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

[JeffHamm]

it be interesting to know how many other serial killers in history were "highly functioning individuals with psychosis". and ones whos murders coincided with psychotic episodes.

your last paragragh is overly wordy and unneccessarily redundant. just say you can be either right or wrong. lol

Only the last? I tend to be a bit verbose most of the time I thought!


I agree with your first part too. Yes, that would be an interesting bit of research. It's tricky, of course, as one can only study the one's who get caught, and often psychosis, left untreated, will get worse over time (though it will still wax and wane). So the ones we can evaluated will tend to be the more psychotic ones as they are just loopy, and stand out. I don't think JtR was completely in a full blown psychotic break, which you appear to agree with as well. But, for example, Jeffrey Dahmer was diagnosed with (amongst other issues) borderline personality disorder and schizotypal personality disorder. The latter is not schizophrenia, but is characterised by transient periods of psychosis (amongst other things). In other words, we probably are agreeing here, as you've listed Dahmer as an example of what you're thinking of, and Dahmer was diagnosed with what I'm talking about (milder forms of psychosis that come and go - i.e. schizotypic personality disorder type diagnosis; note, not schizoid personality disorder, which is different again).


- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

... That is true. If the killer was in the back yard when Cadosch yo-yoed back and forth to his loo, then he was acting decidedly odd. ...

Hi Fisherman,

Good, we agree.

I hope I have managed to explain to you by now why I reacted to your post. Basically, it is about supplying the full picture. You failed to do so. And to me, that is what the boards are for: getting it right, not necessarily when it comes to what actually happened in 1888, but at least in terms of presenting the case as best as we possibly can. We do that better together than on our own, I find, and I am certain that if I had made some sort of decisive point about the character of the killer, basing it on how we "know" that he was not in the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street as day broke, I would have been met by sharp protests. By you, perhaps.

Except this is a thread about McKenzie, and turning it into a full blown repeating of the discussions already held in threads about Chapman's case specifically is going off topic. I used a number of the C5 cases to outline an example of how one can view the same evidence as support for two contrasting assumptions about JtR as that was related to the topic of this thread since we were considering McKenzie as a possible JtR victim, and discussing whether JtR may or may not have had some degree of psychosis. The Chapman bits are presented only as an illustration of that point. If you wish to explore specific aspects of that illustration again, then it would be best to do so in the appropriate thread. But it's been covered pretty well there already.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Abby,

Oh, and of course Ed Kemper was diagnosed with schizophrenia when he was younger. Yet he hung out around with the police, and they quite liked him. He's also known to be very intelligent and sociable. Of course, that original diagnosis was later rejected as Kemper doesn't have a lot of the characteristics of a full blown paranoid schizophrenic, but it hints at some underlying psychosis (or simply a mis-diagnosis, given it was applied when he killed his grandparents at 17).

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

Good, we agree.



Except this is a thread about McKenzie, and turning it into a full blown repeating of the discussions already held in threads about Chapman's case specifically is going off topic. I used a number of the C5 cases to outline an example of how one can view the same evidence as support for two contrasting assumptions about JtR as that was related to the topic of this thread since we were considering McKenzie as a possible JtR victim, and discussing whether JtR may or may not have had some degree of psychosis. The Chapman bits are presented only as an illustration of that point. If you wish to explore specific aspects of that illustration again, then it would be best to do so in the appropriate thread. But it's been covered pretty well there already.

- Jeff

Only, I am NOT "turning it into a full blown repetition" of previous discussions. I do not WANT any repetition, I am only pointing out that your presentation of the Chapman case was lacking rather sorely informationwise, and that you would not have any point at all if the part you left out is the true representation of the case.

Itīs quite simple, therefore, and we need not make any claims about me doing anything else but adjusting the picture to become a full one.

[JeffHamm]

Only, I am NOT "turning it into a full blown repetition" of previous discussions. I do not WANT any repetition, I am only pointing out that your presentation of the Chapman case was lacking rather sorely informationwise, and that you would not have any point at all if the part you left out is the true representation of the case.

Itīs quite simple, therefore, and we need not make any claims about me doing anything else but adjusting the picture to become a full one.

Hi Fisherman,

You are deflecting the thread by continuing with this. Expecting me, or anyone else, to go into the minority views of each and every case when presenting an illustration is expecting every thread to conform to, in this specific instance, your idiosyncratic views. If you feel there are important things to consider but which would go off topic (as in this case), there's nothing wrong in directing people to the threads already in existence, but to go into full details and present off-topic arguments is simply inviting repetition. So feel free to provide a link to the thread of your choice where that issue has been discussed.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

You are deflecting the thread by continuing with this.

No, I am not - it is instead a textbook example of your unwillingness to admit to your allowing yourself to try and impose your ideas about the case on people, by way of leaving out half of the information available. What I am doing is simply to correct you, so that everybody has the opportunity to see that there are TWO sides to the question at hand. Apparently, it makes you nervous to have this pointed out, and so you go into strange ravings about me wanting to "turning it into a full blown repetition" instead of simple saying "That is right, I forgot to mention that".

Expecting me, or anyone else, to go into the minority views of each and every case when presenting an illustration is expecting every thread to conform to, in this specific instance, your idiosyncratic views.

Oh, so now what you consider a "minority view" (what are the exact poll numbers, Jeff?) is automatically wrong and unworthy of mentioning? Says the guy who tutors us in why it is so very good to consider both sides of things.

If you feel there are important things to consider but which would go off topic (as in this case), there's nothing wrong in directing people to the threads already in existence, but to go into full details and present off-topic arguments is simply inviting repetition. So feel free to provide a link to the thread of your choice where that issue has been discussed.

- Jeff

Once again, there is no need to go into any "full details". There is only a need not to try and argue from a standpoint that excludes vital information. It would have taken you all of ten seconds and ten words to make a fair case. But not only did you choose not to do so, you now actually ferociously DEFEND it...?

There is absolutely no need on my behalf to discuss it any further, though; all that needs to be said has been said, and you have been instrumental in it.

Thank you.

PS. If it is deflecting the thread to speak of Annie Chapman, I may as well remind you that I am only doing so since you brought her up. On this thread.

[drstrange169]

The conundrum we have, is that Mckenzie and Tabram have enough similarities to be, at least, considered as victims of the same killer as the C5. On the other hand, some of the C5 have enough dissimilarities to be considered not by the same hand. That's just the state of the evidence available.

[JeffHamm]

Once again, there is no need to go into any "full details". There is only a need not to try and argue from a standpoint that excludes vital information. It would have taken you all of ten seconds and ten words to make a fair case. But not only did you choose not to do so, you now actually ferociously DEFEND it...?

There is absolutely no need on my behalf to discuss it any further, though; all that needs to be said has been said, and you have been instrumental in it.

Thank you.

PS. If it is deflecting the thread to speak of Annie Chapman, I may as well remind you that I am only doing so since you brought her up. On this thread.

Hi Fisherman,

As you seem to be missing the point, I'll repeat it, it was an illustration of a point concerning how one can interpret the evidence from different starting points with regards to JtR's potential mental state. It was not necessary to illustrate the point by covering every possible way various bits of evidence can be interpreted. Simply because I don't share your view, and used one that reflects my own stance in my own post to present that illustration, is not justification for highjacking this thread. If you feel that issues regarding Annie that I used to illustrate that point need to be pointed to, then just indicate that opinion, and provide a link to the thread of your choice so interested readers may follow that tangent.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

The conundrum we have, is that Mckenzie and Tabram have enough similarities to be, at least, considered as victims of the same killer as the C5. On the other hand, some of the C5 have enough dissimilarities to be considered not by the same hand. That's just the state of the evidence available.

Yes, I think that sums it up nicely.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

As you seem to be missing the point, I'll repeat it, it was an illustration of a point concerning how one can interpret the evidence from different starting points with regards to JtR's potential mental state. It was not necessary to illustrate the point by covering every possible way various bits of evidence can be interpreted. Simply because I don't share your view, and used one that reflects my own stance in my own post to present that illustration, is not justification for highjacking this thread. If you feel that issues regarding Annie that I used to illustrate that point need to be pointed to, then just indicate that opinion, and provide a link to the thread of your choice so interested readers may follow that tangent.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

As you seem to be missing the point, Iīll repeat it: I donīt care what you were trying to illustrate. What I DO care about is that when doing so, you chose to present a totally one-sided version of events in the Chapman case. I therefore amended it, for the benefit of those who are not aware of how there are two sides to the coin and who were at risk to accept your version as the only existing one.

You know, Jeff, you could easily have said from the outset that I was correct in adding that knowledge, but that you yourself personally think that the killer was in place. Or something such. All very uncontroversial and amicable - and 100 per cent correct. That option was always there for the taking.

Instead, you opt for throwing all sorts of accusations my way. You claim that "it was not necessary to illustrate the point by covering every possible way various bits of evidence can be interpreted." Well, you didnīt, did you?
However, in my confined world, the fact that we need not always name all angles and options is not the same as a recommendation to impose a ban on everybody who disagrees with you. And I do disagree. I DO think it is necessary to give the full picture, and so I did just that. You didnīt even have to bother to do it yourself. I did it for you - and you flew into a rage over it. Obviously, it is not about how you feel you need not give all angles at all times, but instead about disliking when people disagree with you. So sorry, but that IS going to happen on public boards, and that is a good thing - it ensures that no potentially important/decisive facts will be forgotten.

You say "If you feel that issues regarding Annie that I used to illustrate that point need to be pointed to, then just indicate that opinion". Well, believe it or not, indicating my opinion was exactly what I did. And what did it earn me? It earned me accusations of derailing the thread, although you were the one bringing Annie Chapman and the backyard up. And now it earns me accusations of "hijacking the thread", a slight rephrasing of the self same idiocy.

The problem is not that I didnīt "indicate my opinion", is it? The problem is that you could not find it in yourself to simply say that my addition was an alternative possibility, after which we could both have moved on.

The ensuing mudslinging is entirely based on that fact, Jeff. And personally, I could have done without it. We could have had any derailing and/or hijacking suggestions thrown out the window in two seconds flat, and boy was that possibility royally squandered!

Maybe you need to reflect on that for some little time before someone else legitimally disagrees on you about something.

Now I am done with this.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

As you seem to be missing the point, Iīll repeat it: I donīt care what you were trying to illustrate. What I DO care about is that when doing so, you chose to present a totally one-sided version of events in the Chapman case. I therefore amended it, for the benefit of those who are not aware of how there are two sides to the coin and who were at risk to accept your version as the only existing one.

You know, Jeff, you could easily have said from the outset that I was correct in adding that knowledge, but that you yourself personally think that the killer was in place. Or something such. All very uncontroversial and amicable - and 100 per cent correct. That option was always there for the taking.

Instead, you opt for throwing all sorts of accusations my way. You claim that "it was not necessary to illustrate the point by covering every possible way various bits of evidence can be interpreted." Well, you didnīt, did you?
However, in my confined world, the fact that we need not always name all angles and options is not the same as a recommendation to impose a ban on everybody who disagrees with you. And I do disagree. I DO think it is necessary to give the full picture, and so I did just that. You didnīt even have to bother to do it yourself. I did it for you - and you flew into a rage over it. Obviously, it is not about how you feel you need not give all angles at all times, but instead about disliking when people disagree with you. So sorry, but that IS going to happen on public boards, and that is a good thing - it ensures that no potentially important/decisive facts will be forgotten.

You say "If you feel that issues regarding Annie that I used to illustrate that point need to be pointed to, then just indicate that opinion". Well, believe it or not, indicating my opinion was exactly what I did. And what did it earn me? It earned me accusations of derailing the thread, although you were the one bringing Annie Chapman and the backyard up. And now it earns me accusations of "hijacking the thread", a slight rephrasing of the self same idiocy.

The problem is not that I didnīt "indicate my opinion", is it? The problem is that you could not find it in yourself to simply say that my addition was an alternative possibility, after which we could both have moved on.

The ensuing mudslinging is entirely based on that fact, Jeff. And personally, I could have done without it. We could have had any derailing and/or hijacking suggestions thrown out the window in two seconds flat, and boy was that possibility royally squandered!

Maybe you need to reflect on that for some little time before someone else legitimally disagrees on you about something.

Now I am done with this.

Hi Fisherman,

You are still not getting it. The specific conversation was on the topic of JtR's potential mental health. We were discussing how, pending upon how interprets the evidence combined with what mental "type" (for lack of a better word) one starts with, it is very easy to see how a JtR who suffers from some degree of psychosis could act in such a way to produce the events, or, if you start with a "cool, cunning, planner" type of JtR, that too can fit, though which mental "type" you start with will colour your interpretation.

We were discussing this in reference to McKenzie's inclusion as a potential JtR victim, and so the comparison was made with the C5 victims in terms of what inferences one might come to from those cases to see how they might influence one's thinking on the McKenzie case.

I mentioned 4 of the C5 cases in my illustration because I was talking about evidence that people have interpreted as potential interruption events (I don't know of any suggestions that could be viewed as an interruption with respect to Mary Kelly, so she wasn't mentioned at all).

It would be cumbersome to have to mention all alternative views for each of those 4 cases, like "if Stride even is a victim of JtR", or "if Eddowes was", or "was PC Harvey the interruption or the door opening?", "was JtR really interrupted in the case of Stride"?, etc. Each of those are big enough points for individual threads. Just like getting into a discussion about debates over the ToD for Chapman, or any of the murders. Those, while more than valid topics, were not part of this conversation, nor are they topics for this conversation and I won't be drawn into them here. I have done so in other threads, where they are appropriate.

I'm not preventing you from pointing people to the threads where those have been discussed, but you've not done that, indicating that providing information to readers is not really your concern here. You could have entered the conversation on topic though, and raised your alternative view as to the ToD as part of a contribution to the topic, something like "Of course, if Annie had been murdered prior to Cadoche's visits to the privy, then that would fit with either type of offender as well, given that a one could argue a planner ensured they left before it got light and people arose, while the "psychosis" offender may have just gotten lucky."

That would have been on topic, and welcomed, and I would have fully agreed with you on that. But you didn't do that, you started discussing only the Chapman ToD issue devoid of a connection to the topic. And by itself debates about Chapman's ToD are off topic here.

I'm trying to give you friendly advice about how to contribute to the current topic if you're interested in doing so. And if you're not, which seems to be the case, then have suggested you just post a link to the thread of your choice. But instead, you chose to come in, chastise me for not presenting an interpretation I do not agree with that was used in a part of a post where I was illustrating a point. You didn't, of course, raise any concerns about all sorts of other possible interpretations people have with any of the other cases I mentioned though, but rather attempted to insert into a thread about McKenzie a debate about Chapman's ToD specifically. I'm not making accusations here, I'm just describing what you did and trying to give you advice that will help keep the boards organized rather than have all threads confused about their topics (I know the boards and threads invariably wonder off topic all the time, but those of us who post frequently, such as yourself and myself, can at least try).

You could have easily just said "Yah, that is going off topic, but for those who are interested here's a link to a discussion on Chapman's ToD", but you didn't, you upped the ante and became more blustery and aggressive, demanding that I back down and aquiess. That's not going to work, nor should it be rewarded. But as for being "in a rage", as you put it, no, I'm not angry in any sense of the word. I'll meet blunt and aggressive language in kind, but that doesn't require me to be angry. In fact, the most "rageful" bits of what I've put have been when I've repeated back to you the words you said to me in the first place, but my emotional stance was more tongue-in-cheek than it appears yours was.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

Like I said, Jeff, I am done with this. Iīve made my point, you have failed to grasp it, and that is all there is to it.

[Kattrup]

Thank you Jeffhamm, it’s very satisfying to see such rational and levelheaded responses on these forums.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

JeffHamm does have a gentlemanly conduct to his arguments. No so much a bar brawl in a flat roof pub armed with half a snooker cue, more stout disagreement in a wine bar. Armed with a Polo mallet and a lawn boule in a cashmere sock.

Sorry, that's off topic.

[Fisherman]

JeffHamm does have a gentlemanly conduct to his arguments. No so much a bar brawl in a flat roof pub armed with half a snooker cue, more stout disagreement in a wine bar. Armed with a Polo mallet and a lawn boule in a cashmere sock.

Sorry, that's off topic.

But VERY funny!