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

[Lewis C]

But late September doesn't tend to be that warm.

It's warmer than October thru April.

[Tom_Wescott]

First off Id like to say hi to Tom, its been quite a long time since you and I exchanged ideas directly. I have read some of your published stuff and was impressed with the research done. Im sure we still clash on many points but its not essential that our clashes be bashes, and it is nice to see an old poster.

When I saw that there was so little available light on the 8th for me that does suggest a likely murder time closer to dawn. The cuts were too neat for that murder to be accomplished without some light.

Hello to you as well, Michael. Good to see you're still active.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[John Wheat]

It's warmer than October thru April.

Fair point. But we know Jack was out looking for a victim in November. Are you saying Jack had planned to kill indoors in November?

[The Rookie Detective]

Fair point. But we know Jack was out looking for a victim in November. Are you saying Jack had planned to kill indoors in November?

Its colder in November than September of course, which may reflect killing indoors.

However IMO the relative temperature by itself, wouldn't have played a significant part in the reasons behind killing indoors in November

However there was one overriding theme regarding the weather that DID seem to be a factor across all the killings; the weather itself.

Rainfall in particular.


Weather that would require a coat, umbrella, extra layers etc...

To conceal the murder weapon

Did the killer choose victims on days that the weather was particularly bad?


It could be said that last there would obviously be worse weather in certain months; but what was the weather like when Mckenzie was murdered in July?

Was it raining?



RD

[Trevor Marriott]

But late September doesn't tend to be that warm.

Just to mention that If Mckenzie was a Ripper victim then it eliminates Bury as he was executed several months before her murder !!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

Just to mention that If Mckenzie was a Ripper victim then it eliminates Bury as he was executed several months before her murder !!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

It also eliminates Druitt.

Not that it proves anything, but I recall (but can't relocate the reference) that Deeming was released from one of his prison stints the day before McKenzies' murder.

Cheers, George

[The Rookie Detective]

Just to mention that If Mckenzie was a Ripper victim then it eliminates Bury as he was executed several months before her murder !!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The execution of Bury is one of the key reasons why we still have a generic Canonical 5.

Ultimately, it stands to reason that the Ripper would of had more than just 5 victims; unless the killer was only in London for 10 weeks or so in 1888, and then left London entirely.

The issue is that once a person chooses their prime suspect and then decides that there are no other viable options; then anything that would then exclude said choice of suspect is automatically ruled out, because otherwise it proves that person wrong for choosing a suspect who was already dead by the time another potential victim then goes on to be killed by the real murderer.


That is why I choose not to commit to 1 suspect; because it keeps my mind open and avoids me viewing the case through tinted spectacles.


It is difficult to remain impartial and objective when you commit to choosing a prime suspect and then by proxy reject all others.


I stand by my previous statement on a previous thread...


The reason why McKenzie is generally rejected as a Ripper victim; is because she was murdered AFTER MJK.
If Mckenzie had been murdered BEFORE MJK, then she would have made up part of a Canonical 6.


When Dr Phillips decided McKenzie wasn't a Ripper victim, it was based on his usual poor and inaccurate judgement.
He saw the wounds were not as severe as MJK's and then gave a bias opinion based on his belief that the killer wouldn't inflict lesser injuries over time.

He didn't look at Mckenzie objectively and as a result he was listened to by others.

Phillips was narrow minded and a relic in his own profession, and formed part of the problem rather than offering potential solutions that could have helped the police.

But Philips wasn't the only one to hinder the overall investigation; there were others at the time who wrote McKenzie off as a Ripper victim based on the belief that the Ripper was a lunatic who wouldn't go backwards and de-escalate the application of his MO


But as we know, serial killers CAN and DO alter their MO and the means by which they commit their crimes.

They may have the same signature, but MO is more organic and changeable in practical terms.


The label of the "Canonical 5" is one of the biggest reasons why the case has never been solved.

If nobody can determine who the Ripper victims actually were, then the efforts in trying to solve the case was doomed from the offset.



When we strip down to the bare bones of the McKenzie murder, it is strikingly obvious that she was either a Ripper victim OR the victim of a Ripper copy cat.

Either way; the moment that the slightest cut was inflicted on her abdomen; superficial or not; then McKenzie falls into the pool of Ripper (or Ripper copy cat) victims.

Mckenzie is far more likely to be a Ripper victim than Stride based on all of the criteria for determining the killers MO and identifying their key signature etc...

The only reason Stride becomes part of the Canonical 5, is because of the "double event"

And that's it.


Stride had her throat cut ONCE...

Mckenzie was rejected as a Ripper victim because her abdominal wounds were superficial compared to the previous victim in MJK.


The chronology of the kills absolutely destroyed the argument for Mckenzie to form part of the Canonical group.

Incorrectly IMO


I believe that to reject Mckenzie and accept Stride is absolutely baffling.



RD

[John Wheat]

Just to mention that If Mckenzie was a Ripper victim then it eliminates Bury as he was executed several months before her murder !!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I know that. But it's highly unlikely Mckenzie was a Ripper victim.

[The Rookie Detective]

I know that. But it's highly unlikely Mckenzie was a Ripper victim.

On that basis; its also highly unlikely that Stride was a Ripper victim too.

We are then left with just 4 victims.


The target was Mary Kelly


Nichols was a warm up
Chapman was an opportunity
Eddowes was a case of mistaken identity
Kelly was personal


Hutchinson was the Ripper


Case solved.


EEK!



RD

[John Wheat]

On that basis; its also highly unlikely that Stride was a Ripper victim too.

We are then left with just 4 victims.


The target was Mary Kelly


Nichols was a warm up
Chapman was an opportunity
Eddowes was a case of mistaken identity
Kelly was personal


Hutchinson was the Ripper


Case solved.


EEK!



RD

Not really Stride may or may not have been a Ripper victim. With Mackenzie there is a large gap followed by no more victims. Hutchinson is an unlikely Ripper. Bury is the best suspect by a Country mile.

[GBinOz]

The execution of Bury is one of the key reasons why we still have a generic Canonical 5.

Ultimately, it stands to reason that the Ripper would of had more than just 5 victims; unless the killer was only in London for 10 weeks or so in 1888, and then left London entirely.

The issue is that once a person chooses their prime suspect and then decides that there are no other viable options; then anything that would then exclude said choice of suspect is automatically ruled out, because otherwise it proves that person wrong for choosing a suspect who was already dead by the time another potential victim then goes on to be killed by the real murderer.


That is why I choose not to commit to 1 suspect; because it keeps my mind open and avoids me viewing the case through tinted spectacles.


It is difficult to remain impartial and objective when you commit to choosing a prime suspect and then by proxy reject all others.


I stand by my previous statement on a previous thread...


The reason why McKenzie is generally rejected as a Ripper victim; is because she was murdered AFTER MJK.
If Mckenzie had been murdered BEFORE MJK, then she would have made up part of a Canonical 6.


When Dr Phillips decided McKenzie wasn't a Ripper victim, it was based on his usual poor and inaccurate judgement.
He saw the wounds were not as severe as MJK's and then gave a bias opinion based on his belief that the killer wouldn't inflict lesser injuries over time.

He didn't look at Mckenzie objectively and as a result he was listened to by others.

Phillips was narrow minded and a relic in his own profession, and formed part of the problem rather than offering potential solutions that could have helped the police.

But Philips wasn't the only one to hinder the overall investigation; there were others at the time who wrote McKenzie off as a Ripper victim based on the belief that the Ripper was a lunatic who wouldn't go backwards and de-escalate the application of his MO


But as we know, serial killers CAN and DO alter their MO and the means by which they commit their crimes.

They may have the same signature, but MO is more organic and changeable in practical terms.


The label of the "Canonical 5" is one of the biggest reasons why the case has never been solved.

If nobody can determine who the Ripper victims actually were, then the efforts in trying to solve the case was doomed from the offset.

When we strip down to the bare bones of the McKenzie murder, it is strikingly obvious that she was either a Ripper victim OR the victim of a Ripper copy cat.

Either way; the moment that the slightest cut was inflicted on her abdomen; superficial or not; then McKenzie falls into the pool of Ripper (or Ripper copy cat) victims.

Mckenzie is far more likely to be a Ripper victim than Stride based on all of the criteria for determining the killers MO and identifying their key signature etc...

The only reason Stride becomes part of the Canonical 5, is because of the "double event"

And that's it.


Stride had her throat cut ONCE...

Mckenzie was rejected as a Ripper victim because her abdominal wounds were superficial compared to the previous victim in MJK.


The chronology of the kills absolutely destroyed the argument for Mckenzie to form part of the Canonical group.

Incorrectly IMO


I believe that to reject Mckenzie and accept Stride is absolutely baffling.

RD

Hi RD,

An excellent post, with one exception - your criticism of Phillips. I believe that if you read Phillip's statements carefully you may see that he was unable to ratify McKenzie as a ripper victim on purely medical evidence, but that his assessment of the M.O. was contrary to that opinion.

I absolutely concur with your assessment in the Stride/McKenzie comparison. McKenzie had the throat cut, the mutilation, the display and the possibility of interruption. If McKenzie is to be eliminated then, IMO, so must be Stride.

Keep up the good work.

Cheers, George

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD,

An excellent post, with one exception - your criticism of Phillips. I believe that if you read Phillip's statements carefully you may see that he was unable to ratify McKenzie as a ripper victim on purely medical evidence, but that his assessment of the M.O. was contrary to that opinion.

I absolutely concur with your assessment in the Stride/McKenzie comparison. McKenzie had the throat cut, the mutilation, the display and the possibility of interruption. If McKenzie is to be eliminated then, IMO, so must be Stride.

Keep up the good work.

Cheers, George

Thank you George


Actually I'd like to acknowledge your excellent point regarding Phillips; I was perhaps too harsh and therefore inaccurate in my assessment of his analysis of Mckenzie's murder.

I think my criticism stems from the mess he made of the Chapman case.

While it's worth pointing out that I believe he was wrong more often than he was right; I was still over zealous in my critique of him regarding McKenzie.


RD

[GBinOz]

Thank you George


Actually I'd like to acknowledge your excellent point regarding Phillips; I was perhaps too harsh and therefore inaccurate in my assessment of his analysis of Mckenzie's murder.

I think my criticism stems from the mess he made of the Chapman case.

While it's worth pointing out that I believe he was wrong more often than he was right; I was still over zealous in my critique of him regarding McKenzie.


RD

Hi RD,

I think that you are aware of my admiration for your out of the box thought processes. However, I do not agree that that Phillips made a mess of the Chapman case. I appreciate that I am in the minority with this point of view, but that fact has never caused me undue concern. Nor do I believe that he was wrong more often than he was right, but I respect your right to that opinion. I encourage you to continue in your questioning of opinions, including my own.

Cheers, George

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD,

I think that you are aware of my admiration for your out of the box thought processes. However, I do not agree that that Phillips made a mess of the Chapman case. I appreciate that I am in the minority with this point of view, but that fact has never caused me undue concern. Nor do I believe that he was wrong more often than he was right, but I respect your right to that opinion. I encourage you to continue in your questioning of opinions, including my own.

Cheers, George

As always George you submit another excellent post containing fair and measured points.

Full respect to you and your views on this case


RD

[Duran duren]

Hi RD,

I think that you are aware of my admiration for your out of the box thought processes. However, I do not agree that that Phillips made a mess of the Chapman case. I appreciate that I am in the minority with this point of view, but that fact has never caused me undue concern. Nor do I believe that he was wrong more often than he was right, but I respect your right to that opinion. I encourage you to continue in your questioning of opinions, including my own.

Cheers, George

Agreed George.....excellent thread so far as well