Rating The Suspects.

[The Baron]

accept an old man’s story that contained so many falsehoods that it can’t even be considered remotely reliable

Now why that does sound familiar.. ?!

Ah yes.. time for another cup of tea.


The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree with the changes - If Gull doesn't rate a 0 age/physical score, nobody does.

On hatred on women, I think Gull should get lower than a zero. No only is there no evidence of misogyny, he actively supported women joining a medical profession, donating money and speaking publicly to support a scholarship for women doctors,

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.

[Fiver]

Amendment 7


Gull > 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 2


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

I agree with the changes - If Gull doesn't rate a 0 age/physical score, nobody does.

On hatred on women, I think Gull should get lower than a zero. No only is there no evidence of misogyny, he actively supported women joining a medical profession, donating money and speaking publicly to support a scholarship for women doctors,

[Fiver]

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

While it would be possible to do that, Herlock clearly isn't, as is obvious from where Druitt stands in the ranking.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

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

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


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

[c.d.]

"A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family" -- the wording here is a little tricky. Does the "said to be" only apply to being a doctor or does it also refer to "of good family?" The latter would imply that Macnaghten didn't know the family and that the information did not come directly from a family member.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks Jeff and George. I’ll have a bit of a think and make some amendments later today.

[GBinOz]

With regard to Gull, my understanding of the theory as presented is that Netley did the killing and Gull did the mutilations after the victim was dead....no heavy lifting required by the latter. Perhaps the listing should be Gull/Netley, with the rating adjusted accordingly?

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

Amendment Six


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

Thompson > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 = 6

Levy > 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 6

Druitt > 2 - 2 - 0 -1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 6

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 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - = 4

Gull > 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 3

Latest Changes

1. In the Location section I’ve changed 0 = eliminated to 0 = extremely unlikely.

2. I’ve added John Pizer at Jeff’s suggestion.

3. I’ve added a new criteria at Jeff’s suggestion …. 8. Alcohol/drug use - 1 = yes, 0 = no.

These are looking good. I think I would adjust Druitt and the last 3,

I think Druitt's location would get a 1. His location out of the city for his cricket matches does reduce him relative to someone known to be in the area at the time. Given it would be fairly easy for him to get to London, though, that sounds like the "1" category for location.

For Maybrick, I would lower his location score to at least 1. He cannot be placed in London at the time, and Manchester to London is a pretty long distance making it more than an "easy trip". I know he is supposed to have connections of some sort with the area, but that's not the same as it being documented that he was actually in the area at the time. There could be an argument to even score his Location as a 0 due to the distance between the cities, but given his connections, perhaps 1 would be about right?

However Sickert's Location score, given he was in France at the time, I think should be 0. I know some debate if he was in France, but all information we have suggests he was before and after. A trip over the channel and then to London is more than a simple trip. Again, 0 doesn't have to mean it was impossible for a suspect to make the trip, only that such a trip is more than a simple and short train ride. An impossible trip makes for an alibi, in which case their location could be scored with a large negative value.

And Gull's age, and illness, I think is so extreme, that he would get a 0 on that category. Otherwise, everyone gets at least a 1. To me, if Gull gets a 1, then 1 seems to just mean they have an age and are not dead. In which case, we might as well just score that as 1 or 0 rather than 2 or 1, since 0 would be impossible to get, making the 1 meaningless.


Something like this:

Druitt > 1 - 2 - 0 -1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 5
...
Maybrick > 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 = 3
Sickert > 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 = 2
Gull > 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 2

I know I'm quibbling, and the bigger picture doesn't really change for any of them, but I like the idea and think it could be a very nice tool. Much of the ordering it has produced seems sensible as well.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Absolutely Herlock. Druitt can't be completely dismissed out of hand. For the reasons you state. Also I'm pretty sure Druitt was physically fit which you would expect the Ripper to be. The idea that the Ripper could be for instance an old man is to my mind a bit of a non starter. Firstly why start killing in old age and secondly would he be physically fit enough to quickly subdue and then mutilate?

Cheers John

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.

[John Wheat]

I’ve never understood why Druitt gets some people so hot under the collar that they lose all sense of balance John. You can mention someone like Mann or Hutchinson or Hardiman and they don’t bat an eyelid, but mention a guy who was named by the Chief Constable of the Met and you get the kind of reaction that you would expect if you’d suggested Florence Nightingale as the ripper.

Absolutely Herlock. Druitt can't be completely dismissed out of hand. For the reasons you state. Also I'm pretty sure Druitt was physically fit which you would expect the Ripper to be. The idea that the Ripper could be for instance an old man is to my mind a bit of a non starter. Firstly why start killing in old age and secondly would he be physically fit enough to quickly subdue and then mutilate?

Cheers John

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

I’ve never understood why Druitt gets some people so hot under the collar that they lose all sense of balance John. You can mention someone like Mann or Hutchinson or Hardiman and they don’t bat an eyelid, but mention a guy who was named by the Chief Constable of the Met and you get the kind of reaction that you would expect if you’d suggested Florence Nightingale as the ripper.

[John Wheat]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Might not the wording of the MM imply that the person giving the information wasn’t close enough to the family to know Monty’s profession? The phrase “said to be a doctor…” suggests uncertainty on the part of the informer. As if he’d said “I think he’s a doctor, like his father”? When giving that kind of information the person in question’s occupation is hardly high up on the list of important details.

Hello Herlock,

While that is certainly possible, how likely is it that a Druitt family member would divulge such sensitive information as their suspicion regarding Monty to someone not closely associated with the family? Anyone closely associated with the family to that degree would certainly know Monty's profession.

c.d.

Hi c.d.

Good point. The only other suggestion might be that the person that they chose to tell could have been Majendie because of his friendship with Macnaghten. Majendie was only related to the family by marriage so he may not have known much about Monty?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Simply Untrue Herlock. 1 Richardson Thread ,2 Jfk Thread . All of the above can be said of yourself, 1000s of posts debated back and forth month after month in these two threads where you ignored the plain black and white , where you wiggled out , where you chose to ignore the evidence put in front of you. And yes other posters noticed it as welll, dont think ive havent my share of messages regards your behaviour during those two threads , So please spare me the sympathy card and move on .

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.