Was Mackenzie a copycat?

[Sally]

Hi Phil

Your consistency is amazing and praiseworthy. You have told me this often (indeed, I think it was on this topic that our paths first crossed) but with your permission, I'll keep an open mind.

Thanks - I think...

I have told you this often, yes - for the very simple reason that the facts are quite plain with respect to Barnett - well documented - and in this case, I see no reason for doubt.

But if I was ever in Barnett's position, I'd hope I had an advocate as loyal as you.

It has nothing to do with 'Loyalty' I'm afraid - as I believe I've also told you before. On the day that a new piece of evidence comes to light that demonstrates that:

A - Barnett's alibi was false and
B - that the police really were such idiots as to fall for it

I'll change my mind as quick as a flash.

JHowever, oseph Barnett had an alibi. There it is. At one time, the remainder his life was a mystery - and that lent him an air of mystery that certainly encouraged some to speculate about his guilt; alibi notwithstanding. No longer - and he lived a very mundane, ordinary life in a common law marriage that endured for decades. There is nothing to suggest that he was violent, or had any problems with women. Nothing. Where is the basis for even considering him as a viable suspect?

Considering the known facts, it's always been a weak argument.

One of my reasons for entertaining the concept of multiple killers in the Ripper crimes is that it allows us to look at the case(s) in a new light and consider new options.

And that's absolutely fine. Nothing wrong with that at all. It just seems to me that the rejection of a single serial killer is simple revisionism brought about by the lack of conclusion in the case and the desire to achieve said conclusion. That's all.

Personally, I can accept that there may be no conclusion at all.

Sticking to the "canonical" five (at least in so far as not reducing the number is concerned) is - to me - to accept what appears to have been a subjective view by Macnaghten.

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.

If I am studying a battle - Gettysburg at present - I do not just accept one interpretation, however respected the writer or historian, soldier or authority. History is, after all, about interpretation. If we simply accept we stagnate as historians. We should rigourously scrutinuise, questions and deconstruct. we might well emerge at the other end of our analysis by confirming previous views - but at least the reassessment has been done.

I think that's admirable Phil - the views of other commentators are, in the end, only the view of other commentators. Go to the source material, decide what you think, and then read what historians have said. That's what I'd do, anyway.

With an historical figure such as Richard III, I strive to reach my own understanding - that is an informed opinion based on deep knowledge - of his charcater and motivations so far as they can be reconstructed. That means questioning everything - like taking a clock apart to see HOW it works and then reconstructing it to ensure it does and that one has fully grasped the mechanism. At the end of the process I might well find the old conclusions have merit (I won't say are right/correct) and accept them - but the difference is i will have made them my own.

Again, I concur - but that doesn't mean rejecting 'the old conclusions' just because they are old conclusions.

So, sally, I will NOT be told it is wrong to rexamine, look again or challenge. If I did I would consider myself intellectually bankrupt. The FUN - remember what that is? - in a subject is the taking apart. We are dealing with ideas and theories, so that taking apart does not hurt them or mean that others cherished views are damaged.

I don't think I said that Phil - it really doesn't reflect what I think. But I don't see the merit in casting doubt where none need be. There are times when it's reasonable to accept what the documents tell us. Not everything hides a secret - not everything is a mystery. Some things really are what they appear to be.

That's all.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

More coppers on the beat. Vigilant peoples. Procedures not the best term.

[lynn cates]

And so . . .

Hello Lucky. Thanks.

"'moderately sharp' vs 'very sharp'. Sorry, they are clearly not the same."

Can you describe the difference in mutilations between those done with a "very sharp" knife and a "moderately sharp" knife? This is like making heavy weather out of Phillip's "five or six inches, possibly more." Sorry, five is not six.

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

"every single wound started with a stab"

Umm, yes, the knife must go in before it can be drawn downwards (upwards, in Kate's case). If THAT'S what you mean by stab, go ahead.

"Same applies to Stride then!"

No, no. The initial single cut was less deep than either Polly or Annie. (Kate, too, to be fair.) Hence, no continuation as it was different from the start.

"The skirt puller who noticed no wounds, therefore the wounds were not exposed."

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

"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.

"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.

"Yet the killer of Chapman had attempted to remove her head, so why is the killer of Chapman not a 'copycat' as well?"

Because it was the same person. A copycat must be different. Seriously, there was an attempt at decapitation in both cases. But no manual attempt with Polly.

"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 last two are in jest, hence, I omit.

One difference you left out. If you like to talk of difference in victims, "Polly" starts with "P," "Annie" with "A." Different.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

encore

Hello David. Thanks.

Well, you see my dilemma. What to do for an encore? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

ring in the new

Hello DLDW. Thanks.

New procedures?

Cheers.
LC

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Lynn

"1) Different weapon"

Not necessarily. And no reason to believe such.

Only what Llewellyn and Phillips tell us.

"2) Different sharpness"

Not so. to say moderately sharp was just another way to say "at least" . . .

'moderately sharp' vs 'very sharp'. Sorry, they are clearly not the same.

"3) One victim's stabbed, the other was cut open"

Stabbed? That would be Tabram.

No that would be Nichols, stabbed - knife used 'violently and downwards', every single wound started with a stab 'incisions beginning at a point', except the shallow (due to the knife being only moderately sharp, perhaps?) slashes across her stomach lining.

"4) One had her uterus extracted and stolen, the other didn't"

As I have said so many times, merely a continuation, and likely depended on the stages observed at the horse knackers.

Same applies to Stride then!

"5) One had her intestines removed the other hadn't"

Vide supra.

Ditto

"6) One had her abdominal wounds exposed with her dress/skirt up the other didn't"

Ah, but in one case the skirt was pulled down by others.

The skirt puller who noticed no wounds, therefore the wounds were not exposed.

"7) Only one had an attempt to separate the bones in her neck"

But both were attempts to decapitate.

No, only in Chapman was there an attempt to separate the bones in the neck, the press reports that Nichols nearly had her head cut off, but there was no evidence that this was attempted.

A copycat would attempt to do that with Chapman, but you claim this isn't a copycat killing unlike all the other murders. Yet the killer of Chapman had attempted to remove her head, so why is the killer of Chapman not a 'copycat' as well ?

"8) Only one had her possessions removed from her pockets"

Correct. But she was wearing rings. That would have been like a sign--"search me."

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

"9) One found in the street the other in a private yard"

But BOTH were known hotspots for a certain kind of "activity."

They're not the same.

"10) One had her legs spread, the other didn't."

To extract a uterus, frequently the legs must be open. Vide supra.

That's a difference again, see no. 4

Shall we talk about:

Err, why would we do that, I'm not saying they're by different killers.

[Stephen Thomas]

Barnett was rigourously questioned by the police. He was released because he had an alibi.

He was cleared of all suspicion of involvement in Kelly's murder so far as we are able to tell. To turn him back into a suspecti, we must assume that:

A - His alibi was false
B - The police were such idiots that they believed and accepted a false alibi.

An excellent post, Sally.

So many people talk total tosh in books and on these internet boards.

[DVV]

Hello Dave. Thanks.

"I don't understand your reply."

I mean Polly and Annie are obviously similar. Begin with their necks.

Cheers.
LC

Ok, thanks lynn.

Although I was expecting more (from a man like you).

Slainte

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Perhaps time was needed to familiarize with new procedures? Who knows how much prep work was done. Just thought about that.

[lynn cates]

increased security

Hello DLDW. Thanks.

Quite. But surely there was increased security around Kate as well? Most of those on the street were coppers or vigilance committee members.

Cheers.
LC

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

I trust no one

How trusting you all are!!

Casebook has become so dull and lacking in any sort of desire to explore issues, that I am leaving.

Oh, I may pop in from time to time to check on issues of the periodicals, or to see whether there have been any developments of interest (especialkly new research) and if there are any posts in the Richard III threads, but otherwise I leave the field to you.

Enjoy,

Phil

Exploring possibilities is fine. It is when one claims that they are more likely to have been the case when there is not enough data to support it that I take issue with. You do us a great diservice if you do depart. I will be saddened if that turns out to be the case. Much respect.

[lynn cates]

necks

Hello Dave. Thanks.

"I don't understand your reply."

I mean Polly and Annie are obviously similar. Begin with their necks.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

pseudo differences

Hello Lucky. Thanks.

"1) Different weapon"

Not necessarily. And no reason to believe such.

"2) Different sharpness"

Not so. to say moderately sharp was just another way to say "at least" . . .

"3) One victim's stabbed, the other was cut open"

Stabbed? That would be Tabram.

"4) One had her uterus extracted and stolen, the other didn't"

As I have said so many times, merely a continuation, and likely depended on the stages observed at the horse knackers.

"5) One had her intestines removed the other hadn't"

Vide supra.

"6) One had her abdominal wounds exposed with her dress/skirt up the other didn't"

Ah, but in one case the skirt was pulled down by others.

"7) Only one had an attempt to separate the bones in her neck"

But both were attempts to decapitate.

"8) Only one had her possessions removed from her pockets"

Correct. But she was wearing rings. That would have been like a sign--"search me."

"9) One found in the street the other in a private yard"

But BOTH were known hotspots for a certain kind of "activity."

"10) One had her legs spread, the other didn't."

To extract a uterus, frequently the legs must be open. Vide supra.

Shall we talk about:

1. facial bruising?

2. wound directions?

3. parallel deep neck cuts?

4. attempted decapitation?

5. protruding/lacerated tongue?

6. skilful mutilations?

7. uncut dresses?

8. DEMONSTRABLY prostituting?

9. proximity to the horse slaughterers?

10. incapacitated ladies?

Cheers.
LC

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hello (again) DLDW. Thanks.

"Maybe never thought about it before. But was able to recognize what was afforded him when it was presented."

But surely the same person was out and about? And, if the assailant were really a killer with a blood lust, would he not have some plan for killing? Would he not be thinking about it?

Cheers.
LC

Prob yes. But this person prob had a life also to contend with. Compartmentalized perhaps.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hello DLDW. Thanks.

"It's been awhile since the last murder."

Indeed. Why do you suppose that so?

Cheers.
LC

Well there are plenty of possibilities. If it was"JTR", then increased caution and police presence jumps out at me. Not surprising to me that once people's guard relaxed some that an opportunity arises. It's hard to catch a cautious individual. Patience. Timing is everything.