Was Mackenzie a copycat?

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hey GB

Hi gentlemen,

I see no reason why Mr. Ripper couldn't have been interrupted by Cross at the end of the street. Nichols was warm and not long in situ.

In addition to Stride, I could see Coles or Mackenzie as being interrupted. It's not easy to have the privacy to rip-em-to-bits in a very crowded East end with coppers afoot.


Greg

That's a reasonable possibility. Cut it out. Or maybe Crossmere to be interupted by Paul. Hope you can hear the creepy music too. Couldn't resist.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi gentlemen,

I see no reason why Mr. Ripper couldn't have been interrupted by Cross at the end of the street. Nichols was warm and not long in situ.


Greg

Precisely Greg, although I dont agree with the balance of the post personally.

Comparatively, the killer of Annie Chapman chose the same type of victim as the first murdered woman, thats Step 1...... at a time well after 2am, thats Step 2.... they were both choked then had their throats in almost identical fashion, Step 3..... unusually making 2 deep cuts to the throat, he then placed both of them on their backs with their legs spread, Step 4.... he then opened both of the womens abdomens, Step 5,... and only in the backyard at Hanbury, off the street and less likely to be interrupted by passers by on the street, he extracted organs, Step 6

Again, its on record that virtually all the relevant professional opinions concluded that both women were killed by the same man, and when seen as a murder that has a sequence of events that are relatively identical, its only logical to wonder whether the omission of Step 6 in the first murder, and the discovery and condition of Polly, were only due to the far more exposed venue, and perhaps inexperience.

Clearly the only real difference in the 2 murders are the organs and the venue.

Cheers

[GregBaron]

Murderous Interruptous...

Hi gentlemen,

I see no reason why Mr. Ripper couldn't have been interrupted by Cross at the end of the street. Nichols was warm and not long in situ.

In addition to Stride, I could see Coles or Mackenzie as being interrupted. It's not easy to have the privacy to rip-em-to-bits in a very crowded East end with coppers afoot.


Greg

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Mike. Thanks.

Well, I know what you mean. However, I try not to posit something unless there is tangible evidence for it.

Cheers.
LC

If you find an open door in your house can you conclude decisively based on that simple fact whether the door was used to leave the room or to enter it?

Your point is understood Lynn. But I would again suggest that we do have tangible evidence that Pollys killer sought to open her abdomen, after choking her, and slicing her neck twice. Since Annies killer does basically the same move in a different location, we might well "posit" about the poorly chosen first venue and the lack of extractions.

Cheers mate

[Mr Lucky]

What I was pointing out really is that there is the possibility one could make an argument that Pollys murder was incomplete,.. the same argument cannot be made in the case of Liz Stride.

No you can't make an argument that the Nichols murder was 'incomplete' at all. The idea's is plainly nonsense, a murders a murder. Was Tabram's murder 'incomplete' ? Do you just randomly pick and choose here or what, Nichols - incomplete murder, Stride - complete murder, what about the others?

We have actions in the first murder that seem to indicate a sequence when juxtaposed with the second.....which is a valid perspective Mr Lucky, not revisionist based on Chapman, but as a comparative when we can assume, safely, that the same man committed both murders. The coroner thought so, and so did the physician in Annies case.

What actions? the fact that the killer of Nichols could have removed her uterus but made no attempt to do so, choosing instead to use his time to randomly rip up her abdomen?

There is no evidence from the Nichols crime scene that suggests Nichols killer was interrupted, none.

To suggest an interruption one must carry a burden of proof....there is the possibility based on Pollys wounds that could have been the case, there is no such evidence in Berner Street

Nichols abdomen had been stabbed and ripped up using a moderately sharp knife in the dark, this would have required some time to do, so we know that if the killer had wanted to have extracted her uterus, he could have at least started the process. He had chosen not to do this - this isn't evidence that he was interrupted. This is evidence that he wasn't trying to take her uterus.

[lynn cates]

tangible

Hello Mike. Thanks.

Well, I know what you mean. However, I try not to posit something unless there is tangible evidence for it.

Cheers.
LC

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Michael

I know what you are saying, but IS provides an interuption or intrusion into the scene. Of course that is if his account is true. I think I know your feelngs on that already. You can not know the intentions of her murderer. Only what he did and didn't attempt. Which can be suggestive definitely. It is not concrete though. I hope I conveyed my point well enough. If not I'll try and articulate it further if needed. Once again I am neither pro or anti "JTR" at this time.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello DLSDW. Thanks.

To be "interrupted" is to be interrupted at something--if at nothing but the next step.

The idea about "Liz's assailant being interrupted" is that he was planning mutilations, but didn't because he was interrupted. Hence, planning.

So also with Polly. The idea is that her uterus was to be taken, but her killer was interrupted.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

What I was pointing out really is that there is the possibility one could make an argument that Pollys murder was incomplete,.. the same argument cannot be made in the case of Liz Stride. We have actions in the first murder that seem to indicate a sequence when juxtaposed with the second.....which is a valid perspective Mr Lucky, not revisionist based on Chapman, but as a comparative when we can assume, safely, that the same man committed both murders. The coroner thought so, and so did the physician in Annies case.

To suggest an interruption one must carry a burden of proof....there is the possibility based on Pollys wounds that could have been the case, there is no such evidence in Berner Street.

Cheers mate

[DVV]

Hi Dig

The copycat theory makes no sense.
Unless you call it a "shy copycat" murder.

I'd vote for a desillusioned ripper.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Back on topic

So what along the ways of motive is there for the murder of Mackenzie? Who would need to make it look like "JTR"? Or who might be trying to pay homage?

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

The Joke is...

That the data goes about two feet. We spend most of our time speculating and making assumptions. Some good and logical, but still it is speculation and assumptions. Which is fine. Fun too! One day I'll do the math. Not anytime soon though. Tedious.

[Mr Lucky]

Crude attemp but there you go.

Hi Dig,

No , that's reasonable attempt, fair enough, for example-

Well Nichols could've had something removed. So it is possible but can't be verified

yes, that's a good point, we can't even be sure what Nichols had in her pockets after she was attacked, Comb and broken piece of mirror are mentioned, but some other sources also list a pocket handkerchief and some a piece of soap.

It is ever important to remain objective and state when you are taking liberties.

Well said, This I heartily agree with and clearly I think Lynn is taking liberties and he's not stating that's what he is doing. That's the point. This is why Lynn's only counterpoints are that the Fenians have put me up to this, and this is why he's comparing me to Aaron Kosminski. It's all he can do.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

[QUOTE=Mr Lucky
1) Different weapon
Very possible, maybe very probable
2) Different sharpness
Well if not the same weapon then yeah. If it was the same weapon then seems likely it was made sharper after Nichols murder.
3) One victim's stabbed, the other was cut open
Would need to review evidence and learn more about wounds by knifes to attempt to verify or refute Dr.'s claims. The body would be helpful too.
4) One had her uterus extracted and stolen, the other didn't
True
5) One had her intestines removed the other hadn't
True
6) One had her abdominal wounds exposed with her dress/skirt up the other didn't
Possible. Cannot be verified.
7) Only one had an attempt to separate the bones in her neck
Hmm. I might say one had a good attempt
8) Only one had her possessions removed from her pockets
Well Nichols could've had something removed. So it is possible but can't be verified
9) One found in the street the other in a private yard
True
10) One had her legs spread, the other didn't.
Witness statement supports that claim if I recall correctly.[/QUOTE]
Crude attemp but there you go.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Mr. Lucky

I have no reason to make anything go away. Except bad suspects I have no suspect which I prefer, just some that are interesting to look at. The differences in their murders are there. People will make of them what they will. Data, data, data. It is ever important to remain objective and state when you are taking liberties.

[Mr Lucky]

that's well and good. I'm game. But if you wish to keep at this nonsense, then you will have to go it alone like Aaron Kosminski.

Your choice.

Cheers.
LC

Comedy is comedy and that is some funny s***. Apologies

Ok, Since you stuck your oar in, you try and do what Lynn can't.

You make these differences between the murders go away quoting contemporary references, ie Dr Llewellyn, Dr Phillips, the witness that saw the body in situ or at the mortuary (ie NOT CRAP like "It would never occur to JI to go through Polly's things. But Annie's rings provided a visual stimulus")

1) Different weapon
2) Different sharpness
3) One victim's stabbed, the other was cut open
4) One had her uterus extracted and stolen, the other didn't
5) One had her intestines removed the other hadn't
6) One had her abdominal wounds exposed with her dress/skirt up the other didn't
7) Only one had an attempt to separate the bones in her neck
8) Only one had her possessions removed from her pockets
9) One found in the street the other in a private yard
10) One had her legs spread, the other didn't.