Was Mackenzie a copycat?

[Phil H]

It's a wonder how any of us got here in that case, Phil.

I take the point, but men and woman rarely if ever saw each other naked in those times - even recently. Even a working class/unemployed man would retain his shirt as a night shirt. No central heating or heating at all, plus modesty. The woman might well have kept on her petticoat or whatever shewore under her outer layers. They may never have seen each other's genitals in detail if at all.

So when "Jack" lifted the skirts of dying Polly it might have been the first opportunity (even if he wasn't virgin, of course) to examine a woman "down under".

Mind you, you may still have a point. My mum told me that my dad had no idea what to 'do' when they married in the late 1940s, and she had to show him the ropes.

A woman of about 80, whom I knew in the mid 1990s, told me that she had never seen her husband naked in all their married life - and she had kids. That came up in a conversation about how appalled she was to see open mouth kissing on TV - something else she had never done. Different times!

I certainly don`t think Kelly was anything other than a Ripper victim.

I didn't for a moment think you did, Jon! I was simply expressing my view. I don't ask you or expect you to agree.

Phil

[caz]

Victorian men may have been a lot less familiar than we are with intimate anatomy - until he lifted Polly's skirts he may not have known what he'd find or that what he saw would intrigue him.

It's a wonder how any of us got here in that case, Phil.

Mind you, you may still have a point. My mum told me that my dad had no idea what to 'do' when they married in the late 1940s, and she had to show him the ropes.

Of course, if the killer was Lechmere, I believe he fathered eleven kids!

I see nothing serious to support a contention that Polly and Annie fell victim to different killers. Thus we need to look for other explanations. Maybe time was a factor.

On the whole I am less inclined these days to see MJK as a Ripper victim though - as Kelly was almost completely deconstructed, coincidence might be a factor.

What, one of the biggest coincidences in the history of violent crime you mean? Surely time could have been a factor that allowed the killer of Chapman to do what was done to Kelly.

Have a look at Robert Napper's outdoor murder of Rachel Nickell (stabbed 49 times I believe) followed by his indoor murder of Samantha Bisset, if you think the differences between Chapman, or even Tabram (stabbed 39 times), and Kelly are truly significant.

If the Ipswich Strangler had stopped killing and never been caught, or if the equivalent of the Whitechapel murders from Nichols to Kelly had happened last year, the police would still have looked at each murder individually, but I very much doubt they would seriously have considered them the work of three or more killers, or tied up with political troubles like the recent Woolwich outrage.

Love,

Caz
X

[Jon Guy]

I have noted that Nichols killer was barely interested in her genitals,

That could be because he was disturbed, or possibly because he had not yet worked out that he was interested. Victorian men may have been a lot less familiar than we are with intimate anatomy - until he lifted Polly's skirts he may not have known what he'd find or that what he saw would intrigue him.

whereas Chapman`s killer took them home with him.

Maybe he had had a week to ponder what he MIGHT have done to Polly - what he wished he had done... so Annie met her fate to satisfy his curiousity.

I don't see Chapman as impossibly an evolved MO.

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.

I see nothing serious to support a contention that Polly and Annie fell victim to different killers. Thus we need to look for other explanations. Maybe time was a factor.

On the whole I am less inclined these days to see MJK as a Ripper victim though - as Kelly was almost completely deconstructed, coincidence might be a factor.

Phil.

I don`t think Nichols and Chapman were killed by different people.
I was noting the major differences between their injuries.

We don`t need to look for explanations to explain these differences. This is what occurs in the real world with real killers.

I certainly don`t think Kelly was anything other than a Ripper victim.

[Jon Guy]

Copycats, in the sense that they mirrored crimes, didn`t exist.
They may do now thanks to Hollywood and celebrity.


Can anyone provide a contemporary example of a copycat killer?


Yes, there are the feeble minded who are influenced but one that mirrors crimes, and not just make a random slash as an after thought like Bury or the Birtley boy.

Any Victorian examples please?

[Phil H]

I have noted that Nichols killer was barely interested in her genitals,

That could be because he was disturbed, or possibly because he had not yet worked out that he was interested. Victorian men may have been a lot less familiar than we are with intimate anatomy - until he lifted Polly's skirts he may not have known what he'd find or that what he saw would intrigue him.

whereas Chapman`s killer took them home with him.

Maybe he had had a week to ponder what he MIGHT have done to Polly - what he wished he had done... so Annie met her fate to satisfy his curiousity.

I don't see Chapman as impossibly an evolved MO.

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.

I see nothing serious to support a contention that Polly and Annie fell victim to different killers. Thus we need to look for other explanations. Maybe time was a factor.

On the whole I am less inclined these days to see MJK as a Ripper victim though - as Kelly was almost completely deconstructed, coincidence might be a factor.

Phil.

[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

[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]

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

[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]

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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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