Rating The Suspects.

[The Rookie Detective]

Version 19

(A) Age/physical health > 2 = no issue/1 = issues creating doubt.
(B) Access to murder sites > 2 = no issues/ 1 = within reasonable travel (train for e.g./ 0 = presence unproven/doubt
(C) Violence > 4 = murder of a woman with a knife/ 3 = murder of a woman (including the use of a knife) or murder with another weapon/ 2 = wounding a woman with a knife/ 1 = threatening a woman with a knife or physical violence using a weapon/ 0 = no violence (with knife or otherwise) 2 = violence with a knife/1 = violence without a knife/0 = no known violence.
(D) Mental health issues > 2 = serious/violent/sexual/1 = other/0 = none known.
(E) Police interest > 2 = at the time (without proven alibi)/1 = later (within 10 yrs and without exoneration)/0 = none known, not serious or exonerated.
(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


--- (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) ---

13 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 1 : Cutbush, Thomas Hayne

12 = 2 - 2 - 3 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 : Kelly, James

10 = 2 - 2 - 3 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 : Bury, William Henry

10 = 2 - 0 - 4 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 0 : Deeming, Frederick Bailey

09 = 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 : Grainger, William Grant

09 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 1 : Puckridge, Oswald

08 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Hyams, Hyam

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

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

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

08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Cohen, David

07 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Lechmere, George Capel Scudamore

07 = 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 2 - 1 : Tumblety, Francis

07 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 2 - 0 : Smith, G. Wentworth Bell

06 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Kidney, Michael

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

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

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

06 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Druitt, Montague John

06 = 2 - 0 - 4 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Carl Feigenbaum

06 = 2 - 0 - 3 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Hendrik De Jong

06 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Le Grand, Charles

05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Barnett, Joseph

05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 : Sutton, Henry Gawen

05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Buchan, Edward

05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 : Williams, Dr. John

05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Craig, Francis Spurzheim

04 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 : Stephenson, Robert Donston (or Roslyn D'Onston)

04 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Maybrick, James

04 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Stephen, James Kenneth

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Bachert, Albert

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Cross, Charles (Charles Allen Lechmere)

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Hardiman, James

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Hutchinson, George

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Mann, Robert

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Maybrick, Michael

04 = 1 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 : Gull, Sir William Withey

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



Changes Made


I have removed the drug/alcohol criteria as I feel that it isn’t of value and might be misleading. There are a large number of serial killers that don’t have these issues. I’d point out that by removing this category only 2 suspects have changed position in the list - GCS Lechmere and RD Stephenson.




I also made some changes to Cutbush after re-reading Bullock’s book - the violence criteria changed a while ago and I hadn’t altered Cutbush accordingly - For (E) Cutbush certainly was suspected at the time, Inspector Race was convinced of his guilt - For (F) Hatred of prostitutes has to be a 2. Cutbush blamed a prostitute for giving him syphilis and, according to his aunt, he had brutally raped a prostitute at some point - He also gets a point for anatomical knowledge. He was obsessed by anatomy and medical issues in general, he had books on surgery and anatomy and obsessively drew anatomical drawings.

Herlock, could the Violence category points system be reevaluated?

Kelly killed his wife with a knife but scores less than Deeming
Bury didn't kill with a knife, but used it postmortem.

Shouldn't Deeming, Kelly and Bury all get the same points for violence?

The Ripper adter all used a knife to kill AND then used it postmortem.


Just a thought

[Herlock Sholmes]

His crimes hardly came within the scope of anything compared to the Whitechapel murders. The two offences he committed were somewhat sexual in nature having regard to the fact that he came up behind two women walking in the street he was carrying a long-bladed knife and proceeded to stab them in their backsides as they were walking along. He was arrested almost immediately still in possession of the knife, which it was later ascertained he had bought in Houndsditch a week before he was arrested. Following his arrest, he was deemed to be insane and was sent to Broadmoor Hospital where he died in 1903.

A poor suspect !!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

He stabbed two women in the back..not the backsides. Why do you ignore what we know about him? Compare that to what we know about other suspects and he’s the strongest.

[Trevor Marriott]

I’m only going on what the criteria says and I really can’t see why he’s considered unlikely?

He was a deeply disturbed, dangerous and unpredictable man who wandered out at nights and returned by jumping over a wall in the back garden and entering via the back entrance. He also had an outhouse that only he used and that his mother had demolished after his incarceration. Did she find something in there?

Around a month or so before the murders he was obsessively stating that a prostitute had given him syphilis and threatened to kill his doctor.

Around a month before the murders he got a job in Whitechapel; and he later got others.

He attacked a female servant with a knife, he pushed an old man down some stairs, he attacked a prostitute and, according to his aunt, raped her, he tried to cut his mother’s throat and also brutally stabbed two women in the back as they walked along the street.

Inspector Race searched his room and found many anatomical drawings (and on Cutbush’s person found a drawing of a woman with her abdomen ripped open, a large knife and some bloodied clothing hidden up a chimney.

And for a wounding and an attempted GBH a Judge classed him as a Category A prisoner and sentences this man to Broadmoor for the rest of his life to be confined with the countries most dangerous prisoners.

Race and others believed him to have been the ripper and it has to be said that just after he was incarcerated the investigation was wound down.

….

How many other suspects have the same amounts of recorded violence against women? How many can actually be placed in Whitechapel at the time ? How many have a proven with evidence reason for hating prostitutes (and just before the commencement of the murders).

I can’t see why Cutbush garners so little interest George? What are the objections? At 22 he was younger than we would probably have estimated but is that really such an issue. Serial killers starting in their early 20’s - David Berkowitz, Ed Kemper, Jeffrey Dahmer, Richard Ramirez. Apart from the fact that, like every other suspect, we have no evidence of him killing and mutilating a woman I can’t see any obstacles.

His crimes hardly came within the scope of anything compared to the Whitechapel murders. The two offences he committed were somewhat sexual in nature having regard to the fact that he came up behind two women walking in the street he was carrying a long-bladed knife and proceeded to stab them in their backsides as they were walking along. He was arrested almost immediately still in possession of the knife, which it was later ascertained he had bought in Houndsditch a week before he was arrested. Following his arrest, he was deemed to be insane and was sent to Broadmoor Hospital where he died in 1903.

A poor suspect !!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Too late to edit - Cutbush was born in 1865 so he was 23 at the time of the murders.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, my friend,

Are your really happy with a rating system that allows Cutbush to be the prime suspect? McNaughton dedicated his memorandum to shown that Cutbush was such a ridiculous suspect that there were three alternatives that made Cutbush irrelevant. Far be it from me to in any way question your criteria...but... really???

Cheers, George

I’m only going on what the criteria says and I really can’t see why he’s considered unlikely?

He was a deeply disturbed, dangerous and unpredictable man who wandered out at nights and returned by jumping over a wall in the back garden and entering via the back entrance. He also had an outhouse that only he used and that his mother had demolished after his incarceration. Did she find something in there?

Around a month or so before the murders he was obsessively stating that a prostitute had given him syphilis and threatened to kill his doctor.

Around a month before the murders he got a job in Whitechapel; and he later got others.

He attacked a female servant with a knife, he pushed an old man down some stairs, he attacked a prostitute and, according to his aunt, raped her, he tried to cut his mother’s throat and also brutally stabbed two women in the back as they walked along the street.

Inspector Race searched his room and found many anatomical drawings (and on Cutbush’s person found a drawing of a woman with her abdomen ripped open, a large knife and some bloodied clothing hidden up a chimney.

And for a wounding and an attempted GBH a Judge classed him as a Category A prisoner and sentences this man to Broadmoor for the rest of his life to be confined with the countries most dangerous prisoners.

Race and others believed him to have been the ripper and it has to be said that just after he was incarcerated the investigation was wound down.

….

How many other suspects have the same amounts of recorded violence against women? How many can actually be placed in Whitechapel at the time ? How many have a proven with evidence reason for hating prostitutes (and just before the commencement of the murders).

I can’t see why Cutbush garners so little interest George? What are the objections? At 22 he was younger than we would probably have estimated but is that really such an issue. Serial killers starting in their early 20’s - David Berkowitz, Ed Kemper, Jeffrey Dahmer, Richard Ramirez. Apart from the fact that, like every other suspect, we have no evidence of him killing and mutilating a woman I can’t see any obstacles.

[The Rookie Detective]

Herlock, my friend,

Are your really happy with a rating system that allows Cutbush to be the prime suspect? McNaughton dedicated his memorandum to shown that Cutbush was such a ridiculous suspect that there were three alternatives that made Cutbush irrelevant. Far be it from me to in any way question your criteria...but... really???

Cheers, George

But the irony is, that of the 3 men that MacNagthen submitted in his list... none of them are as strong as Cutbush.

So in a way, the memorandum serves no purpose other than to try and switch attention and focus away from an actual viable lead in Cutbush.


Ostrog wasn't the Ripper
Druitt wasn't the Ripper
Kosminski almost certainly wasn't the Ripper.


But Cutbush?

Pound for pound in the "Ripperology" fighting ring, Cutbush would wipe the floor with them.


So the question is; why did MacNagthen make a concerted effort to draw attention away from Cutbush?

Why was he protecting him?


There's more going on here with this memorandum debacle.

[GBinOz]

Herlock, my friend,

Are your really happy with a rating system that allows Cutbush to be the prime suspect? McNaughton dedicated his memorandum to shown that Cutbush was such a ridiculous suspect that there were three alternatives that made Cutbush irrelevant. Far be it from me to in any way question your criteria...but... really???

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

A question for those who know more about this than I do (which is probably everyone) - Can AI invent things?

Anyway, isn’t it strange, no ‘weird,’ that Richard appears unwilling or incapable of responding to points. Just check out his last few posts. List after list after list. Nothing more. Often with strange new wordings in an attempt to make things ‘fit.’ Then more and more inventions. Not willing to explain the existing inventions Richard is busy creating and posting new ones. Look at the content of his last post.


”He lived rough in Spitalfields.” - Richard old chap, could you provide a smidgeon of evidence for this please?

”Thompson shifted from Limehouse refuges into Spitalfields at the precise moment the murders peaked.” - Any danger of just the merest scintilla of evidence for this claim please Rich. Awfully grateful.

“His rejection by the prostitute “Ann”“ - Ann was the name of De Quincey’s prostitute. Has AI malfunctioned?

”He carried surgical instruments while homeless.” - We know that he said that he once shaved with a scalpel but clearly I missed the part about him carrying surgical instruments. Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out the location of the evidence for this please?

”Now, you want to exclude him because he was a laudanum addict.” - Don’t worry Richard. His position hasn’t changed on the list and I never mentioned ‘excluding’ him or any suspect. Maybe another malfunction?

“Saying “drug use weakens candidacy” ignores that in Thompson’s case, withdrawal heightened instability and drive.“ - I even have to request evidence for something that you alleged that I’ve said. Could you point out for the boys and girls where I said “drug use weakens candidacy”? How could any human being possibly see a quote that never existed?

“Pretending that being institutionalised at the Priory as the murders stop is coincidence.“ - What is your considered opinion Richard of someone who apparently doesn’t know that Thompson went into The Priory in February of 1889? Are you perhaps getting him mixed up with a different drug-addicted poet who was admitted to an entirely different Priory?

“The knives he carried.“ - It was surgical instruments earlier in the same post, now it’s knives. Perhaps you might consider adding a machete in your next post? Or a rifle perhaps?

“His presence in Spitalfields during the killings.“ - Sorry to repeat the point Rich but can we have a little touch of evidence for this please? Pretty please?


Now, Richard, as you are a ‘genuine’ researcher/author, I’m sure that you will do what all ‘genuine’ researcher/authors would always do. Express a willingness to engage with those who might have bought your book and have genuine questions to ask about the posts that you have repeatedly made (with the emphasis on ‘repeated’ of course. I mean, you wouldn’t want to appear evasive by constant refusing to respond would you? Of course you wouldn’t. You know as well as anyone that evidence is required and that readers can’t be expected to uncritically accept anything and everything an author says. So, that said, I’m certain that I, and anyone else that happens to be reading, can expect some very specific, point-by-point answers from you with the requested evidence (including sources, page numbers etc)

To quote Sir John Gielgud in Arthur: “I await your next syllable with great eagerness.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

Shall we compare Thompson to Cutbush. Just for jolly.


Thompson: History of violence / against women: Thompson’s published poetry is mystical. His unpublished manuscripts are violent, obsessive, and specifically about cutting women and tearing out wombs. That isn’t generic bad temper — that’s a written rehearsal of the very mutilations seen in Whitechapel.

Cutbush: Actual physical violence as opposed to some poetry. Stabbed two women with a knife, attacked a servant and held a knife to her throat, tried to cut his mother’s throat.

1-0 Cutbush

Thompson: Association with “unfortunates”: He lived rough in Spitalfields this is untrue, among prostitutes, relying on them for food and shelter. He had a failed love affair with a Whitechapel prostitute which left him obsessed and broken this comment is an utter disgrace; she was a West End prostitute living in Chelsea.. This isn’t distant contact — it is direct immersion.

Cutbush: Blamed a prostitute for giving him syphilis. Attacked a prostitute and according to his own aunt he brutally raped her.

2-0 Cutbush

Thompson: Geographical proximity: In 1888 Thompson shifted from Limehouse invention refuges into Spitalfields invention at the precise moment the murders peaked. His lodgings and his haunts map exactly onto the Ripper’s hunting ground. invention

Cutbush: Provably had more than one job in Whitechapel itself.

3-0 Cutbush

Thompson: Motive / grievance toward women: His rejection by the prostitute “Ann” is attested by multiple sources but not one source mentions Thompson being angry about her leaving him. His later writing returns to themes of betrayal, punishment, and sanctified violence against women.

Cutbush: We have actual written evidence that Cutbush blamed a prostitute for giving him syphilis and he first did this around a month before the murder of Nichols.

4-0 Cutbush

Means: He studied medicine under Dreschfeld, dissecting human cadavers. He carried surgical instruments untrue while homeless he mentioned that he once shaved with a scalpel. Few suspects had this level of precise anatomical training.

Cutbush: He constantly studied anatomy, spoke of little else.

Score Draw


Final Score - Cutbush 5 - Thompson 1

[Herlock Sholmes]

I see no reason to suspect that the Ripper took drugs. Since the victims drank and it seems likely that there's a connection between the area pubs and the murders, I think it likely that the Ripper drank. However, a lot of people drank, and there are probably suspects who drank without us knowing about it. SO I think it's fine to drop that criterion.

I think so Lewis. Cheers.

[Lewis C]

I’ve almost made up my mind to remove the drink/drugs criteria. We can list a huge number of serial killers who didn’t use either. I don’t think it gives an accurate picture.

I see no reason to suspect that the Ripper took drugs. Since the victims drank and it seems likely that there's a connection between the area pubs and the murders, I think it likely that the Ripper drank. However, a lot of people drank, and there are probably suspects who drank without us knowing about it. SO I think it's fine to drop that criterion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Having performed risk analysis in the Corporate Cyber World i find this interesting. My only caution would be that measurement and questions need to be well thought out and without bias to be beneficial. The hardest part is the measurement criteria agreement by stakeholders. You can always come up with more questions , for example⁹ Did the suspect live in the kill zone, where or perhaps age including witness testimony in more detail. Maybe its 50 or 100 top questions with 10 categories as an example. So what would say 0,1,2,3,4 ( 20% each) actually be?

This is not an easy task but well defined measurement criteria i found was always the key to getting a better risk profile. The other piece of this would be the gap analysis created by the task. If one suspect is a 0 is there a way to move it along and point to a research need? What is the gap? And I recognize here that some gaps may be insurmountable or impossible to fill.

Another example of the method would be relative to where the killer live. Would you add more weight to distance ? Suspect A lived x blocks away or inside the FBI profile perimeter?

I love the idea and method. Hope this is helpful. Happy to assist in diving further into the weeds. Getting the measurement criteria and values right is the hardest part. Then you can start asking all the right questions. Might be fun.

I don’t mind any suggestions at all Patrick, thanks. I’ve genuinely tried to do this as honestly as I can, and of course no list of this kind could be perfect even if it was done by an expert in such things, but if we can improve it without making it insanely complicated or massively time consuming I’m quite happy to make changes. I’ve tried not to make it too complex but it’s always difficult and people are always going to disagree on certain points (and it might be the case that they are right and I’m wrong)

A good example of one of the issues is the one that you mentioned “did the suspect live in the kill zone?” I don’t think that the killer had to be a local man but many do. Would we rate Mr X who lived 500 yards from Mitre Square higher that Mr Y who lived a mile away? Do we differentiate someone that lived in Whitechapel from someone that lived elsewhere but worked in Whitechapel, or used to work in Whitechapel or passed through Whitechapel twice a day on his way to work.

[Patrick Differ]

Having performed risk analysis in the Corporate Cyber World i find this interesting. My only caution would be that measurement and questions need to be well thought out and without bias to be beneficial. The hardest part is the measurement criteria agreement by stakeholders. You can always come up with more questions , for example⁹ Did the suspect live in the kill zone, where or perhaps age including witness testimony in more detail. Maybe its 50 or 100 top questions with 10 categories as an example. So what would say 0,1,2,3,4 ( 20% each) actually be?

This is not an easy task but well defined measurement criteria i found was always the key to getting a better risk profile. The other piece of this would be the gap analysis created by the task. If one suspect is a 0 is there a way to move it along and point to a research need? What is the gap? And I recognize here that some gaps may be insurmountable or impossible to fill.

Another example of the method would be relative to where the killer live. Would you add more weight to distance ? Suspect A lived x blocks away or inside the FBI profile perimeter?

I love the idea and method. Hope this is helpful. Happy to assist in diving further into the weeds. Getting the measurement criteria and values right is the hardest part. Then you can start asking all the right questions. Might be fun.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thompson's training was virtually non-existent.

He scived off his classes and lost himself in the library more often than not.

His father gave him a lot of money for his practicing on Cadavers, yet he instead spent all his father's money on his drug addiction.

Thompson was seen as an exemplary writer, yet his prose was often driven by his somewhat diminished mental state.

Akin to a pot-head smoking too much weed, and writing any old tosh using random clever words and inexplicable phrasing that in reality meant very little to anyone except Thompson himself.

Over elaborate poems that are often non-sensical.

Coming from a drug addict, it's clear that Thompson was high as a kite when he was writing his so called masterpieces.

He was also physically weak and lacked the physical strength and prowess required by a killer who could pretty much decapitate with one cut.

That wasn't Thompson

He did fantasise about violence towards women, but there's no evidence he was ever violent to anyone...except the self-deprecation of himself by taking copious amount of drugs.

The idea that he was some kind of master surgeon is misleading, as he never completed any formal training, and any money he did get to help in his studies, was p***ed up the wall on drugs.


Thompson didn't have the fundermental requirements of a clinical psychopath.

Aside from being an oddball who wrote a lot of violent claptrap, his candidacy as the Ripper is about as strong as a one-dunk teabag job.

Incidentally, Thompson always wore his distinctive worn brown Ulster coat and carried a worn brown satchel...

Which perfectly matches the description of...

Erm...

The description of....

Er...


Nope, I give up.

Although Richard feared that I was doing this to lower Thompson down the list (unlike him I don’t manipulate the evidence) I have just found that only two suspects have changed positions after this change and neither are Thompson.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Version 19

(A) Age/physical health > 2 = no issue/1 = issues creating doubt.
(B) Access to murder sites > 2 = no issues/ 1 = within reasonable travel (train for e.g./ 0 = presence unproven/doubt
(C) Violence > 4 = murder of a woman with a knife/ 3 = murder of a woman (including the use of a knife) or murder with another weapon/ 2 = wounding a woman with a knife/ 1 = threatening a woman with a knife or physical violence using a weapon/ 0 = no violence (with knife or otherwise) 2 = violence with a knife/1 = violence without a knife/0 = no known violence.
(D) Mental health issues > 2 = serious/violent/sexual/1 = other/0 = none known.
(E) Police interest > 2 = at the time (without proven alibi)/1 = later (within 10 yrs and without exoneration)/0 = none known, not serious or exonerated.
(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


--- (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) ---

13 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 1 : Cutbush, Thomas Hayne

12 = 2 - 2 - 3 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 : Kelly, James

10 = 2 - 2 - 3 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 : Bury, William Henry

10 = 2 - 0 - 4 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 0 : Deeming, Frederick Bailey

09 = 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 : Grainger, William Grant

09 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 1 : Puckridge, Oswald

08 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Hyams, Hyam

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

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

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

08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Cohen, David

07 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Lechmere, George Capel Scudamore

07 = 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 2 - 1 : Tumblety, Francis

07 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 2 - 0 : Smith, G. Wentworth Bell

06 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Kidney, Michael

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

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

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

06 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Druitt, Montague John

06 = 2 - 0 - 4 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Carl Feigenbaum

06 = 2 - 0 - 3 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Hendrik De Jong

06 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Le Grand, Charles

05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Barnett, Joseph

05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 : Sutton, Henry Gawen

05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Buchan, Edward

05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 : Williams, Dr. John

05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Craig, Francis Spurzheim

04 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 : Stephenson, Robert Donston (or Roslyn D'Onston)

04 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Maybrick, James

04 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Stephen, James Kenneth

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Bachert, Albert

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Cross, Charles (Charles Allen Lechmere)

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Hardiman, James

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Hutchinson, George

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Mann, Robert

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Maybrick, Michael

04 = 1 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 : Gull, Sir William Withey

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



Changes Made


I have removed the drug/alcohol criteria as I feel that it isn’t of value and might be misleading. There are a large number of serial killers that don’t have these issues. I’d point out that by removing this category only 2 suspects have changed position in the list - GCS Lechmere and RD Stephenson.




I also made some changes to Cutbush after re-reading Bullock’s book - the violence criteria changed a while ago and I hadn’t altered Cutbush accordingly - For (E) Cutbush certainly was suspected at the time, Inspector Race was convinced of his guilt - For (F) Hatred of prostitutes has to be a 2. Cutbush blamed a prostitute for giving him syphilis and, according to his aunt, he had brutally raped a prostitute at some point - He also gets a point for anatomical knowledge. He was obsessed by anatomy and medical issues in general, he had books on surgery and anatomy and obsessively drew anatomical drawings.