The Canonical Five

[Robert St Devil]

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.

[Observer]

If it wasn't unusual, then... it wasn't. And it wouldn't therefore be unreasonable to question - say - "rarity of murders" as a factor in why Stride ought to be included in the canonical Ripper murders.

Surely, those other six murders ought not be generally, or contextually, disregarded? Especially as three of them occurred in 1888, in the exact same small area - two of which were concurrent with the C-5 time span.

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.

[Billiou]

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...chapel_murders [accessed Apr 24, 2016].

Thanks for the link. Very interesting. Could have done with a bit of proof reading though!

[Ausgirl]

Small area very large population. Murders per capita were extremly rare in late Victorian Whitechapel, don't kid yourself. During the whole of 1888 there were seven murders in Whitechapel, the majority of them by the Whitechapel murderer. In three years eleven murders, deduct the Whitechapel murderers tally and I'd say you were left with five, that's less than two per year, and I'd say comparable to any area of Britain with a similar density of individuals. Murders, considering population were rare in late Victorian Britain.

Oddly enough, I was just now reading this:

In spite of the apparent rampant crime in the area, there is some confusion about the prevalence of murder. The Annual Report of the Sanitary Conditions of Whitechapel listed no murders in the Whitechapel area in the years 1886 and 1887. The report listed only 71 cases of violent death in the Whitechapel area in 1887; 69 of those deaths were attributed to accidents and the remaining two were suicides. Only one murder was recorded for the entire Whitechapel area in 1889 and again in 1890 (Paley, 1996). This suggests that while the Whitechapel area was crime laden, the occurrence of murder was rare.

However, other analysts (Emmerichs, 2001) have shown that murders in Whitechapel were likely more common and typical of other high crime rate areas in London. There are a number of reasons for this. Record keeping was not systematic, the classification of cause of death was rudimentary, haphazard, and often inaccurate, the official residence of the victim had to be in Whitechapel to be counted, and the poverty of the residents and victims (referred to at the time as members of the ‘dangerous classes’) militated against any official legal action. Analyses of nineteenth century London coroners’ records indicate that it was unusual for a coroner to classify suspicious homicides as murders. Coroners were paid by a Justice of the Peace for their investigations, which were typically not requested because they were considered unnecessary. Coroners were not required to have a medical background until 1926, so they were often involved in occupations other than medicine.

Emmerich’s (2001) examination of hundreds of inquests performed in the nineteenth century in London indicates that the criminal homicide rate was much higher than reported in the sparse and unreliable documents of the time

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...chapel_murders [accessed Apr 24, 2016].


Anyway, "rare" or not, there WERE somewhere between two and seven killers in that area, in that 3-year period, all whom committed heinously violent crimes against women, and most of whom targetted victims of a roughly similar type.

Either this was an unusual number, or it wasn't.

If it was unusual, then what I'm proposing is that perhaps it would be useful to look for possible reasons as to why this unusual thing was happening at that particular time and no other, in that particular place.

If it wasn't unusual, then... it wasn't. And it wouldn't therefore be unreasonable to question - say - "rarity of murders" as a factor in why Stride ought to be included in the canonical Ripper murders.

Surely, those other six murders ought not be generally, or contextually, disregarded? Especially as three of them occurred in 1888, in the exact same small area - two of which were concurrent with the C-5 time span.

[Observer]

More myth

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.

Small area very large population. Murders per capita were extremly rare in late Victorian Whitechapel, don't kid yourself. During the whole of 1888 there were seven murders in Whitechapel, the majority of them by the Whitechapel murderer. In three years eleven murders, deduct the Whitechapel murderers tally and I'd say you were left with five, that's less than two per year, and I'd say comparable to any area of Britain with a similar density of individuals. Murders, considering population were rare in late Victorian Britain.

[Ausgirl]

Was there a rash of non-Canon murders in the area? Who exactly were the victims?

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.

[John G]

If you want to believe that Eddowes was killed by the same hand as Nichols and Chapman, you must be willing to believe that a serial killer is capable of changing his M.O. - the nature and extent of his mutilations, their "skill" as measured by one particular doctor (who happened to have been the only one to be in a position to compare across victims), the direction of the cut, the treatment of the clothing, etc. - over the course of multiple killings, either by choice or due to other factors.

If you want to believe that Eddowes was killed by another hand, you must be willing to believe not just in another killer prowling Whitechapel (apart from a small handful of Ripper = torso killer = Tabram killer purists, most of us believe there were multiple killers about in that neighborhood at that time, though each additional killer we believe in strains probability), but that a relative newcomer to killing is capable of silently taking down a woman in Mitre Square and ripping her in under 15 minutes, without alerting the nearby watchman, without waking up any sleeping families above, without giving himself away to PC Harvey, without creating any signs of a struggle, and then getting away.

I'm not 100% sure who Lynn Cates thinks killed Eddowes as he never fully and directly states his beliefs (if I had to guess, I'd say he thinks Kelly killed her over some domestic dispute, just as he seems to think Kidney killed Stride), but to me it is less unbelievable that the killer had a "bad night" due to greater darkness, greater inebriation, or some other factor, than that a first-time killer could have replicated the stealth and silence that I have come to view as a hallmark of the canonical 5 murders.

Obviously the MO of a serial killer can change- Gary Taylor's MO, for instance, was all over the place. According to Schlesinger a serial killer's signature can also evolve, or become more elaborate, whilst remaining "behaviourally similar, thematically consistent." (Schlesinger et al, 2010). Schlesinger gives an example of a serial killer who progressed from postmortem genital mutilation to dismemberment, which I would argue would represent a much more fundamental evolution than is evident in the 1888 murders.

[John G]

Hello John. Thanks.

Of course, the kidney removal was a huge exception. (Which, by the way, is grist for Trevor's mill.)

If you look at Dr. Clark's interview, he seems to confirm that Phillips NEVER accepted the one hand view--at least, not based on the forensic evidence.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

I'm not familiar with Dr Clark's interview so I cannot comment on it. Dr Gordon implied that Dr Phillips believed Stride and Eddowes were not by the same hand-a perfectly reasonable position to hold as there has to be a significant element of doubt-although, in light of his subsequent comments at the McKenzie inquest, I would question whether he continued to hold this view.

[John G]

Hello (again) John.

"What is also moot is that all of these murderous individuals apparently emerged from the same tiny district, and in the same year."

Of course, one must believe this, UNLESS one wishes to include ALL the murders in that district as one handed. Let us not forget the torsos.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Only one torso victim was discovered in the district-the Pinchin Street Torso-but there's obviously no evidence this victim was actually murdered in Whitechapel. Apart from Tabram, who I consider a probable Ripper Victim, was anyone else murdered in the district, in 1888, outside the C5?

[John G]

Why wouldn't I be? Many have done so, and quite a bit more radically than that.

It must seem that I'm arguing all sides, at times.. In a way, I am - I get disgruntled by people speaking absolutes by way of backing up their own assertions, when those absolutes are not factual. Not that I don't do this myself at times. I don't mind being corrected on it, though.

Anyway, while I think Stride was (very possibly) not a Ripper victim, and I'm not sure about Kelly, nor Tabram, I do think the rest of the "C5" are by the same person.

It's kind of maddening really. I mean, if murder and cut throats were so exceedingly rare around there, how to explain the rash of "non-canon" victims in the area? Why are they "coincidence" and Stride is not? Where'd all those other 'rare birds' come from, then, and where'd they go? The rarity thing pretty much falls apart, if one doesn't want to include the other murders in the canon, doesn't it?

Was there a rash of non-Canon murders in the area? Who exactly were the victims?

[Harry D]

Hello Harry.

"For the multi-killer theorists, I'd love to know why there wasn't another "copycat" killing until some eight months after the last victim. We have whoever killed Tabram, then Isenschmid takes care of Nichols & Chapman, Stride's dead, shortly followed by Eddowes, and someone else butchers Kelly. Where were all these savage murderers popping up from and why did they all seem to go on hiatus around the same time?"

This question would have import if these killers were serialists or merely killing for sport. But I assume there was a point to their killings. If so, your question is moot.

Cheers.
LC

Let's put this into context, Lynn.

Five women have their throats slashed, four of them suffer post-mortem mutilations of various degrees, within a small geographical area, over a twelve week period. All of them were seemingly motiveless crimes and there was never a compelling suspect for any of them. You want to base the "multi-killer" hypothesis on discrepancies of surgical skill, of which there was no medical consensus at the time, instead of recognising the glaringly obvious pattern at play.

But hey, I get it. "Ripperology" is such a highly contentious field that people want their opinions to stand out from the crowd and bring something new to the table. We've had the pendulum swing from outrageous suspect-based theories like Prince Albert & van Gogh, to innocuous ones like Barnett & Lechmere, and all manner of debate surrounding the victim tally. Ripper-denial, as one might call it, is just an extension of this process.

[Ausgirl]

To Ausgirl

I don't think two killers is beyond the realms of possibility. However some argue that three, four or even five different hands were responsible for the C5. Also the suspects I mentioned are all what I would regard as silly suspects. For example some seem intent on convicting Crossmere for the C5 on nothing. Frankly I'm sick of the amount of threads dedicated to the likes of Crossmere full of b.s. about an obviously innocent man.

Cheers John

Ah, ok, can totally see where you're coming from, there.

[John Wheat]

But! There *were* other murders in that year (and adjacent years), of prostitutes no less. Of course, you must be aware of this. So it seems a number of "murderous individuals" did in fact crawl out the woodwork around the same time. Unless you think ALL of the murders were done by JtR and nobody else..

It's really, really, not impossible for there to have been at least two killers on the same turf at the same time. Especially when looking at Stride, never mind the non-canon murders and attempted murders.



I kind of get where you're coming from?

But good grief, is it really "crackpot" to consider that Stride *may* have been killed by somebody else? Or even Kelly? I don't think so, I don't think those sort of questions are absolutely baseless or out of order. And besides, questions like that do generate some interesting conversations.

And yes, some "suspects" are sillier than others, and some people arguing their theories get a bit annoying at times, but are they all "crackpot" ir, worthless and beneath attention?

Of course, I'm not so lofty nor well informed as some, so I find it all rather interesting, whether I agree or not.

To Ausgirl

I don't think two killers is beyond the realms of possibility. However some argue that three, four or even five different hands were responsible for the C5. Also the suspects I mentioned are all what I would regard as silly suspects. For example some seem intent on convicting Crossmere for the C5 on nothing. Frankly I'm sick of the amount of threads dedicated to the likes of Crossmere full of b.s. about an obviously innocent man.

Cheers John

[Ausgirl]

If you want to believe that Eddowes was killed by the same hand as Nichols and Chapman, you must be willing to believe that a serial killer is capable of changing his M.O.

Why wouldn't I be? Many have done so, and quite a bit more radically than that.

It must seem that I'm arguing all sides, at times.. In a way, I am - I get disgruntled by people speaking absolutes by way of backing up their own assertions, when those absolutes are not factual. Not that I don't do this myself at times. I don't mind being corrected on it, though.

Anyway, while I think Stride was (very possibly) not a Ripper victim, and I'm not sure about Kelly, nor Tabram, I do think the rest of the "C5" are by the same person.

It's kind of maddening really. I mean, if murder and cut throats were so exceedingly rare around there, how to explain the rash of "non-canon" victims in the area? Why are they "coincidence" and Stride is not? Where'd all those other 'rare birds' come from, then, and where'd they go? The rarity thing pretty much falls apart, if one doesn't want to include the other murders in the canon, doesn't it?

[Damaso Marte]

If you want to believe that Eddowes was killed by the same hand as Nichols and Chapman, you must be willing to believe that a serial killer is capable of changing his M.O. - the nature and extent of his mutilations, their "skill" as measured by one particular doctor (who happened to have been the only one to be in a position to compare across victims), the direction of the cut, the treatment of the clothing, etc. - over the course of multiple killings, either by choice or due to other factors.

If you want to believe that Eddowes was killed by another hand, you must be willing to believe not just in another killer prowling Whitechapel (apart from a small handful of Ripper = torso killer = Tabram killer purists, most of us believe there were multiple killers about in that neighborhood at that time, though each additional killer we believe in strains probability), but that a relative newcomer to killing is capable of silently taking down a woman in Mitre Square and ripping her in under 15 minutes, without alerting the nearby watchman, without waking up any sleeping families above, without giving himself away to PC Harvey, without creating any signs of a struggle, and then getting away.

I'm not 100% sure who Lynn Cates thinks killed Eddowes as he never fully and directly states his beliefs (if I had to guess, I'd say he thinks Kelly killed her over some domestic dispute, just as he seems to think Kidney killed Stride), but to me it is less unbelievable that the killer had a "bad night" due to greater darkness, greater inebriation, or some other factor, than that a first-time killer could have replicated the stealth and silence that I have come to view as a hallmark of the canonical 5 murders.