Pinching the "Canon" fuse

[Sam Flynn]

In the summation at the Nichols Inquest its is speculated that both Annie and Polly were killed so the killer could obtain their uterus, only successfully taken from the second victim.

I don't see why coroner Wynne Baxter's summing-up at the Chapman inquest should set the seal on ALL subsequent murders, Mike. Furthermore, the fact that no other authority saw fit to speculate in public to the extent that Baxter did, does not mean that other similar authorities wouldn't have held similar opinions.

No other Canonical Victim is suggested as being murdered so the killer could obtain any organ let alone a specific one.

Dr Phillips stated at the inquest that Annie Chapman was undernourished, and that she had very fine teeth. Just because no other medic (or coroner) pronounced likewise in the other inquests doesn't entitle us to assert that Catherine Eddowes was a fat bastard and Mary Kelly's mouth was naught but gums.

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?

Cheers,

Mike

In the summation at the Nichols Inquest its is speculated that both Annie and Polly were killed so the killer could obtain their uterus, only successfully taken from the second victim. No other Canonical Victim is suggested as being murdered so the killer could obtain any organ let alone a specific one.

Unless you have read something that suggests that Kate was killed so her killer could take her kidney away...or Mary her heart? 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.

Cheers Mike

[lynn cates]

Baxter

Hello Good. Well, I think Baxter was sane and I believe that was his dictum.

The best.
LC

[lynn cates]

medical and police opinions

Hello CD. True ratiocination can NEVER run amok--they are diametrically opposed.

Your observation about a paucity of Ripper victims may not be too far out. Recall that there were a variety of medical and police opinions on this topic. (I just read one opinion that took Polly and Annie to have died from different hands. So perhaps Mike is closer to the mark, and more ripperologically conservative than you think.)

The best.
LC

[Victor]

Has there been anything like it at any time in history (or even fictional drama), where a mutilating fiend's work has been [...] completely upstaged and exaggerated (Mary), by several one-off killers with personal grudges against one particular prostitute?

Hi Caz,

Nobody True by James Herbert for the bits I've quoted.

KR,
Vic.

[The Good Michael]

The facts are that ONLY the first 2 victims are logically and consecutively matched by methodologies, activities and assumed objectives based on the medical evidence.

Thats not my opinion....at all. Its the historical evidence, when the silliness is sifted out.

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?

Cheers,

Mike

[c.d.]

I am getting the sinking feeling that ratiocination has been unleashed and is now running amok. Ultimately it will be shown that there were no victims, no Jack, no Whitechapel and as far as London itself...well that is anybody's guess. Carry on.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

C3 & C5

Hello Mike. Thanks, I thought I had understood your elimination of C3 and C5.

I have just finished Marriott's book (Stride section) and he, too, dismisses Liz as a victim--roughly for the reasons you state. I find more seasoned ripperologists who do than don't. I think, that if one wishes to save Stride's place in the canon, one may be driven to heroic measures.

C5 was problematic for me EVEN before C3. Of course, it may be easier to save her than Liz.

Were you referring to Barnett or Fleming in your discussion of Mary Jane?

The best.
LC

Hello All and Sundry. I wonder if Mike's theory about multiple WM's need imply more than one disturbed individual?

If I understand Mike's opinions, we have one such chap--call him "Jack" if you like--and one chap (is it Kidney, Mike?) with serious temper problems (er, "issues"--forgot to use the new speak term). Finally, another possibly temperamental ex-lover (is it Fleming Mike?) for C5. (Did I get any of that right, Mike?)

Of course, one can parse out "disturbance" in various ways. Obviously, anger and jealousy (besides counting as one of the seven deadly sins in the first case and a daughter sin in the latter) could count as disturbances. The Stoic philosophers counted ANY human emotion as a disturbance of the soul (pathe).

I take it that, "disturbance" in the present context refers to one who is--amongst other things--a sexual serial killer? Would that not preclude Mike's slayer of C3 & C5?

All the best, chaps.
LC

Hi Lynn,

I noticed in the above that of the suspects that are pointed out 2 have a personal vested interest in Canonical Women. Interestingly enough, the two women that I question as inclusions in the Group...as would I hope many others.

Caz suggests that "overkill" is a nondescript blanket term for this killer and any evidence of any kind of over the top murderous acts should be linked with Martha Tabrams killer, who she suggests was also the killer of the 5 women in the Canon, and god knows how many of the other 7 or 8 unsolved murders or attacks of that period.

Because, As I understand it, he engages in overkill. Any kind apparently......although oddly she seems to leave the increasing Torso count to someone other than Jack.... 39 Stabs, complete abdominal dissections, .....I can see why she then assumes he must have been furious when he only cuts Liz once and not near as deeply as his preference.

To group murders by using their general location, weapon used and post mortem wounds, still better than "because"...which seems to be the pro Canonical logic... immediately shrinks the Canon to 4. Polly, Annie, Kate and Mary. Now....of those, which had ended a long term relationship within the previous 2 weeks...perhaps with some hard feelings not admitted. Which of the women was seeing 2 men that she had split up with in the past, at the same time, at that very time? Which woman was killed in circumstances that none of the others were in....indoors, in her own room and bed, undressed and attacked while able to resist with a knife?,...(see opinions on all the priors when the throat cut was made and the position of the victims and their demeanor, ability to resist...).

Which woman of the 4 can we state unequivocally was not killed so her killer could obtain an abdominal organ? Which woman of the 4 could not be recognized in death, aside from some above the neck features? Which woman of the 4, based on accepted evidence, can we say was not out on the street soliciting when she meets her killer?

There are lots more unanwered questions that may have a direct bearing on her murder investigation and logical suspects....but all that is ignored cause Jack likes overkill of any kind.

The facts are that ONLY the first 2 victims are logically and consecutively matched by methodologies, activities and assumed objectives based on the medical evidence. They are stated as such in the Inquest for Polly Nichols....which had the benefit of the Chapman details, and vice versa. From that point on only dotted lines exist. No later murder displays a focus for a single organ, suggests that the organ extractions and thefts were the reason for the murders, and no later murder.....other than that of Kate Eddowes, matches any of the primary killer characteristics exhibited in the first 2 murders.

Thats not my opinion....at all. Its the historical evidence, when the silliness is sifted out.

Best regards all.

[caz]

Nice post, Phil.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil Carter]

Caz,

Indeed, you are ENTIRELY correct...and in that conjunction the actual point of a making a canon in the first place seems of little consequence, because ultimately, they ALL fall into that catagory. Because by definition, a definitive canon should leave some out of an ultimate catagory.

As others have observed, your comments are more often than not extremely sound and reliable. So if one was to drop the idea of forming a "new, established canon", your point sums up exactly why it has it's unlimited limitations.

As I wrote earlier, in my humble opinion, 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.

I have the delightful feeling that if every member of Casebook turned up to one giant seminar, in order to find definitive agreement on the subject, the vote would split the entire congress.... as indeed it has done for over 120 years from expert detective to East End pauper.

On some things, the true answer remains out of our grasp. We can only surmise and debate, debate and surmise, with the evidence we have at any given moment in time.

Finding WHO JTR was is one thing... how many he murdered is entirely a different ball game. For unless he HIMSELF leaves the truth, we will never know. Only speculate with probability.

best wishes

Phil

[caz]

Phil, the victims were vulnerable, unaccompanied women, who were attacked in dark places.

Isn't that all the killer ever needed to do his thing - whatever that thing was, that made the knife in his hand tremble and come alive?

Stephen, that was a lovely thing to say. Thanks. I do try to make every post sing, particularly as I'm apparently the least productive poster on this topic.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

I haven't had time to read through every thread, so please excuse me if the following has been mentioned before...

Canon or not, comparison or not, every factor I have read has some degree of worth in linking one murder/crime to another. We remember that Mr. Knight poured much emphasis on the supposition that the victims knew or were known to each other, and many have pointed out where their regular dwellings were at the time of the murders. These examples may or may not have a degree of provable worth, however in the tangle and myriad of evidence, facts and official comment we have today they seem of less worth than other factors.
So, given that establishing a possible canon of other sorts was the original order of the day, perhaps a backwards look would be better...

Establishing a canon of this kind, must, I put forward, be based on VICTIMS, as that is the catagory in question.
So, of the victims, who, I ask, have the LEAST amount in common with the other victims circumstances, based on the fewest amount of directly linkable facts?

In other words, although left hand/right hand links x amount, type of injuries may link y amount, and time of day may link z amount. Establish the catagories, marry them to the victims, ( and I propose EVERY suggested victim ever linked to being JTR..1887-1894) and whittle the amount down due to lack of comparitive fact.

If one starts at the other end, with the supposing that only 5/6/7 are JTR victims, already the comparisons will be limited. Limiting the canon isnt the goalin itself... it is deciding the amount of victims who within reasonable mathematical science are linked to the same hand of crime in the most possble ways. Clearly, IF the original canon (5) all have many many more links to the purported same executioner of the crimes, then it is obvious that those 5 must remain as the ONLY canon qualifiers in future.

Ok.. it isnt foolproof, and no, at the end of the day it may indeed not get us too much further. And yes, 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.

Recent commentary highlights Eddowes as a "weak" link amongst the five. Kelly being one of the definitive group has her detractors too. That is the cause, I believe, in questioning the infamous quote " ...five and five only..." in the first place.

This may sound like complicated rambling, and I fully realise that it is "open" to be shot down, torn apart and discarded. And I of course welcome all comments, both for and against the idea, expansions and deletions. I only throw this into the ring as trying to find a definitive base of some sort.

Again, please excuse me if this has been posted before in some way or another. I really have not had the time to read every posting on the subject.

best wishes

Phil

[Stephen Thomas]

I could maybe understand this need to believe that Mary was killed by a one-off (an Othello if you will) with a very temporary, very loose screw, if her murder had been far more isolated in time and place from Kate and all the others. But she was so close, in every way, to the world's idea of who might be next, and where and how badly she could be mutilated this time, that it seems almost perverse to want her kicked out of the C5 by a disgruntled lover who flipped his lid then popped it straight back on again.

Has there been anything like it at any time in history (or even fictional drama), where a mutilating fiend's work has been anticipated (Martha); jumped on and exploited - poorly (Liz); copied but modified (Kate - I can't believe it's come to this); and completely upstaged and exaggerated (Mary), by several one-off killers with personal grudges against one particular prostitute? Shakespeare is surely turning in his grave at the thought of how he could have worked that little lot into a believable tragedy. Perhaps he'd have made it a tragi-comedy.

Wow, Caz, what a post. Tell 'em like it is.

[Observer]

Hi Lynn

I'm not a great believer in MJD as the Whitechapel fiend, simply not enough evidence. As you say the big question is MM's reference to his family believing him to be the murderer. What did they have though, if anything it's lost to us now I'm afraid.

all the best

Observer