Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

McKenzie - Ripper or not?

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

  • The Baron
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Iím unsure Harry? But I find it a bit difficult to square these mutilations with the acceleration of ferocity of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. I canít imagine the man who ripped up Eddowes like a pig in a market making a not very deep cut then piffling around making scratches. I could be wrong of course but thereís something not right for me. This seems like a ripper-lite murder to me.

    As we cant mark any differences down to being interrupted then I just wonder if another explanation might be possible. It might simply have been some deranged madman seeking to imitate the ripper or it could have been someone that knew her. I feel that this might be a possibility. Maybe a protector or pimp or just an associate. He meets Alice they argue he cuts her throat then panics. Heís a known associate so the police are going to spotlight him. Maybe heíd been violent to her previously? So he decides to make it look like a ripper killing. He lifts the skirt and makes a cut but he just canít bring himself to make a deep ripper-like cut. Itís obvious to him that heís not going to be able to mutilate so he makes some scratches. Itís damage at least. He thinks that if the police believe this to have been a ripper killing then simply not having an alibi for Mackenzie might not doom him on its own.

    Just a suggestion. As Iíve said Harry I could be wrong and it could have been a ripper killing but one way of putting it is that this one just doesnít smell right to me.

    MacKenzie was killed,

    he is a known associate so the police are going to spotlight him,

    he doesn't have an alibi for Mackenzie murder,

    But

    He has an alibi for Chapman murder,

    The police will release him!!

    Fascinating!

    Congratulations for yet again a randomly set post!



    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Harry D View Post

    What does that leave us with, Herlock?

    A copycat who tried to take over from the Ripper but wasn't up to the task? Although that's debatable because he still managed to stealthily murder and mutilate his victim before slipping away unseen between police beats.

    The idea that the murderer used the mutilations as a red herring is bunkum imo. There was absolutely no need (see Frances Coles), and the added time at the crime scene increased the chances of capture and trial as the Ripper.
    I’m unsure Harry? But I find it a bit difficult to square these mutilations with the acceleration of ferocity of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. I can’t imagine the man who ripped up Eddowes like a pig in a market making a not very deep cut then piffling around making scratches. I could be wrong of course but there’s something not right for me. This seems like a ripper-lite murder to me.

    As we cant mark any differences down to being interrupted then I just wonder if another explanation might be possible. It might simply have been some deranged madman seeking to imitate the ripper or it could have been someone that knew her. I feel that this might be a possibility. Maybe a protector or pimp or just an associate. He meets Alice they argue he cuts her throat then panics. He’s a known associate so the police are going to spotlight him. Maybe he’d been violent to her previously? So he decides to make it look like a ripper killing. He lifts the skirt and makes a cut but he just can’t bring himself to make a deep ripper-like cut. It’s obvious to him that he’s not going to be able to mutilate so he makes some scratches. It’s damage at least. He thinks that if the police believe this to have been a ripper killing then simply not having an alibi for Mackenzie might not doom him on its own.

    Just a suggestion. As I’ve said Harry I could be wrong and it could have been a ripper killing but one way of putting it is that this one just doesn’t smell right to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post


    This is my definition of a great mind thinking!

    But he will not get it, he will say randomly anything to keep his faith in Druitt as the most viable suspect we have!



    The Baron
    This is the last time Iíll respond to you on this thread on the subject of your pathetic and meritless Macnaghten/Druitt obsession. This is not a Druitt thread! I have numerous examples over on that Druitt thread of your total lack of honesty and integrity. No one that has read or followed any of your posts could possibly have a smidgeon of respect for your trolling drivel. Unlike you I can make posts which, although they can be disagreed with or debated with, are the products of my own opinion. Unlike your childish parroting of the opinions of Trevor. My opinion on Mackenzieís murder have absolutely nothing to do with Druitt. Mackenzie might have been a victim of the ripper (has that sentence sunk in yet?) What Iím saying is that Iím unsure but slightly favour the opinion that she wasnít. If Iíd based my opinion on Druitt Iíd be as stupidly confident as you are and said that she definitely wasnít. You are the last poster on the entire forum that Iíll take an accusation of dishonesty from. Worse than Fishy!

    Anymore pathetic Druitt related comments take them to the Druitt thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    Originally posted by Harry D View Post

    What does that leave us with, Herlock?

    A copycat who tried to take over from the Ripper but wasn't up to the task? Although that's debatable because he still managed to stealthily murder and mutilate his victim before slipping away unseen between police beats.

    The idea that the murderer used the mutilations as a red herring is bunkum imo. There was absolutely no need (see Frances Coles), and the added time at the crime scene increased the chances of capture and trial as the Ripper.

    This is my definition of a great mind thinking!

    But he will not get it, he will say randomly anything to keep his faith in Druitt as the most viable suspect we have!



    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    As we can see an acceleration in the extent of the mutilations itís perhaps difficult to see why the killer should wait around for eight months and then rein in the level of mutilation that heíd already achieved? A shallower throat cutting, a not unduly deep cut down to the navel, a small cut across the vagina and 7 or 8 scratches from the navel to the vagina. We canít put this down to the killer being disturbed because these cuts and scratches would have taken time; enough time for more serious wounds. The scratches are the most interesting for me. What purpose or benefit could they have served to a man that had butchered Eddowes and Kelly? That killer wasnít hesitant he didnít mess around making scratches. They make no sense to me. For me this looks more like the work of a man who simply hadnít the stomach to go the whole hog.
    What does that leave us with, Herlock?

    A copycat who tried to take over from the Ripper but wasn't up to the task? Although that's debatable because he still managed to stealthily murder and mutilate his victim before slipping away unseen between police beats.

    The idea that the murderer used the mutilations as a red herring is bunkum imo. There was absolutely no need (see Frances Coles), and the added time at the crime scene increased the chances of capture and trial as the Ripper.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon Guy
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    As we can see an acceleration in the extent of the mutilations itís perhaps difficult to see why the killer should wait around for eight months and then rein in the level of mutilation that heíd already achieved? A shallower throat cutting, a not unduly deep cut down to the navel, a small cut across the vagina and 7 or 8 scratches from the navel to the vagina. We canít put this down to the killer being disturbed because these cuts and scratches would have taken time; enough time for more serious wounds. The scratches are the most interesting for me. What purpose or benefit could they have served to a man that had butchered Eddowes and Kelly? That killer wasnít hesitant he didnít mess around making scratches. They make no sense to me. For me this looks more like the work of a man who simply hadnít the stomach to go the whole hog.
    Smaller knife was used on McKenzie, and the tight clothing (see the Doctor`s crime scene / post mortem notes)
    We also have a clew with the scratches. One of the scratches indicated a long pointed finger nail.

    Edit: Just in case my point was not clearer. There are a number of reasons, most specifically the killer`s knife and tight clothing around abdomen, as to why the injuries to McKenzie appear superficial (tell Alice that !!) compared to the C5.
    Interestingly, it was raining again when McKenzie was killed, the pattern of her wounds match Nichols, and she was killed at 12.45, as Stride
    Last edited by Jon Guy; 07-23-2019, 03:53 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    As we can see an acceleration in the extent of the mutilations itís perhaps difficult to see why the killer should wait around for eight months and then rein in the level of mutilation that heíd already achieved? A shallower throat cutting, a not unduly deep cut down to the navel, a small cut across the vagina and 7 or 8 scratches from the navel to the vagina. We canít put this down to the killer being disturbed because these cuts and scratches would have taken time; enough time for more serious wounds. The scratches are the most interesting for me. What purpose or benefit could they have served to a man that had butchered Eddowes and Kelly? That killer wasnít hesitant he didnít mess around making scratches. They make no sense to me. For me this looks more like the work of a man who simply hadnít the stomach to go the whole hog.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    One point that might be worth mentioning is the day of the murder. It has been noted that the canonical five all took place at the weekend. Of course we cannot make any concrete deductions from these facts but it might (Iím only saying might) be a pointer to the killers personal situation or to his working week or even the location or timid of his work. If the fact that he killed the five at the weekend is relevant (and Iím only saying that it might have been) then the fact that Mackenzie was killed on a Wednesday might have been equally relevant?

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    there is no triple event. brown is a common domestic murder solved and her husband the killer. thats so very different than the double event where two prostitutes are murdered by cut throat in the streets mere minutes from each other and unsolved and both victims seen with a man wearing a peaked cap. this is the evidence that ties these two victims together.

    and no one lost any abilities between chapman and eddowes. the drs were all divided throughout the series as to medical skill which is to be expected in such a unique and rare case at the time of a post mortem type serial killer and many medicos giving their opinions for different reasons. its really just you cherry picking what you want to fit your convoluted conspiracy theory and what your doing is worse than "guessing". your piling guesses upon guesses upon speculation. and add to that your vivid imagination and your idea borders on fantasy- the victims were killed conspiratorially because they knew too much and were snitches. its laughable and there is not one shred of evidence to support it.

    and to think that the killers with a political agenda, be it against the police and or government would target dirt poor street walkers, members of another oppressed group, and not objects of their dislike is laughable. as in all cases of mission oriented killers/groups they would target officials, the rich, the government buildings the police officers the,selves etc, not unfortunate victims of society like themselves. cmon man, get real.
    Bingo bongo.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    The Triple Event is the night where 3 women get their throats slit, Liz, Kate and Mrs Brown. Since I know the "facts" regarding these cases, and the many conclusions people make based on the meager amount of said "facts", your assertion is essentially just your own interpretation. There is no definitive piece of evidence that connects any of these murders to one killer, there are only the "facts" as you say..and they do not allow for final conclusions. My interpretation of the facts is that Polly and Annie were acquired in the same way, killed in the same manner, and left to be found shortly thereafter. The mutilations that happened to Annie not Polly were almost certainly a result of a venue choice, one much more agreeable to spending time over the body after the throat cuts. That's the evolving killer as so many wish to see in these cases, however, evolution from frenzied stabber to someone the authorities though knew how to access and remove internal organs seems a stretch to me...so does someone losing said abilities and focus a few weeks later.
    there is no triple event. brown is a common domestic murder solved and her husband the killer. thats so very different than the double event where two prostitutes are murdered by cut throat in the streets mere minutes from each other and unsolved and both victims seen with a man wearing a peaked cap. this is the evidence that ties these two victims together.

    and no one lost any abilities between chapman and eddowes. the drs were all divided throughout the series as to medical skill which is to be expected in such a unique and rare case at the time of a post mortem type serial killer and many medicos giving their opinions for different reasons. its really just you cherry picking what you want to fit your convoluted conspiracy theory and what your doing is worse than "guessing". your piling guesses upon guesses upon speculation. and add to that your vivid imagination and your idea borders on fantasy- the victims were killed conspiratorially because they knew too much and were snitches. its laughable and there is not one shred of evidence to support it.

    and to think that the killers with a political agenda, be it against the police and or government would target dirt poor street walkers, members of another oppressed group, and not objects of their dislike is laughable. as in all cases of mission oriented killers/groups they would target officials, the rich, the government buildings the police officers the,selves etc, not unfortunate victims of society like themselves. cmon man, get real.
    Last edited by Abby Normal; 07-23-2019, 12:13 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    no not guesses-analysis based on evidence and facts.

    and what the heck is the "triple event"?!? lol
    The Triple Event is the night where 3 women get their throats slit, Liz, Kate and Mrs Brown. Since I know the "facts" regarding these cases, and the many conclusions people make based on the meager amount of said "facts", your assertion is essentially just your own interpretation. There is no definitive piece of evidence that connects any of these murders to one killer, there are only the "facts" as you say..and they do not allow for final conclusions. My interpretation of the facts is that Polly and Annie were acquired in the same way, killed in the same manner, and left to be found shortly thereafter. The mutilations that happened to Annie not Polly were almost certainly a result of a venue choice, one much more agreeable to spending time over the body after the throat cuts. That's the evolving killer as so many wish to see in these cases, however, evolution from frenzied stabber to someone the authorities though knew how to access and remove internal organs seems a stretch to me...so does someone losing said abilities and focus a few weeks later.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    There are many circumstantial differences from Chapman to Eddowes, the very least being how much skill the killer(s) demonstrated. As to "moot point", if you are willing to accept pure opinion as the factual barometer, then that's up to you. For me peoples guesses don't constitute facts, no matter what if any consensus exists.

    Nichols to Chapman is a clean match, they are virtually identical in all relevant aspects. On the Triple Event night, many established parameters were discarded, and the lack of the same skill shown with Chapman is reflected in the way they looked for suspects. After Chapman, in September, they sought people who had specific knowledge, medical grade knowledge. They didn't after the Triple Event.
    no not guesses-analysis based on evidence and facts.

    and what the heck is the "triple event"?!? lol

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post


    Great observation Jerry, McKenzey is one of the Whitechapel murders, she met the same hand that attacked Nichols.

    Though some will still deny the obvious because that doesn't go well with their preferable suspect.

    Didn't MacNaghten himself leave the investigations and give up to his fantasies?!

    MacNaghten is the reason why this case hasn't been solved to date.



    The Baron
    Just thought that youíd drop in again just to have a pointless dig?

    You are still addicted to baseless overconfidence I see. You cannot know that Mackenzie was a ripper victim. It is impossible to know that of course. You can suspect; you can favour; you cannot know.

    Macnaghten has absolutely nothing to do with why the case hasnít been solved of course but thereís no point in mentioning that fact to you as you have a blinkered and biased obsession against anything to do with Macnaghten or Druitt.

    Fishy on one thread and you on here. Logic, reason, fairness and unbiased reflection fly out of the door again.

    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 07-22-2019, 08:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    Originally posted by jerryd View Post

    Look at the cuts on her abdomen compared to Polly Nichols. They are almost identical except the number of them. Same two directions. Horizontal and vertical! Imagine that.

    Great observation Jerry, McKenzey is one of the Whitechapel murders, she met the same hand that attacked Nichols.

    Though some will still deny the obvious because that doesn't go well with their preferable suspect.

    Didn't MacNaghten himself leave the investigations and give up to his fantasies?!

    MacNaghten is the reason why this case hasn't been solved to date.



    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    Nichols to Chapman is a clean match, they are virtually identical in all relevant aspects.
    That's hard to square with the fact that, unlike Chapman, Nichols was killed in an open street, sustained multiple cuts all over her abdomen, and wasn't eviscerated.

    (Not that I doubt that the same person was responsible.)

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X