Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

McKenzie - Ripper or not?

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

  • Cogidubnus
    replied
    I've voted "undecided", but if pushed would veer more towards No than Yes

    All the best

    Dave

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon Guy
    replied
    Hi Wyatt

    Originally posted by Wyatt Earp View Post
    It does not, however, contain the following two signature elements we would expect to be present if it were indeed the work of the Ripper:

    —(no evidence of strangulation or a punch to the face)
    .... as with Kelly and Eddowes.


    —sexually degrading posing of the body (body appears to have simply been placed on its side)
    She was found on the pavement with her skirts raised to her chin !!!
    Even so, we don`t the victims were posed.

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    P & A

    Hello Wyatt.

    "—victim incapacitated prior to being killed (no evidence of strangulation or a punch to the face)"

    This describes Polly and Annie only.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert
    replied
    Of course, regardless of who we think killed McKenzie, and indeed Kelly, one avenue seems extremely unlikely, and that is that both Kelly and McKenzie are copycats. It would require there to be two copycats - one over the top, and one under the top.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wyatt Earp
    replied
    The McKenzie murder contains just what we would expect a copycat killer to reproduce:

    —cutting of the throat
    —abdominal and genital mutilations
    —abandonment of the body

    It does not, however, contain the following two signature elements we would expect to be present if it were indeed the work of the Ripper:

    —victim incapacitated prior to being killed (no evidence of strangulation or a punch to the face)
    —sexually degrading posing of the body (body appears to have simply been placed on its side)

    I’m referring to the description of the Ripper’s signature developed by Keppel et al in the article we all by now know about.

    The tepid mutilations are also reason to believe it was a copycat killing. In the case of the Ellen Bury murder, there was a strong situational incentive for the killer to tone down the mutilations. There appears to have been no such situational incentive here. Given the quantity of the cuts, we know that the killer had enough time with the body to inflict some major damage, and also to pose the body, but he did not do so.

    For these reasons I think this should be viewed as a copycat killing.

    Leave a comment:


  • 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