Was Mackenzie a copycat?

[DVV]

As to "I['d] really like to know why JtR could not be somebody Mary knew."

Make the case. You know the facts.


Phil

My God.

Are you really as silly as your posts on this thread ?

I have no case to make.

But in you raving opinion, the ripper could be any unknown local, except one that knew Kelly.

That's simply grotesque, nonsensical, aberrant.

[Phil H]

Good to remember that DVV.

As to "I['d] really like to know why JtR could not be somebody Mary knew."

Make the case. You know the facts.

It's not something I believe to be true - whereas I am open to the idea that Eddowes may have known (and worked out) whom Jack was.

Phil

[DVV]

I really like to know why JtR could not be somebody Mary knew.

Oh, sorry. I just forgot the canonicity of MJK was something "wholly unsubstantiated".

[Phil H]

If you want to make the case for Barnett or Flemming being "Jack" please do. It just doesn't work for me and I have never argued that.

Some years ago there was a book making the case that Barnett was "Jack" (actually there were two but one got the werong man!!). The arguments did not convince me then and do not now. But Barnett did testify to having read accounts of the murders in the papers, so would probably have known enough to try to replicate the earl;ier (and separate) murders.

If Barnett had solid alibis for the earlier crimes, and the police were - as it appears - convinved that Mary was a Ripper victim - that might have been rnough to exonerate him.

But I could Barnett him as the killer of MJK and I can see motive. You see, I perceive the facial mutilations and the all-out attack on her femininity and everything that made her a woman, highly personal. She had rejected Barnett but he clearly still carried a torch for her.

Flemming to appears to have retained feelings for Mary and to have been (either or both) physically and verbally violent towards her.

I have no idea whether Barnett did it, I just feel that someone who knew Mary intimately is more likely to have done what was done than "Jack". (Thus I include Flemming and even Morganstone - whomever he was - as candidates.)

Phil

[DVV]

what? why couldn't barnett or Flemming be MK killer and al$o the ripper?

Indeed, Abby. Especially with what we know about Fleming.
But you know, on Casebook 2013, if you daresay MJK is a ripper victim, some people look at you as if you were ripe for Broadmoor.
Let them rave. They're so smart.

Cheers

[DVV]

Whoever killed MJK is more likely to be the ripper than anything else.

That is a wholly unsubstantiated statement. Why?

Phil

Most funny is the fact that Phil H doesn't realize how funny is his post.

According to him, the canonicity of MJK is something "wholly unsubstantianted".

[Abby Normal]

Maybe you would.

If Kelly were shown to have been killed by Flemming or Barnett, it would be shown she was not the Ripper's work - yet many still assume without much thought that she is.

I just went back to first principles and came up with a different train of thought to others.

Just maybe, Kelly's murderer killed her where he ddi, had no option to move the body, so did his best with what he had... who knows.

If you don't agree with my analysis, fine. Just let it be. It won't bite you.

Phil

what? why couldn't barnett or Flemming be MK killer and al$o the ripper?

[lynn cates]

brains

Hello Caroline.

"Actually, when you think about it, the obvious thing for MJK's killer to do, if NOT the ripper and someone she knew well, like Barnett or Fleming, was to leave behind some possession that definitely didn't belong to him and wouldn't be linked to him.

In short, a copycat could have done so much more to be convincing, by doing considerably less, in a lot less time and with a lot less effort."

Indeed, PROVIDED the chap who did "MJK" had your brains. But likely, he did not.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

good old days

Hello Phil. Thanks.

I held the former in my "solo" days. I believed in a toff with a topper. Hence, such a sly, cunning fellow--obviously the author of the "Dear Boss"--would not have waited so late.

Theory driving facts.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Actually, when you think about it, the obvious thing for MJK's killer to do, if NOT the ripper and someone she knew well, like Barnett or Fleming, was to leave behind some possession that definitely didn't belong to him and wouldn't be linked to him.

In short, a copycat could have done so much more to be convincing, by doing considerably less, in a lot less time and with a lot less effort.

I don't buy that it would have been a spur of the moment attack, which the killer THEN had to turn into a decent looking ripper job. He had the right knife with him and used the right method - and no sign of a fight before he went in for the kill.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

And if you wanted to make Kelly look like a Ripper murder, wouldn't you kill her on the street where the Ripper murders took place, not in a bed in a private room where they didn't.

And wouldn't you take her uterus and a kidney away with you, instead of leaving them by the body?

And wouldn't you write a message about 'Juwes' on her wall and leave a top hat and black bag behind?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The chief characteristic of the crimes in the press was their horror - the murderer was probably not trying to outdo himself - he was doing what felt natural - someone seeking to emulate his style might easily over do it. Just my thought.

With Mckenzie the opposite is true - someone not the Ripper would have over done the mutilation. Only "Jack" could "under do it" (for whatever reason).

Hi Phil,

That's why I have no problem with Stride being a ripper victim. We are constantly told that her killer had plenty of time to mutilate if that was his aim (although I don't know one way or another). If true, anyone else could have quickly slashed her abdomen to make it look like 'another' victim of the fiend and given himself a better chance, especially if he had alibis for the others.

On the other hand, I'm not sure the ripper himself would have bothered with just a slash or two on this occasion, even assuming he had the time after deciding to slit her throat. If he felt the location was too risky for a full-on Chapman job it makes sense that he would have sought another victim and a quieter location.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil H]

Cadosche's integrity has ben challenged.

How about:

* he heard a discovery of the body before that of Davis?

or

* he lied to give himself a stake in the case?

Either is possible.

Phil

[lynn cates]

Cadosch

Hello Phil. Thanks.

"Perhaps an indication that the murder took place earlier - at around the same time in the morning that Nichols was killed, when it was still quite dark. Less risk, and the medical evidence is not incompatible with such an interpretation."

Of course, one must deal with Cadosch's story.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

Whoever killed MJK is more likely to be the ripper than anything else.

That is a wholly unsubstantiated statement. Why?

Phil