Rating The Suspects.

[Jon Guy]

I do think Grainger is a better suspect than most, but I have two problems with him. One is that I believe I remember reading that his whereabouts at the time of the murders are unknown, but he was known to have been in Ireland shortly before the murders began and shortly after they ended. So he could have come to Whitechapel from Ireland, committed the murders, and then gone back to Ireland, but to me, that doesn't seem very likely.

Hi Lewis

That`s the thing with Grant, we know a lot about his whereabouts during his life except during late 1888. That`s the only time he is not accounted for.

[Abby Normal]

I can understand that view. My view is that the Ripper wasn't caught because he had no known connection to any of the victims or the murder locations and because he wasn't suspected by police.

GCS Lechmere has more going for him than most people with no known connection to the case. He did attempt murder and did so by the unusual method of cutting the throat instead of stabbing the victim. He was often separated from his wife, so no pesky family members underfoot to find trophies taken from the victims. No job to go to most of the time, so he can stay up all hours looking for victims.

Several things about GCS Lechmere were common traits of serial killers. One is his extreme lack of empathy - GCS Lechmere attempted murder in front of his 6 year old son while his wife was nursing their baby. Another is his badly failed relationship with his wife. We don't know if he felt a need for control, but GCS Lechmere's life was a mess - usually unemployed, failing marriage, excess drinking, in and out of workhouses, more children than he could support.

If GCS Lechmere was the Ripper, I'd guess his motivation was frustration and rage, not anything sexual. He may have imagined the victims as his wife - strangulation and throat cutting to silence the nagging. Abdominal mutilation to express the frustration at repeated pregnancies he couldn't afford.

Odds are George Capel Scudamore Lechmere was just an attempted murderer, not the Ripper. But he's a better suspect than most.

hi fiver
fair enough. agree to disagree. imho he cant even be called a suspect. and in fairness ill also say odds on lech was just a witness who found a body.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Abby, I would have sworn that I’d already done it. One year added to my age and I’m all over the place.


Amendment #11

--- (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

08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Kosminski, Aaron (Aron Mordke Kozminski)

08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Pizer, John "Leather Apron"

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

07 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Chapman, George (Seweryn 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 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 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)

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

03 = 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Sickert, Walter Richard

02 = 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Gull, Sir William Withey


Legend:

(A) Age/physical health

. . . 2 = no issue

. . . 1 = some issues creating doubt

. . . 0 = serious issue/ could potentially eliminate


(B) Location/access to murder sites

. . . 2 = no issues

. . . 1 = reasonable travel/possible doubt

. . . 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

. . . 1 = later (within 10 yrs)

. . . 0 = none known


(F) Hatred/dislike of women/prostitutes

. . . 2 = yes

. . . 1 = link to prostitutes

. . . 0 = none


(G) Medical/anatomical knowledge (inc. animals)

. . . 1 = yes

. . . 0 = no


(H) Alcohol/drug issue

. . . 1 = yes

. . . 0 = none known

Just to avoid confusion (created by me in the first place) in the above I added the other Lechmere’s full name after Abby’s request but to an old list which hadn’t been updated with Sutton and Le Grand.

This is amendment #11


--- (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

08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Kosminski, Aaron (Aron Mordke Kozminski)

08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Pizer, John "Leather Apron"

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

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

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

03 = 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Sickert, Walter Richard

02 = 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Gull, Sir William Withey


Legend:

(A) Age/physical health

. . . 2 = no issue

. . . 1 = issues possibly creating doubt

. . . 0 = serious issue/ could potentially eliminate

(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

. . . 1 = later (within 10 yrs)

. . . 0 = none known

(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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Whilst there is a case to be made for a ‘local man’ theory with people seeing local knowledge as an advantage (escape routes, police beats etc) I think we should also be aware of the risk of familiarity. A killer living outside the area (although I’m not suggesting miles out) is much less likely to be unlucky enough to get recognised. And whilst I accept that a local killer would also have been a bit unlucky to have been spotted and recognised he would still have an increased chance of it happening to him. A fairly vague description is one thing, “it looked like x to me officer” is another. It’s why you don’t get a serial killer at work in a village (except in Midsomer Murders of course)

[Fiver]

my problem with candidates like hyams, the other lechmere, smith, cohen, stephen, (not even gonna mention gull, sickert or maybrick in this list as they are just ridiculous) is they have absolute zero connection to the case not even a tenuous one, werent suspected by the police at the time and cant be placed anywhere near any the victims or locations.

I can understand that view. My view is that the Ripper wasn't caught because he had no known connection to any of the victims or the murder locations and because he wasn't suspected by police.

GCS Lechmere has more going for him than most people with no known connection to the case. He did attempt murder and did so by the unusual method of cutting the throat instead of stabbing the victim. He was often separated from his wife, so no pesky family members underfoot to find trophies taken from the victims. No job to go to most of the time, so he can stay up all hours looking for victims.

Several things about GCS Lechmere were common traits of serial killers. One is his extreme lack of empathy - GCS Lechmere attempted murder in front of his 6 year old son while his wife was nursing their baby. Another is his badly failed relationship with his wife. We don't know if he felt a need for control, but GCS Lechmere's life was a mess - usually unemployed, failing marriage, excess drinking, in and out of workhouses, more children than he could support.

If GCS Lechmere was the Ripper, I'd guess his motivation was frustration and rage, not anything sexual. He may have imagined the victims as his wife - strangulation and throat cutting to silence the nagging. Abdominal mutilation to express the frustration at repeated pregnancies he couldn't afford.

Odds are George Capel Scudamore Lechmere was just an attempted murderer, not the Ripper. But he's a better suspect than most.

[GBinOz]

George Chapman was a serial killer too, admittedly a poisoner rather than one who strangled and killed with a knife. He was only convicted of one of the murders, but I don't think that matters for our purposes, because there's little question that he committed three murders.

Hi Lewis C,

I stand corrected. Chapman was a serial killer, and I do not discount him on the fact that he may have used different a different technique for wives compared to strangers - an obvious imperative.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Is there any reason to believe that the Grant referred to in the clippings book is the same Grant?

I do think Grainger is a better suspect than most, but I have two problems with him. One is that I believe I remember reading that his whereabouts at the time of the murders are unknown, but he was known to have been in Ireland shortly before the murders began and shortly after they ended. So he could have come to Whitechapel from Ireland, committed the murders, and then gone back to Ireland, but to me, that doesn't seem very likely.

My other issue with him is that his attack on a prostitute was much less skillful than what JtR did, and I wonder if he really would have lost that ability in the few years that passed between the murders and his attack.

Hi Lewis C,

No proof that it was the same person other than someone named Grant (admittedly a common name) was later suspected.

Removing one's self from the scene of a crime (as did Bury) does not seem to me to be a disqualifying strategy.

The difference in technique is also used to question the McKenzie murder as being by the ripper. The ripper was successful in taking his victims by surprise, but there could be some latitude if the circumstances were different, such as being set upon by three ruffians at the same time. Not dis-similar to Don Bradman being dismissed for a duck in his last game to deprive him of a 100 average. The anticipation exceeds the participation.

I fully appreciate your reservations. There seems to be far less research into persons such as Grainger, Deeming and Thompson than the more traditional suspects such as Kosminski, Chapman and Druitt.

Cheers, George

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

We don't know whether or not Cohen was a police suspect. His suspect status is based primarily on the possibility that he may have been Anderson's suspect. Also, I don't see why having a known connection to the case matters, unless that connection in some way raises suspicions about him.

hi lewis
the cohen connection is too convoluted for me and as far as we know he wasnt andersons suspect, koz was.

re connection..well its known connection along with other yellow flags. for example burys connection is he was a police suspect, but we also know he was in the immediate area and a known murderer.

imho if you cant even place a candidate in the city and or they have zero connection to the case, a suspect you dont have. its just me, i just place a high emphasis on location/ proximity/ connection.

of course just having a connection dosnt make you suspicious. for example, innocuous witness like pc smith, or marshall or cox or diemshitz dosnt make you a suspect.

now the reverse of that, if mere connection to the case with no other yellow flags dosnt make you a suspect, then just having a violent/insane past but with no connection with the case dosnt make you a suspect either.

its like a parlor room game...hey lets find some random violent crazy guy with no connection to the case, to a victim, to the location and fit em on up. it just kind of silly to me. but again thats just me.

[Lewis C]

hi fiver
thanks. checked out the thread.

i think these types of candidates are artificially elevated on this list just because of prior violence/ insanity. ill just leave it with what i wrote earlier:

my problem with candidates like hyams, the other lechmere, smith, cohen, stephen, (not even gonna mention gull, sickert or maybrick in this list as they are just ridiculous) is they have absolute zero connection to the case not even a tenuous one, werent suspected by the police at the time and cant be placed anywhere near any the victims or locations. they are concoctions and extensions of the crazy/violent guy/ jew theory picked out of the bag by later "theorists". seriously, you could literally find anyone out of thousands in london at the time and fit them up under this criteria as a "suspect".

Hi Abby,

We don't know whether or not Cohen was a police suspect. His suspect status is based primarily on the possibility that he may have been Anderson's suspect. Also, I don't see why having a known connection to the case matters, unless that connection in some way raises suspicions about him.

[Lewis C]

Hi RD,

While I don't have a suspect, I find Deeming to be an interesting person of interest. As well as his other qualifications he is the only convicted serial killer of whom I am aware. His father spent time in an asylum and he was known to have an excessive regard for his mother culminating in his belief that she was still guiding him after her death. He also had fanatical religious beliefs and was known in his youth as "Mad Fred". It is difficult to imagine how someone could visit upon MJK the horrific injuries that she suffered, but killing two wives and four children may very well have put him in consideration for such an atrocity. Yet somehow he rates below Kelly, who I observe as having escaped from an asylum and turning up decades later, with no detail between. Curious.

Cheers, George

George Chapman was a serial killer too, admittedly a poisoner rather than one who strangled and killed with a knife. He was only convicted of one of the murders, but I don't think that matters for our purposes, because there's little question that he committed three murders.

[Lewis C]

Hi Herlock,

I have just been reading this thread:

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/persons-of-interest-or-actual-suspects/william-grant-grainger/20245-a-case-for-william-grant-grainger

In Post #3 Nemo, with regard to Grainger states:

He was a persistent drunk and at least once entered an asylum for treatment of what appears to be delirium tremens, reported as suffering from hallucinations and a delusional mental state

and

Patricia Cornwell owns a clippings book which appears to be a collection of articles and notes from some type of investigator of the Ripper crimes in 1888
In this book there is a note from around the time of the Annie Chapman murder which asks "Which regiment does Grant belong to?"

Might these comments warrant an upgrade to categories D and E?

I have also recently re-watched Robyn Napper's investigation into Deeming:

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

Just before the 12 minute mark he discovers that Deeming's death mask was used as "the face of Jack the Ripper" in the Scotland Yard Crime Museum, possibly indicating an interest in him at the time. Might this warrant an upgrade in category E?

For your consideration.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Is there any reason to believe that the Grant referred to in the clippings book is the same Grant?

I do think Grainger is a better suspect than most, but I have two problems with him. One is that I believe I remember reading that his whereabouts at the time of the murders are unknown, but he was known to have been in Ireland shortly before the murders began and shortly after they ended. So he could have come to Whitechapel from Ireland, committed the murders, and then gone back to Ireland, but to me, that doesn't seem very likely.

My other issue with him is that his attack on a prostitute was much less skillful than what JtR did, and I wonder if he really would have lost that ability in the few years that passed between the murders and his attack.

[Abby Normal]

Odds are George Capel Scudamore Lechmere was just an attempted murderer, but his attempted murder by slitting the throat, as opposed to stabbing, is uncommon, so I think GCS Lechmere is a better suspect than most.

I created a thread on George Capel Scudamore Lechmere, using newspaper accounts and old Bailey records. Geneaology records show barber/hairdresser GCS Lechmere was in and out of the workhouse. At the time of the murders he was living in Lambeth, so not super close. He tried to murder his wife in 1890 and did 18 months hard labor at Wormwood Scrubbs Prison. Only half of his kids made it to adulthood. The sons appear to have not married. The daughters emigrated to Australia.

hi fiver
thanks. checked out the thread.

i think these types of candidates are artificially elevated on this list just because of prior violence/ insanity. ill just leave it with what i wrote earlier:

my problem with candidates like hyams, the other lechmere, smith, cohen, stephen, (not even gonna mention gull, sickert or maybrick in this list as they are just ridiculous) is they have absolute zero connection to the case not even a tenuous one, werent suspected by the police at the time and cant be placed anywhere near any the victims or locations. they are concoctions and extensions of the crazy/violent guy/ jew theory picked out of the bag by later "theorists". seriously, you could literally find anyone out of thousands in london at the time and fit them up under this criteria as a "suspect".

[Fiver]

thanks fiver. herlock can we get that name updated on the list?

fiver, if you really think he makes a good suspect, you should really delve into him more and see what you come up with! like can he be placed in wc during the time?, did the two lechs know each other etc.

Odds are George Capel Scudamore Lechmere was just an attempted murderer, but his attempted murder by slitting the throat, as opposed to stabbing, is uncommon, so I think GCS Lechmere is a better suspect than most.

I created a thread on George Capel Scudamore Lechmere, using newspaper accounts and old Bailey records. Geneaology records show barber/hairdresser GCS Lechmere was in and out of the workhouse. At the time of the murders he was living in Lambeth, so not super close. He tried to murder his wife in 1890 and did 18 months hard labor at Wormwood Scrubbs Prison. Only half of his kids made it to adulthood. The sons appear to have not married. The daughters emigrated to Australia.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I suggest dropping Sutton a pint on Age/physical health. Sutton was in his early 50s and his Royal College of Physicians minibio says that he was short and slightly deaf. Short people are at a disadvantage when subduing victims adn its harder for a slightly deaf person to hear approaching footsteps in time to escape undetected.

I take your point Fiver but if I did that I’d also have to drop points for suspects like Tumblety and Maybrick who were both 50+. D’Onston was 47 so some might say ‘what difference would 3 or 4 years make?’ The deafness is also a very fair point to make but we don’t really know how deaf he was. It might have hampered him but it’s impossible to gauge how much? It’s a close call but I think I’ll leave it at that for the time being though.


General point to all, I’ll always listen to comments and if everyone, or a large majority, tells me I’m mistaken then I’m always willing to make changes to any suspect. Unless someone suggests that Arthur Conan Doyle should go on the list of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

thanks fiver. herlock can we get that name updated on the list?

fiver, if you really think he makes a good suspect, you should really delve into him more and see what you come up with! like can he be placed in wc during the time?, did the two lechs know each other etc.

Abby, I would have sworn that I’d already done it. One year added to my age and I’m all over the place.


Amendment #11

--- (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

08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Kosminski, Aaron (Aron Mordke Kozminski)

08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Pizer, John "Leather Apron"

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

07 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Chapman, George (Seweryn 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 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 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)

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

03 = 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Sickert, Walter Richard

02 = 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Gull, Sir William Withey


Legend:

(A) Age/physical health

. . . 2 = no issue

. . . 1 = some issues creating doubt

. . . 0 = serious issue/ could potentially eliminate


(B) Location/access to murder sites

. . . 2 = no issues

. . . 1 = reasonable travel/possible doubt

. . . 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

. . . 1 = later (within 10 yrs)

. . . 0 = none known


(F) Hatred/dislike of women/prostitutes

. . . 2 = yes

. . . 1 = link to prostitutes

. . . 0 = none


(G) Medical/anatomical knowledge (inc. animals)

. . . 1 = yes

. . . 0 = no


(H) Alcohol/drug issue

. . . 1 = yes

. . . 0 = none known