Was Mackenzie a copycat?

[Phil H]

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

[Wickerman]

The police will check out his story with those at his lodging-house, they will not simply take his word for it. Registered lodging-houses had an admittance book, Unregistered homes likely followed suit.
Regardless, there are people within who can confirm or contest his claims, and the police know this.

[DVV]

And his alibi was?

Phil

What he said it was.

He returned to his lodgings - how suspicious !

And went to bed when tired - how satanic !

[DVV]

You're right, Barnett had an alibi.

And some should keep an open mind to the dictionary.

And his alibi was?

If you are so certain, please set out your reasoning and the time of death you assume for Kelly.

Phil

Don't reverse the roles.

Barnett was questioned and had an alibi.

That is all.

What have you got to cast doubt on this alibi ?

Nothing.

What have you got to make him a killer ?

Nothing.

Except an old suspect-based book that you haven't digested yet.

[Phil H]

You're right, Barnett had an alibi.

And some should keep an open mind to the dictionary.

And his alibi was?

If you are so certain, please set out your reasoning and the time of death you assume for Kelly.

Phil

[DVV]

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

Hi Sally

You're right, Barnett had an alibi.

And some should keep an open mind to the dictionary.

Cheers

[DVV]

Hello Sally.

"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.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn

I don't understand your reply.

Cheers

[Mr Lucky]

"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.

Hi Lynn,

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.

[Phil H]

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.

I'm quite open to the idea that Kelly knew her killer - to what extent is debateable. It need not have been an intimate acquaintance, necessarily.

But Barnett? Nah.

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.

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

One of my issues with the current claims by some for multiple killers in the Whitechapel murders is that they take no account of variation.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So, with respect, I'll not be dissuaded from my position.

phil

[lynn cates]

variation

Hello Sally.

"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.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

polite

Hello (yet again) DLSW. Thanks.

I am of the old belief that "res ipsa loquitur." Hence, no need to shout or be impolite.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

plan

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

[lynn cates]

time lapse

Hello DLDW. Thanks.

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

Indeed. Why do you suppose that so?

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

What about brevity? Or frustration? Maybe it's like when parents have child number one and are crazy cautious and over react about everything but by child number four unless they are dying then they don't usually move a finger. Or how about ceremony giving way to the objective? Just throwing that out there.

I cocur entirely with what you say, Dig. One of my issues with the current claims by some for multiple killers in the Whitechapel murders is that they take no account of variation.

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

I think that Mackenzie could be a Ripper killing. I'm less convinced by the copycat argument.

[Sally]

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.

I'm quite open to the idea that Kelly knew her killer - to what extent is debateable. It need not have been an intimate acquaintance, necessarily.

But Barnett? Nah.