Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Fiver View Post

    There are no "full moon events" among the C5. There aren't even any half-moon events. The Ripper attacks occurred when there was 41%, 2%, 39%, and 27% of the
    Moon's visible disk illuminated. That's not a sign of a "lunar loony", that's a sign that the Ripper preferred to attack when there was little or no moonlight.
    Sorry, I was obviously aware that some people use the moon phases, like they also use numerology, and days of the week, and coincidental timings to explain these events, I had mistaken that first belief system was actually based on some full moon occurrences. As it seems, its actually based on nothing...like the other ones.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    People have tried to use Moon Phases to explain the gaps over the years, and there are some full moon events. But realistically we aren't looking for a lunar loony.
    There are no "full moon events" among the C5. There aren't even any half-moon events. The Ripper attacks occurred when there was 41%, 2%, 39%, and 27% of the
    Moon's visible disk illuminated. That's not a sign of a "lunar loony", that's a sign that the Ripper preferred to attack when there was little or no moonlight.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    People have tried to use Moon Phases to explain the gaps over the years, and there are some full moon events. But realistically we aren't looking for a lunar loony.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Where wolf? Ah, there wolf!

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Fiver View Post

    From the amount of similarities, it seems probable that McKenzie's killer was the Ripper or someone attempting to imitate him. If McKenzie's killer was the Ripper, the massively reduced amount of mutilation might be a sign of illness or that the Ripper is no longer getting the same thrill that he got out of previous killings.

    I do think that McKenzie's killer was not the Ripper based on one significant difference from the C5. The C5 (plus Tabram) were all killed when there was little or no moonlight. McKenzie was murdered the night of 16-17 July, 1889, which would have had a lot more moonlight than any of the C5 killings.
    That conclusively rules out the ripper being a werewolf!

    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    hi los
    some of the drs and police thought she was, some didn't. today consensus is mixed. I think she probably was:
    same victimology
    same location
    at night
    throat cut
    abdomen gashed
    unsolved
    and the clincher for me- she was found with her skirt hiked up like most of the rest.
    From the amount of similarities, it seems probable that McKenzie's killer was the Ripper or someone attempting to imitate him. If McKenzie's killer was the Ripper, the massively reduced amount of mutilation might be a sign of illness or that the Ripper is no longer getting the same thrill that he got out of previous killings.

    I do think that McKenzie's killer was not the Ripper based on one significant difference from the C5. The C5 (plus Tabram) were all killed when there was little or no moonlight. McKenzie was murdered the night of 16-17 July, 1889, which would have had a lot more moonlight than any of the C5 killings.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

    Indeed, there have been many advances in criminal investigation since 1888, as well as medical, and, well, pretty much everything pertinent. We know more about how to interview witnesses to get more reliable information, we know more about what requires skill, we know more about how to preserve and investigate a crime scene, and all sorts of things. That's a result of the research and studies that have been done, and from which we've gleaned new ideas and insights. The police of the time did the best they could given the knowledge and technology available at the time.

    - Jeff
    Broadly speaking, I agree - the police did their best in relation to their resources and knowledge, apart from some lazy mistakes (like forgetting initially to speak to all the dwellers of Bucks Row).
    Some think I am too hard on the police, but the fact of the matter is that 132 years from now, we will be laughed at for our shortcomings too. We are all prisoners of the era we live in. The good thing is that we do tend to get better as we move along.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 03-04-2020, 06:12 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    The interpretation of evidence is still subjective. Yes...science has provided many more tools to use to identify criminals, but unless a specific sequential and undeniable answer is available in the scientific data, its still up to Police work and interpretation. Crimes were solved back then, don't assume that a less advanced methodology prevents similar outcomes. Crimes were solved...without blood analysis, or hair fibers, or tire impressions, or fingerprints, or acquired historical databases on criminal activities, ...murders were still solved. To presume that the investigators of these crimes were incapable of solving these crimes due to the lack of modern forensics isn't an accurate portrayal of LVP policework or ability to accurately interpret what is given.

    In many ways these investigators were more free in their ability to interpret data, because they didn't have the constraints of modern forensic tools.

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffHamm
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    So yes - she may or may not have been a Ripper victim. And basically, I think everybody out here with some sort of insight is aware of that. What I would add is that it is perilous to invest in the beliefs of the contemporary police on account of how poorly understood many vital factors were at the time.Just criticism can be levelled at the police in combination with how they were sometimes slack, but we really cannot criticize them from not being versed in the criminal psychology behind serial murder and the impact of different paraphilia. These shortcomings would nevertheless have had a tremendeous impact on the odds of the police clearing up the cases we study, and we may do well not to take too much pride in having the victorian police on our side in different matters.
    Indeed, there have been many advances in criminal investigation since 1888, as well as medical, and, well, pretty much everything pertinent. We know more about how to interview witnesses to get more reliable information, we know more about what requires skill, we know more about how to preserve and investigate a crime scene, and all sorts of things. That's a result of the research and studies that have been done, and from which we've gleaned new ideas and insights. The police of the time did the best they could given the knowledge and technology available at the time.

    - Jeff

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

    Well, given the various investigators all seem to point to different individuals, I tend to think they each had their beliefs but that those beliefs were not based upon proof. Each may have had various bits of suggestive evidence, and "gut feelings", or even just found their particular suspect compelling in some way that they then convinced themselves they must be JtR. We all do that sometimes, end up with exceptionally strong beliefs that, when it comes right down to it, isn't really based upon solid evidence. So, I think it is entirely possible that their identified suspects could very well not have been JtR, making McKenzie a possible victim. If it were possible to conclude she was, that would back up my point. But, unfortunately, it's unlikely that conclusion could be drawn with the degree of certainty required to do that. Of course, it is also the case that if it were possible to conclude that one (or more, if you go with the multiple Jacks) of the police were correct, then McKenzie is not a victim of JtR. But without one of those conditions being met, McKenzie may or may not be a JtR victim, and if she's not, the police could also be incorrect.

    - Jeff
    I can see evidence for a suggestion that in some cases the opinions were perhaps intentional misdirection, practiced by men who made their living behaving in just such a manner. If there is information to be suppressed or withheld, who better to do that than the elite members of the national security branches?

    My personal belief is that Alice represents a verification that other people than just the mythical Jack could, and did, kill and mutilate street women during that period. And I believe that maintaining some semblance of control was paramount to the authorities, necessitating some creative story narration, or spin, at times.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

    Well, given the various investigators all seem to point to different individuals, I tend to think they each had their beliefs but that those beliefs were not based upon proof. Each may have had various bits of suggestive evidence, and "gut feelings", or even just found their particular suspect compelling in some way that they then convinced themselves they must be JtR. We all do that sometimes, end up with exceptionally strong beliefs that, when it comes right down to it, isn't really based upon solid evidence. So, I think it is entirely possible that their identified suspects could very well not have been JtR, making McKenzie a possible victim. If it were possible to conclude she was, that would back up my point. But, unfortunately, it's unlikely that conclusion could be drawn with the degree of certainty required to do that. Of course, it is also the case that if it were possible to conclude that one (or more, if you go with the multiple Jacks) of the police were correct, then McKenzie is not a victim of JtR. But without one of those conditions being met, McKenzie may or may not be a JtR victim, and if she's not, the police could also be incorrect.

    - Jeff
    So yes - she may or may not have been a Ripper victim. And basically, I think everybody out here with some sort of insight is aware of that. What I would add is that it is perilous to invest in the beliefs of the contemporary police on account of how poorly understood many vital factors were at the time.Just criticism can be levelled at the police in combination with how they were sometimes slack, but we really cannot criticize them from not being versed in the criminal psychology behind serial murder and the impact of different paraphilia. These shortcomings would nevertheless have had a tremendeous impact on the odds of the police clearing up the cases we study, and we may do well not to take too much pride in having the victorian police on our side in different matters.

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffHamm
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    There is a simple way to deduce whether Alice Mackenzie was killed by Jack the Ripper....do you believe the various Investigators who were on record as saying that the Ripper was actually identified, or institutionalized? If you do, Alice wasn't killed by him. If you don't, then its possible.
    Well, given the various investigators all seem to point to different individuals, I tend to think they each had their beliefs but that those beliefs were not based upon proof. Each may have had various bits of suggestive evidence, and "gut feelings", or even just found their particular suspect compelling in some way that they then convinced themselves they must be JtR. We all do that sometimes, end up with exceptionally strong beliefs that, when it comes right down to it, isn't really based upon solid evidence. So, I think it is entirely possible that their identified suspects could very well not have been JtR, making McKenzie a possible victim. If it were possible to conclude she was, that would back up my point. But, unfortunately, it's unlikely that conclusion could be drawn with the degree of certainty required to do that. Of course, it is also the case that if it were possible to conclude that one (or more, if you go with the multiple Jacks) of the police were correct, then McKenzie is not a victim of JtR. But without one of those conditions being met, McKenzie may or may not be a JtR victim, and if she's not, the police could also be incorrect.

    - Jeff

    Leave a comment:


  • Al Bundy's Eyes
    replied
    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

    On that we agree fully.

    - Jeff
    I'm glad a bit humour helped resolve an argument. Incidentally, I can be found outside the "Kings Head" most afternoons, if anyone fancies a 'sensible duscussion'.. .

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Harry D View Post

    Agreed, but we can't get people to agree on the C5 let alone the Torsos & non-canonicals

    There was the Lambeth torso in 1902 but it sounds like that was a sloppy job.
    The fact that Torsos predate the Ripper crimes by years, happen during that Fall of 1888"spree", and then post date them by years again...does that overall span indicate more than 1 man was responsible for just the Torsos in LVP London? Which of course would make one man for all Torsos and Ripper crimes a fallacy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    There is a simple way to deduce whether Alice Mackenzie was killed by Jack the Ripper....do you believe the various Investigators who were on record as saying that the Ripper was actually identified, or institutionalized? If you do, Alice wasn't killed by him. If you don't, then its possible.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X