McKenzie - Ripper or not?

[Herlock Sholmes]

One point that might be worth mentioning is the day of the murder. It has been noted that the canonical five all took place at the weekend. Of course we cannot make any concrete deductions from these facts but it might (I’m only saying might) be a pointer to the killers personal situation or to his working week or even the location or timid of his work. If the fact that he killed the five at the weekend is relevant (and I’m only saying that it might have been) then the fact that Mackenzie was killed on a Wednesday might have been equally relevant?

[Herlock Sholmes]

As we can see an acceleration in the extent of the mutilations it’s perhaps difficult to see why the killer should wait around for eight months and then rein in the level of mutilation that he’d already achieved? A shallower throat cutting, a not unduly deep cut down to the navel, a small cut across the vagina and 7 or 8 scratches from the navel to the vagina. We can’t put this down to the killer being disturbed because these cuts and scratches would have taken time; enough time for more serious wounds. The scratches are the most interesting for me. What purpose or benefit could they have served to a man that had butchered Eddowes and Kelly? That killer wasn’t hesitant he didn’t mess around making scratches. They make no sense to me. For me this looks more like the work of a man who simply hadn’t the stomach to go the whole hog.

[Jon Guy]

As we can see an acceleration in the extent of the mutilations it’s perhaps difficult to see why the killer should wait around for eight months and then rein in the level of mutilation that he’d already achieved? A shallower throat cutting, a not unduly deep cut down to the navel, a small cut across the vagina and 7 or 8 scratches from the navel to the vagina. We can’t put this down to the killer being disturbed because these cuts and scratches would have taken time; enough time for more serious wounds. The scratches are the most interesting for me. What purpose or benefit could they have served to a man that had butchered Eddowes and Kelly? That killer wasn’t hesitant he didn’t mess around making scratches. They make no sense to me. For me this looks more like the work of a man who simply hadn’t the stomach to go the whole hog.

Smaller knife was used on McKenzie, and the tight clothing (see the Doctor`s crime scene / post mortem notes)
We also have a clew with the scratches. One of the scratches indicated a long pointed finger nail.

Edit: Just in case my point was not clearer. There are a number of reasons, most specifically the killer`s knife and tight clothing around abdomen, as to why the injuries to McKenzie appear superficial (tell Alice that !!) compared to the C5.
Interestingly, it was raining again when McKenzie was killed, the pattern of her wounds match Nichols, and she was killed at 12.45, as Stride

[Harry D]

As we can see an acceleration in the extent of the mutilations it’s perhaps difficult to see why the killer should wait around for eight months and then rein in the level of mutilation that he’d already achieved? A shallower throat cutting, a not unduly deep cut down to the navel, a small cut across the vagina and 7 or 8 scratches from the navel to the vagina. We can’t put this down to the killer being disturbed because these cuts and scratches would have taken time; enough time for more serious wounds. The scratches are the most interesting for me. What purpose or benefit could they have served to a man that had butchered Eddowes and Kelly? That killer wasn’t hesitant he didn’t mess around making scratches. They make no sense to me. For me this looks more like the work of a man who simply hadn’t the stomach to go the whole hog.

What does that leave us with, Herlock?

A copycat who tried to take over from the Ripper but wasn't up to the task? Although that's debatable because he still managed to stealthily murder and mutilate his victim before slipping away unseen between police beats.

The idea that the murderer used the mutilations as a red herring is bunkum imo. There was absolutely no need (see Frances Coles), and the added time at the crime scene increased the chances of capture and trial as the Ripper.

[The Baron]

What does that leave us with, Herlock?

A copycat who tried to take over from the Ripper but wasn't up to the task? Although that's debatable because he still managed to stealthily murder and mutilate his victim before slipping away unseen between police beats.

The idea that the murderer used the mutilations as a red herring is bunkum imo. There was absolutely no need (see Frances Coles), and the added time at the crime scene increased the chances of capture and trial as the Ripper.

This is my definition of a great mind thinking!

But he will not get it, he will say randomly anything to keep his faith in Druitt as the most viable suspect we have!



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is my definition of a great mind thinking!

But he will not get it, he will say randomly anything to keep his faith in Druitt as the most viable suspect we have!



The Baron

This is the last time I’ll respond to you on this thread on the subject of your pathetic and meritless Macnaghten/Druitt obsession. This is not a Druitt thread! I have numerous examples over on that Druitt thread of your total lack of honesty and integrity. No one that has read or followed any of your posts could possibly have a smidgeon of respect for your trolling drivel. Unlike you I can make posts which, although they can be disagreed with or debated with, are the products of my own opinion. Unlike your childish parroting of the opinions of Trevor. My opinion on Mackenzie’s murder have absolutely nothing to do with Druitt. Mackenzie might have been a victim of the ripper (has that sentence sunk in yet?) What I’m saying is that I’m unsure but slightly favour the opinion that she wasn’t. If I’d based my opinion on Druitt I’d be as stupidly confident as you are and said that she definitely wasn’t. You are the last poster on the entire forum that I’ll take an accusation of dishonesty from. Worse than Fishy!

Anymore pathetic Druitt related comments take them to the Druitt thread.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What does that leave us with, Herlock?

A copycat who tried to take over from the Ripper but wasn't up to the task? Although that's debatable because he still managed to stealthily murder and mutilate his victim before slipping away unseen between police beats.

The idea that the murderer used the mutilations as a red herring is bunkum imo. There was absolutely no need (see Frances Coles), and the added time at the crime scene increased the chances of capture and trial as the Ripper.

I’m unsure Harry? But I find it a bit difficult to square these mutilations with the acceleration of ferocity of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. I can’t imagine the man who ripped up Eddowes like a pig in a market making a not very deep cut then piffling around making scratches. I could be wrong of course but there’s something not right for me. This seems like a ripper-lite murder to me.

As we cant mark any differences down to being interrupted then I just wonder if another explanation might be possible. It might simply have been some deranged madman seeking to imitate the ripper or it could have been someone that knew her. I feel that this might be a possibility. Maybe a protector or pimp or just an associate. He meets Alice they argue he cuts her throat then panics. He’s a known associate so the police are going to spotlight him. Maybe he’d been violent to her previously? So he decides to make it look like a ripper killing. He lifts the skirt and makes a cut but he just can’t bring himself to make a deep ripper-like cut. It’s obvious to him that he’s not going to be able to mutilate so he makes some scratches. It’s damage at least. He thinks that if the police believe this to have been a ripper killing then simply not having an alibi for Mackenzie might not doom him on its own.

Just a suggestion. As I’ve said Harry I could be wrong and it could have been a ripper killing but one way of putting it is that this one just doesn’t smell right to me.

[The Baron]

I’m unsure Harry? But I find it a bit difficult to square these mutilations with the acceleration of ferocity of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. I can’t imagine the man who ripped up Eddowes like a pig in a market making a not very deep cut then piffling around making scratches. I could be wrong of course but there’s something not right for me. This seems like a ripper-lite murder to me.

As we cant mark any differences down to being interrupted then I just wonder if another explanation might be possible. It might simply have been some deranged madman seeking to imitate the ripper or it could have been someone that knew her. I feel that this might be a possibility. Maybe a protector or pimp or just an associate. He meets Alice they argue he cuts her throat then panics. He’s a known associate so the police are going to spotlight him. Maybe he’d been violent to her previously? So he decides to make it look like a ripper killing. He lifts the skirt and makes a cut but he just can’t bring himself to make a deep ripper-like cut. It’s obvious to him that he’s not going to be able to mutilate so he makes some scratches. It’s damage at least. He thinks that if the police believe this to have been a ripper killing then simply not having an alibi for Mackenzie might not doom him on its own.

Just a suggestion. As I’ve said Harry I could be wrong and it could have been a ripper killing but one way of putting it is that this one just doesn’t smell right to me.

MacKenzie was killed,

he is a known associate so the police are going to spotlight him,

he doesn't have an alibi for Mackenzie murder,

But

He has an alibi for Chapman murder,

The police will release him!!

Fascinating!

Congratulations for yet again a randomly set post!



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Smaller knife was used on McKenzie, and the tight clothing (see the Doctor`s crime scene / post mortem notes)
We also have a clew with the scratches. One of the scratches indicated a long pointed finger nail.

Edit: Just in case my point was not clearer. There are a number of reasons, most specifically the killer`s knife and tight clothing around abdomen, as to why the injuries to McKenzie appear superficial (tell Alice that !!) compared to the C5.
Interestingly, it was raining again when McKenzie was killed, the pattern of her wounds match Nichols, and she was killed at 12.45, as Stride

Hello Jon,

Are we sure that a smaller knife was used? Bond said > ..I could form no opinion as to the width of the blade or the length of the knife, but undoubtedly the cuts could have been done with a short knife;
Whilst Phillips just said > The wound was caused by sharp cutting instrument....

I can only see the one mention of the tight clothing Jon unless I’ve missed something (wouldn’t be the first time) and it’s by Phillips who said > The clothing was fastened round the body somewhat tightly & could only we raised so as to expose about a third of the abdomen.

I have to say that I can’t see how that explains the scratches?

[Herlock Sholmes]

MacKenzie was killed,

he is a known associate so the police are going to spotlight him,

he doesn't have an alibi for Mackenzie murder,

But

He has an alibi for Chapman murder,

The police will release him!!

Fascinating!

Congratulations for yet again a randomly set post!



The Baron

I’m getting tired of the infestation of this Forum. Can’t you go and troll somewhere else?

[Sam Flynn]

I’m getting tired of the infestation of this Forum. Can’t you go and troll somewhere else?

The "Ignore List" is your friend, Herlock. I've almost collected the entire alphabet by now; I just need a troll with a user name starting with "X" and I've got the full cruet.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The "Ignore List" is your friend, Herlock. I've almost collected the entire alphabet by now; I just need a troll with a user name starting with "X" and I've got the full cruet.

You could be right Sam. I seem to be a troll magnet.

[Harry D]

I’m unsure Harry? But I find it a bit difficult to square these mutilations with the acceleration of ferocity of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly.

It was some eight months after the last murder. Plenty of time for de-escalation.

If McKenzie's murder had occurred between Nichols & Chapman, or any of the 1888 series, what would be the consensus then? I'm willing to bet that most people would accept her as a canonical victim. The evolution of the 1888 series doesn't mean we shouldn't countenance the idea of the Ripper taking a break (for whatever reason) or losing his edge.

[Harry D]

And yes, I still think McKenzie's murder sandwiched between two Torso cases is more than coincidental.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Herlock

Are we sure that a smaller knife was used? Bond said > ..I could form no opinion as to the width of the blade or the length of the knife, but undoubtedly the cuts could have been done with a short knife;
Whilst Phillips just said > The wound was caused by sharp cutting instrument....

Yes, I don`t have the case details to hand but I`m pretty sure they established that the weapon used was not a 6-8 inch blade as used in the C4

I can only see the one mention of the tight clothing Jon unless I’ve missed something (wouldn’t be the first time) and it’s by Phillips who said > The clothing was fastened round the body somewhat tightly & could only we raised so as to expose about a third of the abdomen.

I have to say that I can’t see how that explains the scratches?[/COLOR]

There is more about the scratches and the tight clothing. Again, I don`t have it to hand but one of the doctors spoke of the knife hand having to work under some clothing.
I wrote an article which has all the source material. I`ll see if I can find it. It`s an e-thing and not a wonderful old hard copy, so it`s hit and miss if I can locate it .