Rating The Suspects.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ive done more than enough research on all 3 suspects to stand by my reasoning for each score. The thread ask for comments or suggestion , so i obliged.

As expected you jumped the gun and flew off the handle , now had you ask nicely why i added to Gull , and Sickert and subtracted from Druitt i would have given you my thoughts, but alas you didnt . So when you imply that im being bias and unfair just to razz you up, you are hughly mistaken.

I didnt see the point in giving my reasoning for the score adjustment . That would then require follow up discussion and debate ,which when it comes to my opinion/s your incapable of a such thing without making it personal. Many threads and topics can attest to that.

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

[FISHY1118]

So you’ve just randomly added a couple of points to Gull and you’ve taken one from Druitt purely and simply to get a 71 year old stroke victim above Druitt? This is what I mean about fairness and being unbiased. I’ve done this purely by a criteria that I’ve made public to show that I’ve used no underhand methods but you still see it as a contest. As if you need to get Team Gull up the table.

Sickert, Gull and Druitt stay at their original points. You are lucky that Gull is even that high because I’d seriously considered giving him zero points on age/physicality.

Ive done more than enough research on all 3 suspects to stand by my reasoning for each score. The thread ask for comments or suggestion , so i obliged.

As expected you jumped the gun and flew off the handle , now had you ask nicely why i added to Gull , and Sickert and subtracted from Druitt i would have given you my thoughts, but alas you didnt . So when you imply that im being bias and unfair just to razz you up, you are hughly mistaken.

I didnt see the point in giving my reasoning for the score adjustment . That would then require follow up discussion and debate ,which when it comes to my opinion/s your incapable of a such thing without making it personal. Many threads and topics can attest to that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

With regard to category three, one of the characteristics of the ripper murders was the throat cut, and another was that his victims were not family members. As far as we know, Bury, Deeming and Kosminski were killing, or allegedly threatening, family members, and Bury did not cut his wife's throat. Deeming was a multiple murderer and employed throat cuts, so shouldn't he rate higher than Bury in that category? Should there be a rating of 5 in category three for history of throat cutting of non family members?

With regard to category four, Bury claimed to police that his wife hanged herself and that he had then mutilated her body and stuffed her body in a box, that he previously had custom built, because he was afraid he would be accused of being the ripper. Wouldn't this rate a higher mental illness than a zero?

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Good points George. I could change the Violence part to: 4 - killed woman by throat-cutting, 3 - violence with knife against women (non-family), 2 - knife violence female family member, 1 - knife violence against men, 0 - no knife-related violence.

I had considered that I’d certainly consider him to have been ‘not of sound mind’ but I decided to go on whether mental health issues were more certain. For example, I gave Druitt a 1 because he committed suicide which means that all is not well, but he wasn’t diagnosed like Kosminski. It’s a tricky one.

I’ll make the violence changes later btw George. Please remind me if I get distracted and forget. Which isn’t unlikely.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Gull = 5

Sickert = 4

Druitt = 4


My comments based on the table provided.

So you’ve just randomly added a couple of points to Gull and you’ve taken one from Druitt purely and simply to get a 71 year old stroke victim above Druitt? This is what I mean about fairness and being unbiased. I’ve done this purely by a criteria that I’ve made public to show that I’ve used no underhand methods but you still see it as a contest. As if you need to get Team Gull up the table.

Sickert, Gull and Druitt stay at their original points. You are lucky that Gull is even that high because I’d seriously considered giving him zero points on age/physicality.

[FISHY1118]

Gull = 5

Sickert = 4

Druitt = 4


My comments based on the table provided.

[GBinOz]

Hi Herlock,

With regard to category three, one of the characteristics of the ripper murders was the throat cut, and another was that his victims were not family members. As far as we know, Bury, Deeming and Kosminski were killing, or allegedly threatening, family members, and Bury did not cut his wife's throat. Deeming was a multiple murderer and employed throat cuts, so shouldn't he rate higher than Bury in that category? Should there be a rating of 5 in category three for history of throat cutting of non family members?

With regard to category four, Bury claimed to police that his wife hanged herself and that he had then mutilated her body and stuffed her body in a box, that he previously had custom built, because he was afraid he would be accused of being the ripper. Wouldn't this rate a higher mental illness than a zero?

Cheers, George

[Fiver]

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



Happy to here comments/suggestions of course.

I'd give Gull a 0 on age/physicality. He was in his 70s and a recovering stroke victim.

I'll also pitch a -1 on Hatred of Women. It's not just that Dr Gull had no known hatred of women, Gull actively promoted women being trained as doctors.

I'd also like to mention the less unlikely Lechmre, George Capel Scudamore Lechmere.

1. Age/physicality - 2 Aged 38.

2. Location - 2

3. Violent - 3 Tried, but failed to murder his wife by slitting her throat.

4. Mental health issues - 1 At his trial, claimed to have no memory of his actions and that "sometimes he was not responsible for his actions".

5. Police interest - 0

6. Hatred/dislike of prostitutes/women - 1 No evidence that he consorted with prostitutes, but his wife testified "the prisoner had before said he would settle me—I have gone in fear of my life for a very long time."

7. Medical/anatomical knowledge - 0 He was a barber.

GCS Lechmere > 2 - 2 - 3 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 9

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

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

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

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 - 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 - 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

[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.