Was Mackenzie a copycat?

[lynn cates]

ring in the new

Hello DLDW. Thanks.

New procedures?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

encore

Hello David. Thanks.

Well, you see my dilemma. What to do for an encore? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

And so . . .

Hello Lucky. Thanks.

"'moderately sharp' vs 'very sharp'. Sorry, they are clearly not the same."

Can you describe the difference in mutilations between those done with a "very sharp" knife and a "moderately sharp" knife? This is like making heavy weather out of Phillip's "five or six inches, possibly more." Sorry, five is not six.

Incidentally, I, of all people, can easily live with two knives. After all, that's the EXACT number JI carried.

"every single wound started with a stab"

Umm, yes, the knife must go in before it can be drawn downwards (upwards, in Kate's case). If THAT'S what you mean by stab, go ahead.

"Same applies to Stride then!"

No, no. The initial single cut was less deep than either Polly or Annie. (Kate, too, to be fair.) Hence, no continuation as it was different from the start.

"The skirt puller who noticed no wounds, therefore the wounds were not exposed."

Nice semantical distinction. But the point is that BOTH had their skirts raised--not cut through like Kate.

"No, only in Chapman was there an attempt to separate the bones in the neck"

Never alleged this. But BOTH were nearly decapitated and such was clearly the objective. But only in the second case was there a furtive attempt to pull the head off.

"A copycat would attempt to do that with Chapman. . ."

How do you know what a copycat would do?

". . . but you claim this isn't a copycat killing unlike all the other murders."

All the others? I have said that, in the C5, there is only ONE copycat--Kate.

"Yet the killer of Chapman had attempted to remove her head, so why is the killer of Chapman not a 'copycat' as well?"

Because it was the same person. A copycat must be different. Seriously, there was an attempt at decapitation in both cases. But no manual attempt with Polly.

"Ok, another difference - one wears rings and look like a possible target for a robbery and Nichols doesn't, we can put that one down as 8a"

No, we can't. That is a difference in victims, NOT killers.

The last two are in jest, hence, I omit.

One difference you left out. If you like to talk of difference in victims, "Polly" starts with "P," "Annie" with "A." Different.

Cheers.
LC

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

More coppers on the beat. Vigilant peoples. Procedures not the best term.

[Sally]

Hi Phil

Your consistency is amazing and praiseworthy. You have told me this often (indeed, I think it was on this topic that our paths first crossed) but with your permission, I'll keep an open mind.

Thanks - I think...

I have told you this often, yes - for the very simple reason that the facts are quite plain with respect to Barnett - well documented - and in this case, I see no reason for doubt.

But if I was ever in Barnett's position, I'd hope I had an advocate as loyal as you.

It has nothing to do with 'Loyalty' I'm afraid - as I believe I've also told you before. On the day that a new piece of evidence comes to light that demonstrates that:

A - Barnett's alibi was false and
B - that the police really were such idiots as to fall for it

I'll change my mind as quick as a flash.

JHowever, oseph Barnett had an alibi. There it is. At one time, the remainder his life was a mystery - and that lent him an air of mystery that certainly encouraged some to speculate about his guilt; alibi notwithstanding. No longer - and he lived a very mundane, ordinary life in a common law marriage that endured for decades. There is nothing to suggest that he was violent, or had any problems with women. Nothing. Where is the basis for even considering him as a viable suspect?

Considering the known facts, it's always been a weak argument.

One of my reasons for entertaining the concept of multiple killers in the Ripper crimes is that it allows us to look at the case(s) in a new light and consider new options.

And that's absolutely fine. Nothing wrong with that at all. It just seems to me that the rejection of a single serial killer is simple revisionism brought about by the lack of conclusion in the case and the desire to achieve said conclusion. That's all.

Personally, I can accept that there may be no conclusion at all.

Sticking to the "canonical" five (at least in so far as not reducing the number is concerned) is - to me - to accept what appears to have been a subjective view by Macnaghten.

I quite agree. I think most people with a serious interest in the case will have looked critically at the canonical five. I see progression, rather than muliple hands, however, and am more inclined to include others in the 'canon' than exclude those already in it.

If I am studying a battle - Gettysburg at present - I do not just accept one interpretation, however respected the writer or historian, soldier or authority. History is, after all, about interpretation. If we simply accept we stagnate as historians. We should rigourously scrutinuise, questions and deconstruct. we might well emerge at the other end of our analysis by confirming previous views - but at least the reassessment has been done.

I think that's admirable Phil - the views of other commentators are, in the end, only the view of other commentators. Go to the source material, decide what you think, and then read what historians have said. That's what I'd do, anyway.

With an historical figure such as Richard III, I strive to reach my own understanding - that is an informed opinion based on deep knowledge - of his charcater and motivations so far as they can be reconstructed. That means questioning everything - like taking a clock apart to see HOW it works and then reconstructing it to ensure it does and that one has fully grasped the mechanism. At the end of the process I might well find the old conclusions have merit (I won't say are right/correct) and accept them - but the difference is i will have made them my own.

Again, I concur - but that doesn't mean rejecting 'the old conclusions' just because they are old conclusions.

So, sally, I will NOT be told it is wrong to rexamine, look again or challenge. If I did I would consider myself intellectually bankrupt. The FUN - remember what that is? - in a subject is the taking apart. We are dealing with ideas and theories, so that taking apart does not hurt them or mean that others cherished views are damaged.

I don't think I said that Phil - it really doesn't reflect what I think. But I don't see the merit in casting doubt where none need be. There are times when it's reasonable to accept what the documents tell us. Not everything hides a secret - not everything is a mystery. Some things really are what they appear to be.

That's all.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

like I said

I am open to the possibilities but single killer of an uncertain number seems like a very good bet. My question is who is the murderer of victims 3,4,5 and others but specifically them if not "JTR" and why and what is there to support it? Who killed Eddowes why and what data is there to substantiate that claim? McKenzie apparently needs not be made to look like one, so why? Sorry for brevity. Off to work.

[lynn cates]

John

Hello DLDW. Thanks.

"Who killed Eddowes why and what data is there to substantiate that claim."

To crack her case, step one is to read ALL of John's dicta--in "The Echo," "The Star," and at inquest.

If you can understand all those anomalies, you may well be on track to answer your own question.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Phil

I quite agree. I think most people with a serious interest in the case will have looked critically at the canonical five. I see progression, rather than muliple hands, however, and am more inclined to include others in the 'canon' than exclude those already in it.


That's all.

Hi Sally,

If you dont mind Id like to address this section of your post, because there are some issues with that position...although I dont care how old the suggestion is either,.. if it warrants merit,...and a Canonical Five does not.

First take the 2 most responsible for that premise, Dr Bond, and Sir Melville. Melville also states within that same document that a man who was in jail in France at the time of the murders was one of the three best suspects the officials had. Dr Bond had strong opinions on the matter, though he saw only the last Canonical victim in death himself. Dr Phillips saw 4, and he had problems with at least Kate Eddowes.

The officials involved with the case state variously, often unequivocally, that the Ripper murders suspect was dead by suicide shortly after Mary Kellys murder, incarcerated or institutionalized shortly after same, or that he was hung many years later for other murders. Some say he was never caught or identified. Yet Alice Mackenzies murder drew out large numbers of officers again, just like the Fall of 88, and we understand that a Ripper witness is used several times over the following years, including for Sadler.

The facts of the cases are that the first 2 murders are almost carbon copies of one another, the third is a murder that did not involve Ripping at all, the 4th was questioned by the physician who saw the most Canonicals in death and does not show us the same objective based actions as the first 2 did, and the 5th has no direct logical connection, in Behavior, MO and Victimology to the first 2 murders,... unless one assumes sudden madness, but does have ample suggestion that the victim and killer were known to each other, which would rule out acquisition of a stranger...one of the features of the first 2 victims.

There is no single suspect, nor a single outcome of the cases by the authorities, and there is no "progression" within the series of these five women. There is repetition of a rare killer, the banal murder of another woman, a less skilled version of the first 2 then a free-for-all that fits none of the previous patterns.

Its far more likely that we have a streak of 2 or 3 and 2 other murders for entirely different reasons, But since those murder happened after the first precedent setting ones,... can we rule out mimicry with the others as a means to misdirect the authorities?

I think whomever killed Polly and Annie was stopped from continuing his run, and whomever killed Alice was influenced by that mans activities.

Cheers Sally

[DVV]

I think whomever killed Polly and Annie was stopped from continuing his run, and whomever killed Alice was influenced by that mans activities.

Hi Mike

does it mean that the one who killed McKenzie had "understood" that Nichols and Chapman had not been killed by Eddowes, Stride and Kelly's murderer(s) ?

Out of curiosity, who's your favorite suspect for Polly and Annie ? (If I shared your theory, I'd personally vote for Pigott.)

Cheers

[lynn cates]

track record

Hello David.

"I'd personally vote for Pigott."

Interesting.

Did Pigott:

1. carry knives?

or

2. try to strangle a lady?

Cheers.
LC

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Okay

So why is it neccesary to make any murder look like a "JTR" murder? If just a random act I don't think it seems realistic to do so spur of the moment. Especially on the streets. So someone set out to commit murder and intended to make it look so because they were trying to cover their tracks so to say. To hide their true motivation. Or they were fans and wanted to immulate. Or..... Lost it. Too tired. Dream world now. Someone help me out and articulate what the hell I'm trying to say. Thanks in advance. Zzzzz, zzzzz...........

[lynn cates]

off the hook

Hello DLDW. Thanks.

"So why is it necessary to make any murder look like a "JTR" murder?"

Not necessary, but perhaps convenient.

1. That murder gets lost in the shuffle.

2. If one is suspected for the only murder, one can give an alibi for another and be suddenly off the hook.

Cheers.
LC

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Lynn

Incidentally, I, of all people, can easily live with two knives. After all, that's the EXACT number JI carried.

Anyone can carry two knives, not only deluded butchers

The point is THE KNIVES ARE DIFFERENT!!

You made a claim in response to this;-

"People - even serial killer people - are not machines working in wholly predictable circumstances. Variation is to be expected."

"Indeed. But it seems so absent from Polly to Annie."

The knife is a different knife, how much variation do we need between the killing of Nichols and Chapman before it stops being absent ?

If THAT'S what you mean by stab, go ahead.

Llewellyn's words - 'incision that begin at a point'

journalist - 'The knife had been thrust into the lowest point of the body, and the woman deliberately ripped open'

Stabbing and ripping, it's the only way you could do that amount of damage with a knife that's only 'moderately sharp'

But the point is that BOTH had their skirts raised--not cut through like Kate.

No, the point is Nichols wounds were NOT ON display
Chapman and Eddowes wounds were ON display

Therefore Chapman and Eddowes are alike, but not Nichols

"No, only in Chapman was there an attempt to separate the bones in the neck"

Never alleged this. But BOTH were nearly decapitated and such was clearly the objective. But only in the second case was there a furtive attempt to pull the head off.

If decapitation "was clearly the objective" and it didn't happen, then the killer isn't a butcher.

"But only in the second case " - Look, another one of those differences that "seems so absent from Polly to Annie"

"A copycat would attempt to do that with Chapman. . ."

How do you know what a copycat would do?

". . . but you claim this isn't a copycat killing unlike all the other murders."

All the others? I have said that, in the C5, there is only ONE copycat--Kate.

I would not know what a copycat would do, I think the whole notion of a 'copycat' Jack the ripper killing is a nonsense. It is only a viable idea in hindsight with the knowledge that the killer was never caught. At the actual time the murders were taking place ? Well, no.

"Ok, another difference - one wears rings and look like a possible target for a robbery and Nichols doesn't, we can put that one down as 8a"

No, we can't. That is a difference in victims, NOT killers.

The victims are chosen by the killer, one had her pockets turned out, the other hadn't. You're citing Chapman's rings for this difference, but this doesn't make the difference go away.

[Mr Lucky]

2. If one is suspected for the only murder, one can give an alibi for another and be suddenly off the hook.

That's not how it works, Lynn.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

convenient

Not sure I would consider Eddowes, or "MJK" as such. Specifically for a random occurence type murder. So for that to be the case it would be more likely premeditated. Possibility.