Was Mackenzie a copycat?

[lynn cates]

jest

Hello Lucky. Thanks.

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

I am certainly not convinced that it was a different knife. Nor yet were the medicos.

". . . how much variation do we need between the killing of Nichols and Chapman before it stops being absent?"

When a serious difference occurs. Haven't been shown a single one, yet.

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

ALL incisions must begin at some point.

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

He never said "only"--YOUR word.

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

Display? Nonsense.

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

I should have said, "AN objective." But in both cases, it was not pursued far. Not surprising for someone who was completely confused.

"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."

It would never occur to JI to go through Polly's things. But Annie's rings provided a visual stimulus.

If I did not know better, I'd think this entire post were in jest.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

How stuff works.

Hello (again) Lucky. Thanks.

"That's not how it works, Lynn."

Ah, but that IS how it works. Look at the "Star" article about JIs alibi. It was for the morning of THE murder. (singular)

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Hello David.
"I'd personally vote for Pigott."
Interesting.

Hi Lynn. Thanks.

Did Pigott:
1. carry knives?

Worse : he carried a black bag. And his shirts were stained with blood.

2. try to strangle a lady?

I can't remember whether he was married or not but he struck a woman in Brick Lane less than two hours before the murder of Annie Chapman. After which he left London.

Cheers

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Lynn

Hello (again) Lucky. Thanks.

"That's not how it works, Lynn."

Ah, but that IS how it works. Look at the "Star" article about JIs alibi. It was for the morning of THE murder. (singular)

Cheers.
LC

No Lynn, it's not how it works at all.

If you were charged with the murder of Nichols, the fact you had an alibi for the Chapman killing is irrelevant.

For another example-
There was a burglary in my home town on 4 April, I have an alibi for this.

This doesn't mean I now have immunity from prosecution for any other burglary?, or that I effectively have a license to commit burglary as I can cite that I wasn't there on the 4th as the ultimate get out? - Err, no.

[Mr Lucky]

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

I am certainly not convinced that it was a different knife. Nor yet were the medicos.

Well the 'medicos', if you mean Phillips and Llewellyn, described two completely different knives

Once again, I will quote for you what they actually said -

Dr Llewellyn on the knife used on Nichols -

'The weapon used would scarcely have been a sailor's jack knife, but a pointed weapon with a stout back--such as a cork-cutter's or shoemaker's knife.'

note - A shoemaker works with leather

Dr Phillips on the knife used on Chapman -

'He should say that the instrument used at the throat and the abdomen was the same. It must have been a very sharp knife, with a thin, narrow blade, and must have been at least 6in. to 8in. in length, probably longer. He should say that the injuries could not have been inflicted by a bayonet or sword bayonet. They could have been done by such an instrument as a medical man used for post-mortem purposes, but the ordinary surgical cases might not contain such an instrument. Those used by slaughtermen, well ground down, might have caused them. He thought the knives used by those in the leather trade would not be long enough in the blade'.

note - 'He thought the knives used by those in the leather trade would not be long enough in the blade'

". . . how much variation do we need between the killing of Nichols and Chapman before it stops being absent?"

When a serious difference occurs. Haven't been shown a single one, yet.

One had her uterus extracted and stolen and the other didn't.

Just like Stride and Eddowes.

He never said "only"--YOUR word

he never said any of that, it was all MY own words, what's your point?

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

Display? Nonsense.

It's not nonsense at all, Lynn

No one noticed the abdominal wounds on Nichols until she was at the mortuary.

The abdominal wounds on Chapman and Eddowes were noticed in situ.

Another unquestionable difference between Nichols and Chapman.

I should have said, "AN objective." But in both cases, it was not pursued far. Not surprising for someone who was completely confused.

It was not pursued at all in the case of Nichols, only Chapman had an attempt to separate the bones of her neck.

"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."

It would never occur to JI to go through Polly's things. But Annie's rings provided a visual stimulus.

1) JI wasn't there.
2) Chapman had her pockets emptied, Nichols didn't.

If I did not know better, I'd think this entire post were in jest

No, I'm serious.

[Michael W Richards]

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

Hi David,

On the first bit you asked Im of the mind that Alice's murder was influenced by the press coverage of the Canonical Murders, specifically the most inflammatory murders that spooked the East End, the outdoor mutilations. Its hard to imagine that any killer would be inspired by Liz Strides murder...its almost mundane in comparison. And Mary Kellys murder is so over the top its hard to imagine that an "average" killer would even contemplate.

I say "average" in this context....a killer who is not driven to commit murder by impulses he cannot control. Average people kill everyday...people who seek to kill and then mutilate a corpse...not so often.

On your last point, coincidentally, I was re-reading Sugden's chapter entitled The King Of Elthorne last night and I was struck again by the fact that Isenschmid not only has the right kind of profile for the first 2 murders, the right address, the right kind of mental ailment, the right kind of skill set, but both a folding knife and a "large bladed" one that he carried with him. Maybe people were on to something when they suggest that Martha Tabram might have started the ball rolling, but they dropped the ball when they assume it just keeps on rolling.

He also was identified by Mrs Fiddymont from the morning of Chapmans murder as someone she found looking and acting extremely suspicious.

I think Lynn summarized a lot of that info in his dissertation, but Im not sure that people are ready to isolate these 2 murders and consider alternative answers for the rest.

I will say this....after Annie Chapmans murder Abberline, Warren, Smith and many other senior officials considered strongly that the killer was a deranged medical student. Phillips surely would have agreed with that. That implies skill with a knife and knowledge of where to cut to access internal organs. And in the case of those murders, some real skill in cutting very rapidly and in near darkness.

Jacob had those skills too.

I think Jacob the Ripper is possible. Which means by default that there was no series and that possibly 1-3 people, or more, killed the balance of the Canonical Group.

Cheers David

[lynn cates]

Gladstone bag

Hello David. Thanks.

"Worse: he carried a black bag."

How about an opera cape and a topper? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Yes, but . . .

Hello Lucky. Thanks.

"If you were charged with the murder of Nichols, the fact you had an alibi for the Chapman killing is irrelevant."

Quite. Yet, he was exonerated on the "strength" of one. And that's what I'm on about.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

sense of humour

Hello (again) Lucky. Thanks.

I am quite familiar with Phillip's dicta regarding the knife. I have not seen some of that from Llewellyn. Of course, he thought the abdomen came before the throat and the assailant were a leftie.

"One had her uterus extracted and stolen and the other didn't."

I've already discussed this. It was one extra step. Think:

1. Opening a package.

2. Removing contents.

"No one noticed the abdominal wounds on Nichols until she was at the mortuary."

Yes, inattentive. Why not? They were not expected.

"The abdominal wounds on Chapman and Eddowes were noticed in situ."

Yes, by now expected.

"Another unquestionable difference between Nichols and Chapman."

Now I'm CERTAIN you're jesting.

"It was not pursued at all in the case of Nichols, only Chapman had an attempt to separate the bones of her neck."

Pursued insofar as there was the long second cut. But no manual attempt.

"1) JI wasn't there."

Oh? Your evidence?

"2) Chapman had her pockets emptied, Nichols didn't."

Once again, yes. The rings were a visual impetus to Jacob. Recall, he kept trinkets in a piece of paper.

"No, I'm serious."

Can't mean it.

But most important difference:

Hanbury was a street; Buck's was a row.

See? I, too, have a sense of humour.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

It is fairly clear to almost everyone that at the very least the first 2 women were killed by the same man...Mr Lucky,... and the fact that the uterus wasnt taken from Polly is most probably a result of the venue not the desire. She was opened and ready for the next step...in which case there is a legitimate cause for considering interruption. He moved to the backyards after that because he needed to complete what he began the next time round. There is no such cause to postulate that idea for Liz Stride, and the hand that Phillips saw at work in the first 2 murders he did not see in the 4th.

I think skill set is far more relevant than weapon, because most of the likely suspects used knives in their work....med students, butchers, Slaughterhouse men, Leather workers, and they would have more than one blade.

Jacob carried at least 2.

Cheers

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Michael

Jacob The Ripper maybe indeed. Maybe a Levy following it instead?

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Lynn

I've already discussed this. It was one extra step. Think:

1. Opening a package.

2. Removing contents.

"Another unquestionable difference between Nichols and Chapman."

You can discuss it all you want, Lynn, nothing changes.

There was no attempt to remove Nichols uterus. she just had her abdomen violently stabbed and ripped up with a moderately sharp knife in the dark.

Nichols killer had time to repeatedly slash her stomach lining, where are the corresponding injuries on Chapman?

"No one noticed the abdominal wounds on Nichols until she was at the mortuary."

Yes, inattentive. Why not? They were not expected.

"The abdominal wounds on Chapman and Eddowes were noticed in situ."

Yes, by now expected.

Nothing to do with being expected, the abdominal wounds on Chapman and Eddowes were noticed in situ, unlike those on Nichols.

Chapman and Eddowes alike, Nichols different.

Now I'm CERTAIN you're jesting

What are you going on about?

"It was not pursued at all in the case of Nichols, only Chapman had an attempt to separate the bones of her neck."

Pursued insofar as there was the long second cut. But no manual attempt.

Excuses, excuses

There was an attempt to separate the bones in the neck of Chapman but not in Nichols

This is a clear difference between the two murders.

"2) Chapman had her pockets emptied, Nichols didn't."

Once again, yes. The rings were a visual impetus to Jacob. Recall, he kept trinkets in a piece of paper.

Difference between Nichols and Chapman again

'Jacob' would have been miles away in Holloway anyway.

See? I, too, have a sense of humour.

That's hilarious, Lynn, well done.

[lynn cates]

still joking

Hello Lucky. Thanks.

"You can discuss it all you want, Lynn, nothing changes."

Absolutely. So you may wish to think about that before posting more of the same.

"There was no attempt to remove Nichols's uterus."

Agreed--as I have each time I've dealt with this. This is one step further for Annie. Nothing more.

"She just had her abdomen violently stabbed and ripped up with a moderately sharp knife in the dark."

Let's leave the stabbing aside. She was badly cut up AFTER the parallel neck cuts.

"Nichols killer had time to repeatedly slash her stomach lining, where are the corresponding injuries on Chapman?"

Umm, once opened, was there room?

"Nothing to do with being expected, the abdominal wounds on Chapman and Eddowes were noticed in situ, unlike those on Nichols."

EVERYTHING to do with being noticed/expected.

"Chapman and Eddowes alike, Nichols different."

As I have said so many times in the past, with respect to WHAT was done--not HOW it was done.

"What are you going on about?"

Your jesting replies.

"There was an attempt to separate the bones in the neck of Chapman but not in Nichols."

I said there was a manual attempt in Annie's case, not in Polly's. But that is NOT a significant difference.

"'Jacob' would have been miles away in Holloway anyway."

How do you know that?

"That's hilarious, Lynn, well done."

Why thank you. And yours is ludicrous. I salute you.

Now, if you don't mind, let's NOT keep going over the same points.

Cheers.
LC

[Mr Lucky]

It is fairly clear to almost everyone that at the very least the first 2 women were killed by the same man...Mr Lucky

Hi Michael

I'm not disputing Nichols and Chapman were killed by the same person, It's also fairly clear that there are clear difference between all the murders. It's the idea that the killings of Nichols and Chapman are somehow identical that needs to be seriously examined.

,... and the fact that the uterus wasnt taken from Polly is most probably a result of the venue not the desire. She was opened and ready for the next step...in which case there is a legitimate cause for considering interruption.

Sorry, but the evidence for this only comes from the murder of Chapman. It is something that is then retro-actively applied to the Nichols murder. Until the Chapman killing no one thought that the killer of Nichol was interrupted (for example no-one was heard running away) quite the opposite, one of the early mysteries surrounding the case was why did the killer inflict the abdominal injuries when the throat injuries were enough to kill?

He moved to the backyards after that because he needed to complete what he began the next time round. There is no such cause to postulate that idea for Liz Stride, and the hand that Phillips saw at work in the first 2 murders he did not see in the 4th.

This is an important point Dr Phillips didn't see the first 2 murders, Phillips didn't see Nichols. He did however see Beadmore, which effectively gave him a negative to compare with Chapman.

I think skill set is far more relevant than weapon, because most of the likely suspects used knives in their work....med students, butchers, Slaughterhouse men, Leather workers, and they would have more than one blade.

This isn't relevant to the point, which is that the knife used on Nichols is not the same one used on Chapman. The alleged similarity between the two murders is largely superficial, but it is strong enough to force almost everyone to make all those retro-active judgements about the Nichols killing from what is learnt from the Chapman murder.

[Mr Lucky]

Now, if you don't mind, let's NOT keep going over the same points.

I'll tell you what, Lynn, you come up with a reasoned counter point based around some contemporary source material rather than stuff you've made up, that show any of the following to be wrong and I'll take it off the list and replace it with something else. Otherwise the differences between the murders still stand.

Just for clarification;-

"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.

1) Different weapon
2) Different sharpness
3) One victim's stabbed, the other was cut open
4) One had her uterus extracted and stolen, the other didn't
5) One had her intestines removed the other hadn't
6) One had her abdominal wounds exposed with her dress/skirt up the other didn't
7) Only one had an attempt to separate the bones in her neck
8) Only one had her possessions removed from her pockets
9) One found in the street the other in a private yard
10) One had her legs spread, the other didn't.