los
some of the drs and police thought she was, some didn't. today consensus is mixed. I think she probably was:
same victimology
same location
at night
throat cut
abdomen gashed
unsolved
and the clincher for me- she was found with her skirt hiked up like most of the rest.

From the amount of similarities, it seems probable that McKenzie's killer was the Ripper or someone attempting to imitate him. If McKenzie's killer was the Ripper, the massively reduced amount of mutilation might be a sign of illness or that the Ripper is no longer getting the same thrill that he got out of previous killings.

I do think that McKenzie's killer was not the Ripper based on one significant difference from the C5. The C5 (plus Tabram) were all killed when there was little or no moonlight. McKenzie was murdered the night of 16-17 July, 1889, which would have had a lot more moonlight than any of the C5 killings.

[Fisherman]

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

Broadly speaking, I agree - the police did their best in relation to their resources and knowledge, apart from some lazy mistakes (like forgetting initially to speak to all the dwellers of Bucks Row).
Some think I am too hard on the police, but the fact of the matter is that 132 years from now, we will be laughed at for our shortcomings too. We are all prisoners of the era we live in. The good thing is that we do tend to get better as we move along.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[JeffHamm]

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

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[Fisherman]

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.

[JeffHamm]

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

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

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'.. .

[Michael W Richards]

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 W Richards]

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.

[A P Tomlinson]

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.

[Harry D]

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.

[Abby Normal]

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".