Best solution?

[lynn cates]

I am in ernest.

Hello Simon, Scott. What about Ernest Parke?

Cheers.
LC

[Scott Nelson]

I'm going to guess...Charles Warren.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Roy,

I'm far more interested in who might have dictated the letter.

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

debater's point

Hello (again) Jon. Thanks.

Yes, debatable. But there's no debating the lucid results found with Polly and Annie.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Shoreditch

Hello Jon. Thanks. I think I can say this confidently, her assailant lived in Shoreditch. I am also certain that John got the point and that's what prompted his numerous lies in the two interviews and at inquest.

Cheers.
LC

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Roy,

"You make it sound like the police knew the 'Ripper' correspondence was a put-on the moment they saw it, but went ahead anyway publicizing it. Is that what you are suggesting, Simon?"

In a word, yes.

Thanks for the straight answer, Simon. Who do you think wrote the Dear Boss?

(this is a Dear Boss thread I think)

Roy

[Wickerman]

It does NOT include a lady who was NOT soliciting,

Debatable.

was NOT strangled,

Debatable.

NOT cut twice

Debatable.

Interesting, thanks, Jon

[Wickerman]

Must, because else we miss the whole point of her murder.

Cheers.
LC

Thanks Lynn.

So, do we have the point of Kate's murder or, are you saying therein lies the point, yet to be uncovered?

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

knowing when to stop

Hello Jon. Thanks.

It stops with two victims who were soliciting, each of whom was strangled, had their throats cut twice, and then were abdominally mutilated by lifting their dresses.

It does NOT include a lady who was NOT soliciting, was NOT strangled, NOT cut twice (or with a superficial cut), and who was mutilated through her dress.

Must, because else we miss the whole point of her murder.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon.

"It would require a uniquely creative argument to have one murderer do what he did to Annie Chapman, and for what reason? and to never kill again."

After Polly and Annie he was sectioned. Nothing deep here.

Ahh, Lynn my friend, you're cheating.
We were talking about one killer per victim, so you want your killer to have two victims. Ok, then, I can cheat too, I want him to have three victims
(where does it end?)

"Likewise, for what rational reason would anyone do that to Eddowes but, never kill again?"

He had it in for Kate. Any solution to Kate's murder must begin with what she and John were doing in Shoreditch on Saturday afternoon.

Where do we get "must" from?

Regards, Jon S.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Roy,

"You make it sound like the police knew the 'Ripper' correspondence was a put-on the moment they saw it, but went ahead anyway publicizing it. Is that what you are suggesting, Simon?"

In a word, yes.

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

respondeo quod

Hello Jon.

"It would require a uniquely creative argument to have one murderer do what he did to Annie Chapman, and for what reason? and to never kill again."

After Polly and Annie he was sectioned. Nothing deep here.

"Likewise, for what rational reason would anyone do that to Eddowes but, never kill again?"

He had it in for Kate. Any solution to Kate's murder must begin with what she and John were doing in Shoreditch on Saturday afternoon.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

iste, ille et alius

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

“Where do I start?”

At the beginning will do.

“The best is more than adequate in the circumstances. It would have been a bloomin' miracle for any murderer to have lingered moments longer with any one of the victims without someone coming upon the scene. This wasn't exactly happening far from the madding crowd.”

I agree to an extent. I think my lad was incredibly lucky to have escaped. (By the way, if it were a serial killer from Whitechapel AND he came back to admire his work, would that be the return of the native? (heh-heh)

“No killer is a robot, and no two crimes by the same hand are ever identical.”

But Polly and Annie were bloody close—if you consider the “how" not the “what” of it.

“I expect if Bundy had not been caught you could have pointed to differences in every single one of his murders and argued against a lone killer for all.”

No, for I haven’t the slightest interest in him.

“In any case, how do you know something was not taken from each Whitechapel victim, without necessarily being missed?”

Thinking about their rifled contents—torn pocket, etc.

“Or we can go with the police verdict at the time that Barnett could safely be eliminated.”

Would you go with the C of L police who decided on multiple hands?

“No explanation needed as to why a serial mutilator might have killed Kate and MJK. It would have been rude not to, when they were handing their vulnerability out on a plate.”

Huh?

“Absolutely fair enough, except that some profess no interest in exploring seriality as a phenomenon, and have banished it entirely from their mind, allowing no comparisons to be made with the WM.”

Compare away. And, yes, serial killers have no interest for me. Disgusting.

“I rest my case.”

Perhaps it NEEDS resting? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

class warfare

Hello Abby. Women of the same class? That's a fair sized assumption.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Who Wasn't Gullible

Hi Bridewell,

Only if you believe Scotland Yard was exceedingly gullible.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

124 years after it was sent there is still no certainty as to the authorship of the 'Dear Boss' letter. I therefore see nothing gullible in a pragmatic 'all options' decision. Put it another way, if the police were gullible for treating the letter as possibly authentic, who were their contemporaries who immediately recognised it as a hoax? Who went into print at the time and immediately discounted it? Who wasn't fooled and said so? Anyone?

Regards, Bridewell.