Does the date make a difference

[Tom_Wescott]

That being said, no one can say for sure whos opinion is more right/ wrong than when comparing Mac, Anderson, Doctors or officials.

Which is why the term 'canon' is misleading. Canons, by and large, is an agreed-upon, set-in-stone, grouping. We don't have that here.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sam Flynn]

If Jack did only five, then some else did more than he did.

Not necessarily "some ONE", though. It's not as if throat-cuttings, or even torso disposals, were particularly new or unusual.

[GBinOz]

The term 'Canonical 5' should be retired in favor of 'Macnaghten five' since it originated with him. As has already been mentioned on this thread, most of the original officials/doctors propped either for more or fewer than five, so it's a fictional construct that ties squarely to a) Mac's biases and b) the Druitt theory. Even Anderson believed there were six victims.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

Agree. Swanson named 11 victims plus the Thames Torso. If Jack did only five, then some else did more than he did. We don't known how many killers were involved, not which were responsible for whom. And neither did Macnaughten.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

That being said, no one can say for sure whos opinion is more right/ wrong than when comparing Mac, Anderson, Doctors or officials.

[Tom_Wescott]

The term 'Canonical 5' should be retired in favor of 'Macnaghten five' since it originated with him. As has already been mentioned on this thread, most of the original officials/doctors propped either for more or fewer than five, so it's a fictional construct that ties squarely to a) Mac's biases and b) the Druitt theory. Even Anderson believed there were six victims.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Lewis C]

Macnaughten believed there were only 5 Ripper victims, but my sense is that there were enough police at the time who at least thought that Tabram was a Ripper victim that characterizing the C5 as the police view is probably overgeneralizing.

[The Rookie Detective]

One of the issues surrounding the "Canonical 5," is that the concept was a construct made up by the police to quantify the murders and give the case some kind of parameter by which they could focus their attentions.

The police were overwhelmed and out of their depth in many ways and so the senior officers had to invent a label by which they could attain some kind of control.

There were likely many more victims, and almost certainly women who were attacked, but survived their ordeal.

The press at the time believed there were anywhere up to 11 Ripper murders, but it was the Police who chose which victims they believed were authentic Ripper victims.

That's a dangerous game to play because in modern policing, there is no process by which potential victims are either chosen or discarded.

Victims are very much included on an evidential or perhaps circumstantial evidence basis; ergo, victims are not picked randomly based on what senior officers think, because then some genuine victims may fall through the net.

When we look at what the police did at the time, and what they achieved; they essentially arrested and questioned 100's of individuals...and yet had no idea who the killer was.
Of course, to retain some degree of control and dignity; there were senior officers who posthumously eluded to the idea that they knew who the killer was all along; cue the lunatic Jew rhetoric.

If the police genuinely knew who the Ripper was, then at least one of the senior officers writing posthumously, would or should have named him.

Why didn't they?

Well, because they were either talking through their a*** or they were being deliberately awkward.

Don't think for a second that the conscious effort to not name the Ripper was a means of protecting the public; i.e. the public didn't need to know after time had passed.

That decision to not name the Ripper was a disgusting error of judgement and gave the victims and their families a great disservice.

The only reason why the killer would have been known but remained unnamed, would have only been applicable if the killer was one of their own, or someone of high public standing.

The subsequent effort to write "Kosminski" is either a genuine gesture to write the wrong, or a callous effort to protect the initial decision to not name the real killer, by using a Jew lunatic as a scapegoat.

In the context of dates, McKenzie unfortunately falls on the wrong side of the chronological timeline established by the construct of the C5.

Had she have been killed before Kelly, she would have made the cut (no pun intended)


Of course, McKenzie being a Ripper victim adds a spanner to the works because it eradicates at least 3 prime suspects in one swoop.

Uncomfortable if you've spent decades potentially wasting your time chasing an innocent man.


When we look at the killings in a broader light, we can see that on balance, McKenzie should indeed be included as a Ripper victim.

Her murder is most similar to Nichols.

There must be a reason for that similarity.

[Lewis C]

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

Yes, but if one thinks that there's a 30% chance that Mckenzie is a Ripper victim and 70% chance that she isn't, then if her killer were captured, he would still be the prime suspect in my book, because for any named suspect that you care to mention, I would say that there's less than a 30% chance, in fact probably less than a 20% chance, that that suspect was the Ripper. I don't think that Smith and Coles were Ripper victims, but if either of their killers were caught, I'd want to take a good look at whether their killer may have been the Ripper.

[FrankO]

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 -

Hi Etenguy,

If her murder had taken place between Tabram and Nichols, then I'd be much more inclined to include her. But as it stands, with the 8 month gap and difference in the wounds and the severity of them, I remain inclined to think she didn't fall victim to the man we know as the Ripper.

The best,
Frank

[Jon Guy]

That sounds a reasonable interpretation of what he said - it is just he seems far more certain of the circumstances of the murder and less certain, more passive when concluding about the mutilations - like he really thinks she is a victim, but he compelled to note the differences in the mutilations. Maybe I am over analysing long dead words.

You`re right, Etenguy. I think the butchery performed on Chapman and Kelly was nothing like the few gashes on McKenzie, that didn`t even open the stomach cavity, and he had to point it out.

[GBinOz]

All interesting points.

One of the oddities (to my mind) is what Phillips said about the link between this murder and the C5 (or earlier ripper murders)

After careful and long deliberation, I cannot satisfy myself, on purely Anatomical and professional grounds that the perpetrator of all the "Wh Ch. murders" is our man. I am on the contrary impelled to a contrary conclusion in this noting the mode of procedure and the character of the mutilations and judging of motive in connection with the latter.

So he starts by stating he is not satisfied there is a link based on a professional examination of the victim. But then he appears to contradict his conclusion when you take in the wider evidence.

I do not here enter into the comparison of the cases neither do I take into account what I admit may be almost conclusive evidence in favour of the one man theory if all the surrounding circumstances and other evidence are considered, holding it as my duty to report on the P.M. appearances and express an opinion only on Professional grounds, based upon my own observation.

Did he actually think she was a victim of the Ripper?

Hi etenguy,

I feel the need to point out that The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion quotes the word "one" rather than "our". A small but significant difference that broadens his statement.

I read his statement as saying that while the anatomical details of the injuries are not the same, the overall M.O. contradicts that detail. He appears to suggest that, while there is apparent conclusive evidence for the one man theory on the WC murders, his own observations suggest otherwise. JMO, YMMV.

Cheers, George

[etenguy]

No.

I think he`s saying the circumstances about McKenzie`s murder is typical of a Ripper murder, BUT the mode of procedure and character of the mutilations means he cannot say it`s the same man.

Hi Jon

That sounds a reasonable interpretation of what he said - it is just he seems far more certain of the circumstances of the murder and less certain, more passive when concluding about the mutilations - like he really thinks she is a victim, but he compelled to note the differences in the mutilations. Maybe I am over analysing long dead words.

[Jon Guy]

Did he actually think she was a victim of the Ripper?

No.

I think he`s saying the circumstances about McKenzie`s murder is typical of a Ripper murder, BUT the mode of procedure and character of the mutilations means he cannot say it`s the same man.

[etenguy]

All interesting points.

One of the oddities (to my mind) is what Phillips said about the link between this murder and the C5 (or earlier ripper murders)

After careful and long deliberation, I cannot satisfy myself, on purely Anatomical and professional grounds that the perpetrator of all the "Wh Ch. murders" is our man. I am on the contrary impelled to a contrary conclusion in this noting the mode of procedure and the character of the mutilations and judging of motive in connection with the latter.

So he starts by stating he is not satisfied there is a link based on a professional examination of the victim. But then he appears to contradict his conclusion when you take in the wider evidence.

I do not here enter into the comparison of the cases neither do I take into account what I admit may be almost conclusive evidence in favour of the one man theory if all the surrounding circumstances and other evidence are considered, holding it as my duty to report on the P.M. appearances and express an opinion only on Professional grounds, based upon my own observation.

Did he actually think she was a victim of the Ripper?

[Jon Guy]

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 Ripper may have ditched the knife after the Kelly murder, after all, if he was caught (on his person or at his home) with a 6 - 8 bladed knife he may be in trouble.
The knife used on McKenzie seems to be a regular knife, that many men of the area carried, and that the attack was spontaneous, not planned.

The medics also mentioned that McKenzie`s clothing was tight around her abdomen and the killer had to work his knife hand under clothing to score her abdomen.