Would a Copycat Killing Be a Good Strategy?

[c.d.]

People have speculated that Mary Kelly's murder was done by a copycat. Someone who wanted it to appear as though it were committed by the Ripper. But think about this for a moment. Doesn't that seem to imply that the police knew who the Ripper was? It's not like the police knew the Ripper was Joe Smith for example. If a copycat killer had this information, he would be thinking all I have to do is make this look like the Ripper did it and they will never suspect me because they will think Joe Smith did it. Now let's take Joe Barnett for example. What advantage would there be for him to try to make it look like the previous murders? Are the police going to say "well it can't be him because he is not the Ripper." Of course not because they didn't know who the Ripper was. This would apply to anybody who thought the copycat stategy was a good idea.

So the question is why go to the trouble of making it look like a copycat killing. Could that really make them immune from suspicion?

c.d.

[lynn cates]

alibi

Hello CD. There is much here with which to agree. And, for the record, "MJK" is not what I would call a copycat.

But notice that, if all victims are ascribed to a single killer, all you need is an alibi for one.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

How about if Marys killer intended to replicate, not copy, some of vthe acts he read about...and add to that someone who was not around for the earlier killings. Someone who was drawn to the East End that Fall due to some political intrigue that was going on.....interestingly, at the same time as these "Ripper" murders.

Cheers cd

[Bridewell]

Copycat

People have speculated that Mary Kelly's murder was done by a copycat. Someone who wanted it to appear as though it were committed by the Ripper. But think about this for a moment. Doesn't that seem to imply that the police knew who the Ripper was? It's not like the police knew the Ripper was Joe Smith for example. If a copycat killer had this information, he would be thinking all I have to do is make this look like the Ripper did it and they will never suspect me because they will think Joe Smith did it. Now let's take Joe Barnett for example. What advantage would there be for him to try to make it look like the previous murders? Are the police going to say "well it can't be him because he is not the Ripper." Of course not because they didn't know who the Ripper was. This would apply to anybody who thought the copycat stategy was a good idea.

So the question is why go to the trouble of making it look like a copycat killing. Could that really make them immune from suspicion?

c.d.

Hi c.d.

That's the essence of the argument against a copycat. If you make a killing look like a Ripper murder and you're caught, you're going to hang for all the murders and not just the one you actually committed! Where's the benefit in that? And if you're a copycat, you're going to copy the earlier murders and make yours as similar as possible to the others. This may be a different killer but it's not IMHO a copycat. Personally I think Kelly was, in all probability, a Ripper murder - an escalation in violence by one killer, rather than horrific and wholesale slaughter by a parvenu which, to me, is the less likely possibility.

[bolo]

Hi c.d., all,

trying to copy a Ripper murder may have been a viable option for someone who wanted to cover up his tracks. The Ripper was not known to the Police and that's the whole point - another Ripper killing would have been added to the list of unsolved murders, committed by a person or persons unkown, thus giving the Police no reason to make inquiries that may lead to a detection of the real culprit.

I wish that I could say that I'd rate MJK as a Ripper victim and be done with it. The thing is, some aspects of the MJK case bug me in one way or another. The previous cases give me the feeling of total anonymity, almost random killing of prostitutes. Not so in MJK's case, here, things seems way more personal and intentional/planned, and ultimately not really Ripper-like, except for the fact that some hallmarks of the previous cases were present as well.

This could be seen as a result of the fact that the MJK killing to place indoors which left the killer with a more ample time-frame but it could also mean that someone who wanted to get rid of someone he knew took opportunity of a situation to orchestrate a Ripper killing in order to deceive the Police and get away with it.

Regards,

Boris

[RavenDarkendale]

It is so extreme with the violence and destruction of the body that it doesn't copy the Ripper murders that went before it, does it now?

[mklhawley]

People have speculated that Mary Kelly's murder was done by a copycat. Someone who wanted it to appear as though it were committed by the Ripper. But think about this for a moment. Doesn't that seem to imply that the police knew who the Ripper was? It's not like the police knew the Ripper was Joe Smith for example. If a copycat killer had this information, he would be thinking all I have to do is make this look like the Ripper did it and they will never suspect me because they will think Joe Smith did it. Now let's take Joe Barnett for example. What advantage would there be for him to try to make it look like the previous murders? Are the police going to say "well it can't be him because he is not the Ripper." Of course not because they didn't know who the Ripper was. This would apply to anybody who thought the copycat stategy was a good idea.

So the question is why go to the trouble of making it look like a copycat killing. Could that really make them immune from suspicion?

c.d.

How coincidental c.d. My guess is this thread will be used after reading Rip 130. Did you peak?

[GregBaron]

Copycat on roids...

Hi all,

If a copycat, he out-rippered the ripper! Not sure why one would need to rip on steroids as a misdirection ploy. But as Lynn pointed out, if you can say "I was in Birmingham when Mary Nichols was killed" or some such, well then you can't be the mad serialist...

A copycat to me is more like the weak attempt by Bury. I think he was attempting a botched coypcat, realized he didn't know how to get his wife on the street, and stuffed her in a trunk in a panic. This seems more copycat-ish than spending two hours among the entrails of a young female.

I'd like to say stranger things have happened concerning an MJK copycat, but I can't really think of any...


Greg

[Tecs]

I haven't read through any of the newspaper reports before writing this but I thought the idea of the copycat theory was that the newspapers printed only a brief outline of what the Ripper did without going into detail. Much of the detail we have now came from the Lancet, or police or doctors reports which would not have been common knowledge at the time. So while we take for granted that Catherine Eddowes had mutilations to the face etc, at the time, the common populace would not have known.

So somebody guessing what the Ripper did would be doing his best to recreate the full horror and go way over the top.

Compare the period of the Yorkshire Ripper being at large. Specific details were held back for very good reasons.

1. Straightforward public decency.

2. Respect for the victims and their families.

3. To keep information only the killer would know secret in the case of an arrest.

and finally

4. In order not to inspire a copycat.

In one appeal to the public, it mentioned only a man whose method of murder has turned the stomachs of even the most experienced officers.

I'll have to be very careful how I word this as it could sound like I am "playing down" and dismissing the full horror of what Sutcliffe did, so if that comes across I do not mean it that way at all. But, somebody reading the above underlined statement could imagine the most vile, dreadful things imaginable. The truth was that Sutcliffe hit his victims over the head with a hammer and then stabbed and/or mutilated their bodies. I was going to put the word "only" before the word "hit" above and that was what I didn't want to come across because obviously that is vile enough. But hopefully you can see what I mean, compared to the depths of depravity that some killers have stooped, Sutcliffes M.O. was shocking and vile but not perhaps the worst ever seen?

Compare that with MJK. Somebody reading how depraved the Ripper was may have thought he would have to defile her body completely in order to recreate what the Ripper did. And that is of course what did happen. Possibly pointing to it being a copycat?

regards,

[bolo]

Hi Greg,

Hi all,

If a copycat, he out-rippered the ripper! Not sure why one would need to rip on steroids as a misdirection ploy. But as Lynn pointed out, if you can say "I was in Birmingham when Mary Nichols was killed" or some such, well then you can't be the mad serialist...

the overkill in MJK's case always seemed ambiguous to me. It could have been the work of a man other than the Ripper with either a deep-rooted hate against Mary or an order to kill her for whatever reason who went to extreme lengths to let his deed look like a Ripper murder in order to get away with it.

This is based on the fact that the killing took place indoors (including the questions surrounding the way the perpetrator gained access to Kelly's room), the extend of the mutilations and the their unskilled execution (according to the doctors), as well as the arrangement of the body and body parts which screams shock value to me (but not in a "right" way).

Regards,

Boris

[c.d.]

How coincidental c.d. My guess is this thread will be used after reading Rip 130. Did you peak?

No

c.d.

[DRoy]

Hi Tecs,

"I haven't read through any of the newspaper reports before writing this but I thought the idea of the copycat theory was that the newspapers printed only a brief outline of what the Ripper did without going into detail."

I recommend that you do check them out. Newspapers from all over the world were reporting her mutilations in great detail. Specifically it seems that Dr Gabe spoke out about what he saw.

Cheers
DRoy

[Bridewell]

The Motive For A Copycat

The one person who would fall under immediate suspicion, if MJK was murdered, was Joseph Barnett. If it was anyone else they wouldn't need to go down the 'copycat' route because, provided that they weren't caught (forgive the analogy) red-handed, they would get clean away. With that in mind, staying around for a long time to cause all that damage to the body would serve only to increase the risk of capture.

For me, if it's a 'copycat' it's Barnett; if it's not Barnett it's the Ripper.

[Cogidubnus]

Not necessarily Colin...

Whilst I'm not into conspiracy theories per-se, if Kelly's murder was effected by a particular body with the purpose in mind of hushing her up, then disguising her demise as a ripper victim might well be seen to have a valid purpose...

You owe me one Lynn!

All the best

Dave

PS Who knows...he might be right?

[Wickerman]

Hi c.d.

That's the essence of the argument against a copycat. If you make a killing look like a Ripper murder and you're caught, you're going to hang for all the murders and not just the one you actually committed! Where's the benefit in that?

Hi Colin.

If you took a poll, I think most would agree, the loss of benefit is in actually being caught
You'll only hang once, regardless...


To C. D.'s point, even though the police did not know who the Ripper was, by November they had a description to go by.

So, if Mary's killer did not look like him, or was not from the same social class as the wanted man, he might think the police would just notch this one up to the Ripper and never look at 'me', cause I'm short, fat and hairy, not tall, dark and handsome like the Ripper

Regards, Jon S.