Alice McKenzie - some details not seen before

[Harry D]

I'm not saying you're bending the facts or cherry-picking, Harry, but you are seeking to minimise/excuse the fact that her wounds were nowhere near as severe as even the least-mutilated evisceration victim of Jack the Ripper, viz. "JTR might have been out of practice", or "he might have been interrupted".

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.

[Joshua Rogan]

These are Dr Bond`s reasons: I see in this murder evidence of similar design to the former Whitechapel murders, viz. sudden onslaught on the prostrate woman, the throat skillfully and resolutely cut with subsequent mutilation, each mutilation indicating sexual thoughts and a desire to mutilate the abdomen and sexual organs. I am of opinion that the murder was performed by the same person who committed the former series of Whitechapel murder.

Dr Phillips disagreed but still admitted similarities: After careful and long deliberation, I cannot satisfy myself, on purely Anatomical and professional grounds that the perpetrator of all the "Wh Ch. murders" is our man. I am on the contrary impelled to a contrary conclusion in this noting the mode of procedure and the character of the mutilations and judging of motive in connection with the latter.

I do not here enter into the comparison of the cases neither do I take into account what I admit may be almost conclusive evidence in favour of the one man theory if all the surrounding circumstances and other evidence are considered, holding it as my duty to report on the P.M. appearances and express an opinion only on Professional grounds, based upon my own observation.

Good post, Jon. The part of Phillips' words that you highlighted is often overlooked.

[Abby Normal]

I was referring to the tendency for "suspect-pushers" and "victim-pushers" to devise excuses to make their suspect/victim fit, irrespective of whether they stick to the Canon or not.

And some people like to twist words that don’t fit the facts like “excuses” and “superficial”.

How so very different is McKenzie case facts from the others sam:
Same victimology
Knife cut throat
Abdominal post mortem mutilation
Same time frame
Same location
Same time at night
Unsolved
Murdered out on the street
Found with SKIRT HIKED UP


Added to that some of the police and doctor included her as a ripper victim.


The similarities are way more than the differences. Or to use a favorite word of yours superficial-the similarities are way more than the superficial differences.
Differences which are more logistically explained by the ripper having a bad night than to have another throat cutting, prostitute stalking, night working, abdominal targeting, post mortem mutilating, skirt hiking murderer working at the same time and place!

[Jon Guy]

Hello Harry
It's all too easy to make allowances/excuses in order to fit a murder into the Ripper series (or to bolster a given suspect's candidacy as the killer, for that matter), but I don't find such arguments convincing.

These are Dr Bond`s reasons: I see in this murder evidence of similar design to the former Whitechapel murders, viz. sudden onslaught on the prostrate woman, the throat skillfully and resolutely cut with subsequent mutilation, each mutilation indicating sexual thoughts and a desire to mutilate the abdomen and sexual organs. I am of opinion that the murder was performed by the same person who committed the former series of Whitechapel murder.

Dr Phillips disagreed but still admitted similarities: After careful and long deliberation, I cannot satisfy myself, on purely Anatomical and professional grounds that the perpetrator of all the "Wh Ch. murders" is our man. I am on the contrary impelled to a contrary conclusion in this noting the mode of procedure and the character of the mutilations and judging of motive in connection with the latter.

I do not here enter into the comparison of the cases neither do I take into account what I admit may be almost conclusive evidence in favour of the one man theory if all the surrounding circumstances and other evidence are considered, holding it as my duty to report on the P.M. appearances and express an opinion only on Professional grounds, based upon my own observation.

[Sam Flynn]

But I'm not bending the facts or cherrypicking victims to fit a certain suspect. It's because McKenzie's murder occurred within months of two Torso cases that I believe both series are connected.

I'm not saying you're bending the facts or cherry-picking, Harry, but you are seeking to minimise/excuse the fact that her wounds were nowhere near as severe as even the least-mutilated evisceration victim of Jack the Ripper, viz. "JTR might have been out of practice", or "he might have been interrupted".

[Harry D]

Hello Harry
It's all too easy to make allowances/excuses in order to fit a murder into the Ripper series (or to bolster a given suspect's candidacy as the killer, for that matter), but I don't find such arguments convincing.

But I'm not bending the facts or cherrypicking victims to fit a certain suspect. It's because McKenzie's murder occurred within months of two Torso cases that I believe both series are connected.

[Sam Flynn]

Most of the suspects promoted by their proponents work in the opposite direction -- pretty much adhering to the canonical five as a basis.

I was referring to the tendency for "suspect-pushers" and "victim-pushers" to devise excuses to make their suspect/victim fit, irrespective of whether they stick to the Canon or not.

[Hunter]

Most of the suspects promoted by their proponents work in the opposite direction -- pretty much adhering to the canonical five as a basis.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Harry

There is any number of reasons for this. Perhaps the killer was disturbed? Perhaps the knife wasn't up to the job?

It's all too easy to make allowances/excuses in order to fit a murder into the Ripper series (or to bolster a given suspect's candidacy as the killer, for that matter), but I don't find such arguments convincing.

[John Wheat]

There is any number of reasons for this. Perhaps the killer was disturbed? Perhaps the knife wasn't up to the job?

The most likely is McKenzie wasn't a Ripper victim.

[Harry D]

McKenzie's wounds were superficial and, compared to what the Ripper did to his victims, they were less like "mutilations" than tribal markings.
After all the practice he'd had? Not very likely.

There is any number of reasons for this. Perhaps the killer was disturbed? Perhaps the knife wasn't up to the job?

[Sam Flynn]

McKenzie wasn't just "killed with a knife". Her throat was attacked and mutilations were directed at the abdominal/reproductive area

McKenzie's wounds were superficial and, compared to what the Ripper did to his victims, they were less like "mutilations" than tribal markings.

Perhaps the killer was ill-prepared after an eight month layoff?

After all the practice he'd had? Not very likely.

[Harry D]

Again it depends on what you mean by "these kinds of murder". A person being killed with a knife is one thing (and not particularly rare), whilst a person having their throat deeply cut from ear to ear, and then eviscerated, is quite another matter.

McKenzie wasn't just "killed with a knife". Her throat was attacked and mutilations were directed at the abdominal/reproductive area. The paraphilia is the same as the Ripper's, even if the extremities are not. Perhaps the killer was ill-prepared after an eight month layoff?

[Sam Flynn]

That means we attribute it to a whole 'nother killer? And not external factors that may have influenced the Ripper's efficacy? Even though these kinds of murder were incredibly rare?

Again it depends on what you mean by "these kinds of murder". A person being killed with a knife is one thing (and not particularly rare), whilst a person having their throat deeply cut from ear to ear, and then eviscerated, is quite another matter.

[Harry D]

I'd say that the extent of the wounds were in themselves part of the Ripper's signature. Evisceration certainly was, and there's no getting away from the fact that McKenzie wasn't eviscerated. Neither was her throat deeply cut from side to side for that matter; an element of the Ripper's sig that could have been quickly and easily carried out, yet was not.

That means we attribute it to a whole 'nother killer? And not external factors that may have influenced the Ripper's efficacy? Even though these kinds of murder were incredibly rare?