Was Mackenzie a copycat?

[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

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[DVV]

Good to remember that DVV.

Phil

Then go ahead.

Where is the "substance" that other victims possess, and that MJK lacks ?

[DVV]

Here is (again) a wonderful example of 2013 ripperology.

What the poster considers "wholly unsubstantiated" is actually, as everybody knows, substantiated by Dr Bond, all the police, many serious studies, etc etc.

Please enjoy :

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

That is a wholly unsubstantiated statement. Why?

Phil

Such a post could well explain why Dr Bond committed suicide.

[Phil H]

I am not going to humour you DVV - I have expressed my views in many threads here over months and years.

I do not ask you to accept my views, but I set them out for the interests of those who wish to discuss, not attack.

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

I'll take it that you simply don't understand what I write. Otherwise that comment would surely constitute a personal attack. I will not engage on that basis.

I have read and thought seriously about the Ripper case for around 40 years. So, I don't believe that I or my posts here or elsewhere are "silly" (if I intend humour I try to make it obvious).

On the other hand, I derive great enjoyment from playing with ideas, and that is what I have done over some years with MJK. That, along with publishing new and original research is surely one of the primary functions of casebook. It promotes debate and discussion - not juvenile name-calling.

I have been influenced by books - for instance, I found AP Wolf and Peter Turnbull initially shocking in their challenge to preconceptions, then stimulating and final inspirational, whatever their flaws. I have also been stimulated intellectually by posts on this site over the years (regrettably as yet, one of yours ), and common sense. True, my study and pondering has tended to lead me away from Ripper orthodoxy - whatever that is. And I try to keep an open mind.

AS I wrote in an earlier post - If you don't agree with my analysis, fine. Just let it be. It won't bite you.

Phil

[Abby Normal]

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

I dont follow.
You $aid thi$:

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.

If it wa$ $hown that Flemming or Barnett killed Mary, would it not be more rea$onable to a$$ume then that one of them wa$ probably the ripper than to $ay that they couldn't be the ripper?

Why couldnt they be Mary$ killer and al$o the ripper?
$orry but your rea$oning here $eem$ $omewhat backward.

[DVV]

To the poster of the year :

I've perfectly understood what you wrote, and have quoted it twice.

It has nothing to do with a so-called "analysis".

You have written that "MJK = ripper victim" was a "wholly unsubstantiated" assertion.

Which is more than wrong.

[Phil H]

Can I ask the significance of the $ signs in your post for "s"s?

If it wa$ $hown that Flemming or Barnett killed Mary, would it not be more rea$onable to a$$ume then that one of them wa$ probably the ripper than to $ay that they couldn't be the ripper?
Why couldnt they be Mary$ killer and al$o the ripper?
$orry but your rea$oning here $eem$ $omewhat backward.

I could probably have expressed myself more clearly, and tried to summarise a complex idea when I was pushed for time.

It's frankly not an important idea, but essentially I was suggesting that if we had some evidence (written whatever, that one of Mary's intimates had killed her, then that would be our starting point. The murder looked like the other's in ways and was assumed to be such at the time. So we would no doubt argue that Barnett or Flemming was "Jack". - whether there was additional evidence or not: simply on the evidence of the body and apparent MO. We would not be arguing - as some now do - that neither could have been "Jack". Basically, I am simply seeking to reverse the conventional wisdom.

As I said, hardly an earth-shattering point and don't lose sleep if it means nothing to you.

As to why Mary's killer could not have been "Jack" the evidence is there for you to make up your own mind.

I assume that Mary's intimates would have been checked to ensure they had alibis for the other murders. But I think someone like Barnett or Flemming more likely to have killed MJK than "Jack" (my reading of the evidence). I know nothing but the merest basics about Flemming - but if he was 6'7" I think it rules him out anyway. On Barnett, as I wrote a few moments ago, in another post, I was not impressed by the case made in detail a few years ago.

I ask no one to agree with me, I simply state my views for the purpose of discussion.

Phil

[DVV]

True, my study and pondering has tended to lead me away from Ripper orthodoxy - whatever that is. And I try to keep an open mind.
Phil

I have no problem with that.
But heterodoxy doesn't allow you to brand any comment as "wholly unsubstantiated", when it's obviously (so obviously) not the case.
You can disagree with Dr Bond and Scotland Yard, that's ok, but then it's you, not me, who need to substantiate your claims.

[Sally]

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.

(my emphasis)

Well quite. The 'case' presented in said book was wholly suppositional; and through those suppositions it is quite possible to drive a battalion of tanks (figuratively speaking)

Besides which, Barnett had an alibi.

Lest we forget....

[DVV]

Besides which, Barnett had an alibi.

And Fleming had a better one : he was mad, violent and frustrated.

Which the Ripper was not, as we just learnt.

Cheers

[Sally]

And Fleming had a better one : he was mad, violent and frustrated.

Which the Ripper was not, as we just learnt.

Cheers

Absolutely - obviously he was harmless then. Despite beng 7'6" or something.

I don't see the 'differences' cited by some as evidence for a separate hand in the Kelly murder. I say, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and says 'Quack' then probably, it is a duck.

'Jack' doesn't exist - he's a media invention. That doesn't mean that the same hand was not at work during the Autumn of Terror.

I think sometimes there's a little confusion about that.