Kates Cuts

[c.d.]

An M would fit so I don’t mind looking for an insecure guy with an M initial. Wouldn’t someone like that emphasize or adopt the Big M?

I've heard rumors of a diary...James somebody or other.

c.d.

[Trapperologist]

Holme’s first with the writing on the wall fits the Canon.

Popular fiction generally deals with the more dramatic cases such as the spectacle variety where the killer is making a public statement and even communicates. I don’t know if any off-hand where a communicator didn’t leave a “calling card”.

Calling cards usually have powerful “masculine” traits. An M would fit so I don’t mind looking for an insecure guy with an M initial. Wouldn’t someone like that emphasize or adopt the Big M?

[Fisherman]

But surely 'true' or 'false' are opposite ends of an incomplete theory, one which has not been proven true or false.
A theory which has not been proven true is not automatically false either.
Has anyone proven these murders are not connected?

That is all that needs to be said, really. I earlier pointed out that much as I regard Michaels suggestion of multiple eviscerators on the prowl in late victorian London as being - to my mind - unrealistic and by and large lacking credibility, it applies that it of couerse cannot be ruled out.

Having thrown back in my face that the general consensus of a common killer in at least four out of five canonical cases is a false premise and garbage does not encourage much faith in a sensible debate.

[Wickerman]

If you mean unproven Harry then the premise that Jack the Ripper killed Five women now know as the Canonical Group is by far the longest false or unproven premise this area of study will ever see. Its GIGO situation alright, and when you start by assuming 5 victims without any known connection to each other or a single killer, that's the Garbage IN. The Garbage Out is what people then do with that unproven, or to this date...false...premise.

But surely 'true' or 'false' are opposite ends of an incomplete theory, one which has not been proven true or false.
A theory which has not been proven true is not automatically false either.
Has anyone proven these murders are not connected?

[Cody75111]

I have G.K. Chesterton's Father Brown story, 'The Blue Cross' from 1910 for starters. I can't, off the top of my head, think of any Holmes stories from the Canon that conform to this, only in films which are of course much later.

[Cody75111]

Before crime fiction really took off, is there any evidence that real-life criminals purposely leave clues behind? It strikes me that the idea of leaving a deliberate trail of clues is a device employed by crime writers so that their star detective can (a) prove their brilliance; and (b) catch the villain. Might it be the case that, owing to the popularity of detective stories - in books, TV, radio and movies - what was originally a fictional conceit has leached out into the real world?

That's an excellent point.

It would be interesting to find out when this trope was first trotted out. I'd bet it's post 1888 obviously, especially if we focus solely on detective fiction. Adventure stories and suchlike may have made use of it before but I'm wandering into areas/genres i'm not overly familiar with.

[Sam Flynn]

Before crime fiction really took off, is there any evidence that real-life criminals purposely leave clues behind? It strikes me that the idea of leaving a deliberate trail of clues is a device employed by crime writers so that their star detective can (a) prove their brilliance; and (b) catch the villain. Might it be the case that, owing to the popularity of detective stories - in books, TV, radio and movies - what was originally a fictional conceit has leached out into the real world?

[c.d.]

How do we know it's not a clue to his name along with the other Ms or possible Ms?

The answer to that is that we don't know one way or another. It may be a clue but we don't know.

Casebook describes the scrap of envelope she had taken from the mantelpiece of the kitchen as containing two pills. It bears the seal of the Sussex Regiment. It is postal stamped "London, 28,Aug., 1888" inscribed is a partial address consisting of the letter M, the number 2 as if the beginning of an address and an S. It would seem that she took it out of convenience as a way of storing her pills.

If we want to focus on the letter M we have the murder sites Mitre Square and Millers Court and of course the last victim Mary Kelly's first name starts with an M.

I suppose that one can make the argument that these all indicate a pattern or they all could be coincidences of no significance.

But you have to wonder if it was the deliberate intention of the killer to provide the police with a clue to his identity why he didn't give them more to go on. Doesn't seem very daring on his part.

c.d.

[Trapperologist]

Searching for clues and thinking outside of the box is always to be encouraged but here I think you have made a tenuous connection at best. The cuts could resemble the letter M but that could just be pareidolia and we have no way of knowing whether or not the cuts were an intentional message.

Are you referring to the envelope with a few letters and a number found in her possessions? It could simply be a coincidence because we don't know what (if anything) it refers to.

Mister or "Mishter"is a common way of addressing someone.

I just don't see any connection here at all. Sorry.

c.d.

The torn portion of the Chapman letter had an insignia, a postmark and a single letter — M.

I understand it’s bad when you see something that isn’t there, but isn’t it equally bad to not see something that is there?

Or refuse to look and discuss real anomalies that might be real clues to real solutions about questions of linkage and perpetrator. The position or Mary’s legs, the indents in the GSG, Mishterlusk....

Why would he say
Signed Catch Me When You can
............Mishterlusk?

How do we know it’s not a clue to his name along with the other Ms or possible Ms?

[c.d.]

If you mean unproven Harry then the premise that Jack the Ripper killed Five women now know as the Canonical Group is by far the longest false or unproven premise this area of study will ever see. Its GIGO situation alright, and when you start by assuming 5 victims without any known connection to each other or a single killer, that's the Garbage IN. The Garbage Out is what people then do with that unproven, or to this date...false...premise.

It is unproven, Michael. And it will remain unproven. This is a case from 1888. There are no blood types or fingerprints or DNA or anything tangible of that nature that would help us solve this case. I am not aware of anyone on these boards who believes Jack killed the C5 who has ever stated that it is a proven fact. By the same token, it will remain unproven that there was more than one killer of the C5. That is just the way it is.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

If you start from a false premise, don't be surprised when your conclusion is faulty.

You realize that the "task at hand" referred to extracting and taking her kidney and partial uterus? That's all there is to go by here. The result of any of these attacks is self explanatory if you let it be so. Pollys killer wanted to kill her and mutilate her abdomen, Annies killer wanted to kill her and obtain her uterus..Liz Strides killer wanted her dead, Kates killer wanted to kill her and mutilate her abdomen, take an intact kidney,and mark her face. Marys killer vented on her, then took her apart in ways that had nothing to do with the end result..which was obtaining her heart.

The end result Harry. That all you have to determine what the killers objectives or intentions were. And clearly, they are not all the same.

Like I said, 5 murders equals 5 stories, not just one.

[Michael W Richards]

If you start from a false premise, don't be surprised when your conclusion is faulty.

If you mean unproven Harry then the premise that Jack the Ripper killed Five women now know as the Canonical Group is by far the longest false or unproven premise this area of study will ever see. Its GIGO situation alright, and when you start by assuming 5 victims without any known connection to each other or a single killer, that's the Garbage IN. The Garbage Out is what people then do with that unproven, or to this date...false...premise.

[c.d.]

Don’t the cuts on Kate’s face tally with the letter M at the Chapman scene? Then we have the Lusk letter writer signing his name as Mishterlusk. It’s was easily the only real clue back when I only thought there were only the first two.

Searching for clues and thinking outside of the box is always to be encouraged but here I think you have made a tenuous connection at best. The cuts could resemble the letter M but that could just be pareidolia and we have no way of knowing whether or not the cuts were an intentional message.

Are you referring to the envelope with a few letters and a number found in her possessions? It could simply be a coincidence because we don't know what (if anything) it refers to.

Mister or "Mishter"is a common way of addressing someone.

I just don't see any connection here at all. Sorry.

c.d.

[Trapperologist]

Don’t the cuts on Kate’s face tally with the letter M at the Chapman scene? Then we have the Lusk letter writer signing his name as Mishterlusk. It’s was easily the only real clue back when I only thought there were only the first two.

[Harry D]

In the murder of Kate Eddowes her killer took some extra time to do somethings that seem irrelevant to the task at hand

If you start from a false premise, don't be surprised when your conclusion is faulty.