|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Poorhoney
Sergeant
Username: Poorhoney
Post Number: 14
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 4:57 pm: | 
|
Hello,
When (and by who) was the "canonical five" victim list decided upon? Reading contemporary news accounts, it is obvious that the Whitechapel murderer was credited with more then (most likely to sell papers or out of ignorance), than he is now. I understand the why (methodology, etc.) but am most interested in the when.
Poorhoney
PS I understand that not everyone agrees upon the victim list; I am just interested in it's evolution.
Punxsutawney Phil is a groundhog!
|
Mephisto
Sergeant
Username: Mephisto
Post Number: 27
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 5:46 pm: |
|
Hello Poorhoney,
The term "canonical five" is a fairly modern concept; however, in 1888, the police included these five women with a number of other victims in the series of killings known as the Whitechapel Murders.
If you'd like more in-depth information, click on the internal links in the left-hand column, beginning with Introduction. The material in those links, cover everything you need to know to hold a respectable conversation on the Whitechapel Murders.
I hope this helps.
Best regards,
Mephisto
|
Poorhoney
Sergeant
Username: Poorhoney
Post Number: 15
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 6:18 pm: |
|
Mephisto,
The name is Poorhoney, not Dumbhoney. I have been reading on this case for close to two decades and am more than capable of holding a "respectable" conversation about it.
You misunderstood my question. My question was not "how many victims were there?"
which is what you answered, or I should say, told me where to find the answer. My question was pertaining to the evolution of the list i.e. when it went from 8 to 12 to 10 to 5 (or whatever the actual figures may have been). When were the other victims discounted and the five (for the most part) settled upon? Does it coincide with the publishing of a major book, the release of someone's papers, etc.?
Poorhoney
Punxsutawney Phil is a groundhog!
|
Clive Appleby
Sergeant
Username: Clive
Post Number: 17
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 6:29 pm: |
|
Like Poorhoney, I would also appreciate it if anyone can advise who specifically coined / first used the term "canonical five" and in which publication.
I would also be curious as to whether this was adopted straight from MacNaghton, and his statement that "there were five victims and five victims only", but with a bit of leeway by suggesting that the five named by MacNaghton was the minimum number of victims.
As an analogy, I can see why this essentially ecclesiastical term has spread into common currency amongst Ripperologists, but as "canonical" implies a law or rule in religious terms (although it can also be just a general principle), it has the drawback that any challenge to membership of the "canonical list" could be seen as a "heresy" and therefore hinder rather than help debate. (Some of the discussions on these boards over Stride and Kelly being good examples).
Many thanks in advance if anyone can supply the answer (and apologies if the answer has appeared in any earlier threads back in the mists of time).
Clive
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 513
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 7:33 pm: |
|
Clive,
Canon has come to have secular meanings as well somewhat whimsical ones. I first came across this usage years ago among Holmesian scholars who would debate whether certain tales of Sherlock (generally the last group of short stories) deserved to be included in "the canon."
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3381
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 8:07 pm: |
|
Clive,
"... but as "canonical" implies a law or rule in religious terms (although it can also be just a general principle), it has the drawback that any challenge to membership of the "canonical list" could be seen as a "heresy" and therefore hinder rather than help debate. (Some of the discussions on these boards over Stride and Kelly being good examples)."
Indeed, Clive. That is exactly it.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Mephisto
Sergeant
Username: Mephisto
Post Number: 28
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 8:54 pm: |
|
Poorhoney,
Re: your post of Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 4:57 pm; you asked: "When (and by who) was the "canonical five" victim list decided upon?" I replied: "The term "canonical five" is a fairly modern concept, […] In 1888, the police included these five women with a number of other victims". This answers the when and by whom part of your question; it doesn't refer to the total number of victims; it does, however, put the idea of the "canonical five" into context.
You wrote: "When (and by who) was the "canonical five" victim list decided upon? Reading contemporary news accounts, it is obvious that the Whitechapel murderer was credited with more then (most likely to sell papers or out of ignorance), than he is now".
There is nothing in these two sentences that makes it obvious that you were interested in gathering information "pertaining to the evolution of the list i.e. when it went from 8 to 12 to 10 to 5 (or whatever the actual figures may have been)", or finding out "when were the other victims discounted and the five (for the most part) settled upon", or if it coincided "with the publishing of a major book, the release of someone's papers, etc.?" If this was what you wanted to know, then you should have said so in the first place.
I have no way of knowing if you are dumb or smart. The content of your post doesn't make the extent of your knowledge readily apparent; therefore, it does not follow that I wrote my reply based on a preconceived notion of your intelligence, or your experience with the case. If you're this sensitive to criticism, either real or perceived, then perhaps you should consider including your Whitechapel Murders C.V. with every post.
In any event, I apologies if you were offended by my attempt to help you.
Mephisto
(Message edited by mephisto on April 12, 2005) |
Paul C
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 5:29 pm: |
|
As I understand it, the 'canonical five' comes mainly from the McNaghten Memoranda, written in 1894 but not seen publicly till 1959 when Dan Farson discovered it. As Sir Melville's main suspect was Druitt, and he got most of the facts about him wrong, his views on any other part of the case have to be treated with some suspicion, but can't be entirely discounted. |
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 4:05 am: |
|
Sir Melville Macnaghten established the identity of the five victims in his memorandum.
It is believed that Martin Fido invented the phrase 'the canonical five'. |
Poorhoney
Sergeant
Username: Poorhoney
Post Number: 16
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 11:32 am: |
|
AIP,
Thank you.
Mephisto,
I apologize if my response came across as tart. The "Dumbhoney" was meant in jest, which unfortunately translates poorly on the boards at times.
Punxsutawney Phil is a groundhog!
|
Mephisto
Sergeant
Username: Mephisto
Post Number: 29
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 12:20 pm: |
|
Hello Poorhoney,
No sweat. So...tell me more about the tart. 
Mephisto
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 772
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 12:31 pm: |
|
"Canon" literally means a "rule" or "norm." It is used often in religious circles. Sometimes it refers to religious rules or laws ("canon law") but more often "canon" refers to the list of books generally included (in Protestant circles, anyway) in the Bible. Thus one would speak of The Gospel According to St. Luke as "canonical" and The Gospel of Thomas as "non-canonical." The term "the canon of Scripture" is used to refer to the 66 books of the Protestant Bible.
I believe is is from this usage that Ripperologists borrow in utilizing the term "canonical five." I don't know who first used it. The phrase, of course, refers to those victims that traditionally have been agreed on to have certainly been Ripper victims. They are the five mentioned by Macnaghten. However, in recent times much more doubt has been expressed as to Stride's being a Ripper victim (to a lesser degree also Kelly) and a greater willingness to consider Tabram as a possible victim. Yet the term "canonical five" still refers to Nicholls, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly.
Andy S.
(Message edited by Aspallek on April 13, 2005) |
Clive Appleby
Sergeant
Username: Clive
Post Number: 18
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 4:12 pm: |
|
AIP,
Many thanks.
"Martin Fido" could well be the answer I was looking for and I'll now trawl through "Crimes, Detection and Death" to see if I can find the term actually in print. (Or do you think he might have used the expression in another publication) ?
I had a suspicion that it might have been Donald Rumbelow, but on a quick scan-read, I couldn't see the term used in "The Complete JTR".
Martin Fido's preface certainly lists the "pre-Nicholls" murder victims as "Prelude" and the post-Kelly victims as "False Alarms", with Nicholls, Chapman, Eddowes, Stride and kelly listed as "Victims of Jack the Ripper"
If Martin Fido was the first to use the term "The Canonical Five" it is interesting that he does also give a caveat on the number of victims of JTR as follows:
“One last caution. For convenience we accept the official view that these five were the exact tally of Ripper victims. But subsequent experience of searches for sexual serial murders shows that we are nearly always inaccurate in allotting victims to them before their arrest. Victims of different imitative murderers may be included, the arrested serialist may confess to unsuspected crimes; other unsolved cases may seem likely to be his. Jack the Ripper might have struck earlier and/or later; he might not be responsible for any given one of the five ascribed victims. We are dealing with strong probabilities rather than certainties”.
Thanks again for the "lead",
Clive |
Poorhoney
Sergeant
Username: Poorhoney
Post Number: 17
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 5:36 pm: |
|
Thanks to all who have responded.
It is striking how subjective the victim lists were in contemporary reporting (especially the first decade). In some reports, 'Polly' is referred to as the second or third victim and post-Kelly victims were added and dropped seemingly randomly. The variance is understandable due to many factors: knowledge of details; sources; desire to sell papers; personal prejudices; etc.
Armed with the MacNaghten tip I am going to see if the lists fell into to line after the publication of the memorandum. Thanks again.
Poorhoney
Punxsutawney Phil is a groundhog!
|
Clive Appleby
Sergeant
Username: Clive
Post Number: 19
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 7:29 pm: |
|
Hi Poorhoney,
Thanks for starting an interesting thread.
I think you will find that there is a (very rough and generalised) trend in which victims were "in" or "out" of the list of JTRs victims along the following lines (by timescale).
(However, I don't have access to any of the publications in group (2), so somebody else might be able to fill the gap and advise of any deviation):
(1) Contemporary & Near Contemporary (1888 - 1928)
(1928 chosen as 40 years being within living memory of the events and also being the year of publication of Leonard Matters' "Mystery of Jack the Ripper"
Little consensus on the number of victims amongst police, doctors involved, press and authors, eg of 14 policeman involved at the time or soon after who committed their thoughts to paper, it seems that only one, MacNaghton, was brave enough to categorically state that there were five victims and five victims only. The estimates range from three to nine. (See also dissertation on casebook: "A Mystery Play : Police Opinions on Jack the Ripper" by Andrew L. Morrison)
Leonard Matters, despite valid doubts about his "Dr. Stanley" story, is perhaps the father of modern Ripperology, (or at least the author of the first significant book devoted to JTR published after 40 years from the time of the events) and he includes Tabram, ie six victims.
(2) Mixed Theories (1929-1958)
(Dorsenne, Woodhall, Stewart, Barnard) ?
(3) 1959 - 1965
Era of the investigative journalist (McCormick, Cullen, Farson)
First time MacNaghton memoranda put in the public domain. Focus therefore on there being only five victims (and Druitt as the main suspect) and this sets a trend. (Although Farson didn't publish until 1972, his research dates from the early sixties)
(4) Rise of the Crime Historians, the Conspiracy Theorists and the "Case Closed / Solved" school (1966 - to date)
Three distinct but chronologically simultaneous trends. The first camp tending to go for the "five" but with some degree of caution usually expressed.
The second group (eg the Royal / Masonic conspiracy theorists, tend to be more assertive about the "five", as their theories usually need to explain exactly where every victim fits into their theory.
The third group, The "Case solved / closed" school, offering various suspects, including of course Maybrick and Sickert, seem to vary between Martha Tabram being in or out. Patricia Cornwell, despite the justifiable criticisms of asserting Sickert as JTR, does make the interesting observation:
"Sir Melville MacNaghten probably diverted if not derailed the Ripper investigation permanently with his certainties that were not based on firsthand information or the open-minded and experienced deductions of an Abberline" (I believe this is a good point. Unfortunately however, Abberline might not be a good comparison. His view that George Chapman (Klosowski) was JTR has never seemed to carry much weight, although it is supported by Philip Sugden in “The Complete History”)
(5) The Revisionists (1990 – to date)
Probably starting with A. P. Wolf’s, “Jack the Myth” in 1993, the canonical five is questioned, as the murder of Stride is attributed to Michael Kidney. (Although I’m sure that someone will correct me if there are earlier published examples)
There now seems to be a growing movement in challenging the “canonical five” as being such a certainty. This is not so much in print, although it can certainly be seen on the Casebook message boards.
The revisionist view tends to not accept MacNaghton, the Investigative Journalists and their successors at face value, but to seriously examine every case on its own merits. This includes asking questions such as “Are there other realistic possible suspects other than JTR” ? and “What are the similarities and differences between the cases” ? At the moment, the main areas of contention are around Tabram (in or out) ? Stride and Kelly (both perhaps out).
If this trend gathers momentum, the “canonical list” should possibly be reduced to only three, Nicholls, Chapman and Eddowes.
I would welcome comments from all on the above general classification and trends.
Clive
|
Poorhoney
Sergeant
Username: Poorhoney
Post Number: 18
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 11:55 am: |
|
Hello Clive,
Wow, this is great. Thank you.
Question: under, "Contemporary & Near Contemporary" by the "three to nine" estimates are your referring to the police estimates put to record? I have seen press reports that use figures higher than nine, most likely due to the fact that any unsolved murder of a woman in that area was attributed to the Whitechapel murderer.
Thanks again,
Poorhoney
Punxsutawney Phil is a groundhog!
|
Mephisto
Sergeant
Username: Mephisto
Post Number: 32
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 11:43 pm: |
|
Hello Everyone,
Perhaps it might be useful to think of the 1888 homicides in Whitechapel in terms of Linnaeus' system of taxonomy. It is also an excellent way to visualize the similarities and differences among all the victims.
All of the homicides committed within a specific timeframe are of the FAMILY–Whitechapel Murders. Homicide methodology, i.e., gunshot, stabbing, strangulation, etc., constitute a GENUS. Individual homicides and serial murders are classified as separate SPECIES. For example: In the Whitechapel Murders FAMILY, a number of women were killed by knife attack; they form a GENUS. Some were killed by separate individuals, which forms a SPECIES, a number of others were killed by the same individual, and thus, form a separate SPECIES.
Best regards,
Mephisto
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 335
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 15, 2005 - 8:26 am: |
|
Paul C:
You referred to Sir Melville Macnaghten as having Druitt as his chief suspect, but getting "most of the facts about him wrong" and that therefore "...his views on any other part of the case have to be treated with some suspicion, but can't be entirely discounted."
I agree, but I would point out that Macnaghten's point was not particularly about Druitt - he was seeking to point out that any of three men were morelikely than a fourth to have been JtR. the details are irrelevant to that.
In fact, given that he was clearly writing from memory not the file, MM was really quite accurate - he establishes MJD as a professional (tho says doctor not lawyer); gives his age as exactly ten years out but with the right second digit; and is broadly correct - in so far as it matters - about his suicide.
In my view, MM's judgement is not in question on grounds of logic or accuracy. I would be mkore suspicious on a cover-up of Fenian activity; or more recently, I have becomes more of a convert to the Cutbush cover-up.
One must be careful, IMHO, not to get muddled about woods and trees.
From recollection the term canonical five was being used in conversation a good while before it was written down.
Almost certainly, the figure "5" reflects the MM and thus relates to 1959. Part of the game prior to that date, again working on recollection, was that up to the mid-70s when the then Home Secretary gave early access to the files, part of the "game" was to guess what was on those files (a name was assumed for instance). Farson's revealing of MM's views and a note from the file thus appeared to indicate the number the police had in mind, and thus may have assisted the canonical (ie official) idea.
Phil |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3383
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 15, 2005 - 9:31 am: |
|
Clive,
An interesting list.
Though AP Wolf probably was the first who was brave enough to think along those lines (and question the whole canonical five concept), the most ground-breaking person among the Revisionists is without a shadow of a doubt Alex Chisholm, who at the latter half of the 90s in his article Done to Death (published in Ripper Notes in 2000) threw out not only Stride but also Mary Kelly as Ripper victims and made the deduction that the Ripper might only have killed as many as three, and that the Ripper series was a media construction, fueled by the tabloid papers and that several of the murders were domestic or copycat killings.
Chishom's ideas was later recognized and supported in Stewart and Gainey's book The Lodger in 1998 (I would say Mr Evans actually might belong on the list as well). I believe these ideas -- although perhaps still too controversial -- will be of huge importance for the direction of Ripperology the coming years.
As I said, not to put back the efforts of our brilliant friend AP Wolf in any way, but not to mention Chisholm on that section of the list is a serious crime. Besides being referred to in The Lodger, his ideas was not published in more than essay-form, though.
Besides that, a very interesting effort, Clive.
(Message edited by Glenna on April 15, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 515
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 15, 2005 - 10:07 am: |
|
The idea that there were five, and only five, JtR victims may have been the "conventional wisdom" of the authorities well before the McNaghten Memorandum. Right after Kelly's murder, Dr. Thomas Bond was asked to consider that murder in relation to the post mortem notes for Nicholls, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes.
Bond sent his observations to Anderson and stated that all five were done by the same hand. As it was, Bond would later say that McKenzie was a Ripper victim as well, which tends to cloud his previous views.
Still, the interesting thing for me is that as of November 10, 1888, it would seem the police were of the opinion there had been no more than five murders by JtR, else you would think Bond would have been asked to consider other murders at that time, such as Tabram.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Clive Appleby
Sergeant
Username: Clive
Post Number: 20
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 2:29 am: |
|
Thanks to all for your interesting comments.
Poorhoney,
Yes, I was referring specifically to police officers. The press estimates certainly sometimes being much greater.
Mephisto,
I quite like the idea of the Linnaeus classifications. Compartmentalising the cases in this way does help focus the mind and can help to support a logical process of analysis
Glen,
Thanks for the info about Alex Chisholm. I recall seeing a reference to views along these lines, but I couldn't remember the details of the who and the what exactly, so thank you for filling this gap.
As a point of interest, I'm curious as to whether any publisher would be brave enough to publish a book aimed at the commercial market that seriously challenged the "canonical five", as any suggestion that JTR only murdered three or four might not be seen as being "good for business"
Dan,
Good point about Bond not being asked to comment on Tabram therefore suggesting a police view that the pre-Nicholls victims were not victims of JTR. Bond’s subsequent view that McKenzie was a victim of JTR, making six victims of JTR in his opinion, would also suggest that MacNaghton was not influenced by Bond in forming his view that there were five victims.
Clive
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 517
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 10:26 am: |
|
Clive,
Don, not Dan. Ordinarily it would make no difference whatsoever, but around here, unfortunately, if you're called Dan you are apt to get a lot of silly people following you around the Boards insulting you -- and frankly I get enough of that in the real world. 
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Clive Appleby
Sergeant
Username: Clive
Post Number: 21
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 8:47 pm: |
|
Don,
Many apologies, as there's no excuse for getting somebody's name wrong (and I have noticed exactly what you mean on other threads)!
Clive |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
