Was Mackenzie a copycat?

[Phil H]

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.

I claim and maintain the right of any historian to question sources and to give my reasons for doing so. I don't just accept things because they are written down.

There are many questions about the reasoning and expressed views of various police officials at the time, and I see no basis for the suggestion that there was a single "Scotland Yard" view to disagree with. Plainly there was not.

As to substantiation, I have pointed out my views in regard to Kelly and Stride on many occasions. I feel no need to do so every time.

That said, the number and identity of the Ripper's victims is an open question. We no longer (so far as I am aware) blindly accept Macnaghten's canonical five. We regularly discuss the inclusion of Tabram and this thread is about Mckenzie. So I feel quite comfortable in questioning whether Liz and Mary are Ripper victims.

Questions have been raised about almost all the victims, bar Polly and Annie - even Eddowes has been looked at again.

So thank you, I will continue to say that Kelly is unsubstantiated.

Phil

[Phil H]

Besides which, Barnett had an alibi.

Sally (nice to see you btw)

I don't think I have EVER argued that Barnett killed MJK - only that Kelly was in my view killed by someone who knew her intimately. I am sure I almost always emphasise that point by mentioning Flemming in the same breath as Barnett.

- obviously [Flemming] was harmless then. Despite beng 7'6" or something.

The height would make him stand out rather, wouldn't it? If correct.

But I simply know nothing about him - there were many strange people around in Whitechapel in 1888. He was violent (in some way) apparently to Kelly, so is in my view a potentially viable suspect for her murder.

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.

Fine - that is your right. I just see that approach as a little too closed-minded for me (not a reflection on you). I know the conventional explanations and arguments, and I do not reject them, but my mind-set likes (to say it again) to play with ideas. That has led me to revise some views on this case.

'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.

Nor, with respect, does it mean the same hand did them all.

Phil

[Abby Normal]

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

My "letter after R key" $topped working on my keyboard and until i figure out how to fix it the be$t work around I could find i$ to u$e the dollar $ign. HAHA. and $orry-Ti$ very annoying.

Anyway, Phil IMHO I think if we were to ever find out who killed MK, whether $he knew them or not, I think we have the Ripper.

[Garry Wroe]

... I think if we were to ever find out who killed MK, whether $he knew them or not, I think we have the Ripper.

And you'd be in good company, Abby. The kind of psychopathology that led to the destruction of Mary Kelly is extraordinarily rare – so rare, in fact, that an overwhelming majority of latter-day policemen never encounter such a crime. Yet an increasing number here on Casebook expect us to believe that a jilted everyman was able to snap into such a mindset, cut a woman to pieces, then return to normality just as easily.

It simply doesn’t happen.

And if the Kelly murder was a copycat, why did the assailant confound the Ripper’s established pattern by killing indoors? Why did he also fail to take away the uterus or even a kidney?

[Abby Normal]

And you'd be in good company, Abby. The kind of psychopathology that led to the destruction of Mary Kelly is extraordinarily rare – so rare, in fact, that an overwhelming majority of latter-day policemen never encounter such a crime. Yet an increasing number here on Casebook expect us to believe that a jilted everyman was able to snap into such a mindset, cut a woman to pieces, then return to normality just as easily.

It simply doesn’t happen.

And if the Kelly murder was a copycat, why did the assailant confound the Ripper’s established pattern by killing indoors? Why did he also fail to take away the uterus or even a kidney?

Agree.very much.

[Phil H]

Agree.very much.

Please forgive me if I fail to join the "love-in".

Agreeing with each other is nice, but not IMHO a very efficient or effective way of questioning, exploring and interrogating the evidence. We should leave no stone unturned. We should accept nothing at face value and we should rigorously interrogate every given or accepted "fact" and each and every previously cited theory.

That's what I was trained to do.

Just my humble opinion, naturally - except the last sentence.

Phil

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

I gots to say this

For those who think "MJK" was more likely murdered by not "JTR", I emplore you to review the pic and post mortem then take a deep breath and think. Not ruling out possibilities here. Whoever did that was as sick or more. Ample time. Facial mutilations could just be more canvas. Feel free to disregard. Love all of you.

[DVV]

Agreeing with each other is nice, but not IMHO a very efficient or effective way of questioning, exploring and interrogating the evidence.
Phil

That's precisely what you seem unable to do.
In your world, Bond's post mortem and opinion, the police consensus concerning MJK (being a ripper victim) are not to be called "evidence".
But your own little opinion surely is.
As for Fleming, we are still waiting for the reason why JtR could be any unknown local - except a fruitcake who knew the last 1888 victim and used to ill-use her.

And we're all holding our breath.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

And...

As it relates to this thread, hell, it very well could go either way. Maybe just some curious person??? It happens. Tough one. Still love everyone.

[Garry Wroe]

Agreeing with each other is nice, but not IMHO a very efficient or effective way of questioning, exploring and interrogating the evidence. We should leave no stone unturned. We should accept nothing at face value and we should rigorously interrogate every given or accepted "fact" and each and every previously cited theory.

That's what I was trained to do.

As was I, Phil. The difference being that my scientific training demanded that conclusions be supported by evidence. Not only is there a complete absence of evidence to support the Kelly-as-copycat hypothesis, it is predicated on the misguided belief that any normally functioning non-violent individual can on a whim switch into Jack the Ripper mode, commit an opportunistic murder accompanied by the most grotesque of mutilations, then switch back again and go merrily on his way as though nothing has happened. Human psychology does not work in such a manner. And if you don't believe me, check the mountain of empirical evidence that says it doesn't.

[Abby Normal]

Agree.very much.

Please forgive me if I fail to join the "love-in".

Agreeing with each other is nice, but not IMHO a very efficient or effective way of questioning, exploring and interrogating the evidence. We should leave no stone unturned. We should accept nothing at face value and we should rigorously interrogate every given or accepted "fact" and each and every previously cited theory.

That's what I was trained to do.

Just my humble opinion, naturally - except the last sentence.

Phil

Not a love in at all. I frequently disagree with Garry, but tend to agree with him more often than not, probably because he is very knowledgeable, backs up his arguments with evidence, and makes reasonable conclusions.

[Phil H]

I was being sarcastic, Abby. But you knew that.

As was I, Phil. The difference being that my scientific training demanded that conclusions be supported by evidence.

I was trained as an historian rather than a scientist. But I think you'll find I normally support my assertions with my reasons for reaching them.

Not only is there a complete absence of evidence to support the Kelly-as-copycat hypothesis, it is predicated on the misguided belief that any normally functioning non-violent individual can on a whim switch into Jack the Ripper mode, commit an opportunistic murder accompanied by the most grotesque of mutilations, then switch back again and go merrily on his way as though nothing has happened.

I find that statement entirely subjective and not evidential. There are, I suspect, many one-off crimes passionelle (as the french will say) where the killer never kills again.

Human psychology does not work in such a manner. And if you don't believe me, check the mountain of empirical evidence that says it doesn't.

No thanks, my boredom threshold is very low and most psychology it seems to me is bunk. An exaggeration maybe, but close enough.

Phil

[Garry Wroe]

I was trained as an historian rather than a scientist. But I think you'll find I normally support my assertions with my reasons for reaching them.

With respect, Phil, opinions count for little unless they are evidentially supported.

... my boredom threshold is very low and most psychology it seems to me is bunk. An exaggeration maybe, but close enough.

I've seen similar such statements many times on this site. They usually emanate from those who lack even a basic understanding of psychology.

[Brenda]

Drinks on the Ripper!

I'm a day late and a dollar short to this conversation, but I wanted to put it out there that I am of the opinion that Alice MacKenzie was a Ripper murder committed by an inebriated Ripper. Maybe he'd had a little more gin than he thought.....

[Phil H]

I've seen similar such statements many times on this site. They usually emanate from those who lack even a basic understanding of psychology.

And I have seen many similar comments from posters, Garry, that appear "to emanate from those who lack even a basic understanding" of HISTORY and its methods. So I suppose all is square.

Phil