Alice McKenzie - some details not seen before

[Fisherman]

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

Nah - that´s probably just some sort of skullduggery on Edwards behalf...

[Fisherman]

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.

That depends on how we define the problem, methinks. Basically, it is actually all very easy:

1. The more reoccurring elements there are between two murder sites, the larger the chance that we are dealing with the same killer.

2. The more unusual these elements are, the larger the chance that we are dealing with the same killer.

That is how it works, and I am sure you will agree. Otherwise, please say so and motivate your disagreement/s!

The problems only arise when we interpret the damage done in the many cases of the late 19:th century London. Which is why I think we should not interpret at all if we can avoid it. For example, we should not say that the so called flaps deriving from the respective murder scenes of Chapman, Kelly and Jackson were different in between cases. Or may have looked different. The simple truth is that we do not have access to information that allows us to determine such a thing. They may have been very similar and they may have been very unsimilar - so we do not use that parameter. We only use the parameter that we know that these three victims all had their abdominal walls or parts of their abdominal walls removed in what was described as "large flaps" in each case.

That in itself is quite enough to make the call that it would be extremely unexpected if there were two (or three, for that matter) killers involved. Logic dictates that there was just the one, since the damage is very, very unusual.

Of course, if all other parameters differed very much inbetween these victims, one would have a slightly better case for multiple killers - but still not a very good case by any standards.

If we - theoretically - have three victims, where number one has been shot, number two has been strangled and mutilated and number three has had the head bashed in with a stone, then the geography and time correlation would determine to what extent they were to be regarded as connected with each other. If they all happened to die in the same specific area at the same approximate time, then that would speak for a possible connection - that would need to be proven.

However, if all three victims had had the text "Man U forever" cut into their foreheads, there would be no doubt whatsoever that they were connected and most likely - almost certainly - the killer would be one and the same. Actually, it would not matter if they were found in places very far apart - as long as the time schedule allowed for it, they would (rightfully) be considered to be a series. A copycat would be the only other possibility.

The same thing applies to the victims in the Ripper and the Torso series, if you ask me, but to varying degrees. Stride, for example, must always be looked upon with some scepticism since she lacks the abdominal damage - which is far more conclusive as an indicator than a cut neck.
However, since Chapman, Kelly and Jackson all had their abdomens ripped from sternum to pelvis, all had their uteri cut out, all had their necks cut down to the bone (and beyond in Jacksons case) and all had their abdominal walls removed in flaps, there can be no reasonable or realistic doubt that they fell prey to the same man.

It can be argued that there are major differences inbetween these victims - but a connection is not decided on grounds of inherent differences, it is decided grounded on similarities.

That is why the three victims with the text "Man U forever" on their foreheads cannot be contested as being a series - even if every other factor is dissimilar and the murder methods totally different. The differences must have an explanation, quite simply, and they do not change the fact that a single killer is responsible. The one unique similarity rules the day.

The dismemberment performed in the Torso cases will also have it´s explanation, and such explanations - quite reasonable ones - have been suggested. The similarities rule out the impact of the dissimilarities here too, and most clearly so in the triumvirate Chapman/Kelly/Jackson.

I am happy to discuss this on the relevant thread fortwith, should you want to!

[John G]

That depends on how we define the problem, methinks. Basically, it is actually all very easy:

1. The more reoccurring elements there are between two murder sites, the larger the chance that we are dealing with the same killer.

2. The more unusual these elements are, the larger the chance that we are dealing with the same killer.

That is how it works, and I am sure you will agree. Otherwise, please say so and motivate your disagreement/s!

The problems only arise when we interpret the damage done in the many cases of the late 19:th century London. Which is why I think we should not interpret at all if we can avoid it. For example, we should not say that the so called flaps deriving from the respective murder scenes of Chapman, Kelly and Jackson were different in between cases. Or may have looked different. The simple truth is that we do not have access to information that allows us to determine such a thing. They may have been very similar and they may have been very unsimilar - so we do not use that parameter. We only use the parameter that we know that these three victims all had their abdominal walls or parts of their abdominal walls removed in what was described as "large flaps" in each case.

That in itself is quite enough to make the call that it would be extremely unexpected if there were two (or three, for that matter) killers involved. Logic dictates that there was just the one, since the damage is very, very unusual.

Of course, if all other parameters differed very much inbetween these victims, one would have a slightly better case for multiple killers - but still not a very good case by any standards.

If we - theoretically - have three victims, where number one has been shot, number two has been strangled and mutilated and number three has had the head bashed in with a stone, then the geography and time correlation would determine to what extent they were to be regarded as connected with each other. If they all happened to die in the same specific area at the same approximate time, then that would speak for a possible connection - that would need to be proven.

However, if all three victims had had the text "Man U forever" cut into their foreheads, there would be no doubt whatsoever that they were connected and most likely - almost certainly - the killer would be one and the same. Actually, it would not matter if they were found in places very far apart - as long as the time schedule allowed for it, they would (rightfully) be considered to be a series. A copycat would be the only other possibility.

The same thing applies to the victims in the Ripper and the Torso series, if you ask me, but to varying degrees. Stride, for example, must always be looked upon with some scepticism since she lacks the abdominal damage - which is far more conclusive as an indicator than a cut neck.
However, since Chapman, Kelly and Jackson all had their abdomens ripped from sternum to pelvis, all had their uteri cut out, all had their necks cut down to the bone (and beyond in Jacksons case) and all had their abdominal walls removed in flaps, there can be no reasonable or realistic doubt that they fell prey to the same man.

It can be argued that there are major differences inbetween these victims - but a connection is not decided on grounds of inherent differences, it is decided grounded on similarities.

That is why the three victims with the text "Man U forever" on their foreheads cannot be contested as being a series - even if every other factor is dissimilar and the murder methods totally different. The differences must have an explanation, quite simply, and they do not change the fact that a single killer is responsible. The one unique similarity rules the day.

The dismemberment performed in the Torso cases will also have it´s explanation, and such explanations - quite reasonable ones - have been suggested. The similarities rule out the impact of the dissimilarities here too, and most clearly so in the triumvirate Chapman/Kelly/Jackson.

I am happy to discuss this on the relevant thread fortwith, should you want to!

Hi Christer,

Thanks for the reply, and it's great to see you posting again! I hope to respond in detail shortly, i.e. sometime over the Easter period. However, I will say that this is an extremely complex subject, and full of minefields for the unwary! Moreover, whatever we disagree on, I'm sure we can agree that this was a very unusual period in history for rare murders and, clearly, not all of the victims can be attributed to a single killer. Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere, but determining who to include in the canon, and who to exclude, is no easy matter.

You've made an interesting argument, based upon the "triumvirate" of Kelly, Chapman and Jackson. As you know, I've previously argued that the Torso murders were not "lust killings",l, as most of the C5 appear to be, but examples of defensive dismemberment . However, I now believe that argument is flawed, and defensive/offensive dismemberment is far more likely: this is significant, because offensive dismemberment would encompass lust murders. Nonetheless, there are major differences in respect of three aforementioned victims, and I also plan to address this issue in detail.

Finally, I would disagree that similarities are more important than differences, if that is what you're arguing. For instance, in every instance where a murder has been attributed to JtR, or where he's been named a possible candidate, the targeting of the neck is a "similarity". However, it is certain that not all of these victims can have been murdered by the same killer, otherwise William Bury would have to be the perpetrator, except it's a physical impossibility for him to have killed everyone!

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,

Thanks for the reply, and it's great to see you posting again! I hope to respond in detail shortly, i.e. sometime over the Easter period. However, I will say that this is an extremely complex subject, and full of minefields for the unwary! Moreover, whatever we disagree on, I'm sure we can agree that this was a very unusual period in history for rare murders and, clearly, not all of the victims can be attributed to a single killer. Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere, but determining who to include in the canon, and who to exclude, is no easy matter.

You've made an interesting argument, based upon the "triumvirate" of Kelly, Chapman and Jackson. As you know, I've previously argued that the Torso murders were not "lust killings",l, as most of the C5 appear to be, but examples of defensive dismemberment . However, I now believe that argument is flawed, and defensive/offensive dismemberment is far more likely: this is significant, because offensive dismemberment would encompass lust murders. Nonetheless, there are major differences in respect of three aforementioned victims, and I also plan to address this issue in detail.

Finally, I would disagree that similarities are more important than differences, if that is what you're arguing. For instance, in every instance where a murder has been attributed to JtR, or where he's been named a possible candidate, the targeting of the neck is a "similarity". However, it is certain that not all of these victims can have been murdered by the same killer, otherwise William Bury would have to be the perpetrator, except it's a physical impossibility for him to have killed everyone!

On that last point of yours, you may have misunderstood me, John. I am not saying that similarities are more important per se than dissimilarities - I am saying that a connection is always based on similarities and that dissimilarities can have a smaller or larger impact on the issue. The more similarities there are and the more unusual the similarities are, the more likely it becomes that we have just the one killer.
Surely you agree about that?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Christer,

Thanks for the reply, and it's great to see you posting again! I hope to respond in detail shortly, i.e. sometime over the Easter period. However, I will say that this is an extremely complex subject, and full of minefields for the unwary! Moreover, whatever we disagree on, I'm sure we can agree that this was a very unusual period in history for rare murders and, clearly, not all of the victims can be attributed to a single killer. Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere, but determining who to include in the canon, and who to exclude, is no easy matter.

You've made an interesting argument, based upon the "triumvirate" of Kelly, Chapman and Jackson. As you know, I've previously argued that the Torso murders were not "lust killings",l, as most of the C5 appear to be, but examples of defensive dismemberment . However, I now believe that argument is flawed, and defensive/offensive dismemberment is far more likely: this is significant, because offensive dismemberment would encompass lust murders. Nonetheless, there are major differences in respect of three aforementioned victims, and I also plan to address this issue in detail.

Finally, I would disagree that similarities are more important than differences, if that is what you're arguing. For instance, in every instance where a murder has been attributed to JtR, or where he's been named a possible candidate, the targeting of the neck is a "similarity". However, it is certain that not all of these victims can have been murdered by the same killer, otherwise William Bury would have to be the perpetrator, except it's a physical impossibility for him to have killed everyone!

Look at it in a different light if three women had their throats cut by three different killers, or by one killer would the throat cutting look the same, because you cant pointin to one or three killers, because how they were each cut would be determined by the killer, and his victim, and how he was able to cut the throat of each victim.

So it is wrong to try to suggest that by reading the reports it can be determined that it was one or more killers, Dr Biggs concurs on this.

And i think you will find that the throat cutting was an accepted way of killing someone in Victorian times, and even further back in time than that.

Today more victims die by stabbing than by having their throats cut

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

On that last point of yours, you may have misunderstood me, John. I am not saying that similarities are more important per se than dissimilarities - I am saying that a connection is always based on similarities and that dissimilarities can have a smaller or larger impact on the issue. The more similarities there are and the more unusual the similarities are, the more likely it becomes that we have just the one killer.
Surely you agree about that?

Hi Christer,

Yes, I appear to have misunderstood your point. I would agree that unusual similarities are highly significant and, in this regard, the "triumvirate argument" is obviously important, and not at all easy to break down. That is why I am planning to address the point with a detailed post.

[John G]

Look at it in a different light if three women had their throats cut by three different killers, or by one killer would the throat cutting look the same, because you cant pointin to one or three killers, because how they were each cut would be determined by the killer, and his victim, and how he was able to cut the throat of each victim.

So it is wrong to try to suggest that by reading the reports it can be determined that it was one or more killers, Dr Biggs concurs on this.

And i think you will find that the throat cutting was an accepted way of killing someone in Victorian times, and even further back in time than that.

Today more victims die by stabbing than by having their throats cut

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Thanks for the reply. Nervously out of interest, didn't Dr Biggs acknowledge that he'd only been involved in a handful of dismemberment cases, suggesting that he was relatively inexperienced in this area?

I think we can all agree that, if say, you have a spate of throat cuttings, there is no proof that the same killer was involved. That doesn't mean that we can't make a judgment based upon the balance of probability. For instance, a number of prostitutes were strangled in Ipswich within a short time frame and, not surprisingly, it turned out the same killer was responsible!

[Fisherman]

Look at it in a different light if three women had their throats cut by three different killers, or by one killer would the throat cutting look the same, because you cant pointin to one or three killers, because how they were each cut would be determined by the killer, and his victim, and how he was able to cut the throat of each victim.

So it is wrong to try to suggest that by reading the reports it can be determined that it was one or more killers, Dr Biggs concurs on this.

And i think you will find that the throat cutting was an accepted way of killing someone in Victorian times, and even further back in time than that.

Today more victims die by stabbing than by having their throats cut

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I pointed out earlier that throatcutting is something that is not all that uncommon, so we agree on that score. And of course, if we have a set of throatcuttings, the mode in which it has been done will have to govern whether we think it is just the one or more killers.
However, in the Chapman/Kelly/Jackson cases, we have:
All victims having had their necks cut very deeply.
All victims having had their abdomens ripped from sternum to pelvis.
All victims having had their uteri taken out.
All victims having had their abdominal walls cut away in large flaps.
All victims having been prostitutes.
... and when there are so many similarities, we are faced with a dramatical increase in the risk that we have just one killer. Indeed, since much of the damage is very, very rare, tghe suggestion of two or three killers cannot be taken seriously, as far as I´m concerned. That´s why I keep sayin that in these three cases, the fact that one victim was dismembered represents a dissimilarity that can be easily explained, and that cannot alter the verdict of a single killer.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,

Yes, I appear to have misunderstood your point. I would agree that unusual similarities are highly significant and, in this regard, the "triumvirate argument" is obviously important, and not at all easy to break down. That is why I am planning to address the point with a detailed post.

Looking forward to it, John!

[Fisherman]

Hi Trevor,

Thanks for the reply. Nervously out of interest, didn't Dr Biggs acknowledge that he'd only been involved in a handful of dismemberment cases, suggesting that he was relatively inexperienced in this area?

I think we can all agree that, if say, you have a spate of throat cuttings, there is no proof that the same killer was involved. That doesn't mean that we can't make a judgment based upon the balance of probability. For instance, a number of prostitutes were strangled in Ipswich within a short time frame and, not surprisingly, it turned out the same killer was responsible!

Exactly so, John - and strangulation remains the probably most common mode of killing manually.
If we had added an element of specific mutilation to the strangulations, then that would have clinched the matter beyond reasonable doubt, at least to my mind. Let´s say that the cases involved the genitals being cut. No policeman in his right mind would have any doubt about the significance of that. And although mutilation in uncommon, it is a lot more common than eviscerations!

[John G]

Hi Trevor,

Thanks for the reply. Nervously out of interest, didn't Dr Biggs acknowledge that he'd only been involved in a handful of dismemberment cases, suggesting that he was relatively inexperienced in this area?

I think we can all agree that, if say, you have a spate of throat cuttings, there is no proof that the same killer was involved. That doesn't mean that we can't make a judgment based upon the balance of probability. For instance, a number of prostitutes were strangled in Ipswich within a short time frame and, not surprisingly, it turned out the same killer was responsible!

Correction: It should be "just out of interest." Predictive text issue!

[John G]

Looking forward to it, John!

Thanks Christer, much appreciated.

[Trevor Marriott]

I pointed out earlier that throatcutting is something that is not all that uncommon, so we agree on that score. And of course, if we have a set of throatcuttings, the mode in which it has been done will have to govern whether we think it is just the one or more killers.
However, in the Chapman/Kelly/Jackson cases, we have:
All victims having had their necks cut very deeply.
All victims having had their abdomens ripped from sternum to pelvis.
All victims having had their uteri taken out.
All victims having had their abdominal walls cut away in large flaps.
All victims having been prostitutes.
... and when there are so many similarities, we are faced with a dramatical increase in the risk that we have just one killer. Indeed, since much of the damage is very, very rare, tghe suggestion of two or three killers cannot be taken seriously, as far as I´m concerned. That´s why I keep sayin that in these three cases, the fact that one victim was dismembered represents a dissimilarity that can be easily explained, and that cannot alter the verdict of a single killer.

That’s of course if people agree with all of your “similarities” and a single killer

Take Jackson and Kelly out of the equation and where does it leave you.?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

That’s of course if people agree with all of your “similarities” and a single killer

Take Jackson and Kelly out of the equation and where does it leave you.?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

With Chapman...?

But why would I take them out of the equation? The whole suggestion I am making builds on these three victims, so why on earth would I remove two of them? You are not making much sense here, Trevor.

The similarities I speak of are not suggestions, they are facts:

All victims DID have their necks cut very deeply.
All victims DID have their abdomens ripped from sternum to pelvis.
All victims DID have their uteri taken out.
All victims DID have their abdominal walls cut away in large flaps.
All victims WERE been prostitutes.

These are established facts, on historical record. It´s not a question about whether we can "agree" with them or not. They are given facts, beyond the process of agreeing or disagreeing.

So why would I take away two of the victims? How can we compare if we use only one victim?

[Trevor Marriott]

With Chapman...?

But why would I take them out of the equation? The whole suggestion I am making builds on these three victims, so why on earth would I remove two of them? You are not making much sense here, Trevor.

The similarities I speak of are not suggestions, they are facts:

All victims DID have their necks cut very deeply.
All victims DID have their abdomens ripped from sternum to pelvis.
All victims DID have their uteri taken out.
All victims DID have their abdominal walls cut away in large flaps.
All victims WERE been prostitutes.

These are established facts, on historical record. Why would I take away two of the victims? How can we compare if we use only one victim?

History is there to be challenged not readily accepted without question, especially where the ripper murders are concerned.


If Jackson was not a murder victim and Kelly’s heart was not taken away and the organs not taken away from Eddowes and chapman it opens up a whole new ball game does it not, and we do have evidence in support of the above.

Even if you don’t agree with all it still weakens your similarities and you cannot compare with any certainty

https://www.trevormarriott.co.ukk