Was Mackenzie a copycat?

[GregBaron]

Sloppy drunk...

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.....

This is a good point Brenda and one often ignored. What some see as different hands might be more easily explained as different levels of inebriation.

Think how one might carve a turkey after 1,2 or 3 drinks of gin.....in the dark..


Greg

[lynn cates]

skip it

Hello Greg.

"What some see as different hands might be more easily explained as different levels of inebriation."

And that same added inebriation must have caused Kate's killer to skip preliminaries and start to work straight away.

Cheers.
LC

[GregBaron]

Blinded by Science

And that same added inebriation must have caused Kate's killer to skip preliminaries and start to work straight away.

Cheers.
LC

It's a valid point Lynn and as a result I've tabulated the blood alcohol level
of the assailant of the following victims.

Victim

Abv

Emma Smith

0.4

Martha Tabram

1.6

Polly Nichols

0.2

Annie Chapman

1.1

Catherine Eddowes

1.4

MJK

2.1

Mackenzie

0.9

Coles

0.8

Obviously this is scientifically rigorous and beyond dispute...Next I'll calculate
the victims Abv's...


Greg

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Lynn

What about brevity? Or frustration? Maybe it's like when parents have child number one and are crazy cautious and over react about everything but by child number four unless they are dying then they don't usually move a finger. Or how about ceremony giving way to the objective? Just throwing that out there.

[lynn cates]

alcohol

Hello Greg. Thanks.

Excellent. When those are calculated, you can do ours. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

sloppy

Hello DLDW. Thanks.

Could be. But then, what was done with both Kate and "MJK" was more extensive--and yet MUCH sloppier.

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

He's just found the watch of Fernand Braudel

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

History and its methods ?
Excellent.
Your own method is to ignore documents in order to assert that the canonicity of MJK is "wholly unsubstantiated".

Or to put forward a theory based on upcoming documents.
For example, your recent : "time will reveal Stride wasn't a ripper victim."

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Exactly.

Hi Lynn sounds like we are concurrent, but I know that I am prob missing your intent. Could you clarify?

[lynn cates]

time

Hello DLDW. Thanks.

Well, to prolong your parenting analogy, we'd expect:

1. more laxity

and

2. less time involved.

But, especially with "MJK," we see much time spent and more involvement.

Cheers.
LC

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Thanks

Well with "MJK" all bets are off. Indoors and ample time. Look at it like an opportunity of a lifetime. You never know when you are gonna get the chance again, so don't squander, satiate. I don't buy the Barnett thing one bit. Whoever did that was as sick if not sicker than "JTR". If indeed it wasn't he. Not a one time type thing. Would manifest itself again or previously. I respect the possibility but need something incredibly convincing to make it not the most reasonable conclusion.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Eddowes

Well it would seem less time was involved. It may be a mistake to attribute "sloppiness"and "quickness" with a different person. Same person, altered approach. Inconsistencies should not be the end all. Not when many reasonable variables exist that could account for the discrepancies. They of course do not rule out a different hand as a possibility.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Anyways

To be on topic of this thread she has a little bit more going on than Stride. Well kinda. Seems like the same killer as at least some of the previous murders or someone trying to reignite the past as two very decent possibilities. Those are the ones I would prob start with. Regardless, quite odd.

[lynn cates]

primo

Hello DLDW. Thanks.

"Well with "MJK" all bets are off. Indoors and ample time. Look at it like an opportunity of a lifetime. You never know when you are gonna get the chance again, so don't squander, satiate."

That claim has always fascinated me. It seems so easy to have done earlier.

Do you have a good theory concerning why her assailant did not kill like that before? Why accept second rate material/circumstances when what you really want is there for the taking?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

bite

Hello (again) DLDW. Thanks.

"Same person, altered approach. Inconsistencies should not be the end all. Not when many reasonable variables exist that could account for the discrepancies."

I'll bite. Why are Polly and Annie so much alike and Kate so different--different enough for Baxter to ask if she were perhaps the work of an imitator?

Cheers.
LC

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

First thing to mind is

If it is the work of "JTR", more and faster. It's been awhile since the last murder. Not by design. More peelers and more caution. You get your opportunity and you forsake the aspects that have less importance. First and foremost you want to do the "work". Getting caught really makes that difficult. That is one possibilty. Another quick one is a reminder that hey I'm still here but not at the expense of capture. Maybe dealing with an objective based individual. If you take my meaning