Kelly's Killer

[DVV]

For sure that's canonical, Robert. Or it has to be.

[Robert]

BTW David and Lynn, there's not many know this, but the New Testament water into wine miracle was provoked by a Scot saying to Jesus "It's your round."

[DVV]

You'd never do that, Mr Linford. Nothing in our wine, nothing in our malt.
"Straight, no chaser", as Charlie Parker put it.

[Robert]

David, if you're going to do miracles, please no water into wine. That's OK in France, but for me, water into a nice cup of tea.

Ta.

[DVV]

Hello David. Canonisation for you? Show me first your miracles. (heh-heh)
LC

Well, I've solved the whole case, mind you. The moon was shining bright, the flies were pink and the birds shut their mouths. I remember I was plastered, that night. (heh-heh)

[lynn cates]

Kelly

Hello David. Canonisation for you? Show me first your miracles. (heh-heh)

Not a bad listing. Of course, unfortunately, the canon was fixed by others and must, therefore, abide.

But you see Kelly as CORRECTLY in the canon and that is the idea of this thread.

So, until we meet again and the case is solved'.

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Hello David. I'm proud of you. Now you are singing my song.

"I'm just so proud when I'm with you
The way you wear that cute hair-do
And when you blush I love that too
I'm just so proud of you"
(Eddie Cochran)

Embarrassing? It is never embarrassing to make a well thought out distinction.

Agreed - my bad choice of words. Just meant it may look a byzantine and endless discussion to some. Whereas, on this subject, I think it should just be the beginning.

Proposals vis-a-vis the WCM?

I'd say that "canonical" should qualify a period (from August to November) rather than a list of murders, although my opinion is that the man who killed the Macnaghten 5 also killed Millwood and Smith, and attacked Ada Wilson. Still in my opînion, Coles is definitely out of the picture, while I don't know what to do with McKenzie.
As for Tabram, it's up to anyone to put her in late Antiquity or early Middle Ages - it was the same murderer anyway.
Which would give, to answer your question :

Milwood, Wilson, Smith : protocanonicals
Tabram : protocanonical or canonical
Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, Kelly : canonicals
McKenzie : deuterocanonical or apocryphal
Coles : apocryphal

From Byzantium
Canonize me when you can

[lynn cates]

yes!

Hello David. I'm proud of you. Now you are singing my song.

Embarrassing? It is never embarrassing to make a well thought out distinction.

Proposals vis-a-vis the WCM?

Cheers.
LC

[Fleetwood Mac]

I'm suspicious that there was a componant of showmanship & a "challenge to society" in these murders, rather than any motive of revenge, or mania, and with Chapman he almost tipped his hand.
I'm not suggesting he was a doctor, but he was not some uneducated lunatic with a knife either.
Eddowes was scaled back in so far as apparent 'skill' was displayed, or he was just pushed for time, but his 'signature', to the medical profession, was the kidney.

Regards, Jon S.

Stride tells us he was instinctive and his desire to kill rendered his desire to escape of little consequence. In today's world that probably would place him somewhere near the lunatic category.

But, I suppose you have to factor in the value placed upon life in those times. Today, life is cheap in some countries with serious poverty issues. Perhaps in those days, a life at sea, for example, wasn't too far removed from a life in prison; and it follows thus any fully-functioning, non-lunatic, with a desire to kill, from the lower working classes, would have taken that risk. Although hanging is a different matter.

He certainly took huge risks, which would suggest to me that he had little to lose or he was a lunatic.

[DVV]

Hello David. The basic idea of a canon is to sort things into two groups--that which belongs, that which does not.

And keep crossing yourself. Ash Wednesday is just around the corner.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn, I'm not sure I can go ahead with that discussion with the three English words I possess, as fascinating is the topic.
It's not only about the basic idea of a canon, I believe. This basic idea is indeed what you said ("to sort things into two groups") but when applied to our field, we must also take into account its possible antonyms.
And between "canonical" and "apocryphal", you'll find embarrassing but most useful concepts such as "protocanonical" and "deuterocanonical" - that could well qualify some murders (from February 1888 to February 1891).

[DVV]

Centuries separate them so, what do you think.

Jon

I think you should have understood I was just kidding, my dear.
Now these centuries that separate them could also explain how the same writer could shift from Hebrew to Greek at some point. Looks like he had plenty of time to learn foreign languages.

[Wickerman]

Are you suggesting that Beréshit and John aren't from the same hand ?
Je me signe et j'éteins l'ordi.

Centuries separate them so, what do you think.

Jon

[lynn cates]

canon

Hello David. The basic idea of a canon is to sort things into two groups--that which belongs, that which does not.

And keep crossing yourself. Ash Wednesday is just around the corner.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

B & B

Hello Ben. Thanks. I was thinking of Baxter and Bagster's take.

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

If you think about "canon" in other contexts, you will find that it does not always imply "same hand." (Eg, "canon of scripture.")
LC

Are you suggesting that Beréshit and John aren't from the same hand ?
Je me signe et j'éteins l'ordi.