Favoured Suspect...

[Fiver]

yeah. unfortunate, killed on the street, cut throat, vertical gash to midsection, unsolved, same location, not too far out in time from previous victims. the clincher that pushes it over the line for me as probable ripper is the hiked up skirt.

The posing of the body is significant. McKenzie was either a Ripper victim, or her killer was a copycat. There was a 20 minute time window for the killing and mutilation, far more than was available for the Chapman killing, but we don't know where in that time window McKenzie was killed. The lesser mutilations could indicate the Ripper getting interrupted, or that the thrill was gone, or the Ripper's health was deteriorating. Or it could be a copycat, who found the mutilation didn't bring the thrill he hoped for or found he lacked the stomach to fully disguise his murder as a Ripper killing.

[Abby Normal]

The posing of the body is significant. McKenzie was either a Ripper victim, or her killer was a copycat. There was a 20 minute time window for the killing and mutilation, far more than was available for the Chapman killing, but we don't know where in that time window McKenzie was killed. The lesser mutilations could indicate the Ripper getting interrupted, or that the thrill was gone, or the Ripper's health was deteriorating. Or it could be a copycat, who found the mutilation didn't bring the thrill he hoped for or found he lacked the stomach to fully disguise his murder as a Ripper killing.

hi fiver
i dont go much for the ole copycat killing thing. thats mainly hollywood stuff. i beleive theres only one documented case that i know where a killer who was caught and ided admitted his murder was intentionally disguised to look like another killers work-it was made to look like a charles manson killing. and i believe manson and co had already been busted so it was made to look like an already known killers work to throw off police. in mackenzies case neither the ripper or her killer was ided, so her killer, if not the ripper, would only be putting himself in the frame for the other ripper murders if he was ever caught. more than likely it was ripper, who was interupted and or the other reasons you said, or if not the ripper the similarities are just coincidental. i think an intentional copycat is the least likely by a long shot.

[JeffHamm]

The posing of the body is significant. McKenzie was either a Ripper victim, or her killer was a copycat. There was a 20 minute time window for the killing and mutilation, far more than was available for the Chapman killing, but we don't know where in that time window McKenzie was killed. The lesser mutilations could indicate the Ripper getting interrupted, or that the thrill was gone, or the Ripper's health was deteriorating. Or it could be a copycat, who found the mutilation didn't bring the thrill he hoped for or found he lacked the stomach to fully disguise his murder as a Ripper killing.

Hi Fiver,

Maybe I'm misremembering something, but I thought from discussions, police had been through the area a few times, and there was only a few minutes (maybe 5 at most) between a previous pass and the subsequent discovery of the body? It struck as if the murder occurred right on the tails of a patrolling police officer, and the killer fled upon their return approach. I'll have to go back and re-read things obviously.

- Jeff

[caz]

hi fiver
i dont go much for the ole copycat killing thing. thats mainly hollywood stuff. i beleive theres only one documented case that i know where a killer who was caught and ided admitted his murder was intentionally disguised to look like another killers work-it was made to look like a charles manson killing. and i believe manson and co had already been busted so it was made to look like an already known killers work to throw off police. in mackenzies case neither the ripper or her killer was ided, so her killer, if not the ripper, would only be putting himself in the frame for the other ripper murders if he was ever caught. more than likely it was ripper, who was interupted and or the other reasons you said, or if not the ripper the similarities are just coincidental. i think an intentional copycat is the least likely by a long shot.

I absolutely agree with this, Abby.

Multiple unsolved murders of women in outdoor or public locations were and remain exceedingly rare in their own right, without even considering the idea of a copycat. If this was a different killer, I would be surprised, but it would suggest to me that the ripper was no longer active by the start of 1889 for whatever reason, and I'd have to put McKenzie's murder down to a coincidental one-off rather than a deliberate copycat. It does make me wonder if the ripper reappeared when the weather was better but was losing his nerve or his mojo.

Either way, a suspect or three would survive or be eliminated accordingly. And some theorists can't have that, can they?

The murders themselves tend to interest me more than the usual suspects these days. If the ripper's name had been among them, we might have expected one to stand out from the rest in terms of fitting all the facts and having nothing in his favour.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Same old bla bla bla.. he was very bad, he drank alcohol, he was filthy, he was young, he was in England, he knew prostitutes, he had a knife... bla bla ...

Very weak suspect, with a beard.



The Baron

I’ll just had to add a Coda to this. I’ve already shown how for years Baron has belittled and derided Cross as a suspect and now, just because I rated Bury highly, he suddenly started to see Cross as a strong suspect and Bury ‘one of the weakest.’ What a turnaround. This has been clearly demonstrated to show how Baron posts just to try and pick an argument and to provoke. But now I can go better because a friend sent me this quote. Posted not too long ago by The Baron:

”This is Mind blowing!

Wasn't Bury a sexualy insane murderer?!

Isn't that a sexual mutilation in the full sense of the word?!

I favour Kosminski as a suspect, but how can anyone counter the argument that Bury Was Jack the Ripper?!


A very short time later and, because it suits his purpose, Bury has suddenly become one of the weakest subjects.

Ladies and gentleman of The Jury….I rest my case.

[The Baron]

Bury is one of the weakest suspects ever in my book.

I think Gull would be a better suspect than him.

Live with it and stop hijacking the thread.


- One of the weakest suspects Herlock, suspects, not subjects, as you in the rush to post mistakenly wrote.




The Baron

[caz]

Hi Herlock,

I wouldn't take this personally if I were you. It seems that some posters are just contrary for the sake of it. If and when they succeed in getting a reaction, they will then focus on that poster to keep the reactions coming. Ignore them and they should eventually tire of their own funny little games.

In a way, changing one's favoured suspect on an unexplained whim is no worse than sticking with one suspect and arguing the toss at every opportunity. Both practices can wind us all up if we're not careful.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Baron]

My favourite suspects are:

1-- Alice Mckenzie's Killer
2-- Aaron Kosminski
3-- Another Kosminski that fits with Anderson/Swanson account


1 + 2 or 3 could be the same person.

All the rest are merely persons of interest or persons of no interest at all.



The Baron

[John Wheat]

well i think Mackenzie is probably a ripper victim but i also think bury is one of the least weak suspects. of course both cant be true but thats just how confounding this case is!

Anyone who doesn't think Bury is one of the best suspects doesn't know what they are talking about in my opinion.

[Wickerman]

Anyone who doesn't think Bury is one of the best suspects doesn't know what they are talking about in my opinion.

John, does that include the police at time, who rejected him as a suspect?

[John Wheat]

John, does that include the police at time, who rejected him as a suspect?

With the Police at the time we have to bear in mind that they didn't actually solve the case. Maybe if they had looked into Bury more deeply they might have solved the case.

[Wickerman]

With the Police at the time we have to bear in mind that they didn't actually solve the case. Maybe if they had looked into Bury more deeply they might have solved the case.

We could apply the same logic to any suspect though.

[John Wheat]

We could apply the same logic to any suspect though.

I disagree. When you consider everything about Bury. The similarity between Ellen's murder and the C5, the chalk messages, the way that Bury matches the psych profiles etc you realise he could be Jack. You don't get this to the same degree with any other suspect.

Cheers John

[Wickerman]

But John, any suggested similarity has already been ruled out by the police at the time, when they rejected Bury as a suspect.
They knew more than we do about the wounds on all the victims, so to me were better able to judge.
And as for 'profiles', as far as I know no profile has ever caught a serial killer.

[John Wheat]

But John, any suggested similarity has already been ruled out by the police at the time, when they rejected Bury as a suspect.
They knew more than we do about the wounds on all the victims, so to me were better able to judge.
And as for 'profiles', as far as I know no profile has ever caught a serial killer.

I disagree. I believe the Police's prejudices and lack of knowledge of serial killers lead them to think Bury innocent when Bury was in all likelihood Jack. Let's not forget that the Police at the time thought Chapman (totally different M.O.) and Druitt and Tumblety who frankly have little going for them as top suspects.