Was Mackenzie a copycat?

[Jon Guy]

Hello Jon

Long time?
I'll concede, longer than with Stride, yes.?

He`s gone to the trouble of struggling to open the abdomen cavity under her bodice with his knife. He`s even thrown in the stab wound to the privates.
But yes, a long time relatively speaking, if you`re between police beats and hanging for the crime.

I often wonder about this, I know one poster who appears adamant that Stride's killer demonstrated anatomical knowledge because the slice across the throat was effective. Over egging the pudding, or over icing the cake, comes to mind.
Much the same as slicing one's wrists, does this act demonstrate anatomical knowledge, or just the simple fact that we all know it works??

It was Dr Phillips who suggested a degree of anatomical knowledge. I guess, not only because he targetted the carotid but because he laid her down and tipped her slightly to avoid been bloodstained when he cut her throat.

[lynn cates]

The Wynner.

Hello Greg.

"I understand normal copycat-ism curious but I struggle to understand it in this case. Surely the authorities wouldn’t ignore evidence in a single murder simply to appease a multiple murder theory…"

Indeed? How did they plumb the depths of Baxter's "Possibly the work of an imitator"?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

How did they plumb the depths of Baxter's "Possibly the work of an imitator"?

Cheers.
LC

(Mis)led by Phillips?

[RivkahChaya]

I think the thread title should have been "Was Mackenzie's killer a copycat?"

[GregBaron]

Blame game...

I think the thread title should have been "Was Mackenzie's killer a copycat?"

Excellent catch RivkahChaya but this precludes the possibility that
Mackenzie committed suicide and wished to blame the ripper....Ha


Greg

[lynn cates]

ignored

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Ah, they paid it no mind? Thought so.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

On the other hand, an alibi for ONE killing is an alibi for ALL.

I think this may have been one of the greatest errors made by the police at the time, in this case.

Clearly Isenschmidt is a case in pont, because he could not have committed the later murders, he was deemed not to be "Jack". But he COULD have perpetrated the earlier murders - and Eddowes, Stride and Kelly are all different enough in various ways to be POSSIBLY by other hands.

I think Barnett or Flemming might have got away with murder (Kelly) because they had alibis for earlier murders, and the police were fixated on "Jack"; similarly Kidney for Stride.

No doubt Fisherman would argue that Lechmere/Cross was dismissed for much the same reasons!!!

It is, to my mind, a good reason to treat all the murders as individual crimes and then see how many WE would compile into the work of a single hand.

Phil

I would argue what, Phil ...? That Lechmere had an alibi for an earlier murder than Nichols? I´m afraid I don´t quite follow you here.
I do, however, think that MacKenzie is a useful bid for a Ripper killing.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

My point, Fisherman was that, to the police at the time, all the killings (Nichols to MJK) were assumed to be related. So, a possible killer of a later victim (say Barnett for MJK), if he could show that he could not have killed any single one of the earlier victims, i.e. he had an alibi - he would practically be exhonerated.

But if we begin to look at the individual murders and see what they tell us, we might come to a different conclusion.

It works the other way too - Druitt could not have killed Mckenzie (as he was dead when she was killed) - so if she WERE identified as a classic "Jack" victim, it might exhonerate him from all.

Phil

[Abby Normal]

Hi all,

Methinks Mackenzie and Coles, especially, get short shrift from the
ripper community.

I think, intuitively, that one of these outlier cases might yield a clue
that cracks the whole case wide open. Ok, I know, unlikely, but a nice
thought..

Anyway, I think the motivation for at least C's 1-3 was sexual deviance.
The killer was a pervert or paraphilic of some sort and got pleasure out of
his foul deeds. Stay with me here.

But if Mackenzie was killed by another, two questions come to mind.
Why attempt a copycat? and What is the motivation?

I could go into a long soliloquy about what I'm getting at here but
I think you people are smart enough to get the ball rolling..

Any thoughts?


Greg

Hi Greg
I've always been somewhat confused whenever some uses the term copycat when it comes to murder. Does it mean copycat in that someone thought the previous murders were "cool" and wanted to try it and therefore it seems similar or does it mean they had a total different motivation for killing and they tried to make it look like the previous murderers work to throw off suspicion? Which do you have in mind?

[Jonathan H]

If you remove Druitt and Tumblety (and Cohen) as viable suspects, and most do, then there is no reason to exlcude McKenzie as a Ripper murder.

The only reason Kelly is the final victim is because of Mac's obsession with the drowned barrister and the timing his self-murder, and most secondary sources argue the police chief was mistaken.

If you remove Aaron Kosminski, and most do, then there is no reason to not to include Coles either.

Press and police sources of the day show that there was strong, though not unanimous opinion that these two women were victims of the earlier killer.

[RivkahChaya]

Hi Greg
I've always been somewhat confused whenever some uses the term copycat when it comes to murder. Does it mean copycat in that someone thought the previous murders were "cool" and wanted to try it and therefore it seems similar or does it mean they had a total different motivation for killing and they tried to make it look like the previous murderers work to throw off suspicion? Which do you have in mind?

It's a term law enforcement uses for a crime that appears to be part of a pattern, but for some reason, they are reasonably certain is by someone else. It may be because of forensics, it may be because the crime is far apart in time from the others, or it may be because someone has been arrested for the pattern crimes (it could be burglary or rape, which is why I'm not saying "serial killer"), and claims not to have done one of them. At any rate, since the term "copycat" is usually used before the motive is known, then the definition has nothing to do with motive. It just means a crime that appears to be a copy of a pattern crime, but was done by someone else. It could turn out that the "copycat" didn't know about the pattern crime, and it was simply a coincidence-- although, the police usually reserve the term for high profile investigations-- but "copycat" describes not so much a motive of a criminal, but a confounding factor in an investigation.

In that we don't know how many cut-throat murders in the Whitechapel area around late 1888 were committed by one person or another, there are a lot of confounding factors. We can't really even say which crime, if any, is technically the original. Polly Nichols would probably qualify as the original victims, unless the same person killed both her, and Martha Tabram. On the other hand, if one person killed Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes, but no one else, AND that person sent the "Jack the Ripper" letters to the Central News Office, then I think we'd have to call Chapman the original victim.

That wouldn't preclude JTR getting ideas from news articles about the Nichols murder, or even the Tabram and Smith murders-- or even the Fairy Fay legend, if it was current then, I'm not sure whether copycat is the right term in that case, though.

[Jonathan H]

To Rivkha

Along the lines you are speculating: I think that Druitt noticed the press rection to the Tabram murder -- is there a lone killer out there? -- and this gave him the idea to begin killing a succession of prostitutes for publciity reasons, apart from the fact that he enjoyed it.

[Fisherman]

My point, Fisherman was that, to the police at the time, all the killings (Nichols to MJK) were assumed to be related. So, a possible killer of a later victim (say Barnett for MJK), if he could show that he could not have killed any single one of the earlier victims, i.e. he had an alibi - he would practically be exhonerated.

But if we begin to look at the individual murders and see what they tell us, we might come to a different conclusion.

It works the other way too - Druitt could not have killed Mckenzie (as he was dead when she was killed) - so if she WERE identified as a classic "Jack" victim, it might exhonerate him from all.

Phil

Hmmm. But where does Lechmere enter this equation? There is nothing telling us that he could not be the killer of any isolated victim. He has no alibi that I am aware of, and so I don´t think the police exhonerated him on any such ground.
He simply did not fit the bill in terms of answering to the generic picture the police had conjured up if you ask me. That´s how he got off the hook before even getting on it.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

Fisherman, whether Lechmere "enters the equation" or not is a matter for you. He is irrelevant to what I wrote (indeed to pretty much anything) so far as I am concerned - I was thinking generally.

Phil

[Fisherman]

Fisherman, whether Lechmere "enters the equation" or not is a matter for you. He is irrelevant to what I wrote (indeed to pretty much anything) so far as I am concerned - I was thinking generally.

Phil

Aha - so he is irrelevant to what you wrote, but you nevertheless wrote that "No doubt Fisherman would argue that Lechmere/Cross was dismissed for much the same reasons!!!", with three exclamation marks.

Makes sense. Or not.

Anyhow, in the discussion about whether MacKenzie was a copycat killing or not, one only has to move her a year back in time, place her death in July 1888, and then see what happens.

Anybody who would seriously argue that she was not a Ripper killing if this was the case? Nah, I did not think so either.

It is the perceived progression in the Ripper series and the distance in time that singles her out as a possible copycat deed, nothing else. And THAT is VERY relevant.

All the best,
Fisherman