Alice McKenzie - some details not seen before

[Fisherman]

I don't, Jon, but at least I acknowledge that her neck wound wasn't as extensive as those inflicted on most of the canonical victims. I say "neck wound" deliberately in that, for my money, to classify it as a "throat wound" would require that the midline of the throat had been traversed, and arguably the windpipe cut. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that neither criteria were met in McKenzie's case.

Excuse me for butting in here, Gareth, but you keep speaking of "criteria" as if there were such things established. That was never the case. We do not know what underlying reason the killer had for cutting the way he did. But we DO know that Stride only had one side of the neck cut and that Eddowes had the left side artery severed whereas the right side ditto was only nicked. Nichols had two cuts, one longer and one shorter. So it seems to me that we are unable to state as a fact that the "criteria" for being a ripper cut to the neck is that the cut is carried all the way around the neck. And MacKenzie fits in a lot better once we look these things, without predisposing any fixed "criteria".

If I was to guess, based on how I see the case, I´d suggest that the reason for cutting the neck at all may have been to bleed the victim. And that happens regardless if you sever one or both sides of the neck and it´s arteries.

I have never felt certain about MacKenzies inclusion myself, but I accept as a fact that given the odd combination of damages, a cut neck and a mutilated abdomen, means that there at least can be no other prime suspect than the Ripper.

As for the possible link to the Torso murders, I´d say that both series seem to have peaked in 1888, whereas they also both seem to have produced a final victim each (MacKenzie and the Pinchin Street torso, both in -89) that were comparatively lame and tired compared to the earlier efforts in a number of respects. It is no certain indicator, but it is a compelling matter nevertheless.

[Jon Guy]

. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that neither criteria were met in McKenzie's case.

No, that`s correct, Gareth
Just her left carotid severed down to the bone.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, a very nasty wound.
I get the impression that modern commentators think it was some kind of paper cut.

I don't, Jon, but at least I acknowledge that her neck wound wasn't as extensive as those inflicted on most of the canonical victims. I say "neck wound" deliberately in that, for my money, to classify it as a "throat wound" would require that the midline of the throat had been traversed, and arguably the windpipe cut. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that neither criteria were met in McKenzie's case.

[Jon Guy]

To the extent of four inches.

Yes, a very nasty wound.
I get the impression that modern commentators think it was some kind of paper cut.

[Sam Flynn]

And Dr. Bond didn't?

There are plenty of examples in the Ripper case where officials, medical or otherwise, formed somewhat contentious opinions.

[Sam Flynn]

I`m not sure what is meant by sliced through , but McKenzie had her throat cut down to the bone.

To the extent of four inches.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I feel we need to look at Dr Bond's assessment of Alice. He didn't examine the body first hand, he saw the body the day after the post mortem, and it had already begun to decompose, plus Dr Phillips thought that it had been washed. Bond also says "He informed me that the post mortem was completed yesterday [Phillips] & that the wounds on the throat of the woman had been so disturbed that any examination I might make, unassisted would convey no definite information as to the nature of the injuries" . But then goes on to make the assessment that the throat was skillfully & resolutely cut. Could he be sure ? Besides the neck being stabbed twice on the left side and dragged along but not entirely across doesn't sound skillfully and resolutely cut at all. Remember his summing up after MJK "He doesn't even possess the skills of a Butcher". Sounds like a change of heart. He then goes on to comment that "Each mutilation indicating sexual thoughts & a desire to mutilate the abdomen & sexual organs" But the abdomen wasn't mutilated and apart from seven or eight scratches beginning at the navel and pointing toward the genitalia, and
small cut across the mons veneris, neither where the sexual organs. Finally his report was sent to Anderson, who is thought to have took Bond's opinions seriously. But he writes " I am here assuming that the murder of Alice M'Kenzie on the 17th of July 1889, was by another hand. I was absent from London when it occurred, but the Chief Commissioner investigated the case on the spot and decided it was an ordinary murder, and not the work of a sexual maniac.", without mentioning Bond.

[Jon Guy]

. Her throat wasn't even sliced through, an act which would have taken her killer no more than a couple of seconds to effect if he'd been inclined, or experienced, to do it. I find it highly unlikely that the "true" Ripper, however rusty, would have hesitated to do so.

I`m not sure what is meant by sliced through , but McKenzie had her throat cut down to the bone.

[Harry D]

I'd prefer to form my own opinion by sticking to the objective evidence.

And Dr. Bond didn't?

[Sam Flynn]

Good enough to fool Dr. Bond, it seems.

I'd prefer to form my own opinion by sticking to the objective evidence.

[Harry D]

If he was a copycat, he wasn't a very good one.

Good enough to fool Dr. Bond, it seems.

[Sam Flynn]

Multiplying the number of postmortem mutilators in the same part of town is hardly the parsimonious solution.

There's a possibility that he was a copycat - besides, as I've said, there are differing degrees of postmortem mutilations. What happened to Alice McKenzie is hardly worth writing home about, compared to what happened to the least mutilated of the Ripper's victims. Her throat wasn't even sliced through, an act which would have taken her killer no more than a couple of seconds to effect if he'd been inclined, or experienced, to do it. I find it highly unlikely that the "true" Ripper, however rusty, would have hesitated to do so.

Neither, for that matter, is he likely to have failed to press his knife just a smidgeon more forcefully into her belly so as to open the abdominal cavity. The knife must have been in contact with both her throat and belly at some point, and it would have been a simple matter of slightly varying the pressure for him to have cut her more effectively, yet he did not do so.

If he was a copycat, he wasn't a very good one.

[Harry D]

The simplest explanation, which needs no excuses whatsoever, is that we're dealing with different killers.

And, incidentally, there are varying degrees of post mortem mutilation. People can slacken the qualifying criteria if they must, but you won't catch me doing it.

Multiplying the number of postmortem mutilators in the same part of town is hardly the parsimonious solution.

[Sam Flynn]

I'm not seeking to excuse anything. Those are valid reasons that would justify the difference in severity between McKenzie's murder & the C5, without the need to account for another post-mortem mutilator rearing his head in Whitechapel for one night only.

The simplest explanation, which needs no excuses whatsoever, is that we're dealing with different killers.

And, incidentally, there are varying degrees of post mortem mutilation. People can slacken the qualifying criteria if they must, but you won't catch me doing it.

[Joshua Rogan]

It seems that McCormack's account may have contained a kernel of truth. This is from The Guardian (Boston, Lincs) of 17th August, 1889]

Nice find, Mr B.