The Canonical Five

[Robert St Devil]

Hello Lynn,

...
Moreover, I'm not sure how he arrived at the conclusion that the mutilations inflicted on Nichols and Chapman suggested a higher level of skill than Eddowes: this wasn't expressly stated by any of the medical professionals and, of course, Baxter didn't even preside over the Eddowes inquest.

The only aspect of Eddowes' case that suggest skilled professionalism is the organ harvest of the kidney. If you remove that aspect, you have a corpse who had been frantically attacked without abandon - the manic cuts to her face, the cuts that travel from the front of her groin round to her backside, the organs he incidentally slices as he cuts into her abdomen. But, least not forget, the fact that he cuts off a piece of her intestine, which may have accidentally occurred when he was cutting into her body; thus, spilling out her feces.

And then we have to consider the reliability of the "expert" opinion. Thus, Dr Llewellyn didn't initially notice that Nichols had suffered an extensive abdominal injury, so that raises important questions about his credibility.

It was dark, and there was nothing apparent about her clothes that suggested that they had been cut into, or that it was blood soaked. Her dress had been properly arranged by Lechmere and Paul to offer her some decency. Even Dr. Llewellyn seems somewhat astonished that he overlooked this fact after her body arrives at the mortuary. On first encounter with the ghastly sight, it could have seemed "obvious" that the cut to her throat was sufficient to kill her, and he may have only been there in the capacity to report her living condition to PC Neale. Polly is the "first" murder, so there was no familiarity with the cruel capacity of Jack the Ripper yet.

Jack the Ripper

[John G]

Hello John. Thanks

This was said at Liz's inquest:

"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. . ."

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Of course that was stated by Coroner Baxter at Stride's inquest. However, this is the complete quote:

"There had been no skilful mutilation as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the Mitre Square case-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 soiling the operator, and the same daring defiance of immediate detection, which, unfortunately for the peace of the inhabitants and trade of the neighbourhood, had hitherto been only too successful."

Therefore, it seems Baxter wasn't of the opinion that the evidence suggested Stride and Eddowes were murdered by a different hand; if anything, quite the reverse.

Moreover, I'm not sure how he arrived at the conclusion that the mutilations inflicted on Nichols and Chapman suggested a higher level of skill than Eddowes: this wasn't expressly stated by any of the medical professionals and, of course, Baxter didn't even preside over the Eddowes inquest.

And then we have to consider the reliability of the "expert" opinion. Thus, Dr Llewellyn didn't initially notice that Nichols had suffered an extensive abdominal injury, so that raises important questions about his credibility.

And then we have Dr Phillips, who made the somewhat controversial comment, in respect of Chapman, about "one sweep of the knife". And let us consider what that implies. The Lancet opined:

"Obviously the work of an expert- of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife..."

And:

" Certainly the murderer must have done his work quickly; and this, again, points to the improbability of anyone but an expert performing the mutilations described in so apparently skilful a manner." (The Lancet, September 29, 1888).

Therefore, if Dr Phillips is correct, it seems apparent that Chapman's murderer was probably an expert surgeon. At the very least I think we can safely rule out pork butchers, especially those that may have been in the throes of an hallucination. However, if his conclusions concerning the level of skill exhibited by Chapman's killer, particularly as regards the "one sweep of the knife" observation, are incorrect, then his credibility, and therefore reliability, must be brought into question.

Of course, Dr Bond completely disagreed with Dr Phillips, concluding that none of the Whitechapel murders suggested a skilful assailant: although it's often pointed out that Dr Bond only had the opportunity to view Kelly's remains, Dr Phillips didn't have the opportunity to examine either Eddowes or Nichols.

It would also seem that Dr Phillips eventually came to the conclusion that the Whitechapel murders were all linked. This is what he stated at McKenzie's inquest (the emphasis is mine):

" After careful and long deliberation, I cannot satisfy myself, on purely anatomical and professional grounds, that the perpetrator of all the 'Wh Ch. murders' is our man."

[Mayerling]

When you have contemporary sources stating that there were 5 or more murders that they felt should be grouped under one killer, one must understand the position that these unsolved murders put the police in. The same police who were hated by the Whitechapel residents for the strong arm tactics of Bloody Sunday in '87.

I suspect it was fairly easy to group the "Canonical Five" together because of the mutilations of the bodies, the profession of the victims, the East End locations, the sex of the victims, and the relative shortness of time regarding the killings from Ms Nicholls to Ms Kelly. Only Tabram might have been added due to her being at the start of the same month Nicholls was killed in. But there would have been problems (as there still are) with killings that spread further back (Emma Smith) by a few months to killings within three or more years (Frances Coles in 1891). And the difficulties grew thinking of murders really far back (for example, Harriet Buswell in 1872). For the sake of ease of investigation the five made sense. That did not necessarily mean the answer was restricted to only those five victims, nor that the killings could be necessarily the work of one man only. Ease does not mean the investigators would be on the right track. But it is understandable.

Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

There are people who question the expertise of the contemporary physicians when determining whether skill or knowledge is present in the Canonical victims wounds. I would say that comments by any physician who did not see the wounds first hand should indeed be questioned.

We do have someone however who saw 4 of 5 Canonicals in death, and as such, he is THE most reliable source for comparative data in this regard. Phillips.

He saw the same hand in C1 and C2, he didn't see that in C3, and he didn't see the same level of skill or knowledge in C4.

When you have contemporary sources stating that there were 5 or more murders that they felt should be grouped under one killer, one must understand the position that these unsolved murders put the police in. The same police who were hated by the Whitechapel residents for the strong arm tactics of Bloody Sunday in '87.

[Mayerling]

Hi,

I think there are historical reasons for hypothesizing that one killer murdered the C-5.

But the past is the past and history is history about the past.

If someone would like to prove one killer for the C-5, evidence must be added. There must be new sources added to old sources and theses sources together must throw a new light over the case.

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

I think by "history is history about the past", you mean it is the cobbled-together information we have accumulated relating to the events of the past - it is not the past itself, which we can barely comprehend because we are not really part of it, because it is beyond our memories - indeed, the further it is the more difficult it is for us to grasp what it was like.

This does not mean that we cannot grasp portions of it (such as, an operation for a cancerous growth was less likely to succeed in 1888, than it would be today), but the total reality of surgery or medicine or hospitals and hospital staffs of 1888 can never be totally found (we would never know how much of a rivalry there was between members of the hospital staffs, for example, unless somebody wrote something about them).

Jeff

[Pierre]

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'?'

Hi,

I think there are historical reasons for hypothesizing that one killer murdered the C-5.

But the past is the past and history is history about the past.

If someone would like to prove one killer for the C-5, evidence must be added. There must be new sources added to old sources and theses sources together must throw a new light over the case.

Regards, Pierre

[lynn cates]

possibly the work of an imitator

Hello John. Thanks

This was said at Liz's inquest:

"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. . ."

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello CD. Thanks.

Hope you are well.

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

Hello John. Thanks.

"Was it expressly stated at the inquest?"

Yes.

The kidney removal WAS skilled--and that differs from the rest of the cutting.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Yes, great to see you posting again.

I don't think it's expressly stated anywhere that Eddowes' killer was less skilled than Chapman's. In fact, at the Chapman inquest Dr Phillips, when asked if there was any anatomical knowledge displayed, replied somewhat equivocally, "there were indications of it." Similarly, when Dr Brown, at the Eddowes' inquest, was asked by the coroner, "would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill", he responded, "he must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them."

Of course, there is the matter of the parallel cuts. However, in respect of Chapman, Dr Phillips clearly stated that the cuts were on the spine, whereas with Nicholls it has been argued they were on the throat or neck. However, I would concede that Dr Llewellyn's testimony is somewhat confusing on this point:

"On the left side of the neck, about an inch below the jaw, there was an incision about four inches long and running from the point immediately below the ear. An inch below on the same side, and commencing about an inch in front of it, was a circular incision terminating at a point about three inches below the right jaw. This incision completely severs all the tissues down to the vertebrae."

For completeness, Dr Phillips said this about Eddowes:

"There were two distinct clean cuts on the body of the vertebrae on the left side of the spine. They were parallel to each other, and separated by about half an inch."

[c.d.]

Hello Lynn,

Nice to see you back and posting again. My vocabulary has gone down hill considerably in your absence.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

link

Hello Errata. Thanks.

The parallel neck cuts.

Extent? Yes, quite different.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

skill

Hello John. Thanks.

"Was it expressly stated at the inquest?"

Yes.

The kidney removal WAS skilled--and that differs from the rest of the cutting.

Cheers.
LC

[wigngown]

The RD seems to be very confused. I agree, he was bad news for everyone. I think the Killer probably revelled in his notoriety and enjoyed the fact that his crimes were making the Police look impotent and striking fear into the populace. If that's correct, then he certainly achieved what he set out to do.

Best regards.

[Mayerling]

The drunk Druitt scenario was also used in From Hell (graphic novel)

From another thread today I noticed the name of the author of "The Return of Moriarty" and "The Revenge of Moriarty" - it was John Gardner.

Jeff

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Hi Sir John,

Actually there was a novel, written as one of a pair of novels, about forty years ago that briefly suggested what you just said. The two novels were supposed to be continuing the "life" of Sherlock Holmes' nemesis, Professor James Moriarty. The author of both novels shared the same name as a prominent fiction novel, and I am sorry for my memory failing to recall his name. The first novel, "The Return of Moriarty", shows a different version of the events at the Reichenbach Falls, where Holmes has gone into some aftereffect from his drug addiction, and Moriarty realizes he does not have to fear his enemy anymore. But Moriarty faces other enemies at home, including his second-in-command, Col. Sebastian Moran (who realizes that with Moriarty out of the picture, he becomes the head of the London underworld). The Professor lies low until he can resume his proper place.

In the course of the novel Moriarty thinks of some of his past life events, and his early successes in building his criminal empire. He then comes to an early blight on his success - which included money laundering in the creation of some early London nightspots and restaurants (we see Oscar Wilde throwing his weight around to get a table for his party when he had not set up a previous appointment for one). But the Professor also owned brothels, and finds that some "independent genius" is smashing the London brothel business by cutting up prostitutes. The events of 1888 are shown in some detail, and the key murder is actually that of Catherine Eddowes, because she thinks she knows who is the Ripper. Moriarty and Moran learn of this and send for Eddowes, who comes and tells them it's a guy named "Drut" or "Drewt", and describes him. After Eddowes is killed by the Ripper, Moriarty has Moran seek this "Drut", and the Colonel finds Montague Druitt after the murder of Kelly. Confronting Druitt, and getting him drunk, he has the school master/ barrister sign a letter of resignation to Valentine, and then arranges for Druitt to drown by putting rocks in his pockets while he is sleeping it off. While in his cups he tells Moran the murders were to bring the social evil to public attention (a tip towards Bernard Shaw's suggestion).

The book was written about 1976 so the early investigations of Farson and Cullen were well known at that time, hence the attempt to link them together - although badly done (Montague did not resign, for example). But it was the first time that anyone (as far as I know) had the Ripper himself murdered - here made easy as Druitt did die by drowning presumably as a suicide.

Jeff

The drunk Druitt scenario was also used in From Hell (graphic novel)