The Origins and Acceptance of the Canonical Five

[c.d.]

You seem fixated on the word "proof", Michael. Surely you have been around long enough to know that there is no "proof" of the C5. If there were, this discussion would not be taking place. But you are making an error in logic. Just because the C5 cannot be proven with absolute certainty it does not therefore follow that something less than the C5 is correct. That still has to be proven by its own merit. You seem to think that your position wins by default. That simply is not how it works. Provide proof for your position. Not just arguments. Can you do so?

I did not invite you to go somewhere else because of your position be it blasphemous or otherwise. I suggested it because of the ever growing level of frustration with those of us who have not seen the light evident in your posts.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Since no-one has any proof that any of the women in the Canonical Group, formed by conjecture and guesswork, are connected in their death with any other Canonical victim, how could you possibly say that the Group theory is "more likely to be true" cd? Based on what?

Thanks for inviting me to go elsewhere with my blasphemous suggestion that the Canonical Group concept should be at the very least be reduced, but I cant think of anywhere else where that kind of suggestion is needed more. Watching people argue points using the Group as a foundation is nothing but entertainment. Those discussions solve nothing. They just bring out the biases and prejudices that are out there. And since you seem not to know this, many people happen to share my opinion on that matter. Some much more schooled on these cases than you or I.

My belief is that this venue has been created so that Truths can be shared. Cases can be studied. Ideas can be shared. Its not my opinion that the creators and managers of this venue wanted to create a place where Truth is considered the same as common belief.

[c.d.]

There in reality should be no list at all until at the very least 2 victims can be proven to have been killed by the same person. Anyone have that evidence handy? Didnt think so.

Michael,

You seem to view those who tend to accept the Canonical 5 as members of some cult where non-belief is punishable by death or banishment at the very least. People accept the C5 because they think it more likely than not to be true. There is no requirement to believe it. Does anyone have absolutely 100% verifiable evidence that the C5 is the correct view? Of course not. And I am astounded after all of your time on the boards that you would ask what you think is this sort of "gotcha" question. But let's turn things around. Do you have 100% verifiable proof as to how many women Jack the Ripper actually killed? Of course not, all you have is conjecture like everybody else.

Seriously, and I don't mean this to be snotty, but perhaps you should consider moving on from these boards. Ask yourself, how many people have you been able to bring around to your views? Maybe your approach to the case and your keen insights might be better appreciated somewhere else.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Broadly accepted...widely accepted as....presumed to be......assumed to be......isnt there anyone else who sees huge potential problems with any "Canonical" list of victims? If we look at Ripped victims, which is what I believe ALL single killer theorists believe Jack the Ripper was..a Ripper....then we have 4 victims.. tops. The word ripped being used euphemistically for mutilated. Alice would be included in that short list if we believe any "spree" continued on by a single killer after Mary Kelly.

Despite that you can see even in this small sampling in the thread that people want to believe the Canonical list should be greater than the 5 presumed victims...hell, one member here believes all the unsolved murders from that decade, including the Torsos, were part of one single killers list. I suppose then that guy should be known as Jack the Rip/Stab/Cut/Kill/Dismember-er.

Point being, there is as much evidence that Macnaughten short list of Suspects has any validity as there is one man killed more than 4 women. Or even 4 for that matter, since within just those 4 murders there are some very different elements, injuries and circumstances.

There in reality should be no list at all until at the very least 2 victims can be proven to have been killed by the same person. Anyone have that evidence handy? Didnt think so.

[Scott Nelson]

Henry Cox in 1906 (Thompson's Weekly) also said there were six victims (Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, Kelly) plus Tabram.

[Simon Wood]

Sir Robert Anderson wrote in TLSOMOL that, “The last and most horrible of that maniac’s crimes was committed in a house in Miller’s Court on the 9th of November.”

But on page 135 of TLSOMOL, he had moved the goalposts—

“The second of the crimes known as the Whitechapel murders was committed the night before I took office [31st August], and the third occurred the night of the day on which I left London [8th September].”

Thus did Martha Tabram become the first in a series of six victims.

[Abby Normal]

should be c7 including tabram and McKenzie

[C. F. Leon]

Didn't Dr. Bond claim that only (the canonical) 5, plus McKenzie, were due to the same killer? Was that an official report or a newspaper article?

[Losmandris]

Great summary. I have always wondered about this. Now have a little more clarity. For what is worth I think that Martha was the first victim and dare I say it, I am now coming around to see Mackenzie as the last victim.

Tristan

[rjpalmer]

A question was raised on one of the other threads. What are the origins of the ‘canonical five,’ and when did this concept first became prominent, or, at least, when did it first become known?

There are far more qualified people that can address this, but I’ll give it a shot. We can agree, I think, that Melville Macnaghten was the prime mover of this idea, but his memorandum did not become widely known until after the late 1950s.

Jon Menges mentions Frederick Wensley, who in 1931, stated in his autobiography that there were “officially five” victims. I believe Wensley’s full statement was “officially, only five (with a possible sixth) murder were attributed to Jack the Ripper.” So, this was the official view—the canonical five-- with a slight dash of wriggling room tossed in. Wensley, I think it is safe to say, is relying on Macnaghten’s unpublished memo, but he might also be tipping his hat to Swanson (?)

Before Wensley, we had Macnaghten’s own Days of My Years (1913) where he briefly mentions the murders of Emma Smith and Martha Tabram, but states that the first “real” murder in the series was that of Polly Nichols. The last was Mary Kelly, which again gives us the canonical five.

So, the canonical five is “on the books” by 1913. That said, it appears that Macnaghten’s opinion, with very few exceptions, was entirely ignored.

Leonard Matters (1929) includes Turner/Tabram as a Ripper victim, as does Edwin Woodhall (1937). William Stewart (1939) dismisses Liz Stride’s murder as attributable to someone else. Walter Dew, in “I Caught Crippen” (1938) also seems to accept Tabram as a Ripper victim and even leans towards including Emma Smith.

As for ‘general’ books about the history of Scotland Yard, many of these also include the earlier victims. “Critical Years at Scotland Yard,” by Belton Cobb (1956) includes a chapter on the Whitechapel Murders, beginning with the murder of ‘Martha Turner.’ Belton claims that Annie Chapman was the ‘third in the series.’ Kelly, once again, is the last.

Between the wars the case was all but forgotten by the publishing world, and this would not change until the 1960s and 70s. An exception is “The Harlot Killer,” edited by Allan Barnard (1953) which is a weird mishmash of 13 chapters about Jack the Ripper by various authors, some fiction, some non-fiction. In his introduction, Barnard states that both Emma Smith and Martha Tabram were Ripper victims, as does the first author, Alan Hynd. A later chapter is nothing more than excerpts taken from The Times’ coverage of the various inquests in 1888, and this, too, accepts Smith and Tabram as part of the ‘series.’ Only a chapter near the end, by Edmund Pearson, argues in favor of the ‘canonical five,’ which he attributes to “more conservative writers”--evidently a reference to Macnaghten and those aware of him.

So, all in all, it appears that during most of the 20^th Century, Martha Tabram and often Emma Smith were generally accepted as ‘Ripper’ victims, and this didn’t change until the wide dissemination of the Macnaghten memo after Farson got hold of the Aberconway version. As far as I can tell, very few if any commentators considered Mylett or Mackenzie or Coles as genuine ‘Ripper’ victims, even before Macanghten’s opinions became known.

During the 1960s the so-called ‘canon’ solidified into a mythical status, and “The Five” was embraced far and wide thereafter, up to, and including, the author Hallie Rubenhold.