The Canonical Five

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello Sleuth1888.

I,m thinking of breaking the Autumn of Terror into phases; sometimes researching the broad canonical 5 plus 1 at large ends in a quagmire.

1. Tabram and Nicholls
2. Chapman, Eddowes and Stride
3. Mary Jane Kelly

1. Stab wounds to the torso and abdomen but no evisceration.
2. Possible garroted with a kerchief and eviscwrations. [Of the opinion that the killer was interrupted with Eliz]
3. Strong similarities to prior murders but not committed in public.

I,m trying to understand the arc, or the shift from a stabbing attack on Martha ot Polly up to the dissection of Mary Jane. I know that serial killers are noted for their ,,growth,, but 3 1/2 mos. seems like a fast learning curve.

The odd one out of the above bunch is Tabram. The others all follow the base pattern.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hiya.

I'm interested in starting a discussion on how many people on this board subscribe to the notion of a 'Canonical Five', that is that one killer murdered Nichols through to Kelly, including Stride in the Autumn of 1888.

I'm particularly interested in whether the idea of a Canonical Five is valid in modern day Ripperology, particularly in regards to the possibility that by accepting the C5 as the only victims of Jack the Ripper we may be shutting ourselves off to further research and other avenues that may yield interesting results. Could it be that the 'Canonical Five' is one of the biggest and most deeply ingrained myths of modern Ripperology?

The only 'authoritative' 'evidence' for the Canonical Five theory is held within the MacNaghten Memorandum in which Sir Melville categorically states that 'the Whitechapel Murderer had 5 victims & 5 victims only.'

The Memorandum was written in 1894, 6 years after the last generally accepted Ripper killing and by an officer who was not even involved in the official police investigation at the time. Is it logical to believe in his assertion that only 5 women, and no more, were killed by Jack the Ripper when very similar murders took place before and after the 'Canonical Five'?'

I would say any prostitute with a sliced throat in the immediate area is a good bet. So I would go with the usual 5 plus Coles plus McKenzie.

I also feel that things won't always have worked out as there are variables outside of his control, so I reckon there'll be one or two that few people have connected him with that don't follow his obvious pattern of MO. Not by choice on his part; simply by circumstance.

Tabram? That's a no from me.

[Abby Normal]

Hi

I go with Abby on this, was not sure about including Tabram for along time, but come more to accept last year

Steve

Hi El
Yup. Both with skirts pulled up to expose abdomen, and cuts to same.
that's the clincher for me.

Tabram looks a little off due to start of sick fantasy and how to achieve.

[Elamarna]

Hi

I go with Abby on this, was not sure about including Tabram for along time, but come more to accept last year

Steve

[John G]

Nicholls, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly virtual certainties. Tabram and Stride on the balance of probabilities. I'm less certain about McKenzie or, for that matter, Coles. On balance, therefore, I would say no to the latter two. Austin an outside chance but not, of course, impossible.

Oh, I forgot to mention Ellen Bury!

[Abby Normal]

c5 +2. Tabram and McKenzie.

[Robert St Devil]

Hello Sleuth1888.

I,m thinking of breaking the Autumn of Terror into phases; sometimes researching the broad canonical 5 plus 1 at large ends in a quagmire.

1. Tabram and Nicholls
2. Chapman, Eddowes and Stride
3. Mary Jane Kelly

1. Stab wounds to the torso and abdomen but no evisceration.
2. Possible garroted with a kerchief and eviscwrations. [Of the opinion that the killer was interrupted with Eliz]
3. Strong similarities to prior murders but not committed in public.

I,m trying to understand the arc, or the shift from a stabbing attack on Martha ot Polly up to the dissection of Mary Jane. I know that serial killers are noted for their ,,growth,, but 3 1/2 mos. seems like a fast learning curve.

[Harry D]

Yes to the canonical five.

No to Tabram.

Possibly McKenzie.

Probably not Coles.

[wigngown]

Sleuth 1888,

I think the same person murdered the canonical 5, and probably Tabram too. I think the killer probably cut his teeth, so to speak, with Tabram.

The modus operandi and signature seems to fit with each victim and although there were differences, Experts in Homicide generally conclude that the M.O. can change with time as a serial killer becomes accustomed to killing.

Also, the thought of two people carrying out similar Murders in what was a relatively short space of time and in a relatively small area, is in my view improbable.

Best regards.

[Geddy2112]

Not me.

I'm not a great believer in the 'double event' and to be honest I have my doubts over Kelly....

[Sleuth1888]

Hiya.

I'm interested in starting a discussion on how many people on this board subscribe to the notion of a 'Canonical Five', that is that one killer murdered Nichols through to Kelly, including Stride in the Autumn of 1888.

I'm particularly interested in whether the idea of a Canonical Five is valid in modern day Ripperology, particularly in regards to the possibility that by accepting the C5 as the only victims of Jack the Ripper we may be shutting ourselves off to further research and other avenues that may yield interesting results. Could it be that the 'Canonical Five' is one of the biggest and most deeply ingrained myths of modern Ripperology?

The only 'authoritative' 'evidence' for the Canonical Five theory is held within the MacNaghten Memorandum in which Sir Melville categorically states that 'the Whitechapel Murderer had 5 victims & 5 victims only.'

The Memorandum was written in 1894, 6 years after the last generally accepted Ripper killing and by an officer who was not even involved in the official police investigation at the time. Is it logical to believe in his assertion that only 5 women, and no more, were killed by Jack the Ripper when very similar murders took place before and after the 'Canonical Five'?'