The Canonical Five

[lynn cates]

gerrymander

Hello John. Thanks.

What counts as "the district"?

Some have excepted Berner st, of course, the traditionalists have shouted them down.

I suppose that "the district" includes the EXACT area where the C5 were murdered?

So today's word is "gerrymander."

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

ripperologist

Hello Harry. Thanks.

I am most definitely NOT a "ripperologist." I am a humble adjunct professor in the midst of changing disciplines--which takes a good bit of my time.

I do not care a feather or a fig about "distinguishing" myself. I seek ONLY truth and a solution to the case. Not easy when so many are engaged in the same nonsense which has gotten us NOWHERE for five quarters of a century.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Conway

Hello Damaso. You have summed up my position quite well.

Right now, there is a serious investigation to see if the Thomas Conway involved in the Cleveland st affair was OUR Thomas Conway.

If so, a simple solution seems obvious.

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

In respect of the statistics that I cited in Post 141, I should of course credit Colin Roberts for his excellent and detailed research: see http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...651#post314651

[John G]

I'll say again, leaving out the Whitechapel atrocities, of which in my opinion there were six, murder, considering the density of population was rare in Whitechapel during the time span you stipulate. The reference you gave regarding the possibility that homicide records were inaccurate refereed to the whole of the 19th century. I'd agree, possibly early 19th century records were inaccurate. By the end of the century however I'd say the police were in a position to determine whether in the case of violent death it was necessary to conduct a murder inquiry. There were eleven in Whitechapel during the period 1888 - 1891.

It's easy enough to determine who was and was not slain by the Whitechapel killer.

Wynne E Baxter the coroner presiding over the Stride case gave an astute reason as to why she should be included in the canon,

"The ordinary motives of murder - revenge, jealousy, theft, and passion - appeared, therefore, to be absent from this case; while it was clear from the accounts of all who saw her that night, as well as from the post-mortem examination, that she was not otherwise than sober at the time of her death. In the absence of motive, the age and class of woman selected as victim, and the place and time of the crime, there was a similarity between this case and those mysteries which had recently occurred in that neighbourhood. There had been no skilful mutilation as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case in Mitre-square - possibly the work of an imitator; but there had been the same skill exhibited in the way in which the victim had been entrapped, and the injuries inflicted, so as to cause instant death and prevent blood from soiling the operator, and the same daring defiance of immediate detection,"

I can only agree with him.

I would agree with this. Coroner Baxter clearly makes an astute observation. There is no doubt these were exceptionally rare crimes, both nationally and in Whitechapel. If anyone disagrees with this assessment I would challenge them to provide substantive evidence to the contrary. rather than simply relying on, say, rhetoric or anecdotal evidence.

[John G]

Really? Between April 1888 and the early months of 1991, there were nearly a dozen of these "extremely rare" Whitechapel murders. But I think you probably know that.

Keep in mind, please, that I am not trying to rock anyone's C-5 oriented world here regarding whether the Ripper killed all five or not. What I'm saying is:

This whole "Murder in Whitechapel (and surrounds? because hey, Spitalfieds, etc) was extremely rare" is kind of undermined by there being at least SIX other murders besides the C-5 in that small general area.

So there's six other "rare" instances, right? How many have to happen, before murder there isn't considered "rare"? Was that spate of eleven murders rare in itself? So how can we attempt to account for such an extremely rare thing as at least two and possibly as many as seven killers (six, plus the C-5 Ripper) occupying the same small area in the space of just three years?

Is what I'm saying.

"Nearly a dozen of these extremely rare" Whitechapel murders between 1888 and 1891? I don't think that can be right, unless you've uncovered cases not know to the authorities. Thus, apart from the C5 we have Tabram, who I consider a likely JtR victim based on signature characteristics, McKenzie and Coles. If my maths is correct that makes eight, which clearly isn't "nearly a dozen". Perhaps you were considering the murder rate generally? And what about after 1891? Can you cite a single murder in Whitechapel, that even remotely resembled a C5 incident, until the death of Austin in 1901? In fact, can you cite a single murder in the whole of London, over the same period that meets this criteria? And, I would point out that London's population at the time was 5.6million as against about 80000 for Whitechapel, so this extends the scope considerably. And what about prior to 1888? How many murders on the whole of London, say, meet the basic criteria I previously stipulated?

I would also point out that, even if we ignore the other signature characteristics, murder by cut throat alone was extremely rare. Thus, in the whole of England there were only nine recorder cases in 1887, six in 1889 and seven in 1890. However, in 1888 15 such cases were recorded.: Source Annual Reports of the Register General of Births, Deaths and Marriages in England. Can you see why there may have been a surge of such cases in 1888? Moreover, as I noted previously, outside the C5 there was only one recorded cut throat murder in London (pop 5.6million) in 1888, which was the result of a domestic incident. Seems pretty rare to me.

[John Wheat]

Is discussing suspects like Kosminsky, Barnett, Hutchinson, Thompson, Druitt, etc., also "shameful"? Should we just not talk about suspects?

At least Kosminski and Druitt have something going for them eg they were suspected at the time. However I think all the suspects you named are poor suspects. But the way proponents of Lechmere proclaim it to be case shut is ridiculous. Lechmere is a terrible suspect up there or should that be down there with the likes of Dr Barnardo.

[Billiou]

Fisherman made a post some years ago, in which he outlined a whole numbered list of reasons for Xmere being a suspect -- and some of them are actually not bad. Some of them are rather silly, but at least he had the not-bad ones in there also, which provide a whole pile more validity for his suspect than some listed here on the "suspects" page. Lewis Carroll, really? Why's that even still up there?

Anyway. I agree, if it's ok to discuss Hutchinson, et al, it should be ok to discuss Lechmere. Perhaps less obnoxiously, all round, though? Maybe quit making new threads for every single contended point? It's like a whack-a-mole nightmare, in which I possess no mallet.

Agree.

[Ausgirl]

Is discussing suspects like Kosminsky, Barnett, Hutchinson, Thompson, Druitt, etc., also "shameful"? Should we just not talk about suspects?

Fisherman made a post some years ago, in which he outlined a whole numbered list of reasons for Xmere being a suspect -- and some of them are actually not bad. Some of them are rather silly, but at least he had the not-bad ones in there also, which provide a whole pile more validity for his suspect than some listed here on the "suspects" page. Lewis Carroll, really? Why's that even still up there?

Anyway. I agree, if it's ok to discuss Hutchinson, et al, it should be ok to discuss Lechmere. Perhaps less obnoxiously, all round, though? Maybe quit making new threads for every single contended point? It's like a whack-a-mole nightmare, in which I possess no mallet.

[Damaso Marte]

To wigngown

Yes Lechmere's name has been run through the mud for no reason. Its shameful.

Cheers John

Is discussing suspects like Kosminsky, Barnett, Hutchinson, Thompson, Druitt, etc., also "shameful"? Should we just not talk about suspects?

[John Wheat]

John Wheat,

Based on what is currently known, and assuming Fisherman doesn't have several Ace cards up his sleeve, I have a lot of sympathy for Lechmere.

Best regards.

To wigngown

Yes Lechmere's name has been run through the mud for no reason. Its shameful.

Cheers John

[Ausgirl]

-- there was no connection between him and his chosen victims that the police could fathom.

Same with the six non-canonicals though?

[wigngown]

John Wheat,

Based on what is currently known, and assuming Fisherman doesn't have several Ace cards up his sleeve, I have a lot of sympathy for Lechmere.

Best regards.

[ChrisGeorge]

I think Baxter touched on it, Observer. You read about how murder was a rare instance in Victorian London. But then, I go back and look at these 1888 newspapers... and all surrounding the Jack the Ripper articles is murder, murder, murder. The difference seems to stem from the notion that they are domestic crimes. For example, a man beats his wife to death and, then, attempts suicide by cutting his theoat. Or, a domestic servant shoots his employer. They seem to fit within their ,realm of reason, because they were based on aspects they understood - jealousy, revenge, passion. Jack the Ripper could have been considered part of a different murder census bc his murders were random in relation and willfully committed against persons unknown.

Well yes there were a lot of domestic murders or at least homicides among people who knew each other. What made the Ripper "different" was that he was apparently a "killer of strangers." But that of course is what also made him so hard to catch -- there was no connection between him and his chosen victims that the police could fathom.

[Ausgirl]

I was nowhere talking about domestic murders.