Was Mackenzie a copycat?

[Phil H]

You're right, Barnett had an alibi.

And some should keep an open mind to the dictionary.

And his alibi was?

If you are so certain, please set out your reasoning and the time of death you assume for Kelly.

Phil

[DVV]

You're right, Barnett had an alibi.

And some should keep an open mind to the dictionary.

And his alibi was?

If you are so certain, please set out your reasoning and the time of death you assume for Kelly.

Phil

Don't reverse the roles.

Barnett was questioned and had an alibi.

That is all.

What have you got to cast doubt on this alibi ?

Nothing.

What have you got to make him a killer ?

Nothing.

Except an old suspect-based book that you haven't digested yet.

[DVV]

And his alibi was?

Phil

What he said it was.

He returned to his lodgings - how suspicious !

And went to bed when tired - how satanic !

[Wickerman]

The police will check out his story with those at his lodging-house, they will not simply take his word for it. Registered lodging-houses had an admittance book, Unregistered homes likely followed suit.
Regardless, there are people within who can confirm or contest his claims, and the police know this.

[Phil H]

How trusting you all are!!

Casebook has become so dull and lacking in any sort of desire to explore issues, that I am leaving.

Oh, I may pop in from time to time to check on issues of the periodicals, or to see whether there have been any developments of interest (especialkly new research) and if there are any posts in the Richard III threads, but otherwise I leave the field to you.

Enjoy,

Phil

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hello DLDW. Thanks.

"It's been awhile since the last murder."

Indeed. Why do you suppose that so?

Cheers.
LC

Well there are plenty of possibilities. If it was"JTR", then increased caution and police presence jumps out at me. Not surprising to me that once people's guard relaxed some that an opportunity arises. It's hard to catch a cautious individual. Patience. Timing is everything.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hello (again) DLDW. Thanks.

"Maybe never thought about it before. But was able to recognize what was afforded him when it was presented."

But surely the same person was out and about? And, if the assailant were really a killer with a blood lust, would he not have some plan for killing? Would he not be thinking about it?

Cheers.
LC

Prob yes. But this person prob had a life also to contend with. Compartmentalized perhaps.

[lynn cates]

pseudo differences

Hello Lucky. Thanks.

"1) Different weapon"

Not necessarily. And no reason to believe such.

"2) Different sharpness"

Not so. to say moderately sharp was just another way to say "at least" . . .

"3) One victim's stabbed, the other was cut open"

Stabbed? That would be Tabram.

"4) One had her uterus extracted and stolen, the other didn't"

As I have said so many times, merely a continuation, and likely depended on the stages observed at the horse knackers.

"5) One had her intestines removed the other hadn't"

Vide supra.

"6) One had her abdominal wounds exposed with her dress/skirt up the other didn't"

Ah, but in one case the skirt was pulled down by others.

"7) Only one had an attempt to separate the bones in her neck"

But both were attempts to decapitate.

"8) Only one had her possessions removed from her pockets"

Correct. But she was wearing rings. That would have been like a sign--"search me."

"9) One found in the street the other in a private yard"

But BOTH were known hotspots for a certain kind of "activity."

"10) One had her legs spread, the other didn't."

To extract a uterus, frequently the legs must be open. Vide supra.

Shall we talk about:

1. facial bruising?

2. wound directions?

3. parallel deep neck cuts?

4. attempted decapitation?

5. protruding/lacerated tongue?

6. skilful mutilations?

7. uncut dresses?

8. DEMONSTRABLY prostituting?

9. proximity to the horse slaughterers?

10. incapacitated ladies?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

necks

Hello Dave. Thanks.

"I don't understand your reply."

I mean Polly and Annie are obviously similar. Begin with their necks.

Cheers.
LC

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

I trust no one

How trusting you all are!!

Casebook has become so dull and lacking in any sort of desire to explore issues, that I am leaving.

Oh, I may pop in from time to time to check on issues of the periodicals, or to see whether there have been any developments of interest (especialkly new research) and if there are any posts in the Richard III threads, but otherwise I leave the field to you.

Enjoy,

Phil

Exploring possibilities is fine. It is when one claims that they are more likely to have been the case when there is not enough data to support it that I take issue with. You do us a great diservice if you do depart. I will be saddened if that turns out to be the case. Much respect.

[lynn cates]

increased security

Hello DLDW. Thanks.

Quite. But surely there was increased security around Kate as well? Most of those on the street were coppers or vigilance committee members.

Cheers.
LC

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Perhaps time was needed to familiarize with new procedures? Who knows how much prep work was done. Just thought about that.

[DVV]

Hello Dave. Thanks.

"I don't understand your reply."

I mean Polly and Annie are obviously similar. Begin with their necks.

Cheers.
LC

Ok, thanks lynn.

Although I was expecting more (from a man like you).

Slainte

[Stephen Thomas]

Barnett was rigourously questioned by the police. He was released because he had an alibi.

He was cleared of all suspicion of involvement in Kelly's murder so far as we are able to tell. To turn him back into a suspecti, we must assume that:

A - His alibi was false
B - The police were such idiots that they believed and accepted a false alibi.

An excellent post, Sally.

So many people talk total tosh in books and on these internet boards.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Lynn

"1) Different weapon"

Not necessarily. And no reason to believe such.

Only what Llewellyn and Phillips tell us.

"2) Different sharpness"

Not so. to say moderately sharp was just another way to say "at least" . . .

'moderately sharp' vs 'very sharp'. Sorry, they are clearly not the same.

"3) One victim's stabbed, the other was cut open"

Stabbed? That would be Tabram.

No that would be Nichols, stabbed - knife used 'violently and downwards', every single wound started with a stab 'incisions beginning at a point', except the shallow (due to the knife being only moderately sharp, perhaps?) slashes across her stomach lining.

"4) One had her uterus extracted and stolen, the other didn't"

As I have said so many times, merely a continuation, and likely depended on the stages observed at the horse knackers.

Same applies to Stride then!

"5) One had her intestines removed the other hadn't"

Vide supra.

Ditto

"6) One had her abdominal wounds exposed with her dress/skirt up the other didn't"

Ah, but in one case the skirt was pulled down by others.

The skirt puller who noticed no wounds, therefore the wounds were not exposed.

"7) Only one had an attempt to separate the bones in her neck"

But both were attempts to decapitate.

No, only in Chapman was there an attempt to separate the bones in the neck, the press reports that Nichols nearly had her head cut off, but there was no evidence that this was attempted.

A copycat would attempt to do that with Chapman, but you claim this isn't a copycat killing unlike all the other murders. Yet the killer of Chapman had attempted to remove her head, so why is the killer of Chapman not a 'copycat' as well ?

"8) Only one had her possessions removed from her pockets"

Correct. But she was wearing rings. That would have been like a sign--"search me."

ok, another difference - one wears rings and look like a possible target for a robbery and Nichols doesn't, we can put that one down as 8a

"9) One found in the street the other in a private yard"

But BOTH were known hotspots for a certain kind of "activity."

They're not the same.

"10) One had her legs spread, the other didn't."

To extract a uterus, frequently the legs must be open. Vide supra.

That's a difference again, see no. 4

Shall we talk about:

Err, why would we do that, I'm not saying they're by different killers.