Mitre Square: Take Two?

[The Rookie Detective]

nice! i dont know all the detail you do so love your scenarios here that do. and they make total sense to me.

Nine months is a bit, but all the other similarities out balance it.

9 months.


Perhaps the Ripper's wife was pregnant and he took a break for a while; the thought of playing with Uteri being too much for even him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The problem for me with Mackenzie is that after the horror of Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly our killer suddenly becomes tentative:

• A long (seven-inch) 'but not unduly deep' wound from the bottom of the left breast to the navel.
• Seven or eight scratches beginning at the navel and pointing toward the genitalia.
• Small cut across the mons veneris.

[Tom_Wescott]

The problem for me with Mackenzie is that after the horror of Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly our killer suddenly becomes tentative:

• A long (seven-inch) 'but not unduly deep' wound from the bottom of the left breast to the navel.
• Seven or eight scratches beginning at the navel and pointing toward the genitalia.
• Small cut across the mons veneris.

I'd say that is the problem with McKenzie, if indeed a problem it is. It's a difference. The knife is clearly not the same that was used on Eddowes. However, the abdominal wounds we see on McKenzie are, to a large extent, the killer trying to work his knife under her very tight stays, which had not been an issue with earlier victims. The fingernail impressions are fascinating to me. He must have squeezed very hard to leave the nail marks he did. Knife aside, the method of attack and everything else are rather bang on.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[The Rookie Detective]

For me it feels like McKenzie is a regression back to the murder of Nichols; there being too many similarities to ignore.

But what if it wasn't the Ripper OR a copycat

What if the Ripper...was a gang?

A small group of men with a mutual penchant for butchering women.

Was McKenzie an initiation type kill, as Nichols was? In terms of Canonical 5)

Brothers?

Father and Son?

Friends?

Ex-convict friends?

Ex-cops?

Ex-military comrades?


What better way to confuse the police than to have 1 man cut Stride's throat, while another from the group was in Mitre Square ready to kill Eddowes.

Each man covering for the other.


It's an idea at the very least.

[Fiver]

No, it couldn't because we have no idea how long the couple stood at the entrance to the square before entering the square.

How long the couple stood at the entrance to the square before entering the square is irrelevant to Herlock's point. Herlock is correct when he said "So the time from when the three men saw the couple to the time that Watkins found the body could have been 19 minutes."

We have no idea if the couple seen by Lawende, Levy, and Harris ever entered Mitre Square. Lawende is the only one who identified the woman as Eddowes and he could have been wrong about an unremarkable stranger seen for a few moments in poor lighting. None of the three appear to have seen when they left or which direction they went.

If Lawende was wrong about the woman being Eddowes, she and her killer could have already entered Mitre Square by one of the other entrances at the time Lawende saw the woman he thought was Eddowes.

[Fiver]

Insp Reid in a press interview after his retirement, stated that no organs were removed from Mary Kelly by her killer and the body intact,

Not exactly.

"It was said in the case of the woman Kelly that portions of the body were carried away. This was not true. Every body was found complete. It was simply hacked without any system or plan other than dictated by ferocity." - Inspector Reid, 1901

Inspector Reid's memory clearly failed him.

Mr. Crawford: I understand that you found certain portions of the body removed?
Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown: Yes. The uterus was cut away with the exception of a small portion, and the left kidney was also cut out. Both these organs were absent, and have not been found.

[Coroner] Would the parts removed be of any use for professional purposes?
[Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown] None whatever.

[Coroner] Can you, as a professional man, ascribe any reason for the taking away of the parts you have mentioned?
[Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown] I cannot give any reason whatever.

"Her rings had been wrenched from her fingers and have not been found, and the uterus has been removed. The body has not been dissected, but the injuries have been made by some one who had considerable anatomical skill and knowledge. There are no meaningless cuts. It was done by one who knew where to find what he wanted, what difficulties he would have to contend against, and how he should use his knife, so as to abstract the organ without injury to it. No unskilled person could have known where to find it, or have recognised it when it was found. For instance, no mere slaughterer of animals could have carried out these operations. It must have been some one accustomed to the post-mortem room. The conclusion that the desire was to possess the missing part seems overwhelming." - Coroner Wynne Baxter, Chapman Inquest.

[Fiver]

So are you suggesting that Insp Reid who was directly involved in the murders is wrong?

Lets look at some of the things he said.

"It was said in the case of the woman Kelly that portions of the body were carried away. This was not true. Every body was found complete." - Inspector Reid

"The Ripper was a man with no skilled knowledge - not even the skill of a novice in butchery." - Inspector Reid

"As no one ever saw the man, except his victims, not the slightest evidence could be obtained as to his description." - Inspector Reid

"Even the so-called "Whitechapel murders" were not peculiar to that division, for one was in the City of London, one in Bethnal Green, four in Spitalfields, two in St. George's, and only one in Whitechapel." - Inspector Reid

The first is provably false. The others are debatable.

[The Rookie Detective]

I would suggest that the Ripper spent no more than 5 minutes with each victim (excluding MJK)

If we add 30 seconds to leave the scene, plus up to 90 seconds to enter the square with the victim, engage and then attack; that's a total of 7 minutes at the very most.

7 minutes from entering the square to having left the scene undetected.

To achieve what he did in the small time frame and with virtually no light, would suggest that the killer knew what he was doing to a certain extent.

The question should be... In what profession could a man achieve inflicting those wounds under those specific parameters?

I would suggest that a butcher, slaughterman, surgeon or doctor are the most likely.


Of course, we could say that he used up to around 19 minutes, but that to me sounds very unrealistic considering the beats of Watkins and Harvey respectively.


And just because a professional surgeon stated he couldn't have achieved it in under 15 minutes, doesn't mean that someone else couldn't.