Was Mackenzie a copycat?

[Bridewell]

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

Hi David,

Totally agree. Sadler is by far the most likely suspect for Coles. Acquittal means innocence in law, but not necessarily in fact.

[Bridewell]

Hi Bridewell

Ah, but the case wasn't OFFICIALLY solved.

So the police were obliged to go through the motions.

The case wasn't solved. Full stop. The alternative scenario is that the police knew the identity of the perpetrator of the Whitechapel Murders and kept quiet about it. As they were getting flak from all directions for what was perceived as lamentable failure born of institutional incompetence, a coy reticence of this nature doesn't stack up to my mind.

[Observer]

Hi David, and Bridewell

I'd agree, Sadler in all probability killed Coles. The only doubt that I have is down to the fact that Swallow Gardens was known by the police to have been used for protitution. Of course Sadler could have known that Coles used this venue for prostitution, and have cornered her there

Regards

Observer

[Phil H]

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 find no great problem with this analysis. I'd be interested to know the response of those who always argue that there cannot have been so many mad killers running around at the same time.

At the very least we know that the torso was acting simultaneously - maybe in rivalry - with "Jack". My only quibbles, and they are no more than that, are that I believe Stride might be one of the "domestics" (Kidney) and MJK was, I am increasinly of the opinion, killed by someone intimate with her. So she is probably a domestic too, in my book. Also, I can see an evolution through Nichols and Chapman to Kate Eddowes which would link them.

I think the facial disfigurement of MJK was a highly personal attack by someone who felt aggrieved at or humiliated by her. Eddowes, on the other hand I see as almost "playful" - a joke? a man with an opportunity and a knife? even a message. I would also be prepared to consider that Eddowes killer knew her - I am still intrigued by the possibility that she had worked out who it was. But there is simply not enough evidence to follow that up.

Excellent and useful/constructive discussion.

Phil

[DVV]

Acquittal means innocence in law, but not necessarily in fact.

Hi Colin,

that's true, that's wise. And Sadler is still the prime suspect in that case.

Best regards

[DVV]

I think the facial disfigurement of MJK was a highly personal attack by someone who felt aggrieved at or humiliated by her.
Phil

Hi Phil,

I couldn't agree more.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

I think the facial disfigurement of MJK was a highly personal attack by someone who felt aggrieved at or humiliated by her.

Doesn't 'humiliation' suggest immediate humiliation, which in turn might suggest he unsuccessfully tried to have sex?

Something not evident in previous cases.

Eddowes, on the other hand I see as almost "playful" - a joke? a man with an opportunity and a knife? even a message.

He was a little pushed for time, unless the pair seen by Lawende were not Eddowes & the killer?
Poor light could be the main cause of the haphazard cuts, the lamp in the N/W corner apparently was not working at full intensity that weekend.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby



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.

Hi Jon
I had never thought of that before-interesting and definite possibility.

[Abby Normal]

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

Whatever are you babbling about? Using The phrase "self-referencing" and "blocks logical thinking" in response to quoting my sentence:

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.


What's illogical, self referencing(whatever that means) or hard to understand about a simple compare/contrast statement????

[Phil H]

Thank you for your response Abby, I haven't a clue what you are trying to say. I don't "babble" often. If you read my post again, I think it is clear what I was saying.

On a separate point, Wickerman wrote:

Doesn't 'humiliation' suggest immediate humiliation, which in turn might suggest he unsuccessfully tried to have sex? Something not evident in previous cases.

I was not thinking about immediate humiliation or a client. I had in mind the sort of humiliation that festers for years, maybe continues - a man seeing a woman he loves flaunting a new lover in his face; a woman who taunts a man about his sexual prowess; a man who can no longer support his partner and sees her using her body to earn money.

That might apply to Flemming, Barnett or Morganstone for all I know.

If Mary saw herself as beautiful, knew the effect she had on men, and used it, who knows who might have felt humiliated (Hutchinson?) or aggrieved.

No I'm not thinking about something that happened that night, but days weeks or months before.

Phil

[Garry Wroe]

But if the killer of Mckenzie was "Jack" then why go back to the earlier style?

Sutcliffe adopted a different mode of operation during the Yorkshire Ripper killings after being questioned by detectives. If McKenzie was a Ripper victim, therefore, it is entirely possible the the murderer came under close police scrutiny shortly after the Miller's Court affair. This would account for the hiatus between Kelly and McKenzie, as well as the more subdued, tentative nature of the injuries inflicted upon McKenzie.

[DVV]

It's all about the killer's mind after the Dorset Street murder.
In sport, some defeats or victories can produce the same effect.
Was it really the same Michael Schumarer after his seventh trophy ?
Was it still the same McEnroe after he lost against Lendl at Roland Garros ?
And what about the co-ed killer once he had killed his mom ?

[Jon Guy]

I'd agree, Sadler in all probability killed Coles. The only doubt that I have is down to the fact that Swallow Gardens was known by the police to have been used for protitution. Of course Sadler could have known that Coles used this venue for prostitution, and have cornered her there

I don`t know, lads.

What about the punter in the Cheesecutter hat who walked off with Coles towards Leman St half an hour before she was killed.
He was a nasty sod who punched the woman Coles was standing with.

At that precise time Sadler was on his back in the street in front of the entrance to the Docks. A number of policeman saw him staggering around barely able to stand.

My money`s on Cheesecutter man.

[Phil H]

Sutcliffe adopted a different mode of operation during the Yorkshire Ripper killings after being questioned by detectives. If McKenzie was a Ripper victim, therefore, it is entirely possible the the murderer came under close police scrutiny shortly after the Miller's Court affair. This would account for the hiatus between Kelly and McKenzie, as well as the more subdued, tentative nature of the injuries inflicted upon McKenzie.

I find that reasoning a tad modern.

Would someone in 1888 have known about police procedures? Have been able to think, I'll change my MO to fool them?

Sutcliffe had decades of TV police dramas, and the newspapers to give him insights - where would that have come from in 1888?

Simply put, I don't think the late Victorian mind-set was as ours might be.

DVV
It's all about the killer's mind after the Dorset Street murder.

If the hand that killed Mckenzie committed the atrocity in Millers Court. I doubt that. So I think we have to look for some other motivation.

Phil

[GregBaron]

Who cut the cheese...

Excellent and useful/constructive discussion.

Thanks Phil, just some discussion points. I have no convictions about the case.

My money`s on Cheesecutter man.

At least someone is pointing their finger at Cheesecutter man. I wonder where that term comes from, I always laugh as it reminds me of the Three Stooges when Mo took a cheese grater to Curly’s face…

Anyway, Sadler was bleeding, bruised and broke not to mention drunk and angry. I can see him blaming Coles for his plight and seeking her out for a violent retribution. Was he capable of this though?

Cheescutter doesn’t seem like Jack though, unless he’s BS man with a new hat…


Greg