The "Canonical Group" defines the Ripper...but accurately?

[perrymason]

Hi All,

For most of my time here Ive put forth the opinion that the Ripper's *profile, assumed by many students of the cases old and new to be based on the 5 murders of the Canonical Group...., *(meaning his probable general characteristics based on the acts he is assumed to have committed), is decidedly vague and probably based on a flawed premise.

If Jack the Ripper killed the Canonical Group then..

- he might kill indoors... or out
- he might stop if he thinks he hears the clop of hoofs and wooden wheels on cobblestones in the distance
- he might want abdominal organs or he may just want to cut women to pieces
- he sometimes cuts faces
- he may look like a sailor when he meets a victim, or he may be a drunken man
- he might kill twice in a night
- he probably lives where he kills to know how to quietly disappear from 5 different murder sites within a square mile of the East End
- he sometime shows a semi skilled hand, and sometimes not at all
- most often he subdues the women before a knife is used, but sometimes he uses the knife first
- almost always his throat cuts are more severe than required to kill
- he likely meets his victims while they are soliciting on the street
- he may seek to rob the victims before leaving
- he is almost certainly killing due to a form of madness

There are lots more of those kinds of observations that would be fair guesses, based on a single man who kills those five women. Its an unpredictable killer, with no fixed methods or preferred objectives.

How valid would those guesses be though, if for the purpose of comparison, the actual victims of the man that was nicknamed Jack the Ripper were just the 2 victims that had their abdomens opened and their uterus taken?

What kind of man would we imagine him to be if he killed just Martha, Kate and Mary? Or just Polly, Annie and Kate? Or Martha, Liz and stabbed Ada earlier that spring?

Is the acceptance of a Canonical Group potentially detrimental to discovering probable characteristics of the man they called Jack? I ask this based on the fact that at least one victim in the Group is included based on little more than the belief that 2 men that kill by cutting throats with knives couldnt be out at the same time.

My feeling is if we are more discerning on what we feel are physical or circumstantial links that might exist to link the 5 women to one man.....we might have only a Canonical 4 to assess, and a better idea of the characteristics the man that committed those murders might have. By including Liz Stride as a victim, the profile of the killer in my opinion is unnecessarily broadened to include characteristics or behaviors that he may not have had.

Any and all opinions are welcomed.

Best regards all.

[Malcolm X]

Hi All,



If Jack the Ripper killed the Canonical Group then..

- he might kill indoors... or out
- he might stop if he thinks he hears the clop of hoofs and wooden wheels on cobblestones in the distance
- he might want abdominal organs or he may just want to cut women to pieces
- he sometimes cuts faces
- he may look like a sailor when he meets a victim, or he may be a drunken man
- he might kill twice in a night
- he probably lives where he kills to know how to quietly disappear from 5 different murder sites within a square mile of the East End
- he sometime shows a semi skilled hand, and sometimes not at all
- most often he subdues the women before a knife is used, but sometimes he uses the knife first
- almost always his throat cuts are more severe than required to kill
- he likely meets his victims while they are soliciting on the street
- he may seek to rob the victims before leaving
- he is almost certainly killing due to a form of madness


Best regards all.

you've covered it all there, i think that we have to consider that if he killed Mary indoors.. then for the Ripper............ANYTHING GOES! ...very versatile indeed, i'm also suspicious of the ``TORSOS`` and a few others afterwards too.

it would be a mistake to stick to the Canonical Group only, but my feeling is he stopped after Mary, no i'm not confused just keeping an open mind

his savagry/mutilations increased with each murder... but part of him was still well in control, i.e ``the JEWS ARE THE MEN``because this is quite clever.... in character, i would describe him as close to W.BURY or LEATHER APRON, a really nasty piece of work, a woman beating thug

``By including Liz Stride as a victim, the profile of the killer in my opinion is unnecessarily broadened to include characteristics or behaviors that he may not have had. ``

i'm not quite sure i understand you here, but my take on this murder is that the Ripper was disturbed, thus we see no mutilations, but it's not a coincidence that Eddowes died soon after, he went in search of another victim... of course, you know all of this anyway.

the way that Stride had her throat cut/ the Dutfields anti-semetic location and the writing on the wall later on, point to the same killer... my take on this is, did the Ripper go out that night with chalk already in his pocket, or did he find it lieing in the filthy streets in near pitch blackness... i think that chalk was intended for the gates of Dutfields

[Mitch Rowe]

At this point I am mainly defining JTR on the basis of two victims where I can clearly see many patterns going on. So I dont think JTR is all that unpredictable.

For me theres too many similarities between what we can piece together as to what happened with ACs and MJKs bodies that I feel there is enough information left about the cases to consider these two murders "one in the same".

If we forget about all the events that supposedly took place and all the witnsses ect. And concentrate on what happened to the victims Eddowes is not fitting the pattern. So if I presume Eddowes is a JTR victim I should be looking to reasons why her death is different. I happen to have a reason with Strides death. Even leaving Diemshutz testimony out of it. It looks to me like it started out like ACs murder did. But for some reason was never fully completed. Just what I would suspect JTR would have progressed to after AC.

So for me there are alot of things going on with Strides murder than just the timing.

Pollys murder is probably the first. Although we will never know who actually was the first or the last we have to start somewhere. I think there is enough to say Polly was at least an early JTR victim.

In addition. I believe it was well thought out by officials at that time and certainly for some years after the murders just who exactly was a victim of JTR. I think by the time MacNaghten writes the memoranda the top officials and even some minor ones had hashed it all over and agreed on a victims list. And i think they thought it was important. Because if one issues a statement claiming five murders only thats going to shut the door for the most part on any clues to be had in any other potential murders.

So.. I say the C5 is right on track with any decisions I have made independently while ignoring anyone elses opinion.

Thats not to say thats what happened. Only that it seems very likely.

[Ben]

Hi Mitch,

Abberline, Anderson and Reid all believed Tabram to have been a ripper victim, so Macnaghten was clearly endorsing a minority view. That's not to say he was wrong in accepting that five victims were murdered by the same individual, but the "five victims only" premise is clearly just a Macnaghtenism, and not reflective of the overall police view.

[Mitch Rowe]

Hi Mitch,

Abberline, Anderson and Reid all believed Tabram to have been a ripper victim, so Macnaghten was clearly endorsing a minority view. That's not to say he was wrong in accepting that five victims were murdered by the same individual, but the "five victims only" premise is clearly just a Macnaghtenism, and not reflective of the overall police view.

But.. When reviewing the murders themselves as a cold case Martha doesnt entirely fit. If I were issuing a statement of any type having the authority MacNaghten had I would think about it and think about the "technical" reasons Martha should be included or not. I would converse with my peers about it to try to get an agreement. On practical and technical terms.

If in fact Marthas neck was slashed from ear to ear then I would suspect something fishy with MacNaghtens statement. But if I think Martha is a could be or might be then she is not going on the list.

I wont deny Marthas situation looks good but theres nothing concrete wich is what I would need if making up a list of JTR victims.

I see no reason why this wouldnt be discussed by officials of the time.

[Ben]

Martha doesn't entirely fit, but then nor does Stride, who Macnagthen included. I'm personally inclined to doubt that he canvassed the opinion of his peers and colleagues when penning that particular document. Certain tell-tale clues arise in that regard, such as Macnaghten's belief that the "City PC from Mitre Square" was the only witness who saw Jack the Ripper, in contrast to Anderson's (and presumably Swanson's) views that the witness in question was a Jew.

All the best,
Ben

[Mitch Rowe]

Lets put it this way. We want to list JTRs victims using all the hard evidence before us. And we will pretend we are a juror and this is a "beyond a shadow of a doubt" decision. The C5 is the correct answer.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

the way that Stride had her throat cut

Was strikingly dissimilar to that of the other canonical victims, Eddowes' particuarly. Stride had her throat cut by presumably an altogether different type of blade and it was done a little slidshod. The environment in which she perished isn't enough to excuse that as there were other venues for the canonical murders which were just as dark. So I'm in agreement with perrymason on this one; and excluding Stride gives us a better look at the actual killer Jack highly probably was; a cautious one, not a kind of dare-devil. After killing Polly, Jack could've gotten away with killing another woman in Whitechapel, which he did in Annie, and he did so more cautiously by doing it off the streets. Then, after her killing, the heat was on, and so Jack probably decided to kill a little outside of his territory, knowing that there was obvious awareness of a murderer in Whitechapel. I think Stride was killed by a different person and her murder is one in a long line of coincidences in this case. Plus, if Jack did chalk the graffito, then it could've been his way of saying that he didn't kill Stride, assuming (correctly or not, who knows) that a member of the Berner Street club was responsible. Apparently they were Jewish anarchists.

[Mitch Rowe]

Martha doesn't entirely fit, but then nor does Stride, who Macnagthen included. I'm personally inclined to doubt that he canvassed the opinion of his peers and colleagues when penning that particular document. Certain tell-tale clues arise in that regard, such as Macnaghten's belief that the "City PC from Mitre Square" was the only witness who saw Jack the Ripper, in contrast to Anderson's (and presumably Swanson's) views that the witness in question was a Jew.

All the best,
Ben

Stride does fit. Her time was not way back there before Polly. She is smack dab in the middle of all this and that cant be ignored. Plus there are many practical reasons to include her and nothing really concrete to say otherwise. Except for Schwartz maybe(If you wanna say he saw Kelly or something) but he could have seen the ripper. There also an alternate police view of Marthas death and that shouldnt be ignored.

If I were not to include Stride I would not have an answer beyond speculation for my reason to do that.

[Mitch Rowe]

Was strikingly dissimilar to that of the other canonical victims, Eddowes' particuarly. Stride had her throat cut by presumably an altogether different type of blade and it was done a little slidshod. The environment in which she perished isn't enough to excuse that as there were other venues for the canonical murders which were just as dark. So I'm in agreement with perrymason on this one; and excluding Stride gives us a better look at the actual killer Jack highly probably was; a cautious one, not a kind of dare-devil. After killing Polly, Jack could've gotten away with killing another woman in Whitechapel, which he did in Annie, and he did so more cautiously by doing it off the streets. Then, after her killing, the heat was on, and so Jack probably decided to kill a little outside of his territory, knowing that there was obvious awareness of a murderer in Whitechapel. I think Stride was killed by a different person and her murder is one in a long line of coincidences in this case. Plus, if Jack did chalk the graffito, then it could've been his way of saying that he didn't kill Stride, assuming (correctly or not, who knows) that a member of the Berner Street club was responsible. Apparently they were Jewish anarchists.

But what Im interested in is a serious list of JTR victims. Give me some names. Give me some witnesses and a credible alternative. Introduce some real doubt into my mind about Stride. And thats what they would have discussed.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. But I will say this: the only argument for Stride being a Ripper victim is the theory that Jack was disturbed during his 'work' that night and went off in search of another victim. Well, I'm sorry, but I just don't buy into that - having read what evidence and facts we have about Stride's (and Eddowes') murder(s). They were almost obviously murdered by two separate perpetrators.

[Mitch Rowe]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. But I will say this: the only argument for Stride being a Ripper victim is the theory that Jack was disturbed during his 'work' that night and went off in search of another victim. Well, I'm sorry, but I just don't buy into that - having read what evidence and facts we have about Stride's (and Eddowes') murder(s). They were almost obviously murdered by two separate perpetrators.

Thats not nearly the only argument. And thats more than just a theory out in space. There is a named witness who is also a very credible witness who gives us reason to suppose JTR was interrupted with Stride.

Im saying I need a witness like pearly poll who points the direction away from JTR. Give me evidence that the police investigation uncovered something else and ignored it. If you were Abberline and I were MacNaghten I would tell you I need names witnesses and proof before I will remove Stride from the list.

Anyone can believe what they want but the fact is a guy already named the victims. And that guy wasnt a nobody. And I dont think he sat down and created the list in an hour. I think it was the result of much discussion by many Inspectors. Probably years of comparing notes on the subject.

[Barnaby]

i think that chalk was intended for the gates of Dutfields

Hadn't heard this speculation before. It's very interesting.

[Mr.Hyde]

One thing defines all CVs.Death from a cut carotid artery and exposure of the thyroid gland,usually by more than one cut.
Some CVs had other endocrine organs removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Illu_endocrine_system.png

CV2 had her small intestine removed but not the large intestine.Interesting.
JTR suddenly stopped on CV3.Partially deaf,did not hear approach.

[Malcolm X]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. But I will say this: the only argument for Stride being a Ripper victim is the theory that Jack was disturbed during his 'work' that night and went off in search of another victim. Well, I'm sorry, but I just don't buy into that - having read what evidence and facts we have about Stride's (and Eddowes') murder(s). They were almost obviously murdered by two separate perpetrators.

this is the most complicated murder of all and yes i understand peoples' doubts ..but in my opinion Stride is definitely a Ripper victim, the one that probably isn't is Martha... as for the knife used Phillips favoured a short blade, but he wasn't 100% sure