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

[Michael W Richards]

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.

I didnt say similar MO's John, nor did I suggest that multiple people were killing the same way. In fact, I believe the true Ripper murders are the ones that do in fact have repetitive MO's, repetitive mutilation focus, similar Victimology, and circumstantial evidence that matches as well. Those are Polly, Annie and perhaps Kate. There are a few elements of Kates murder that are unclear, for one...was she actively soliciting when she met her killer? Polly and Annie both were. Why would Kates injuries differ in knife technique and visible skill? Why did he waste time marking her face?

The point I was making about all the authorities "speculations" about what happened to Jack is similar to the one you made. I dont think there is much information that can be trusted or believed from most, if not all, of the Senior Investigators. Which means, as was my suggestion, that its quite possible the man they referred to as JtR may well have still been in London and still eager to kill street women...in which case Alice can certainly be considered a possible victim of his. But its not a given that he killed for the same reasons most believe Jack killed for.

To your point about multiple killers co-existing in London during the specific time frame we study...its not speculative on my part. There were....obviously. There were 13 names in the Unsolved Murders file, the Canonical Group only claims 5 of them... accepted by most investigators...which leaves 8 more that were not by Jack.....like Emma, Martha, Alice...multiple Torso's...etc.

There were a few murderers of women around during those specific months, and only a few murders within the accepted Canonical Group seem to have a fixed MO.

[Michael W Richards]

Its is patently incorrect to use the Canonical Group as if it is based on a repetitive MO. Its not. Liz Stride would not be in it, Mary likely doesnt belong as a continuation of an existing established MO...but as I said, within the Canonical Group of Five WE DO find repetitive manner of Victimology, Acquisition, of Disabling, killing by double throat cuts, and abdominal mutilations as the victims body and brain are dying.

I realize that many want to base what is probable on modern serial killer data that supports killers unexpectedly morphing using various forms of acquisition, weapon and killing over the long periods that they are active, but for me......Polly was actively soliciting at the time, was choked, had her throat cut twice, was lain flat on her back, her skirts were lifted, and abdominal mutilations took place. Annie was actively soliciting at the time, she was choked, had her throat cut twice, she was lain flat on her back, her skirts lifted, and abdominal mutilations took place..this time resulting in an extraction. Kate...we dont know if she was actively soliciting, we assume she was choked, then had her throat cut twice, then she was lain on her back, had her skirts lifted and had abdominal mutilations take place ending with extractions again. What isnt repetitive is the superfluous knife detail work he did around her navel, cutting her colon section, cutting and tearing the apron, marking her face, slicing her nose.......

The exceptions with Kate make her in my estimation possibly linked by the same killer of Polly and Annie.

[John Wheat]

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

Yes because the Police are well known for solving infamous crimes but not telling anyone.

[John Wheat]

I didnt say similar MO's John, nor did I suggest that multiple people were killing the same way. In fact, I believe the true Ripper murders are the ones that do in fact have repetitive MO's, repetitive mutilation focus, similar Victimology, and circumstantial evidence that matches as well. Those are Polly, Annie and perhaps Kate. There are a few elements of Kates murder that are unclear, for one...was she actively soliciting when she met her killer? Polly and Annie both were. Why would Kates injuries differ in knife technique and visible skill? Why did he waste time marking her face?

The point I was making about all the authorities "speculations" about what happened to Jack is similar to the one you made. I dont think there is much information that can be trusted or believed from most, if not all, of the Senior Investigators. Which means, as was my suggestion, that its quite possible the man they referred to as JtR may well have still been in London and still eager to kill street women...in which case Alice can certainly be considered a possible victim of his. But its not a given that he killed for the same reasons most believe Jack killed for.

To your point about multiple killers co-existing in London during the specific time frame we study...its not speculative on my part. There were....obviously. There were 13 names in the Unsolved Murders file, the Canonical Group only claims 5 of them... accepted by most investigators...which leaves 8 more that were not by Jack.....like Emma, Martha, Alice...multiple Torso's...etc.

There were a few murderers of women around during those specific months, and only a few murders within the accepted Canonical Group seem to have a fixed MO.

The Canonical murders are very similar except Stride. Who may or may not have been a victim of Jack the Ripper.

[Scott Nelson]

Yes because the Police are well known for solving infamous crimes but not telling anyone.

Reasonable certainty about who he was and not being able to prove it in a court of law does not translate to 'solving' the crimes. And everyone at Scotland Yard did not necessarily have to know about it.

[Fiver]

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.

Nobody can determine with 100% certainty who all the victims of the Ripper were, but that is true regardless of how many people you theorize were victims.

The Ripper murders will probably never be solved, but this is due to lack of evidence, not due to the Canonical Five being the most popular theory. Thomas Arnold though there were four victims. Walter Dew thought there were seven. Edmund Reid thought there were nine.

What dooms any attempt to solve the case is a lack of evidence. None of the people seen near the victims shortly before their deaths have been identified. And it's quite possible that none of them were the Ripper. There were no fingerprint records and no means of finding latent prints. There was no means of distinguishing animal from human blood and blood types were unknown, let alone DNA typing.

Even today, with modern tools it is not easy to catch serial killers. A study shows that the most common methods of identification were "victim survived, DNA, turned in by an associate, family, or friend, fingerprints, prior offending history, body found in home, and being arrested for an unrelated charge". Many of those are due to luck.

There may have been Ripper victims that survived. If so, they didn't report it or the report wasn't connected to the Ripper. DNA and fingerprints weren't available. No one who knew the Ripper turned him in. No one was identified by prior lesser offenses. The Ripper didn't kill at home and didn't leave trophy organs casually lying around for small children or house guests to find. If arrested on an unrelated charge, the Ripper didn't confess and the police didn't find anything incriminating on his person or in the place that he lived.

Even if modern forensic techniques were available in 1888, odds are the Ripper wouldn't have been identified by forensic evidence.

[Fiver]

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.

Agreed.

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...

A modern group of signature analysts disagrees with you. They concluded that the Ripper killed Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly.

[John Wheat]

Reasonable certainty about who he was and not being able to prove it in a court of law does not translate to 'solving' the crimes. And everyone at Scotland Yard did not necessarily have to know about it.

I stand by what I have said. The Police did not solve the Ripper crimes.

[Michael W Richards]

Reasonable certainty about who he was and not being able to prove it in a court of law does not translate to 'solving' the crimes. And everyone at Scotland Yard did not necessarily have to know about it.

That situation would suggest a conspiracy of some kind Scott, Im fairly sure you are not suggesting that the killer alone would know the actual facts. If the answer to this riddle was known "with reasonable certainty" and no word of it made public, nor prosecution of the suspected person, then it seems probable that would require multiple individuals having the knowledge.

That word has been so battered over the years, "conspiracy". Everyone rolls their eyes and assumes paranoia or an active imagination. But from where I sit the actual answer to the riddle is one that could have been known to several individuals, likely Senior officials.

Ive always wondered about the coincidental timing of these crimes and the gathering of double agents and spies and anarchists in town during the Parnell Commission hearings. Interesting coincidence.

Wouldnt it be a dynamite movie if the actual truth is that one of the dangerous anarchists in town at that time, someone perhaps on the Government payroll to provide information, is the guy that did some of these? Does the government risk exposing the fact that it was not uncommon to provide funds to groups and individuals who had causes contrary to the governments own. To groups and individuals that had bombed train stations....plotted to blow up the Queen.....

In that context, take a fresh look at the senior men appointed to the Ripper Crimes. See a lot of Homicide investigators? Arent virtually all these men from Intelligence gathering and secretive National Defensive organizations working at the highest levels of government, and focused on infiltrating agencies like the Irish Self rule factions and labour organizers.

Did someone just mention Millen? Didnt one of those same men mention him in connection with the crimes also?

[Scott Nelson]

I stand by what I have said. The Police did not solve the Ripper crimes.

Technically, yes.

[Scott Nelson]

That situation would suggest a conspiracy of some kind Scott, Im fairly sure you are not suggesting that the killer alone would know the actual facts. If the answer to this riddle was known "with reasonable certainty" and no word of it made public, nor prosecution of the suspected person, then it seems probable that would require multiple individuals having the knowledge.

That word has been so battered over the years, "conspiracy". Everyone rolls their eyes and assumes paranoia or an active imagination. But from where I sit the actual answer to the riddle is one that could have been known to several individuals, likely Senior officials.

Hi Michael,

No, I'm not suggesting a conspiracy. The police had to allow the suspect to be confined without a trial due to a lack of incriminating evidence, his diagnosed insanity and family pressure on police. I think it was best thought that only a few senior police officials should be 'in the know.'

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

No, I'm not suggesting a conspiracy. The police had to allow the suspect to be confined without a trial due to a lack of incriminating evidence, his diagnosed insanity and family pressure on police. I think it was best thought that only a few senior police officials should be 'in the know.'

I think thats a reasonable take Scott. Perhaps there was a small contingent of Senior Officers who did know the answers here, maybe Monro was on the money with his "hot potato" line. But that would mean it was some of the senior men assigned to the cases, the same men who offered various stories of what they "knew". Like Anderson....and Arnold, and Abberline, and Macnaughten, and Smith, and Swanson, or Littlechild,...Im sure you get my point. If there was a small group who "knew" what happened, it would likely consist of at least some of these men. Yet they all gave different takes on what the investigations revealed..if anything.

[Michael W Richards]

Technically, yes.

I believe they did not close the case, but I dont see that its impossible that some of them knew what happened.....perhaps it was the differences in the legal system as compared with France....as was voiced by one of these same men.

[Michael W Richards]

Yes because the Police are well known for solving infamous crimes but not telling anyone.

You are not as naive as that post suggests. We have ample evidence throughout modern history of information held back by the authorities based on various reasons. National Security would be one. So would self preservation.

Just ask the CIA why they denied ever knowing about Oswald, while in fact he had been an informant of theirs for years. National Security...self preservation...have powerful influences on the truth sometimes.

[Fiver]

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

It's not that simple/

"In the absence of motive, the age and class of woman selected as victim, and the place and time of the crime, there was a similarity between this case and those mysteries which had recently occurred in that neighbourhood. There had been no skilful mutilation as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case in Mitre-square - possibly the work of an imitator; but there had been the same skill exhibited in the way in which the victim had been entrapped, and the injuries inflicted, so as to cause instant death and prevent blood from soiling the operator, and the same daring defiance of immediate detection, which, unfortunately for the peace of the inhabitants and trade of the neighbourhood, had hitherto been only too successful." - Coroner Baxter