c3 or not?

[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

[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

[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]

True, Rob. Nothing worse than a loose canon

And loose it is.

All the best

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[Supe]

Rob,

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

Like it or not, through usage words and phrases take on meanings of their own quite different from what the dictionary may say. Whatever may have been intended when first used, "the canonical 5" (or canonic 5, which I prefer as it is shorter and brevity is ever an editor's friend) is now generally only short-hand for "Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly", a quintet who not only share some similarities as to the manner of their murders, but have been by far the most studied of all the East End victims in 1888.

As such, a C3 or C6 or whatever else would be most inappropriate. At the same time, I find attempts to argue overaround the literal definition of canonic to be quite misleading. The term canonic 5 ought be left as a convenient way to describe those victims whose deaths have been most studied and terms of the arguments switched to debating how many victims in 1888 (of which we know) might be ascribed to the same person or persons.

As an alternate, the "Macnaghten 5" has been suggested, but it is a bit of a mouthful and spelling Melville's surname correctly is a challenge for may. Of course, the old Great Lakes mnemonic HOMES (Huron, Ontario, Michigan, Erie and Superior) could be applied and the canonic 5 then called NECKS, but there is a certain inelegance to the term--especially sinde they all did have their necks sliced open.

Don.

[Bailey]

Rob,

Of course, the old Great Lakes mnemonic HOMES (Huron, Ontario, Michigan, Erie and Superior) could be applied and the canonic 5 then called NECKS, but there is a certain inelegance to the term--especially sinde they all did have their necks sliced open.

Don.

Don, that's superb! From now on and henceforth, let the C5 be known as the NECKS! It may arguably be a little tasteless, but I love it.

Wow, maybe there's a new theory behind the reason for the killings there, albeit one that points to a suspect with dyslexia.

B.

[caz]

To suggest that they should all be attributed to "Jack" because we know he was killing at that time is, at best, a lynch mob mentality Caz...

...Perhaps you think Jacks throat cuts were "like no other"... well, Im certain thats very subjective, and untrue. His were vicious cuts, but they were made by a man and a knife,....and as such could have been any man who was the type to carry a sharp knife on him and was provoked or encouraged to use it, in his own mind of course.
There were no signs anything other than her death was on her killers mind. And that sounds like JtR?...

Do you deliberately miss the point, Perry, so you can aim one below the belt? Lynch mob mentality? What the hell’s that all about?

I wasn’t suggesting they should ‘all’ be attributed to Jack. I was suggesting that you can’t eliminate Jack from the Berner St murder by arguing that any man carrying a sharp knife who could be provoked into using it against a woman could have done it. That would necessarily include Jack, as the one man you know was out on the streets that night using a sharp knife on a woman in an unprovoked attack not fifteen minutes’ walk away and not an hour after Liz was attacked.

Please don’t use quote marks round “like no other” if I have never even suggested that Jack’s throat cuts were unique: it can be highly misleading.

If Liz’s death was on her killer’s mind, of course that sounds like Jack: he was wise to render his victims dead before he could safely mutilate them in such a built up area.

He would also have been strongly advised to render one dead if she had got a good look at him (he may also have chatted up Liz earlier the same night, for instance, and been rebuffed) and may have suspected him of being the WM. He would not have gone on to mutilate anyone unless all the circumstances had felt right. Since all the circumstances would arguably not have felt right in this case (two witnesses possibly fetching a copper/busy club with members who could disturb a killer at any moment) why would you expect any outward signs beyond the murder itself?

I could not safely eliminate Jack on that basis. I doubt the fictional Perry Mason would have done either.

Love,

Caz
X

[robhouse]

"the canonical 5" (or canonic 5, which I prefer as it is shorter and brevity is ever an editor's friend) is now generally only short-hand for "Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly", a quintet who not only share some similarities as to the manner of their murders, but have been by far the most studied of all the East End victims in 1888.

As such, a C3 or C6 or whatever else would be most inappropriate.

Don.

I agree with this completely, and this is basically exactly what I was saying. You can disagree with the canonic 5, but you cannot argue there is no canonic five.

Rob

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Yes, you can - and should - argue against ANY canon, since there cannot be a canon in a murder series happening 120 years ago, and where the killer wasn't identified. What you can say is who you believe is most likely to be included in the series but in a 120 year old unsolved murder case there can be no 'generally accepted' victims or a 'canon'.

All the best

[joelhall]

Yes, you can - and should - argue against ANY canon, since there cannot be a canon in a murder series happening 120 years ago, and where the killer wasn't indentified. What you can say is who you believe is most liekly to be included in the series but in a 120 year old unsolved murder case there can be no 'generally accpeted' victims or a 'canon'.

All the best

precisely. if they are a 'canon' (taken from the art world), then it means they are accepted as being by the same hand.

whilst there are many who feel comfortable with the c5, out of interest has there ever been a serial killer like jack? with as many differences & discrepancies? reading through books on serial killers, ive never seen any which matches this style of murder.

[cknapp]

Tabrum,nichols,Chapman,Eddowes,kelly.
Stride was a random killing.