Alice McKenzie - some details not seen before

[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]

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]

. 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.

[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.

[Harry D]

The throat was cut twice, though, as with previous Ripper victims, yes?

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks for the confirmation, Jon. So, no actual throat wound, and only a superficial cut to the abdomen. No wonder that the surgeon who conducted the post mortem, Bagster Phillips no less, concluded:

"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"

[Sam Flynn]

The throat was cut twice, though, as with previous Ripper victims, yes?

The left side of her neck, to be precise.

[Sam Flynn]

Fisherman: "You keep speaking of "criteria" as if there were such things established"

Luckily, the criteria that distinguish necks from throats aren't for me to decide.

[Jon Guy]

Luckily, the criteria that distinguish necks from throats aren't for me to decide.

Yes, only Chapman and Kelly had cuts completely circling the neck.
The others copycats ?

[Abby Normal]

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.

Hi fish
Nice to see you again. Good post

[Fisherman]

The throat was cut twice, though, as with previous Ripper victims, yes?

Yes, there were two cuts, just like you say. And just like you say, that ties her closer to the Ripper series.
One may contemplate WHY this was so - the expected thing to do for a throat-cutter (or neck-cutter, whichever term we use) would be to cut once. My suggestion is that the killer wanted to make absoutely certain that he did not miss the artery, and so hemade two incisions, close to each other and of the same length. Why he otherwise would make twin cuts is something I have no explanation for.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, only Chapman and Kelly had cuts completely circling the neck.

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

[Fisherman]

Thanks for the confirmation, Jon. So, no actual throat wound, and only a superficial cut to the abdomen. No wonder that the surgeon who conducted the post mortem, Bagster Phillips no less, concluded:

"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"

Let´s add that last section again, though, where Phillips said that he would "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.

The wounds differed in character from the previous Ripper murders, and that was all Phillips chose to point out. So we are once again left with the question which is likeliest, two killers who targetted neck and abdomen, or one killer who did not make the same kind of cuts all the time.

It must be added that the medicos of the era were not as informed as we are when it comes to the rarity of certain signature damages. Today we know that the rarer the damage, the greater the likelihood of just the one killer. I doubt that Phillips was as read up on that matter, however obvious it seems to us today.

[Jon Guy]

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

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.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman: "You keep speaking of "criteria" as if there were such things established"

Luckily, the criteria that distinguish necks from throats aren't for me to decide.

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.