Sir Robert Anderson's sixth victim

[etenguy]

I was reading the thread 'take your pick' concerning who Anderson's witness at the seaside home identification might have been. It caused me to go back and read some of Sir Robert Anderson's memoirs (the lighter side of my official life). It might be this is a well known issue by casebook members, but I was surprised when reading that Anderson states there were six victims, not the usual canonical five. He does not name the victims, so it is not clear who the sixth victim is, other than it was before Mary Ann Nichols' murder. Is he the only police official to go beyond the canonical five and do we know who his sixth victim was?

Extract to which I refer below - my comments in italics:
But this was not all. The second of the crimes known as the Whitechapel murders was committed the night before I took office (which was the night of Mary Ann Nichols murder), and the third occurred the night of the day on which I left London (the night of Annie Chapman's murder). The newspapers soon began to comment on my absence. And letters from Whitehall decided me to spend the last week of my holiday in Paris, that I might be in touch with my office. On the night of my arrival in the French capital two more victims fell to the knife of the murder-fiend (Liz Stride and Catherine Eddowes); and next day's post brought me an urgent appeal from Mr. Matthews to return to London ; and of course I complied.
(He later address the Mary Jane Kelly murder)

[Holmes' Idiot Brother]

I was reading the thread 'take your pick' concerning who Anderson's witness at the seaside home identification might have been. It caused me to go back and read some of Sir Robert Anderson's memoirs (the lighter side of my official life). It might be this is a well known issue by casebook members, but I was surprised when reading that Anderson states there were six victims, not the usual canonical five. He does not name the victims, so it is not clear who the sixth victim is, other than it was before Mary Ann Nichols' murder. Is he the only police official to go beyond the canonical five and do we know who his sixth victim was?

Extract to which I refer below - my comments in italics:
But this was not all. The second of the crimes known as the Whitechapel murders was committed the night before I took office (which was the night of Mary Ann Nichols murder), and the third occurred the night of the day on which I left London (the night of Annie Chapman's murder). The newspapers soon began to comment on my absence. And letters from Whitehall decided me to spend the last week of my holiday in Paris, that I might be in touch with my office. On the night of my arrival in the French capital two more victims fell to the knife of the murder-fiend (Liz Stride and Catherine Eddowes); and next day's post brought me an urgent appeal from Mr. Matthews to return to London ; and of course I complied.
(He later address the Mary Jane Kelly murder)

I think it's reasonable to posit that Martha Tabram is Anderson's sixth victim. Although the wounds on her were different, every other box is ticked with regards to similarities to ol Jack.

[etenguy]

I think it's reasonable to posit that Martha Tabram is Anderson's sixth victim. Although the wounds on her were different, every other box is ticked with regards to similarities to ol Jack.

That would be my first guess. I have been looking back at some police officials view of who should be counted as a victim of the Whitechapel murderer and there is of course some variation between them. I had always thought though, wrongly it seems, that Anderson signed up to the canonical five, and that was in my mind when reading the take your pick thread. But if Anderson thought there were six, does that change anything?

[Holmes' Idiot Brother]

That would be my first guess. I have been looking back at some police officials view of who should be counted as a victim of the Whitechapel murderer and there is of course some variation between them. I had always thought though, wrongly it seems, that Anderson signed up to the canonical five, and that was in my mind when reading the take your pick thread. But if Anderson thought there were six, does that change anything?

I give very little credence to McNaughten's canonical five. The man was a desk jockey who wasn't even on the force when the Ripper was doing his thing. IMHO, Jack killed at least 5, probably 6, and a strong argument can be made for not counting Liz Stride as a Ripper victim.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think that Tabram is the likely candidate as Anderson’s 6th but I’m certain that he never made it clear who he meant. If I was asked how many Jack killed I think that the fairest that I could say would be between 4 and 7. With the question marked ones being Tabram, Stride and Mackenzie. Saying that, Coles is a tricky one. The time gap introduces a doubt but if we can suggest Stride as an interrupted throat-cutting then why can’t we allow the same for Coles? Granted the murder of Eddowes minutes later adds to the suggestion of it being a ripper murder. And then…when do we stop attributing any female throat-cutting murder as “one of Jack’s.”

[etenguy]

I think that Tabram is the likely candidate as Anderson’s 6th but I’m certain that he never made it clear who he meant. If I was asked how many Jack killed I think that the fairest that I could say would be between 4 and 7. With the question marked ones being Tabram, Stride and Mackenzie. Saying that, Coles is a tricky one. The time gap introduces a doubt but if we can suggest Stride as an interrupted throat-cutting then why can’t we allow the same for Coles? Granted the murder of Eddowes minutes later adds to the suggestion of it being a ripper murder. And then…when do we stop attributing any female throat-cutting murder as “one of Jack’s.”

Thanks Herlock - it was the thread you started 'take your pick' that sent me looking at just what Anderson said. The reason I thought the sixth victim might be important once I realised Anderson did not restrict himself to the canonical five, is how that impacts the question you asked about Anderson's witness. Might it be related to the sixth victim? If Martha Tabram is the sixth - might it be pearly poll for instance (no it couldn't for other reasons, not least she was not jewish). I don't think it does add to the cast of possibles for the witness but it sent me down that rabbit hole.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks Herlock - it was the thread you started 'take your pick' that sent me looking at just what Anderson said. The reason I thought the sixth victim might be important once I realised Anderson did not restrict himself to the canonical five, is how that impacts the question you asked about Anderson's witness. Might it be related to the sixth victim? If Martha Tabram is the sixth - might it be pearly poll for instance (no it couldn't for other reasons, not least she was not jewish). I don't think it does add to the cast of possibles for the witness but it sent me down that rabbit hole.

There’s always an interesting tangent to look at Eten and you never know, along one of these tangents might be something that we’ve all missed so far.

[JeffHamm]

I would think Andersen must be referring to Tabram as his 6th victim. He refers to Nichols as the 2nd and Chapman's the 3rd, and Tabram's murder is the only other similar murder prior to Nichols. Smith's murder, while horrific, is of quite a different nature, in that she reports being attacked by a group of men, and she died from injuries that may not have been intended to kill her, while Tabram was clearly intended to be murdered.

Also, he refers to them as the "Whitechapel murders", and so those are the cases in the file, not necessarily the ones he thinks are linked by a common hand. If so, he appears to have forgotten about the Smith case.

We know he doesn't think all of the Whitechapel murder cases were committed by JtR, as he discounts McKenzie, referring to it as a common murder and not one by a sexual maniac. Many years ago, due to discussions that were then on going, I put together a bit looking at questions around the broken pipe that Andersen mentions in one quote about lost clues. Part of his quote implies he means the pipe found in Mary Kellys Room, and so this quote was being used to implicate Barnett as a suspect. While the main issue surrounding the pipe is tangential to this, I had a re-read of it just now because the thread reminded me of it as the article also involves the McKenzie murder and whether or not Andersen included her as a JtR victim. I was curious to go back and see what I said back then. And unsurprisingly, issues of memory, and so forth, were as important then as now. Regardless, I had also ended up concluding that Andersen excluded McKenzie even though aspects around the pipe exploration could lead one to conclude the opposite.

- Jeff

[Fiver]

I was reading the thread 'take your pick' concerning who Anderson's witness at the seaside home identification might have been. It caused me to go back and read some of Sir Robert Anderson's memoirs (the lighter side of my official life). It might be this is a well known issue by casebook members, but I was surprised when reading that Anderson states there were six victims, not the usual canonical five. He does not name the victims, so it is not clear who the sixth victim is, other than it was before Mary Ann Nichols' murder. Is he the only police official to go beyond the canonical five and do we know who his sixth victim was?

Extract to which I refer below - my comments in italics:
But this was not all. The second of the crimes known as the Whitechapel murders was committed the night before I took office (which was the night of Mary Ann Nichols murder), and the third occurred the night of the day on which I left London (the night of Annie Chapman's murder). The newspapers soon began to comment on my absence. And letters from Whitehall decided me to spend the last week of my holiday in Paris, that I might be in touch with my office. On the night of my arrival in the French capital two more victims fell to the knife of the murder-fiend (Liz Stride and Catherine Eddowes); and next day's post brought me an urgent appeal from Mr. Matthews to return to London ; and of course I complied.
(He later address the Mary Jane Kelly murder)

Nice find.

MeNaughton's views were anything but universal.

* Reid thought there were 9 victims killed between 1888 and 1892. That appears to dismiss Kosminki and definitely dismissed Druitt. In 1912 he said nobody knew who the Ripper was, specifically dismissing all of McNaughton's suspects.
* Arnold though there were only 4 victims.
* Dew thought that Emma Smith and Martha Tabram were Ripper victims. He had no suspect.

Most other police did not say how many victims they thought there were.

[etenguy]

Nice find.

MeNaughton's views were anything but universal.

* Reid thought there were 9 victims killed between 1888 and 1892. That appears to dismiss Kosminki and definitely dismissed Druitt. In 1912 he said nobody knew who the Ripper was, specifically dismissing all of McNaughton's suspects.
* Arnold though there were only 4 victims.
* Dew thought that Emma Smith and Martha Tabram were Ripper victims. He had no suspect.

Most other police did not say how many victims they thought there were.

Thanks Fiver

That's all true of course, but I had it in my head that Anderson, Swanson, McNaughton and Abberline all favoured the canonical five. My mistake.

[etenguy]

I would think Andersen must be referring to Tabram as his 6th victim. He refers to Nichols as the 2nd and Chapman's the 3rd, and Tabram's murder is the only other similar murder prior to Nichols. Smith's murder, while horrific, is of quite a different nature, in that she reports being attacked by a group of men, and she died from injuries that may not have been intended to kill her, while Tabram was clearly intended to be murdered.

Hi Jeff
I agree, Martha Tabram must be the most likely contender for Anderson's first ripper victim.

We know he doesn't think all of the Whitechapel murder cases were committed by JtR, as he discounts McKenzie, referring to it as a common murder and not one by a sexual maniac. Many years ago, due to discussions that were then on going, I put together a bit looking at questions around the broken pipe that Andersen mentions in one quote about lost clues. Part of his quote implies he means the pipe found in Mary Kellys Room, and so this quote was being used to implicate Barnett as a suspect. While the main issue surrounding the pipe is tangential to this, I had a re-read of it just now because the thread reminded me of it as the article also involves the McKenzie murder and whether or not Andersen included her as a JtR victim. I was curious to go back and see what I said back then. And unsurprisingly, issues of memory, and so forth, were as important then as now. Regardless, I had also ended up concluding that Andersen excluded McKenzie even though aspects around the pipe exploration could lead one to conclude the opposite.
- Jeff

A very interesting piece on the broken pipe clue and I find your conclusion neat and compelling in light of the contradictions that result from Andersons statement. The GSG clue that was lost seems straight-forward and reignites my suspicion of Charles Warren's motives.

[Fiver]

Thanks Fiver

That's all true of course, but I had it in my head that Anderson, Swanson, McNaughton and Abberline all favoured the canonical five. My mistake.

I once had that impression as well. There's always more to learn about history.

Here's what some of the police thought.

MeNaughton's views were anything but universal.

* Abberline dismissed Kosminski and Druitt as suspects. He favored George Chapman, but said nobody knew for sure.
* Littlechild favored Tumblety and appears to have dismissed all of McNaughton's suspects.
* Smith said none of the police knew who the Ripper was and specifically dismissed Kosminski.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff
I agree, Martha Tabram must be the most likely contender for Anderson's first ripper victim.



A very interesting piece on the broken pipe clue and I find your conclusion neat and compelling in light of the contradictions that result from Andersons statement. The GSG clue that was lost seems straight-forward and reignites my suspicion of Charles Warren's motives.

Thanks. I recall enjoying working on it as the conflicts between the various statements seemed to require some sort of explanation. I am sure there are other ways one could try to bring things together, but I felt what I presented was tidy and uncomplicated. And being a simple fellow, I like simple answers.

- Jeff

[Holmes' Idiot Brother]

I once had that impression as well. There's always more to learn about history.

Here's what some of the police thought.

MeNaughton's views were anything but universal.

* Abberline dismissed Kosminski and Druitt as suspects. He favored George Chapman, but said nobody knew for sure.
* Littlechild favored Tumblety and appears to have dismissed all of McNaughton's suspects.
* Smith said none of the police knew who the Ripper was and specifically dismissed Kosminski.

Well said! While the "Canonical Five" is a convenient place-holder, especially for interested parties new to the case, it is clear to us "old-timers" that McNaughton's list was certainly not the be-all/end-all of police suspects. In the future, I would like to see less emphasis and credence given to McNaughton by the public and more attention given to investigators who actually worked for the Metropolitan Police at the time and who were on the ground doing the actual work.

[The Rookie Detective]

Well said! While the "Canonical Five" is a convenient place-holder, especially for interested parties new to the case, it is clear to us "old-timers" that McNaughton's list was certainly not the be-all/end-all of police suspects. In the future, I would like to see less emphasis and credence given to McNaughton by the public and more attention given to investigators who actually worked for the Metropolitan Police at the time and who were on the ground doing the actual work.

The inclusion of 'Ostrog' on the list; tells us everything we need to know.


Over the decades, the idea of the "Canonical 5" has arguably been one of the biggest hindrances to the case as a whole. It promotes a shallow minded approach and acts to restrict the idea of looking at the case from varying perspectives.