Canonical or not.

[Michael W Richards]

Since its accurate to say that the real story behind these murders could involve a greater or lesser number than Five by one man referred to as Jack, it seems to be a useless term.

[Harry D]

There are days when I think Rose Mylett might have been a botched Ripper murder. I don't think the use of a ligature in the other murders was categorically ruled out.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

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

Cheers, George

Hi george
stride-peaked cap man suspect who was undoubtedly the ripper seen by other witnesses including at eddowes murder. interupted and not being able to finish he went on to another victim until he did. anon church street sighting of peaked cap man in between the two. same time, place victimology MO etc.

coles-was probably killed by her boyfreind stadler in a drunken rage. too far out in time to others. not an interuption because the reason was probably rage from her boyfriend and no intention at mutilations.

[JeffHamm]

As a quick short-cut to refer to the murders of Nichols through Kelly, canonical is useful as jargon. Everyone here knows which crimes you are referring to when you say "the canonical five". If taken to mean "all and only these five were victims of JtR", it's probably a road-block to both discussions and research. It can, inadvertently, create a bias in how one looks at the cases, more likely to lean in favour of Stride being included because she's included in the canonical list, and more likely to question others, like Tabram or McKenzie, simply because they are not in the list.

While I think it is a good idea to try and find and connect the cases one is most confident about linking, which in my case would be Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly (I'll call those the C4), that shouldn't result in one refusing to consider others. Tabram as a possible early victim (and as Abby has suggested, that makes the attack on Millwood interesting to consider as well), and McKenzie as a possible later victim probably shouldn't be discounted. While McKenzie's mutilations were no where near the extent of the C4 victims, there were medical opinions at the time that she may have been part of the series, though they were not universally held (is anything universally held in JtR?). And, with crimes, there are always situational aspects that we will never know of, that may very well have resulted in that difference (i.e. he had a different knife that night that just wasn't good enough for his purposes; he cut himself this time; he heard someone nearby and left the area; etc). There have been some posts recently about non-fatal attacks that also sound worth considering.

Basically, my view is that it is a bit of "jargon" that is useful during discussions, but it should only be viewed as jargon, not as a "fact" that prevents the exploration of ideas and possibilities.

- Jeff

[Columbo]

I think it depends on the reliability placed on the officials at the time. One says JTR had 5 victims only. Possible? yes but we don't really know the reasoning behind that remark. I would personally put Kelly as the last victim given there were no more victims mutilated to that degree. Coles and Mackenzie? maybe, could be copy cat murders. Tabrams has been considered a JTR victim for quite a number of years, although always on the periphery of being listed with Canonical victims.

Again, a judgement call. Very helpful to consider the other murders, but we'll need more documentation to surface before we know definitively.

[drstrange169]

The problem is the term canonical. It should be the "MacNaughton Five", after all he was never involved in the investigation of any of the five and therefore was no expert on the subject. Too often, Mrs Stride and Mary Kelly are included without question and, even though I personally think they were part of a series, there is genuine reasons to question their inclusion. Mrs Tabram should always be considered, even if only as a catalyst trigger for the actual later killer. How many books have been written with her as only a footnote, if at all. And that's not even mentioning the post five murders or the so called Thames Torso discoveries.

[drstrange169]

PS despite five attempts to edit it, the last post will on let me write "book shave" instead of "books have"!!!

[Dickere]

Can anyone name a genuine copycat killer ? The term is thrown around but does it ever really happen ?

[Kattrup]

Can anyone name a genuine copycat killer ? The term is thrown around but does it ever really happen ?

What would define a copycat killing, do you think?

there was the case of Jane Beadmore, who was killed 1888, her killer stated he'd read about the ripper killings and the prosecution believed he'd tried to mutilate her in a like manner.

Bury could be considered a copycat killer, too, couldn't he?

[drstrange169]

Wasn't the name copycat killer coined to describe murderers copying jtr?

[Abby Normal]

Can anyone name a genuine copycat killer ? The term is thrown around but does it ever really happen ?

not really. ive only heard of one case of a killer trying to make it look like another killer, which rj pointed out to me. someone, i forgot his name, specifically tried to make his murder look like a manson murder.

[Abby Normal]

What would define a copycat killing, do you think?

there was the case of Jane Beadmore, who was killed 1888, her killer stated he'd read about the ripper killings and the prosecution believed he'd tried to mutilate her in a like manner.

Bury could be considered a copycat killer, too, couldn't he?

unless he did it to intentionally look like a ripper murder, than no, i dont think so.

[FrankO]

As a quick short-cut to refer to the murders of Nichols through Kelly, canonical is useful as jargon. Everyone here knows which crimes you are referring to when you say "the canonical five".

That’s how I see it, too, Jeff. For that very reason I don’t think the term "canonical" should be ignored. And beyond that, it’s anybody’s choice of who to include or exclude.

While I think it is a good idea to try and find and connect the cases one is most confident about linking, which in my case would be Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly (I'll call those the C4), that shouldn't result in one refusing to consider others. Tabram as a possible early victim (and as Abby has suggested, that makes the attack on Millwood interesting to consider as well), and McKenzie as a possible later victim probably shouldn't be discounted. While McKenzie's mutilations were no where near the extent of the C4 victims, there were medical opinions at the time that she may have been part of the series, though they were not universally held (is anything universally held in JtR?). And, with crimes, there are always situational aspects that we will never know of, that may very well have resulted in that difference (i.e. he had a different knife that night that just wasn't good enough for his purposes; he cut himself this time; he heard someone nearby and left the area; etc). There have been some posts recently about non-fatal attacks that also sound worth considering.

Of the C5, like yourself, I would include Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. Stride has always been a little more of a question mark for me than Tabram; I find Ada Wilson and especially Annie Millwood very interesting as possible early attacks. For various reasons I’m inclined to exclude McKenzie, but I definitely don’t see Coles as a Ripper victim.

The best,
Frank

[MrBarnett]

That’s how I see it, too, Jeff. For that very reason I don’t think the term "canonical" should be ignored. And beyond that, it’s anybody’s choice of who to include or exclude.


Of the C5, like yourself, I would include Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. Stride has always been a little more of a question mark for me than Tabram; I find Ada Wilson and especially Annie Millwood very interesting as possible early attacks. For various reasons I’m inclined to exclude McKenzie, but I definitely don’t see Coles as a Ripper victim.

The best,
Frank

Hi Frank,

On what basis would you favour Tabram over McKenzie?

Gary

[FrankO]

On what basis would you favour Tabram over McKenzie?

Hi Gary,

A couple things make me lean towards that view.

First, there's the timing of these two murders. Tabram 3 weeks before Nichols, which is in line with the C5, and McKenzie over 7 months after Kelly. And then, an attack like the one on Tabram doesn't seem so off, so shortly before the series commencing with Nichols, while the one on McKenzie does seem too off to me. She was stabbed in the throat rather than cut and the abdominal wounds were far less than even the ones received by Nichols. Of course, I don't rule anything or anybody out (even if I might not see some victim as a Ripper victim), but that's the way I see things.

The best,
Frank