Was Mackenzie a copycat?

[lynn cates]

alcohol

Hello Greg. Thanks.

Excellent. When those are calculated, you can do ours. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Lynn

What about brevity? Or frustration? Maybe it's like when parents have child number one and are crazy cautious and over react about everything but by child number four unless they are dying then they don't usually move a finger. Or how about ceremony giving way to the objective? Just throwing that out there.

[GregBaron]

Blinded by Science

And that same added inebriation must have caused Kate's killer to skip preliminaries and start to work straight away.

Cheers.
LC

It's a valid point Lynn and as a result I've tabulated the blood alcohol level
of the assailant of the following victims.

Victim

Abv

Emma Smith

0.4

Martha Tabram

1.6

Polly Nichols

0.2

Annie Chapman

1.1

Catherine Eddowes

1.4

MJK

2.1

Mackenzie

0.9

Coles

0.8

Obviously this is scientifically rigorous and beyond dispute...Next I'll calculate
the victims Abv's...


Greg

[lynn cates]

skip it

Hello Greg.

"What some see as different hands might be more easily explained as different levels of inebriation."

And that same added inebriation must have caused Kate's killer to skip preliminaries and start to work straight away.

Cheers.
LC

[GregBaron]

Sloppy drunk...

I'm a day late and a dollar short to this conversation, but I wanted to put it out there that I am of the opinion that Alice MacKenzie was a Ripper murder committed by an inebriated Ripper. Maybe he'd had a little more gin than he thought.....

This is a good point Brenda and one often ignored. What some see as different hands might be more easily explained as different levels of inebriation.

Think how one might carve a turkey after 1,2 or 3 drinks of gin.....in the dark..


Greg

[Phil H]

I've seen similar such statements many times on this site. They usually emanate from those who lack even a basic understanding of psychology.

And I have seen many similar comments from posters, Garry, that appear "to emanate from those who lack even a basic understanding" of HISTORY and its methods. So I suppose all is square.

Phil

[Brenda]

Drinks on the Ripper!

I'm a day late and a dollar short to this conversation, but I wanted to put it out there that I am of the opinion that Alice MacKenzie was a Ripper murder committed by an inebriated Ripper. Maybe he'd had a little more gin than he thought.....

[Garry Wroe]

I was trained as an historian rather than a scientist. But I think you'll find I normally support my assertions with my reasons for reaching them.

With respect, Phil, opinions count for little unless they are evidentially supported.

... my boredom threshold is very low and most psychology it seems to me is bunk. An exaggeration maybe, but close enough.

I've seen similar such statements many times on this site. They usually emanate from those who lack even a basic understanding of psychology.

[Phil H]

I was being sarcastic, Abby. But you knew that.

As was I, Phil. The difference being that my scientific training demanded that conclusions be supported by evidence.

I was trained as an historian rather than a scientist. But I think you'll find I normally support my assertions with my reasons for reaching them.

Not only is there a complete absence of evidence to support the Kelly-as-copycat hypothesis, it is predicated on the misguided belief that any normally functioning non-violent individual can on a whim switch into Jack the Ripper mode, commit an opportunistic murder accompanied by the most grotesque of mutilations, then switch back again and go merrily on his way as though nothing has happened.

I find that statement entirely subjective and not evidential. There are, I suspect, many one-off crimes passionelle (as the french will say) where the killer never kills again.

Human psychology does not work in such a manner. And if you don't believe me, check the mountain of empirical evidence that says it doesn't.

No thanks, my boredom threshold is very low and most psychology it seems to me is bunk. An exaggeration maybe, but close enough.

Phil

[Abby Normal]

Agree.very much.

Please forgive me if I fail to join the "love-in".

Agreeing with each other is nice, but not IMHO a very efficient or effective way of questioning, exploring and interrogating the evidence. We should leave no stone unturned. We should accept nothing at face value and we should rigorously interrogate every given or accepted "fact" and each and every previously cited theory.

That's what I was trained to do.

Just my humble opinion, naturally - except the last sentence.

Phil

Not a love in at all. I frequently disagree with Garry, but tend to agree with him more often than not, probably because he is very knowledgeable, backs up his arguments with evidence, and makes reasonable conclusions.

[Garry Wroe]

Agreeing with each other is nice, but not IMHO a very efficient or effective way of questioning, exploring and interrogating the evidence. We should leave no stone unturned. We should accept nothing at face value and we should rigorously interrogate every given or accepted "fact" and each and every previously cited theory.

That's what I was trained to do.

As was I, Phil. The difference being that my scientific training demanded that conclusions be supported by evidence. Not only is there a complete absence of evidence to support the Kelly-as-copycat hypothesis, it is predicated on the misguided belief that any normally functioning non-violent individual can on a whim switch into Jack the Ripper mode, commit an opportunistic murder accompanied by the most grotesque of mutilations, then switch back again and go merrily on his way as though nothing has happened. Human psychology does not work in such a manner. And if you don't believe me, check the mountain of empirical evidence that says it doesn't.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

And...

As it relates to this thread, hell, it very well could go either way. Maybe just some curious person??? It happens. Tough one. Still love everyone.

[DVV]

Agreeing with each other is nice, but not IMHO a very efficient or effective way of questioning, exploring and interrogating the evidence.
Phil

That's precisely what you seem unable to do.
In your world, Bond's post mortem and opinion, the police consensus concerning MJK (being a ripper victim) are not to be called "evidence".
But your own little opinion surely is.
As for Fleming, we are still waiting for the reason why JtR could be any unknown local - except a fruitcake who knew the last 1888 victim and used to ill-use her.

And we're all holding our breath.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

I gots to say this

For those who think "MJK" was more likely murdered by not "JTR", I emplore you to review the pic and post mortem then take a deep breath and think. Not ruling out possibilities here. Whoever did that was as sick or more. Ample time. Facial mutilations could just be more canvas. Feel free to disregard. Love all of you.

[Phil H]

Agree.very much.

Please forgive me if I fail to join the "love-in".

Agreeing with each other is nice, but not IMHO a very efficient or effective way of questioning, exploring and interrogating the evidence. We should leave no stone unturned. We should accept nothing at face value and we should rigorously interrogate every given or accepted "fact" and each and every previously cited theory.

That's what I was trained to do.

Just my humble opinion, naturally - except the last sentence.

Phil