Was Mackenzie a copycat?

[Abby Normal]

And you'd be in good company, Abby. The kind of psychopathology that led to the destruction of Mary Kelly is extraordinarily rare – so rare, in fact, that an overwhelming majority of latter-day policemen never encounter such a crime. Yet an increasing number here on Casebook expect us to believe that a jilted everyman was able to snap into such a mindset, cut a woman to pieces, then return to normality just as easily.

It simply doesn’t happen.

And if the Kelly murder was a copycat, why did the assailant confound the Ripper’s established pattern by killing indoors? Why did he also fail to take away the uterus or even a kidney?

Agree.very much.

[Garry Wroe]

... I think if we were to ever find out who killed MK, whether $he knew them or not, I think we have the Ripper.

And you'd be in good company, Abby. The kind of psychopathology that led to the destruction of Mary Kelly is extraordinarily rare – so rare, in fact, that an overwhelming majority of latter-day policemen never encounter such a crime. Yet an increasing number here on Casebook expect us to believe that a jilted everyman was able to snap into such a mindset, cut a woman to pieces, then return to normality just as easily.

It simply doesn’t happen.

And if the Kelly murder was a copycat, why did the assailant confound the Ripper’s established pattern by killing indoors? Why did he also fail to take away the uterus or even a kidney?

[Abby Normal]

Can I ask the significance of the $ signs in your post for "s"s?

If it wa$ $hown that Flemming or Barnett killed Mary, would it not be more rea$onable to a$$ume then that one of them wa$ probably the ripper than to $ay that they couldn't be the ripper?
Why couldnt they be Mary$ killer and al$o the ripper?
$orry but your rea$oning here $eem$ $omewhat backward.

I could probably have expressed myself more clearly, and tried to summarise a complex idea when I was pushed for time.

It's frankly not an important idea, but essentially I was suggesting that if we had some evidence (written whatever, that one of Mary's intimates had killed her, then that would be our starting point. The murder looked like the other's in ways and was assumed to be such at the time. So we would no doubt argue that Barnett or Flemming was "Jack". - whether there was additional evidence or not: simply on the evidence of the body and apparent MO. We would not be arguing - as some now do - that neither could have been "Jack". Basically, I am simply seeking to reverse the conventional wisdom.

As I said, hardly an earth-shattering point and don't lose sleep if it means nothing to you.

As to why Mary's killer could not have been "Jack" the evidence is there for you to make up your own mind.

I assume that Mary's intimates would have been checked to ensure they had alibis for the other murders. But I think someone like Barnett or Flemming more likely to have killed MJK than "Jack" (my reading of the evidence). I know nothing but the merest basics about Flemming - but if he was 6'7" I think it rules him out anyway. On Barnett, as I wrote a few moments ago, in another post, I was not impressed by the case made in detail a few years ago.

I ask no one to agree with me, I simply state my views for the purpose of discussion.

Phil

My "letter after R key" $topped working on my keyboard and until i figure out how to fix it the be$t work around I could find i$ to u$e the dollar $ign. HAHA. and $orry-Ti$ very annoying.

Anyway, Phil IMHO I think if we were to ever find out who killed MK, whether $he knew them or not, I think we have the Ripper.

[Phil H]

Besides which, Barnett had an alibi.

Sally (nice to see you btw)

I don't think I have EVER argued that Barnett killed MJK - only that Kelly was in my view killed by someone who knew her intimately. I am sure I almost always emphasise that point by mentioning Flemming in the same breath as Barnett.

- obviously [Flemming] was harmless then. Despite beng 7'6" or something.

The height would make him stand out rather, wouldn't it? If correct.

But I simply know nothing about him - there were many strange people around in Whitechapel in 1888. He was violent (in some way) apparently to Kelly, so is in my view a potentially viable suspect for her murder.

I don't see the 'differences' cited by some as evidence for a separate hand in the Kelly murder. I say, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and says 'Quack' then probably, it is a duck.

Fine - that is your right. I just see that approach as a little too closed-minded for me (not a reflection on you). I know the conventional explanations and arguments, and I do not reject them, but my mind-set likes (to say it again) to play with ideas. That has led me to revise some views on this case.

'Jack' doesn't exist - he's a media invention. That doesn't mean that the same hand was not at work during the Autumn of Terror.

Nor, with respect, does it mean the same hand did them all.

Phil

[Phil H]

But heterodoxy doesn't allow you to brand any comment as "wholly unsubstantiated", when it's obviously (so obviously) not the case.
You can disagree with Dr Bond and Scotland Yard, that's ok, but then it's you, not me, who need to substantiate your claims.

I claim and maintain the right of any historian to question sources and to give my reasons for doing so. I don't just accept things because they are written down.

There are many questions about the reasoning and expressed views of various police officials at the time, and I see no basis for the suggestion that there was a single "Scotland Yard" view to disagree with. Plainly there was not.

As to substantiation, I have pointed out my views in regard to Kelly and Stride on many occasions. I feel no need to do so every time.

That said, the number and identity of the Ripper's victims is an open question. We no longer (so far as I am aware) blindly accept Macnaghten's canonical five. We regularly discuss the inclusion of Tabram and this thread is about Mckenzie. So I feel quite comfortable in questioning whether Liz and Mary are Ripper victims.

Questions have been raised about almost all the victims, bar Polly and Annie - even Eddowes has been looked at again.

So thank you, I will continue to say that Kelly is unsubstantiated.

Phil

[Sally]

And Fleming had a better one : he was mad, violent and frustrated.

Which the Ripper was not, as we just learnt.

Cheers

Absolutely - obviously he was harmless then. Despite beng 7'6" or something.

I don't see the 'differences' cited by some as evidence for a separate hand in the Kelly murder. I say, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and says 'Quack' then probably, it is a duck.

'Jack' doesn't exist - he's a media invention. That doesn't mean that the same hand was not at work during the Autumn of Terror.

I think sometimes there's a little confusion about that.

[DVV]

Besides which, Barnett had an alibi.

And Fleming had a better one : he was mad, violent and frustrated.

Which the Ripper was not, as we just learnt.

Cheers

[Sally]

Some years ago there was a book making the case that Barnett was "Jack" (actually there were two but one got the werong man!!). The arguments did not convince me then and do not now. But Barnett did testify to having read accounts of the murders in the papers, so would probably have known enough to try to replicate the earl;ier (and separate) murders.

(my emphasis)

Well quite. The 'case' presented in said book was wholly suppositional; and through those suppositions it is quite possible to drive a battalion of tanks (figuratively speaking)

Besides which, Barnett had an alibi.

Lest we forget....

[DVV]

True, my study and pondering has tended to lead me away from Ripper orthodoxy - whatever that is. And I try to keep an open mind.
Phil

I have no problem with that.
But heterodoxy doesn't allow you to brand any comment as "wholly unsubstantiated", when it's obviously (so obviously) not the case.
You can disagree with Dr Bond and Scotland Yard, that's ok, but then it's you, not me, who need to substantiate your claims.

[Phil H]

Can I ask the significance of the $ signs in your post for "s"s?

If it wa$ $hown that Flemming or Barnett killed Mary, would it not be more rea$onable to a$$ume then that one of them wa$ probably the ripper than to $ay that they couldn't be the ripper?
Why couldnt they be Mary$ killer and al$o the ripper?
$orry but your rea$oning here $eem$ $omewhat backward.

I could probably have expressed myself more clearly, and tried to summarise a complex idea when I was pushed for time.

It's frankly not an important idea, but essentially I was suggesting that if we had some evidence (written whatever, that one of Mary's intimates had killed her, then that would be our starting point. The murder looked like the other's in ways and was assumed to be such at the time. So we would no doubt argue that Barnett or Flemming was "Jack". - whether there was additional evidence or not: simply on the evidence of the body and apparent MO. We would not be arguing - as some now do - that neither could have been "Jack". Basically, I am simply seeking to reverse the conventional wisdom.

As I said, hardly an earth-shattering point and don't lose sleep if it means nothing to you.

As to why Mary's killer could not have been "Jack" the evidence is there for you to make up your own mind.

I assume that Mary's intimates would have been checked to ensure they had alibis for the other murders. But I think someone like Barnett or Flemming more likely to have killed MJK than "Jack" (my reading of the evidence). I know nothing but the merest basics about Flemming - but if he was 6'7" I think it rules him out anyway. On Barnett, as I wrote a few moments ago, in another post, I was not impressed by the case made in detail a few years ago.

I ask no one to agree with me, I simply state my views for the purpose of discussion.

Phil

[DVV]

To the poster of the year :

I've perfectly understood what you wrote, and have quoted it twice.

It has nothing to do with a so-called "analysis".

You have written that "MJK = ripper victim" was a "wholly unsubstantiated" assertion.

Which is more than wrong.

[Abby Normal]

If you want to make the case for Barnett or Flemming being "Jack" please do. It just doesn't work for me and I have never argued that.

Some years ago there was a book making the case that Barnett was "Jack" (actually there were two but one got the werong man!!). The arguments did not convince me then and do not now. But Barnett did testify to having read accounts of the murders in the papers, so would probably have known enough to try to replicate the earl;ier (and separate) murders.

If Barnett had solid alibis for the earlier crimes, and the police were - as it appears - convinved that Mary was a Ripper victim - that might have been rnough to exonerate him.

But I could Barnett him as the killer of MJK and I can see motive. You see, I perceive the facial mutilations and the all-out attack on her femininity and everything that made her a woman, highly personal. She had rejected Barnett but he clearly still carried a torch for her.

Flemming to appears to have retained feelings for Mary and to have been (either or both) physically and verbally violent towards her.

I have no idea whether Barnett did it, I just feel that someone who knew Mary intimately is more likely to have done what was done than "Jack". (Thus I include Flemming and even Morganstone - whomever he was - as candidates.)

Phil

I dont follow.
You $aid thi$:

If Kelly were shown to have been killed by Flemming or Barnett, it would be shown she was not the Ripper's work - yet many still assume without much thought that she is.

If it wa$ $hown that Flemming or Barnett killed Mary, would it not be more rea$onable to a$$ume then that one of them wa$ probably the ripper than to $ay that they couldn't be the ripper?

Why couldnt they be Mary$ killer and al$o the ripper?
$orry but your rea$oning here $eem$ $omewhat backward.

[Phil H]

I am not going to humour you DVV - I have expressed my views in many threads here over months and years.

I do not ask you to accept my views, but I set them out for the interests of those who wish to discuss, not attack.

Are you really as silly as your posts on this thread ?

I'll take it that you simply don't understand what I write. Otherwise that comment would surely constitute a personal attack. I will not engage on that basis.

I have read and thought seriously about the Ripper case for around 40 years. So, I don't believe that I or my posts here or elsewhere are "silly" (if I intend humour I try to make it obvious).

On the other hand, I derive great enjoyment from playing with ideas, and that is what I have done over some years with MJK. That, along with publishing new and original research is surely one of the primary functions of casebook. It promotes debate and discussion - not juvenile name-calling.

I have been influenced by books - for instance, I found AP Wolf and Peter Turnbull initially shocking in their challenge to preconceptions, then stimulating and final inspirational, whatever their flaws. I have also been stimulated intellectually by posts on this site over the years (regrettably as yet, one of yours ), and common sense. True, my study and pondering has tended to lead me away from Ripper orthodoxy - whatever that is. And I try to keep an open mind.

AS I wrote in an earlier post - If you don't agree with my analysis, fine. Just let it be. It won't bite you.

Phil

[DVV]

Here is (again) a wonderful example of 2013 ripperology.

What the poster considers "wholly unsubstantiated" is actually, as everybody knows, substantiated by Dr Bond, all the police, many serious studies, etc etc.

Please enjoy :

Whoever killed MJK is more likely to be the ripper than anything else.

That is a wholly unsubstantiated statement. Why?

Phil

Such a post could well explain why Dr Bond committed suicide.

[DVV]

Good to remember that DVV.

Phil

Then go ahead.

Where is the "substance" that other victims possess, and that MJK lacks ?