Rating The Suspects.

[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.

[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]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A question for all….

As we aren’t certain about Tabram and Mackenzie, what do we think about possibly adding a half a point for ‘available for Tabram and Mackenzie?’

[The Rookie Detective]

A question for all….

As we aren’t certain about Tabram and Mackenzie, what do we think about possibly adding a half a point for ‘available for Tabram and Mackenzie?’

I think that is a good idea personally; controversial perhaps, but still worth extending the parameters.

It may be interesting to see and visualize a 'Canonical 5' version and then compare the data directly to an extended version.

I would include Mckenzie, Tabram and COLES too.


Worth a try at the very least




RD

[Lewis C]

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

I guess it doesn't hurt to add Kidney, but my impression, which may be wrong, is that some people suspect him of killing Stride, but no one or almost no one thinks that he killed any of the other Ripper victims.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I guess it doesn't hurt to add Kidney, but my impression, which may be wrong, is that some people suspect him of killing Stride, but no one or almost no one thinks that he killed any of the other Ripper victims.

I’d certainly agree with that Lewis.

[Lewis C]

A question for all….

As we aren’t certain about Tabram and Mackenzie, what do we think about possibly adding a half a point for ‘available for Tabram and Mackenzie?’

I think that's reasonable, since half a point isn't much, and a suspect need not check every box to be one of the strongest suspects. I think Mackenzie is the only one that's variable. I don't know of any suspect that has no alibi for any of the C5 murders, but has an alibi for the Tabram murder. I wouldn't include Coles though. There we're talking about someone who's unlikely to be a Ripper victim, and for someone who was available, the question of why he stopped seems more important than if he was available for Coles.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think that's reasonable, since half a point isn't much, and a suspect need not check every box to be one of the strongest suspects. I think Mackenzie is the only one that's variable. I don't know of any suspect that has no alibi for any of the C5 murders, but has an alibi for the Tabram murder. I wouldn't include Coles though. There we're talking about someone who's unlikely to be a Ripper victim, and for someone who was available, the question of why he stopped seems more important than if he was available for Coles.

Until the research over on JtRForums it was assumed that Druitt had a cricket-based alibi for the Tabram murder (from Leighton) but it turns out that he hadn’t after all. It might actually have been Roger Palmer who found this out? Obviously being dead is a fairly good one for Mackenzie though.

[JeffHamm]

A question for all….

As we aren’t certain about Tabram and Mackenzie, what do we think about possibly adding a half a point for ‘available for Tabram and Mackenzie?’

Not out of the question. Perhaps then another category, like there is a known event that would explain the cessation of the murders (i.e. death, left the country, arrested for other crime, etc).

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Not out of the question. Perhaps then another category, like there is a known event that would explain the cessation of the murders (i.e. death, left the country, arrested for other crime, etc).

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

But how is it to be established when the murders ceased? If we look at the victims where the was a suspected interruption, Nichols, Stride, McKenzie and Coles, then Stride is the odd woman out. The others were killed in lonely places, but Stride was murdered next to a Club with a function in full progress. I've always thought that if Coles, and McKenzie, are to be excluded, logically Stride has to also be excluded as a JtR victim. YMMV.

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

But how is it to be established when the murders ceased? If we look at the victims where the was a suspected interruption, Nichols, Stride, McKenzie and Coles, then Stride is the odd woman out. The others were killed in lonely places, but Stride was murdered next to a Club with a function in full progress. I've always thought that if Coles, and McKenzie, are to be excluded, logically Stride has to also be excluded as a JtR victim. YMMV.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Yah, that is tricky. I was thinking for say Druitt, one could award 1 point as his suicide is after the C5, but before the later possible victims. Someone who becomes "out of circulation" after the later possibilities might be given 1.5 or 2 (depending upon the weight one puts on those cases), while someone who is around and free for decades gets 0. Something like that maybe, to take in to account the range of opinions?

- Jeff

[John Wheat]

Hi George,

Yah, that is tricky. I was thinking for say Druitt, one could award 1 point as his suicide is after the C5, but before the later possible victims. Someone who becomes "out of circulation" after the later possibilities might be given 1.5 or 2 (depending upon the weight one puts on those cases), while someone who is around and free for decades gets 0. Something like that maybe, to take in to account the range of opinions?

- Jeff

Hi all

Frankly I think this is a bit silly. In all likelihood Mackenzie and Coles were not Ripper victims. I think we should just stick to the C5. Maybe minus Stride though.

Cheers John

[JeffHamm]

Hi all

Frankly I think this is a bit silly. In all likelihood Mackenzie and Coles were not Ripper victims. I think we should just stick to the C5. Maybe minus Stride though.

Cheers John

Hi John,

I tend to agree, but the idea of a coding scheme like this isn't to code who fits my beliefs best, but who matches JtR while allowing for some range in error as to when the series ended. Suspects who we could explain why the killings stopped after McKenzie, for example, would still have an explanation whether we are right or wrong to exclude her, while suspects like Druitt, who we can explain an end after the C5 requires McKenzie not be part of the series. So one could say the former is "safer" because we can explain the end of the series regardless of our belief about McKenzie being right or wrong while the latter depends on us making the right call.

- Jeff

[John Wheat]

Hi John,

I tend to agree, but the idea of a coding scheme like this isn't to code who fits my beliefs best, but who matches JtR while allowing for some range in error as to when the series ended. Suspects who we could explain why the killings stopped after McKenzie, for example, would still have an explanation whether we are right or wrong to exclude her, while suspects like Druitt, who we can explain an end after the C5 requires McKenzie not be part of the series. So one could say the former is "safer" because we can explain the end of the series regardless of our belief about McKenzie being right or wrong while the latter depends on us making the right call.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff

I see what your saying but we shouldn't in my opinion exclude suspects who were dead when Mckenzie was killed or give suspects extra points as they were alive when Mckenzie was murdered. I still think its best to stick with the C5. Otherwise why not include The Torso Murders and why not Carrie Brown?

Cheers John