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

[Malcolm X]

you see, if you removed Stride from C5; this gives you no additional clues to who the Ripper is.............but if you added TABRAM to the C5 then you have a really big problem indeed.

because, it looks like two weapons were used, the bayonnet to finish her off; now this points to 2 killers, or the ripper having two knives about his person... this is most odd indeed.......... now, look at it this way... the Ripper could indeed kill in a stabbing frenzy only, simply because he's in a totally negative frame of mind that night, or she said something to him to cause him to flip his lid ... this can never be ruled out....because a calm Ripper, cuts throats, waits, and then mutilates... he doesn't do this in a bad mood.... at least this is how it seems to me, because him toying with his knife like a mental retard on Eddowes face isn't anger... it's really weird stuff going on in his head instead, he's in a semi- hypnotic trance, look at those few little nicks under her eyes and a few more on her face too... dont even go there in your mind, just stay well away from his madness and keep out of no13 millers court as well......... because all you only need to know his name only

but what looks most odd indeed, isn't the Ripper blowing his top and stabbing in a frenzy, that's easy for me to imagine, it's using another longer bayonnet style weapon to finish TABRAM off....this looks like two killers....and therefore she isn't on the list and never should be

[Mascara & Paranoia]

you see, if you removed Stride from C5; this gives you no additional clues to who the Ripper is.

Actually, removing Stride removes a lot of unnecessary stuff that has little to nothing to do with the Ripper. She was killed on the same night as one of his actual victims and in Whitechapel. Sure enough, that's a big coincidence, but the operative word is coincidence. Have you thoroughly looked at the evidence and facts of her murder and compared them to the other canonical victims, namely Nichols, Chapman and (specifically!) Eddowes? That yard where Stride was killed was not a place where the Ripper would've operated for starters, especially so early in the night and while the club was busy. Whoever the Ripper was, going by the murders we know for sure were his, he did not want to get caught and he was cautious. If he was so dare-devilly to have killed not only in that yard on Berner Street but to kill again some 45 minutes later, then he would've killed during October despite the red alert police prescence in Whitechapel. But he didn't. He waited until a little over a month later when things started to die down and killed in doors. Adding Stride to the equation is not only factually wrong, but it also complicates things and gives us a false view of what type of person/killer the Ripper actually was. The only argument for Stride's candidacy as a Ripper victim is the theory that he was interrupted before going to work on her abs, and people believe that because they choose to and/or ignore the actual evidence that we have, for whatever reason. People should be looking at things factually and with an unbiased eye.

[Mitch Rowe]

And this is why there shouldnt even be a case of shaded victims. No one can agree on anything so its a waste of time. Its going to open the door for people to pick at Stride and MJK.

Nope.. Forget the idea completely. And if I can predict Spryders mindset from the excellent work done on the Casebook I think I can sleep well at night.

[smezenen]

Stride-Eddows link

Sitting here tonight reading alot of threads that argue the C5. Some say Stride is a victim some say not. I think she is. Here is how it MAY have happened.

Jack Kills Stride in Dutfields Yard but he is interupted. Becouse of the Jewish club there he assumes it was a Jew that interupted him. In anger he writes the grafity on Goulston St. His anger may explain the double negative in the message.

Jack want people to know he is now pissed at Jews but realizes nobody will atribute this to him unles he draws specific attention to it so he goes looking for another victim. He finds and kills Eddows takes a piece of her apron dips it in the blood takes it back to Goulston St.

yep, thats one way they could be linked. I know I'm probably way off but I like to put myself in his head and think through what he MAY have done.
Next step travel back in time and collect the evidence to support the story.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

If Jack was interrupted with Stride, then it was whilst he was actually killing her, probably in the middle of cutting her throat. Not after. The lack of mutilations isn't the issue at all. It's the venue of the crime and the probably different blade used to kill Stride that's the problem. Even MJK's murder is more alike to the other victims and in fitting with Jack's m.o. than Stride's. He may have chalked the graffiti, but I doubt Jack was anti-Semetic or Jewish himself. If anything, the GSG is a way of claiming or (most likely) disclaiming Stride as one of his victims.

[smezenen]

If If anything, the GSG is a way of claiming or (most likely) disclaiming Stride as one of his victims.

PC Alfred Long found the grafity and apron at 2:55 thats just 1 hour and 10 minute after Eddows body was discovered and 1 hour and 55 minutes after Strides body is found.
Assuming Jack did write the grafity this time line shows that if Stride where not his victim then he would have not known about her murder at the time he wrote it and therefore it could not be a disclaiming of her as a victim. I believe it is a claiming of her as a victim and also a message to the Jews that he is angry at them.
The different knife issue is explainable becouse I believe that a motivated and well prepaired killer would have had more than one knife anyway. If you have read many of my posts you see that I truely believe Jack was inteligent, calculating and cunning.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Jack could've easily have heard about Stride's murder on the street on his way back to his place to store the stolen organs from Eddowes and chalked the message while heading back out to discard the apron. As for the different type of knife argument, it doesn't quite work as you'd expect the same knife to have had a similar effect on Eddowes' throat as it did on Stride's, and even then you'd have to ask yourself; why was it ineffective when killing Stride, yet deeply and powerfully used on Eddowes in the same way as the previous victims? Even MJK's throat wound fits more with Nicols', Chapman's and Eddowes'. Besides, why would Jack only use the 'other' knife on Stride and Stride only? It doesn't make any sense.

[smezenen]

Yes i agree same knife=same effect but different knife=different effect. What I'm saying is he may have carried more than one and in the dark he probably used the duller one on Stride, he may have also been taking his time and didnt put as much power into the cut he made on her. As for not effective I argue with another question, she died didn't she? I also agree that it is physically possible for Jack to have heard about a murder that occures just 45 minutes before hekills and again i answer to that with another question, look at the map and think about this, in order for him to hear about it he was in dutfields yard or at least very near it when the body was discovered. What are the chances that he is there and didnt do the deed?

[Mitch Rowe]

I dont see anything wrong with the time and place of Strides murder. 29 Hanbury may have been an even worse choice for Jack. There were plenty of people there up at all hours of the night. Not making noise and paying attention to something else.

Nope.. Nothing wrong at all except Jack may not have liked it. If he was trusting Stride to find a place. Or Stride herself may have not expected Diemschutz to arrive at that time. Or Diemschutz may not have cared if he saw Stride with a man.

And its more than mere coincidence that Stride and Eddowes were killed less than an hour apart. Its a big enough number to stand on its own.

If Stride were killed by a person she was well acquainted with the police would have uncovered something. If it was something pointing away from the Ripper we would know something about it.

And they told us what they thought:
With regard to the double murder which took place on 30th September, there is no doubt but that the man was disturbed by some Jews who drove up to a Club, (close to which the body of Elizabeth Stride was found) and that he then, 'mordum satiatus', went in search of a further victim who he found at Mitre Square.

So I figure the chances are zilch Stride can be budged an inch.

[Mitch Rowe]

I would say the most likely scenario for the apron was that Jack cut himself and he knew he would create a blood trail. He throws the rag away when he feels he dont need it. Maybe he is close to home or maybe he stopped bleeding. The GSG has nothing to do with the case.

[smezenen]

Actually Mitch, I have the same doubts about Jack writing the graffiti, but the police attribute it to him so I go along with it out of the same reasoning that the C5 are the C5. Because that’s what was accepted by the people doing the actual investigation.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

I would say the most likely scenario for the apron was that Jack cut himself and he knew he would create a blood trail. He throws the rag away when he feels he dont need it. Maybe he is close to home or maybe he stopped bleeding. The GSG has nothing to do with the case.

Apparently the apron piece was quite big and covered in other bodily muck as well as blood, so it seems more likely that the Ripper used it to carry Eddowes' kidney and uterus in. As for the GSG, I'm half and half. I'm not overly convinced Jack wrote it but at the same time it apparently wasn't there before the apron was found, so there's a strong possibility of it having been a message from the Ripper.

[Mitch Rowe]

Even if the GSG wasnt written by the Ripper he may have seen it there and decided to drop the apron there.
Or if in fact we believe the Ripper casually tosses the apron away there is the subconscious mind at work. So the area where the apron was found might mean something more than we think.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Sorry if you were insulted. I didnt mean the statement to be demeaning to anyone. I wasnt really directing it at anyone in particular. Just a hypothetical sparring partner.
Im just trying to say if we as people are going to start messing around with the C5 we should know that future enthusiasts are going to critisize our choices. I feel I have made my own unbiased opinion and at this point I see the C5 as the correct answer.

And I didnt mean to imply you were uneducated. Only that when making a list of victims we lay the facts on the table. And see them squarely in the face.

Wich is exactly what I believe MacNaghten has at least done for us. What I see in the memoranda is the result of years of reflection on a case that was never solved. I see MacNaghten doing something similar to what Abberline was doing. Comparing old notes in the ripper files and discussing it with detectives. Probably the reason he got the job he did was because he was able to coordinate information given to him and help everyone move in the right direction.

He is actually better suited for his job than say Abberline would be. Abberline is a hands on detective. Thats not whats needed. Whats needed is guy that can listen to what the detectives have to say and then move forward.

The problem with the C5 is not how many they are, but the canon in itself. No unsolved criminal case this old should have any canon at all. You can't have a canon in a 120 year old murder case with so much missing information and where the killer is unidentified.
We can argue until kinfdom come how many victims that should be included in the canon, but that is not the issue. The issue is that each and everyone of the murders should be evaluated independently and not with any canon in mind.

As for Macnaghten - since you refer to him in connection with the C5 - yes, the same Macnaghten whose memoranda is littered with errors and strange conclusions. The same Macnaghten who called Druitt a 'doctor' and who points out Ostrog as one of the main suspects; the same Ostrog who possibly wasn't even in England during the Ripper murders and whom there is no shred of evidence that he ever was even violent.
You've got to be joking. Macnaghten has to be one of the worst 'expert' references to quote.

As for us being 'cold case' detectives: the opinion that the police knew better than us because they 'were there' has to be one of the most erronous statements one can make. It makes no difference if they were there and had access to all the infiormation if they were inexperienced in handling these types of cases and didn't know how to accurately analyse the information they had.
let's remember that cold case investigatorts generally are more succesful in solving and analysing old cases than the police who did the original investigation. That is why there is such a thing as cold cases in the first place.

All the best

[Mr.Hyde]

Mr.Hyde

Actually Mitch, I have the same doubts about Jack writing the graffiti, but the police attribute it to him so I go along with it out of the same reasoning that the C5 are the C5. Because that’s what was accepted by the people doing the actual investigation.

JTR was deflecting future investigations re CV4 away from the scene for very good and logical reasons-too close to the lair!
Also on the way to MAK's.Not home.Would have made a "triple".