Sir Robert Anderson's sixth victim

[Holmes' Idiot Brother]

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.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

[Lewis C]

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.

Yes, and that isn't the only problem with the memorandum.

I don't think that the question of whether or not Tabram was a Ripper murder has affected judging suspects much. Can anyone name a viable suspect whose strength as a suspect is affected by whether or not Tabram was a Ripper murder? I can't. However, whether or not McKenzie was a Ripper victim is important, as there are several viable Ripper suspects who could not have been the Ripper if McKenzie was a Ripper victim.

[Tom_Wescott]

For what it's worth, Anderson counted McKenzie as a Ripper victim for several years, until at some point in the 1890s. Possibly the same with Coles. I believe what changed his mind was something he learned relating to his favored suspect, Kosminski. Same, of course, with Macnaghten re: Druitt. It had nothing to do with the crime scene evidence itself. The canonical 5 is a modern myth created and perpetuated by Ripper authors. It has no historical bearing. Some of the doctors had as few as three in their count, and Arnold discounted Eddowes. Thomas Bond is often mistakenly attributed with a C5 belief, based on his report written following Kelly's murder, but he was certain McKenzie was a Ripper victim. I'm unsure of his opinion on Coles.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[The Rookie Detective]

For what it's worth, Anderson counted McKenzie as a Ripper victim for several years, until at some point in the 1890s. Possibly the same with Coles. I believe what changed his mind was something he learned relating to his favored suspect, Kosminski. Same, of course, with Macnaghten re: Druitt. It had nothing to do with the crime scene evidence itself. The canonical 5 is a modern myth created and perpetuated by Ripper authors. It has no historical bearing. Some of the doctors had as few as three in their count, and Arnold discounted Eddowes. Thomas Bond is often mistakenly attributed with a C5 belief, based on his report written following Kelly's murder, but he was certain McKenzie was a Ripper victim. I'm unsure of his opinion on Coles.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Excellent post Tom, pure class as always.