Pinching the "Canon" fuse

[Fisherman]

Caz rounds off with:
"if you see what I mean"

Do I ever, Caz!

"The posters who regularly argue most strenuously for Jack's absence from Berner Street must believe that he could not have killed Liz because otherwise their dogmatic stance would make little sense."

Who said anything about being dogmatic? What I press is the other way around completely; to state that Jack would not have been capable of the Berner street deed or that it could not possibly have been him that pulled it off would be a stupid thing to do.

Equally, it would be stupid to claim that George Chapman could not have done it. Or John McCarthy. Or Alice MacKenzie. Or Melville Macnaghten. Or the Lord Mayor of London. Or his shoemaker. Why, even Robert Mann COULD have been the one that did it!
As long as we have no proof against these characters being Strides killer, the simple fact remains that they may have been just that.

Keeping an open mind is a healthy thing at all times. Being dogmatic is not, unless you are sure you are right. And neither you nor I can be that, can we, Caz?

"My belief is that Jack was very obviously capable of this murder and it therefore makes no sense to presume him entirely innocent of it and some other poor sod guilty."

What´s with the "entirely" bit, Caz? He would not be "partly" guilty, would he? It´s either or. And the evidence speaks for a verdict of Jack being "entirely" unguilty here as far as I and my fellow 47 per cent are concerned. The "tiny" fraction, remember?
The biproduct of some other "poor sod" being guilty is inevitable in such a case, Caz. Though you may think that it is deeply unethical to suggest that other people of the East end streets were capable of murder during the Ripper scare, the sad truth is that Jack was one of many killers in London. And if we start counting potential killers too, then we are dealing with thousands of men, I should think.

I would also like to once more press the point that the Ripper killings were the media sensation of the day. Only the fewest of the Eastenders would have been unaware that a throatcutting and bellyripping killer was roaming the streets at the time of the Stride murder. Such a thing may well have put strange ideas into the heads of people belonging to the beforementioned tally of potential killers.

The best, Caz!
Fisherman

[Phil Carter]

Hi all,

Caz, Lynn, and others...like your comments..... healthy discussion

Heard THIS theory once...

Martha...............One killer
Polly and Annie... One killer
Liz.....................One killer
Kate and Mary.....One killer
Frances and Alice.One killer, possibly the same one as Martha or Liz
Pinchin St Torso... Same killer as Kate and Mary, now having taken it all a step further.

Please...I don't for one minute believe it, but whilst we speculate a little, are the chances of 4 or 5 killers around in the same area greater or less than one killer being responsible for all 9? In other words... if we take the canon of 5 to be correct... then are we talking 4 MORE individual murderers? All "down" on unfortunates, all in the same area? And NOBODY knows anything?
Hmmmm....

And thinking of it now, pairing Frances or Alice with Liz or Martha... isn't as daft as one might perhaps think.

Anyway, we have a canon of 5 atm... Im sure many of the punters, debated EXACTLY this point, for some, in the "snug" down the Ten Bells. I am more likely to believe that EVERY killing was counted in the local's eyes as coming from the same hand. Its human nature I suppose.
However, what the police in general thought, is perhaps reflected in the wide range of meaning of WHOM the killer was....

best wishes

Phil

[caz]

Caz
I admire you for standing your ground but in relation to Stride your ground is very shaky. Everything about the murder of Stride is different from all of the others save for her murder being in the location of the others.

Now most people do not accept Coles or Mckenzie as being Ripper victims however i would suggest that their murders are more comparable to the murders of all the other victims which could suggests our killer or killers did not stop in November as many seem to want to beleive.

Hi Trevor,

Well there you go. Just to show you that I am not slavishly following whatever most people do or don't 'accept', I would consider including Frances and Alice far more readily than I would exclude Liz, Mary or Kate from this very sick puppy's total.

Once again, I'm not asking anyone to believe what most people believe. I was simply explaining to Lynn Cates that Liz's place in the C5 does not currently need 'saving', and more information and understanding about serial offenders and their double events will only make her place more secure in the future, not less.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

A "tiny" minority, Caz? I seem to remember that the later polls here on Casebook have been everything but onesided.
Then again, you DO specify that this "tiny minority" you speak of claim that Jack "could not have cut her throat", and in that respect you would be a bit closer to the mark; only the fewest, I think, would argue that it was an impossible thing for him to have done.

Hi Fishcakes,

What a wordy way of conceding that what I wrote may actually have been what I meant! The posters who regularly argue most strenuously for Jack's absence from Berner Street must believe that he could not have killed Liz because otherwise their dogmatic stance would make little sense.

My belief is that Jack was very obviously capable of this murder and it therefore makes no sense to presume him entirely innocent of it and some other poor sod guilty.

53% believing 100% that Jack killed Liz would actually be very high. And of course if you are right about the remaining 47% believing 100% that Jack didn't kill her, there would be nobody left, you included, keeping even a vaguely open mind on the subject! So I'm afraid your figures don't quite add up to the reality, despite 53 plus 47 equalling 100 - if you see what I mean.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

...Right now, I need a list of victims (not a canon) so that I may contribute to the noteworthy efforts of others. To date, I haven't even begun...

...But you will agree that there are serious disparities in Liz's case--based on the factual information.

How can I 'agree' with you when you say you need a list of victims before you can even begin to contribute to the efforts of others?

I cannot possibly agree that there are 'serious' disparities in Liz's case, based on the facts - especially if I consider fully documented double eventers since 1888 whose 'two attacks in one night' have had far fewer obvious similarities between them than the attacks on Liz and Kate. Once again, it is nonsense to try and claim that the one man who could not have cut Liz's throat and scarpered, leaving no useful clue about himself, was the man who went on to cut Kate's within the hour. We don't know of another active throat-cutting killer that night (unless you want to accuse that chap who killed his wife and is regularly dragged in to prove some point or other), so why is inventing one any more logical than holding the ripper for questioning until he can safely be cleared of this crime by evidence that proves he could not have done it?

Love,

Caz
X

[Carol]

Hello Caz. How long have I been around? Well, chronologically, too long. It's time to get rid of us old birds and replace us with fresh young blood.

You state:

"[T]his double event remains intact according to the majority opinion on casebook according to the relevant poll."

Hmm. Is that an argumentum ad populam? Actually, both C3 and C5 were questioned vis-a-vis the canon by policemen in the years surrounding those events. If, however, one is to accept them on faith and respecting tradition, well, you'll never find a more traditional chap than I am.

Finally:

". . . have you thought how it would impact on the Hutchinson theory . . ."

Now here we are in accord. I like to play Ripper games of "What if." Lately I've been playing the, "What if Klosowski were the Ripper?" game. I try to see how the various pieces fit together. Fascinating! (But Monty is still m'lad.)

The best.
LC

You appear to be 'a chap' judging by the above post.
Carol

[Trevor Marriott]

Caz
I admire you for standing your ground but in relation to Stride your ground is very shaky. Everything about the murder of Stride is different from all of the others save for her murder being in the location of the others.

Now most people do not accept Coles or Mckenzie as being Ripper victims however i would suggest that their murders are more comparable to the murders of all the other victims which could suggests our killer or killers did not stop in November as many seem to want to beleive.

[Fisherman]

Caz asserts:

"she won't be kicked out by a tiny but vocal minority claiming that Jack could not have cut her throat."

A "tiny" minority, Caz? I seem to remember that the later polls here on Casebook have been everything but onesided.
Then again, you DO specify that this "tiny minority" you speak of claim that Jack "could not have cut her throat", and in that respect you would be a bit closer to the mark; only the fewest, I think, would argue that it was an impossible thing for him to have done.

Myself, I belong to the not so tiny and ever growing part of Ripperology that accepts that Jack COULD have cut Stride´s throat - but who think that the evidence involved points away from the Ripper being her killer.

Incidentally, there was a poll on who Jack killed in September last year. 66 people answered it. The huge majority that endorsed your wiew that Stride was killed by Jack amounted to an impressive 53 per cent, wherefore the tiny fraction that think that Jack was NOT Strides killer only reached a measly 47 per cent.

Just to put things straight!

The best, Caz!
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

errata

Hello Caz. Am I an old bird or a chap? Can't one evolve into the other? (snicker!)

You note: "Firstly, I'm only bringing up the opinion polls because of your funny little idea that anyone needs to save Stride's place in the canon."

Well, I am merely cognizant that her place is 1. constantly questioned by leading Ripperologists. (Try T. Marriott. In fact, just about every book/article I read has a caveat for the poor girl's inclusion in the canon.) 2. different in almost every way, physically, (knife death excepted) from the others.

"Most of us lean one way or the other, but keep a relatively open mind on which victims were not snuffed out by the ripper himself."

Open mind? Nothing but! Right now, I need a list of victims (not a canon) so that I may contribute to the noteworthy efforts of others. To date, I haven't even begun.

"I will continue to accept nothing 'on faith', traditional or modern. Nor do I 'respect' tradition nearly as much as I respect factual information about serial offenders that was simply not available to the ripper authorities of the late 19th century."

Very well. But you will agree that there are serious disparities in Liz's case--based on the factual information.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Hello Caz. How long have I been around? Well, chronologically, too long. It's time to get rid of us old birds and replace us with fresh young blood...

You state:

"[T]his double event remains intact according to the majority opinion on casebook according to the relevant poll."

Hmm. Is that an argumentum ad populam? Actually, both C3 and C5 were questioned vis-a-vis the canon by policemen in the years surrounding those events. If, however, one is to accept them on faith and respecting tradition, well, you'll never find a more traditional chap than I am.

Are you an old bird or a chap, Lynn?

Firstly, I'm only bringing up the opinion polls because of your funny little idea that anyone needs to save Stride's place in the canon. The majority believe she's rightly there and she won't be kicked out by a tiny but vocal minority claiming that Jack could not have cut her throat. Most of us lean one way or the other, but keep a relatively open mind on which victims were not snuffed out by the ripper himself.

Secondly, you can be as set in your ways as you like, but I will continue to accept nothing 'on faith', traditional or modern. Nor do I 'respect' tradition nearly as much as I respect factual information about serial offenders that was simply not available to the ripper authorities of the late 19th century.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

what if

Hello Caz. How long have I been around? Well, chronologically, too long. It's time to get rid of us old birds and replace us with fresh young blood.

You state:

"[T]his double event remains intact according to the majority opinion on casebook according to the relevant poll."

Hmm. Is that an argumentum ad populam? Actually, both C3 and C5 were questioned vis-a-vis the canon by policemen in the years surrounding those events. If, however, one is to accept them on faith and respecting tradition, well, you'll never find a more traditional chap than I am.

Finally:

". . . have you thought how it would impact on the Hutchinson theory . . ."

Now here we are in accord. I like to play Ripper games of "What if." Lately I've been playing the, "What if Klosowski were the Ripper?" game. I try to see how the various pieces fit together. Fascinating! (But Monty is still m'lad.)

The best.
LC

[lynn cates]

David Hume

Hello Phil. I agree with you about evidence being weak. In fact, all inductions tend to suffer from that malady. (See David Hume on induction.)

The best.
LC

[caz]

I think, that if one wishes to save Stride's place in the canon, one may be driven to heroic measures.

Hi Lynn,

You haven’t been around long, have you?

Stride’s place in the canon couldn’t be safer, arguably thanks to some of the more crackpot minimalist theories doing the rounds these days. I don’t need any heroic measures to be surer than ever in my own mind that her throat was indeed cut by Jack. Double eventers are far from rare among serial offenders, and this double event remains intact according to the majority opinion on casebook according to the relevant poll(s).

Incidentally, have you thought how it would impact on the Hutchinson theory if Jack only killed Polly and Annie, and only in the hope of flogging their wombs? Poor Ben must be having kittens about this latest dismissal of Hutch/Fleming/Blotchy/Toppy (whoever he was) as a reasonable suspect for the C5+.

I'm not sure what to say about this. I'm not sure where I've read in the historical evidence, as given by coroners and detectives, that the conclusion was that only 2 were killed by one man, and for reasons of organ extraction only. Might it be because no sane person ever said such a thing?

Well, GM, I’m still waiting to hear from Perry about just one person in authority - sane or barking - who concluded any such thing after 1891. Perry himself is strangely reticent on the matter. It’s no earthly good going on what was speculated before the double event or MJK.

Imagine a small boy steals jelly babies from two local sweet shops and someone expresses the opinion that a jelly baby thief is responsible. Then some American hard gums are pinched from a third local shop, along with some jelly babies and a few weeks later a fourth local shop has jelly babies, American hard gums and liquorice allsorts strewn all over the floor and only a packet of love hearts is missing.

The original Jelly Baby Kid theory may have been half reasonable at the time it was actually proposed, but clinging to it regardless of what happened next would be totally nuts. Chocolate coated ones.

Hard to make a case for the killer in room 13 to have been driven to own Marys heart when he does so many things unrelated to that task though.

In no other Canonical murder is the organ taken suggested as the reason for the murder in the first place. And in no other murder is the uterus, the objective described as the reason for the murders of Polly and Annie, repeated.

Perry, you are so close to my sweet shop analogy right there and you can't even see it. Of course nobody in their right mind would conclude, after a kidney and heart are taken from two later crime scenes (or American hard gums and love hearts), that there must therefore be three independent ghouls - yes, ghouls - in the area working in perfect sequence: the earliest ghoul trying to obtain only wombs from the two unfortunates he murders; a later ghoul picking up Womb Man’s baton and running with it to kill another unfortunate for one of her kidneys; and a third ghoul who wants the heart of yet another unfortunate, and succeeds because she is indoors and next to naked on her bed. Anyone with any sense would have revised and reassessed their first impressions as each new horror was unleashed upon Whitechapel.

If you still want to argue that Womb Man needed uteri specifically, what would you say Kidney Man wanted with a single female kidney, and Heart Man wanted with one dead woman’s heart? And why the extraordinary timing of these three organ-fixated ghouls, working one after another that autumn? It’s no good claiming to understand the one ghoul you believe committed just two of the Whitechapel Murders. You have to explain what would have been making your extra ghouls tick.

Whoever killed Kate and Mary must have laughed himself sick if he was aware of the ‘wombs for profit’ theory. He certainly felt no burning need or desire to slavishly follow this rule in Mitre Square or Miller’s Court. In fact, the reverse is true. Whoever killed Kate and Mary was very much a rule unto himself and bugger everyone's theories about him. “If I’m to be Womb Man I had better make this one look like Womb Man's work. On second thoughts, bugger that for a game of soldiers. I’ll do as I bloomin’ well choose and the world can go and play with itself.”

Perhaps that ought to tell you something about the wilder copycat theories. None of the murders indicate someone who was sticking rigidly to what was in the papers about Jack.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil Carter]

An interesting little add on..

Hello all,
As I wrote earlier, I happen to agree with others that the original canon is supposition by an individual high ranking policeman clearly linked to, for the most part, the opinion of one doctor who only attended in person one victim...is weak..not being based on enough mathematical factors to definitively decide a conclusive canon.

Others may disagree. We always will..because...
How many he/she/they murdered is pure speculation unless JTR HIMSELF/HERSELF/THEMSELVES leave(s) the truth, we will never know. Only speculate with probability.

On that note, I was looking through a paperback version of Mr. Daniel Farson's "Jack the Ripper", printed in 1973.
In his introducyion, he states..

"...A musical presented at the Half Moon Theatre, Whitechapel, in February 1973, made the intriguing suggestion that the murders were committed by diffent people."

It had been so long I had read that particular book, that I admit to smiling when saw the above...in light of the current debate on exactly this issue.

best wishes

Phil

Im not sure that the point is being delivered effectively or misinterpreted......but so its clear......I believe that in the evidence currently there exists a case for the killer of Mary Ann Nichols and Annie Chapman to have been killed by the same person, for the same reasons...to obtain what is only successfully taken from Annie. That is present in the summation at Pollys Inquest, and by many comments made throughout both Inquests by senior medical men. It is also reasonable given the physical and circumstantial evidence in both cases......they are almost identical murders in many respects.

In no other Canonical murder is the organ taken suggested as the reason for the murder in the first place. And in no other murder is the uterus, the objective described as the reason for the murders of Polly and Annie, repeated.

No other Inquest or related commentaries suggest any organ based motivations after the first 2 murders. But they indeed do for those murders, and the same organ.

My best regards.