Alice McKenzie - some details not seen before

[Fisherman]

Hi fish
Nice to see you again. Good post

Thanks, Abby!

[Fisherman]

No. They, like other canonical victims, had their THROATS, cut, albeit Stride to a lesser degree than the rest.

And if the throats were not completely cut in each case, then how can we establish that the killer had a thing for cutting throats? It is just as likely that he was about cutting arteries and that the throat simply was collateral damage.

Targetting the neck and the abdomen (with Stride as an exception when it comes to the latter), and a proven wish to take out organs in three cases, is as far as we can stretch things. Meaning, of course, that organ retrieval cannot be put down as "criteria" either.

As far as I´m concerned, I don´t even think he necessarily was after inner organs in each case.

[Jon Guy]

Thanks, Abby!

Yes, good to see you posting again, Christer !!

[Fisherman]

Yes, good to see you posting again, Christer !!

Many thanks, Jon!

[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.

[Fisherman]

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

[GUT]

Another saying G’day Fish.

[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.

[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.

[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...!

[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!

[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.

[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]

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

[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.