Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

McKenzie - Ripper or not?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Jon Guy
    replied
    I voted yes.
    Who else ?

    In my mind another Ripper attack is more likely than a copy cat.
    Did copy cats exist in 1888?
    I don`t think so, a lot less likely than the real murderer, who was still running around.
    Yes, some murderers were influenced by infamous murder cases, but they generally already had a motive, and no motive can be found in the McKenzie murder.

    Mckenzie, the right type of victim, the right crime scene, the right time and in the right area.
    The differences in the wounds possibly explained by the use of a smaller knife, and tight clothing around the abdomen.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bridewell
    replied
    Copycat?

    Difficult question because what constitutes a "Ripper Murder"? There doesn't seem to be any real consensus, then or now.

    I voted 'Yes'. Obviously the matter is unlikely ever to be decided one way or the other but I don't like to sit on the fence (even assuming it would take my weight). Right area; throat cut; some degree of abdominal mutilation; similar age and lifestyle to other victims.

    It could be a copycat obviously but that word is used to describe any murder which doesn't fit the beholder's idea of a Ripper "norm". Were there several copycats or one copycat who committed several murders? I'm not convinced either way. I do think Alice McKenzie justifies further research. It's a shame no-one's turned her up in the historical archives.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ginger
    replied
    I voted 'undecided', but I do lean more towards 'no'. McKenzie's abdominal wounds seemed very tentative compared to the 1888 crimes.

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    wounds

    Hello Haskins. Thanks.

    Ah, the depth of the parallel neck wounds on Polly and Annie? I agree. Nothing like them before or since.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • Haskins
    replied
    Hi Liz,

    By "fury" I meant that the wounds that he inflicted were, relative to the wounds on the earlier canonicals, relatively light, as I understand it. Even the most serious wounds to the abdomen didn't even injure the muscular structure. This was not like the forceful, furied, deep ripping frenzy that was typical of the ripper. There may have been a reason for this, maybe it was the ripper and he was just shattered by this time. But it doesn't feel right to me and so I'm inclined to think this was a copycat.

    Haskins

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    copycat

    Hello Haskins. Fury?

    McKenzie a copycat? I can live with that.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • Haskins
    replied
    I've taken the plunge here and voted "no". A bit audacious of me, because I can't really be the best judge and "undecided" should be the logical choice. But the case against McKenzie feels wrong. The fury that so trademarked the ripper seemed to be so much less intense here. I think she was more likely the victim of a copycat killer.

    Leave a comment:


  • Uncle Jack
    started a poll McKenzie - Ripper or not?

    McKenzie - Ripper or not?

    63
    YES
    41.27%
    26
    NO
    33.33%
    21
    UNDECIDED
    25.40%
    16
    A poll to see Alice McKenzie's candicy as a Ripper victim? Simple YES or NO....
Working...
X