The Canonical Five

[John Wheat]

Hello Lynn,

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

But John

Everyone knows all the C5 were committed by different people those being Crossmere, Van Gough, Sickert, Dr Barnardo and Gull. Its crackpot theory followed by crackpot theory at the moment.

[c.d.]

"Could expert opinion be wrong? Certainly. But IF we go that route, then we had better close up the inquest accounts and completely disregard them."

Hello Lynn,

I refer you to my post (no. 94) in this thread. As I stated, we need to give their conclusions weight but were they really "expert opinions" especially when we don't know all of the details which went into the forming of that opinion?

c.d.

[c.d.]

I should have added rather than use the term "expert opinions" it might be more accurate to say in the opinions of the doctors at the time.

c.d.

[Pcdunn]

I disagree about Brown

Thanks for this Stan. I agree about Brown, however, I wouldn't completely rule out Austin as a victim.

I doubt Carrie Brown (aka Old Shakespeare) was a Ripper victim, unless he modified his methods. Last year I saw a detailed article in a New York paper describing the victim as bound with sheets to the bedstead.
One of the suspects was said to be "an abuser of women". Jack didn't seem to do torture, from the reports we have.

The article is at the Library of Congress site. I'll try to locate it again and get a link here.

[Ausgirl]

Hello Lynn,

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

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.

But John

Everyone knows all the C5 were committed by different people those being Crossmere, Van Gough, Sickert, Dr Barnardo and Gull. Its crackpot theory followed by crackpot theory at the moment.

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.

[Damaso Marte]

The simple fact is that with Kate, we have no idea exactly how long the killer had with her...much is merely assumed by Lawendes possible sighting. If Kate was not with Sailor Man then she could have been in that square for a half hour...which makes the sloppy navel tracing, cervical stump and the obviously accidental colon sectioning more questionable.

Wait, wasn't Watkins in Mitre Square around 1:30 AM?

[lynn cates]

Clark

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

[lynn cates]

torsos

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

[lynn cates]

bad day

Hello CD. Thanks.

Well, Phillips could have been wrong about the mutilations. But then, let's keep that SAME balance with ALL medical opinion (a la Trevor Marriott).

Or perhaps the killer was having a "bad day" with Kate.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

yup

Hello Ausgirl. Precisely.

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

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.

Yes, but murder in Whitechapel was uncommon, let alone the highly unusual mutilation murders that occurred in 1888. In fact, they continued to be uncommon in subsequent years-one murder in 1889 and one in 1890.

Throat cuttings were also extremely uncommon generally: outside of the C5 only one throat cutting murder in the whole of London (pop 5.6 million) in 1888, and that was a domestic incident for which the perpetrator went to the police station to confess.

I agree there's a significant element of doubt about Stride being killed by JtR although, on balance, I believe she was, i.e. largely based on the reasoning of Coroner Baxter.

[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.

[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?

[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]

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.