Was Mackenzie a copycat?

[Jon Guy]

But didn't Monro believe that McKenzie was a Ripper victim?

Thanks Garry.

Yes, everything that happened in the days following McKenzies murder clearly show that the authorities thought the Ripper had struck, and another series was about to begin.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Christer

I appreciate you were just offering the below as an option, and it is not your belief. Just in case you think I`m attacking you ;-)

Therefore, such a killer could perhaps hope that cutting a neck and tentatively opening up the stomach would be enough to do the trick.

Even with this kind of scenario McKenzie`s death was caused by the "Ripperish" opened left carotid whilst on her back. So, whomever killed her, attacked her in a Ripper like manner from the onset, ie. cut throat , on her back, and making it look like the Ripper must have been the aim from the onset.

What is more likely? The same killer from a few months previous or another person who could commit murder, and then have the daring to violate the body in such a manner in the open street.

I understand there are the feeble minded, like that tit from Birtley, who are influenced by crimes but the sort of copycat that would have been involved in the McKennzie murder only exists in over fertile imaginations and the fiction department of my local library.

[DVV]

By 'she' do you mean McKenzie or Coles?

Hi Bridewell,

I meant McKenzie.
Sadler had a motive to kill Coles and probably did it. Not that it is proven, but at least he should be considered the most likely suspect.

Cheers

[lynn cates]

fertility

Hello Jon.

"but the sort of copycat that would have been involved in the McKennzie murder only exists in over fertile imaginations and the fiction department of my local library."

Including the fertile imaginations at the Met and many ripper authors over the past few years.

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

But didn't Monro believe that McKenzie was a Ripper victim?

Hi Garry,

True. While Anderson's opinion, that "it was an ordinary murder and not the work of a sexual maniac" is best forgotten. (We have only Anderson's word to believe Monro had changed his mind.)
If we follow Anderson, Nichols isn't a Ripper-victim either.

Cheers

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer

I appreciate you were just offering the below as an option, and it is not your belief. Just in case you think I`m attacking you ;-)


Even with this kind of scenario McKenzie`s death was caused by the "Ripperish" opened left carotid whilst on her back. So, whomever killed her, attacked her in a Ripper like manner from the onset, ie. cut throat , on her back, and making it look like the Ripper must have been the aim from the onset.

What is more likely? The same killer from a few months previous or another person who could commit murder, and then have the daring to violate the body in such a manner in the open street.

I understand there are the feeble minded, like that tit from Birtley, who are influenced by crimes but the sort of copycat that would have been involved in the McKennzie murder only exists in over fertile imaginations and the fiction department of my local library.

I´ll keep it short, Jon: agreed!

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

To me the problems of a copy cat includes these points:

a) as John Guy has expressed it well "McKenzie`s death was caused by the "Ripperish" opened left carotid whilst on her back. So, whomever killed her, attacked her in a Ripper like manner from the onset, ie. cut throat , on her back, and making it look like the Ripper must have been the aim from the onset.

Could someone in 1888, other than the Ripper himself, have known that this was a "Ripperish" way of killing? Would it have been possible to analyse newspaper reports and inquest testimony to come up with all those features - throat cut; while on back, the quite subtle mutilations? I wonder.

b) the most recent killings then attributed to the Ripper were Eddowes - (terribly mutilated) and Kelly (almost taken apart). Why copy the older style of killing not the more recent?

c) as I have said before, it strikes me that a copy cat killer, working from press reports (not the pics and sketches we have seen) would have over-stated the mutilations, not understated them - especially given the last two murders (Eddowes and Kelly).

So, I see the copy cat as frankly improbable.

But if the killer of Mckenzie was "Jack" then why go back to the earlier style? Is it possible that this is telling us that "Jack" killed Nichols, Chapman and maybe Mckenzie, but NOT Eddowes or Kelly which were not in his "style"? Could it be that an enfeebled/ill "Jack" came out of retirement to demonstrate that single fact - "I did not do Eddowes or Kelly"?

You'll note I have no answers only questions.

Phil

[Abby Normal]

I think that the question of was Mackenzie killed by jack is very important. Because if she was then that rules out Druitt, tumblety, Bury-major suspects.
The MO appears to be that of jack at least at the beginning stage but the length of time since the Kelly murder when all the previous victims were killed within weeks of each other seems to argues against.

If it was not jack I doubt it was someone trying to pin it on him, the ripper scare had died down by then. More than likely it just happened to appear jack like.

If it was jack then the length of time between murders could be explained because he felt he needed to lay low after the Kelly murder if he felt it was getting to hot (blotchy, hutch, Barnett anyone?) and the incompleteness could because he was interrupted again.

I'm 60-40 that it was not the rippers work.

[lynn cates]

nick

Hello Phil. Here are some questions.

1. IF one dies by cut throat, is one, the other, or both carotids likely to receive at least a nick?

2. Would not side/back be the natural way to do the deed?

"Why copy the older style of killing not the more recent?"

If you are in a public place, perhaps time is of the essence?

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hi Abby

If it was jack then the length of time between murders could be explained because he felt he needed to lay low after the Kelly murder if he felt it was getting to hot (blotchy, hutch, Barnett anyone?) and the incompleteness could because he was interrupted again.

The length in time could be simply explained by our killer preferring the warm weather to wander around the streets at all hours.

In 1888 the series started in the summer and finished with an indoor murder in November. The murderer seemingly commencing again in July `89 (nearly exactly a year on) with the murder of McKenzie.

I believe Monro feared another series would commence that July as it had done in August 88 and immediatley put more police on the streets.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

Including the fertile imaginations at the Met and many ripper authors over the past few years.

The Met?
Monro thought it was the Ripper and acted as such.

Ripper authors. Any in particular?
But yes, many Ripper books should be in the fiction section of my library.

[lynn cates]

Sugden

Hello Jon. Thanks.

But surely not Sir Robert?

Authors? How about Professor Sugden? His final word--admittedly couched in EXTREMELY careful language--seems to be indicated on p. 359 of his "Complete History." (Note his remarks on "copycats.")

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

But surely not Sir Robert?

He said a lot in retropsect.
Did he over ride Monro`s orders to put more coppers on the street?

Authors? How about Professor Sugden? His final word--admittedly couched in EXTREMELY careful language--seems to be indicated on p. 359 of his "Complete History." (Note his remarks on "copycats.")

Ah, couched in EXTREMELY careful language, so Phil`s not so confident. It`s an excellent book only to be let down in one or two places by his personal views.

[Phil H]

I note in recent posts a lot of assumption that the canonical victims were the "Ripper's" work - yet in discussing the inclusion of Mckenzie, we are by implication questioning the conventional wisdom. So maybe we should go back to first principles - which victims do WE think "Jack" killed?

The MO appears to be that of jack at least at the beginning stage but the length of time since the Kelly murder when all the previous victims were killed within weeks of each other seems to argues against.

But as I suggested in an earlier post, what if the actual gap is even longer - back to Chapman? the wounds on Mckenise seem to be similar to Nichols and Chapman - usually recognised as by the same hand. So I strongly question that assumption, which is self-referencing.

In discussing Mckenzie reliance on the safe and conventional won't do, I fear - it simply blocks logical thinking.

Phil

[GregBaron]

Throttle technique...

the most recent killings then attributed to the Ripper were Eddowes - (terribly mutilated) and Kelly (almost taken apart). Why copy the older style of killing not the more recent?

and the incompleteness could because he was interrupted again.

If you are in a public place, perhaps time is of the essence?

I agree with Lynn and Abby Phil, perhaps he was spooked by approaching footsteps..

I think that the question of was Mackenzie killed by jack is very important. Because if she was then that rules out Druitt, tumblety, Bury-major suspects.

Agreed Abby, this idea was the purpose of the thread.

Would not side/back be the natural way to do the deed?

This is true Lynn but would a copycat know how to throttle/strangle/choke into unconsciousness? I’m not sure if this was done to Mackenzie but I believe it was done to some of the others…


Greg