Alice McKenzie - some details not seen before

[Harry D]

But the cessations make these all moot points.

Who's to say when the murders truly ended?

[Sam Flynn]

How many prostitutes were slain in that manner before the Autumn of terror?

It depends on which manner you mean. Was her throat deeply cut from side to side? No. Was her abdomen deeply and extensively cut? No. Was she eviscerated? No.

[Harry D]

It depends on which manner you mean. Was her throat deeply cut from side to side? No. Was her abdomen deeply and extensively cut? No. Was she eviscerated? No.

But putting aside the extent of her injuries, they still followed the Ripper signature.

[Sam Flynn]

But putting aside the extent of her injuries, they still followed the Ripper signature.

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.

[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?

[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]

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]

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]

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?

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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".