Old books' canonicals

[DVV]

Many thanks again, Stewart, for the info and your comments.
All that old stuff is very interesting, as would be all threads about ripperology's history.

Hi Anna,
I found the above "confusion" quite...lovely!
Who would expect two Stewarts here?
How could a Ripper suspect be called Chapman after he met one Annie Chapman in 1893?

Amitiés,
David

[Stewart P Evans]

OK

I fergot the word "to"
Should have read...."With all due respect to Stewart"...
Not you,Stewart....although it is always a pleasure to post to you!
It was a general post.....

That's OK then, confusion with the name.

[anna]

I fergot the word "to"

Should have read...."With all due respect to Stewart"...

Not you,Stewart....although it is always a pleasure to post to you!


It was a general post.....

[Stewart P Evans]

What???

With all due respect Stewart...
If you take Stride out of the equasion...you have to remove Kelly too.
I always say the same.....there was good reason for their inclusion.The police must have had to have been very aware of the fact that they could have included ladies into the mix who weren't true victims...with the amount of fear that was around,they wouldn't have wanted to have added more, unnecessarily....if we look at Kelly..why on earth,having found her in that state,would they have just jumped to the conclusion that she was JTR related?It was some time after the double and much more than any of the others.If she'd just had cut throat and mutilations and the only difference was that she was inside,then yes...but this was much different,so therefore should have been treated as a murder on it's own..I have always thought they knew something else that we don't.
Jack could have taunted the police about being wrong with Stride,would have given him an advantage over them,and pleasure to be able to do so too...yet he stays quiet when he writes about the kidney.
Just a thought,
ANNA.

What??? All I am doing here is quoting from a book!

[anna]

With all due respect Stewart...


If you take Stride out of the equasion...you have to remove Kelly too.


I always say the same.....there was good reason for their inclusion.The police must have had to have been very aware of the fact that they could have included ladies into the mix who weren't true victims...with the amount of fear that was around,they wouldn't have wanted to have added more, unnecessarily....if we look at Kelly..why on earth,having found her in that state,would they have just jumped to the conclusion that she was JTR related?It was some time after the double and much more than any of the others.If she'd just had cut throat and mutilations and the only difference was that she was inside,then yes...but this was much different,so therefore should have been treated as a murder on it's own..I have always thought they knew something else that we don't.
Jack could have taunted the police about being wrong with Stride,would have given him an advantage over them,and pleasure to be able to do so too...yet he stays quiet when he writes about the kidney.
Just a thought,
ANNA.

[Stewart P Evans]

Stride

Many thanks, gentlemen,
that's precious info.
The C5 concept is therefore relatively recent, though it is rooted in Swanson and Macnaghten opinions.
Why did Stewart reject Stride? Did he suggest a suspect (Kidney?)?
Amitiés,
David

Stewart Opens his Stride chapter with -

"While there is not a shred of evidence to support the belief that Elizabeth Stride was murdered by the Ripper this murder is included, for, like that of Martha Tabram, no account of the East End murders would be complete without it.
The murder of Stride was a coincidence and, merely because her body was found in a yard, both Press and public jumped to the conclusion that both this murder and that of Eddows [sic] which took place an hour later, was the work of the Ripper..."

and ends it with -

"NOTE. In each of the Ripper murders the victim was killed by the throat being cut from left to right. This characteristic alone marked the murder of Elizabeth Stride as not being the work of Jack the Ripper."

He relates Kidney's evidence but suggests no suspect for her murder. He is not too factually accurate.

[DVV]

Many thanks, gentlemen,
that's precious info.
The C5 concept is therefore relatively recent, though it is rooted in Swanson and Macnaghten opinions.
Why did Stewart reject Stride? Did he suggest a suspect (Kidney?)?

Amitiés,
David

[Stewart P Evans]

William Stewart

Both Matters and Beaumont suggested that the Ripper had six victims: Tabram and the "canonical" five. Sorry I can't help with the Stewart.
Wolf.

William Stewart went for only four victims - Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, he rejected Tabram and Stride.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Both Matters and Beaumont suggested that the Ripper had six victims: Tabram and the "canonical" five. Sorry I can't help with the Stewart.

Wolf.

[DVV]

Hi all,
I'm curious about 3 old books I didn't read and don't have:

- Leonard Matters "The mystery of JTR", 1929;
- FA Beaumont "Fiend of the East London" (from "The 50 most amazing crimes...", 1936)
-William Stewart "JTR a new theory", 1939.

How many victims, according to these early studies?

Thanks