Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Mackenzie was indeed a Ripper victim, which named Ripper suspects are eliminated?

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Fiver View Post

    * Throat cut with a knife.
    * Body mutilated.
    * Clothing pulled up.
    * Victim's body lying on their back.
    * Dr Bond thought Mackenzie was killed by the Ripper.
    * Commissioner Monro thought Mackenzie was killed by the Ripper.

    Points against are far less mutilation than previous cases and neither Dr Phillips nor Robert Anderson thought that Mackenzie was killed by the Ripper.

    I lean towards Mackenzie being killed by someone who tried to imitate the Rippers MO, but I don't think we can completely rule her out.
    Fair enough.

    Comment


    • #17
      I think Stacker is really onto something with this idea. I would imagine that this approach has been looked at before but could I suggest a slightly different approach to Stackers idea. I think there would be few people who would disagree that Eddowes and Chapman were murdered by the same person. So applying Stackers approach are there any suspects who could be removed from being able to have been responsible for those two. To make it even better perhaps include Nicholls who seems another definite victim. There seems to be too much debate re the other victims for them to be included. Perhaps I am just going round in circles and there are more able people who can do the research/maths for this but I hope you see what I mean. Perhaps we cant eliminate anyone for the Chapman/Eddowes murders. Any thoughts

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Fiver View Post

        * Best known fit for the Kosminski mentioned by Macnaghten and Swanson.
        * Known to be violent.
        * Murders stopped shortly after he was incarcerated.



        If Cohen was the man called Kosminski by Macnaghten and Swanson, then he was suspected.



        They were writing years later from memory. For example, in describing Druitt, Macnaghten was incorrect about Druitt's age, profession, residence, and date of death. Compared to that, mixing up the names Kaminsky and Kosminski is a trivial error.

        Well, I admire Elamarna's self-restraint: when I equated Cohen with Kaminski, an idea once promoted by Fido and which is still being stated as fact on some websites, I was corrected, but it seems you are accorded the privilege of using it.

        If Cohen was the suspect, then there would be a record somewhere of a Cohen being a suspect.

        Getting the name of a suspect wrong is not, as you say, a trivial error.

        One can reasonably expect senior police officers to get the name of a suspect right.

        As neither Cohen nor Kaminski had any known relatives in the East End of London, can you explain why Swanson thought the suspect lived at his brother's house and that his brother's house was under constant surveillance?

        Or is that yet another understandable mistake made because of writing years later from memory?


        Comment


        • #19
          I am more and more inclined to see Mackenzie as a ripper victim. When I was back in London I had a wander down old castle alley. The old fašade of the washrooms has been preserved which is great (considering how much has been pulled down in the area in recent times). It is right next to Goulston street and slap bang in between Mitre Square and Whitechapel. So the murder happened in the right area, that's for sure. Lots of similarities, so to me, its very possible. As I have no particular suspect in mind I am completely open to AM's inclusion as a victim of the same murderer.

          I think the horror committed in Miller's court has always clouded judgements. Thinking that it was some kind of crescendo, rather than the fact, that probably for the first time the murderer was not disturbed. Which coincidently I believe was the case with Mackenzie. I think the murderer, whether the same man or not was interrupted somehow during the murder, fleeing before he could carry out more injuries.

          In the grand scale of things i.e. serial killers MOs. The space between the killing of MJK and AM is comparatively short. If anything the spaces between the murders committed previously were unusually short. So it is perfectly possible I reckon.
          Best wishes,

          Tristan

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post
            If Cohen was the suspect, then there would be a record somewhere of a Cohen being a suspect.
            Most of the records are lost, so we have no idea if most of the hundreds of current suspects were suspects at the time.

            Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post
            One can reasonably expect senior police officers to get the name of a suspect right.
            The same Macnaghten who got Druiit's age profession, residence, and date of death wrong?

            The same Macnaghten who was wrong about Kosninski's date of being put in asylum and behavior?

            Mixing up the names Kosminski and Kaminsky, if that's what he did, was a trivial error in comparison.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by New Waterloo View Post
              I think Stacker is really onto something with this idea. I would imagine that this approach has been looked at before but could I suggest a slightly different approach to Stackers idea. I think there would be few people who would disagree that Eddowes and Chapman were murdered by the same person. So applying Stackers approach are there any suspects who could be removed from being able to have been responsible for those two. To make it even better perhaps include Nicholls who seems another definite victim. There seems to be too much debate re the other victims for them to be included. Perhaps I am just going round in circles and there are more able people who can do the research/maths for this but I hope you see what I mean. Perhaps we cant eliminate anyone for the Chapman/Eddowes murders. Any thoughts
              I agree with this, except that as a practical matter, I can't think of any plausible suspect that could have committed some of the Nichols/Chapman/Eddowes murders but couldn't have committed all of them. I think this is the reason John Pizer has already been eliminated as a suspect. If I'm not mistaken, he doesn't have an alibi for Nichols or Chapman, but he does for Eddowes.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                Most of the records are lost, so we have no idea if most of the hundreds of current suspects were suspects at the time.



                The same Macnaghten who got Druiit's age profession, residence, and date of death wrong?

                The same Macnaghten who was wrong about Kosninski's date of being put in asylum and behavior?

                Mixing up the names Kosminski and Kaminsky, if that's what he did, was a trivial error in comparison.

                We don't need police records.

                If Cohen had been a suspect, we could expect at least someone to have mentioned it.

                The same goes for Kaminski.

                It is not just an issue of whether Macnaghten confused Kaminski and Kosminski but whether Swanson did the same.

                What are the chances that both officers made the same mistake and, furthermore, since Swanson presumably discussed the case with Anderson, all three made the same mistake about names?

                Where is the evidence that Kaminski was ever in an asylum?




                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Lewis C View Post

                  I agree with this, except that as a practical matter, I can't think of any plausible suspect that could have committed some of the Nichols/Chapman/Eddowes murders but couldn't have committed all of them. I think this is the reason John Pizer has already been eliminated as a suspect. If I'm not mistaken, he doesn't have an alibi for Nichols or Chapman, but he does for Eddowes.
                  Piser had alibis for the murders of Nichols and Chapman, which at that time were the only murders in the series.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post

                    Piser had alibis for the murders of Nichols and Chapman, which at that time were the only murders in the series.
                    You're right. I may have been thinking of Jacob Isenschmid when I said Pizer. But anyway, I believe that anyone that we know couldn't have killed Nichols, Chapman, or Eddowes has probably already been discounted as a suspect.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                      We don't need police records.

                      If Cohen had been a suspect, we could expect at least someone to have mentioned it.

                      The same goes for Kaminski.

                      It is not just an issue of whether Macnaghten confused Kaminski and Kosminski but whether Swanson did the same.

                      What are the chances that both officers made the same mistake and, furthermore, since Swanson presumably discussed the case with Anderson, all three made the same mistake about names?

                      Where is the evidence that Kaminski was ever in an asylum?



                      If we don't have the records, then we don't know whether someone was mentioned in those records.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Lewis C View Post

                        If we don't have the records, then we don't know whether someone was mentioned in those records.

                        If Cohen or Kaminski had been mentioned in them, Macnaghten, Anderson or Swanson would have known about them.

                        Macnaghten apparently knew of only one Jewish 'suspect' and it seems that only one interested Anderson and Swanson, and Swanson recorded that the one that interested Anderson was the same as the one that interested him: Kosminski.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                          If Cohen or Kaminski had been mentioned in them, Macnaghten, Anderson or Swanson would have known about them.

                          Macnaghten apparently knew of only one Jewish 'suspect' and it seems that only one interested Anderson and Swanson, and Swanson recorded that the one that interested Anderson was the same as the one that interested him: Kosminski.
                          I'm not sure that writing years later, those three would have remembered everyone who was ever suspected. I also doubt that they would have written about everyone that they were aware of being suspected, especially in the cases of Anderson and Swanson. Swanson was only interested in saying who Anderson's suspect was, and Anderson wasn't interested in naming any suspects.

                          The three men that Macnaghten mentioned were three men that he believed were stronger suspects than Cutbush, not necessarily the only suspects that he was aware of.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Lewis C View Post

                            I'm not sure that writing years later, those three would have remembered everyone who was ever suspected. I also doubt that they would have written about everyone that they were aware of being suspected, especially in the cases of Anderson and Swanson. Swanson was only interested in saying who Anderson's suspect was, and Anderson wasn't interested in naming any suspects.

                            The three men that Macnaghten mentioned were three men that he believed were stronger suspects than Cutbush, not necessarily the only suspects that he was aware of.

                            I agree with you that Swanson was writing in order to back up Anderson and identify his suspect.

                            That means that Swanson was saying that Anderson meant Kosminski was his Polish Jew suspect.

                            The three suspects that came to Macnaghten's mind did not include Cohen or Kaminski.

                            Macnaghten expressed his inclination to exonerate Kosminski, the only Jewish suspect mentioned, who evidently was not an actual suspect.

                            Otherwise, Macnaghten would not have put the word suspect in inverted commas.

                            If Kosminski was the most obvious Jewish 'suspect' Macnaghten could think of, what evidence could there have been against Cohen or Kaminski that he was aware of?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                              I agree with you that Swanson was writing in order to back up Anderson and identify his suspect.

                              That means that Swanson was saying that Anderson meant Kosminski was his Polish Jew suspect.

                              The three suspects that came to Macnaghten's mind did not include Cohen or Kaminski.

                              Macnaghten expressed his inclination to exonerate Kosminski, the only Jewish suspect mentioned, who evidently was not an actual suspect.

                              Otherwise, Macnaghten would not have put the word suspect in inverted commas.

                              If Kosminski was the most obvious Jewish 'suspect' Macnaghten could think of, what evidence could there have been against Cohen or Kaminski that he was aware of?
                              If Macnaughten was aware of evidence against Cohen or Kaminski, I don't know what that would be, but just because I don't know what it would be doesn't mean that he wasn't aware of any. And if he wasn't aware of any, that doesn't mean that there wasn't any.

                              Is the question of whether the police had evidence against a particular person the same as the question of whether or not that person was suspected by police?

                              BTW, I don't suspect Kaminsky at all. I think the idea that Kaminsky may have been JtR depends on the idea that he and Cohen were the same person, and I find the reasons for believing that they were to be unconvincing.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post

                                Piser had alibis for the murders of Nichols and Chapman, which at that time were the only murders in the series.
                                Read period press accounts. A lot of people thought Nichols was the second, or even third murder in a series.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X