Pinching the "Canon" fuse

[Guest]

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.

[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 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

[perrymason]

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.

[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

[Tom_Wescott]

What?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sam Flynn]

technically Mary Jane does meet some of the criteria.....her neck was severely cut, and at some points, he mutilated her abdomen.

He cut Kelly's abdomen open via three flaps of flesh (as he did with Annie), he drew out her intestines (as he did with Annie and Kate), he slashed her face (as he did with Kate), removed her womb (as with Annie and Kate) and her kidneys (as with Kate again, albeit singular in her case).

..."some" of the criteria? "technically"? Good grief!

[perrymason]

He cut Kelly's abdomen open via three flaps of flesh (as he did with Annie), he drew out her intestines (as he did with Annie and Kate), he slashed her face (as he did with Kate), removed her womb (as with Annie and Kate) and her kidneys (as with Kate again, albeit singular in her case).

..."some" of the criteria? "technically"? Good grief!

As I said Sam, some of the criteria would have to be based on the physical aspects and its evidence, and in Marys case, of course youre right, there are certain unique characteristics that are present physically that are very much Ripper type "signatures". Thats why I came back and mentioned 2 of them. There is also some physical evidence in that room that can fairly be described as similar to Ripper crimes, but not the same. One problem with accepting the physical evidence and excluding any contrary circumstantial evidence would be that when the flaps were taken from Annie it hadnt been in the press beforehand, excising and absconding with organs had been reported, and in many cases, quite explicitly....and there are other circumstantial bits that are characteristically not Ripperesque.....2 being ones I mentioned, the sequence of the attack and Mary James age.

Since the sequence present in the case of Mary Ann and Annie and Kate allows for the possibility that the women never fought with the killer while he had his knife out...Marys defensive wounds would be something that deviates from that pattern.

I know that Lynn was just suggesting some even more granular ideas for the profile we could use to pattern match characteristics, both physical and circumstantial, but my thinking is that the profile be as broad as possible while maintaining some integrity.......i.e, victims without any of the characteristics present would be excluded in the same way that suspects have been excluded based on their whereabouts on only one or 2 Ripper murders.

Some filters like these maybe;

1-40% Value
The presence of Severe Throat Cuts:
Stabs are dissimilar throat wounds, and the depth and manner must be dramatic

2-15% Value
Mutilation of the Victims Body Post Mortem: Might be best to not restrict him to one specific area, although severe throat cuts with abdominal mutilations would be highly probable matches

3-15% Value
Attack Sequence:
note: in Ripper murders C1, C2 and C4 the sequence seems identical, and none of those victims show signs that they struggled while capable of doing so with their killer... while he was using his knife

4-15% Value
Victim Age Range/Gender:
Statistically the approximate age of Mary Jane is unique within the Canonical Group, therefore the 80% of remaining alleged victims age range should suffice.....middle aged, say 35-50. I would think that looking at women as victims only would be wisest, but maybe a murder of a man might have some features that are compelling

5-15%
Geographical Location/Range:
My thinking is to start to look at events within a 50% larger circle than is made using the less than square mile he actually kills in.....say 1.5 square mile radius with somewhere near the Commercial and Wentworth intersection as the central point......I dont believe the murders must be outdoors, but those would be strongly considered. I think he walks to kills and thats supported by the tight grouping of alleged victims.

Tell you what, let me review some stats and cases from the start of 1887 to the end of 1889, including the C Group of course, and Ill state my case using the filters....see if its of value.

As the T1 says....."Ill be back".
Best regards

[Sam Flynn]

As I said Sam, some of the criteria would have to be based on the physical aspects and its evidence

ALL the useful criteria, I'd say, for that's the only objective evidence in existence that can be attributed solely to the handiwork of the killer. The other factors - the ages of the victims, the "attack sequence" (as you put it), the locations and timings of the crimes, the opinions of police and doctors - are all open to interpretation, and would have been largely outside the killer's control anyway. The wounds and mutilations were not.

[perrymason]

ALL the useful criteria, I'd say, for that's the only objective evidence in existence that can be attributed solely to the handiwork of the killer. The other factors - the ages of the victims, the "attack sequence" (as you put it), the locations and timings of the crimes, the opinions of police and doctors - are all open to interpretation, and would have been largely outside the killer's control anyway. The wounds and mutilations were not.

Then perhaps I should have mentioned that Mary Janes killer was most probably left handed, and Mary Anns and Annie's was not.....something like those qualifiers?

I can believe that there are small segments of the population that are truly ambidextrous, Ive seen the statistics of such a survey done by accredited organizations and see that only a small percentage of any given population would be truly categorized as ambidextrous...or truly and primarily left handed.....but to imagine one killer whose right hand cutting style reminds some physicians of post mortem rooms and operating theaters and his left hand cutting style reminds them of someone less skilled with a knife than a slaughterhouse man.....well thats a real rare birdy there.

The circumstantial elements are critical pieces of evidence that suggest intentions and actions by the killer and the victim....to say that they are open to interpretations and invalid in any science function is to say that more than half the evidence that exists in any Ripper crime is useless. Something I disagree with strongly.

The circumstances are not necessarily set upon the killer...they may well represent his intentions. Jack didnt have to kill Mary indoors because thats where she was that night or that where he found her.....thats a lousy argument and one Id like to see tossed myself. In fact its plain to see that until November 8th, there is no indication that he would ever move indoors or desired to. Theres no evidence that suggests Jack the Ripper ever killed indoors....there is if you add Mary Jane to Jacks list first.

All the best my friend.

[Victor]

there is no indication that he would ever move indoors or desired to.

Hi Mike,

What about incresed police presence, vigilance committee patrols and alerted prostitutes making it more difficult to achieve his desired results outdoors, therefore he had no choice but to find more secluded spots (including indoors)?

KR,
Vic.

[lynn cates]

motivation

Hello Victor. That has been proposed before and cannot be ruled out a priori.

Of course, a good deal depends upon his motivation in killing and ripping. It could have been an abnormal psychological need. That would lend credence to your scenario. Other motives seem less compelling for a change of venue.

The best.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

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.........

Hi Michael. This has been done by the people most qualified - those involved in the investigation itself. Here's the short breakdown:

Dr. Phillips: Nichols, Chapman and Kelly for sure killed by the same hand. Stride and Eddowes only possibles.

Dr. Bond: Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly all killed by the same hand.

The Police: All seem to have agreed on Bond's 5 and some added Tabra and/or Coles and/or McKenzie.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jon Guy]

Hi Tom

Bond thought McKenzie was a Ripper victim too.

[c.d.]

For the life of me, I cannot understand this obsession with the C5 and the furor that it causes as though we were debating evolution or whether the earth is the center of the universe. The C5 is not holy doctrine here guys. Let's get clear on this. It was simply an opinion put forth by the doctors and echoed by others over time. It wasn't issued by the Pope speaking "ex cathedra." People are free to accept or not accept it. Good arguments pro and con are put forth by both sides. So let's keep in mind exactly what is being debated here before anybody goes off the deep end.

My rant for the day.

c.d.