The Canonical Five

[Errata]

Hello Wig. Thanks.

There is absolutely NO evidence to indicate one hand involved in more than the first two murders.

Cheers.
LC

What's the evidence linking the first two murders? I'm assuming you mean Nichols and Chapman, but preliminary analysis of both crimes would appear to reveal a whole lot of differences between the two crimes. Not the least of which was scope.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

I'm not a researcher, meaning I didn't get involved to uncover some truth in this big enigma. I am a fiction writer, who got dragged in by this whole cluster of crime, sociology, media, justice, immigration entanglement.

For me it's absolutely fascinating.

But if you ask me my opinion, I can only go with my knowledge base and gut feeling: Jack the Ripper killed 6, from Tabram to Kelly, and he was killed afterwards, by some criminal elements who wanted business to go back as usual.

This doesn't reflect the fiction I'm writing.

[wigngown]

SirJohnFalstaff,

Interesting. I don't think I've ever heard that theory about the killer being himself, murdered.

Best regards.

[Pierre]

I'm not a researcher, meaning I didn't get involved to uncover some truth in this big enigma. I am a fiction writer, who got dragged in by this whole cluster of crime, sociology, media, justice, immigration entanglement.

For me it's absolutely fascinating.

But if you ask me my opinion, I can only go with my knowledge base and gut feeling: Jack the Ripper killed 6, from Tabram to Kelly, and he was killed afterwards, by some criminal elements who wanted business to go back as usual.

This doesn't reflect the fiction I'm writing.

What if something good happened and made him stop?

Kind regards, Pierre

[Mayerling]

I'm not a researcher, meaning I didn't get involved to uncover some truth in this big enigma. I am a fiction writer, who got dragged in by this whole cluster of crime, sociology, media, justice, immigration entanglement.

For me it's absolutely fascinating.

But if you ask me my opinion, I can only go with my knowledge base and gut feeling: Jack the Ripper killed 6, from Tabram to Kelly, and he was killed afterwards, by some criminal elements who wanted business to go back as usual.

This doesn't reflect the fiction I'm writing.

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

[Mayerling]

SirJohnFalstaff,

Interesting. I don't think I've ever heard that theory about the killer being himself, murdered.

Best regards.

Hi wigngown,

I could think of some murderers who were killed by murderers - Albert Anastasia and Abe Reles, two founders of "Murder Inc.", the underworld's assassination squad, both died murder victims (Anastasia while getting a haircut at the Park Central Hotel in Manhattan, in 1958), and Reles, supposedly trying to flee "protective custody" as a witness against his boss Louis "Lepke" Buckholter, fell from a 14 story window from the "Half Moon Hotel" in Coney Island in 1942. Other gangsters were killed by hired killers, hired by their rivals. But the idea of the Ripper being murdered just was used in that novel I mentioned above in the message to Sir John Falstaff.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

What if something good happened and made him stop?

Kind regards, Pierre

Might have happened. Reminds me of a picture I saw as an April Fool joke recently of the Titanic sailing at a reasonably safe distance past the iceberg, and entitled "A Close Shave".

Jeff

[Elamarna]

What if something good happened and made him stop?

Kind regards, Pierre

Quite possibly Pierre, however is not it your view that he started again later in 1889, so assume something went wrong again?

Just as likely is that for some reason, he was not able to carry on after Kelly, although like you I think he did kill again in 1889.

s

[Paddy]

Originally Posted by Pierre
What if something good happened and made him stop?

Personally I think something good did happen. He was probably sent away for a while to rest and have a change of air or take the waters...whatever they did in those days.

Pat....

[Rosella]

Jail, asylum, illness, death, physical incapacity. None of those are good news of course, except for potential future victims.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

SirJohnFalstaff,

Interesting. I don't think I've ever heard that theory about the killer being himself, murdered.

Best regards.

Actually, the first time I heard of Jack The Ripper was in a highly inaccurate Reader's Digest book. They said it was rumored that the murderer was a Canadian doctor, lynched by prostitutes, and his body was found in the Thames a month later. Talk about confusion.

But the more I read about the Victorian underworld, the more I see the possibility. Jack was bad news for everyone.

[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)

[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

[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.

[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