Was Mackenzie a copycat?

[lynn cates]

viva le difference

Hello David. Thanks.

"Now the differences between the murders usually attributed to JtR are not striking enough?"

For what?

By the way, how do YOU explain the fact that Kate had her clothes cut through, not lifted up as Polly and Annie? How do YOU explain the difference in the way that their (Annie and Kate) bodies were opened up? How do YOU explain the facial bruising on Polly and Annie and the lack thereof on Kate? And why did Polly and Annie have deep, parallel cuts to the neck, Kate, not? And why were the first two "skilfully" mutilated, Kate, not?

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Tactique perfide et fausse candeur

For what?

LC

Because if Chapman and Cream are to be serious suspects for the Whitechapel murders, Polly's killer is obviously a better suspect for the other canonical murders.

Cheers

[DVV]

By the way, how do YOU explain the fact that Kate had her clothes cut through, not lifted up as Polly and Annie? How do YOU explain the difference in the way that their (Annie and Kate) bodies were opened up? How do YOU explain the facial bruising on Polly and Annie and the lack thereof on Kate? And why did Polly and Annie have deep, parallel cuts to the neck, Kate, not? And why were the first two "skilfully" mutilated, Kate, not?
Cheers.
LC

When compared to other series (take Kurten, for example), these are meaningless (or minor, let's be generous) différences.

Cheers Lynn

[caz]

Were they all "motiveless" attacks?

Tabram could well be some sort of revenge attack (soldiers or someone who felt cheated) - its frenzy might suggest something personal. Smith seems likely to be some gang violence gone wrong.

Stride could could be a "domestic" as could Kelly (albeit in the latter case dressed up to look like JtR's work). Coles similarly could be the victim of a "jilted" Sadler.

Hi Phil,

My question to Mike was quite straightforward:

...where is the evidence that 'violent crimes like some of these' (ie unsolved, motiveless knife attacks on adult women) were also occurring quite naturally in this worst district in any of the years before or after the Whitechapel cases from 1888-91?

I didn't say the Whitechapel cases were 'all' motiveless (and by that I mean violence for its own sake - even that is a motive of sorts), but to all intents and purposes they may as well be described as such since motive can only be guessed at ("could be"/"could well be"/"might suggest" etc) and never established without knowing who was responsible.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Really narrowing that scope there.......but as you asked, I wouldnt assume at this point that any of the alleged Ripper crimes were motiveless, a motive is required to mutilate a corpse just as it would be to silence a potential threat ... which would lead into my next point, that "unsolved" means just that,... it doesnt mean Phantom Menace.

Colin is your man for stats, Im sure he has the relevant numbers as per your request Caz,.... but if we look for threats as well as attacks, on both men and women, using a knife...then I would imagine those stats would be different.

Instead of being curious why 6 women were brutally murdered between the first of August and the 10th of November, your concern is to isolate these events from the regular "noise" shall we say around Whitechapel, because you believe these are "special", one killer murders. You know full well that there is in no way sufficient hard evidence to link any single Canonical murder to another Canonical murder, let alone all 5 to one person, yet I have to feel that you choose to believe it exists anyway.

In reality they are only special because of the brutality of some of them, not because they are the trail left by a lone blood thirsty ghoul.

The misleading quantifier is really the "unsolved" bit, a truer picture can be seen when all the murders are tallied...including the ones that resulted in charges being laid and trials being held.

I believe one reason these were "unsolved" and remain so is because contemporary and modern investigators, professionals and amateurs andf their guesswork have assumed connections between these cases that within any known evidence, dont exist. Guesswork made the Canonical Group, ....I dont see that anyone vigorously pursued other possible answers at that time, when all the evidence there ever would be was still together and intact...and maybe thats the reason we cant today, the evidence or what is left of it is insufficient to allow for any conclusions.

I suppose Im saying that if people had not been so ready to associate these crimes with each other under one killer, then perhaps they wouldnt all still be unsolved. Part of the reason they remain unsolved is probably because they were, and are, misunderstood.

If these were not one spree by one killer, then you have the kind of violence I suggested erupts from social and economic strife caz....almost predictable. It may be a spike year statistically, but its understandable when you consider Bloody Sunday, the strikes, the murders, the Parnell Commission, the plot to assassinate the Queen during the Jubillee, then Lord Balfour in 1888-1889....these were unusual times. 1887-1889 in particular.

So unusual stats at a mid-point shouldnt be so surprising.

Cheers Caz

Hi Mike,

How's that for making a simple question complicated then failing to answer it? I take it then that you have no evidence for crimes like the Whitechapel cases occuring naturally in the same area in the years before 1888 and after 1891.

I don't see the relevance of the last part of your post at all, I'm afraid.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

beside the point

Hello David. Thanks.

"Because if Chapman and Cream are to be serious suspects for the Whitechapel murders, Polly's killer is obviously a better suspect for the other canonical murders."

None of which addresses the questions I posed.

No matter.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

draw the Kurten

Hello (again) David.

"When compared to other series (take Kurten, for example), these are meaningless (or minor, let's be generous) différences."

Funny you should mention Kurten. One killing in his "series"--Emma Gross--was not his.

interesting.

Cheers.
LC

[Abby Normal]

Hello David. Thanks.

"Now the differences between the murders usually attributed to JtR are not striking enough?"

For what?

By the way, how do YOU explain the fact that Kate had her clothes cut through, not lifted up as Polly and Annie? How do YOU explain the difference in the way that their (Annie and Kate) bodies were opened up? How do YOU explain the facial bruising on Polly and Annie and the lack thereof on Kate? And why did Polly and Annie have deep, parallel cuts to the neck, Kate, not? And why were the first two "skilfully" mutilated, Kate, not?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn
The differences are minor. Serial killers aren't robots, nor do the crimes scene unfold to a prescribed script. If serial killers like bundy, Panzram, BTK, mullin, Desalvo, etc never been caught or killers like the original nightstalker, the Zodiac, etc never been definitively linked through forensics, then by your mind set we would still be chasing an infinite amount of killers.

[Phil H]

We can, and do, debate the similarities and differences between the various individual murders, and rightly so. Only thus might we eventually discern which belong to a single killer, which to others.

The difference between skillful mutilation and whatever the others might be, is probably perceptual and subjective. As with the time it would take the killer to carry out his mutilations, different experts might differ - as the record shows they do.

There ARE sufficient differences with Kate to make me mentally put a question mark beside her (allied with other unrelated circumstances - unrelated that is, to the mutilations) as a victim of the killer of Nichols and Eddowes. But there are similarities too which could mean that we are simply seeing an evolving method, maybe increasing confidence. For me the jury remains out on that one (50:50).

Whereas I am more confident (75:25) in asserting that Stride and Kelly were not Ripper victims.

What for me links Kelly and Eddowes is that I could see them both as attempts (by separate men) to imitate "Jack's" style based on what they had READ (rather then seen) about the earlier murders. In Kelly's case the mutilation goes too far - almost to constitute deconstruction of the body. On that line of thought, Eddowes is closer to the first two, but with differences in the way the clothes are treated and the facial mutilations (which the killer of Kelly then seeks to replicate by exaggeration).

I simply don't know.

If some Fenian link (or some other) could be shown to Eddowes (and perhaps Kelly - linked by the "false" name Eddowes gave) then we might have more clues to guide us. [NOTE: I am not proposing the Fenian theory as absolute, simply as an example.]

What I do see, is that Mckenzie appears to revert to a style VERY similar to Nichols and Chapman without any of the "overkill" present with Eddowes and Kelly.

Caz, point taken, nuff said.

Phil

[Jon Guy]

The reason Eddowes had her clothes cut through was because she was wearing more layers of clothes. She also had a number of items tied around her waist.

[lynn cates]

prescribed script

Hello Abby. Thanks.

"The differences are minor. Serial killers aren't robots, nor do the crimes scene unfold to a prescribed script."

Well, they certainly did in the first two killings.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Possibly the work of an imitator.

Hello Phil. Thanks.

"There ARE sufficient differences with Kate to make me mentally put a question mark beside her (allied with other unrelated circumstances - unrelated that is, to the mutilations) as a victim of the killer of Nichols and Eddowes. But there are similarities too which could mean that we are simply seeing an evolving method, maybe increasing confidence. For me the jury remains out on that one (50:50)."

This is MUCH more than I had expected.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

To cut or not to cut.

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"The reason Eddowes had her clothes cut through was because she was wearing more layers of clothes."

Which is a good reason NOT to cut. That many layers can dull the knife quickly.

When turning down a bed, what difference the numbers of layers? You can grab them all at the same time.

Incidentally, you might wish to compare what Polly and Annie were wearing.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Sorry Lynn. He had to cut to get through the materials around her waist.
He obviously did anyway, and the knife was still pretty sharp after.
He had to cut as he wanted access to the sternum.

I have noted that Nichols killer was barely interested in her genitals, whereas Chapman`s killer took them home with him.

I have noted that the haphazard cuts to Nichols abdomen have little in common with panels of flesh removed from Chapman, which mirror Kelly`s injuries.

[lynn cates]

Home sweet home.

Hello Jon. Thanks.

And where was Annie's pocket?

"whereas Chapman's killer took them home with him."

How on earth do we know that?

Cheers.
LC