Was Mackenzie a copycat?

[Phil H]

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

[DVV]

The murder of MJK is at the same time a domestic case and the ripper work.
In the same vein, we can say Mrs Kemper is a victim of the co-ed killer.

[Phil H]

Greater time pressure than at Hanbury, after sunrise, with a house full of people?

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.

The murder of MJK is at the same time a domestic case and the ripper work.

If you wish to believe that, DVV - it is th reverse of what I wrote.

Phil

[DVV]

It' a bit more than a wish, I'm afraid.
Whoever killed MJK is more likely to be the ripper than anything else.

[DVV]

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.

Indeed, Colin.
And you would take away her "private parts".

Cheers

[Phil H]

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

That is a wholly unsubstantiated statement. Why?

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]

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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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?

[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".