Was Mackenzie a copycat?

[Mr Lucky]

"The knife is a different knife. . ."how much variation do we need between the killing of Nichols and Chapman before it stops being absent?"

I am certainly not convinced that it was a different knife. Nor yet were the medicos.

Well the 'medicos', if you mean Phillips and Llewellyn, described two completely different knives

Once again, I will quote for you what they actually said -

Dr Llewellyn on the knife used on Nichols -

'The weapon used would scarcely have been a sailor's jack knife, but a pointed weapon with a stout back--such as a cork-cutter's or shoemaker's knife.'

note - A shoemaker works with leather

Dr Phillips on the knife used on Chapman -

'He should say that the instrument used at the throat and the abdomen was the same. It must have been a very sharp knife, with a thin, narrow blade, and must have been at least 6in. to 8in. in length, probably longer. He should say that the injuries could not have been inflicted by a bayonet or sword bayonet. They could have been done by such an instrument as a medical man used for post-mortem purposes, but the ordinary surgical cases might not contain such an instrument. Those used by slaughtermen, well ground down, might have caused them. He thought the knives used by those in the leather trade would not be long enough in the blade'.

note - 'He thought the knives used by those in the leather trade would not be long enough in the blade'

". . . how much variation do we need between the killing of Nichols and Chapman before it stops being absent?"

When a serious difference occurs. Haven't been shown a single one, yet.

One had her uterus extracted and stolen and the other didn't.

Just like Stride and Eddowes.

He never said "only"--YOUR word

he never said any of that, it was all MY own words, what's your point?

"No, the point is Nichols wounds were NOT ON display
Chapman and Eddowes wounds were ON display"

Display? Nonsense.

It's not nonsense at all, Lynn

No one noticed the abdominal wounds on Nichols until she was at the mortuary.

The abdominal wounds on Chapman and Eddowes were noticed in situ.

Another unquestionable difference between Nichols and Chapman.

I should have said, "AN objective." But in both cases, it was not pursued far. Not surprising for someone who was completely confused.

It was not pursued at all in the case of Nichols, only Chapman had an attempt to separate the bones of her neck.

"The victims are chosen by the killer, one had her pockets turned out, the other hadn't. You're citing Chapman's rings for this difference, but this doesn't make the difference go away."

It would never occur to JI to go through Polly's things. But Annie's rings provided a visual stimulus.

1) JI wasn't there.
2) Chapman had her pockets emptied, Nichols didn't.

If I did not know better, I'd think this entire post were in jest

No, I'm serious.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Lynn

Hello (again) Lucky. Thanks.

"That's not how it works, Lynn."

Ah, but that IS how it works. Look at the "Star" article about JIs alibi. It was for the morning of THE murder. (singular)

Cheers.
LC

No Lynn, it's not how it works at all.

If you were charged with the murder of Nichols, the fact you had an alibi for the Chapman killing is irrelevant.

For another example-
There was a burglary in my home town on 4 April, I have an alibi for this.

This doesn't mean I now have immunity from prosecution for any other burglary?, or that I effectively have a license to commit burglary as I can cite that I wasn't there on the 4th as the ultimate get out? - Err, no.

[DVV]

Hello David.
"I'd personally vote for Pigott."
Interesting.

Hi Lynn. Thanks.

Did Pigott:
1. carry knives?

Worse : he carried a black bag. And his shirts were stained with blood.

2. try to strangle a lady?

I can't remember whether he was married or not but he struck a woman in Brick Lane less than two hours before the murder of Annie Chapman. After which he left London.

Cheers

[lynn cates]

How stuff works.

Hello (again) Lucky. Thanks.

"That's not how it works, Lynn."

Ah, but that IS how it works. Look at the "Star" article about JIs alibi. It was for the morning of THE murder. (singular)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

jest

Hello Lucky. Thanks.

"The knife is a different knife. . ."how much variation do we need between the killing of Nichols and Chapman before it stops being absent?"

I am certainly not convinced that it was a different knife. Nor yet were the medicos.

". . . how much variation do we need between the killing of Nichols and Chapman before it stops being absent?"

When a serious difference occurs. Haven't been shown a single one, yet.

"Llewellyn's words - 'incision that begin at a point' "

ALL incisions must begin at some point.

"Stabbing and ripping, it's the only way you could do that amount of damage with a knife that's only 'moderately sharp' "

He never said "only"--YOUR word.

"No, the point is Nichols wounds were NOT ON display
Chapman and Eddowes wounds were ON display"

Display? Nonsense.

"If decapitation "was clearly the objective" and it didn't happen, then the killer isn't a butcher."

I should have said, "AN objective." But in both cases, it was not pursued far. Not surprising for someone who was completely confused.

"The victims are chosen by the killer, one had her pockets turned out, the other hadn't. You're citing Chapman's rings for this difference, but this doesn't make the difference go away."

It would never occur to JI to go through Polly's things. But Annie's rings provided a visual stimulus.

If I did not know better, I'd think this entire post were in jest.

Cheers.
LC

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

convenient

Not sure I would consider Eddowes, or "MJK" as such. Specifically for a random occurence type murder. So for that to be the case it would be more likely premeditated. Possibility.

[Mr Lucky]

2. If one is suspected for the only murder, one can give an alibi for another and be suddenly off the hook.

That's not how it works, Lynn.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Lynn

Incidentally, I, of all people, can easily live with two knives. After all, that's the EXACT number JI carried.

Anyone can carry two knives, not only deluded butchers

The point is THE KNIVES ARE DIFFERENT!!

You made a claim in response to this;-

"People - even serial killer people - are not machines working in wholly predictable circumstances. Variation is to be expected."

"Indeed. But it seems so absent from Polly to Annie."

The knife is a different knife, how much variation do we need between the killing of Nichols and Chapman before it stops being absent ?

If THAT'S what you mean by stab, go ahead.

Llewellyn's words - 'incision that begin at a point'

journalist - 'The knife had been thrust into the lowest point of the body, and the woman deliberately ripped open'

Stabbing and ripping, it's the only way you could do that amount of damage with a knife that's only 'moderately sharp'

But the point is that BOTH had their skirts raised--not cut through like Kate.

No, the point is Nichols wounds were NOT ON display
Chapman and Eddowes wounds were ON display

Therefore Chapman and Eddowes are alike, but not Nichols

"No, only in Chapman was there an attempt to separate the bones in the neck"

Never alleged this. But BOTH were nearly decapitated and such was clearly the objective. But only in the second case was there a furtive attempt to pull the head off.

If decapitation "was clearly the objective" and it didn't happen, then the killer isn't a butcher.

"But only in the second case " - Look, another one of those differences that "seems so absent from Polly to Annie"

"A copycat would attempt to do that with Chapman. . ."

How do you know what a copycat would do?

". . . but you claim this isn't a copycat killing unlike all the other murders."

All the others? I have said that, in the C5, there is only ONE copycat--Kate.

I would not know what a copycat would do, I think the whole notion of a 'copycat' Jack the ripper killing is a nonsense. It is only a viable idea in hindsight with the knowledge that the killer was never caught. At the actual time the murders were taking place ? Well, no.

"Ok, another difference - one wears rings and look like a possible target for a robbery and Nichols doesn't, we can put that one down as 8a"

No, we can't. That is a difference in victims, NOT killers.

The victims are chosen by the killer, one had her pockets turned out, the other hadn't. You're citing Chapman's rings for this difference, but this doesn't make the difference go away.

[lynn cates]

off the hook

Hello DLDW. Thanks.

"So why is it necessary to make any murder look like a "JTR" murder?"

Not necessary, but perhaps convenient.

1. That murder gets lost in the shuffle.

2. If one is suspected for the only murder, one can give an alibi for another and be suddenly off the hook.

Cheers.
LC

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Okay

So why is it neccesary to make any murder look like a "JTR" murder? If just a random act I don't think it seems realistic to do so spur of the moment. Especially on the streets. So someone set out to commit murder and intended to make it look so because they were trying to cover their tracks so to say. To hide their true motivation. Or they were fans and wanted to immulate. Or..... Lost it. Too tired. Dream world now. Someone help me out and articulate what the hell I'm trying to say. Thanks in advance. Zzzzz, zzzzz...........

[lynn cates]

track record

Hello David.

"I'd personally vote for Pigott."

Interesting.

Did Pigott:

1. carry knives?

or

2. try to strangle a lady?

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

I think whomever killed Polly and Annie was stopped from continuing his run, and whomever killed Alice was influenced by that mans activities.

Hi Mike

does it mean that the one who killed McKenzie had "understood" that Nichols and Chapman had not been killed by Eddowes, Stride and Kelly's murderer(s) ?

Out of curiosity, who's your favorite suspect for Polly and Annie ? (If I shared your theory, I'd personally vote for Pigott.)

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Phil

I quite agree. I think most people with a serious interest in the case will have looked critically at the canonical five. I see progression, rather than muliple hands, however, and am more inclined to include others in the 'canon' than exclude those already in it.


That's all.

Hi Sally,

If you dont mind Id like to address this section of your post, because there are some issues with that position...although I dont care how old the suggestion is either,.. if it warrants merit,...and a Canonical Five does not.

First take the 2 most responsible for that premise, Dr Bond, and Sir Melville. Melville also states within that same document that a man who was in jail in France at the time of the murders was one of the three best suspects the officials had. Dr Bond had strong opinions on the matter, though he saw only the last Canonical victim in death himself. Dr Phillips saw 4, and he had problems with at least Kate Eddowes.

The officials involved with the case state variously, often unequivocally, that the Ripper murders suspect was dead by suicide shortly after Mary Kellys murder, incarcerated or institutionalized shortly after same, or that he was hung many years later for other murders. Some say he was never caught or identified. Yet Alice Mackenzies murder drew out large numbers of officers again, just like the Fall of 88, and we understand that a Ripper witness is used several times over the following years, including for Sadler.

The facts of the cases are that the first 2 murders are almost carbon copies of one another, the third is a murder that did not involve Ripping at all, the 4th was questioned by the physician who saw the most Canonicals in death and does not show us the same objective based actions as the first 2 did, and the 5th has no direct logical connection, in Behavior, MO and Victimology to the first 2 murders,... unless one assumes sudden madness, but does have ample suggestion that the victim and killer were known to each other, which would rule out acquisition of a stranger...one of the features of the first 2 victims.

There is no single suspect, nor a single outcome of the cases by the authorities, and there is no "progression" within the series of these five women. There is repetition of a rare killer, the banal murder of another woman, a less skilled version of the first 2 then a free-for-all that fits none of the previous patterns.

Its far more likely that we have a streak of 2 or 3 and 2 other murders for entirely different reasons, But since those murder happened after the first precedent setting ones,... can we rule out mimicry with the others as a means to misdirect the authorities?

I think whomever killed Polly and Annie was stopped from continuing his run, and whomever killed Alice was influenced by that mans activities.

Cheers Sally

[lynn cates]

John

Hello DLDW. Thanks.

"Who killed Eddowes why and what data is there to substantiate that claim."

To crack her case, step one is to read ALL of John's dicta--in "The Echo," "The Star," and at inquest.

If you can understand all those anomalies, you may well be on track to answer your own question.

Cheers.
LC

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

like I said

I am open to the possibilities but single killer of an uncertain number seems like a very good bet. My question is who is the murderer of victims 3,4,5 and others but specifically them if not "JTR" and why and what is there to support it? Who killed Eddowes why and what data is there to substantiate that claim? McKenzie apparently needs not be made to look like one, so why? Sorry for brevity. Off to work.