Rating The Suspects.

[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

[Fiver]

So the doctors at the time of the ripper murders thought there was some degree of anatomical skill / knowledge .Whats changed ?

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.

[Fiver]

Bury's wife was an ex prostitute and Bury was reportedly a cat meat Butcher so shouldn't he have 2 more points? Also and this goes for Herlock's table too.

Cheers John

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

Of course we can only speculate because we haven't go the information from the mutilating serial killer to compare with the one butcher that we have an opinion from. I'm just guessing (or, to be technical, I'm hypothesising), that the serial killer's view will be different. I could be wrong but I could be right! Without the information, all we have is the opinion of someone who, presumably, wouldn't kill multiple people, and who would have a natural aversion to doing so. Someone who lacks that aversion might tell us that it's "no big deal"! Or they may agree with the butcher. Without having the information, we can make no comparison, but we can suggest caution due to lack of information.

Hmmm, you say you think the killer's motivation was "...only murder and mutilation", but then you wonder about why no attempts were made to harvest organs at other crime scenes?

I think the answer is contained within your ideas already. If the killer's motive was murder and mutilation, than taking organs is just an after thoguht, something they did on some occasions, but not something that was the primary drive behind the murders. As such, we should not be surprised if such secondary desires do not show up every time.

- Jeff

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

But we can only speculate what a mutilating serial killer might say or do, we have a clear and concise opinion from a master butcher?

Of course we can only speculate because we haven't go the information from the mutilating serial killer to compare with the one butcher that we have an opinion from. I'm just guessing (or, to be technical, I'm hypothesising), that the serial killer's view will be different. I could be wrong but I could be right! Without the information, all we have is the opinion of someone who, presumably, wouldn't kill multiple people, and who would have a natural aversion to doing so. Someone who lacks that aversion might tell us that it's "no big deal"! Or they may agree with the butcher. Without having the information, we can make no comparison, but we can suggest caution due to lack of information.

My opinion based on the assessment and evaluation of all the facts and evidence is that the killer's motive was only murder and mutilation.

If it is suggested that it was one killer, and that killer was intent on harvesting organs from the crime scenes, why is it that we see no evidence of any attempts to remove organs from any of the other victims?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hmmm, you say you think the killer's motivation was "...only murder and mutilation", but then you wonder about why no attempts were made to harvest organs at other crime scenes?

I think the answer is contained within your ideas already. If the killer's motive was murder and mutilation, than taking organs is just an after thoguht, something they did on some occasions, but not something that was the primary drive behind the murders. As such, we should not be surprised if such secondary desires do not show up every time.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

No problem Jon. I’m done with the thread anyway.