Was Mackenzie a copycat?

[Phil H]

I am 75% or more sure that Eddowes was a victim of "Jack" along with Nichols and Chapman, but I wrote what I did for arguments' sake.

I see enough similarities between Mckenzie and Nichols (type of location, quick disappearance, nature of wounds, to make me think we should at least contemplate "Jack" as her killer.

The comparative "weakness" of the mutilations suggests to me a "Jack" who had declined as far as his physical state was concerned, or was kill (perhaps progressively so). You will be aware of musings on Eddowes-related and GSG threads, that "Jack" might have cut himself and become ill while mutilating Eddowes in the dark - all that faecal matter about.

That might fit in with the possibility that MJK was NOT a Ripper murder, so that Mckenzie might follow a quite prolonged (and involuntary) lay-off, or a period of essential recuperation - especially if it was his right hand that had been injured. If "Jack's" mental state was deteriorating, that too might explain the slight differences.

Worth thinking about IMHO.

Phil

[Wickerman]

Wow, DVV, you're a bold man...bye bye Druitt, Cohen, Tumblety...
who else? I think Koz was still walking the dog....?

Druitt, really?

I can understand him being the most boring suspect, he must rank among thee most researched suspects of all time in this case.

I still would not rule him out. Considering Druitt was a public figure, he attended meetings, there are records of cricket schedules, a school teacher, court records, yet, for all the research ever undertaken no-one has come across anything that effectively rules him out.
That in itself is astonishing.

To my mind Druitt's candidacy is head and shoulders above that of Kozminski, who according to the present level of research was nothing more than an afterthought by high ranking officials.

[Ben]

Hi Greg,

Do you mind if I take the broom to Chapman, Cutbush, Hutchinson and
Feigenbaum...?

I might have missed the point of the exercise here, but how does McKenzie being a ripper victim rule out any of the above from being the ripper? Druitt (et al) I can understand, but I'm not at all sure about alibis for all of those four.

Cheers,
Ben

[Jon Guy]

Hi Greg

But if Mackenzie was killed by another, two questions come to mind.
Why attempt a copycat? and What is the motivation?

Good to see the question been raised.

Was McKenzie the victim of a copycat? In my opinion, no.
The victimology is correct. Even down to her having a few words with her man prior to her death.
The location of the murder; that is the street and the location of her body is correct.
She is killed apparently swiftly and silently, between police beats.
Her left carotid is attacked whilst been held down, and she is found on her back with her skirts rasied.
The stab to the privates is similar to the wound on Tabram and Nichols.

I believe the killer struggled to open the abdominal cavity because he was using a smaller knife, and McKenzies clothes were tight around the abdomen and like Nichols he was maneouvering his knife under her clothes.

Of course Dr Bond did think it was by the same hand from the previous year.
Dr Phillips didn`t think so, but he did add that:

After careful and long deliberation, I cannot satisfy myself, on purely Anatomical and professional grounds that the perpetrator of all the "Wh Ch. murders" is our man. I am on the contrary impelled to a contrary conclusion in this noting the mode of procedure and the character of the mutilations and judging of motive in connection with the latter.

I do not here enter into the comparison of the cases neither do I take into account what I admit may be almost conclusive evidence in favour of the one man theory if all the surrounding circumstances and other evidence are considered, holding it as my duty to report on the P.M. appearances and express an opinion only on Professional grounds, based upon my own observation.

I`ve yet to see a convincing argument against her been a Ripper victim.

[caz]

I`ve yet to see a convincing argument against her been a Ripper victim.

Me too, Jon.

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

Doesn't a "convincing argument" suggest a consensus?
Do we have a consensus on whether Kelly is in or out?, or Stride, in or out?, or Eddowes being in or out?

McKenzie, Coles & Stride appear in the same category to me, any one of them could have been an interruption, but equally all of them could have been the target of an unrelated but vicious assault by a client.
That is to say, nothing to do with the murders of Nichols, Chapman or Eddowes.

[lynn cates]

sensible

Hello Jon. A sensible post.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

Doesn't a "convincing argument" suggest a consensus?

Not in my view - a concensus would be "a widely accepted theory".

A convincing argument must surely be based on factual support or the weight of logic and argument. neither of which might gain a concensus.

"Caviar to the masses", springs to mind.

Phil

[Jon Guy]

Hi Jon

Doesn't a "convincing argument" suggest a consensus?.

In this instance I did mean simply a "convinving argument", meaning a good reason.

McKenzie, Coles & Stride appear in the same category to me, any one of them could have been an interruption, but equally all of them could have been the target of an unrelated but vicious assault by a client.
That is to say, nothing to do with the murders of Nichols, Chapman or Eddowes.

But a vicious assault by a client was exactly what the Ripper`s crimes were ?
Although, I believe them to be related.

In the case of McKenzie, if as you suggest, the killer`s spent a long time with the body trying to make it look like a Ripper killing. He also happened to have some anatomical knowledge too...

[Jon Guy]

A convincing argument must surely be based on factual support or the weight of logic and argument. neither of which might gain a concensus.

Thanks Phil. That`s the one.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon.

But a vicious assault by a client was exactly what the Ripper`s crimes were ?

Broadly speaking maybe. The Ripper does appear to have posed as a client, but his intentions also appear to set him apart from the typical client.

In the case of McKenzie, if as you suggest, the killer`s spent a long time with the body trying to make it look like a Ripper killing.

Long time?
I'll concede, longer than with Stride, yes.

He also happened to have some anatomical knowledge too...

I often wonder about this, I know one poster who appears adamant that Stride's killer demonstrated anatomical knowledge because the slice across the throat was effective. Over egging the pudding, or over icing the cake, comes to mind.
Much the same as slicing one's wrists, does this act demonstrate anatomical knowledge, or just the simple fact that we all know it works?

With McKenzie, do we read the wounds as the result of a learned knowledge (ie, anatomical knowledge?) or just someone failing in an attempt at making it look more than what it was?

[GregBaron]

Why copy a ghost?

Good Morning, Greg,
Unless JtR had injured his right hand/arm so severely he could no longer use it, it appears to me (from very little research) that Mackenzie was killed by someone different.

At this moment the only reason I can see for attempting a "copycat" version was so he would not be suspected of the crime, which he hoped would be put down as just another of the Whitechapel Murders. This seems to indicate that the killer knew the victim and might logically be considered a suspect.

However, let's say that something DID happen to JtR so that he was simply not able physically to continue killing . . . . then, months later, felt up to trying with the hand he was now using for everything . . .

Don't know. Interesting thread.

curious

Thanks curious. The idea of an injured or aging Jack is an interesting one…

I am 75% or more sure that Eddowes was a victim of "Jack" along with Nichols and Chapman, but I wrote what I did for arguments' sake.

I see enough similarities between Mckenzie and Nichols (type of location, quick disappearance, nature of wounds, to make me think we should at least contemplate "Jack" as her killer.

The comparative "weakness" of the mutilations suggests to me a "Jack" who had declined as far as his physical state was concerned, or was kill (perhaps progressively so). You will be aware of musings on Eddowes-related and GSG threads, that "Jack" might have cut himself and become ill while mutilating Eddowes in the dark - all that faecal matter about.

That might fit in with the possibility that MJK was NOT a Ripper murder, so that Mckenzie might follow a quite prolonged (and involuntary) lay-off, or a period of essential recuperation - especially if it was his right hand that had been injured. If "Jack's" mental state was deteriorating, that too might explain the slight differences.

Worth thinking about IMHO.

Agreed, these are intriguing ideas Phil…

Druitt, really?

I can understand him being the most boring suspect, he must rank among thee most researched suspects of all time in this case.

I still would not rule him out. Considering Druitt was a public figure, he attended meetings, there are records of cricket schedules, a school teacher, court records, yet, for all the research ever undertaken no-one has come across anything that effectively rules him out.
That in itself is astonishing.

To my mind Druitt's candidacy is head and shoulders above that of Kozminski, who according to the present level of research was nothing more than an afterthought by high ranking officials.

Hi Wickerman, my implication was that if Jack ripped Mackenzie then some of our top candidates
have an alibi for this one. Druitt’s is pretty solid…………Death

I might have missed the point of the exercise here, but how does McKenzie being a ripper victim rule out any of the above from being the ripper? Druitt (et al) I can understand, but I'm not at all sure about alibis for all of those four.

Hi Ben, I was just having some fun with Lynn….but my point was as mentioned above….some are out
for this one…

I`ve yet to see a convincing argument against her been a Ripper victim.

Hi Jon Guy, I agree with you here…

In the case of McKenzie, if as you suggest, the killer`s spent a long time with the body trying to make it look like a Ripper killing. He also happened to have some anatomical knowledge too...

And another good point Jon..

At this moment the only reason I can see for attempting a "copycat" version was so he would not be suspected of the crime, which he hoped would be put down as just another of the Whitechapel Murders. This seems to indicate that the killer knew the victim and might logically be considered a suspect.

I understand normal copycat-ism curious but I struggle to understand it in this case. Surely the authorities wouldn’t ignore evidence in a single murder simply to appease a multiple murder theory…


Greg

[Phil H]

I see the strongest similarities between the deaths of Nichols and Mckenzie. Many more than between the deaths of Nichols and Chapman where we do not question that both murders were the work of a single man.

Nichols and Mckenzie were both found in open public streets, in the gutter (or close). In no case was a sound heard and the killer escaped unseen even though the blood was still flowing from the woman's wounds when the PC found her. The mutilations appear VERY similar to those on Nichols - as i said in another post, my feeling is that an IMITATOR would have not been weaker in what he did but MUCH STRONGER.

Phil.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman, my implication was that if Jack ripped Mackenzie then some of our top candidates
have an alibi for this one. Druitt’s is pretty solid…………Death

Indeed, there's nothing more solid, always assuming McKenzie was a copycat.

Surely the authorities wouldn’t ignore evidence in a single murder simply to appease a multiple murder theory…

Such an argument is not unknown here on Casebook.

[Wickerman]

More than one passage of the knife across the throat is an interesting feature of both the Coles murder and that of McKenzie.

Twice with McKenzie, mimicking that of Nichols, Chapman & arguably, Eddowes.
Thrice with Coles, according to Phillips, yet twice according to Oxley.

And the knife used on both while on the ground, another significant feature.

How did he get them there (was Coles thrown down?) without making a noise?