Was Mackenzie a copycat?

[Jon Guy]

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?

Assuming that my posts were amongst the posts you refer to in assuming the canonical victims were the Ripper`s work, I can assure you I have my own cannon that I base all my opinions on.

But we wouldn`t be questioning conventional wisdom anyway, as many of the hands-on Police and Detectives of the day thought McKenzie was a Ripper victim.

The cannon would have included McKenzie had it been compiled 9 months later.

[Phil H]

John, I wasn't thinking of any individual - but there was a reference to the gap since MJK, which I think does make an assumption about the canon.

The title of the thread also rather assumes that Mckenzie was not, by definition, an accepted Ripper victim.

Phil

[Phil H]

the incompleteness could because he was interrupted again.

Accepted as a possibility, but for the killer of Eddowes and Kelly his choice of location seems to revert to the earlier killings.

The "Jack" of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes seems to me to have been a man of cool nerve (or insane enough not to care). For Chapman and Eddowes he chose or was guided to more secluded spots than in the case of Nichols.

One can look at Nichols and ask, as many of us have, was he interrupted or was she a first "experimental" kill, before he had worked out what he wanted to do - as with Chapman and Eddowes, or his curiousity about plundering a woman's body had been roused.

A weakened "Jack" with Mckenzie (rather than an interruption) might also explain both the gap (however long) and why we have no more in a new series.

I just ask questions and am looking for possible new patterns here - I neither question the views of others, nor seek to grind my own axe.

Phil

[Jon Guy]

John, I wasn't thinking of any individual - l

I know, Phil. No worries mate :-)

[lynn cates]

book

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Ah, couched in EXTREMELY careful language, so Phil`s not so confident."

A healthy attitude for the ripper student.

'It`s an excellent book only to be let down in one or two places by his personal views."

A pervasive sin.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

The answer is . . .

Hello Greg. Thanks.

"This is true Lynn but would a copycat know how to throttle/strangle/choke into unconsciousness?"

Did that happen?

"I’m not sure if this was done to Mackenzie. . . "

Good answer!

Cheers.
LC

[GregBaron]

Please lie down quietly...

Hello Greg. Thanks.

"This is true Lynn but would a copycat know how to throttle/strangle/choke into unconsciousness?"

Did that happen?

"I’m not sure if this was done to Mackenzie. . . "

Good answer!

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn, this may be true, but how else does one get someone to the ground
without screams or signs of a struggle?


Another reason this may not be the ripper's work is below. I believe with Coles and Mackenzie he left some money behind......un-Jack-Like...

In her possession were found a clay pipe often referred to as a 'nose warmer' and a bronze farthing.

Greg

[lynn cates]

money

Hello Greg. Thanks.

Can one grab by the hair or seize by throat for a take down?

Has a link between "Jack" and money been found?

Cheers.
LC

[GregBaron]

Tuppence for your thoughts...

Can one grab by the hair or seize by throat for a take down?

I suppose so Lynn but I would think the autopsy or crime scene might indicate
such... Admittedly, I haven't seen a lot of detail concerning
Mackenzie's murder spot...

Has a link between "Jack" and money been found?

Only that the canon left nary a tuppence behind....



Greg

[Observer]

Has a link between "Jack" and money been found?

Cheers.
LC

Has a link between the WM and Sein Finn, or The Ochrana ever been found?

[lynn cates]

right

Hello Greg. Thanks.

"Only that the canon left nary a tuppence behind."

Ah!

Cheers.
LC

[Stephen Thomas]

Was not Lawende used as an ID witness at a date subsequent to McKenzie's death? What would that be in aid of if the authorities knew perfectly well that JtR was under lock and key or dead?

Hi Bridewell

Ah, but the case wasn't OFFICIALLY solved.

So the police were obliged to go through the motions.

[GregBaron]

The ninth circle...

As I reread the Mackenzie inquest I’m struck by similarities to Stride. Perhaps in this instance he had enough time to begin the mutilations…

Here’s some things that strike me..

A) Similar time of morning
B) Rainy
C) Perhaps pulled to the ground for the strike
D) Blade conceivably duller and shorter than previous rips
E) Throat wound(s) similar length-depth
F) An alley beneath a lamp – an alley/entrance into a yard
G) Body in similar position – on left side head on or near curb, feet toward a wall
H) Bruising on chest/shoulders
I) No blood splatter
J) Nobody hears or sees a thing

Of course there are dissimilarities but it does give one food for thought..


Here’s one way we could play the Clue game…


Assailant #1 kills Nichols and Chapman

Assailant #2 kills Stride, Mackenzie and Coles

Assailant #3 kills Eddowes and MJK

A gang kills Emma Smith

Soldiers kills Martha Tabram

Torso man conducts his madness solo

The remaining outliers are killed by domestics


Whitechapel had certainly entered the ninth circle of hell…




Greg

[RivkahChaya]

Assailant #1 kills Nichols and Chapman

Assailant #2 kills Stride, Mackenzie and Coles

Assailant #3 kills Eddowes and MJK

A gang kills Emma Smith

Soldiers kills Martha Tabram

Torso man conducts his madness solo

The remaining outliers are killed by domestics

I'll second that.

I know it's hard to do, and I didn't do it until very recently, even though the first time I saw the Miller's Court picture was probably 1990, but if you copy it to whatever picture viewer you have, crop it to just the face, turn it so it oriented upright, and then zoom, so you really look at the mutilations, you realize that they are symmetrical. When you look at the face on the horrible corpse lying on the bed, you can't see any details on the face, and really don't want to look closely, but the fact is that the Eddowes and Kelly killings have in common the fact that the facial mutilations were symmetrical.

Now, I don't have any data on facial mutilations, in regards to how common it is in thrill killings, or on one motive vs. another, and we have no idea what JTR's purpose was, since we don't know who he was, but I do know that when a person is arrested for murder where the corpse has been disfigured, the usual reason for mutilating a face, crushing a skull, or removing a head (and hands as well), is to prevent the victim from being identified, and then connected with the killer. That doesn't mean that the victim and killer had a close, personal relationship, it just means that they may have been seen together, even if it was just leaving a bar together, or that they were distantly related, like the victim being the ex-wife of the killer's wife's brother. When you don't want to be arrested for murder, you try to think of everything.

Anyway, mutilations like that are random. The killer isn't drawing a picture on the victims face, so to speak.

The end result for Mary Kelly is that her face was obliterated, but I'm not sure that's the killer's intention. I think he was marking her. It was just another form of playing with the body, but it was more about "owning" her, than erasing her, if that makes sense. It's sort of the flip-side of taking a trophy.

Now, to be clear, I don't think the killer thought it through like that, but I think that he had some kind of drive, sort of like "I was here," but operating entirely viscerally, not intellectually.

[Bridewell]

[B]
So with Mckenzie were are left with:

a) it was a murder of a random victim by an unknown hand at least partially copying "Jack's" technique; or

b) she was killed by "Jack" but he was weakened by illness, mental issues or some such problem; or

c) it was a "domestic" (killing by someone who knew Mckenzie) made to look like "Jack's work.

Have I missed something?

Phil

Perhaps (d) she was killed by a fully functioning 'Jack' who was in possession of only a small knife and therefore limited as to what he could do to the body?