Rating The Suspects.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I absolutely love the concept of this Herlock

The numbering system may be somewhat subjective; based on what we know about particular individuals, but the idea behind it is extraordinary and I think it very beneficial to see the data listed in this way.


Bravo to you Herlock



RD

Thanks RD.

[The Rookie Detective]

Amendment 8


Kelly > 2 - 2 - 3 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 = 13

Bury > 2 - 2 - 3 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 = 11

Cutbush > 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 = 9

Deeming > 2 - 1 - 4 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 0 - 0 = 9

Hyams > 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 = 9

Kosminski 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 8

Pizer > 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 = 8

Grainger > 2 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 -1 = 8

GSC Lechmere > 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 -1 = 8

Chapman > 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 7

Tumblety > 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 = 7

Barnado > 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 = 7

G. Wentworth Bell Smith > 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 2 - 0 - 0 = 7

Cohen > 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 = 7

Kidney > 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 = 7

Thompson > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 = 6

Levy > 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 6

Druitt > 2 - 1 - 0 -1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 5

Barnett > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 = 5

Stephen > 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 -0 = 4

Stephenson > 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 = 5

Bachert > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Cross > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Hardiman > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Hutchinson > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Mann > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Maybrick > 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 = 4

Sickert > 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - = 3

Gull > 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 2


Amendment Made

Michael Kidney added at the suggestion of C.F. Leon.

I absolutely love the concept of this Herlock

The numbering system may be somewhat subjective; based on what we know about particular individuals, but the idea behind it is extraordinary and I think it very beneficial to see the data listed in this way.


Bravo to you Herlock



RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

Amendment 8


Kelly > 2 - 2 - 3 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 = 13

Bury > 2 - 2 - 3 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 = 11

Cutbush > 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 = 9

Deeming > 2 - 1 - 4 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 0 - 0 = 9

Hyams > 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 = 9

Kosminski 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 8

Pizer > 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 = 8

Grainger > 2 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 -1 = 8

GSC Lechmere > 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 -1 = 8

Chapman > 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 7

Tumblety > 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 = 7

Barnado > 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 = 7

G. Wentworth Bell Smith > 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 2 - 0 - 0 = 7

Cohen > 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 = 7

Kidney > 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 = 7

Thompson > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 = 6

Levy > 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 6

Druitt > 2 - 1 - 0 -1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 5

Barnett > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 = 5

Stephen > 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 -0 = 4

Stephenson > 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 = 5

Bachert > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Cross > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Hardiman > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Hutchinson > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Mann > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Maybrick > 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 = 4

Sickert > 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - = 3

Gull > 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 2


Amendment Made

Michael Kidney added at the suggestion of C.F. Leon.

[jmenges]

And I don’t ask for nor care for commentary on my admonitions. If you have something you need to say you should contact me privately.

JM

[jmenges]

We’re starting to heavily enforce the following rule:

ANY post that does not further the topic of conversation could be considered trolling and deleted if it is done with a hostile tone/intent.

Hostile tone or intent includes name calling. It can count as two infractions.

Ask yourself before you post.

Thanks

JM

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ll make my final comment on this point.


The purpose of this thread was never, as I’ve said before, to provide a ‘best to worst’ list of ripper suspects. There would be no fair and accurate way of doing that because the likelihood of a suspect being guilty can only be down to our own individual and varying interpretations. So I thought that I’d make a list of the criteria that are regularly suggested and compare them to each giving a rough picture of the type of person that ‘might’ have been likeliest to have been the killer.

As this was the aim and because everything was out in the open I didn’t for a minute expect any accusations of bias. Druitt had no known issues with drink or drugs so he gets a zero. Cross had no record of violence so he gets a zero etc. Anyone could, and did, make suggestions and I then decided which to apply. One suggestion reduced Druitt’s score; something that I had absolutely no issue with doing as I never claimed that my list was infallible.

There has been a big issue made over my scoring on Gull’s age and physical health which I don’t really understand the reason for. The same criteria is applied to all across the board. The average age for serial killers tends to be 25-35 I believe. Of course this isn’t so hard and fast that we should consider eliminating anyone outside of that range but the further a suspect is from that range increases their unlikeliness. So whilst certainly not impossible, a man of 45 or 50 would be considered less likely. This goes for all suspects. So when we have a suspect that is double the upper age range then we can’t fail to consider this a serious issue. Individuals are quite free to disagree but it can’t be dismissed by anyone. If we looked at any unsolved series of murders any suspect who was 71 at the time would be considered to be on the extremest edge of unlikeliness. If that wasn’t the case then how old would we have to go before we considered them to have been ‘probably too old’? 75, 80, 85? There has to be a point where age counts against a suspect and few would argue against 60. William Gull was 71 at the time of the murders therefore this cannot fail to make him unlikely on that particular criteria. A score of zero was absolutely unavoidable. Likewise we couldn’t fail to conclude that on the basis of a history of violence Kelly and Bury make likelier suspects than Druitt or Cross (to name but two)

Then we have had issues with Gull’s stroke(s). Different obituary’s give slightly differing pictures so we take an overall view. I still strongly suggest that Acland would be the most accurate source as he was not only a doctor but he was Gull’s son-in-law and would have been at the centre of events with intimate family knowledge. Gull had his first stroke in Scotland in October of 1887 so 10 months before Nichols. He appeared to improve in that he could walk and talk and continue a fairly normal life but we have to accept that Acland said that “…he never wholly recovered.” So it wasn’t a full recovery and it certainly resulted in him retiring from actual practice so we can say that he felt unable to perform his job. It’s worth remembering of course that his wasn’t a physical job and he wasn’t a surgeon requiring a steady hand. The Ditionary of National Biography (written by a colleague of Gull’s at Guy’s) said:

“In the autumn of 1887 he was attacked with paralysis, which compelled him to retire from practice; a third attack caused his death on 29 Jan. 1890”

We don’t know know exactly what happened to Gull as far as his health went between his first stroke and his death but clearly he wasn’t in particularly good health. But health aside, his age justifies a score of zero on that particular criteria.

Looking again at Druitt I can see nothing that requires changing. In fact I think that I’ve been too harsh by awarding him only a 1 for location. I originally gave him two but thought that I’d reduce it due to the travel required for the Nichols murder. I did this because I was wary of being accused of bias. So I’ll make this clear - I firmly believe that Druitt should get a 2 on location but I’ll leave it at 1.00. I’ll also add that anyone can read back through this thread and they will see that I have never claimed that Gull had strokes during the period of the murders despite the accusation.

This exercise was done with an absolute lack of bias. That said, there is now no reason for further comment on Gull or Druitt.

[FISHY1118]

That is not an accurate summary.

Some doctors thought that the Ripper had a lot of anatomical knowledge. Some doctors thought the Ripper had some anatomical anatomical knowledge, but not enough to be a doctor. Some doctors thought the Ripper had no anatomical knowledge at all.

I beg to differ , the inquest testimony says otherwise . But at least we can disagree .

[FISHY1118]

And there we are again. I haven’t said one single offensive thing in this thread. Not one. But there you are using the same tactic that you used in the Richardson thread. Stick to the topic Fishy.

You made a point about Sickert….i changed it accordingly. How is that being unfair?

Great, you added to the Sickert score which i acknowleged, move on . I didnt say you ''Said'' anything offensive i said you become ''Offensive''. Now do you see how you used the arguement to deny the ''3 strokes gull had'' ripper quote ? ?

[FISHY1118]

You can’t prove it because it didn’t happen. You made it up.

You know what you said and the context you said it in . Will we be moving on from this nonsense anytime soon or are we going to play word games all night long ?

[FISHY1118]

Everyone who has contributed to this thread have made reasonable, unbiased contributions. I have had no issue with any of them Fishy. I’ve made changes on advice including one that reduced Druitt and one that increased Sickert. The table has been done with scrupulous fairness. Only two people disagree. You, because it’s your suspect and because you have a bit of an obsession with Druitt and The Baron who, all of a sudden has miraculously transformed himself into Gull defender and has continued his issue with me which causes him to pipe up now and again to make some irrelevant Druitt-related comment. If you two would simply post on the topic and not form your opinion as to whether I’m involved or not we could discuss the case without ill feeling.

I contributed Herlock, and you responded in the way in which i told you that you would . I wont go over all it again, except to say you have a problem with my opinions when there based on evidence that allows me to interpret them it in such a way that makes my point. Every thread or topic weve been on is the same ,it never changes .

When you stop ridiculing my post ,simply because you dont like the way i use and form opinions based on the evidence them maybe things will change .

[FISHY1118]

It’s in black and white. I’m happy to leave it. I doubt that you will though.

As long as you can agree with #217 of course i can .

[FISHY1118]

When you’re looking at things like this you have to take into account who said them (to assess their reliability and to understand who would be in a better position to know something) and how many different accounts there are. So for example, if 10 witnesses said that Mr X had light brown hair and 1 witness said that Mr X had black hair, the likelihood would be that the majority were correct.

You have taken one account and given it the seal of approval because it suits your narrative, whereas I have looked at a few. Then, and this is the most important part, who was in the best position to know about Gull’s health intimately and from personal experience. a) someone writing a generic short biography of a public figure, or b) the son-in-law and colleague of that person…a person who was also a Doctor and would have actually seen Gull in the flesh and spent time with him. Someone who would have been in regular contact getting updates on his health for his concerned wife?

Surely you can’t dispute that Theodore Dyke-Acland is overwhelmingly the best person to have given a fair and accurate (from a Doctor) summary of Gull’s illness? So what did Acland say?

“It was during his holiday in Scotland amid the scenes so congenial to him, that in October, 1887, he was struck down by paralysis, from which he never wholly recovered. In a few weeks he was moved to London. The end did not come until January, 1890, when a fresh and acute illness brought to a rapid close the strong life here too feebly portrayed.”

His obituary in The Times also stated: “ he never sufficiently recovered to resume his practice.”

You are quite free to pick the one that you prefer Fishy but I’ll go with Acland. Gull never fully recovered. Further evidence for this is that he stopped seeing patients (as confirmed in The Times). Hardly a strenuous job but Gull didn’t feel that he was up to it. Even his own words tell us that all was not well:

“one arrow has missed its mark but there are more in the quiver’. “ He knew that further attacks would occur after the initial one in Scotland.

Even Gull’s will recorded 2 more attacks.

Now…..I haven’t said that it was impossible for him to have been involved and I certainly haven’t claimed to be able to prove that he wasn’t involved but we are simply talking about likelihoods. For a start, if we talked about any series of unsolved murders and we suggested a killer who had been 71 at the time..what reaction would we expect to get? Double the average age of the higher age range of an average serial killer? And at a time of shorter lifespans where 71 then would have been the equivalent of an even older man now. How many people would say ‘yeah, 71 isn’t a problem’? Surely you can admit that age alone pushes Gull to the outer edges of likelihood? Then when we add his other health issues. Issues that forced him to retire from a non-physical job.

Purely for the criteria of age and physical health can anyone name another suspect who would rate lower than Gull?

Memorian- Sir William Gull

'' He was at his home in Scotland and while walking alone in the grounds was seized with paralysis , he did not lose consciousness but fell to one knee and was able to walk to the house with assistance Dr Thomas Stowell. [from a doctor]


William Witney Gull a Biographical Sketch

''Sir William took an important part in the public work of his day. From 1856 to 1889 [ which he appeared on the medical register] he served on the Senate of the University of London'' . Theodore Dyke Acland


Clearly we can see the Inconsistancies regarding what actually happened to Gull and the role it played in his life afterwards as a result. During the 1888 Ripper murders, id say not very much, Imo Or the above mentioned for that matter.]

[FISHY1118]

I don't believe I have insulted your opinions or intelligence or the right to respond Fishy. I agree with your point about people getting nasty when evidence contradicts a posters theory. The Lechmerians being a prime example of this generally. Anyway I don't wish to derail the thread.

Cheers John

No Worries John.

[The Rookie Detective]

I made the decision to omit any female suspects because like 99.9% of people I’m convinced that the killer was a man.

Never say never...



Only in the world of Albert Bachert...



RD

[JeffHamm]

...

I did do one for Peter Sutcliffe (before and after arrest as an illustrative point)


2 - 2 - 4 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 = 14 post arrest

2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 0 - 0 = 6 pre-arrest

Hi Herlock,

Sutcliffe was a drinker wasn't he? I think he used to be out with friends at pubs and such, but I'm not sure if he was considered a heavy or frequent drinker (which a 1 in the last category represents). Also, Sutcliffe attacked a woman in 1969 (hit her over the head with a sock filled with something), but while the police tracked him down she didn't press charges. Still, I think that would warrant a pre-arrest coding of at least 1 for violence due to that. I think he was also known to cruise the red-light district (which was part of the police interest in him at the time), so he had some known association with prostitutes pre-arrest as well. That would probably put his pre-arrest score at 8 or maybe 9?

- Jeff