Rating The Suspects.

[Abby Normal]

Ammendment #12


--- (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) ---

13 = 2 - 2 - 3 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Kelly, James

11 = 2 - 2 - 3 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Bury, William Henry

10 = 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 : Grainger, William Grant

09 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Cutbush, Thomas Hayne

09 = 2 - 1 - 4 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 0 - 0 : Deeming, Frederick Bailey

09 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 : Hyams, Hyam

09 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Puckridge, Oswald

08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Kosminski, Aaron (Aron Mordke Kozminski)

08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Pizer, John "Leather Apron"

08 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Lechmere, George Capel Scudamore

08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 : Barnado, Thomas John

O8 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 1 : Thompson, Francis

07 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Chapman, George (Seweryn Antonowicz Kłosowski)

07 = 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 : Tumblety, Francis

07 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 2 - 0 - 0 : Smith, G. Wentworth Bell

07 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Cohen, David

07 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Kidney, Michael

06 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 : Thompson, Francis

06 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Levy, Jacob

05 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Druitt, Montague John

05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Barnett, Joseph

05 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 : Stephenson, Robert Donston (or Roslyn D'Onston)

05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Sutton, Henry Gawen

05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Buchan, Edward

05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Williams, Dr. John

05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Craig, Francis Spurzheim

04 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Stephen, James Kenneth

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Bachert, Albert

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Cross, Charles (Charles Allen Lechmere)

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Hardiman, James

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Hutchinson, George

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Mann, Robert

04 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 : Maybrick, James

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Le Grand, Charles

03 = 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Sickert, Walter Richard

02 = 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Gull, Sir William Withey


Legend:

(A) Age/physical health

. . . 2 = no issue

. . . 1 = issues possibly creating doubt

. . . 0 = serious issue/ could potentially eliminate

(B) Location/access to murder sites

. . . 2 = no issues

. . . 1 = reasonable travel

. . . 0 = serious doubt

(C) Violence

. . . 4 = killed woman (non-relative) with knife

. . . 3 = killed female relative with knife

. . . 2 = violence with a knife

. . . 1 = violence without a knife

. . . 0 = no known violence

(D) Mental health issues

. . . 2 = serious/violent

. . . 1 = other

. . . 0 = none known

(E) Police interest

. . . 2 = at the time

. . . 1 = later (within 10 yrs)

. . . 0 = none known

(F) Hatred/dislike of women/prostitutes

. . . 2 = yes

. . . 1 = link to prostitutes

. . . 0 = none known

(G) Medical/anatomical knowledge (inc. animals)

. . . 1 = yes

. . . 0 = none known

(H) Alcohol/drug issue

. . . 1 = yes

. . . 0 = none known



Suspects Added


Oswald Puckridge*

Francis Thompson

Edward Buchan

Dr. John Williams

Francis Spurzheim Craig


*Puckridge was once charged with being drunk and disorderly but I can’t count that as having an ‘issue’ with drink. It could have been a one off.

I was also looking to add Hendrik De Jong to the list but I won’t add a suspect unless we can state with certainty that they were in the country at the time of the murders and I’m unsure at the moment with him. This is why Carl Feigenbaum and HH Holmes aren’t on the list by the way.

yes definitely good call adding puckridge def belongs on the list. and being arrested and charged with drunk and disorderly i would say having an issue with drink would be obvious. the chance of it being a one off is close to nil.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ammendment #12


--- (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) ---

13 = 2 - 2 - 3 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Kelly, James

11 = 2 - 2 - 3 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Bury, William Henry

10 = 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 : Grainger, William Grant

09 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Cutbush, Thomas Hayne

09 = 2 - 1 - 4 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 0 - 0 : Deeming, Frederick Bailey

09 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 : Hyams, Hyam

09 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Puckridge, Oswald

08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Kosminski, Aaron (Aron Mordke Kozminski)

08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Pizer, John "Leather Apron"

08 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Lechmere, George Capel Scudamore

08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 : Barnado, Thomas John

O8 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 1 : Thompson, Francis

07 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Chapman, George (Seweryn Antonowicz Kłosowski)

07 = 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 : Tumblety, Francis

07 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 2 - 0 - 0 : Smith, G. Wentworth Bell

07 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Cohen, David

07 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Kidney, Michael

06 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 : Thompson, Francis

06 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Levy, Jacob

05 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Druitt, Montague John

05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Barnett, Joseph

05 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 : Stephenson, Robert Donston (or Roslyn D'Onston)

05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Sutton, Henry Gawen

05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Buchan, Edward

05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Williams, Dr. John

05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Craig, Francis Spurzheim

04 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Stephen, James Kenneth

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Bachert, Albert

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Cross, Charles (Charles Allen Lechmere)

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Hardiman, James

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Hutchinson, George

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Mann, Robert

04 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 : Maybrick, James

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Le Grand, Charles

03 = 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Sickert, Walter Richard

02 = 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Gull, Sir William Withey


Legend:

(A) Age/physical health

. . . 2 = no issue

. . . 1 = issues possibly creating doubt

. . . 0 = serious issue/ could potentially eliminate

(B) Location/access to murder sites

. . . 2 = no issues

. . . 1 = reasonable travel

. . . 0 = serious doubt

(C) Violence

. . . 4 = killed woman (non-relative) with knife

. . . 3 = killed female relative with knife

. . . 2 = violence with a knife

. . . 1 = violence without a knife

. . . 0 = no known violence

(D) Mental health issues

. . . 2 = serious/violent

. . . 1 = other

. . . 0 = none known

(E) Police interest

. . . 2 = at the time

. . . 1 = later (within 10 yrs)

. . . 0 = none known

(F) Hatred/dislike of women/prostitutes

. . . 2 = yes

. . . 1 = link to prostitutes

. . . 0 = none known

(G) Medical/anatomical knowledge (inc. animals)

. . . 1 = yes

. . . 0 = none known

(H) Alcohol/drug issue

. . . 1 = yes

. . . 0 = none known



Suspects Added


Oswald Puckridge*

Francis Thompson

Edward Buchan

Dr. John Williams

Francis Spurzheim Craig


*Puckridge was once charged with being drunk and disorderly but I can’t count that as having an ‘issue’ with drink. It could have been a one off.

I was also looking to add Hendrik De Jong to the list but I won’t add a suspect unless we can state with certainty that they were in the country at the time of the murders and I’m unsure at the moment with him. This is why Carl Feigenbaum and HH Holmes aren’t on the list by the way.

[Lewis C]

But Grant was disturbed by two coppers during the attack so we don`t know what he might have done.

But when he was disturbed, he had already attacked her lower body without first strangling or cutting the throat. With the Ripper, the strangling and throat cutting came first.

On your other post that I didn't quote, that's a valid point.

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis C,

No proof that it was the same person other than someone named Grant (admittedly a common name) was later suspected.

Removing one's self from the scene of a crime (as did Bury) does not seem to me to be a disqualifying strategy.

The difference in technique is also used to question the McKenzie murder as being by the ripper. The ripper was successful in taking his victims by surprise, but there could be some latitude if the circumstances were different, such as being set upon by three ruffians at the same time. Not dis-similar to Don Bradman being dismissed for a duck in his last game to deprive him of a 100 average. The anticipation exceeds the participation.

I fully appreciate your reservations. There seems to be far less research into persons such as Grainger, Deeming and Thompson than the more traditional suspects such as Kosminski, Chapman and Druitt.

Cheers, George

Maybe I should clarify that I'm not saying that we should disqualify Grainger as a suspect if we know that he was in Ireland shortly after the murders. I think he's a viable suspect, even though I think that there are better ones. I just meant that if he was known to have been in Ireland shortly before Tabram's murder and shortly after Kelly's murder, and if we have no evidence of him leaving or returning to Ireland or being in England at the time of the murders, it would seem that most likely he was in Ireland the whole time. But yes, he certainly could have been in Whitechapel.

[Lewis C]

hi lewis
the cohen connection is too convoluted for me and as far as we know he wasnt andersons suspect, koz was.

re connection..well its known connection along with other yellow flags. for example burys connection is he was a police suspect, but we also know he was in the immediate area and a known murderer.

imho if you cant even place a candidate in the city and or they have zero connection to the case, a suspect you dont have. its just me, i just place a high emphasis on location/ proximity/ connection.

of course just having a connection dosnt make you suspicious. for example, innocuous witness like pc smith, or marshall or cox or diemshitz dosnt make you a suspect.

now the reverse of that, if mere connection to the case with no other yellow flags dosnt make you a suspect, then just having a violent/insane past but with no connection with the case dosnt make you a suspect either.

its like a parlor room game...hey lets find some random violent crazy guy with no connection to the case, to a victim, to the location and fit em on up. it just kind of silly to me. but again thats just me.

In some cases, it's not firmly established who was a police suspect and who wasn't, there have been some great researchers who either think Aaron Kosminsky isn't who Anderson, Swanson, and Macnaughten had in mind, or that he might not have been. I would say that the only people that can be said to undoubtedly be police suspects are Druitt, Ostrog, Chapman, and Tumblety, and of course we can eliminate Ostrog as a viable suspect anyway.

I agree that nearness to the area is an important consideration, and also whether that nearness is certain, probable, likely or merely possible matters.

[Jon Guy]

My other issue with him is that his attack on a prostitute was much less skillful than what JtR did, and I wonder if he really would have lost that ability in the few years that passed between the murders and his attack.

But Grant was disturbed by two coppers during the attack so we don`t know what he might have done.

[Jon Guy]

I do think Grainger is a better suspect than most, but I have two problems with him. One is that I believe I remember reading that his whereabouts at the time of the murders are unknown, but he was known to have been in Ireland shortly before the murders began and shortly after they ended. So he could have come to Whitechapel from Ireland, committed the murders, and then gone back to Ireland, but to me, that doesn't seem very likely.

Hi Lewis

That`s the thing with Grant, we know a lot about his whereabouts during his life except during late 1888. That`s the only time he is not accounted for.

[Abby Normal]

I can understand that view. My view is that the Ripper wasn't caught because he had no known connection to any of the victims or the murder locations and because he wasn't suspected by police.

GCS Lechmere has more going for him than most people with no known connection to the case. He did attempt murder and did so by the unusual method of cutting the throat instead of stabbing the victim. He was often separated from his wife, so no pesky family members underfoot to find trophies taken from the victims. No job to go to most of the time, so he can stay up all hours looking for victims.

Several things about GCS Lechmere were common traits of serial killers. One is his extreme lack of empathy - GCS Lechmere attempted murder in front of his 6 year old son while his wife was nursing their baby. Another is his badly failed relationship with his wife. We don't know if he felt a need for control, but GCS Lechmere's life was a mess - usually unemployed, failing marriage, excess drinking, in and out of workhouses, more children than he could support.

If GCS Lechmere was the Ripper, I'd guess his motivation was frustration and rage, not anything sexual. He may have imagined the victims as his wife - strangulation and throat cutting to silence the nagging. Abdominal mutilation to express the frustration at repeated pregnancies he couldn't afford.

Odds are George Capel Scudamore Lechmere was just an attempted murderer, not the Ripper. But he's a better suspect than most.

hi fiver
fair enough. agree to disagree. imho he cant even be called a suspect. and in fairness ill also say odds on lech was just a witness who found a body.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Abby, I would have sworn that I’d already done it. One year added to my age and I’m all over the place.


Amendment #11

--- (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) ---

13 = 2 - 2 - 3 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Kelly, James

11 = 2 - 2 - 3 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Bury, William Henry

10 = 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 : Grainger, William Grant

09 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Cutbush, Thomas Hayne

09 = 2 - 1 - 4 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 0 - 0 : Deeming, Frederick Bailey

09 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 : Hyams, Hyam

08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Kosminski, Aaron (Aron Mordke Kozminski)

08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Pizer, John "Leather Apron"

08 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Lechmere, George Capel Scudamore

08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 : Barnado, Thomas John

07 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Chapman, George (Seweryn Antonowicz Kłosowski)

07 = 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 : Tumblety, Francis

07 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 2 - 0 - 0 : Smith, G. Wentworth Bell

07 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Cohen, David

07 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Kidney, Michael

06 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 : Thompson, Francis

06 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Levy, Jacob

05 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Druitt, Montague John

05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Barnett, Joseph

05 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 : Stephenson, Robert Donston (or Roslyn D'Onston)

04 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Stephen, James Kenneth

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Bachert, Albert

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Cross, Charles (Charles Allen Lechmere)

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Hardiman, James

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Hutchinson, George

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Mann, Robert

04 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 : Maybrick, James

03 = 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Sickert, Walter Richard

02 = 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Gull, Sir William Withey


Legend:

(A) Age/physical health

. . . 2 = no issue

. . . 1 = some issues creating doubt

. . . 0 = serious issue/ could potentially eliminate


(B) Location/access to murder sites

. . . 2 = no issues

. . . 1 = reasonable travel/possible doubt

. . . 0 = serious doubt


(C) Violence

. . . 4 = killed woman (non-relative) with knife

. . . 3 = killed female relative with knife

. . . 2 = violence with a knife

. . . 1 = violence without a knife

. . . 0 = no known violence


(D) Mental health issues

. . . 2 = serious/violent

. . . 1 = other

. . . 0 = none known


(E) Police interest

. . . 2 = at the time

. . . 1 = later (within 10 yrs)

. . . 0 = none known


(F) Hatred/dislike of women/prostitutes

. . . 2 = yes

. . . 1 = link to prostitutes

. . . 0 = none


(G) Medical/anatomical knowledge (inc. animals)

. . . 1 = yes

. . . 0 = no


(H) Alcohol/drug issue

. . . 1 = yes

. . . 0 = none known

Just to avoid confusion (created by me in the first place) in the above I added the other Lechmere’s full name after Abby’s request but to an old list which hadn’t been updated with Sutton and Le Grand.

This is amendment #11


--- (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) ---

13 = 2 - 2 - 3 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Kelly, James

11 = 2 - 2 - 3 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Bury, William Henry

10 = 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 : Grainger, William Grant

09 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Cutbush, Thomas Hayne

09 = 2 - 1 - 4 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 0 - 0 : Deeming, Frederick Bailey

09 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 : Hyams, Hyam

08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Kosminski, Aaron (Aron Mordke Kozminski)

08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Pizer, John "Leather Apron"

08 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Lechmere, George Capel Scudamore

08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 : Barnado, Thomas John

07 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Chapman, George (Seweryn Antonowicz Kłosowski)

07 = 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 : Tumblety, Francis

07 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 2 - 0 - 0 : Smith, G. Wentworth Bell

07 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Cohen, David

07 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Kidney, Michael

06 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 : Thompson, Francis

06 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Levy, Jacob

05 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Druitt, Montague John

05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Barnett, Joseph

05 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 : Stephenson, Robert Donston (or Roslyn D'Onston)

05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Sutton, Henry Gawen

04 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Stephen, James Kenneth

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Bachert, Albert

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Cross, Charles (Charles Allen Lechmere)

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Hardiman, James

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Hutchinson, George

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Mann, Robert

04 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 : Maybrick, James

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Le Grand, Charles

03 = 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Sickert, Walter Richard

02 = 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Gull, Sir William Withey


Legend:

(A) Age/physical health

. . . 2 = no issue

. . . 1 = issues possibly creating doubt

. . . 0 = serious issue/ could potentially eliminate

(B) Location/access to murder sites

. . . 2 = no issues

. . . 1 = reasonable travel

. . . 0 = serious doubt

(C) Violence

. . . 4 = killed woman (non-relative) with knife

. . . 3 = killed female relative with knife

. . . 2 = violence with a knife

. . . 1 = violence without a knife

. . . 0 = no known violence

(D) Mental health issues

. . . 2 = serious/violent

. . . 1 = other

. . . 0 = none known

(E) Police interest

. . . 2 = at the time

. . . 1 = later (within 10 yrs)

. . . 0 = none known

(F) Hatred/dislike of women/prostitutes

. . . 2 = yes

. . . 1 = link to prostitutes

. . . 0 = none known

(G) Medical/anatomical knowledge (inc. animals)

. . . 1 = yes

. . . 0 = none known

(H) Alcohol/drug issue

. . . 1 = yes

. . . 0 = none known

[Herlock Sholmes]

Whilst there is a case to be made for a ‘local man’ theory with people seeing local knowledge as an advantage (escape routes, police beats etc) I think we should also be aware of the risk of familiarity. A killer living outside the area (although I’m not suggesting miles out) is much less likely to be unlucky enough to get recognised. And whilst I accept that a local killer would also have been a bit unlucky to have been spotted and recognised he would still have an increased chance of it happening to him. A fairly vague description is one thing, “it looked like x to me officer” is another. It’s why you don’t get a serial killer at work in a village (except in Midsomer Murders of course)

[Fiver]

my problem with candidates like hyams, the other lechmere, smith, cohen, stephen, (not even gonna mention gull, sickert or maybrick in this list as they are just ridiculous) is they have absolute zero connection to the case not even a tenuous one, werent suspected by the police at the time and cant be placed anywhere near any the victims or locations.

I can understand that view. My view is that the Ripper wasn't caught because he had no known connection to any of the victims or the murder locations and because he wasn't suspected by police.

GCS Lechmere has more going for him than most people with no known connection to the case. He did attempt murder and did so by the unusual method of cutting the throat instead of stabbing the victim. He was often separated from his wife, so no pesky family members underfoot to find trophies taken from the victims. No job to go to most of the time, so he can stay up all hours looking for victims.

Several things about GCS Lechmere were common traits of serial killers. One is his extreme lack of empathy - GCS Lechmere attempted murder in front of his 6 year old son while his wife was nursing their baby. Another is his badly failed relationship with his wife. We don't know if he felt a need for control, but GCS Lechmere's life was a mess - usually unemployed, failing marriage, excess drinking, in and out of workhouses, more children than he could support.

If GCS Lechmere was the Ripper, I'd guess his motivation was frustration and rage, not anything sexual. He may have imagined the victims as his wife - strangulation and throat cutting to silence the nagging. Abdominal mutilation to express the frustration at repeated pregnancies he couldn't afford.

Odds are George Capel Scudamore Lechmere was just an attempted murderer, not the Ripper. But he's a better suspect than most.

[GBinOz]

George Chapman was a serial killer too, admittedly a poisoner rather than one who strangled and killed with a knife. He was only convicted of one of the murders, but I don't think that matters for our purposes, because there's little question that he committed three murders.

Hi Lewis C,

I stand corrected. Chapman was a serial killer, and I do not discount him on the fact that he may have used different a different technique for wives compared to strangers - an obvious imperative.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Is there any reason to believe that the Grant referred to in the clippings book is the same Grant?

I do think Grainger is a better suspect than most, but I have two problems with him. One is that I believe I remember reading that his whereabouts at the time of the murders are unknown, but he was known to have been in Ireland shortly before the murders began and shortly after they ended. So he could have come to Whitechapel from Ireland, committed the murders, and then gone back to Ireland, but to me, that doesn't seem very likely.

My other issue with him is that his attack on a prostitute was much less skillful than what JtR did, and I wonder if he really would have lost that ability in the few years that passed between the murders and his attack.

Hi Lewis C,

No proof that it was the same person other than someone named Grant (admittedly a common name) was later suspected.

Removing one's self from the scene of a crime (as did Bury) does not seem to me to be a disqualifying strategy.

The difference in technique is also used to question the McKenzie murder as being by the ripper. The ripper was successful in taking his victims by surprise, but there could be some latitude if the circumstances were different, such as being set upon by three ruffians at the same time. Not dis-similar to Don Bradman being dismissed for a duck in his last game to deprive him of a 100 average. The anticipation exceeds the participation.

I fully appreciate your reservations. There seems to be far less research into persons such as Grainger, Deeming and Thompson than the more traditional suspects such as Kosminski, Chapman and Druitt.

Cheers, George

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

We don't know whether or not Cohen was a police suspect. His suspect status is based primarily on the possibility that he may have been Anderson's suspect. Also, I don't see why having a known connection to the case matters, unless that connection in some way raises suspicions about him.

hi lewis
the cohen connection is too convoluted for me and as far as we know he wasnt andersons suspect, koz was.

re connection..well its known connection along with other yellow flags. for example burys connection is he was a police suspect, but we also know he was in the immediate area and a known murderer.

imho if you cant even place a candidate in the city and or they have zero connection to the case, a suspect you dont have. its just me, i just place a high emphasis on location/ proximity/ connection.

of course just having a connection dosnt make you suspicious. for example, innocuous witness like pc smith, or marshall or cox or diemshitz dosnt make you a suspect.

now the reverse of that, if mere connection to the case with no other yellow flags dosnt make you a suspect, then just having a violent/insane past but with no connection with the case dosnt make you a suspect either.

its like a parlor room game...hey lets find some random violent crazy guy with no connection to the case, to a victim, to the location and fit em on up. it just kind of silly to me. but again thats just me.

[Lewis C]

hi fiver
thanks. checked out the thread.

i think these types of candidates are artificially elevated on this list just because of prior violence/ insanity. ill just leave it with what i wrote earlier:

my problem with candidates like hyams, the other lechmere, smith, cohen, stephen, (not even gonna mention gull, sickert or maybrick in this list as they are just ridiculous) is they have absolute zero connection to the case not even a tenuous one, werent suspected by the police at the time and cant be placed anywhere near any the victims or locations. they are concoctions and extensions of the crazy/violent guy/ jew theory picked out of the bag by later "theorists". seriously, you could literally find anyone out of thousands in london at the time and fit them up under this criteria as a "suspect".

Hi Abby,

We don't know whether or not Cohen was a police suspect. His suspect status is based primarily on the possibility that he may have been Anderson's suspect. Also, I don't see why having a known connection to the case matters, unless that connection in some way raises suspicions about him.