Rating The Suspects.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

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.

[Kattrup]

Its clear they were both talking about the same person.

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.

[c.d.]

On second thought, it is also possible that he simply let it slip rather than being intentional.

c.d.

[c.d.]

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.

[The Baron]

Can you explain why you deducted a point from Gull in this catagory when you originally had him as a ''2''


7. Medical/anatomical knowledge - 2 = yes, 1 = slaughterman/ butcher level, 0 = none known.

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Can you explain why you deducted a point from Gull in this catagory when you originally had him as a ''2''


7. Medical/anatomical knowledge - 2 = yes, 1 = slaughterman/ butcher level, 0 = none known.

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.

[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. Then of course we would have to ask how long lapsed between Mac receiving the information and him writing it down?

(Of course I could mention Jon Hainsworth’s theory that Druitt’s ID was disguised to protect the family but I don’t want to sidetrack)

[FISHY1118]

It’s already been changed. I haven’t posted a new amendment yet because I have other things to add/change.

Thats fine.

[FISHY1118]

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.

Can you explain why you deducted a point from Gull in this catagory when you originally had him as a ''2''


7. Medical/anatomical knowledge - 2 = yes, 1 = slaughterman/ butcher level, 0 = none known.

[FISHY1118]

''Not once, ever. You’re simply making that up''. I can prove that you’ve done it in black and white. You’ve done it numerous times and had it pointed out in black and white by myself and others then you either try and wriggle out of it or you change the subject. I recall fairly recently you refused to answer a point by saying that you had already answered it when you hadn’t. You couldn’t even point me to the explanation you had supposedly already made - because you hadn’t made it. Others have noticed it and mentioned it too.

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 .

[FISHY1118]

If that’s your biggest objection to Druitt, then I think he will remain a toptier suspect.

Abberline speaks of Druitt as a doctor. So clearly he was not particularly well informed and his assessment of “nothing” could therefore be questioned.

MM explicitly states that his information was “private”, so Abberline may have been unaware of it.

The Macnaghten Memoranda


(1) A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family -- who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder, & whose body (which was said to have been upwards of a month in the water) was found in the Thames on 31st December -- or about 7 weeks after that murder. He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer.

Its clear they were both talking about the same person.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve never really understood why Abberline is raised so regularly on this point. He retired in 1892. Is it likely that Macnaghten would have received his private information and then thought “I must remember to let Fred know”?

[Herlock Sholmes]

As you yourself have done, not only on this thread but on many others over a long period of time .

Not once, ever. You’re simply making that up. I can prove that you’ve done it in black and white. You’ve done it numerous times and had it pointed out in black and white by myself and others then you either try and wriggle out of it or you change the subject. I recall fairly recently you refused to answer a point by saying that you had already answered it when you hadn’t. You couldn’t even point me to the explanation you had supposedly already made - because you hadn’t made it. Others have noticed it and mentioned it too.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sickert > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 5

Sickert often used / paid prostitutes to pose in his paintings .



Herlock, Will you be making the same Amendment as you did for Cohen with this Sickert information ?

It’s already been changed. I haven’t posted a new amendment yet because I have other things to add/change.