Rating The Suspects.

[rjpalmer]

Yes, I was thinking that someone found a newspaper report showing that Gull was out of London on locum.

See posts #4 & #5. He had taken a house in Bletchingley in August 1888 and was living about 22 miles south of the East End. Even traveling to Central London by train would have taken some planning. Gull was never a serious suspect.

Sir William Gull - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

[Fiver]

Found it.

I noticed a comment on another thread where it was assumed that Sir William Gull was living in London (the West End) at the time of the 1888 murders.

Although I can't find any other reference to it, this doesn't appear to have been the case.

According to the Surrey Mirror, sometime in early August 1888, at around the time of the Tabram murder, Gull moved to "Underhills" a country estate outside of the village of Bletchingley. This is roughly 22 miles south of the East End (34 kilometers) and according to the notice Gull intended to live there for two months, which of course would keep him there until early October 1888.

As far as I can tell, the village didn't (and doesn't) have a railway station, so someone traveling to London would first have to take a carriage to Redhill or Godstone.

[DJA]

Gull had homes at Reigate and Brighton,in addition to 74 Brook Street.

[Lewis C]

thanks lewis

[Herlock Sholmes]

I changed the criteria to try and simplify. If I have a category which indicates that the suspect wasn’t a local (Cross, Hutchinson etc) but someone who either lived further away or who spent some time further away how do we compare that man to someone who lives slightly further away? Where do we stop? Do we have to specify an area of the country with a less regular or efficient public transport system? Or do we simply have a) local, and b) travel required but not a ludicrous amount (like a suspect who lived on Skye for example)? To me a 0) would be our suspect on Skye.

As for Gull, Roger’s discovery about him staying at Bletchingley would certainly have made it more difficult, inconvenient and consequently less likely but it can’t be said to eliminate him. So under the new criteria he gets one point (which in fact makes little difference)

[FISHY1118]

Ammendment #14

--- (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

06 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Pizer, John

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

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Maybrick, Michael

04 = 1 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Gull, Sir William Withey

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




Legend:

(A) Age/physical health

. . . 2 = no issue

. . . 1 = issues creating doubt

(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 (without exoneration)

. . . 1 = later (within 10 yrs and without exoneration)

. . . 0 = none known or not serious

(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


Changes


I’ve changed the (B) section for Gull from 1 to 2. I’ve also removed the 0 option on reflection because that would mean a categorical elimination due to health/age and any suspect scoring zero couldn’t be on the list in the first place.

[The Rookie Detective]

I changed the criteria to try and simplify. If I have a category which indicates that the suspect wasn’t a local (Cross, Hutchinson etc) but someone who either lived further away or who spent some time further away how do we compare that man to someone who lives slightly further away? Where do we stop? Do we have to specify an area of the country with a less regular or efficient public transport system? Or do we simply have a) local, and b) travel required but not a ludicrous amount (like a suspect who lived on Skye for example)? To me a 0) would be our suspect on Skye.

As for Gull, Roger’s discovery about him staying at Bletchingley would certainly have made it more difficult, inconvenient and consequently less likely but it can’t be said to eliminate him. So under the new criteria he gets one point (which in fact makes little difference)

Geographics are arguably the most difficult aspect to accurately determine, based on the fact that people are transient and don't stay still in one location.

It's hard to know where to draw the line because it all depends on the timing in relation to the location.

I personally think your table is absolutely brilliant, because it gives us some illustrative indication of how any given "suspect" would compare to another; specifically on key criteria that is contextually relevant to the case in general.

But the Gerographics is as close to impossible to accurately ascertain.

An example of this would be Dr Barnardo.

He appeared as a speaker at a public gathering up in Dundee in Scotland (Bury's stomping ground) to which there were scores of witnesses and established newspaper press coverage.

This event occurred on the evening of one of the Ripper murders, after the murder that had occurred in the early hours of the same day.

At first glance this would appear to completely eradicate Barnardo as a suspect, because less than 12 hours after a Ripper killing, he was speaking at a public gathering covered by the press.

However, when I delved a little deeper, it came to light that Barnardo would of had the time to kill, and then make it to the train station to catch a train from King's Cross circa 10am, and make it to Dundee with time to spare before the event in Dundee commenced.

Of course, it reduces the likelihood that Barnardo was the Ripper, but it would certainly have been possible, and therefore it keeps him in the mix so to speak.

IIRC correctly it was the same day Chapman was murdered, and an arguably later morning kill time would perhaps fit in well with a man who killed and then took a train and headed north.

I'd need to go through my notes again as I haven't looked at Barnardo for a while. I may be wrong about the conference being on the day of the Chapman murder, but I think it is correct IIRC. It was certainly one of the Ripper murders, and if not Chapman, it may have been Nichols. I will check my notes later.

Regardless, the idea is the same. Barnardo could have caught a train around 10am and made it on time without raising any suspicion whatsoever.

Unlikely, but certainly possible; and therefore we can't rule him out based on the Geography criteria despite being in Scotland within 12 hours of a Ripper killing in London.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Geographics are arguably the most difficult aspect to accurately determine, based on the fact that people are transient and don't stay still in one location.

It's hard to know where to draw the line because it all depends on the timing in relation to the location.

I personally think your table is absolutely brilliant, because it gives us some illustrative indication of how any given "suspect" would compare to another; specifically on key criteria that is contextually relevant to the case in general.

But the Gerographics is as close to impossible to accurately ascertain.

An example of this would be Dr Barnardo.

He appeared as a speaker at a public gathering up in Dundee in Scotland (Bury's stomping ground) to which there were scores of witnesses and established newspaper press coverage.

This event occurred on the evening of one of the Ripper murders, after the murder that had occurred in the early hours of the same day.

At first glance this would appear to completely eradicate Barnardo as a suspect, because less than 12 hours after a Ripper killing, he was speaking at a public gathering covered by the press.

However, when I delved a little deeper, it came to light that Barnardo would of had the time to kill, and then make it to the train station to catch a train from King's Cross circa 10am, and make it to Dundee with time to spare before the event in Dundee commenced.

Of course, it reduces the likelihood that Barnardo was the Ripper, but it would certainly have been possible, and therefore it keeps him in the mix so to speak.

IIRC correctly it was the same day Chapman was murdered, and an arguably later morning kill time would perhaps fit in well with a man who killed and then took a train and headed north.

I'd need to go through my notes again as I haven't looked at Barnardo for a while. I may be wrong about the conference being on the day of the Chapman murder, but I think it is correct IIRC. It was certainly one of the Ripper murders, and if not Chapman, it may have been Nichols. I will check my notes later.

Regardless, the idea is the same. Barnardo could have caught a train around 10am and made it on time without raising any suspicion whatsoever.

Unlikely, but certainly possible; and therefore we can't rule him out based on the Geography criteria despite being in Scotland within 12 hours of a Ripper killing in London.

Thanks RD. I’ve never been against altering the criteria or even adding new ones. On the geographical point if a suspect had to do some travelling it would be easy to fall into quibbling over why the effort by x was less or more difficult than the effort by y. Likewise the point on physical health.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A suggestion for consideration.


Does anyone think that it’s worthwhile to award an extra point for any suspect who was ‘available’ for Tabram and Mackenzie? The jury is out on both but I just wanted everyone’s opinion as the idea came to me last night. I’ll give three options -

1. We award an extra point for any suspect in the list who was in London at the time that Tabram and Mackenzie were killed and any suspect that wasn’t gets a zero.
2. We award an extra 0.5 for each of the two victims.
3. We leave things as they are.

I’ll be guided by opinion on this.

Thanks

[DJA]

3

[The Rookie Detective]

A suggestion for consideration.


Does anyone think that it’s worthwhile to award an extra point for any suspect who was ‘available’ for Tabram and Mackenzie? The jury is out on both but I just wanted everyone’s opinion as the idea came to me last night. I’ll give three options -

1. We award an extra point for any suspect in the list who was in London at the time that Tabram and Mackenzie were killed and any suspect that wasn’t gets a zero.
2. We award an extra 0.5 for each of the two victims.
3. We leave things as they are.

I’ll be guided by opinion on this.

Thanks

Could it be phrased as being divided into 2 distinct groups; either "Canonical 5" or "Canonical 5 plus" ?

And perhaps, instead of adding another scoring criteria, to instead incorporate and use a colour code for each individual on the list.

For example, those like...
Bury, Kosminski and Druitt that can't have murdered McKenzie, Pinchin Street, or Coles, could have their names in Red...
... while others like Kelly, Klosowski and Lechmere could have their names written in an alternative colour because they were all alive years after the autumn of 1888.

That would then give us all an immediate visual reference to those who essentially died before January 1889, and those who didn't.

That would then avoid adding a new criteria that is arguably too subjective and divisive to warrant giving additional points to.

In other words, a list of those who died between MJK and McKenzie; the "Canonical 5" group, compared with those who were alive at the time and could have murdered McKenzie and beyond, ergo, the "Canonical 5 plus" group.

Just a thought

[Herlock Sholmes]

Could it be phrased as being divided into 2 distinct groups; either "Canonical 5" or "Canonical 5 plus" ?

And perhaps, instead of adding another scoring criteria, to instead incorporate and use a colour code for each individual on the list.

For example, those like...
Bury, Kosminski and Druitt that can't have murdered McKenzie, Pinchin Street, or Coles, could have their names in Red...
... while others like Kelly, Klosowski and Lechmere could have their names written in an alternative colour because they were all alive years after the autumn of 1888.

That would then give us all an immediate visual reference to those who essentially died before January 1889, and those who didn't.

That would then avoid adding a new criteria that is arguably too subjective and divisive to warrant giving additional points to.

In other words, a list of those who died between MJK and McKenzie; the "Canonical 5" group, compared with those who were alive at the time and could have murdered McKenzie and beyond, ergo, the "Canonical 5 plus" group.

Just a thought

Worth a thought.

Maybe even a simple ‘asterisk after the name’ system?

* Alibi for Tabram
** Alibi for Mackenzie
*** Alibi for Mackenzie and Tabram.

[Lewis C]

I believe that Tabram was a Ripper murder, but if it could be proven that she wasn't, it wouldn't affect my assessment of any suspect in the slightest. Can anyone name a Ripper suspect where you think the strength of the suspect is affected by whether or not Tabram was a Ripper murder? Is there any suspect that has an alibi for the Tabram murder who doesn't also have an alibi for at least one of the other C5 murders?

For that reason, I would leave Tabram out of it, but otherwise I like RD's suggestion. That is, do the color coating (or asterisk - looks to me like pretty much the same thing), but have just 2 categories: alibi for McKenzie or no alibi for McKenzie. I think that it's debatable whether having that alibi strengthens a suspect's status or weakens it. On one hand, if McKenzie was a Ripper murder, then suspects like Bury, Cohen, Druitt, and Tumblety couldn't have been the Ripper. On the other hand, if McKenzie wasn't a Ripper murder, then with those suspects we have an explanation for why the murders stopped. So the color coating or asterisk rather than awarding a point would take a neutral approach to McKenzie's Ripper victim status.

[John Wheat]

A suggestion for consideration.


Does anyone think that it’s worthwhile to award an extra point for any suspect who was ‘available’ for Tabram and Mackenzie? The jury is out on both but I just wanted everyone’s opinion as the idea came to me last night. I’ll give three options -

1. We award an extra point for any suspect in the list who was in London at the time that Tabram and Mackenzie were killed and any suspect that wasn’t gets a zero.
2. We award an extra 0.5 for each of the two victims.
3. We leave things as they are.

I’ll be guided by opinion on this.

Thanks

Hi Herlock

I think for simplicities sake you should stick to the C5. Otherwise where do you draw the line? Do you include the Pinchin Street Torso etc?

Cheers John

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks Lewis and John