Rating The Suspects.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fascinating, Herlock. But to be a proper scientific poll, shouldn't you include some controls for comparison? For instance how would OTHER serial killers, such as P. Sutcliffe or T. Bundy rate? Or another example, Charles Manson? Or violent non-serial killers?

Hi CF, I can’t make any claim to be scientific as I’m no expert but I do take your point.

I’d give Peter Sutcliffe: 2 - 2 - 4 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 = 14. But I’d perhaps ask how he would score if we were looking back on a series of unsolved of Yorkshire Ripper murders and Sutcliffe was just a lorry driver who was name as a possible … 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 0 - 0 = 6.

[C. F. Leon]

Fascinating, Herlock. But to be a proper scientific poll, shouldn't you include some controls for comparison? For instance how would OTHER serial killers, such as P. Sutcliffe or T. Bundy rate? Or another example, Charles Manson? Or violent non-serial killers?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not so fast, Herlock.

See under the thread "Sir William Gull" for Gull's whereabouts in August & September 1888.

Just seen it Roger. Good find. Does it justify moving his location score back to 1 considering that I’ve kept Druitt at 2 knowing that he was in Blandford on the day prior to Nichols murder?

[rjpalmer]

Gull - I’ve changed location from 1 to 2 after Ms D pointed out that we have no reason to believe that he wasn’t in London at the time. I don’t know why I only gave him 1 to be honest.

Not so fast, Herlock.

See under the thread "Sir William Gull" for Gull's whereabouts in August & September 1888.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not that anything can really be read into it but…

There’s almost a dividing line between those on 6 and below and those on 7 and above. None of the ‘6 and belows’ score anything for violence but all of the ‘7 and aboves’ do with the exception of Barnado and Tumblety.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Amendment Five


Kelly > 2 - 2 - 3 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 = 12

Bury > 2 - 2 - 3 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 = 10

Cutbush > 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 9

Deeming > 2 - 1 - 4 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 0 = 9

Hyams > 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 8

Kosminski 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 = 8

Grainger > 2 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 = 7

Chapman > 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 = 7

Tumblety > 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 2 - 1 = 7

GSC Lechmere > 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 7

Barnado > 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 = 7

G. Wentworth Bell Smith > 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 2 - 0 = 7

Cohen > 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 7

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

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

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

Barnett > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 5

Stephen > 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Stephenson > 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 = 4

Bachert > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Cross > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Hardiman > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Hutchinson > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Mann > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Gull > 1 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 = 4

Maybrick > 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 3

Sickert > 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 3


If it could be shown that it was reasonably possible that they were in England…


Feigenbaum > 2 - 0 - 4 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 6

…….

Changes

Cohen - I’ve changed number 6 to 1 after Scott informed me that Cohen had been found in a brothel.

Gull - I’ve changed location from 1 to 2 after Ms D pointed out that we have no reason to believe that he wasn’t in London at the time. I don’t know why I only gave him 1 to be honest.

Feigenbaum - I’ve changed Location to zero because, on reflection, it seems unreasonable to award a point for reasonable travel/some doubt when the fact is that we have no evidence that he wasn’t in the USA at the time of the murders. I even have him in a separate section because of that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I pretty much agree with your assessment here.

I'm purely throwing this out there because you invited comments;

1) Re location - one could make an argument for downgrading Druitt to a 1 due to the cricket matches (which don't eliminate him but do make it more difficult for him to be on site). Whereas as far as we're aware Gull was in London (albeit I assume in the west end) which could earn him a "2" on your scale.

2) Re mental health - the original criteria was serious / violent. Whilst there is no evidence of violence in Druitt's case, one could argue that his issues were certainly serious enough for him to commit suicide for fear of ending up like his mother. One could make a case for this earning him a "2" here.

Just some thoughts, but ultimately I concur with your scoring.

Hi Ms D,

My initial thought was to go for a 1 on location but on reflection I thought that to assign a suspect a 1 should only be if there is some doubt as to whether they could have got to the location. As Druitt could easily have got to London due to the train service I went for 2. You have pointed something that’s raised an eyebrow though. I don’t really see why I only gave Gull a 1 on location? As far as I’m aware there’s no evidence that he wasn’t in London at the time of the murders. I’ll change it to 2. Thanks for pointing it out.

I gave Druitt a 1 on the Mental Health Issues part because I was distinguishing between issues that led to violence. Some might say that v]suicide is violence against oneself but I’ll leave it as it is.

Thanks for the good spot.

[Ms Diddles]

I’ll explain my thinking and anyone is free to comment, agree or disagree.

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

Age/Physical - 2 (speaks for itself)
Location - 2 (speaks for itself, nothing about where Druitt lived precluded or hindered him from being the killer)
Mental Health Issues - 1 (speaks for itself. Druitt committed suicide and feared that he was going to end up like his mother who was in an asylum)
Police Interest - 1 (speaks for itself Mac names him but after the crimes)

So I see nothing wrong with Druitt’s score of 6.

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

I’ll invite comment because I think that there’s a case for Gull being eliminated, and of course Fishy will think I’m being personal, so I’ll make my point and leave it entirely up to everyone else on here.

As I was being over harsh on Druitt in connection to location because I was trying too hard to show that I was being unbiased I think that I’ve been to easy on Gull in regard to Age/Physical. So when does a proposed suspect become too old or too infirm to be considered a serious suspect? At the time of the murders William Gull was 71 (double or more than the average age for a serial killer) and added to that he’d had multiple, debilitating strokes. Yes, he recovered in so much as he wasn’t bedridden or unable to speak or feed himself so he could live a fairly normal life. But he was forced by the illness to give up his job and this wasn’t a physical job. He wasn’t a surgeon after all. His job was to sit in his consulting room listening to wealthy patients and making a diagnosis. So we have a 71 year old man incapable of doing that.

So what does everyone think? Should a 71 year old multiple stroke victim be eliminated from the list?

Hi Herlock,

I pretty much agree with your assessment here.

I'm purely throwing this out there because you invited comments;

1) Re location - one could make an argument for downgrading Druitt to a 1 due to the cricket matches (which don't eliminate him but do make it more difficult for him to be on site). Whereas as far as we're aware Gull was in London (albeit I assume in the west end) which could earn him a "2" on your scale.

2) Re mental health - the original criteria was serious / violent. Whilst there is no evidence of violence in Druitt's case, one could argue that his issues were certainly serious enough for him to commit suicide for fear of ending up like his mother. One could make a case for this earning him a "2" here.

Just some thoughts, but ultimately I concur with your scoring.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ll explain my thinking and anyone is free to comment, agree or disagree.

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

Age/Physical - 2 (speaks for itself)
Location - 2 (speaks for itself, nothing about where Druitt lived precluded or hindered him from being the killer)
Mental Health Issues - 1 (speaks for itself. Druitt committed suicide and feared that he was going to end up like his mother who was in an asylum)
Police Interest - 1 (speaks for itself Mac names him but after the crimes)

So I see nothing wrong with Druitt’s score of 6.

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

I’ll invite comment because I think that there’s a case for Gull being eliminated, and of course Fishy will think I’m being personal, so I’ll make my point and leave it entirely up to everyone else on here.

As I was being over harsh on Druitt in connection to location because I was trying too hard to show that I was being unbiased I think that I’ve been to easy on Gull in regard to Age/Physical. So when does a proposed suspect become too old or too infirm to be considered a serious suspect? At the time of the murders William Gull was 71 (double or more than the average age for a serial killer) and added to that he’d had multiple, debilitating strokes. Yes, he recovered in so much as he wasn’t bedridden or unable to speak or feed himself so he could live a fairly normal life. But he was forced by the illness to give up his job and this wasn’t a physical job. He wasn’t a surgeon after all. His job was to sit in his consulting room listening to wealthy patients and making a diagnosis. So we have a 71 year old man incapable of doing that.

So what does everyone think? Should a 71 year old multiple stroke victim be eliminated from the list?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your question begs another question.

Why then does he remains a "top suspect" according to some, if quite clearly he falls into the very highly unlikely category?


.

I have no influence over other people’s opinion on Druitt, Fishy. I can only assume that your ‘some’ means me? Here’s a few questions that, if you’re consistent, you will completely ignore. In fact I’ll probably be in danger of a heart attack if you do answer them because it will be a first.

1. Why does my opinion on Druitt bother you so much? (and please don’t say that it doesn’t because your numerous Druitt-related comments prove otherwise)
2. Why, when there is no evidence against any suspect, do you only consider this worth mentioning in regard to Druitt?
3. Why do you think that a physically fit 31 year old is less likely to have been the killer than a 71 year old multiple stroke victim who was no longer able to even continue his job as a Doctor.

As I said…I expect no answer so if you don’t intend an answer please just refrain from the kind of stuff you posted in #43 please. We’ve had enough of that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I do wish you'd read my post comments property herlock ,you seem to have gone off track a little, you know the part about why I made my original score comment.?

Oh and do try to stick to this topic when replying we've covered " 3 worse suspect" one already , which of course once again you failed to accept a simple opinion.

Again , my original score comments is my opinion based on the evidence as I see and interpret it , I told you why I didn't elaborate on it and your above post proves that .

So just for once man up and trying asking me why I scored them the way I did and let the evidence decide it its right or wrong .

I’m not going to pursue this further Fishy because we’ve been here a hundred times. You say something then when someone points it out we get the ‘Fishy wriggle’ where you simply can’t bring yourself to admit what’s in black and white. So to sum up - you said that Druitt was one of the three worst suspects (proven in black and white) then after I challenged how you could put him at the very bottom you, realising that what you said couldn’t be sustained, sidestepped and added ‘three worst suspects of those regularly discussed) (proven in black and white) Then you simply posted your alternative scores believing yourself exempt from providing reasoning like everyone else, expect me to ask for reasoning (proven in black and white)

And now again in your last line you keep asking me to ask you for your reasoning. Why this need for me to plead Fishy? I stick to the facts while you post as if Gull is your favourite football team and Druitt is the local rival. Your issue with me constantly affects and guides your posts. Please stop dragging this thread away from its purpose.

[rjpalmer]

Your question begs another question.

I never asked a question.

[FISHY1118]

As I tried to explain when the Blandford cricket match first came up on JTR Forums----it's the other way round.

Druitt was not stationed in London and traveling down to play cricket in Dorset. Had that been the case, then he certainly would have stayed over since he was playing two different matches over a three-day span.

But that's not the situation. Valentine's school was out for summer break, and Druitt spent his entire Augusts in Dorset. Not just in 1888, but in 1887, 1886, etc.

As such, he wasn't living in Blackheath and travelling back and forth to Dorset. He was living in Dorset for several weeks.

So, the real question is somewhat different. Stationed down in Dorset, would he have traveled to London for just one day and night and somehow end up in East London?

One can argue yes or no, but the dynamics of the situation are entirely different than how it is being formulated.

Your question begs another question.

Why then does he remains a "top suspect" according to some, if quite clearly he falls into the very highly unlikely category?


.

[FISHY1118]

And when you realise that the game is up its ‘time to move on.’ Perhaps I should do a poll on who is right here and who is wrong. No point…you wouldn’t get a single vote Fishy because you’re wrong and you know it. Don’t let personal animosity trump reasoning.

Time to move on..

I do wish you'd read my post comments property herlock ,you seem to have gone off track a little, you know the part about why I made my original score comment.?

Oh and do try to stick to this topic when replying we've covered " 3 worse suspect" one already , which of course once again you failed to accept a simple opinion.

Again , my original score comments is my opinion based on the evidence as I see and interpret it , I told you why I didn't elaborate on it and your above post proves that .

So just for once man up and trying asking me why I scored them the way I did and let the evidence decide it its right or wrong .

[Herlock Sholmes]

The other point was that some said ‘why would he have travelled back just to kill and then returned to Blandford?’ My point was that he didn’t need to have returned just to kill. If he had some kind of meeting that couldn’t be cancelled (possibly to do with his work as a Barrister or even some kind of Blackheath Club business [he was club secretary]) is it likely that he/d gave cancelled his whole holiday or is it likelier that he’d have gone and planned to come back by train to attend his meeting. Then, finding himself in London…

Speculation of course but either way, a journey back to London wouldn’t have been prohibitive or particularly strange.