Does the date make a difference

[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.

[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]

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

[etenguy]

Thanks Jon Guy

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[John Wheat]

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

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?

[etenguy]

Just as we must answer the question: why the difference in the wounds? Why not 2 or even just 1 clear cut to the throat? Why not at least one deep & long cut to open the abdomen?

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.

[FrankO]

I guess we must answer the question though, that if MacKenzie was a ripper victim - why the gap in time?

Just as we must answer the question: why the difference in the wounds? Why not 2 or even just 1 clear cut to the throat? Why not at least one deep & long cut to open the abdomen?

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD,

Perhaps an inadvertent self inflicted knife injury during the Eddowes murder that required a piece of apron to stem the bleeding?

The Star, 12 October, 1888

"A Suspicious Infirmary Patient.
A report was current late last night that the police suspect a man who is at present a patient in an East-end infirmary. He has been admitted since the commission of the last murder. Owing to his suspicious behavior their attention was directed to him. Detectives are making inquiries, and he is kept under surveillance."

Sheffield Evening Telegraph 12 October, 1888

"... The police now have under close observation in connection with the Whitechapel murder a man now inmate of the East End infirmary who was admitted since the murder under suspicious circumstances."

Hampshire Advertiser, 13 October, 1888

"A report was current late last night that the police have good reasons to suspect a man who is at present a patient in an East End Infirmary. He was admitted since the commission of the last murder, and owing to his suspicious behaviour and other circumstances the attention of the authorities was directed to him. Detectives are making inquiries relative to his actions before being admitted to the infirmary, and he is kept under constant and close surveillance."

Cheers, George

i think the combination of the bloody apron, the reports of the man highlighted in the press reports you posted, and the frenzied cutting and slashing of Eddowes within a time frame of no more than 2 minutes; it goes a long way to suggesting the Ripper cut himself.

And when we apply that to the murder of Kelly; perhaps he hasn't learned his lesson and cut himself with Kelly too?

Perhaps the reason why McKenzie is very similar to Nichols; could incidate the Ripper was going back to basics and sticking to what he could manage in terms of his application of the knife.

He clearly had some anatomical knowledge; but being able to use a knife efficiently is not the same thing.

In other words, he knew where the various body parts were, but he was by no means as skilled with a knife as he perhaps thought he was.

[GBinOz]

I think the gap in time can be attributed to several different factors that may or may not have played a part in why the killer seems to take a break before resuming proceedings again with McKenzie.

These include...

An inadvertent self inflicted knife injury during the Miller's Court murder, leading to temporary incapacity.
I would be checking hospital records for any male who attended with a significant cut up to 72 hours after the murder of Kelly.
Perhaps an infected wound that needed to be treated.

Hi RD,

Perhaps an inadvertent self inflicted knife injury during the Eddowes murder that required a piece of apron to stem the bleeding?

The Star, 12 October, 1888

"A Suspicious Infirmary Patient.
A report was current late last night that the police suspect a man who is at present a patient in an East-end infirmary. He has been admitted since the commission of the last murder. Owing to his suspicious behavior their attention was directed to him. Detectives are making inquiries, and he is kept under surveillance."

Sheffield Evening Telegraph 12 October, 1888

"... The police now have under close observation in connection with the Whitechapel murder a man now inmate of the East End infirmary who was admitted since the murder under suspicious circumstances."

Hampshire Advertiser, 13 October, 1888

"A report was current late last night that the police have good reasons to suspect a man who is at present a patient in an East End Infirmary. He was admitted since the commission of the last murder, and owing to his suspicious behaviour and other circumstances the attention of the authorities was directed to him. Detectives are making inquiries relative to his actions before being admitted to the infirmary, and he is kept under constant and close surveillance."

Cheers, George

[The Rookie Detective]

I agree, Sunny - and the same goes for Tabram. I guess we must answer the question though, that if MacKenzie was a ripper victim - why the gap in time?

I think the gap in time can be attributed to several different factors that may or may not have played a part in why the killer seems to take a break before resuming proceedings again with McKenzie.

These include...

An inadvertent self inflicted knife injury during the Miller's Court murder, leading to temporary incapacity.
I would be checking hospital records for any male who attended with a significant cut up to 72 hours after the murder of Kelly.
Perhaps an infected wound that needed to be treated.

A significant change/event in the killer's life.
Perhaps a pregnant wife?
Note the gap between Kelly and McKenzie is approximately the same as a full term pregnancy.

A series of unsuccessful assaults resulting in potential victims escaping and therefore not necessarily hitting the press

Incarceration for another crime unrelated to the murders.
I would be checking any male who left prison up to a week before the McKenzie murder and who had served at least 6 months.


All the above are just as likely as McKenzie having not been a Ripper victim.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

If you don't mind me asking, what source(s) are you working from?

The list compiled by Swanson listing 'Whitechapel Murders' (first brought to light by Jim Swanson) listed 9 victims (Smith-Coles) and 2 alleged victims (Farmer, Mylett).

However, there's no indication how many of these victims Swanson attributed to the same hand, or whether (more probably) it was just a generic listing, and I can't recall him ever linking a 'torso' case to these.

If Swanson believed Aaron Kozminski was the murderer, he could not have included Francis Coles in whatever tally he had in mind, unless he was making a mental error, because Kozminski was not at large.

One could interpret Swanson's list to mean he attributed 9 victims to 'the Ripper' and the two others were possibilities, but I personally doubt this is what he had in mind.

I think he set Farmer apart because there was some doubt whether she was attacked and set Mylett apart because (like his boss Sir Robert Anderson) there was some doubt in his mind if she was murdered or accidently strangled.

So, as I see it, the list is 9 genuine 'murders' and 2 'possible' attacks, but gives no real insight into Swanson's thinking.

At least, working from this source alone.

Cheers.

Hi RJ,

My bad. I neglected to put the comma after victims:
Agree. Swanson named 11 victims, plus the Thames Torso.

I was supporting Tom's statement criticising Macnaughten's canonical five list, and suggesting that the man known as the "Ripper" could have been responsible for either more or less than those five.

Cheers, George