Canonical or not.

[harry]

Should we Ignore the term Canonical?It was after all, the opinion of one person that only five murders were committed by one individual.Many sources at the time were of the opinion that several other murders could be included to that person,and I agree.The following diagram refers to nine Whitechapel murders.

[harry]

Not a good illustration,but it's from an old publication.

[John Wheat]

Hi Harry
I think the Canonical is a good place to start. I don't personally believe a suspect should be ruled out because they couldn't have committed a non canonical murder.

Cheers John

[GBinOz]

Hi Harry,

It's generally accepted that there were 11 Whitechapel murders. Which two are you excluding?

Cheers, George

[MrBarnett]

Hi Harry,

It's generally accepted that there were 11 Whitechapel murders. Which two are you excluding?

Cheers, George

It looks like it includes Tabram, McKenzie, Coles and possibly the mythical ‘Fairy Fay’, which added to the C5 make 9. So that leaves out Mylett, the Pinchin Street victim and Smith unless she’s been confused with Fairy Fay.

[harry]

Well I am not excluding anyone.Nine is the number included in the illustration,but as John writes the cannonical can be a starting point.Even eleven can be added to ,if there is suffcient reason.Obviously there are those who believe a lesser number might be the answer.I believe the cannonical has no real meaning,it being the opinion of one person,who does not give a satisfying account of why that should be so.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree that there’s no definitive answer Harry and so the 5 certainly aren’t set in stone. My own opinion is that I feel strongly that Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were victims and that Stride very possibly was. I’m more doubtful on Tabram than Mackenzie. I’d probably put Coles less likely than Mackenzie but in the same bracket as Tabram. But there are attacks that might have been failed attempts - the one recently mentioned on here (with the polished coins.) Next week I might have altered my opinion slightly though

[Ms Diddles]

Hi Harry
I think the Canonical is a good place to start. I don't personally believe a suspect should be ruled out because they couldn't have committed a non canonical murder.

Cheers John

I'm with you on this, John!

The canon can be helpful in certain contexts to simplify matters or narrow our focus a bit, but there's too much uncertainty regarding who is and who isn't a victim to allow us to categorically rule any suspect in or out on that basis.

Harry makes a good point.

It's merely the subjective opinion of one man, so it's use as a construct is extremely limited.

[Dickere]

It's one of the big things that mean we cannot eliminate if we cannot even be sure of victims and timelines, sadly.

[Darryl Kenyon]

The trouble with the C5 is that most documentary makers invariably see the five as JTR victims and those five only and barely mention, if at all Martha, Emma etc .
So it can leave an incomplete picture.
Regards Darryl

[Abby Normal]

well its a good place to start, as inmho as a bare min these five should be included, but personally i have a c7 including tabram and mckenzie. i lean heavily that these two were also ripper victims. And Millwood as an early botched attempt who survived.

smith, mylett and coles are too iffy for me and probably werent ripper victims.

[GBinOz]

well its a good place to start, as inmho as a bare min these five should be included, but personally i have a c7 including tabram and mckenzie. i lean heavily that these two were also ripper victims. And Millwood as an early botched attempt who survived.

smith, mylett and coles are too iffy for me and probably werent ripper victims.

Hi Abby,

What is your reason for including Stride but excluding Coles. Aren't they both "interupted " victims?

Cheers, George

[drstrange169]

I think the term has hampered research over the years.

[Fisherman]

I think the term has hampered research over the years.

I couldnīt agree more. The simple ground rule is that when we in a defined geographical area and time have inclusions like cutting people open from pubes to ribs and retrieving organs from them, we are most probably dealing with the same killer in all of these cases.

It really is no harder than that. But MacNaghten has made it a whole lot harder over the years, setting research and understanding back.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We also have to remember that it’s far from impossible that MacNaghten was correct though. That said, it was just his own opinion. His boss Munro (a man that he greatly respected) believed that Mackenzie was a victim so he was disagreeing with him. Mac might have dismissed Mackenzie purely on the grounds that he suspected Druitt of course. All of that said, all deserve to be looked into.