The Canonical Five

[drstrange169]

I've never been a fan of the term "canonical five". I much prefer the "Macnaughton five", a term that gives context but, not assumption.

[Errata]

I've never been a fan of the term "canonical five". I much prefer the "Macnaughton five", a term that gives context but, not assumption.

I grew up on comic book canon, so I tend to have a much looser interpretation of the word. Nothing is immutable, and eventually someone always rips a hole in space/time. Which is a view I find useful for Ripperology. Maybe not so much the second one. But I'm open to it.

[GUT]

Hi Errata
Couldn't agree more, If you favour say Druitt, Tumblety or Bury you obviously can't include Mackenzie.

Which is why being a obsessed believer in a particular suspect is not a good thing. Can't see the Wood for the Trees situation.

regards

Steve

By the same token if you "Lock in", say MacKenzie, you are forced to disregard those you name.

That's why I try to keep an open mind on both questions.

[Damaso Marte]

I'd say about 50% of this forum does not adhere to the Canonical Five, and the other 50% generally at least has their minds partially open to the idea that the Ripper killed more/less than the Canonical Five.

I personally believe that the Canonical Five were all killed by the same person, whom I term "Jack the Ripper" - though I admit that I am most likely to be wrong about Stride. I also am open to the idea that Tabram and Mackenzie were killed by the Ripper. Coles I think was a one-off, probably by Sadler.

I have tried to coin the phrase "Canonical 4" to refer to Nichols/Chapman/Eddowes/Kelly, and "Canonical 3" to refer to Nichols/Chapman/Eddowes, and "Canonical 2" to refer to Nichols/Chapman, as these are generally the smaller groups that people who deny one or more or the C5 believe were killed by the same hand. They have not caught on at all.

[Mayerling]

Hi Errata
Couldn't agree more, If you favour say Druitt, Tumblety or Bury you obviously can't include Mackenzie.

Which is why being a obsessed believer in a particular suspect is not a good thing. Can't see the Wood for the Trees situation.

regards

Steve

As a basis for research stick to the Canonical or "Macnaughten" Five as a start. If anything definite turns up, add those who can definitely linked.

Jeff

[Elamarna]

By the same token if you "Lock in", say MacKenzie, you are forced to disregard those you name.

That's why I try to keep an open mind on both questions.

Yes my friend exactly, so although I may think Mackenzie is a victim, she cannot be a certainty, and she cannot on her own be used to include or discard any suspect.

steve

[Rosella]

Yes, I believe one killer was responsible for the C-5. I go to and fro about Tabram as I still think it possible that she was killed by a soldier client. It's a definite No from me as far as Coles and Alice McKenzie.

[John Wheat]

Which is why being a obsessed believer in a particular suspect is not a good thing. Can't see the Wood for the Trees situation.

Why someone has to have been Jack?

[John Wheat]

Hi John

agree about the Torso Murders, however Mackenzie is more similar than Tabram to the C5.

Steve

To Steve

Yes but McKenzie was killed long after Mary Jane Kelly. I doubt Jack could have waited over half a year to kill again after killing Mary Jane Kelly.

Cheers John

[jerryd]

To Steve

Yes but McKenzie was killed long after Mary Jane Kelly. I doubt Jack could have waited over half a year to kill again after killing Mary Jane Kelly.

Cheers John

Anything over a month was a long time if you think about it, John. The first 4 of the canon were essentially killed in September.[Nichols was less than 24 hours from September 1st] Then Kelly almost two months later.

[harry]

In some cases where multiple killers have been caught,it has become known that the police have underestimated the number of victims they killed.The Whitechapel murderer,in my opinion,was responsible for more than 5.

[GUT]

To Steve

Yes but McKenzie was killed long after Mary Jane Kelly. I doubt Jack could have waited over half a year to kill again after killing Mary Jane Kelly.

Cheers John

Unless he was, for whatever reason, unable to.

Ill

Prison

Work

Whatever.

[Shaggyrand]

I'm open to any argument for adding or subtracting victims. I do lean more toward including McKenzie more than the other common additions.

[John G]

I believe Jack killed the C5 plus Tabram and as I believe WH Bury was probably the Ripper I'll add Ellen Bury to that list. Why? Well for a start the MO used in Ellen Bury's murder is closer in my opinion to the MO used in the C5 than for instance the MO used in the Torso Murders which some believe Jack committed.

Yes, I also agree about the Torso crimes. Firstly, it's not been firmly established that the victims were actually murdered. Secondly, very different signatures are apparent. Thirdly, it would mean a serial killer whose signature alternates, i.e. disguising the identity of the victim/not disguising the identity of the victim; targeting victims outdoors and making no attempt to remove the body/possibly abducting the victim and using disposal sites.

[kensei]

I almost hate to bring something esoteric into this discussion but I've had some experience with scrying (which most refer to as "fortune telling") and have seen it have very impressive results. I was doing some experiments with it once with myself and two other people in which we all focused on the same questions using a pendulum on yes or no questions, and I posed the question "Was Jack the Ripper any of the various suspects that have been suggested over the years?" All three of us got the answer "no." That's what I tend to go with, that the Ripper was someone that has never been named and who totally got away with it. BUT-- if that's not the case, my favorite suspect is James Kelly. I think he is a perfect suspect for having killed all of the C5 and actually I include Tabram to make a C6, but though he has been implicated in other murders during his fugitive life as a sailor in other parts of the world including America, he would not have still been in London to kill McKenzie or Coles, and I've given serious consideration to them being Ripper victims too, which if true would rule out James Kelly. I even include the Torso victims as possible Ripper victims. The difference in MO does not bother me, but obviously this keeps me from ever really arriving at a really firm conclusion as to what I believe about the Ripper case.

Modern serial killers have displayed radically different MOs. Ted Bundy favored bludgeoning but he also strangled, showed a gun to a victim that got away, and used a knife on his final victim who was only 12 years old, much younger than any of his other victims. He even cut off a head once and brought it home. Richard Ramirez was also all over the board- guns, knives, machete, theft, torture, rape, murder as well as letting people live. I don't think it would be surprising at all for Jack the Ripper to have shown a similar variety in his MO.

But the bottom line is that even in the cesspool of Whitechapel/Spitalfields at that time I just don't think it's likely that more than one person would have had the inclination to commit the Ripper's crimes or the balls to actually do it. Monsters like that are- thankfully- very rare aberrations. Bundy and the Green River Killer Gary Ridgeway prowled the same area, but not at the same time.