Was Mackenzie a copycat?

[caz]

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

Me too, Jon.

Love,

Caz
X

[Jon Guy]

Hi Greg

But if Mackenzie was killed by another, two questions come to mind.
Why attempt a copycat? and What is the motivation?

Good to see the question been raised.

Was McKenzie the victim of a copycat? In my opinion, no.
The victimology is correct. Even down to her having a few words with her man prior to her death.
The location of the murder; that is the street and the location of her body is correct.
She is killed apparently swiftly and silently, between police beats.
Her left carotid is attacked whilst been held down, and she is found on her back with her skirts rasied.
The stab to the privates is similar to the wound on Tabram and Nichols.

I believe the killer struggled to open the abdominal cavity because he was using a smaller knife, and McKenzies clothes were tight around the abdomen and like Nichols he was maneouvering his knife under her clothes.

Of course Dr Bond did think it was by the same hand from the previous year.
Dr Phillips didn`t think so, but he did add that:

After careful and long deliberation, I cannot satisfy myself, on purely Anatomical and professional grounds that the perpetrator of all the "Wh Ch. murders" is our man. I am on the contrary impelled to a contrary conclusion in this noting the mode of procedure and the character of the mutilations and judging of motive in connection with the latter.

I do not here enter into the comparison of the cases neither do I take into account what I admit may be almost conclusive evidence in favour of the one man theory if all the surrounding circumstances and other evidence are considered, holding it as my duty to report on the P.M. appearances and express an opinion only on Professional grounds, based upon my own observation.

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

[Ben]

Hi Greg,

Do you mind if I take the broom to Chapman, Cutbush, Hutchinson and
Feigenbaum...?

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.

Cheers,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Wow, DVV, you're a bold man...bye bye Druitt, Cohen, Tumblety...
who else? I think Koz was still walking the dog....?

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.

[Phil H]

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.

Phil

[Wickerman]

... and Eddowes, Stride and Kelly are all different enough in various ways to be POSSIBLY by other hands.

I don't think Eddowes is justifiably different, considering the brief time available and the worst lighting conditions of the series.
Besides, as mentioned by Cris Malone in his Murder by Design (NIR-4) it is possible that prior to offering his controversial opinion on Eddowes being "by another hand", Phillips had been unduly influenced by his recent visit to Gateshead and witnessing this "clumsy piece of butchery".

I think Barnett or Flemming might have got away with murder (Kelly) because they had alibis for earlier murders, and the police were fixated on "Jack"; similarly Kidney for Stride.

Indeed, Flemming at least is an unknown quantity and worthy of consideration in that murder.

[curious]

Hi all,

Methinks Mackenzie and Coles, especially, get short shrift from the
ripper community.

I think, intuitively, that one of these outlier cases might yield a clue
that cracks the whole case wide open. Ok, I know, unlikely, but a nice
thought..

Anyway, I think the motivation for at least C's 1-3 was sexual deviance.
The killer was a pervert or paraphilic of some sort and got pleasure out of
his foul deeds. Stay with me here.

But if Mackenzie was killed by another, two questions come to mind.
Why attempt a copycat? and What is the motivation?

I could go into a long soliloquy about what I'm getting at here but
I think you people are smart enough to get the ball rolling..

Any thoughts?


Greg

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

[lynn cates]

hop to it

Hello Greg. Thanks.

"Do you mind if I take the broom to Chapman, Cutbush, Hutchinson and
Feigenbaum...?"

Permission granted, umm, encouraged.

Cheers.
LC

[GregBaron]

House cleaning...

Hello (again) Greg.

"bye bye Druitt, Cohen, Tumblety..."

And a bloody good riddance.

Cheers.
LC

But Lynn dear sir, how easily you sweep some of our favorite's under
the rug..!

Do you mind if I take the broom to Chapman, Cutbush, Hutchinson and
Feigenbaum...?

Oh, that was an easy question.
Whenever Bond and Phillips disagree, you can be sure the murder is canonical.

Love it, DVV, that's some out-of-the-canon thinking there...

You are right that lumping things together may be a mistake.

Truer words have rarely been spoken...


Greg

[lynn cates]

lumping

Hello Phil. Thanks.

You are, of course, preaching to the choir.

I was thinking about Isenschmid. When he was supposedly provided an alibi for his brother, it was for Annie ONLY. Yet he was presumably off the hook for Polly as well.

You are right that lumping things together may be a mistake.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

On the other hand, an alibi for ONE killing is an alibi for ALL.

I think this may have been one of the greatest errors made by the police at the time, in this case.

Clearly Isenschmidt is a case in pont, because he could not have committed the later murders, he was deemed not to be "Jack". But he COULD have perpetrated the earlier murders - and Eddowes, Stride and Kelly are all different enough in various ways to be POSSIBLY by other hands.

I think Barnett or Flemming might have got away with murder (Kelly) because they had alibis for earlier murders, and the police were fixated on "Jack"; similarly Kidney for Stride.

No doubt Fisherman would argue that Lechmere/Cross was dismissed for much the same reasons!!!

It is, to my mind, a good reason to treat all the murders as individual crimes and then see how many WE would compile into the work of a single hand.

Phil

[lynn cates]

good riddance

Hello (again) Greg.

"bye bye Druitt, Cohen, Tumblety..."

And a bloody good riddance.

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Wow, DVV, you're a bold man...
Greg

Oh, that was an easy question.
Whenever Bond and Phillips disagree, you can be sure the murder is canonical.

[lynn cates]

backfire

Hello Greg. Thanks.

"That's just it Lynn, I can't imagine them being selected at all...I
can't fathom a reason..."

Well, I think Polly and Annie were in the wrong place at the wrong time. They were also incapacitated.

"It's not like a couple of abdominal mutilations made the cops declare "Oh
the ripper did it, no reason to investigate""

But Liz was thought so. And she had NO mutilations.

"It could even backfire, if the Mackenzie killer was caught, they may have thrown the whole lot on his plate..."

On the other hand, an alibi for ONE killing is an alibi for ALL.

Cheers.
LC

[curious4]

Popeye

Aha! A candidate for the most unlikely Jack, perhaps?

Cheers!
C4