Suspect League table

[GUT]

U.N. Known.
‘Yet to be names’
Mr. Nobody
Deeming
Druitt

[The Rookie Detective]

U.N. Known.
‘Yet to be names’
Mr. Nobody
Deeming
Druitt

So to clarify for statistical purposes, are you saying..

1 Unknown/unidentified
2 Deeming
3 Druitt


Please clarify if possible


TRD

[Herlock Sholmes]

He was a Danish sailor/cattle driver who committed suicide in 1904.

He was sailing on a ship from Buenoes Aires to somewhere in England, Manchester I think.

He told his shipmates that in Buenos Aires, he’d raped the underage daughter of a police officer. He was therefore convinced that the police would be waiting for him upon arrival. He disappeared from the ship one night somewhere in the Atlantic and it was concluded that he’d committed suicide rather than be caught.

While on the ship, he also claimed to have killed in Denmark in 1902, an unsolved murder where a young woman was found with her throat cut.

Was he in London in 1888, you ask? Well, you can’t prove he wasn’t, can you? In fact, you can’t even prove that he wasn’t the ripper. That makes him a great suspect!

Thanks Kattrup. It would certainly be interesting to know where he was in 1888.

[erobitha]

I have also included Maybrick as mentioned in post 9, but not sure whether this was a serious answer due to the previous statement mentioned at the end of post 8.

Just because post 8 doesn't believe in post 9 doesn't make post 9 a joke.

I am not getting into why I believe Maybrick is our man on this thread or the justifications for my choice. It is well trodden ground.

[The Rookie Detective]

Just because post 8 doesn't believe in post 9 doesn't make post 9 a joke.

I am not getting into why I believe Maybrick is our man on this thread or the justifications for my choice. It is well trodden ground.

Ah you misinterpret my message, i wast just checking as to whether you were being sincere and i now know you were so it's all good.


I am not in any position to criticize and it's the last thing i would do, so i hope you don't think i was challenging your choice.

the whole point of my suspect league table is to be objective and impartial and so once again, i am glad you were bring sincere and for me, Maybrick is just as valid as ANY OTHER suspect.


TRD

[The Rookie Detective]

Please note that the entire reason for my suspect league table is to gain some statistical data and cohesive analysis.


I am completely impartial and objective


I support ALL suspects put forward

All i ask for is sincerity in your answers


keep your suspects coming please


TRD

[Wickerman]

.......... Maybrick is just as valid as ANY OTHER suspect.

TRD

Not really 'valid'.
Not when the suspect's role in the mystery is the result of an entire fabrication.
Only if you think that 'any other' suspect is only there due to fabricated evidence.

[The Rookie Detective]

Not really 'valid'.
Not when the suspect's role in the mystery is the result of an entire fabrication.
Only if you think that 'any other' suspect is only there due to fabricated evidence.

Okay so let me rephrase

Its not specifically the suspect themselves that I am referring to , but the submission of any said suspect is what I was referring to.

in other words, this thread is aimed at anyone submitting whomever they truly feel could have been the ripper.

in other words, this thread has to remain objective and impartial for the statistical analysis to work.

i meant that if someone choosing Maybrick is just as entitled to put Maybrick as they would be to put Lechmere or Mann.

the idea is to formulate a true understanding of how each individual suspect is regarded from a statistical standpoint. This can’t be achieved if we exclude certain suspects they’re not popular or are controversial choices.

This thread is not aimed at challenging choices of suspects but rather to gather a collective insight into everyone’s viewpoints so that this data can be analysed over time to build a more cohesive picture.

the only stipulation of this site is that everyone puts an honest viewpoint of whom they believe to be the ripper and/or top 4 suspects. If someone were to write “Jesus” as a suspect then that would obviously be disregarded.

even if only 1 person believes Maybrick to be the ripper, that statistic is still important and relevant to this thread for it to work properly.


This is probably one of the only threads where challenging each other’s choices and opinions is not required.
In theory if 100 members were free to state their top 4 without critique, then we would have a better collective understanding of where we are all coming from in terms of our personal beliefs on any given suspect in the case.


keep those top 4 suspects coming please.

Maybrick, Druitt, Mann, Cohen, Lechmere, McCarthy, Barnett, Hutchinson etc...etc... it doesn’t matter who you want to choose as your top 4, that’s the whole point of this thread.
The only stipulation is that you make honest choices. Be honest with yourselves.


TRD

[Trevor Marriott]

Okay so let me rephrase

Its not specifically the suspect themselves that I am referring to , but the submission of any said suspect is what I was referring to.

in other words, this thread is aimed at anyone submitting whomever they truly feel could have been the ripper.

in other words, this thread has to remain objective and impartial for the statistical analysis to work.

i meant that if someone choosing Maybrick is just as entitled to put Maybrick as they would be to put Lechmere or Mann.

the idea is to formulate a true understanding of how each individual suspect is regarded from a statistical standpoint. This can’t be achieved if we exclude certain suspects they’re not popular or are controversial choices.

This thread is not aimed at challenging choices of suspects but rather to gather a collective insight into everyone’s viewpoints so that this data can be analysed over time to build a more cohesive picture.

the only stipulation of this site is that everyone puts an honest viewpoint of whom they believe to be the ripper and/or top 4 suspects. If someone were to write “Jesus” as a suspect then that would obviously be disregarded.

even if only 1 person believes Maybrick to be the ripper, that statistic is still important and relevant to this thread for it to work properly.


This is probably one of the only threads where challenging each other’s choices and opinions is not required.
In theory if 100 members were free to state their top 4 without critique, then we would have a better collective understanding of where we are all coming from in terms of our personal beliefs on any given suspect in the case.


keep those top 4 suspects coming please.

Maybrick, Druitt, Mann, Cohen, Lechmere, McCarthy, Barnett, Hutchinson etc...etc... it doesn’t matter who you want to choose as your top 4, that’s the whole point of this thread.
The only stipulation is that you make honest choices. Be honest with yourselves.


TRD

The object of your exercise is flawed because the majority of researchers are not able to distinguish the difference between a person of interset and a suspect from those who appear on the list of over 100 names that appear on the suspect list. Many of the names already put forward should not even be on the list because there is nothing to show they should be in either catergory.

As to the term prime suspect, this only evolved in the 1930`s so the police in 1888 were only working with either a person of interest, or a likley suspect, both are a long way off from being a prime suspect.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[The Rookie Detective]

The object of your exercise is flawed because the majority of researchers are not able to distinguish the difference between a person of interset and a suspect from those who appear on the list of over 100 names that appear on the suspect list. Many of the names already put forward should not even be on the list because there is nothing to show they should be in either catergory.

As to the term prime suspect, this only evolved in the 1930`s so the police in 1888 were only working with either a person of interest, or a likley suspect, both are a long way off from being a prime suspect.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I understand where you’re coming from and I can see that the idea of this thread could be deemed to be flawed.

but researching the case as a whole is a flawed process as none of us will ever be able to definitively and conclusively solve the case. It’s more about trying to collate data and work as a collective to try and unravel as much as possible.

i would also give researchers more credit when it comes to naming their chosen suspects.

Regardless of if the term prime suspect, person of interest, lead suspect, possible suspect, person under suspicion, general suspect etc... etc... the idea of a chosen “suspect” is the point of the thread.
Regardless of when the term prime suspect came in, it’s missing the point that I’m referring to us now in 2020.

choices may be flawed, but surely that’s the whole point right there; there is no main suspect and so regardless of whether a researchers viewpoints are credible is not the reason for the thread.

its about validity of suspect based on personal sincere opinion rather than questioning the credibility of a researcher because they may make controversial choices.

TRD

[Trevor Marriott]

I understand where you’re coming from and I can see that the idea of this thread could be deemed to be flawed.

but researching the case as a whole is a flawed process as none of us will ever be able to definitively and conclusively solve the case. It’s more about trying to collate data and work as a collective to try and unravel as much as possible.

i would also give researchers more credit when it comes to naming their chosen suspects.

Regardless of if the term prime suspect, person of interest, lead suspect, possible suspect, person under suspicion, general suspect etc... etc... the idea of a chosen “suspect” is the point of the thread.
Regardless of when the term prime suspect came in, it’s missing the point that I’m referring to us now in 2020.

choices may be flawed, but surely that’s the whole point right there; there is no main suspect and so regardless of whether a researchers viewpoints are credible is not the reason for the thread.

its about validity of suspect based on personal sincere opinion rather than questioning the credibility of a researcher because they may make controversial choices.

TRD

Personal opinions count for nothing in the grand scheme of things and are based on a lack of understanding of the elements that make up the various so-called categories by researchers.

You only have to look at the names already suggested on this thread so far

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Aelric]

1. Unknown
2. Kosminski
3. David Cohen
4. Just because you asked for four, Druitt

[John Wheat]

1.Bury
2.Kelly
3.Bellsmith
4.Hutchinson

[Herlock Sholmes]

Personal opinions count for nothing in the grand scheme of things and are based on a lack of understanding of the elements that make up the various so-called categories by researchers.

You only have to look at the names already suggested on this thread so far

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Same old line Trevor. Suspect/Person Of Interest.

In terms of the study of this a case if someone proposes a candidate then they become a suspect. Because they are suspected. It's simple.

I assume that you only call Feigenbaum a person of interest then as the British police didn't suspect him?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Bell Smith is an interesting choice and a blast from the past.