Was Mackenzie a copycat?

[GregBaron]

Blame game...

I think the thread title should have been "Was Mackenzie's killer a copycat?"

Excellent catch RivkahChaya but this precludes the possibility that
Mackenzie committed suicide and wished to blame the ripper....Ha


Greg

[RivkahChaya]

I think the thread title should have been "Was Mackenzie's killer a copycat?"

[Wickerman]

How did they plumb the depths of Baxter's "Possibly the work of an imitator"?

Cheers.
LC

(Mis)led by Phillips?

[lynn cates]

The Wynner.

Hello Greg.

"I understand normal copycat-ism curious but I struggle to understand it in this case. Surely the authorities wouldn’t ignore evidence in a single murder simply to appease a multiple murder theory…"

Indeed? How did they plumb the depths of Baxter's "Possibly the work of an imitator"?

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hello Jon

Long time?
I'll concede, longer than with Stride, yes.?

He`s gone to the trouble of struggling to open the abdomen cavity under her bodice with his knife. He`s even thrown in the stab wound to the privates.
But yes, a long time relatively speaking, if you`re between police beats and hanging for the crime.

I often wonder about this, I know one poster who appears adamant that Stride's killer demonstrated anatomical knowledge because the slice across the throat was effective. Over egging the pudding, or over icing the cake, comes to mind.
Much the same as slicing one's wrists, does this act demonstrate anatomical knowledge, or just the simple fact that we all know it works??

It was Dr Phillips who suggested a degree of anatomical knowledge. I guess, not only because he targetted the carotid but because he laid her down and tipped her slightly to avoid been bloodstained when he cut her throat.

[Wickerman]

More than one passage of the knife across the throat is an interesting feature of both the Coles murder and that of McKenzie.

Twice with McKenzie, mimicking that of Nichols, Chapman & arguably, Eddowes.
Thrice with Coles, according to Phillips, yet twice according to Oxley.

And the knife used on both while on the ground, another significant feature.

How did he get them there (was Coles thrown down?) without making a noise?

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman, my implication was that if Jack ripped Mackenzie then some of our top candidates
have an alibi for this one. Druitt’s is pretty solid…………Death

Indeed, there's nothing more solid, always assuming McKenzie was a copycat.

Surely the authorities wouldn’t ignore evidence in a single murder simply to appease a multiple murder theory…

Such an argument is not unknown here on Casebook.

[Phil H]

I see the strongest similarities between the deaths of Nichols and Mckenzie. Many more than between the deaths of Nichols and Chapman where we do not question that both murders were the work of a single man.

Nichols and Mckenzie were both found in open public streets, in the gutter (or close). In no case was a sound heard and the killer escaped unseen even though the blood was still flowing from the woman's wounds when the PC found her. The mutilations appear VERY similar to those on Nichols - as i said in another post, my feeling is that an IMITATOR would have not been weaker in what he did but MUCH STRONGER.

Phil.

[GregBaron]

Why copy a ghost?

Good Morning, Greg,
Unless JtR had injured his right hand/arm so severely he could no longer use it, it appears to me (from very little research) that Mackenzie was killed by someone different.

At this moment the only reason I can see for attempting a "copycat" version was so he would not be suspected of the crime, which he hoped would be put down as just another of the Whitechapel Murders. This seems to indicate that the killer knew the victim and might logically be considered a suspect.

However, let's say that something DID happen to JtR so that he was simply not able physically to continue killing . . . . then, months later, felt up to trying with the hand he was now using for everything . . .

Don't know. Interesting thread.

curious

Thanks curious. The idea of an injured or aging Jack is an interesting one…

I am 75% or more sure that Eddowes was a victim of "Jack" along with Nichols and Chapman, but I wrote what I did for arguments' sake.

I see enough similarities between Mckenzie and Nichols (type of location, quick disappearance, nature of wounds, to make me think we should at least contemplate "Jack" as her killer.

The comparative "weakness" of the mutilations suggests to me a "Jack" who had declined as far as his physical state was concerned, or was kill (perhaps progressively so). You will be aware of musings on Eddowes-related and GSG threads, that "Jack" might have cut himself and become ill while mutilating Eddowes in the dark - all that faecal matter about.

That might fit in with the possibility that MJK was NOT a Ripper murder, so that Mckenzie might follow a quite prolonged (and involuntary) lay-off, or a period of essential recuperation - especially if it was his right hand that had been injured. If "Jack's" mental state was deteriorating, that too might explain the slight differences.

Worth thinking about IMHO.

Agreed, these are intriguing ideas Phil…

Druitt, really?

I can understand him being the most boring suspect, he must rank among thee most researched suspects of all time in this case.

I still would not rule him out. Considering Druitt was a public figure, he attended meetings, there are records of cricket schedules, a school teacher, court records, yet, for all the research ever undertaken no-one has come across anything that effectively rules him out.
That in itself is astonishing.

To my mind Druitt's candidacy is head and shoulders above that of Kozminski, who according to the present level of research was nothing more than an afterthought by high ranking officials.

Hi Wickerman, my implication was that if Jack ripped Mackenzie then some of our top candidates
have an alibi for this one. Druitt’s is pretty solid…………Death

I might have missed the point of the exercise here, but how does McKenzie being a ripper victim rule out any of the above from being the ripper? Druitt (et al) I can understand, but I'm not at all sure about alibis for all of those four.

Hi Ben, I was just having some fun with Lynn….but my point was as mentioned above….some are out
for this one…

I`ve yet to see a convincing argument against her been a Ripper victim.

Hi Jon Guy, I agree with you here…

In the case of McKenzie, if as you suggest, the killer`s spent a long time with the body trying to make it look like a Ripper killing. He also happened to have some anatomical knowledge too...

And another good point Jon..

At this moment the only reason I can see for attempting a "copycat" version was so he would not be suspected of the crime, which he hoped would be put down as just another of the Whitechapel Murders. This seems to indicate that the killer knew the victim and might logically be considered a suspect.

I understand normal copycat-ism curious but I struggle to understand it in this case. Surely the authorities wouldn’t ignore evidence in a single murder simply to appease a multiple murder theory…


Greg

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon.

But a vicious assault by a client was exactly what the Ripper`s crimes were ?

Broadly speaking maybe. The Ripper does appear to have posed as a client, but his intentions also appear to set him apart from the typical client.

In the case of McKenzie, if as you suggest, the killer`s spent a long time with the body trying to make it look like a Ripper killing.

Long time?
I'll concede, longer than with Stride, yes.

He also happened to have some anatomical knowledge too...

I often wonder about this, I know one poster who appears adamant that Stride's killer demonstrated anatomical knowledge because the slice across the throat was effective. Over egging the pudding, or over icing the cake, comes to mind.
Much the same as slicing one's wrists, does this act demonstrate anatomical knowledge, or just the simple fact that we all know it works?

With McKenzie, do we read the wounds as the result of a learned knowledge (ie, anatomical knowledge?) or just someone failing in an attempt at making it look more than what it was?

[Jon Guy]

A convincing argument must surely be based on factual support or the weight of logic and argument. neither of which might gain a concensus.

Thanks Phil. That`s the one.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Jon

Doesn't a "convincing argument" suggest a consensus?.

In this instance I did mean simply a "convinving argument", meaning a good reason.

McKenzie, Coles & Stride appear in the same category to me, any one of them could have been an interruption, but equally all of them could have been the target of an unrelated but vicious assault by a client.
That is to say, nothing to do with the murders of Nichols, Chapman or Eddowes.

But a vicious assault by a client was exactly what the Ripper`s crimes were ?
Although, I believe them to be related.

In the case of McKenzie, if as you suggest, the killer`s spent a long time with the body trying to make it look like a Ripper killing. He also happened to have some anatomical knowledge too...

[Phil H]

Doesn't a "convincing argument" suggest a consensus?

Not in my view - a concensus would be "a widely accepted theory".

A convincing argument must surely be based on factual support or the weight of logic and argument. neither of which might gain a concensus.

"Caviar to the masses", springs to mind.

Phil

[lynn cates]

sensible

Hello Jon. A sensible post.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Doesn't a "convincing argument" suggest a consensus?
Do we have a consensus on whether Kelly is in or out?, or Stride, in or out?, or Eddowes being in or out?

McKenzie, Coles & Stride appear in the same category to me, any one of them could have been an interruption, but equally all of them could have been the target of an unrelated but vicious assault by a client.
That is to say, nothing to do with the murders of Nichols, Chapman or Eddowes.