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

[perrymason]

I just had a thought that if correct, might explain away my rationale for wanting Liz excluded.

What if.......what if the Jewish witness that is taken to ID a Jewish suspect at the Seaside Home is Schwartz being taken to ID a man he saw at the Club that night? The man he saw assault Liz in the yard....but says he saw assault her just outside it?

He would have a pre-existing event where he provided false information...under my premise,...to keep the Club out of the Stride murder picture....so why would he then ID a man that the police would already know by then had links with the club, perhaps that night, and was Jewish? It would negate any good he accomplished by the story when given....which kept a Jewish Club member out of the probable picture.

It might also explain why he, unlike Lawende, doesnt make an Inquest appearance in person or on record. He is being kept quiet and out of the press.

Workable at all? Where is it weak?

Cheers mates.

[Mitch Rowe]

There should never have been a canon. It's nonsense.

Im sorry but the other investigators should have explained their positions much more clearly. They provided no credible arguments to include Martha in an important list such as the C5. They should have made sure their list made it into history.

I dont think any one of us or even all of us have the authority to change something like that.

The only way is some real hard evidence wich would constitute a grand recent discovery of some official documents stating otherwise.

[Ben]

They provided no credible arguments to include Martha in an important list such as the C5

It wasn't the purpose of police reports to make "credible arguments". They weren't trying to convince message board contributors in 2009. it wasn't as if Macnaghten offered any "credible argument" for his five victims only dogma either. No, the only salient observation is that Macnaghten was in the conspicuous minority of opinion against the greater number of officials who included Tabram.

They should have made sure their list made it into history.

No they shouldn't!

There was no onus upon them to compile a list to be preserved for posterity. At the time, their immediate goal was to capture a particularly brutal serial killer. There's no justification whatsoever behind the argument that the views of other police officials are weakened because they didn't write a Macnaghten-style memmoranda. The fact that Macnaghten made one doesn't empower his opinions with any more likelihood of reflecting the truth.

[perrymason]

Ben does have some foundation for the suggestion that Martha was not excluded at all as a potential Ripper victim at the time.....reports on the status of her investigation were submitted right along with the other Canonicals until late October anyway. They hadnt segmented the series like Macnagten and Bond ...nor like I and others propose to do now with their segmenting.

Cheers.

[Mitch Rowe]

The problem is these guys arent around anymore. We cant ask them or talk to them.
The only thing I can do is interpret what history presents me. And history has presented the MM as something important. Is it really not that important? Could any one of you burn the original document if you had posession of it? If I owned it what would you pay me for it?

[Ben]

And history has presented the MM as something important. Is it really not that important?

I'm not saying it isn't important, Mitch.

I'm saying it certainly isn't any more important than other contemporary police views, many of which disagreed with MM.

[Mitch Rowe]

I'm not saying it isn't important, Mitch.

I'm saying it certainly isn't any more important than other contemporary police views, many of which disagreed with MM.

And I think Abberline did a good job of letting us know the suspects listed in the MM may not have been all that important. In fact I think he proves no one had any idea who the Ripper was and any suspects mentioned by anyone including his own are weak at best. But.. When it comes to proof that Martha was a JTR victim Abberline falls short. In fact his choice of Chapman and his reasons are now considered to be a little far fetched.

[Ben]

But.. When it comes to proof that Martha was a JTR victim Abberline falls short.

But Macnaghten's view that Martha was not a ripper victim is equally lacking in proof, and I don't think his suspect of preference was any more plausible that Abberline's. Quite the reverse.

[perrymason]

There should never have been a canon. It's nonsense.

I have to give you Ben, and also Glenn, a pat on the back for having the ouevos (?) to say that in such a succinct manner.

I do understand your position that we cannot exclude some possibilities based on the fact that the murder methods or circumstances arent quite like the kills we feel do show the "signatures" of Jack, although I may not agree with some of the victims you might be willing to group in....but I agree with you, there was never enough evidence to categorize these particular women as 5 victims of one killer.

I think what the Canonical Group did get right was the concept that there was indeed someone in the area who was killing much differently than the usual violent criminals they saw, and that this man killed multiple times.

Best regards Ben.

[Malcolm X]

to me the list of 5 looks correct, it's those other 12 that dont look like the Ripper's.....

but for me it's always been, who killed Kelly

[perrymason]

to me the list of 5 looks correct, it's those other 12 that dont look like the Ripper's.....

but for me it's always been, who killed Kelly

Im sure thats in part to the surreal manner in which she died Mal, but I submit its also because youve ingrained thinking that says Mary was some sort of conclusion or finale to the killing stretch. And most of us have that same issue with Polly....where is it written in stone that the guy known as Jack the Ripper started with Mary Ann? I personally think thats quite possible, but then again I see Jack the Ripper as being responsible for specific kinds of murders, not a general murderer...I believe actual killing was almost the least "important" thing that killer does, no more so than how he subdues them.

The point in Liz Strides case is this....what piece of circumstantial or physical evidence indicates that the man that killed Catherine Eddowes also killed Liz Stride?

If you were honest...the possible answers are a theory that her killer was interrupted, to explain the lack of "signatures" present, and the fact she is an Unfortunate who has her throat slit with a knife on the same night as another Unfortunate gets her head almost cut off, and gutted, and has organs taken from her in perhaps 6-8 minutes tops.

I am no professional policeman or lawyer, but my guess would be that that kind of evidence could only have any value if it was used to support real hard evidence of some kind. On its own, its pure speculation.

I believe that a sound way of approaching this, or should I say one sound way of approaching this, is to only assume that seemingly almost identical acts were by one man, or the same 2 or more men. That leaves us with 2 or 3 women. Lets start with a relatively sound base like ONLY the Matching ones. Create a point system....using all the known or at least less debatable characteristics that we can put upon Jacky boys shoulders, based on the 2 or 3 womens murders that we are including. Use that scale to assess Liz Stride, and then again to assess Mary Kelly.

Are no mutilations a real reason to exclude Liz, or only a single artery being severed, was she in fact soliciting.....is the fact Mary may have had her killer enter with her at 11:45 or come alone later relevant, is the fact her perfectly intact uterus is under her head indicative of anything, ...is the man who killed the 2-3 women that matched before visible in the evidence regarding her status at the time of her murder, whether she met him outdoors or in, or dressed or not, is almost completely disassembled the same as, in one doctors opinion, removing an organ with the sweep of a knife.....

I think the only fair way to account for the weight that individuals would give each question would be a total points scenario.

My opinion is that that type of filtering would catch Liz Stride early and reject her, and leave room for doubt with Mary Kelly.

Best regards.

[Mitch Rowe]

Shaded "Victims".

I will say this though. I dont think it would be unfair to group the non C5 in a higher order but only if its done by pure logic. Not pet victims. Lets say we give the what is left of the "crimescene" evidence 85% value while leaving 15% to witness statements.
Then we show the chosen victims slightly shaded but in the same group as the C5 on the victims page.

But NEVER shading any of the original C5!!!

Because I will agree the chances are more than the C5. But I wont agree thats its any less than the C5.

I will tell you, you need to go back and do your homework. We arent the active detectives in the cases and we shouldnt pretend to act like them. We act like cold case detectives sorting through the information given to us and making logical decisions based on proven methods professionals use all the time.

So I guess we argue about it for a few years and then take a vote.

[perrymason]

I will say this though. I dont think it would be unfair to group the non C5 in a higher order but only if its done by pure logic. Not pet victims. Lets say we give the what is left of the "crimescene" evidence 85% value while leaving 15% to witness statements.
Then we show the chosen victims slightly shaded but in the same group as the C5 on the victims page.

But NEVER shading any of the original C5!!!

Because I will agree the chances are more than the C5. But I wont agree thats its any less than the C5.

I will tell you, you need to go back and do your homework. We arent the active detectives in the cases and we shouldnt pretend to act like them. We act like cold case detectives sorting through the information given to us and making logical decisions based on proven methods professionals use all the time.

So I guess we argue about it for a few years and then take a vote.

Im a bit insulted by the last paragraph Mitch, which I think is by design....despite the 'we" inserted in there.

Ive never represented myself as anything but an amateur sleuth recreating, so forgive me if I dont give a sh** whether that entails me having enough education on the crimes based on your standard, whatever that may be.

Ive read everything that is in evidence about the crimes themselves from a bunch of different author perspectives, if Ive neglected to bother to find out where Montague went to grade school...then ya got me. I can tell you from the perspective of someone who has objectively reviewed Liz Strides murder evidence dozens of individual times, that not one connective shred of evidence exists between that murder and the Mitre Square murder....nor any other Canonicals murder to that date. The only thing that connects those 2 murders is the date.

Yet youve already established thats a fine inclusion by you.

Maybe you misconstrued a lack of understanding about the murders... its because I dont happen to think zero evidence qualifies as the foundations for a case for a killer/mutilator....not because I dont know basically every facet of that evening as its recorded, as relates to the murders.

I can discuss any recorded detail of every Canonical murder that you wish to,...at your convenience, on another thread.

Regards.

[Malcolm X]

Im sure thats in part to the surreal manner in which she died Mal, but I submit its also because youve ingrained thinking that says Mary was some sort of conclusion or finale to the killing stretch.
Best regards.

no, i think he might have downgraded....or i can entertain this possibility quite easily.... my interest in Kelly, is more of a sad morbid obsession, it's not a big deal with me, it's just one of my many interests in life

The point in Liz Strides case is this....what piece of circumstantial or physical evidence indicates that the man that killed Catherine Eddowes also killed Liz Stride?

my reply:- none....only strong speculation and a relatively sound arguement, but the man that killed Eddowes was the Ripper of this we can be certain

If you were honest...the possible answers are a theory that her killer was interrupted, to explain the lack of "signatures" present, and the fact she is an Unfortunate who has her throat slit with a knife on the same night as another Unfortunate gets her head almost cut off, and gutted, and has organs taken from her in perhaps 6-8 minutes tops.

my reply:- yes exactly, all of this and all of us are speculating only... this is because we have nothing fixed on the Ripper, that we can build an accurate personality profile upon....we have no idea what sort of person he was at all, he is in effect.. a closed book waiting to be read

i.e we can and have done recently, got a very accurate personality profile of G.Chapman, i'm quite impressed and the same can be said of Tumblety too, but we know nothing about the Ripper, that will allow us to construct an accurate personality profile and therefore try to get inside his mind.....

i.e somebody might say, ``STRIDE isn't a ripper victim because her cut throat wasn't nearly deep enough, it's not a ripper match``.... but i could say, ``maybe the Ripper was in a less aggressive frame of mind when he cut her throat than normal`` you see, we cant fix anything in concrete; because we have no idea what the killer was like..... maybe he was off- form that night, maybe he was going to cut her throat a second time; after death, we just cant tell.... but he would've had mood swings just like you and i and due to this, you might see a slight shift in M.O too.

most experts accept Stride as a RIPPER victim and i can see nothing major that rules her out either, it looks like he was disturbed and went looking for another victim.........why? he was frustrated and very annoyed too.

[Mitch Rowe]

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.