Rating The Suspects.

[rjpalmer]

Good morning again Hurley and thank you,



But isn't the reason folks figured it unlikely he would have travelled back to London is because he was also down south playing cricket the day after the Nichols murder? Doesn't it seem like he would simply stay over in his home county the day between cricket matches there? Creating "some doubt" in category #2.

That's how I see the question raised by the new research.

You are entitled to your opinion of course, and by the way, I do like your poll, Hurley. I find it interesting.

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.

[Paddy Goose]

Good morning again Hurley and thank you,

...The day before the Nichols murder Druitt was down south playing cricket and a few thought it unlikely that he would have travelled back...

But isn't the reason folks figured it unlikely he would have travelled back to London is because he was also down south playing cricket the day after the Nichols murder? Doesn't it seem like he would simply stay over in his home county the day between cricket matches there? Creating "some doubt" in category #2.

That's how I see the question raised by the new research.

You are entitled to your opinion of course, and by the way, I do like your poll, Hurley. I find it interesting.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ahhh so now you want explain yourself ,to late for that i should think , you cant undo whats done Herlock . Im not interested in your reasoning if your not willing to entertain mine .

I would have listened to your reasoning if you had given some Fishy. Every contributor to this thread has given the reasoning behind their suggestions. You posted this in post #7

“Gull = 5
Sickert = 4
Druitt = 4
My comments based on the table provided.”

Do you see any reasoning there? Any explanation as to why you added to Gull Sickert (who just happen to be the ones that you support) and took from Druitt (who you believe is the suspect that I support) You didn’t add or detract from any other suspects; just a focus on those three. Your intention couldn’t be clearer.

For me to ‘entertain’ your reasoning you have to give your reasoning first.

Just keep moving the goal post ok .

Your original point was made in the Geoprofiling thread where you said:

“Imo Druitt , Lechmere , and Maybrick make the 3 worse suspects as there is no evidence they were the killer nor were they suspected by the police at the time of the murders .”

So, as we can see, you made an unequivocal point about those three being the worst suspects and not ‘the worst suspects of those regularly discussed’ as you later tried to claim. So another point easily proven…it is you that is attempting to move the goalposts away from what you originally said.

My point regarding the sickert ,gull, druitt score according to your own system is warranted . Remember , you asked for a comment or suggestion , you got it and now you sook up because you got yourself all worked about it .

Every single poster has given the reasoning behind their suggestions and I’ve reacted to them all. But not you…you said:

“I didnt see the point in giving my reasoning for the score adjustment . That would then require follow up discussion and debate.”

And there’s the difference. I’m doing this table fairly, for no personal gain, entirely open to suggestions, and by being willing to explain my reasoning behind every single suspect and I’ve made changes when errors have been pointed out. You, on the other hand, have just made statements without backing them up with reasoning which is something that you tend to do.

Time to move on.

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..

[FISHY1118]

Totally wrong Fishy. I don’t alter the points at random. The list is totally unbiased as I’ve proven by listening to every point made and by making changes where appropriate. I’ll explain (which I would have done anyway if you had simply asked) When I began this I was determined that no one should feel that I was being biased for or against any suspect. I was particularly wary considering my own interest in Druitt. So I wanted to be as strict as possible with him to the extent that if a particular point was debatable i would err against awarding the point. The day before the Nichols murder Druitt was down south playing cricket and a few thought it unlikely that he would have travelled back so I deducted a point for that. But then, on rethinking, I saw that I was being too harsh. The scoring system wasn’t meant to conclude that a mere one off, easily achievable train journey should cost a point so I reinstated it. It’s barely made any difference though and the purpose of my list wasn’t to form a league table of likely suspects it was merely to see how individual suspects stacked up against a tick box list of regularly discussed attributes.

Ahhh so now you want explain yourself ,to late for that i should think , you cant undo whats done Herlock . Im not interested in your reasoning if your not willing to entertain mine .

Just keep moving the goal post ok . My point regarding the sickert ,gull, druitt score according to your own system is warranted . Remember , you asked for a comment or suggestion , you got it and now you sook up because you got yourself all worked about it . Time to move on.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your not going to ''Get back into it'' Herlock because then youd have to address some of the points ive made in my last post, which you just casually brushed aside . The fact [ and its blatantly obvious] remains Herlock ,you have a disliking of anything i happen to have an opinion on, especially where Druitt is concerned .

You didn’t make any points in your last post Fishy and the post before that you only posted the scores that you would have awarded to the three suspects names. Every other poster who has suggested amendments to the list has given their reasoning behind those suggestions but not you. You simply posted the scores with no explanation.

Like i said, ive done more than enough research using on the evidence from multiple sources pertaining to the likes of Druitt , Sickert and Gull. [as well as other suspects] Now based on the scoring system you yourself provided and invited others to comment on, i gave my honest opinion . This only bothers you because its Fishy1118 and not someone else. !

Firstly, you said that Druitt was one of the three worst suspects, only then when I pressed you on this point, you added something about ‘regularly discussed on here.’ Your original point was very clearly intended to put Druitt below all other suspects which, no matter our opinions, cannot be considered valid because it would place him lower than the ‘silly’ suspects.

Secondly Fishy, I don’t base my opinion on the poster who gives it. Over the last few years I’ve lost count of the amount of times when a thread entirely unconnected to Druitt has been in progress and of all of the suspects you’ve managed to bring Druitt into it. No one else does this. If Steve Blomer was posting about the GSG you don’t see me jumping in and adding ‘and poor suspects like Kosminski (not that I think that he’s a poor suspect of course) Or if John Wheat is posting on a thread about Berner Street that I say ‘that’s about as likely as Bury being the ripper,’ but this is what keeps occurring from you where Druitt is concerned. Forget all of the other suspects because you keep homing in on Druitt for some reason (and I can only guess that reason). I wouldn’t mind but I’ve never once in my entire life said that he was the ripper. Why don’t you just finally let it go Fishy. If you want to discuss Druitt there are enough threads or you could even start your own.

I know it ,you know it , and im reasonably sure others do to .

The half a dozen that have contacted me say otherwise.

As for '' Winding you Up ' I hardly need do such a thing, as you seem to do a pretty good job of that all by yourself whenever the topic is Druitt related .

I don’t get wound up over Druitt because he’s not particularly important to me. I do find it irritating when others get so irate when any mention of his name occurs. Very few suspects cause such heightened feeling for some inexplicable reason. All sense of balance flies out of the window. I can only think that, in your case, it’s because of some issue that you have with me.

I tend to think that your irritation is due to the fact that the Stephen Knight theory has been thoroughly discredited and that you are a little annoyed? embarrassed? to be the only person still flying the flag and you can’t fail to realise the position that it puts you in when evaluating suspects. Perhaps you should approach the subject of suspects less like a football team that requires your support?

Funny how you elevated Druitt ''Location'' to a '2' only for that which can be argued ''Well he could been there'' so thats all that matters . Well then so could have Sickert or Gull for that matter .

Totally wrong Fishy. I don’t alter the points at random. The list is totally unbiased as I’ve proven by listening to every point made and by making changes where appropriate. I’ll explain (which I would have done anyway if you had simply asked) When I began this I was determined that no one should feel that I was being biased for or against any suspect. I was particularly wary considering my own interest in Druitt. So I wanted to be as strict as possible with him to the extent that if a particular point was debatable i would err against awarding the point. The day before the Nichols murder Druitt was down south playing cricket and a few thought it unlikely that he would have travelled back so I deducted a point for that. But then, on rethinking, I saw that I was being too harsh. The scoring system wasn’t meant to conclude that a mere one off, easily achievable train journey should cost a point so I reinstated it. It’s barely made any difference though and the purpose of my list wasn’t to form a league table of likely suspects it was merely to see how individual suspects stacked up against a tick box list of regularly discussed attributes.

[FISHY1118]

I’m not going to get back into this Fishy. If you want me to spend the time looking back at how many times you’ve taken the opportunity without prompting to leap in with a Druitt-related dig I can do it. You focus on Druitt for one reason only because you have the misguided opinion that I somehow promote Druitt as a suspect and so by digging at him you feel that you have a ‘safe’ way of indirectly having a dig at me. I know it, you know it, everyone that can read knows it. I’ve lost count of the times I’ve been contacted privately telling me to ignore you because you’re simply trying to ‘wind me up.’ I’ve explained my position on Druitt two or three hundred times but obviously it makes no difference.

Ive just looked at Druitt again. I was too harsh on him. So I’ve amended it to the score that I was originally going to give him.


Kelly > 2 - 2 - 4 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 = 13

Bury > 2 - 2 - 4 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 = 11

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

Hyams > 2 - 2 - 3 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 9

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

Grainger > 2 - 1 - 3 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 = 8

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

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

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

Barnado > 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 6

Cohen > 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 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 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 5

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 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 = 3

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…


Deeming 2 - 1 - 4 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 7

Feigenbaum 2 - 1 - 4 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 7

Your not going to ''Get back into it'' Herlock because then youd have to address some of the points ive made in my last post, which you just casually brushed aside . The fact [ and its blatantly obvious] remains Herlock ,you have a disliking of anything i happen to have an opinion on, especially where Druitt is concerned .

Like i said, ive done more than enough research using on the evidence from multiple sources pertaining to the likes of Druitt , Sickert and Gull. [as well as other suspects] Now based on the scoring system you yourself provided and invited others to comment on, i gave my honest opinion . This only bothers you because its Fishy1118 and not someone else. !

I know it ,you know it , and im reasonably sure others do to .


As for '' Winding you Up ' I hardly need do such a thing, as you seem to do a pretty good job of that all by yourself whenever the topic is Druitt related .


Funny how you elevated Druitt ''Location'' to a '2' only for that which can be argued ''Well he could been there'' so thats all that matters . Well then so could have Sickert or Gull for that matter .

[Lewis C]

Thanks Lewis.

You're welcome Herlock. BTW, when I made that post, I didn't notice that George had just posted about Deeming, so if I said anything that was redundant after George's post, that's why.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Cohen was found in a brothel if it makes any difference.

Cheers Scott. I wasn’t aware of that. I used Morley’s book for basic suspect info and he doesn’t mention it. I’ll add it to the next amendment.

[Scott Nelson]

Amendment 4


Cohen > 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 6

Cohen was found in a brothel if it makes any difference.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Amendment 4



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

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

Cohen > 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 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 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 = 3

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 - 1 - 4 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 7

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Using this method of awarding points for mental illness, I would still give David Cohen a 2 for mental illness. Here are 2 links mentioning his violence:

https://casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/cjmorley/37.html

https://casebook.org/suspects/davidcohen.html

I think it is at least reasonably possible that Deeming was in England at the time, and the only question is whether it is merely reasonably possible, or that it's more like a strong likelihood. In the rest of this post, I'm quoting Paul Begg from page 91 of Ripperologist 142:

The entry for Frederick Bailey Deeming in the current Jack the Ripper A to Z is depressingly short and dismissive, possibly because Martin Fido thought Deeming was in jail when the Ripper crimes were committed and Keith Skinner thought he was in South Africa. Begg was probably staring blankly into space, dribbling slightly, and entertaining no opinion about anything at all. Other writers such as Melvin Harris, Colin Wilson, Robin Odell, Donald Rumbelow and Stewart Evans also accepted that Deeming was abroad or in prison at the time.

But he wasn’t.

In 2011 there was a pretty dire Discovery Channel documentary, Jack the Ripper: The Australian Suspect, in which a trenchcoat-wearing former Scotland Yard detective named Robin Napper showed that Deeming was in Britain at the time of the Ripper murders. You may recall that this was the documentary that featured the famous Eddowes shawl being tested for DNA and showed that the DNA retrieved from the gummed back of the stamp on the Openshaw letter belonged to a woman. Somehow this swirling documentary concluded that Deeming ticked all the boxes to be Jack the Ripper and that all Napper needed was the DNA of Deeming’s murdered wife to clinch and close the case, which was a stretch even by the standards of TV documentary makers.

Anyway, the point is that the author this book, Roger Millington, had already discovered that Deeming was in England when the Ripper murders were committed, but it was in 2011 that he learned he had prostate cancer. He died in 2013 and the finished manuscript of this book was found among his papers.

I didn’t come to this book with any great enthusiasm, but it is an excellent and very readable account of the life of Frederick Bailey Deeming, who killed his wife and his four children at Rainhill, Liverpool, and his second wife, Emily Mather, at Windsor, Melbourne, Australia, and otherwise lived the life as a conman and fraudster. According to Millington, it was a detective named Brant who expressed his belief that Deeming was responsible for a triple murder in Johannesburg in September 1888 and thus scotched the idea that Deeming was Jack the Ripper. But the triple murder was committed in February 1888, so Deeming could have been in England to commit the two Ripper murders he confessed to.

According to Millington, Deeming was in Plymouth in early September 1888 and left there on 27 September 1888. He was using the name Lawson. The Double Event was two days later.

Thanks Lewis.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I am wondering if you are aware of some new research on Deeming, outlined here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQxYiUUDZqk&t=10s&ab_channel=DarkHistory

You are probably already aware of the dressmaker's identification of Deeming's trial photo as a man with whom she had spent some time on the night of the double event, and who talked excitedly about it the next day. Easy to write off as attention seeking, but she didn't name him as Deeming, but as Mr Lawson, a frequently used known alias of Deeming. How many other persons of interest can be identified as having been in Whitechapel on the night of a murder? Curious that Deeming's last impersonation in Australia was as Baron Swanson?

The other find is the transcript of a court case from 1892 where Deeming stated that he had contracted syphilis from a prostitute who had made a useless man of him for two years, it was right to kill such, he would have killed her, and intended to kill her, and he would not have thought it murder as she deserved it.

The other discovery came from the Crime Museum at Scotland Yard, where Deeming's death mask was on display as the face of Jack the Ripper.

Perhaps Deeming needs a boost in categories 2, 4, 5 and 6?

The other thing I noticed is that your list doesn't include G Wentworth Bell Smith.

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/persons-of-interest-or-actual-suspects/the-lodger-s/2731-g-wentworth-bell-smith

Cheers, George

Hi George,

I’ll certainly have another look at Deeming later today. The fairly recent book on him is another that I have on my ‘to read again’ list (which I never seem to get to) I’m grateful that you mentioned GWBS but annoyed with myself for missing him in the Morley book. An error compounded by the fact that during my earlier ‘ripper years’ I felt him a good suspect. He’s also been mentioned recently by someone on here but I’m unsure who. All look at his entry when I give Deeming another look.

[GBinOz]

Correction for my previous post: Deeming's alias in Western Australia was Baron Swanston rather than Baron Swanson.

[GBinOz]

Credit to Chris Scott who came up with this:

From a Canadian paper, The Manitoba Daily Free Press of 8 April 1892



And this:

Newark Daily Advocate of 13 April 1892.

[Lewis C]

I wasn’t going by ‘certified insane’, I was using a vague ‘mental health’ issues angle and dividing them between violent and non-violent. So for Druitt it was his suicide with note thinking that he might end up like his mother, who was in an asylum. Stephen should have been a 1 as you rightly pointed out so I’ve changed it.

It’s interesting that you should mention James Kelly in another post Robert. I’ve been intending for about 3 years to re-read Tully’s book but I haven’t got there yet. I only read it once, when it first came out. I was looking through my stuff a few months ago and came across John Morrison’s pamphlet Jimmy Kelly’s Year of the Ripper Murders.

Hi Herlock,

Using this method of awarding points for mental illness, I would still give David Cohen a 2 for mental illness. Here are 2 links mentioning his violence:

https://casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/cjmorley/37.html

https://casebook.org/suspects/davidcohen.html

I think it is at least reasonably possible that Deeming was in England at the time, and the only question is whether it is merely reasonably possible, or that it's more like a strong likelihood. In the rest of this post, I'm quoting Paul Begg from page 91 of Ripperologist 142:

The entry for Frederick Bailey Deeming in the current Jack the Ripper A to Z is depressingly short and dismissive, possibly because Martin Fido thought Deeming was in jail when the Ripper crimes were committed and Keith Skinner thought he was in South Africa. Begg was probably staring blankly into space, dribbling slightly, and entertaining no opinion about anything at all. Other writers such as Melvin Harris, Colin Wilson, Robin Odell, Donald Rumbelow and Stewart Evans also accepted that Deeming was abroad or in prison at the time.

But he wasn’t.

In 2011 there was a pretty dire Discovery Channel documentary, Jack the Ripper: The Australian Suspect, in which a trenchcoat-wearing former Scotland Yard detective named Robin Napper showed that Deeming was in Britain at the time of the Ripper murders. You may recall that this was the documentary that featured the famous Eddowes shawl being tested for DNA and showed that the DNA retrieved from the gummed back of the stamp on the Openshaw letter belonged to a woman. Somehow this swirling documentary concluded that Deeming ticked all the boxes to be Jack the Ripper and that all Napper needed was the DNA of Deeming’s murdered wife to clinch and close the case, which was a stretch even by the standards of TV documentary makers.

Anyway, the point is that the author this book, Roger Millington, had already discovered that Deeming was in England when the Ripper murders were committed, but it was in 2011 that he learned he had prostate cancer. He died in 2013 and the finished manuscript of this book was found among his papers.

I didn’t come to this book with any great enthusiasm, but it is an excellent and very readable account of the life of Frederick Bailey Deeming, who killed his wife and his four children at Rainhill, Liverpool, and his second wife, Emily Mather, at Windsor, Melbourne, Australia, and otherwise lived the life as a conman and fraudster. According to Millington, it was a detective named Brant who expressed his belief that Deeming was responsible for a triple murder in Johannesburg in September 1888 and thus scotched the idea that Deeming was Jack the Ripper. But the triple murder was committed in February 1888, so Deeming could have been in England to commit the two Ripper murders he confessed to.

According to Millington, Deeming was in Plymouth in early September 1888 and left there on 27 September 1888. He was using the name Lawson. The Double Event was two days later.