Was Mackenzie a copycat?

[Phil H]

Sympathy is all very well - but I seem to recall that in a case of murder it is always family and associates who are the first to be considered as culprits? Police don't show such sympathy when murder is in question, it seems?

Maybe not such b******s after all.

Phil

[DVV]

Any of these are a hell of alot more likely than Barnett killed her and then made it look like "JTR". To borrow a phrase from accross the pond, bollocks.

Indeed.
Poor Barnett.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Heh heh

And thanks for engaging in a polite and productive manner. It is much appreciated. Many blessings.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Allow me to say this

I recognize the real possibility that"JTR" is a construct. Hence my perpetual use of quotations. But there is not enough data to dismiss it as serious possibility. One of the best currently, if not the best line of investigation to pursue. I have an interesting idea why so many want to dismiss it but I am not currently able to articulate it efficiently enough to relay. Although they maybe correct. Their intent does not stem from a point of objectivity.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

As it pertains to "MJK"

Simply could be availability. Opportunity. Or if it was this "JTR" guy, it wasn't an ideal thing. Maybe never thought about it before. But was able to recognize what was afforded him when it was presented. Any of these are a hell of alot more likely than Barnett killed her and then made it look like "JTR". To borrow a phrase from accross the pond, bollocks.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

First thing to mind is

If it is the work of "JTR", more and faster. It's been awhile since the last murder. Not by design. More peelers and more caution. You get your opportunity and you forsake the aspects that have less importance. First and foremost you want to do the "work". Getting caught really makes that difficult. That is one possibilty. Another quick one is a reminder that hey I'm still here but not at the expense of capture. Maybe dealing with an objective based individual. If you take my meaning

[lynn cates]

bite

Hello (again) DLDW. Thanks.

"Same person, altered approach. Inconsistencies should not be the end all. Not when many reasonable variables exist that could account for the discrepancies."

I'll bite. Why are Polly and Annie so much alike and Kate so different--different enough for Baxter to ask if she were perhaps the work of an imitator?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

primo

Hello DLDW. Thanks.

"Well with "MJK" all bets are off. Indoors and ample time. Look at it like an opportunity of a lifetime. You never know when you are gonna get the chance again, so don't squander, satiate."

That claim has always fascinated me. It seems so easy to have done earlier.

Do you have a good theory concerning why her assailant did not kill like that before? Why accept second rate material/circumstances when what you really want is there for the taking?

Cheers.
LC

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Anyways

To be on topic of this thread she has a little bit more going on than Stride. Well kinda. Seems like the same killer as at least some of the previous murders or someone trying to reignite the past as two very decent possibilities. Those are the ones I would prob start with. Regardless, quite odd.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Eddowes

Well it would seem less time was involved. It may be a mistake to attribute "sloppiness"and "quickness" with a different person. Same person, altered approach. Inconsistencies should not be the end all. Not when many reasonable variables exist that could account for the discrepancies. They of course do not rule out a different hand as a possibility.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Thanks

Well with "MJK" all bets are off. Indoors and ample time. Look at it like an opportunity of a lifetime. You never know when you are gonna get the chance again, so don't squander, satiate. I don't buy the Barnett thing one bit. Whoever did that was as sick if not sicker than "JTR". If indeed it wasn't he. Not a one time type thing. Would manifest itself again or previously. I respect the possibility but need something incredibly convincing to make it not the most reasonable conclusion.

[lynn cates]

time

Hello DLDW. Thanks.

Well, to prolong your parenting analogy, we'd expect:

1. more laxity

and

2. less time involved.

But, especially with "MJK," we see much time spent and more involvement.

Cheers.
LC

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Exactly.

Hi Lynn sounds like we are concurrent, but I know that I am prob missing your intent. Could you clarify?

[DVV]

He's just found the watch of Fernand Braudel

I've seen similar such statements many times on this site. They usually emanate from those who lack even a basic understanding of psychology.

And I have seen many similar comments from posters, Garry, that appear "to emanate from those who lack even a basic understanding" of HISTORY and its methods. So I suppose all is square.

Phil

History and its methods ?
Excellent.
Your own method is to ignore documents in order to assert that the canonicity of MJK is "wholly unsubstantiated".

Or to put forward a theory based on upcoming documents.
For example, your recent : "time will reveal Stride wasn't a ripper victim."

[lynn cates]

sloppy

Hello DLDW. Thanks.

Could be. But then, what was done with both Kate and "MJK" was more extensive--and yet MUCH sloppier.

Cheers.
LC