Kates Cuts

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Wickerman]

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.

Absolutely, the default position is always 'maybe', thats the middle ground. It takes research to prove whether a theory is 'true' or 'false'.

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.

Agreed, and in the absence of proof, one way or the other, some apply a degree of common sense to accept thee most likely scenario. When five similarly gruesome murders are accomplished within walking distance of each other, over a nine week period, the most obvious conclusion is to look for some connection, if not between the victims then the perpetrator.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

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?

I'd like to know how he went about planting a scrap of envelope with a cryptic clue in a lodging house, knowing that Annie would wrap her pills in it and that he would then subsequently be able to murder her, leave said clue and get away?
Do people read to much into these things?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

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.

This diary you mention....don't suppose you know if there's a thread about it?

[c.d.]

This diary you mention....don't suppose you know if there's a thread about it?

Hello A.B.E.,

I vaguely seem to recall a thread with a handful of posts but it then died out apparently for lack of interest and no one wanting to take a position one way or another as to it being genuine.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

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?

They are still unconnected by killer after 130 plus years of trying by scores of researchers, and thats not "proof" enough?

[Trapperologist]

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.

There’s a thought! I don’t have to go with Monty or M Ostrog or the priest from the nearest St. Mike’s.

[Trapperologist]

I'd like to know how he went about planting a scrap of envelope with a cryptic clue in a lodging house, knowing that Annie would wrap her pills in it and that he would then subsequently be able to murder her, leave said clue and get away?
Do people read to much into these things?

The scrap was in her pocket. Most letters began with a Mr or Mrs.

How can someone be “seeing” things when this M (on an envelope opened and ripped by someone else but unfolded or uncrumpled presumably by the killer, perhaps even ripped further and maybe left strategically), and like the inverted Vs (/\/\) are real aspects of the crime scene.

It’s a real aspect as opposed to witness statements where people are really “seeing things” which don’t lead anywhere except to more “seeing things”. If there was more to “see”, I’m sure people would be more interested in things like M calling cards and the hitching up of two knees of two victims, GSG indents etc.

[Sam Flynn]

As I mused the other day: "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?"

My guess is that this is precisely what we're dealing with. As in the vast majority of criminal cases, I strongly suspect that there was nobody leaving a breadcrumb trail of cryptic clues behind him in Whitechapel 1888.

[c.d.]

What are GSG indents? Not familiar with that.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

They are still unconnected by killer after 130 plus years of trying by scores of researchers, and thats not "proof" enough?

Of course not. And there is no such thing as "proof", there is only proof, no quotation marks.

You seem to think that what cannot be proven is always proven to the contrary? That´s a tad odd, to say the least. Is that how you are arguing your case? Since A cannot be proven, B is?

Maybe I can use it for the Lechmere theory? Since it has not been disproven, it is proven, sort of?

[Sam Flynn]

What are GSG indents? Not familiar with that.

c.d.

I'm guessing that there's pattern

In the way that the GSG's

Words are indented and that

this pattern is another clue