Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rating The Suspects.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • GBinOz
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    hi george
    Deeming was a police suspect in 1892? can you please provide more detail? thanks!!
    Hi Abby,

    As well as the death mask mentioned by RD, when Deeming was arrested in Western Australia in 1892 he was question by police regard the Whitechapel murders. It was reported in The Mercury in 1892 that Deeming had confessed to a Detective Cawsey that he was responsible for the last two Whitechapel murders (Eddowes and Kelly???).

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Cawsey.jpg
Views:	163
Size:	58.4 KB
ID:	843950

    I'm aware that you're sceptical with regard to him being in London in 1888, but an 1892 article from the NY Times quoted Deeming's sister in law as stating that "while he was living in Birkenhead in 1888, Deeming made regular trips to London". This would have been made easy by the new rail link from Birkenhead to London. When Deeming's (aka Williams) picture was published after his arrest, a dressmaker identified him as a man she was with in Whitechapel only hours before the Eddowes murder, but that the name he gave her was Harry Lawson, a known Deeming alias.

    If you haven't done so already, there is a great deal of information on recent research here:

    Dark History: Australia's Jack The Ripper - Frederick Bailey Deeming was an English-born Australian gasfitter and murderer. He was convicted and executed for...


    Cheers, George

    Leave a comment:


  • GBinOz
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Amendment #15

    I think the the duplications that have occurred have been down to careless cutting and pasting on my part. Feel free everyone to point out any future errors.
    You have voluntarily taken on an onerous task, so a few minor errors can be expected. I don't think it would be presumptive to offer congratulations and thanks on behalf of all concerned.

    Cheers, George

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Amendment #15


    --- (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

    11 = 2 - 1 - 4 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 0 : Deeming, Frederick Bailey ^

    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 - 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 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Lechmere, George Capel Scudamore

    08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 : Barnado, Thomas John

    08 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Pizer, John (Leather Apron)

    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 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Cohen, David

    07 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Kidney, Michael

    06 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Chapman, George (Severin Antonowicz Kłosowski) *

    06 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 : Thompson, Francis

    06 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Levy, Jacob

    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



    ^ means that a suspect has moved up the table after the latest amendment

    * means that a suspect has moved down the table after the latest amendment


    Changes


    Changed Chapman’s (E) to 0 and I’ve added 1 for Deeming in (D) and 1 for (E) after George’s suggestion. We also now have only one Thompson (spotted by George)

    I think the the duplications that have occurred have been down to careless cutting and pasting on my part. Feel free everyone to point out any future errors.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Rookie Detective
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    hi george
    Deeming was a police suspect in 1892? can you please provide more detail? thanks!!
    The police in London used the Death Mask of Deeming, that was made shortly after he was hanged in May 1892, and displayed for visitors to New Scotland Yard.

    It was displayed for years along with the title "Jack the Ripper"

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    Hi Herlock,

    On the subject of Deeming, the following is an extract from John Godl's Casebook dissertation:

    Born in Birkenhead, Cheshire on 30 July 1853? Deeming seems to have always lived his life on the fringes of sanity, the youngest of seven children he was known in youth as "Mad Fred" due to his abnormal behaviour. Stemming, perhaps, from the savage beatings meted out by his tinsmith father. Who died insane in a workhouse, having attempted suicide on four occasions by slashing his throat. By all accounts Deeming had a stifling relationship with his Sunday school teacher mother, who instilled her puritanical interpretation of the scriptures in him. Deeming carried a bible with him on all his travels, and was obsessed with concepts of sin and punishment. Her death in 1875 came as a crashing blow and he suffered a mental breakdown, and later claimed her spirit compelled him to kill.

    I'm wondering if this, and the fact that he is known to have murdered at least two wives and all of his children, should qualify him for a rating in category (D), Mental Health Issues, above "none known"?

    Cheers, George
    Hi George,

    My apologies for the slow response. I’d say that with an actual mention of a breakdown you’re right to suggest at least some recognition of this in the (D) section. I’ll make the adjustment at the next amendment.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    Hi Herlock,

    You appear to have a double listing for Francis Thompson.

    With regard to category (E), Chapman did not come to Abberline's attention as a ripper suspect until 1902, whereas Deeming came to police attention as a possible ripper suspect in 1892 resulting in his death mask being displayed by Scotland Yard as the face of the ripper.

    Cheers, George
    hi george
    Deeming was a police suspect in 1892? can you please provide more detail? thanks!!

    Leave a comment:


  • The Rookie Detective
    replied
    Originally posted by John Wheat View Post

    All things considered though you'd have to be an idiot to not regard Bury as one of the top suspects.
    I agree, Bury is indeed one of the top suspects.

    He would and should IMO be considered in the top 10 suspects without question.

    Considering there are well over a hundred suspects; I'd say making the top 10 is exceptional.


    Deeming
    Kelly
    Klosowski (Chapman)
    Bury

    These men; on paper at least, should fit within the top 10 most likely Ripper suspects.


    I would suggest that the likes of Kosminski and Druitt fall short of that grade.

    We then have Lechmere and Maybrick the populist choice, who again fall short of the mark.


    Subjectively speaking of course

    Leave a comment:


  • John Wheat
    replied
    Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post

    I agree George.

    Deeming was a very disturbed individual indeed and his childhood experiences were a driving factor for this.

    With Deeming, it has always been about Geographics.

    If he was even shown to have been in London in the Autumn of 1888, then IMO he would arguably jump up to become the prime suspect.

    Unlike Bury, he was proven to have murdered multiple people.

    As things stand...

    Bury was a wife killer.
    Deeming was a serial killer.

    A person would need to have murdered at least 3 different individuals on at least 2 separate occasions and locations, to be considered a "Serial Killer."
    All things considered though you'd have to be an idiot to not regard Bury as one of the top suspects.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Rookie Detective
    replied
    Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    Hi Herlock,

    On the subject of Deeming, the following is an extract from John Godl's Casebook dissertation:

    Born in Birkenhead, Cheshire on 30 July 1853? Deeming seems to have always lived his life on the fringes of sanity, the youngest of seven children he was known in youth as "Mad Fred" due to his abnormal behaviour. Stemming, perhaps, from the savage beatings meted out by his tinsmith father. Who died insane in a workhouse, having attempted suicide on four occasions by slashing his throat. By all accounts Deeming had a stifling relationship with his Sunday school teacher mother, who instilled her puritanical interpretation of the scriptures in him. Deeming carried a bible with him on all his travels, and was obsessed with concepts of sin and punishment. Her death in 1875 came as a crashing blow and he suffered a mental breakdown, and later claimed her spirit compelled him to kill.

    I'm wondering if this, and the fact that he is known to have murdered at least two wives and all of his children, should qualify him for a rating in category (D), Mental Health Issues, above "none known"?

    Cheers, George
    I agree George.

    Deeming was a very disturbed individual indeed and his childhood experiences were a driving factor for this.

    With Deeming, it has always been about Geographics.

    If he was even shown to have been in London in the Autumn of 1888, then IMO he would arguably jump up to become the prime suspect.

    Unlike Bury, he was proven to have murdered multiple people.

    As things stand...

    Bury was a wife killer.
    Deeming was a serial killer.

    A person would need to have murdered at least 3 different individuals on at least 2 separate occasions and locations, to be considered a "Serial Killer."

    Leave a comment:


  • GBinOz
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Hello George,

    Fair points on Chapman and Deeming. I’ll do an amendment tomorrow along with the Thompson thing.
    Hi Herlock,

    On the subject of Deeming, the following is an extract from John Godl's Casebook dissertation:

    Born in Birkenhead, Cheshire on 30 July 1853? Deeming seems to have always lived his life on the fringes of sanity, the youngest of seven children he was known in youth as "Mad Fred" due to his abnormal behaviour. Stemming, perhaps, from the savage beatings meted out by his tinsmith father. Who died insane in a workhouse, having attempted suicide on four occasions by slashing his throat. By all accounts Deeming had a stifling relationship with his Sunday school teacher mother, who instilled her puritanical interpretation of the scriptures in him. Deeming carried a bible with him on all his travels, and was obsessed with concepts of sin and punishment. Her death in 1875 came as a crashing blow and he suffered a mental breakdown, and later claimed her spirit compelled him to kill.

    I'm wondering if this, and the fact that he is known to have murdered at least two wives and all of his children, should qualify him for a rating in category (D), Mental Health Issues, above "none known"?

    Cheers, George

    Leave a comment:


  • Lewis C
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    I’ve also been checking the ratings for Kosminski and Cohen after comments from Lewis.


    D - Kosminski (2) Cohen (1) - It was a question of whether I put them both at 2 or 1? Kosminski apparently attacked his sister-in-law but was this just a one off and was it connected to his mental health (a man can attack a woman without it being as a result of a mental illness?) Cohen only became violent after his confinement. I’ll award 2 points each.

    E - Kosminski (1) Cohen (0) which seems fair to me. We cannot be certain that Cohen/Kosminski were one and the same. We can’t assume that a theory is correct. I don’t think that it would be right to alter the rating in accordance with a theory.

    F - I don’t know why I’ve given Cohen a 1 here? Reading back I see no link to prostitutes so I’m removing the point - obviously if someone can refresh my memory as to why the point should remain I’ll reinstate it.

    This still leaves them as they were in terms of overall score as I can’t see any other criteria that needs changing.


    Hi Herlock,

    We can't assume that a that a theory is correct, but David Cohen and Aaron Kosminsky are in the same boat in that regard. The idea that Aaron Kosminsky was Anderson's suspect is a theory, just as the idea that Cohen was his suspect is a theory. So if we can't assume that a theory is correct, then Aaron wouldn't get a point in column E, for the same reason that Cohen doesn't get a point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Hello George,

    Thanks for spotting that. I’ve just been looking back to see how and when it occurred. In #332 I have only one Thompson who is rating a 6. Then I’ve posted a few lists also with just one Thompson then in post #383 our second Thompson arrives on 8 points. I’ll double check tomorrow to see if he’s a 6 or an 8. I haven’t a clue how it happened though George…totally baffling. To make matters worse, it’s the second duplicate I’ve had.

    Fair points on Chapman and Deeming. I’ll do an amendment tomorrow along with the Thompson thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • GBinOz
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Amendment #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 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Lechmere, George Capel Scudamore

    08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 : Barnado, Thomas John

    08 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 1 : Thompson, Francis

    08 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Pizer, John (Leather Apron) ^

    07 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Chapman, George (Severin 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 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 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

    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



    ^ means that a suspect has moved up after an amendment
    * means that a suspect has moved down​ after an amendment



    Changes


    I’ve added ‘sexual’ to serious/violent in the Mental Health issues section because I think that it’s worth distinguishing this as an issue too. Following on from that I’ve added 2 points in the D section to Pizer. As Jose Oranto recently mentioned over on JtRForums that Pizer was charged with an indecent assault three days before the murder of Martha Tabram.


    I’ve also been checking the ratings for Kosminski and Cohen after comments from Lewis.


    D - Kosminski (2) Cohen (1) - It was a question of whether I put them both at 2 or 1? Kosminski apparently attacked his sister-in-law but was this just a one off and was it connected to his mental health (a man can attack a woman without it being as a result of a mental illness?) Cohen only became violent after his confinement. I’ll award 2 points each.

    E - Kosminski (1) Cohen (0) which seems fair to me. We cannot be certain that Cohen/Kosminski were one and the same. We can’t assume that a theory is correct. I don’t think that it would be right to alter the rating in accordance with a theory.

    F - I don’t know why I’ve given Cohen a 1 here? Reading back I see no link to prostitutes so I’m removing the point - obviously if someone can refresh my memory as to why the point should remain I’ll reinstate it.

    This still leaves them as they were in terms of overall score as I can’t see any other criteria that needs changing.


    Hi Herlock,

    You appear to have a double listing for Francis Thompson.

    With regard to category (E), Chapman did not come to Abberline's attention as a ripper suspect until 1902, whereas Deeming came to police attention as a possible ripper suspect in 1892 resulting in his death mask being displayed by Scotland Yard as the face of the ripper.

    Cheers, George

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Amendment #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 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Lechmere, George Capel Scudamore

    08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 : Barnado, Thomas John

    08 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 1 : Thompson, Francis

    08 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Pizer, John (Leather Apron) ^

    07 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Chapman, George (Severin 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 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 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

    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



    ^ means that a suspect has moved up after an amendment
    * means that a suspect has moved down​ after an amendment



    Changes


    I’ve added ‘sexual’ to serious/violent in the Mental Health issues section because I think that it’s worth distinguishing this as an issue too. Following on from that I’ve added 2 points in the D section to Pizer. As Jose Oranto recently mentioned over on JtRForums that Pizer was charged with an indecent assault three days before the murder of Martha Tabram.


    I’ve also been checking the ratings for Kosminski and Cohen after comments from Lewis.


    D - Kosminski (2) Cohen (1) - It was a question of whether I put them both at 2 or 1? Kosminski apparently attacked his sister-in-law but was this just a one off and was it connected to his mental health (a man can attack a woman without it being as a result of a mental illness?) Cohen only became violent after his confinement. I’ll award 2 points each.

    E - Kosminski (1) Cohen (0) which seems fair to me. We cannot be certain that Cohen/Kosminski were one and the same. We can’t assume that a theory is correct. I don’t think that it would be right to alter the rating in accordance with a theory.

    F - I don’t know why I’ve given Cohen a 1 here? Reading back I see no link to prostitutes so I’m removing the point - obviously if someone can refresh my memory as to why the point should remain I’ll reinstate it.

    This still leaves them as they were in terms of overall score as I can’t see any other criteria that needs changing.


    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 12-13-2024, 05:03 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lewis C
    replied
    I believe that David Cohen and Aaron Kosminski should get the same number of points for police interest. Both of them may or may not have been Anderson's suspect. When a researcher as good as Martin Fido believes that Cohen is the most likely person to have been Anderson's suspect, I wouldn't dismiss that idea as a reasonable possibility. You don't have to agree with him, but a table aiming at objectivity should treat the opposing theories even-handedly.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X