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

[Mr.Hyde]

Malcolm X.
I agree the chalk was meant for Dutfields.Was it a rendezvous for JTR & Stride?
Fleeing the Eddowes' murder scene in the "Jewish Quarter" presented an equal opportunity.His spelling of Jews is French.He is attempting to deflect suspicion away from from himself.Not a very good attempt-he was panicked.Double negative then was a confirmative.

[Malcolm X]

Malcolm X.
I agree the chalk was meant for Dutfields.Was it a rendezvous for JTR & Stride?
Fleeing the Eddowes' murder scene in the "Jewish Quarter" presented an equal opportunity.His spelling of Jews is French.He is attempting to deflect suspicion away from from himself.Not a very good attempt-he was panicked.Double negative then was a confirmative.

i could be totally wrong, i've screwed up often on this forum.... but this theory feels right to me.

he's telling you that he's a Jew (but he's not done a very good job of it)... or he's telling you that the Jews are responsible for him killing.... nobody is quite sure what he means, but this doesn't really matter; because it's still anti-semetic....

my guess is that he's saying ``the killer is a Jew, and they're all the same``

and later on he added to this by saying, (far better this time...fully loaded with double meanings) ``the killer is a posh LA DE DA jew....just like the one i saw down Petticoat Lane``

why didn't HUTCH describe a NORMAL SUSPECT, a joe average East Ender, no he described a ``way over the top`` Foreigner/Jew, is this suspicious or what!

like it or not, agree or not, this is the next stage on from the Graffiti and the KELLY murder; is the next stage on from the Eddowes murder....it's a month later and safe indoors....and what do we notice yet again, more ANTI-SEMETISM.

i'm probably wrong but it's quite interesting.

[perrymason]

Hi all,

Thanks for the contributions so far, it surprised me that the topic would have legs frankly....so many people leave this C5 notion unchallenged and start sleuthing from that perspective.

I think some valid points that have been made are:

-We cant be sure that he only killed 5
-We cant be sure that he killed as many as 5
-We cant be sure exactly which victims should be counted
-We have little evidence aside from speculation of interruption and a speculated link to a 2nd death that same night that can be used to add Liz Stride to a Ripper list
-There is no telltale signature that we can associate with Jack the Ripper that is present in all 5 killings, aside from cutting a throat with a knife to kill them.

Cutting a throat, or stabbing a throat, or stabbing to death was not a unique format used by only Jack the Ripper, in fact the press records that 3 throats were slit the night of the "Double Event", there are a few unsolved murders of the period that involved stabbing not cutting, and a young man in Poplar slits his own throat in front of his father the day Mary Kelly is buried, for a few examples.

The reason for this thread is my opinion that the Canonical 5 should at the very least be changed to a Canonical 4, excluding Liz Stride based on a lack of evidence that links her death to Kate Eddowes, or to any other Canonical.

Whether that total should rise again to include Martha Tabram, or Ada, or Alice, or whether all the remaining 4 victims should be categorized as Ripper victims.... would all still be on the table. All that would be needed is some evidence that links their death with a Ripper one.

Whats a "Ripper" death? For me its in the Attack/Kill/Mutilate sequence, the brevity of the actual kill and the severity of that throat cut, and the focus being mutilating the corpse after death.

Thats why for me, only 3 of the Canonical Group fit. Because they are isolated using the above filters when sifting evidence.

Best regards all and thanks for the contributions.

[Ben]

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.

Not really, Mitch. While I can accept that Stride may well have been a ripper victim, for example, there are certainly reasonable doubts to be entertained about her inclusion.

[perrymason]

Jus thought I would add that I agree with the suggestion that the GSG is an anti-semetic message, and I believe its sarcastic.... since the Jews that are escaping possible blame that night are not the Jews that saw Kate and her Sailor Man, but the Jews that owned the property a murdered woman was found on, that message could well be a disclaimer from Kate's killer for the murder of the woman in the Socialists' Club yard. In their statements 2 of the most prominent club members in attendance around Liz's body said they went out into the street yelling "another" murder has been committed. For me that is a deliberate attempt to place a murder on their private property in the lap of someone unknown who had killed other women that Spring and Fall.

There is nothing in Goulston Street that potentially refers to the first murder of the evening... that was left by the killer of Kate...unless its the GSG. And we dont know if he wrote it.

Again a clue directly from the killer that doesnt specifically claim 2 murders.. the apron piece claims one, and if he wrote the GSG, it sounds to me like he blames Jews for a murder they are evading responsibility for....it doesnt not translate to an assumption that he had anything to do with it... regardless on how the phrase was to be interpreted.

Best regards

[Mitch Rowe]

Not really, Mitch. While I can accept that Stride may well have been a ripper victim, for example, there are certainly reasonable doubts to be entertained about her inclusion.

But the thing is. Is it reasonable enough to keep her off a list wich may very well be used by future investigators to determine JTRs victims?

I couldnt leave Stride out. Theres too much there to just ignore. If we leave Stride out there will be future investigators who pay no attention to any of the events surrounding Strides murder.

The same with leaving Tabram in. Theres just not enough to say yes use those clues to find the Ripper. I couldnt do that. I dont see enough evidence there.

I would be really confused if MacNaghten left out Stride but included Martha. Then I would feel they had more information than they were telling and that they knew who the ripper was.

Without knowing who the ripper was I say the C5 is the best and most logical choice to make if one wants to make a list of JTRs victims.

[perrymason]

In murder investigations its a very dangerous thing to type or categorize any unknown killer by any one trait or quality found in one or more of the murders they are suspected of commiting I would think....that means for example, one that always mutilates women he kills, and would also mean, one who has no definitive repetitive traits.

If Liz Stride were removed from the Canonical Group formally then it would be clear that there indeed is a fixed, repetitive, virtually identical methodology and resulting injuries group... that would be 3 consecutive victims.....as I said, without Liz.

Thats the point of the thread...remove one murder that in point of fact has no specific evidence that links it to either one of the other 2 throat slicing murders that happened that night or any other Ripper crime....and you have a stretch of 3 consecutive, almost identical crimes. Ones that suggest anatomical knowledge by the killer to some degree...and fast, semi-skilled knife use.

If the Canon was really those 4 women ending with Mary...it would be much harder to make a case for Martha based on the similarity and repetitive nature of the next 3 murders....(if Liz was out)....and my bet is very serious researchers would have to re-visit their opinion on Marys viability as Ms C5.

3 consecutive kills with escalation visible each new murder and all pre-existing style and methodology as well..that may not be the streak many had in mind for the guy called Jack, a 5 week stint and only 3 victims....but it would be a very real possibility based on that evidence.

Maybe that style of crime, and a blitzkrieg short run was all the killer they called Jack wanted...maybe he was'nt also an I. M. Craven Cutten, or Slice N. Dash type.

Cheers mates.

[Malcolm X]

Hi all,



The reason for this thread is my opinion that the Canonical 5 should at the very least be changed to a Canonical 4, excluding Liz Stride based on a lack of evidence that links her death to Kate Eddowes, or to any other Canonical.


Best regards all and thanks for the contributions.

i wouldn't leave Stride off the list, that's a huge mistake, because you'd need really powerful arguements to rule her out, far more so than mentioned here..

this Stride murder is a nightmare, we used to argue about it on Ivor Edwarde's forum all the time.

it is the beginning of a Ripper murder.....i.e Slit throat only/ blood draining out and nothing else... but because it's only this, dont be too tempted to say that somebody else killed her, especially with Eddowes later on etc etc....

[Sam Flynn]

it is the beginning of a Ripper murder.....i.e Slit throat only

The beginning of a slit throat, too, maybe. The tissues of Liz's neck weren't penetrated to the depth, or extent, that those of the other victims were.

[Mitch Rowe]

If Stride is removed then it becomes more confusing. Theres no reason for JTR to have changed his MO between the ACs death and Kates.

No.. I cant see any logical reason to mess around with the C5. It seems to be the most logical choice to make when we dont know Jacks name.

[Sam Flynn]

If Stride is removed then it becomes more confusing.

To my mind, Mitch, the "Double Event" has caused a significant amount of confusion in itself. I can't see that thinning it out would cause more confusion - far from it, in fact. It might even bring greater clarity.

[perrymason]

To my mind, Mitch, the "Double Event" has caused a significant amount of confusion in itself. I can't see that thinning it out would cause more confusion - far from it, in fact. It might even bring greater clarity.

You see Sam.....thats what I like about you....even though you still leave that murder door slightly ajar concerning Jack...you do see merit in perhaps thinning the herd a bit to see whats left over.

Tips his hat.......cheers Sam.

[Mitch Rowe]

To my mind, Mitch, the "Double Event" has caused a significant amount of confusion in itself. I can't see that thinning it out would cause more confusion - far from it, in fact. It might even bring greater clarity.

But then where do we stop? Throw out Longs statement? Refuse to recognize Hutchinson ever existed?

Im not saying you dont have the right to make your own choice here. Im saying changing the C5 is essentially trying to change history. Whether anyone likes it or not MacNaghten seems to have laid the foundations and history has approved.

[Malcolm X]

The beginning of a slit throat, too, maybe. The tissues of Liz's neck weren't penetrated to the depth, or extent, that those of the other victims were.

yes, this might point towards a shorter blade or; far less force used but with a large blade... this still doesn't rule out the ripper because this could also depend upon his frame of mind at the time as well, Eddowes head was almost severed, yes;but this could also be achieved by only a 4'' blade.. but it would need to be razor sharp and a very powerful cut... or more than one cut

this is where things get confusing and this shallow cut to Stride is the one huge question mark over this murder belonging to the Ripper....i say it's a ripper murder, but i understand other peoples' doubts....

[Ben]

Without knowing who the ripper was I say the C5 is the best and most logical choice to make if one wants to make a list of JTRs victims.

Oh heavens no, I wouldn't.

While I'd acknowledge that realistic and reasonable doubts should be entertained against the inclusion of both Tabram and Stride, I wouldn't say that the weight of evidence is sufficient to rule either of them out.

Im saying changing the C5 is essentially trying to change history

Well no, that's not the case at all.

There were more contemporary investigators arguing for her inclusion than for her exclusion. Macnaghten's five never reflected the majority of contemporary police opinion - a point all too often overlooked. His views as to "five victims and five only" were most assuredly in the minority of the opinion. There should never have been a canon. It's nonsense.