Rating The Suspects.

[JeffHamm]

But if you are suggesting the same killer for all the murders and that killer removed the organs at the crime scenes how do you explain two different methods of removing the uterus from both Chapman and Eddowes? and in Chapmans case in addition to the uterus itself being removed the fallopian tubes which were still attached to the uterus were also taken

Surely the killer was not that medically trained to the point he was able to hone his skills to make two different removals of the same organ!!!!!!!!!!!!

It all points to two different persons removing the organs from the bodies at the two different mortuaries before the postmortems were carried out

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I think we're getting pretty far off topic, and covering old ground as well. If you want to start a thread on this, we can continue there.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

The one that comes to mind, and it's not a great example, is the 1930's surgeon Dr. Buck Ruxton, who had studied surgery in India, and who killed his British common law wife and maid (who was possibly a witness) with blunt force trauma or other violence (some believe he had stabbed his victims) then meticulously cut them into small pieces in an effort to dispose of the bodies in a way that insured that they could never be identified (which failed).

Not quite a "Ripper" murder, and the victims weren't strangers to Ruxton, but it could explain the motivation behind any of the 'torso' cases.

Hi rj,

Yes, there are examples of doctors and other medically trained people killing with violence, and engaging in post-mortem dismemberments to aid in body disposal, but as per your example, the murders are of known associates with more common motiviations (greed, jealosy, financial gain, anger/rage towards a loved one or spouse/ex-spouse, etc). Serial killing medical people, at least the ones that come to my mind (and I could very well be overlooking a case), seem to target patients and use medical knowledge of how to kill them with medicines/drugs etc. Sometimes there is financial gains as well, as in Shipman, but that doesn't seem to be the primary motivation. There's more of a "god-complex", ruler over life and death, type thing, where they gain some sense of power as a result (sometimes the deaths are secondary, and they may put someone in danger of death so that they can be the saviour, and bring them back from the brink, etc). But I can't think of a case where the victims are strangers, not selected from patients (so targeting those outside of the role as a medical person), where they kill in a "messy way" through extreme violence rather than through some neater, more "refined" method, like poisoning, etc (i.e. Cream).

As I say, I'm not saying it's impossible, and I fully expect there will be just such an example somewhere in the world at some point in time, but it strikes me as being such a very rare phenomenon that it tips the scale away from a doctor as a starting point, and it would require actual evidence to overcome that initial improbability (actual evidence always outweighs probability evaluations after all because rare things do happen, just not very often).

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thank you, Herlock.

If you don't mind, I have run a couple of EXTREMELY unlikely suspects through your system to compare results. Unfortunately, I do not have information concerning some of the points to accurately give a rating. I'm hoping that people with better resources can fill in the blanks.

I've listed:

- Lewis Carroll: (56 in 1888)-?-0-0-0-0-?-1? (The guy was on SOMETHING!)= [at least 1]
- Dr. Cream: (38 in 1888)-0-2-?-0-1-2?-?= ?5
- Michael Kidney (pertaining to the Stride murder ONLY): 2-2-1-?-1-0-0-2= 8
- Michael Ostrog: (55 in 1888)-?-0-1?-1 (SOMEONE apparently suspected him at some point)-?-?-?= [at least 2]
- Mary Pearcey (to represent Jill the Ripper): (22 in 1888)-1-4-?1-0-0-?-?= [at least 5]
- Vincent Van Gogh: (35 in 1888)-0-0-2-0-0-?-1?= [at least 3]

As a control, I added John Williams, the suspect in the 1811 Ratcliffe Highway Murders: (27 in 1811,but apparently lame from a leg wound/infection)-2-0-0-2 (for the RH Murders)-0-0-1= 5

Most modern serial killers that I checked (eg, T. Bundy, Green River) on are/were rovers, moving locations, and so didn't fit well.

Can Someone please fill the missing datum points?

No problem CF,

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

Dr. Cream was provably in Joliet Prison, Illinois at the time of the murders (as an aside, I didn’t know until recently that it was used in the Blues Brothers as the prison that John Belushi was released from at the start of the movie) so I eliminate him.

Vincent Van Gogh was in Arles at the time of the murders and completely penniless so I eliminate him.

Michael Ostrog had been arrested in France on 26th July 1888 (under the name Grand Guidon) and held in custody until 18th November 1888 when he was convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment. He was released in November of 1890. So he can be eliminated.

Lewis Carroll was promoted in Richard Wallace’s book (it’s not worth buying if you ever think about getting it - his theory was that he committed the crimes with his friend Thomas Vere Bayne then announced them in anagrams in his books. I bought it when it first came out and still resent the money I paid) 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 1, I won’t bother adding him to the list but I certainly will if you want me to.

Michael Kidney scores quite well by my own assessment but I really don’t rate him as a suspect. Certainly a drunk who wasn’t averse to using his fists on a woman. 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 = 7

I’ll add Kidney on the next amendment.

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

[C. F. Leon]

Location - I was thinking 2 points for local or in a reasonably short travelling distance (so perhaps London in general would be appropriate) 1 point for more extensive travel (for example, whether we favour him or not it’s not impossible that Maybrick could have come to London via train) 0 points would be someone living in Aberdeen for example)

Police interest - Just the ripper murders

Gull - I included him based on his own physical traits/age/location etc.

Thank you, Herlock.

If you don't mind, I have run a couple of EXTREMELY unlikely suspects through your system to compare results. Unfortunately, I do not have information concerning some of the points to accurately give a rating. I'm hoping that people with better resources can fill in the blanks.

I've listed:

- Lewis Carroll: (56 in 1888)-?-0-0-0-0-?-1? (The guy was on SOMETHING!)= [at least 1]
- Dr. Cream: (38 in 1888)-0-2-?-0-1-2?-?= ?5
- Michael Kidney (pertaining to the Stride murder ONLY): 2-2-1-?-1-0-0-2= 8
- Michael Ostrog: (55 in 1888)-?-0-1?-1 (SOMEONE apparently suspected him at some point)-?-?-?= [at least 2]
- Mary Pearcey (to represent Jill the Ripper): (22 in 1888)-1-4-?1-0-0-?-?= [at least 5]
- Vincent Van Gogh: (35 in 1888)-0-0-2-0-0-?-1?= [at least 3]

As a control, I added John Williams, the suspect in the 1811 Ratcliffe Highway Murders: (27 in 1811,but apparently lame from a leg wound/infection)-2-0-0-2 (for the RH Murders)-0-0-1= 5

Most modern serial killers that I checked (eg, T. Bundy, Green River) on are/were rovers, moving locations, and so didn't fit well.

Can Someone please fill the missing datum points?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thank you, Herlock.

A couple of clarifications:

- Location: does this refer to Whitechapel in PARTICULAR, or is just known to have been in London during the period sufficient?

- Police Interest: Is this just referring to the Ripper Murders in particular, or charged for other (probably violent) crimes?

- Is Gull included as part of the Royal conspiracy or on his own?

Location - I was thinking 2 points for local or in a reasonably short travelling distance (so perhaps London in general would be appropriate) 1 point for more extensive travel (for example, whether we favour him or not it’s not impossible that Maybrick could have come to London via train) 0 points would be someone living in Aberdeen for example)

Police interest - Just the ripper murders

Gull - I included him based on his own physical traits/age/location etc.

[C. F. Leon]

These are the criteria:


1. Age/physical - 2 = no problem, 1 = some doubt, 0 = eliminated

2. Location - 2 = no problem, 1 = reasonable travel/some doubt, 0 = extremely unlikely

3. Violence - 4 - killed woman (non-family member) with knife, 3 - killed woman (family member) with knife, 2 - violence with a knife, 1 - violence without a knife, 0 - no violence.

4. Mental health issues - 2 = serious/violent, 1 = other, 0 = none known

5. Police interest - 2 = at the time, 1 = later, 0 = none known.

6. Hatred/dislike of prostitutes/women - 2 = yes, 1 = links to prostitution, 0 = none known

7. Medical/anatomical knowledge/(including slaughterman and butcher

- yes = 1, no = 0

8. Alcohol/drug use - 1 = yes, 0 = no.



This is the updated amendment 7


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

G.S.C. 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

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/Lechmere > 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



Most recent changes


Changed Druitt’s location from 2 to 1

Changed Sickert’s location from 1 to 0

Changed Gull’s age/physical score from 1 to 0

Thank you, Herlock.

A couple of clarifications:

- Location: does this refer to Whitechapel in PARTICULAR, or is just known to have been in London during the period sufficient?

- Police Interest: Is this just referring to the Ripper Murders in particular, or charged for other (probably violent) crimes?

- Is Gull included as part of the Royal Conspiracy or on his own?

[Herlock Sholmes]

These are the criteria:


1. Age/physical - 2 = no problem, 1 = some doubt, 0 = eliminated

2. Location - 2 = no problem, 1 = reasonable travel/some doubt, 0 = extremely unlikely

3. Violence - 4 - killed woman (non-family member) with knife, 3 - killed woman (family member) with knife, 2 - violence with a knife, 1 - violence without a knife, 0 - no violence.

4. Mental health issues - 2 = serious/violent, 1 = other, 0 = none known

5. Police interest - 2 = at the time, 1 = later, 0 = none known.

6. Hatred/dislike of prostitutes/women - 2 = yes, 1 = links to prostitution, 0 = none known

7. Medical/anatomical knowledge/(including slaughterman and butcher

- yes = 1, no = 0

8. Alcohol/drug use - 1 = yes, 0 = no.



This is the updated amendment 7


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

G.S.C. 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

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/Lechmere > 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



Most recent changes


Changed Druitt’s location from 2 to 1

Changed Sickert’s location from 1 to 0

Changed Gull’s age/physical score from 1 to 0

[C. F. Leon]

With all of the peripheral bickering, I've lost track of the ratings. The most recent that I was able to find was Amendment #7 of May 30 (post #104, pg 7). Herlock, would you please post an update to get us back on the proper track? (Including the updated criteria)

[rjpalmer]

What about "category B": killed with knife, blunt force trauma, manual strangulation - meaning up close and personal type killings and not guns, poison, etc?

The one that comes to mind, and it's not a great example, is the 1930's surgeon Dr. Buck Ruxton, who had studied surgery in India, and who killed his British common law wife and maid (who was possibly a witness) with blunt force trauma or other violence (some believe he had stabbed his victims) then meticulously cut them into small pieces in an effort to dispose of the bodies in a way that insured that they could never be identified (which failed).

Not quite a "Ripper" murder, and the victims weren't strangers to Ruxton, but it could explain the motivation behind any of the 'torso' cases.

[Fiver]

Didn't know that Fiver. Thanks for that info.

Cheers John

You're welcome.

This tells what happens before anything got to the cats meat men.

[John Wheat]

Firstly - why not the same person with no surgical training who wasn’t following a prescribed surgical method? A surgeon when removing an organ would presumably use the same method every time unless he had to use a different method for medical reasons. A maniac who killed women in the streets wasn’t working to a textbook.

Secondly, why is this relevant to the thread?

Hi Herlock. I think it highly likely that Jack was a maniac that killed women on the streets. Its worth noting many serial killers begin by killing animals so Jack may have done this. He might have started out by mutilating animals. It's not relevant to the thread.

Cheers John

[Herlock Sholmes]

Firstly - why not the same person with no surgical training who wasn’t following a prescribed surgical method? A surgeon when removing an organ would presumably use the same method every time unless he had to use a different method for medical reasons. A maniac who killed women in the streets wasn’t working to a textbook.

Secondly, why is this relevant to the thread?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

In Eddowes' case he's now had the Chapman experience, so there's always the notion that he simply takes the same again - repeats himself. It is the kidney that's the new behaviour, so that could be happenstance, or if he realised he botched the uterus, he grabbed something else. I suspect, but obviously cannot know, that JtR had anatomical knowledge, so by happenstance I just mean he may have decided at that point to grab something and chose the kidney (although it is impossible to rule out the idea that he had no clue about anatomy and just felt something and cut it out to see what it was, but that seems less probable to me). I don't think, prior to the murder, he specifically thought "Must get a kidney this time", rather what he took was what he decided upon at the moment. Taking body parts, like organs, as trophies is not uncommon in mutilators. There are some who target specific body parts, like eyes, or feet, due to a fetish or some other obsession, but I don't think JtR was doing that.

- Jeff

But if you are suggesting the same killer for all the murders and that killer removed the organs at the crime scenes how do you explain two different methods of removing the uterus from both Chapman and Eddowes? and in Chapmans case in addition to the uterus itself being removed the fallopian tubes which were still attached to the uterus were also taken

Surely the killer was not that medically trained to the point he was able to hone his skills to make two different removals of the same organ!!!!!!!!!!!!

It all points to two different persons removing the organs from the bodies at the two different mortuaries before the postmortems were carried out

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

But if the killer as a secondary thought took a uterus from Chapman would he then go on to take the same organ from Eddowes also as a secondary thought I very much doubt it.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

In Eddowes' case he's now had the Chapman experience, so there's always the notion that he simply takes the same again - repeats himself. It is the kidney that's the new behaviour, so that could be happenstance, or if he realised he botched the uterus, he grabbed something else. I suspect, but obviously cannot know, that JtR had anatomical knowledge, so by happenstance I just mean he may have decided at that point to grab something and chose the kidney (although it is impossible to rule out the idea that he had no clue about anatomy and just felt something and cut it out to see what it was, but that seems less probable to me). I don't think, prior to the murder, he specifically thought "Must get a kidney this time", rather what he took was what he decided upon at the moment. Taking body parts, like organs, as trophies is not uncommon in mutilators. There are some who target specific body parts, like eyes, or feet, due to a fetish or some other obsession, but I don't think JtR was doing that.

- Jeff

[John Wheat]

Cats meat men bought boiled meat from slaughterers. It had already been separated from the hair, hide, hooves, bones, and organs. Being a cats meat man taught less about anatomy than eating a piece of fried chicken.

Didn't know that Fiver. Thanks for that info.

Cheers John