Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was Mackenzie a copycat?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    All on his plate

    Hello Greg,

    Which apparently they tried to do...

    Best wishes,
    C4

    Comment


    • #17
      Sorry Seamen...

      Originally posted by curious4 View Post
      Hello Greg,

      Which apparently they tried to do...

      Best wishes,
      C4
      Good point C4, I suppose nailing a British sailor for everything would have
      pleased the authorities...

      I get Sadler and Grainger mixed up, I guess all those old British ruffians
      look alike...


      Greg

      Comment


      • #18
        Hello again Greg,

        Like all american ones look like James Cagney - or is that too far back for you? maybe I should take Marlon Brando instead!

        Best wishes,
        C4

        Comment


        • #19
          To answer Greg's question : no, I don't think it was a copycat.
          Imo she's a Ripper-victim.

          Comment


          • #20
            Pardon me Sailor...

            Originally posted by DVV View Post
            To answer Greg's question : no, I don't think it was a copycat.
            Imo she's a Ripper-victim.
            Wow, DVV, you're a bold man...bye bye Druitt, Cohen, Tumblety...
            who else? I think Koz was still walking the dog....?

            Like all american ones look like James Cagney - or is that too far back for you? maybe I should take Marlon Brando instead!
            Oh I remember both C4, I think Grainger looked like Popeye, he goes back too...


            Greg
            Attached Files

            Comment


            • #21
              Popeye

              Aha! A candidate for the most unlikely Jack, perhaps?

              Cheers!
              C4

              Comment


              • #22
                backfire

                Hello Greg. Thanks.

                "That's just it Lynn, I can't imagine them being selected at all...I
                can't fathom a reason..."

                Well, I think Polly and Annie were in the wrong place at the wrong time. They were also incapacitated.

                "It's not like a couple of abdominal mutilations made the cops declare "Oh
                the ripper did it, no reason to investigate""

                But Liz was thought so. And she had NO mutilations.

                "It could even backfire, if the Mackenzie killer was caught, they may have thrown the whole lot on his plate..."

                On the other hand, an alibi for ONE killing is an alibi for ALL.

                Cheers.
                LC

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by GregBaron View Post
                  Wow, DVV, you're a bold man...
                  Greg
                  Oh, that was an easy question.
                  Whenever Bond and Phillips disagree, you can be sure the murder is canonical.
                  Last edited by DVV; 05-19-2013, 04:45 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    good riddance

                    Hello (again) Greg.

                    "bye bye Druitt, Cohen, Tumblety..."

                    And a bloody good riddance.

                    Cheers.
                    LC

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      On the other hand, an alibi for ONE killing is an alibi for ALL.

                      I think this may have been one of the greatest errors made by the police at the time, in this case.

                      Clearly Isenschmidt is a case in pont, because he could not have committed the later murders, he was deemed not to be "Jack". But he COULD have perpetrated the earlier murders - and Eddowes, Stride and Kelly are all different enough in various ways to be POSSIBLY by other hands.

                      I think Barnett or Flemming might have got away with murder (Kelly) because they had alibis for earlier murders, and the police were fixated on "Jack"; similarly Kidney for Stride.

                      No doubt Fisherman would argue that Lechmere/Cross was dismissed for much the same reasons!!!

                      It is, to my mind, a good reason to treat all the murders as individual crimes and then see how many WE would compile into the work of a single hand.

                      Phil

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        lumping

                        Hello Phil. Thanks.

                        You are, of course, preaching to the choir.

                        I was thinking about Isenschmid. When he was supposedly provided an alibi for his brother, it was for Annie ONLY. Yet he was presumably off the hook for Polly as well.

                        You are right that lumping things together may be a mistake.

                        Cheers.
                        LC

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          House cleaning...

                          Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
                          Hello (again) Greg.

                          "bye bye Druitt, Cohen, Tumblety..."

                          And a bloody good riddance.

                          Cheers.
                          LC
                          But Lynn dear sir, how easily you sweep some of our favorite's under
                          the rug..!

                          Do you mind if I take the broom to Chapman, Cutbush, Hutchinson and
                          Feigenbaum...?

                          Oh, that was an easy question.
                          Whenever Bond and Phillips disagree, you can be sure the murder is canonical.
                          Love it, DVV, that's some out-of-the-canon thinking there...

                          You are right that lumping things together may be a mistake.
                          Truer words have rarely been spoken...


                          Greg

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            hop to it

                            Hello Greg. Thanks.

                            "Do you mind if I take the broom to Chapman, Cutbush, Hutchinson and
                            Feigenbaum...?"

                            Permission granted, umm, encouraged.

                            Cheers.
                            LC

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by GregBaron View Post
                              Hi all,

                              Methinks Mackenzie and Coles, especially, get short shrift from the
                              ripper community.

                              I think, intuitively, that one of these outlier cases might yield a clue
                              that cracks the whole case wide open. Ok, I know, unlikely, but a nice
                              thought..

                              Anyway, I think the motivation for at least C's 1-3 was sexual deviance.
                              The killer was a pervert or paraphilic of some sort and got pleasure out of
                              his foul deeds. Stay with me here.

                              But if Mackenzie was killed by another, two questions come to mind.
                              Why attempt a copycat? and What is the motivation?

                              I could go into a long soliloquy about what I'm getting at here but
                              I think you people are smart enough to get the ball rolling..

                              Any thoughts?


                              Greg
                              Good Morning, Greg,
                              Unless JtR had injured his right hand/arm so severely he could no longer use it, it appears to me (from very little research) that Mackenzie was killed by someone different.

                              At this moment the only reason I can see for attempting a "copycat" version was so he would not be suspected of the crime, which he hoped would be put down as just another of the Whitechapel Murders. This seems to indicate that the killer knew the victim and might logically be considered a suspect.

                              However, let's say that something DID happen to JtR so that he was simply not able physically to continue killing . . . . then, months later, felt up to trying with the hand he was now using for everything . . .

                              Don't know. Interesting thread.

                              curious

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Phil H View Post
                                ... and Eddowes, Stride and Kelly are all different enough in various ways to be POSSIBLY by other hands.
                                I don't think Eddowes is justifiably different, considering the brief time available and the worst lighting conditions of the series.
                                Besides, as mentioned by Cris Malone in his Murder by Design (NIR-4) it is possible that prior to offering his controversial opinion on Eddowes being "by another hand", Phillips had been unduly influenced by his recent visit to Gateshead and witnessing this "clumsy piece of butchery".

                                I think Barnett or Flemming might have got away with murder (Kelly) because they had alibis for earlier murders, and the police were fixated on "Jack"; similarly Kidney for Stride.
                                Indeed, Flemming at least is an unknown quantity and worthy of consideration in that murder.
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X