c3 or not?

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Glenn!

But on a whole the whole canon concept is misleading, since the killer is unidentified and we will never really know the real number.

Exactly to the point!

All the best
Jukka

[Dan Norder]

I admit some parts of his post may be extreme - and naturally I don't believe the Ripper killed as few as one or two - but on the whole I agree with what he says.

Maybe it's an English as a second language thing causing you to choose words you don't mean, but disagreeing with his main point (the one he insists is reality despite nobody else agreeing with him) isn't agreeing "on the whole" with him, and "I absolutely agree with everything in your last post" was simply out and out wrong. But I'm glad to see you clarified things.

[Sox]

For a killer who was never caught, or identified, then you have to look beyond the C5 I think. Serial killers do change, they do 'evolve' so there are many possibilities, such as torso murders etc. I mean, who knows, after the death of Mary Kelly the killer could have found himself a place of his own where he could be 'alone' with his victims. When so much time has elapsed, I would think that it is almost impossible to tell, speculation and conjecture is the best we can hope for.

Personally, I would look beyond Mary Kelly for more victims of this killer. Liz Stride will forever remain the mystery victim, because she could have been the victim of a mugging/assault just as easily as she could well have been attacked by Jack and him been disturbed.

[Sarah]

I'm more of a believer of the canonical 5 myself. I just think that to say that these women who were killed in similar ways were the work of different people is a bit unbelieveable. The only one who may not have been the work of the same ma in my eyes is Liz but even then I think it may well have been. Just my thoughts.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

True, Rob. Nothing worse than a loose canon

And loose it is.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Just to clarify again on the use of this word "canon". The closest definition in Merian-Webster that applies to the usage here is: "the authentic works of a writer c: a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works"

The author in this case being the killer. "Sanctioned or accepted body of related works" implies "generally accepted by experts in the field".

Given the definition of "canon", it is ridiculous to debate a canonic 3 or a canonic 1, because the majority of experts who have studied the case over the years have generally agreed on a canonic 5. When I say the "majority of experts" I am not talking about the people on these boards. On casebook, I would say the casebook canon may be more like 4 because there seems to be so much debate about Stride (which I personally strongly disagree with).

But please dont throw around the word canon if you are going to use it incorrectly.

Rob H

Well, the number of victims "genreally accepted by experts in the field" isn't really as generally accepted today as they were ten years ago. And I am not talking about the Casebook boards either. Most experts actually tend to move towards a non-canonical approach, where the number of victims vary from three up to ten or eleven.
The canon of five isn't really a valid expression today. I agree with people like Stewart Evans who've said that there can't really be a canon in a series of 120 year old unsolved murders where the killer is not caught and can tell us about it.

In short, the canon of five shouldn't have been introduced in the first place since it's a faulty construction. It is actually ludicrous to accept any canon at all, especially when two of the most distinguished researchers in the field no longer subscribe to the canonic 5 (one of them has said he only can be sure of a C3 - if you really press him - and the other one I think might consider a C4).
In any case, a C3 is far more realistic and accurate than a C5.
But on a whole the whole canon concept is misleading, since the killer is unidentified and we will never really know the real number.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

So you think the Ripper killed maybe one person, perhaps two? Come on Glenn, you may be stubborn and ignorant with how real world non-fictional serial killers actually operate, but you're not insane.

I think maybe you just assumed he was pushing the same three victims you do and decided to chime in without reading it. But, by all means, if you've now started moving onto seriously considering that the Ripper possibly had less than one whole victim, please do give us more information on how you think that would work. It'd be amusing.

I admit some parts of his post may be extreme - and naturally I don't believe the Ripper killed as few as one or two - but on the whole I agree with what he says.

These are the parts I especially agree support wholeheartedly:

"You are doing what Bond did, who only examined one victim himself....and Macnaughten, and others...you are attributing victims to an unknown killer "Jack" without proof there even was a "Jack", or that he killed 5 and only these 5 "Canon" women.

"The Whitechapel Murderer" is a headline...so is "Jack the Ripper". A nomme de plume. 5 women were killed, some very similarly. Martha was the actual start of the real panic,...and she is not even thought to be a "Ripper" victim. Starting with a proven foundation at least gives you an objective view of each case, and in this case all that has been proven is that the women were murdered in the same neighbourhoods in the Fall of 88."

I know Michael at times can be extreme in his views, but to me the above is very sound objective reasoning and I can't really argue against it.

I also agree with him that your analogies are starting to get a teeny weeny bit tiresome, since I doubt that anyone besides yourself really understands them or find them relevant.

All the best

[Sam Flynn]

But please dont throw around the word canon if you are going to use it incorrectly.

True, Rob. Nothing worse than a loose canon

[robhouse]

Just to clarify again on the use of this word "canon". The closest definition in Merian-Webster that applies to the usage here is: "the authentic works of a writer c: a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works"

The author in this case being the killer. "Sanctioned or accepted body of related works" implies "generally accepted by experts in the field".

Given the definition of "canon", it is ridiculous to debate a canonic 3 or a canonic 1, because the majority of experts who have studied the case over the years have generally agreed on a canonic 5. When I say the "majority of experts" I am not talking about the people on these boards. On casebook, I would say the casebook canon may be more like 4 because there seems to be so much debate about Stride (which I personally strongly disagree with).

But please dont throw around the word canon if you are going to use it incorrectly.

Rob H

[Sam Flynn]

Mike,

I've pointed out previously that we should only focus on those variables that were within the killer's direct control. The location and whether or not the victim owed rent, or was out looking for money to pay for a bed, were not within the killer's direct control.

And, to clarify, "outdoors" is a very broad category. A room is as different from "outdoors" as a densely-populated dwelling's back-yard is from an open street, or a public square.

Three women had their abdomens mutilated post mortem.

Four women had their abdomens mutilated post-mortem.

Two of them had organs taken [removed] from that region.

...and the third had all the organs taken [removed] from that region.

Two had the same organ taken [away].

...one of whom also had a different organ taken [away].

We'd better add: "Two had their faces slashed", for consistency; also: "Two had the flesh from their abdomen removed in three panels or flaps".

Now, to bring this back to Stride, I'll observe that none of the above fit her particularly well - apart from the fact that she was killed outdoors, which, as I see it, is a probable red herring. I'm sure that Jack wouldn't have hesitated to attack a woman in a public lavatory, a church vestry or an empty omnibus, if the opportunity had presented itself.

Hi Dan,

I expected some opinion to the contrary from you...

Funny how all that "varying in style" is the same criminological signature.

A slit throat is the same as uterus extraction? A murder on a sidewalk in a street is the same as a murder in a victims room?

And how often do you think mutilation killers who kill their victims with deep throat slashes show up? If they just happened willy nilly then you should expect clusters of them all over London, not to mention the rest of the world, in three month time spans on a regular basis. It simply doesn't happen except in the rarest of circumstances -- if it did nobody would think twice about the Ripper anyway, as he'd be one of a million such killers.

Deeply cut necks are a feature of these murders, not a flashing sign indicating that one man must have committed them,.. its conceivable that the severity of the wounds just demonstrates that the killer(s) were just ensuring the victims death, without using any special technique or knife. Its a man who didnt know how much force to apply, so he applies more than is required to ensure results. Jack may have cut throats deeply, but that is hardly a "signature".

Now you say there's at best a weak case for there being one victim of Jack the Ripper....? A month or so ago you were crediting at least three -- which is absurdly low, but, hey, at least other people share that idea. Now you're not even really grasping basic math. Let me guess, next month you'll be saying he killed negative three people? Or will you move onto fractions? So Jack killed half of Annie Chapman and then a meteorite falling from the sky did the rest of the damage, while all the others were killed by a pack of rabid giraffes. Great. Brilliant.

I should think that anyone who read what I wrote without having a mindset to then ridicule the remarks, would see that I referred to one of the 5 Canon victims, not that I said there was one victim. I have consistently been of the opinion that 2 or perhaps three women were killed by one man,.....so its not that I dont buy your argument that there was a "Jack" about at the time, just that the leap of faith required to say he committed the 5 "Canon" murders is not something I see as warranted, or prudent.

Three women had their abdomens mutilated post mortem. Two of them had organs taken from that region. Two had the same organ taken. One victim had a single death cut. These were outdoors, while the women were out assumed soliciting for doss money. One victim was barely recognizable as human. She was killed indoors, while undressed and in bed, and she didnt have to pay for her bed that night.

Clearly a single killer? Hardly.

PS.....Thanks Glenn for your post.

Best regards.

[Dan Norder]

Michael/Perry,

I just want to say that I absolutely agree with everything in your last post above.

So you think the Ripper killed maybe one person, perhaps two? Come on Glenn, you may be stubborn and ignorant with how real world non-fictional serial killers actually operate, but you're not insane.

I think maybe you just assumed he was pushing the same three victims you do and decided to chime in without reading it. But, by all means, if you've now started moving onto seriously considering that the Ripper possibly had less than one whole victim, please do give us more information on how you think that would work. It'd be amusing.

[Dan Norder]

Its 5 separate murders, varying in style from a simple execution to a serial killers glut indoors

Funny how all that "varying in style" is the same criminological signature.

carried out within a square mile, in approx 2 1/2 months.

And how often do you think mutilation killers who kill their victims with deep throat slashes show up? If they just happened willy nilly then you should expect clusters of them all over London, not to mention the rest of the world, in three month time spans on a regular basis. It simply doesn't happen except in the rarest of circumstances -- if it did nobody would think twice about the Ripper anyway, as he'd be one of a million such killers.

But there is no evidence available at this time that dictates the killings were "serial", and the motivation was bloodlust in these 5 murders.

Ignoring evidence doesn't mean there isn't any.

Objectively speaking, there is at best a weak case made for one, and perhaps 2 Canon victims to-date. And no sound case at all for one man killing these 5 only. Thats the reality.

Now you say there's at best a weak case for there being one victim of Jack the Ripper....? A month or so ago you were crediting at least three -- which is absurdly low, but, hey, at least other people share that idea. Now you're not even really grasping basic math. Let me guess, next month you'll be saying he killed negative three people? Or will you move onto fractions? So Jack killed half of Annie Chapman and then a meteorite falling from the sky did the rest of the damage, while all the others were killed by a pack of rabid giraffes. Great. Brilliant.

[DVV]

1)The killer of these women had a knife and cut their throats (from behind).
Sasha

Hello Sasha,
There is no evidence at all that he cut the throat "from behind".
On the contrary, it's very likely that this was done after the victim was lowered to the ground.
Amitiés,
David

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Michael/Perry,

I just want to say that I absolutely agree with everything in your last post above.

All the best