Does the date make a difference

[FrankO]

Hi Frank O

The abdomen appears to be protected by stays which prevented easy access, and if we assume the murderer was disturbed, it would explain the limited mutilations - as perhaps is also the case with Nichols and Stride.

As for the throat cutting - any number of speculations are possible, different knife, recovering from illness (also explains the gap in time) etc...

Whilst one might argue these differences talk to a different murderer, I think the similarities are too many and compelling in suggesting one man killed all the victims - as Dr Phillips suggested.

Hi Etenguy,

Are you saying that it's established that MacKenzie wore stays? I ask you, because I haven't been able to find any reference to that so far. But even if that were the case, we know that Nichols wore stays, but that didn't keep her killer from making at least one long cut that opened up her abdomen.

Of course, there may have been any reason for why, if he was the Ripper, to deviate from cutting her throat as he did with all the other victims. But, if he had a knife (and, of course, we know he did), why would he not cut the throat, but stab it, instead, and then carry forward in the same skin wound? Why deviate from a known successfull way to kill his victims and, at least, silence them? Even if it were a smaller knife than he used on the other victims, then he could still cut with it in the manner he did before. And, knowing that cutting into his victims, opening up the abdomen and preferably cutting out organs was so important to him that he risked his very life for it, then wouldn't he see to it that he got the right kind of knife to begin with before he went out to murder another victim?

The time gap is perhaps a smaller thing for me. I find the more convincing explanations that he was incarcerated or incapacitated in some way (illness, for example) during this time, that he got close to being captured after Kelly or that something important happened in his life (death of an important person to him, pregnancy of his wife, new-born child).

Anyway, the way I see it, is that the dissimilarities in MacKenzie's murder are so distinctive that I have doubts she was killed by the Ripper. Although I certainly don't exclude the possibility that she was.

The best,
Frank

[Sam Flynn]

Have you got any sources on the amount of throat cuttings and Torso disposals in London in 1888 Sam or is this just personal opinion?

I wasn't referring to the number, merely the method. People have been cutting people's throats and dumping torsos for centuries. Open-air eviscerations on public walkways in crowded neighbourhoods, however, were - and remain - quite the novelty.

[etenguy]

Hi Etenguy,

Are you saying that it's established that MacKenzie wore stays? I ask you, because I haven't been able to find any reference to that so far. But even if that were the case, we know that Nichols wore stays, but that didn't keep her killer from making at least one long cut that opened up her abdomen.

Hi Frank O

I have not established this myself from primary sources, I have accepted references here on the board - I cannot say for certain that is the case if pressed.

Anyway, the way I see it, is that the dissimilarities in MacKenzie's murder are so distinctive that I have doubts she was killed by the Ripper. Although I certainly don't exclude the possibility that she was.
The best,
Frank

Indeed - none of us can be sure - and I guess Phillips encapsulates the dilemma with his view that everything points to one man committing the murders except the wounds being different.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Frank O

I have not established this myself from primary sources, I have accepted references here on the board - I cannot say for certain that is the case if pressed.

Hi Etenguy

As Frank noted, the stays were on Nichols.

However, Dr Phillips noted that:

"the clothing was fastened around the body somewhat tightly and could only be raised so as to expose about one third of the abdomen."

"admit that the appearances observed on left side of abdomen were caused by the pressure of a right hand (possibly to facilitate the introduction of an instrument under the (tight) clothing.


Dr Bond noted:

"I think that in order to inflict the wound which I saw on the abdomen the murderer must have raised the clothes with his left hand

[etenguy]

Thanks Jon Guy

[John Wheat]

I wasn't referring to the number, merely the method. People have been cutting people's throats and dumping torsos for centuries. Open-air eviscerations on public walkways in crowded neighbourhoods, however, were - and remain - quite the novelty.

Hi Sam. I largely agree however I have noticed a tendency for people to overestimate how many violent knife murders occurred in London in the late 1800's. I believe Bill Beadle did some research into this and found that there were relatively few violent knife murders in Whitechapel in the years preceding 1888 at at least.

Cheers John

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks, John, and that may well be true. As I say, my point was about the method/kind of offence, rather than the frequency.

[John Wheat]

Thanks, John, and that may well be true. As I say, my point was about the method/kind of offence, rather than the frequency.

Thanks for clearing that up Sam.