Rating The Suspects.

[Lewis C]

Yes but the fact remains the body of Montague J''Druitt'' that which was pulled from the Thames is what Abberline the man who was in charge of the entire investigation was clearly saying when he gave his interview. ''But there is absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him. ”

Hi Fishy,

Kattrup isn't denying that. All he's saying is that Abberline doesn't appear to be very well-informed about Druitt.

[Fiver]

Personally I think that Gull should dwell in the same category as Lewis Carrol and Prince Eddy as there is nothing to remotely connect him to the murders accept an old man’s story that contained so many falsehoods that it can’t even be considered remotely reliable.

And that man later admitted the whole Royal Conspiracy was a hoax.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Gull did not have 3 strokes during the ripper murders, you are factually incorrect ........ Again .

A classic piece of Fishy sleight-of-hand where you change the criteria by adding a bit to try and make it appear that you are right. I never specified that he had strokes during the murders Fishy, as you well know so don’t even try it.


Let’s put to bed once and for all your attempt to paint the 71 year old Gull as someone who had one minor stroke from which he fully recovered shall we, because everyone here knows that it’s not true.


From William Withey Gull - A Biographical Sketch (1896) by Theodore Dyke-Acland. So Gull’s son-in-law.

“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.”

- So there we have a man who knew him intimately saying that he had a stroke in October of 1887 (10 months before the murders began) from which he NEVER WHOLLY RECOVERED.


From the Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Gull, William Withey.

“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.”

- So, he had the attack in Scotland mentioned here and from which TD Acland said that he never wholly recovered (10 months before the murders remember) and then he had 2 more resulting in his death in 1890.


From his tailors Henry Poole & co who have a Hall of Fame on their website where biographies of famous clients have been written over the years. On Gull:

“In 1887 Sir William suffered the first of a series of strokes correctly diagnosing his malady by saying ‘one arrow has missed its mark but there are more in the quiver’. “


From Gull’s obituary in The Times (30th January 1890)

“We regret to announce that Sir William Gull died at half-past 12 yesterday at his residence, 74, Brook-street, London, from paralysis. Sir William was seized with a severe attack of paralysis just over two years ago while staying at Urrard, Killiecrankie, and never sufficiently recovered to resume his practice.”


I’m not going to keep going over the obvious just because you can’t accept it Fishy. I’m sure that those who have access to newspaper archives can post more obituaries if they have a few minutes to spare? Not that you’ll accept it of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hey it’s it’s your time Herlock ,you should manage it better if you feel that way . Another Herlock misconseption, that somehow you actually prove ''My opinions'' wrong, which of coure is untrue. Enough said , Richardson and Jfk can attest to all the above is far from accurate, there your achillies heel in many, many ways . Time to move on .

No. If someone claims to have explained or answered something and someone says that they haven’t seen any explanation or answer it’s a matter of basic manners to either repeat the explanation/answer or to provide a link to it rather than expect someone to Wade through random threads to find it. If you have a conversation with someone and they don’t hear your answer properly do you refuse to repeat? The other threads were ruined by yourself and PI. Instead of ignoring you both I foolishly tried to reason with you and became irritated.

[FISHY1118]

Exactly. If a 71 year old man who had 3 strokes isn’t an unlikely in the extreme ripper then who is? He’s only mentioned in regard to a crazy theory involving Royalty and the Freemasons. And yet a physically fit, 31 year old son of a surgeon whose mother is committed to an asylum weeks before the first murder and who killed himself just after the Kelly murder and is mentioned as a likely suspect by the Chief Constable of the Met, is somehow a non-starter. Where’s the sense of balance?

Of course, from what we know of him he sounds an unlikely ripper and yet he’s mentioned? It’s likelier of course that the ripper was someone like Bury or Kelly but we just don’t know. Too many people in attack or defend mode when it comes to suspects. As if they’re defending their own honour.

All that I know about who was the ripper was John is...it wasn’t me.

Gull did not have 3 strokes during the ripper murders, you are factually incorrect ........ Again .

[FISHY1118]

Please stop wasting my time Fishy. I’m tired of constantly proving you wrong. I’m not interested in what you gave to say on this subject. Ask ANYONE else (apart from The Baron) if they think that I’ve been biased on this thread. Ask them….see what they say.

I don’t duck questions….ever. If I miss one by mistake I’ll reply when it’s pointed out. And when I make a point I give my thinking behind it and the evidence that it’s based on. I don’t just say ‘I’ve explained it’ and expect someone to wade through numerous threads and hundreds of posts trying to find something that I haven’t said in the first place. You just keep ruining threads by starting arguments. Thread after thread after thread. And I keep getting drawn in. I’m not getting drawn in here.

Hey its your time Herlock ,you should manage it better if you feel that way . Another Herlock misconseption, that somehow you actually prove ''My opinions'' wrong, which of coure is untrue. Enough said , Richardson and Jfk can attest to all the above is far from accurate, there your achillies heel in many, many ways . Time to move on .

[FISHY1118]

Maybe if you wait a little more Fishy you will see Druitt gets some 10+ points and Gull will be at 0 to 1 point

That is how our unbiased minds work!

You can keep adding categories that suit your favourite suspect, and ignore facts that support your less favourite suspects, give extra points here and less points there..


It is more like a heavily biased game at best.


The Baron

Ive voiced my concerned on the matter with him .

[FISHY1118]

Because I took Jeff’s advice and changed the criteria to:


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

- yes = 1, no = 0


Its the same for everyone.

Well it is your thread and your scoring sytem, and you indeed have that option. However given the very nature of the crimes and the near certainty that the Ripper had a degree medical skill ,i think thats a poor move to have Medical Knowledge lumped in with a lowly slaughterman/ butcher.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And again…when the MM appeared Abberline had been retired for two years. He’d heard of the suspect but how would he have known about Macnaghten’s private info? All that Abberline was doing was commenting on limited information.

[FISHY1118]

Yes, it’s clear. That’s not the point, rather, the idea that Abberline was somehow well informed about Druitt is proven to be questionable.
“I know all about that story” - he clearly does not.

Yes but the fact remains the body of Montague J''Druitt'' that which was pulled from the Thames is what Abberline the man who was in charge of the entire investigation was clearly saying when he gave his interview. ''But there is absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him. ”

[JeffHamm]

Thanks Jeff,

No list or poll is going to give us the likeliest ripper of course but I just wanted to be able to get a view of what type of person might be the likeliest and then comparing the criteria against the named suspects. No major surprises I don’t think. Although of the top 20 the one that I wouldn’t have expected to have made it is Barnado.

I agree, and I wouldn't suggest this produces a list that could be viewed as a "probability of being JtR", rather just a comparison of suspects on some ideas that seem related to the case. Those harder to place in London clearly have "some explaining to do" by those who put them forth, so that makes them weaker fits. Higher scores are just easier stories to tell - it isn't hard to suggest Burry was violent given his wife's murder, for example, but for those with no known history of violence does make one pause and wonder. In a way, this could be viewed as who is it easier to argue for rather than who is more probable ( since none of the items is actually evidence of any involvement in the JtR murders).

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Ah, I had originally made a mistake and had age and location scores mixed up, but the changes you've made I think work well and seem in keeping with the intention of the scoring system. On the whole, I think it does a pretty good job of ordering suspects, so well done.

- Jeff

Thanks Jeff,

No list or poll is going to give us the likeliest ripper of course but I just wanted to be able to get a view of what type of person might be the likeliest and then comparing the criteria against the named suspects. No major surprises I don’t think. Although of the top 20 the one that I wouldn’t have expected to have made it is Barnado.

[JeffHamm]

Amendment 7


Changes

In line with suggestions from Jeff


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

Hi Herlock,

Ah, I had originally made a mistake and had age and location scores mixed up, but the changes you've made I think work well and seem in keeping with the intention of the scoring system. On the whole, I think it does a pretty good job of ordering suspects, so well done.

- Jeff

[Lewis C]

Just been rereading this thread and wondering what some people have against Druitt as a suspect but then somehow favour Kosminski as if the opinions of the police about Druitt count for nothing but then a frankly **** and bull story about an alleged I.D. parade by the police carries great weight. Plus we don't even know that we have the right man pegged as Kosminski. Note I don't think either Druitt or Kosminski were the Ripper and I rate them both about the same as suspects. Somewhere between Sickert who I think it highly unlikely as the Ripper and Bury who I rate as the top suspect.

Hi John,

There was someone posting here a few months ago that often commented on Kosminski's weakness as suspect, sometimes when it didn't have much to do with the subject at hand.

There are some reasons why one could view Aaron Kosminski as a stronger suspect than Druitt. For one, AK lived in the area, and Druitt didn't, so AK would have had more opportunities to roam the streets, and more opportunity to have the familiarity with the Whitechapel streets and alleys that it seems that The Ripper would have needed to have.

For those who believe that Alice McKenzie was a Ripper victim, AK could have killed her, but Druitt couldn't have.

My sense is that Macnaughten didn't feel certain that Druitt was The Ripper, he merely thought that Druitt was the strongest suspect. Anderson, on the other hand, felt certain, said the case had been solved. So both were the favored suspect of a policeman, but Anderson favored his suspect more strongly. I agree with your point, however, that we don't know for sure that Aaron Kosminski was Anderson's suspect.

I agree that both are stronger suspects than Sickert, but not as strong as Bury, but for me, there are a lot of suspects that would fall in that range.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Now why that does sound familiar.. ?!

Ah yes.. time for another cup of tea.


The Baron

I haven’t a clue what you’re talking about but what I do notice is that you couldn’t answer my previous post to you. Just in case you missed it, here it is again.

I tell you what Baron, based on the criteria that I openly and very clearly stated at the beginning, please point out to me where I’ve been biased in favour of Druitt. If you can’t ….. and you won’t be able to….id suggest that you post on non-Druitt-related threads as all mention of him clearly upsets you so much thatyou lose all sense of balance.

And btw you never answered when I asked why you think it so important to keep mentioning that Macnaghten had a different job before he joined the Met? I’ll save you the trouble because we all know the answer - because your favoured suspect, Kosminski, is also reliant on someone that had a different job before he became a high ranking police officer. I’m talking about Anderson of course. But clearly in your ‘unbiased’ world there appears to be one rule for Anderson and another for Macnaughten

Another chance for you to duck and dodge.