If we ignore the "McNaughton Five" for a moment...

[johns]

If a female teenager in a gang of males offered a friend a five-knuckle shuffle in return for some of his beer or cigarettes, would that make her a "prostitute" and him a "client"?

My word Sam, I didn't know you had visited my area recently. lol

[Mitch Rowe]

I can ignore his five and still pick the same five.

Im sure like me you already have. I only agree with Macnaghten... He only confirms my suspicion.

[Fisherman]

Phil H writes:

"I do think that the "standard list" of JtR victims could change, even though Macnaghten's version remains on the record, though differently perceived."

Very true, Phil - the latest votes on Casebook on, for example, Liz Stride and Martha Tabram would elucidate that. They are currently at 63-37 in favor of Stride belonging to Jacks tally, whereas Tabram stands in 70-30 as a true Ripper victim. Fifteen, twenty years ago, those figures would have been more like 95-5 and 5-95!

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

Coming belatedly to this post, the answer to the question, "who can change the canonical list?" must surely be:

Anyone with sufficient knowledge, presteige, balls, arrogance and public prominence to gain widespread acceptance.

That would not change Macnaghten's list (per se) that has standing because it is on the official file and because of who he was. But if Anderson or Swanson had left their lists (different ones maybe) on an official file, or maybe Abberline or Munro, would we accept Macnagten's as final? After all, macn only arrived AFTER the "autumn of terror" - the others were part of it.

Also, I think the way in which MacN's list came to light - at much the same time as confirmation of his three suspects - on the official file added to the way it was perceived. it has become a conventional wisdom, but that can be changed.

potentially, IMHO, an author like Sugden or Begg, putting a different list in a definitive book, with convincing arguments as to why (together perhaps with new, or differently perceived, evidence) COULD make people use a different list as the standard one. It would not be easy, but it could be done, especially as new generations of authors and students emerge.

Macnaghten's list would always be there, of course, but perhaps as a period curiousity. That was how it was seen then - now we see it this way.

Just as, at first Macnaghten's list of suspects was given a special consideration. It still warrants it as a major indication of senior police thinking around the time, but we no longer are QUITE so sure of Ostrog, Druitt or Kosminski because MacN doesn't give us the information we need.

Another factor that might bring a changed perception is if we learn or understand more about WHY MacN wrote as he did, and exactly what he was trying to convey - which might not be at it seems.

Finally, to demonstrate that perceptions can change, look at the reputation of Richard III. Not that long ago it was an article of faith that he killed the "Princes" in the Tower, was hunchbacked, murdered his way to a throne - Edward of Lancaster, Henry VI, Clarence, Hastings, his own wife etc. Why? because that's what Shakespear tells us in a vivid immortal drama.

Now, Hastings apart all those killings are no longer placed at Richard's door. reputable history books express doubt about his "badness2 and even about the murder of his nephews. Why?

Because people have made different views known, expressed them cogently, found new evidence, looked at the old with new eyes, questioned, argued and publicised an alternative. They have, I would argue, changed the conventional wisdom.

But Shakespeare's play survives, as does the sainted Thomas' More's "history" and the works of the tudor historians. But all of them are now perceived differently.

So, to conclude, I do think that the "standard list" of JtR victims could change, even though Macnaghten's version remains on the record, though differently perceived.

Phil

[corey123]

David,

I honestly think Tabram should be a canon, but, what a good question, who has the right to change the canon? Who has the right to make one? Definently not Macnaghten.

[m_w_r]

The Macnaghten Five sounds like a jazz quintet.

Mary Kelly singing; Catherine Eddowes on fire engine impressions.

[Robert]

The Macnaghten Five sounds like a jazz quintet.

[Celesta]

Sorry about that, I meant no harm.

A number of people spell it incorrectly. It is a somewhat unusual name and one might expect it to be MacNaghten. Don't worry about an occasional misspelled word.

[DVV]

There is a sentence about Tabram in Paul Begg, the Facts, that says: "She should, perhaps, be placed in the canon."
But when? And by who?
Who has now the authority to change the canon?- which origins are...let's say dubious (Macnaghten, Bond, maybe Knight and the movies he has inspired...).

Amitiés,
David

[sdreid]

I can ignore his five and still pick the same five.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Jeff,

I think your confussing prostitution 'per se' with a modern idea of professional prostitution...

...no, I think almost everybody is confusing what the middle-aged wrecks of Whitechapel did to survive with the modern idea of prostitution. I honestly feel that thinking about them, and Jack, in such terms all-too-often distorts the way in which we look at this case.

[String]

BTW - we can't speak of "these ladies" as if they were all regular prostitutes, because (a) we really don't know that they were, and (b) the social dynamics were rather different back then anyway. For many "unfortunates", the primary driver was doing whatever one could to get a drink or a roof over one's head for one night - in this sense, a sexual favour was a tactic of last resort, employed by ordinary, desperate women as a bargaining chip.

Sorry I didn't mean it come over as a derogatory term, God knows it must have been a hard life for them.

I was just interested in the fact that 4 out of the conical five were murdered outside. Maybe Jack killed them before they got to lodgings or purposely kept them outside. Anyway it's outside the scope of this thread.

[c.d.]

Don't worry, emlodik.
A lot of people spells his name incorrectly; I did that myself in the beginning.

Just thought it should be mentioned, though.

All the best

You're right. Some spells it one way. Some spells it another.

c.d.

[Jeff Leahy]

Think of it like this: If a female teenager in a gang of males offered a friend a five-knuckle shuffle in return for some of his beer or cigarettes, would that make her a "prostitute" and him a "client"?

Yes technically it would. Money may not have changed hands (ho Ho )..but prostitution is the oldest profession in the world..i'm sure they started with the 'barter' system..

I think your confussing prostitution 'per se' with a modern idea of professional prostitution...

What your saying is of course correct Sam, they jsut did what was needed to survive...but it was still prostitution in the correct sense of the word.

Pirate

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Don't worry, emlodik.
A lot of people spells his name incorrectly; I did that myself in the beginning.

Just thought it should be mentioned, though.

All the best