Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

McKenzie - Ripper or not?

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

  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    nah. the reason shes usually not included is because mcnauten didnt include her as a victim in his memorandom. which isnt surprising, since she was killed on his watch and part of his whole excuse for not catching the ripper was because he didnt join the force until after the murders ended.
    Mac's nonsense aside, she wasnt included in the tally because we are told by officials that the man was institutionalized, or drowned, or left the city and/or the country, by the time she was killed. Which of course proved to be BS when they reactivated the same paranoia in 1896 based on someones knowledge of the GSG contents. And to Herlock,...trolling, sadly.. is his life. At least for the 15 years Ive seen his posts...assuming he is of course the same person who called himself Baron in the past.

    Leave a comment:


  • MK114
    replied
    The information I posted came from the victim page on this site.

    If Ryder or Macormack changes their original statements at all this would be suspect in my opinion.

    However like you said if the police verified McCormack was asleep at the time of the murder then I would wonder how they verified that.

    Respectfully
    MK114

    Leave a comment:


  • Joshua Rogan
    replied
    Originally posted by MK114 View Post
    A Domestic violence murder it appears to me. Although I admit I have not seen anywhere how police cleared McCormick of the murder
    Perhaps the police were able to verify that, as he and the deputy claimed, he had been asleep in the lodging house at the time of the murder?

    The land lady sees Alice and McCormick arguing at 830 pm.
    Is that from her police statement? Going by the inquest report in the Times, she said, in reply to the coroner;

    "Do you know whether there had been any disagreement? - I believe there had; but I did not hear anything. "

    Adding later;
    "....he told me he had had a few words with the deceased, and sent her down to pay the lodging."

    But doesn't specify the time, leaving some uncertainty as to whether the argument (and the handing over of money) took place when Macormack arrived home around 4pm, or when Alice was seen to leave around 8-9pm.

    Leave a comment:


  • MK114
    replied
    The land lady sees Alice and McCormick arguing at 830 pm.

    Respectfully
    MK114

    Leave a comment:


  • MK114
    replied
    I'm inclined to say Alice was not a Ripper victim.

    The fact her live in husband, McCormick ( unsure of exact spelling) gave her money to pay the rent which he finds out she didn't. Then the land lady sees him after 4pm and at 11 pm , to which he gave a statement to police he had not seen Alice since 4PM.

    Along with other things like the lack of deep wounds, or mutilation to the victim.

    A Domestic violence murder it appears to me. Although I admit I have not seen anywhere how police cleared McCormick of the murder.


    Respectfully
    MK114

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post


    Bingo!

    Better he didn't join the force at all.



    The Baron
    More evidence of troll-like behaviour. Absolutely no attempt at joining in the debate but simply piping up with a stupid comment every time Macnaghten is mentioned.

    Get a life Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    nah. the reason shes usually not included is because mcnauten didnt include her as a victim in his memorandom. which isnt surprising, since she was killed on his watch and part of his whole excuse for not catching the ripper was because he didnt join the force until after the murders ended.

    Bingo!

    Better he didn't join the force at all.



    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    I doubt that anyone would argue that Liz Strides murder more accurately represents what we consider a "Ripper" murder than Alice's does. The "ripper" is more than just a murderer, he has a style, a way of operating, that makes him seem like some whisp of smoke or fog. One that leaves ghastly scenes on the streets behind him. He might be that brooding guy in the pub with bloodstains on him, he might be that decked out toff trawling the streets, he might be that slaughterhouse guy on a break, or on his way home...no one was exempt from suspicion because no-one had any clues as to who this man was. Alices murder fits within that criteria. The reason she is excluded is usually either based on the time lapse in activity, a belief in the "institutionalized" stories, a belief he dies, or that he leaves the area.

    What cant be denied is that if someone who is not Jack the Ripper can also kill in a manner which strongly resembles Jack the Ripper, then can the Jack the Ripper model be trusted?
    nah. the reason shes usually not included is because mcnauten didnt include her as a victim in his memorandom. which isnt surprising, since she was killed on his watch and part of his whole excuse for not catching the ripper was because he didnt join the force until after the murders ended.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    I doubt that anyone would argue that Liz Strides murder more accurately represents what we consider a "Ripper" murder than Alice's does. The "ripper" is more than just a murderer, he has a style, a way of operating, that makes him seem like some whisp of smoke or fog. One that leaves ghastly scenes on the streets behind him. He might be that brooding guy in the pub with bloodstains on him, he might be that decked out toff trawling the streets, he might be that slaughterhouse guy on a break, or on his way home...no one was exempt from suspicion because no-one had any clues as to who this man was. Alices murder fits within that criteria. The reason she is excluded is usually either based on the time lapse in activity, a belief in the "institutionalized" stories, a belief he dies, or that he leaves the area.

    What cant be denied is that if someone who is not Jack the Ripper can also kill in a manner which strongly resembles Jack the Ripper, then can the Jack the Ripper model be trusted?
    Last edited by Michael W Richards; 07-26-2019, 11:33 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Wheat
    replied
    I still think the gap between the C5 and McKenzie rules McKenzie out as a Ripper victim.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    After that he becomes a poisoner I suppose...then what, a politician?
    lol! good one

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    bingo
    which shows the ripper was progressing from stabber to ripper:
    millwood-stabbed (a little-survived)
    tabram-stabbed (a lot-killed)
    Nichols-stabbed and ripped (killed)

    serial killer escalation/progression 101
    After that he becomes a poisoner I suppose...then what, a politician?

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
    [/COLOR]

    Both Tabram and Nichols had a similar stab.
    bingo
    which shows the ripper was progressing from stabber to ripper:
    millwood-stabbed (a little-survived)
    tabram-stabbed (a lot-killed)
    Nichols-stabbed and ripped (killed)

    serial killer escalation/progression 101

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Harry D View Post
    The Ripper was back. First he murdered Elizabeth Jackson around June '89. Went back to his old stomping ground and slew Alice McKenzie a month later. That didn't quite go to plan. Next time he did the murder/mutilation elsewhere but made sure to dump the victim in Whitechapel (Pinchin St Torso), September '89.
    probably correct harry
    Pinchin was his last hurrah, incorporating elements of both "series".
    and the Torsoripper was never heard from again.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Also worth noting in the Tabram case is the evidence that 2 distinctly different knives were used, the larger only once. Logically if one man had both, he could have saved himself lots of time and energy by using the large blade first. It appears though it was the final blow, the assuredly fatal one. This could be the work of 2 men.

    As Sam noted the area covered by these stabs seems to remain for the most part in the mid-upper body range, and no cuts to speak of. There is little doubt that the killer of Polly, then Annie, had a fetish if you will for female reproductive organs and anatomy, located in the pelvic area. Its part of his MO here, his Signature or whatever else you want to call it, its him telling us what he wants to do. How he gets to that point is also consistent in the 2 cases I mentioned. Don't underestimate comfort zone, risk taker for sure, but perhaps not consciously. Might not have been in control.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X