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

[Losmandris]

Bit of an aside. But since writing the original post I visited Castle Alley on a trip back to the UK. They (the local council) have preserved the old frontage of the wash house there which is great. The street feels out of the way somehow even on a busy Friday afternoon. Very quiet and atmospheric, be interesting to visit at night.

[Lewis C]

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?

That's a fair point too. I won't say that it's probable that Jack planned to kill indoors in November, just that it's possible.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Everything about the murder of Stride points to her not being a Ripper victim

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

Everything about the murder of Stride points to her not being a Ripper victim

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

So what is your current thinking on McKenzie in this regard? Apologies if I have missed a previous reply on this topic.

Cheers, George

[Filby]

Maybe, but even the throat wounds are more shallow, do not sever the wind pipe, yet he had time to make a few cuts to the abdomen. But, there are two cuts to the throat, which JtR seemed to do most times, but usually the 2nd was a complete circle down to the spine, while in this case it was two 4 inch cuts (still not small, but a bit of a change - whether that's important or not is open to debate).

I doubt burnout/just not into it, would be the case. That would be highly unusual for a serial murderer (to be sort of done with it, but do one more, and think "meh, not my thing anymore"). Sick, maybe, but then, if he's taken a break for so long, why go out when he's ill? (I'm thinking physically ill here, not mentally).

Not saying it can't work as an idea, but it seems to me that the copy-cat idea, someone killed her then took a few swipes at the abdomen to make it look like JtR, is a strong alternative to "JtR did it, but had a different knife that was unsuitable." It probably needs more serious scrutiny, to go over all the info there is, and see if there's anything that's been overlooked.

- Jeff

Advance of illness/ability to commit the crimes would def. be a very reasonable consideration. With an untreated mental illness of bipolar/schizo; one will physically deteriorate rather quickly if not eating - which is very common. Answered by my husband/psychiatrist of 50 years and still practicing.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

So what is your current thinking on McKenzie in this regard? Apologies if I have missed a previous reply on this topic.

Cheers, George

Hi George
My thoughts on Mckenzie are that I believe she was a ripper victim and the suspect for her murder is Carl Feigenabum. There is strong circumstantial evidence to support my suspicion.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

I believe that the generally accepted perception of the motivation for the Canonical Group murders is but one possibility among others. There is a possibility that despite lacking concrete evidence that would link all Five Canonical by knowledge of each other, it is within the realm of possibility that they were all known to him. I also believe that the perception there is a Canonical Group that consists of Five women and these were separate from all other violent crimes and criminals in the area at that time is a possibility. Like a lesser number of "ripper" victims linked with a group or gang of killers, or a greater number linked with a single individual is also within that possibility realm.

On face value, Alice's injuries fit more with the alledged Canonical murders of Polly, Annie and Kate than either Liz or Mary do. They have the misfortune of timing, and our perhaps inaccurate presumption that these "ripper" style killings ended when "a" Ripper stopped, or was stopped. The inclusion of Alice into a ripper style killing group seems reasonable, but does that then mean that this 1 man kept on killing past the time the authorities claimed to have institutionalized him, or could it mean that they incorrectly assessed these crimes by using only 1 mans madness as their explanation? Might there have been other possible reasons to explain some of these that are still unknown? Might some possible reasons be "hot potatoes"?

I think Alice indicates at the very least that IF Jack The Ripper had been caught and institutionalized, then we have evidence with Alice that other men could and did kill in much the same manner. Men that would also have been around the Fall of 1888, like Jack apparently was.

[John Wheat]

That's a fair point too. I won't say that it's probable that Jack planned to kill indoors in November, just that it's possible.

Because if Jack didn't plan to kill indoors in November then your theory about him only killing in Summer months falls apart.

[John Wheat]

I believe that the generally accepted perception of the motivation for the Canonical Group murders is but one possibility among others. There is a possibility that despite lacking concrete evidence that would link all Five Canonical by knowledge of each other, it is within the realm of possibility that they were all known to him. I also believe that the perception there is a Canonical Group that consists of Five women and these were separate from all other violent crimes and criminals in the area at that time is a possibility. Like a lesser number of "ripper" victims linked with a group or gang of killers, or a greater number linked with a single individual is also within that possibility realm.

On face value, Alice's injuries fit more with the alledged Canonical murders of Polly, Annie and Kate than either Liz or Mary do. They have the misfortune of timing, and our perhaps inaccurate presumption that these "ripper" style killings ended when "a" Ripper stopped, or was stopped. The inclusion of Alice into a ripper style killing group seems reasonable, but does that then mean that this 1 man kept on killing past the time the authorities claimed to have institutionalized him, or could it mean that they incorrectly assessed these crimes by using only 1 mans madness as their explanation? Might there have been other possible reasons to explain some of these that are still unknown? Might some possible reasons be "hot potatoes"?

I think Alice indicates at the very least that IF Jack The Ripper had been caught and institutionalized, then we have evidence with Alice that other men could and did kill in much the same manner. Men that would also have been around the Fall of 1888, like Jack apparently was.

Your idea that all of a sudden there were several killers with similar M.O.s in an area of London is fanciful at best. The idea that the authorities knew who Jack the Ripper was and didn't disclose it and "hot potatoes" etc is complete bullshit.

[JeffHamm]

Advance of illness/ability to commit the crimes would def. be a very reasonable consideration. With an untreated mental illness of bipolar/schizo; one will physically deteriorate rather quickly if not eating - which is very common. Answered by my husband/psychiatrist of 50 years and still practicing.

Hi Filby,

That's a very good point. If JtR were psychotic (rather than psychopathic), then his mental illness could lead to physical deterioration, in turn resulting in less sever injuries. It's not an unreasonable line to consider, and the implications of that suggestion create interesting topics for discussion. Things like, but if he is so physically weakened, then could he have attacked McKenzie silently enough that he didn't attract the attention of the nearby police officers? Could he have overpowered her in order to kill her? And so forth. It's not out of the realm of possibilities, but it may create sufficient complications that work against the idea. But maybe they can be adequately addressed? That's the whole point of discussions after all, to see if answer to questions like these can be found (beyond the "it's not impossible so he might have ..." type, which can be thrown out willy nilly).

- Jeff

[Lewis C]

Because if Jack didn't plan to kill indoors in November then your theory about him only killing in Summer months falls apart.

I didn't say summer, I said warm weather, meaning warm relative to the months that follow September. Otherwise, I agree with this, but for Jack only killing outdoors during warmer months to be a possibility, it only needs to be a possibility that Jack planned to kill MJK indoors.

[Lewis C]

Everything about the murder of Stride points to her not being a Ripper victim

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Everything except that she was a middle aged prostitute who drank too much, her throat was slit, and her murder occurred 45 minutes before and within easy walking distance of Eddowes' murder.

[Lewis C]

Hi George
My thoughts on Mckenzie are that I believe she was a ripper victim and the suspect for her murder is Carl Feigenabum. There is strong circumstantial evidence to support my suspicion.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If you can provide strong circumstantial evidence that Feigenbaum was even in England at the time of Mackenzie's murder or of any of the C5 murders, that would interest me. It would probably be better to do that in a Feigenbaum thread rather than this one, however.

[Fiver]

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

The Canonical 5 theory was not created to exclude Bury. Macnaghten likely didn't think Mackenzie was a Ripper victim because it didn't fit with one of his suspects, Druitt.

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.

Or the Ripper died. Or his health failed. Or he was institutionalized. Or incarcerated. Or the thrill was gone. Or he grew too afraid of getting caught.

No theory about when or why the Ripper stopped can be proven, No theory about when or why the Ripper started can be proven.

[Scott Nelson]

The idea that the authorities knew who Jack the Ripper was and didn't disclose it and "hot potatoes" etc is complete bullshit.

Without knowing what specific circumstances would account for such an action, you can't say it didn't happen.