Pinching the "Canon" fuse

[Tom_Wescott]

What?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

left

Hello Mike. Thanks for your comments!

I wonder if there should also be some significance about which side is cut? All of the current canonicals (save the last) were slashed on the left.

Another thing occurs to me. IF a new canon is fixed and we can begin to research the guilty party, we will have to set certain restrictions upon age. The data seems to indicate that he was on the right side of victim when he cut, probably on a knee or kneeling. And it occurs to me that this could be difficult for an older ripper (no, I'm not kidding!).

Keep up the good work!

The best.
LC

Although only an amateur, I am tempted to suggest a deep, double cut to next side of neck near carotid artery. I am tempted to include at least some abdominal mutilation. Of course, I recognize that such criteria seems to exclude Stride and Kelly.

LC

Hi again Lynn,

I forgot to mention on the above, so my integrity can be maintained at this early stage in the exercise , technically Mary Jane does meet some of the criteria.....her neck was severely cut, and at some points, he mutilated her abdomen. Thats when the missing elements could be weighed for their significance.

For example the sequence of the attack, or the age range.

All the best Lynn.

Hello Mike. This is a good idea. Do you have a proposal for criteria (or a single criterion) for inclusion in the canon?

I think the problem will be to be neither too inclusive, nor too restrictive.

For example, if the criterion is a dead female, we'll likely get too many. At the other pole, death from BOTH strangulation and knife cut to carotid PLUS both abdominal mutilation and eviseration AND removal of organs may be too narrow.

Although only an amateur, I am tempted to suggest a deep, double cut to next side of neck near carotid artery. I am tempted to include at least some abdominal mutilation. Of course, I recognize that such criteria seems to exclude Stride and Kelly.

Does this work?

The Best.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Im glad that you feel this may be a worthwhile exercise, and the points you made that I emboldened are 2 of the physical characteristics that I feel are unique enough statistically separately, let alone when combined, to set aside a group that would include those wound characteristics.

I agree with you also on the scope that should be considered, I believe that cutting would be a part of what this killer might do, but whether that may also include men for example, I wouldn't want to restrict too much. I dont think its impossible that the "Ripper" at some point may have cut a mans throat to kill him too, but I do think the reason he cuts the women in the Canonical Group goes beyond the cutting.

Circumstantially, I believe the sequencing is important as well,...its a fixed sequence with Mary Ann and Annie... and also with Kates murder. Attack to silence and subdue-slit throat severely-mutilate the abdomen. Im not married to any particlular theory that involves "set" organs, I do think there is a case to be made that some were killed for their uterus specifically, but I wouldnt rule out a murder that has all the requisite features, but instead this time it had a liver extraction. I think the age "range" is critical, to my mind he used the age and lack of vitality or feeble health of his victims. I also believe myself that men should be excluded....but as I said, a good case for something and....who knows.

Im not sure how miniscule the filter should be but that would be a good start I think.

Ive read so many times that this "suspect was in custody the night of sos and so's murder so he could not be the man that killed so and so, hence not the Ripper", or "out of town for one murder", or "alibis for all but 2 of them, ruling out that he was Jack..(an assumed Canonical victim as the baseline),....... too many times.

Suspects historically have been filtered using a series of questions that ultimately lead to the question of their access and their availability for all 5 murders, or more.

What if Jack only killed 2 or 3 of those women? How would we ever look at suspects based on their potential for a single or even multiple murders if they still have to have had killed even non-traditional Canonical Ripper victims to qualify? What if The Ripper is the only man that ripped women, and they are his only victims?

Im not so naive to think I can get everyone to start thinking in terms of NO Canonical Group ...but exercises like these can raise issues that can sway thinking or open possible new doors.

Cheers Lynn

[lynn cates]

canonization

Hello Mike. This is a good idea. Do you have a proposal for criteria (or a single criterion) for inclusion in the canon?

I think the problem will be to be neither too inclusive, nor too restrictive.

For example, if the criterion is a dead female, we'll likely get too many. At the other pole, death from BOTH strangulation and knife cut to carotid PLUS both abdominal mutilation and eviseration AND removal of organs may be too narrow.

Although only an amateur, I am tempted to suggest a deep, double cut to next side of neck near carotid artery. I am tempted to include at least some abdominal mutilation. Of course, I recognize that such criteria seems to exclude Stride and Kelly.

Does this work?

The Best.
LC

[perrymason]

Hello all,

I thought that since many threads raise the issue of comparatives, (using The Canonical Group to assess the likely inclusion or exclusion of other murder or attack victims with the Jack the Ripper crime spree during the relevant period), more open discussion on this particular topic is always warranted.

I think of historical "common" knowledge standards and how often they have been proven to be incorrect at some later time..., the shape of the earth being one that is most revealing about how incorrect these principles and foundations can be. People thought that the stars were gods at one time, people still think that there must have been a conspiracy to shoot JFK despite the Warren Commission's findings and years of subsequent investigation into the matter that has yielded no pivotal contrary evidence to those findings.

Some people truly believe that there is Life after Death, and some believe that the inside of the old golf balls with the wound elastic centers had acid in it.

Some of these beliefs are founded on religions, stories, legends, and traditions....and some can be scientifically proven incorrect. Some cant.

As you all know I personally do not believe that The Canonical Group is founded on science. I believe its founded on conjecture....some very important voices, but nonetheless, the opinions that "not more than 5", or "5 women only", or "only these five women" should be attributed to Jack are just that....opinions. By men whose characters we can glean some measure by their own writings in later years, or memos that were circulated during those years.

Because I respect many of the members talents here....Id like them to be given the best opportunity to solve some of the little problems that we can solve without having to carry the burden of having to have that information properly skew with the "common knowledge" that Jack the Ripper killed Mary Ann, Annie, Liz, Kate and Mary Jane.

On physical and circumstantial evidence alone.....there are some suggestive links with some later victims after Mary Ann Nichols....assuming she is the first kill.

Wouldnt it be wiser for us to establish a scientific Canon, something that lends itself to analysis and less speculation,....something that is logical, not reactionary...something that can be proven within a reasonable doubt, or as close as we need to come to that here.........

I just thout that perhaps people might want to discuss the philosophy of using a Canon like the one weve been handed a little more....if thats correct, any and all comments are welcomed.

Best regards all.