Does the date make a difference

[Barnaby]

Think of it like this,

If the police captured Alice's murderer, wouldn't he automatically be the prime suspect of being the yet unknown Jack the Ripper?

Could anyone blame them?!

There is NO suspect who outweighs Alice's Killer in this case that we know of.


The Baron

Absolutely. In the absence of direct evidence against other suspects, I suspect everything would have been pinned on the murderer of Alice MacKenzie, and understandably so. There would be no better suspect. However, that doesn't mean the murderer of MacKenzie killed the canonical 5.

I remain on the fence regarding MacKenzie, but I lean toward a copycat. I find it curious that her murder is much more similar to the prototypical Ripper murder than Stride, yet police at the time accepted Stride and had mixed opinions on MacKenzie. They must have had a reason, and to me it is not just the date. It is the difference in the severity of the mutilations between the MacKenzie murder (where there was an opportunity for mutilation unlike Stride) and the prototypical Ripper murders. I don't accept the "Ripper was sick and weak" explanation. The perpetrator was healthy enough to murder Alice with a knife, which requires some physicality. He thus would be healthy enough to inflict post-mortem mutilations, which seemingly require less strength than the actual murder. I suppose this is arguable. I have never murdered nor mutilated anyone.

Now, a downgrade in knife might explain things, which is why I remain on the fence. But why would the Ripper lose his knife?

[The Baron]

Think of it like this,

If the police captured Alice's murderer, wouldn't he automatically be the prime suspect of being the yet unknown Jack the Ripper?

Could anyone blame them?!

There is NO suspect who outweighs Alice's Killer in this case that we know of.


The Baron

[Enigma]

The similarities make a compelling grounds to believe she was a Ripper victim. The lengthy time gap after the murder of MJK can be attributed to any number of reasons; such as JtR recovering from an infection resulting from a self inflicted wound from one of the earlier murders, some other illness, incarceration for a minor crime or a temporary change in his domestic circumstances.

[etenguy]

I am of the view that Alice MacKenzie was more likely a victim of Jack the Ripper than not. Dichotomies abound however:
1. Doctors hold opposing opinions (Bond that she was a victim but Phillips says not (though he said it in a strange way which makes me wonder if he came under pressure not to classify as a ripper victim)
2. Police officials expressed contrary views on this, but nevertheless the police presence was increased (Anderson was in the not camp but Monro thought Alice was a ripper victim).
3. A number of newspapers were heralding the return of Jack the Ripper, but of course they had commercial reasons to make the claim.
4. There were many similarities between the wounds found on Alice and those of the C5 but there were also differences (which might be explained by the use of a blunter knife).

These differences make it hard to evaluate, but I find it compelling when you undertake the thought experiment and place Alice's murder in October 1888. I am pretty sure most would then place her murder in the Canon - this is quite compelling in considering a link I think - the eight month distance in time between the C5 and Alice's murder is probably the main reason there is doubt she is a ripper victim. I don't find that a major reason to discount her.