Cononical SIX?

[Nick Spring]

Yes, but which 'canon'? The original was six. The canonical five began in the 60's with the discovery of the Macnaghten Memoranda, which was considered a very important document at the time. Indeed, it was seen as the holy grail of Ripperology. We know better today. In the 80's, Dr. Bond's report surfaced and this cemented the canonical five. But neither Mac nor Bond investigated all the murders. Their opinions are important, but a bit after the fact. If we feel we need a canon, we should go with what the majority of police opinion at the time was and that is six. Based on current polls, six is still the preferred canon.

Personally, I'm not convinced and think a 'canon' is silly, but there it is.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

I guess I meant the accepted canon which has always been five and agree that the modern canon could be six.

Personally I don't think a canon matters and agree it does get in the way sometimes but the original five will always remain because of the closeness of the murders to each other and yes you can include Tabram and exclude Stride(hang on that's still five!)

Police opinion varied over the number, Reid thought there were nine! Who knows he very well may be correct.

Best

Nick

[Tom_Wescott]

You can only have a canon if it is generally accepted, which it is and has been.

Everyone has opinions and it is good to question but a canon is a canon.

Anyway how about the 'Famous Five' or the M5, that's always a tedious route to take

cheers

Nick

Yes, but which 'canon'? The original was six. The canonical five began in the 60's with the discovery of the Macnaghten Memoranda, which was considered a very important document at the time. Indeed, it was seen as the holy grail of Ripperology. We know better today. In the 80's, Dr. Bond's report surfaced and this cemented the canonical five. But neither Mac nor Bond investigated all the murders. Their opinions are important, but a bit after the fact. If we feel we need a canon, we should go with what the majority of police opinion at the time was and that is six. Based on current polls, six is still the preferred canon.

Personally, I'm not convinced and think a 'canon' is silly, but there it is.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Nick Spring]

You can only have a canon if it is generally accepted, which it is and has been.

Everyone has opinions and it is good to question but a canon is a canon.

Anyway how about the 'Famous Five' or the M5, that's always a tedious route to take

cheers

Nick

[lynn cates]

Why is it called a canon?

Hello Stephen. But cannot various police officials have different canons? (Especially those who love to shoot off their mouths?--sorry, could not resist.)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

C2

Hello Tom. Permit me to suggest C2 (Cates two)--oh, blast, C looks like canonical.

Never mind.

Cheers.
LC

[Stephen Thomas]

or just as stupid as 'canonical five'?

Obviously you haven't realised what this discussion is about.

The Canonical Five is the Canonical Five is the Canonical Five.

There can't be a Canonical Six.

[Damaso Marte]

This study may not be perfect, but this is exactly what Ripperology needs more of. I'd love to see somebody who is truly passionate and knowledgeable about the case apply this kind of methodology to questions such as "do facial mutilations mean the killer knew the victim" and such.

As for "canonical", my personal use is that when I say "Canonical n", that means the n victims most commonly considered Ripper Victims. Thus, in my parlance, C5 means Nichols/Chapman/Stride/Eddowes/Kelly, C4 means C5 minus stride, C3 means C5 minus stride and Kelly, C2 means Nichols and Chapman, etc

[Tom_Wescott]

While I agree that the term canonical six is unfortunate, I prefer to focus on the general spirit of the query as opposed to focusing on needlessly harping on semantics. If there are other more relevant points to harp on, which there are.

In addition, I have no wish to get involved in any debate regarding canonical vs mcnaghten five as I find all such terminology debates interminably wearying.

Or Lynn's right and it's canonical TWO...or the Cates Two...crap, we're back to terminology debates again.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Has nobody noticed that the title of this thread is really stupid?

Edit: And that's nothing to do with the mis-spelling.

Moreso or just as stupid as 'canonical five'?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fleetwood Mac]

Why do you consider Stride the most likely of the three? As well, I'm interested to know what would qualify as 'otherwise'.

It's the old adage that the way to understand human beings is to watch what they do rather than try to read their minds. From Tabram to Nichols in a few weeks? I doubt it.

[Patrick S]

I would say that Tabram is unlikely, that Stride is very likely, and Coles is also likely but not quite on the same par as Stride.

There are so many factors that you simply can't control, and some you can but don't on that particular occasion for some reason; yet the fact remains that not many people were doing the rounds forcing women to the floor and cutting their throats for what was clearly some greater purpose, whether disturbed or otherwise.

Why do you consider Stride the most likely of the three? As well, I'm interested to know what would qualify as 'otherwise'.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I read this study a few years back (I'm sure it's been shared on this board before) and it completely changed my way of thinking about the case:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jip.22/pdf

The study is quite compelling, if not utterly convincing. Professionally speaking I'm a numbers/data guy. Therefore, this study seals the deal for me. Broadening the comparison to include 3359 murders over a fifteen year period demonstrates the rarity of JTR's MO, an MO that runs from Tabram through Kelly...and disappears, virtually forever.

At the very least a fascinating and worthwhile read. I look forward to discussion.

I would say that Tabram is unlikely, that Stride is very likely, and Coles is also likely but not quite on the same par as Stride.

There are so many factors that you simply can't control, and some you can but don't on that particular occasion for some reason; yet the fact remains that not many people were doing the rounds forcing women to the floor and cutting their throats for what was clearly some greater purpose, whether disturbed or otherwise.

[Ally]

While I agree that the term canonical six is unfortunate, I prefer to focus on the general spirit of the query as opposed to focusing on needlessly harping on semantics. If there are other more relevant points to harp on, which there are.

In addition, I have no wish to get involved in any debate regarding canonical vs mcnaghten five as I find all such terminology debates interminably wearying.

[Stephen Thomas]

Has nobody noticed that the title of this thread is really stupid?

Edit: And that's nothing to do with the mis-spelling.

[Hunter]

Welcome to the big leagues, Patrick.

Good thread.