Alice McKenzie - some details not seen before

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,

Thanks for the reply, and it's great to see you posting again! I hope to respond in detail shortly, i.e. sometime over the Easter period. However, I will say that this is an extremely complex subject, and full of minefields for the unwary! Moreover, whatever we disagree on, I'm sure we can agree that this was a very unusual period in history for rare murders and, clearly, not all of the victims can be attributed to a single killer. Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere, but determining who to include in the canon, and who to exclude, is no easy matter.

You've made an interesting argument, based upon the "triumvirate" of Kelly, Chapman and Jackson. As you know, I've previously argued that the Torso murders were not "lust killings",l, as most of the C5 appear to be, but examples of defensive dismemberment . However, I now believe that argument is flawed, and defensive/offensive dismemberment is far more likely: this is significant, because offensive dismemberment would encompass lust murders. Nonetheless, there are major differences in respect of three aforementioned victims, and I also plan to address this issue in detail.

Finally, I would disagree that similarities are more important than differences, if that is what you're arguing. For instance, in every instance where a murder has been attributed to JtR, or where he's been named a possible candidate, the targeting of the neck is a "similarity". However, it is certain that not all of these victims can have been murdered by the same killer, otherwise William Bury would have to be the perpetrator, except it's a physical impossibility for him to have killed everyone!

On that last point of yours, you may have misunderstood me, John. I am not saying that similarities are more important per se than dissimilarities - I am saying that a connection is always based on similarities and that dissimilarities can have a smaller or larger impact on the issue. The more similarities there are and the more unusual the similarities are, the more likely it becomes that we have just the one killer.
Surely you agree about that?

[John G]

That depends on how we define the problem, methinks. Basically, it is actually all very easy:

1. The more reoccurring elements there are between two murder sites, the larger the chance that we are dealing with the same killer.

2. The more unusual these elements are, the larger the chance that we are dealing with the same killer.

That is how it works, and I am sure you will agree. Otherwise, please say so and motivate your disagreement/s!

The problems only arise when we interpret the damage done in the many cases of the late 19:th century London. Which is why I think we should not interpret at all if we can avoid it. For example, we should not say that the so called flaps deriving from the respective murder scenes of Chapman, Kelly and Jackson were different in between cases. Or may have looked different. The simple truth is that we do not have access to information that allows us to determine such a thing. They may have been very similar and they may have been very unsimilar - so we do not use that parameter. We only use the parameter that we know that these three victims all had their abdominal walls or parts of their abdominal walls removed in what was described as "large flaps" in each case.

That in itself is quite enough to make the call that it would be extremely unexpected if there were two (or three, for that matter) killers involved. Logic dictates that there was just the one, since the damage is very, very unusual.

Of course, if all other parameters differed very much inbetween these victims, one would have a slightly better case for multiple killers - but still not a very good case by any standards.

If we - theoretically - have three victims, where number one has been shot, number two has been strangled and mutilated and number three has had the head bashed in with a stone, then the geography and time correlation would determine to what extent they were to be regarded as connected with each other. If they all happened to die in the same specific area at the same approximate time, then that would speak for a possible connection - that would need to be proven.

However, if all three victims had had the text "Man U forever" cut into their foreheads, there would be no doubt whatsoever that they were connected and most likely - almost certainly - the killer would be one and the same. Actually, it would not matter if they were found in places very far apart - as long as the time schedule allowed for it, they would (rightfully) be considered to be a series. A copycat would be the only other possibility.

The same thing applies to the victims in the Ripper and the Torso series, if you ask me, but to varying degrees. Stride, for example, must always be looked upon with some scepticism since she lacks the abdominal damage - which is far more conclusive as an indicator than a cut neck.
However, since Chapman, Kelly and Jackson all had their abdomens ripped from sternum to pelvis, all had their uteri cut out, all had their necks cut down to the bone (and beyond in Jacksons case) and all had their abdominal walls removed in flaps, there can be no reasonable or realistic doubt that they fell prey to the same man.

It can be argued that there are major differences inbetween these victims - but a connection is not decided on grounds of inherent differences, it is decided grounded on similarities.

That is why the three victims with the text "Man U forever" on their foreheads cannot be contested as being a series - even if every other factor is dissimilar and the murder methods totally different. The differences must have an explanation, quite simply, and they do not change the fact that a single killer is responsible. The one unique similarity rules the day.

The dismemberment performed in the Torso cases will also have it´s explanation, and such explanations - quite reasonable ones - have been suggested. The similarities rule out the impact of the dissimilarities here too, and most clearly so in the triumvirate Chapman/Kelly/Jackson.

I am happy to discuss this on the relevant thread fortwith, should you want to!

Hi Christer,

Thanks for the reply, and it's great to see you posting again! I hope to respond in detail shortly, i.e. sometime over the Easter period. However, I will say that this is an extremely complex subject, and full of minefields for the unwary! Moreover, whatever we disagree on, I'm sure we can agree that this was a very unusual period in history for rare murders and, clearly, not all of the victims can be attributed to a single killer. Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere, but determining who to include in the canon, and who to exclude, is no easy matter.

You've made an interesting argument, based upon the "triumvirate" of Kelly, Chapman and Jackson. As you know, I've previously argued that the Torso murders were not "lust killings",l, as most of the C5 appear to be, but examples of defensive dismemberment . However, I now believe that argument is flawed, and defensive/offensive dismemberment is far more likely: this is significant, because offensive dismemberment would encompass lust murders. Nonetheless, there are major differences in respect of three aforementioned victims, and I also plan to address this issue in detail.

Finally, I would disagree that similarities are more important than differences, if that is what you're arguing. For instance, in every instance where a murder has been attributed to JtR, or where he's been named a possible candidate, the targeting of the neck is a "similarity". However, it is certain that not all of these victims can have been murdered by the same killer, otherwise William Bury would have to be the perpetrator, except it's a physical impossibility for him to have killed everyone!

[Fisherman]

This is a very good point, and one I hope to address in detail when I have more time: probably in the Torso thread.

Thus, there were clearly a large number of unusual murders associated with late nineteenth London, so the essential problem with determining how many victims were killed by a single killer is how you go about establishing the parameters.

Unfortunately this leads to a major difficulty: when you're the one who's establishing the criteria you could make a case for including, or indeed excluding, virtually any named victim.

For instance, as you point out, if the criteria is victims who had their neck cut all the way round, then this would exclude virtually every suspected victim. However, this approach wouldn't be entirely illogical, considering it could be argued that the depth of these cuts constituted a signature element, I.e. because they were far more severe than would have been necessary to simply overpower, or kill, the victim.

But what if your criteria is simply the targeting of the neck, with some abdominal injuries? Well, in that case why exclude Ellen Bury?

What about severe throat cutting as a criteria? On that basis Kitty Ronan becomes a more likely victim than Mackenzie- as does Coles- and precise geographical location, Dorset Street, links Ronan to both Kelly and Austin.

What about "lust murderer" as a criteria? Keppel, for instance, identified JtR as a lust killer. Well, on that basis Austin would be in, and Kelly would be out: the latter was clearly aggressively mutilated, and such assaults are associated with rage, rather than being sexually motivated. In other words, there are different motivations in operation.

I think we can summarise by saying that this problem is no where as easy as it might initially appear.

That depends on how we define the problem, methinks. Basically, it is actually all very easy:

1. The more reoccurring elements there are between two murder sites, the larger the chance that we are dealing with the same killer.

2. The more unusual these elements are, the larger the chance that we are dealing with the same killer.

That is how it works, and I am sure you will agree. Otherwise, please say so and motivate your disagreement/s!

The problems only arise when we interpret the damage done in the many cases of the late 19:th century London. Which is why I think we should not interpret at all if we can avoid it. For example, we should not say that the so called flaps deriving from the respective murder scenes of Chapman, Kelly and Jackson were different in between cases. Or may have looked different. The simple truth is that we do not have access to information that allows us to determine such a thing. They may have been very similar and they may have been very unsimilar - so we do not use that parameter. We only use the parameter that we know that these three victims all had their abdominal walls or parts of their abdominal walls removed in what was described as "large flaps" in each case.

That in itself is quite enough to make the call that it would be extremely unexpected if there were two (or three, for that matter) killers involved. Logic dictates that there was just the one, since the damage is very, very unusual.

Of course, if all other parameters differed very much inbetween these victims, one would have a slightly better case for multiple killers - but still not a very good case by any standards.

If we - theoretically - have three victims, where number one has been shot, number two has been strangled and mutilated and number three has had the head bashed in with a stone, then the geography and time correlation would determine to what extent they were to be regarded as connected with each other. If they all happened to die in the same specific area at the same approximate time, then that would speak for a possible connection - that would need to be proven.

However, if all three victims had had the text "Man U forever" cut into their foreheads, there would be no doubt whatsoever that they were connected and most likely - almost certainly - the killer would be one and the same. Actually, it would not matter if they were found in places very far apart - as long as the time schedule allowed for it, they would (rightfully) be considered to be a series. A copycat would be the only other possibility.

The same thing applies to the victims in the Ripper and the Torso series, if you ask me, but to varying degrees. Stride, for example, must always be looked upon with some scepticism since she lacks the abdominal damage - which is far more conclusive as an indicator than a cut neck.
However, since Chapman, Kelly and Jackson all had their abdomens ripped from sternum to pelvis, all had their uteri cut out, all had their necks cut down to the bone (and beyond in Jacksons case) and all had their abdominal walls removed in flaps, there can be no reasonable or realistic doubt that they fell prey to the same man.

It can be argued that there are major differences inbetween these victims - but a connection is not decided on grounds of inherent differences, it is decided grounded on similarities.

That is why the three victims with the text "Man U forever" on their foreheads cannot be contested as being a series - even if every other factor is dissimilar and the murder methods totally different. The differences must have an explanation, quite simply, and they do not change the fact that a single killer is responsible. The one unique similarity rules the day.

The dismemberment performed in the Torso cases will also have it´s explanation, and such explanations - quite reasonable ones - have been suggested. The similarities rule out the impact of the dissimilarities here too, and most clearly so in the triumvirate Chapman/Kelly/Jackson.

I am happy to discuss this on the relevant thread fortwith, should you want to!

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

Good to see you back in the swim.

Yes, it's been an expensive time, I've had to replace my entire collection of hats.

I bump into your mate Ed occasionally in Romford. He seems to spend a lot of time there. I'm beginning to suspect that may be where Charlie buried the heads.

Gary

Nah - that´s probably just some sort of skullduggery on Edwards behalf...

[John G]

There is no established criteria, Gareth. And as I have shown - and as Jon succinctly points out - only Chapman and Kelly had the neck cut all the way around. The other four victims, if we count in MacKenzie, displayed various degrees of cutting.

That does not allow us to establish any criteria at all when it comes to the extent of the cutting, it only tells us that the killer cut necks to a smaller or larger degree. It would even be stretching things to say that the criteria is that one or more of the large vessels must be severed.

Going any further is to try and get into the killers head and read his mind. That is an interesting exercise, but not a viable one from which we can build a factual ground to stand on.

This is a very good point, and one I hope to address in detail when I have more time: probably in the Torso thread.

Thus, there were clearly a large number of unusual murders associated with late nineteenth London, so the essential problem with determining how many victims were killed by a single killer is how you go about establishing the parameters.

Unfortunately this leads to a major difficulty: when you're the one who's establishing the criteria you could make a case for including, or indeed excluding, virtually any named victim.

For instance, as you point out, if the criteria is victims who had their neck cut all the way round, then this would exclude virtually every suspected victim. However, this approach wouldn't be entirely illogical, considering it could be argued that the depth of these cuts constituted a signature element, I.e. because they were far more severe than would have been necessary to simply overpower, or kill, the victim.

But what if your criteria is simply the targeting of the neck, with some abdominal injuries? Well, in that case why exclude Ellen Bury?

What about severe throat cutting as a criteria? On that basis Kitty Ronan becomes a more likely victim than Mackenzie- as does Coles- and precise geographical location, Dorset Street, links Ronan to both Kelly and Austin.

What about "lust murderer" as a criteria? Keppel, for instance, identified JtR as a lust killer. Well, on that basis Austin would be in, and Kelly would be out: the latter was clearly aggressively mutilated, and such assaults are associated with rage, rather than being sexually motivated. In other words, there are different motivations in operation.

I think we can summarise by saying that this problem is no where as easy as it might initially appear.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Fish,

Good to see you back in the swim.

Yes, it's been an expensive time, I've had to replace my entire collection of hats.

I bump into your mate Ed occasionally in Romford. He seems to spend a lot of time there. I'm beginning to suspect that may be where Charlie buried the heads.

Gary

[Fisherman]

Thanks, Abby.

The research is ongoing.

Abby is of course right, but I am a tad worried that all that praise you have gotten over the last few years may get the better of you, so I am staying decidedly low-key on the issue. Sorry.

[MrBarnett]

Indeed Gary
And I apologize for my part in derailing. I would be remiss if I didn’t say great find there.

Good job!

Thanks, Abby.

The research is ongoing.

[Abby Normal]

Don't blame you, Gareth, it's gone completely off-topic.

Indeed Gary
And I apologize for my part in derailing. I would be remiss if I didn’t say great find there.

Good job!

[Fisherman]

Another saying G’day Fish.

And G´day to you, GUT! Did I ever tell you what kind of dog I have, by the way? No? It´s an Aussie, of course...!

[MrBarnett]

McKenzie was cut on the side of the neck, Jon. Unlike the C5 Ripper victims, she did not endure a cut throat.

Time to leave this thread, methinks.

Don't blame you, Gareth, it's gone completely off-topic.

[Sam Flynn]

The Doctors should know the difference between a throat and neck, and in the two cases above, they described the neck as being encircled. But this is often missed, as with the McKenzie throat wound being cut down to the bone.

McKenzie was cut on the side of the neck, Jon. Unlike the C5 Ripper victims, she did not endure a cut throat.

Time to leave this thread, methinks.

[GUT]

Another saying G’day Fish.

[Fisherman]

There´s always a future, Harry! Many thanks!!

[Harry D]

Hi fish
Nice to see you again. Good post

Same here. We've had our differences in the past, but good to see you again, Fish.