Sugden's Book

[Geddy2112]

I believe that you mean as far as our knowledge of the case is concerned, and if so, he gave the name of Cross at the deposition, so that's what we knew him as until I guess about 25 years ago.
If you mean as far as what he was called in life, he was born as Lechmere, and started to be called Cross when his mother re-married, this time to a man named Cross.

Hi Lewis, kind of, thanks. It was that Sugden referred to him as Cross and there is no mention of a Lechmere anywhere in this book, so I thought I best double check to what he was known as 'pre-theory.'

Trying not to be stupid here but from what you say and the fact he was known as Cross to Sugden (and others) then the whole 'false-name' thing is rather erm.. pants.

[Michael W Richards]

Sugdens book is one of the best of the genre, but not without its presumptions, biases and acceptance of some unproven theories. I dont recall ever reading a Ripper book that didnt have some of the unproven and conjecture based assumptives as its skeleton. It appears that anyone can write about the cases, but everyone must stick to the presumptions that the study is based upon.

One book comes to mind that was brave enough to take some of those foundation presumptions head on. Deconstructing Jack, by Simon Wood. If you want to know about these cases you have to start by knowing both what has been presumed, and also what has no factual foundation.

I would recommend any good book, but for Ripper students, the ones that dont start by telling you why they chose so-and-so as a primary suspect would be best to read only once youve read the books based on the facts first. You can sort out some of that by reading Simons book.

The actual Facts about Jack are very few and far between, its the myth and the legend that fills in any gaps.

But be aware......none knows if Pollys killer was simply one of the men who first finds her, no-one knows for sure what time Annie was killed or if he really did target any specific organs, no-one knows why Liz Stride isnt cut up if she died by a Rippers hands, and people just assume that Kates extensive injuries are a result of his being frustrated with not completing the Stride killing to his satisfaction. No-one knows where Mary Kelly actually came from, whether her name was in fact Mary Kelly since birth, what time it was when she was last seen outdoors, and if its for sure her in that bed when found. There are scores of other details that have been presumed to mean one thing, when they may in fact mean something quite opposite.

Like presuming Liz Stride was killed by Jack the Ripper.

Much of the foundations established over the years are based on presumptions, guesswork and bolstered by studies of modern serial killers. Which is ironic...because with Jack the Ripper, one cannot even state exactly how many women he actually did kill.....its presumed that it was enough to qualify as a serial killer, but the Canonical Group is just a presumed list of victims. Jack the Ripper, for all we really know, might be a completely fictional character created by the press, and created to explain what the police and medical authorities could not. Why all these women were killed.

[c.d.]

Like presuming Liz Stride was killed by Jack the Ripper.

Or presuming that she was not for that matter.

but the Canonical Group is just a presumed list of victims.

You constantly site this but has anyone ever claimed that is an established fact?

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Like presuming Liz Stride was killed by Jack the Ripper.

Or presuming that she was not for that matter.

but the Canonical Group is just a presumed list of victims.

You constantly site this but has anyone ever claimed that is an established fact?

c.d.

They are some of the predominant "beliefs" here arent they cd? Did you think I just made that up? That kind of assumptive reasoning has been the bane of the truth seekers from the study's outset, because it allows people to take too many steps ahead and ask Who was Jack, when they really havent had enough evidence to understand who and how many this Jack guy even killed. We have people writing Suspect based books using a foundation premise that is at this point in time still just pure conjecture.

[c.d.]

No, I don't think you made that up. But again, does anyone site those as an established fact?

And don't you yourself engage in assumptive reasoning, i.e., Stride was not mutilated so therefore she was not a Ripper victim? Or the assumption that club members needed to protect their livelihoods so they engaged in a cover up? Those are mere assumptions are they not? So it seems that you are not immune from that type of reasoning.

c.d.

[c.d.]

A belief can be predominant and still be correct. It can also be wrong. So it only tells us that it is predominant.

c.d.

[Lewis C]

Sudgen wasn't really a proponent of the Canonical Five. Here's what he said on page 359: "So how many women did Jack the Ripper strike down? There is no simple answer. In a sentence: at least four, probably six, just possibly eight." He seems to think that Stride and Tabram are about equally likely to be Ripper victims.

[Fiver]

Jack the Ripper, for all we really know, might be a completely fictional character created by the press, and created to explain what the police and medical authorities could not. Why all these women were killed.

The Jack the Ripper persona was probably created by the press and bore little to no resemblance to the personality of the actual killer. But it was not created to explain why the women were murdered, it was created to sell more newspapers.

[Fiver]

They are some of the predominant "beliefs" here arent they cd? Did you think I just made that up? That kind of assumptive reasoning has been the bane of the truth seekers from the study's outset, because it allows people to take too many steps ahead and ask Who was Jack, when they really havent had enough evidence to understand who and how many this Jack guy even killed. We have people writing Suspect based books using a foundation premise that is at this point in time still just pure conjecture.

I have seen no evidence that the C5 is the predominant view on this website. It doesn't seem to have been the predominant view among the police of the time.

And plenty of suspect based books aren't based on the C5 theory, either. Many go out of their way to extend the victim list well beyond Dew's seven victims or Reid's nine. Others drop members of the C5 because it doesn't fit their theory.