Tweet
Originally posted by Abby Normal
View Post
- Jeff
-
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 -
Most of the arguments against McKenzie are:
The killer wouldn't de-escalate after what he did to Mary Kelly.
and...
The killer wouldn't wait eight months before claiming his next victim.
Neither of which are conclusive arguments imo.Comment
-
I agree. Neither the reduction in the mutilations or the cuts to the throat nor the delay since Mary Kelly's murder, are sufficient to rule out JtR being involved. Of course, they don't indicate he was, either. Medical opinion was divided at the time, with Dr. Phillips tending to think she was not a victim of JtR while Dr. Bond leaned the other way.Originally posted by Harry D View Post
It's odd how a lot more focus is placed on Martha Tabram as a potential first murder victim of JtR than there is on Alice McKenzie as the potential last. I include myself in that assessment. Yet, every time I do consider it, I find it very hard to convince myself that she couldn't be. I can't convince myself she was, either, but on the whole, there's a lot more similarities between McKenzie's murder and the Polly/Chapman/Eddowes/Kelly grouping than there is for Stride; who fits more in terms of timing than the other aspects of her actual murder. And if Stride cannot be ruled out (and I don't think she can be ruled out, though I understand the arguments questioning her inclusion), it feels a bit odd to rule out McKenzie.
- JeffComment
-
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 EddowesOriginally posted by Harry D View Post
Comment
-
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?Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
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.Comment
-
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.Michael Richards
Comment
-
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.
TristanBest wishes,
TristanComment
-
Comment
-
Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
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.Comment
-
Cracking stuff MrBarnett.Thems the Vagaries.....Comment
-
Best wishes,
TristanComment
-
thanks jeffOriginally posted by JeffHamm View Post
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.Comment
-
No we cant definitively conclude McKenzie wasn't a Ripper victim but I think it's unlikely.Comment
-
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.Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
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.
- JeffComment
Comment