Rating The Suspects.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have several unrelated points. First, I note that it's possible to get 4 points for violence, but at most 2 points for each of the other categories, so generally if a suspect does get 4 points for violence, he'll rank pretty high.

For medical/anatomical knowledge, I could be wrong, but my sense is that researchers either believe that the Ripper would have needed no anatomical knowledge, or that the knowledge of a butcher or slaughterman would have been enough. If that's true, then maybe a surgeon shouldn't get any more points than a butcher.

The police looked for Kelly after a murder, I think the MJK murder, so there seems to have been at least some limited police interest in him at the time.

Hyams received 3 points for mental health issues, but the scoring system only allows 2 points for that.

Those of us who think that Cohen is a fairly good suspect generally believe that he may have been the Anderson/Swanson suspect, so maybe he should get a point or at least half a point for police interest later.

Deeming would score fairly high under this system. He would get 2 points for age/physicality and 4 for violent. Recent research has indicated that the belief that he was either in South Africa or in jail at the time of the murders cannot be supported. I'm not clear on whether it is known for certain now that he was in England and free at the time or that that is merely most likely the case, but he should get at least 1 point for location, and maybe 2. He claimed to have consorted with prostitutes, and it seems probable that he had mental health issues.

I believe that Grainger would be a 2-1-3-0-1-?-0.

Hi Lewis,

The problem that I had wasn’t just in deciding which points were more important than others but, in the case of violence, I felt that I couldn’t avoid the need for the 4 criteria. I felt that I needed to be able to differentiate between, for example, a brawler and someone that used a knife on a woman and someone that actually killed a woman.

Thanks for pointing out that the police looked for Kelly after MJK’s murder, I missed that so I’ll amend.

On the surgeon v butcher I understand your point and agree I’ll give the same for both categories.

I’ve changed the Hyams point, thanks for spotting it.

I’ve added Grainger.


I’ve put Deeming and Feigenbaum in a separate category.

[Lewis C]

I have several unrelated points. First, I note that it's possible to get 4 points for violence, but at most 2 points for each of the other categories, so generally if a suspect does get 4 points for violence, he'll rank pretty high.

For medical/anatomical knowledge, I could be wrong, but my sense is that researchers either believe that the Ripper would have needed no anatomical knowledge, or that the knowledge of a butcher or slaughterman would have been enough. If that's true, then maybe a surgeon shouldn't get any more points than a butcher.

The police looked for Kelly after a murder, I think the MJK murder, so there seems to have been at least some limited police interest in him at the time.

Hyams received 3 points for mental health issues, but the scoring system only allows 2 points for that.

Those of us who think that Cohen is a fairly good suspect generally believe that he may have been the Anderson/Swanson suspect, so maybe he should get a point or at least half a point for police interest later.

Deeming would score fairly high under this system. He would get 2 points for age/physicality and 4 for violent. Recent research has indicated that the belief that he was either in South Africa or in jail at the time of the murders cannot be supported. I'm not clear on whether it is known for certain now that he was in England and free at the time or that that is merely most likely the case, but he should get at least 1 point for location, and maybe 2. He claimed to have consorted with prostitutes, and it seems probable that he had mental health issues.

I believe that Grainger would be a 2-1-3-0-1-?-0.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Maybe there’s little or no value in this exercise but I did it anyway. I tried to apply a tick box checklist to a list of suspects that I selected from CJ Morley’s book. The scoring is my own of course but I’ve attempted this in a totally impartial way.

I reserved the right to immediately dump someone like Charles Akehurst who scared a woman in November 1888 or Alaska which was just an example of a fanciful story. Many of those names listed are nothing more that curiosities, attention-seekers or drunks. I’ve also left out any ‘sex’ category because the ripper was undoubtedly a man in my opinion. Also if it can’t be shown that a suspect was definitely in the country at the time of the murders I will eliminate them; might have been isn’t good enough imo. (sorry Trevor).

On the Police Interest criteria I won’t give a point to someone like Barnett who was questioned by the police but any partner/former partner would have been and there’s no evidence that he was ever seriously considered a suspect.

I’m working on the basis that Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were definitely victims, so if a suspect was incarcerated, out of the country or dead for any of those I’ll eliminate him.


The scoring system is my own of course…



1. Age/physicality - 2 = no problem, 1 = some doubt*, 0 = eliminated imo.

* Maybe a suspect is much older than we would expect for a serial killer or there were health-related issues.


2. Location - 2 = no problem, 1 = reasonable travel/some doubt, 0 = eliminated imo.


3. Violent - 4 = killed with a knife, 3 = violence with knife against woman, 2 = violence with knife against man, 1 = other forms of violence, 0 = no known violence.


4. Mental health issues - 2 = serious/violent, 1 = other, 0 = none known


5. Police interest - 2 = at the time, 1 = later, 0 = none known.


6. Hatred/dislike of prostitutes/women - 2 = yes, 1 = links to prostitution, 0 = none known


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


……,,,,,,……,,,,,,……,,,,,,……,,,,,,……,,,,,,……,,, ,,,…… ,,,,,,……,,,,,,……,,,,,,……


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

Cutbush > 2 - 2 - 3 - 2 - 0 - 2 - 0 = 11

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

Hyams > 2 - 2 - 3 - 3 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 10

Chapman > 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 2 = 8

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

Tumblety > 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 2 - 2 = 8

Thompson > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 2 = 7

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 - 1 - 0 -1 - 1 = 5

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 - 2 = 5

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 - 2 = 4

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

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




Happy to here comments/suggestions of course.