Rating The Suspects.

[The Rookie Detective]

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."

[GBinOz]

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

[Lewis C]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[GBinOz]

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[Lewis C]

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.

[Abby Normal]

Back to one Pizer…


--- (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

O8 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 1 : Thompson, Francis

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 - 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

06 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Pizer, John (Leather Apron)

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

thanks herlock!

for me, if the person cant even be placed in the country, let alone london and or they werent police suspects/persons of interest and or they have zero connection to the case they wouldnt make my list. so gone would be:

Deeming
hyams
gcs lechmere
smith
cohen
sutton
buchan
williams
craig
stephen
maybricks
gull
sickert

IMHO theyre non suspects. and most of these are absolutely ridiculous.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Back to one Pizer…


--- (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

O8 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 1 : Thompson, Francis

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 - 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

06 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Pizer, John (Leather Apron)

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

I just noticed…



--- (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 - 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

O8 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 1 : Thompson, Francis

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 - 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

06 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Pizer, John

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


I didn’t know that there were two Pizer’s? I haven’t a clue how that happened? And with different points? I’ll put it right tomorrow.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks Lewis and John

[John Wheat]

A suggestion for consideration.


Does anyone think that it’s worthwhile to award an extra point for any suspect who was ‘available’ for Tabram and Mackenzie? The jury is out on both but I just wanted everyone’s opinion as the idea came to me last night. I’ll give three options -

1. We award an extra point for any suspect in the list who was in London at the time that Tabram and Mackenzie were killed and any suspect that wasn’t gets a zero.
2. We award an extra 0.5 for each of the two victims.
3. We leave things as they are.

I’ll be guided by opinion on this.

Thanks

Hi Herlock

I think for simplicities sake you should stick to the C5. Otherwise where do you draw the line? Do you include the Pinchin Street Torso etc?

Cheers John

[Lewis C]

I believe that Tabram was a Ripper murder, but if it could be proven that she wasn't, it wouldn't affect my assessment of any suspect in the slightest. Can anyone name a Ripper suspect where you think the strength of the suspect is affected by whether or not Tabram was a Ripper murder? Is there any suspect that has an alibi for the Tabram murder who doesn't also have an alibi for at least one of the other C5 murders?

For that reason, I would leave Tabram out of it, but otherwise I like RD's suggestion. That is, do the color coating (or asterisk - looks to me like pretty much the same thing), but have just 2 categories: alibi for McKenzie or no alibi for McKenzie. I think that it's debatable whether having that alibi strengthens a suspect's status or weakens it. On one hand, if McKenzie was a Ripper murder, then suspects like Bury, Cohen, Druitt, and Tumblety couldn't have been the Ripper. On the other hand, if McKenzie wasn't a Ripper murder, then with those suspects we have an explanation for why the murders stopped. So the color coating or asterisk rather than awarding a point would take a neutral approach to McKenzie's Ripper victim status.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Could it be phrased as being divided into 2 distinct groups; either "Canonical 5" or "Canonical 5 plus" ?

And perhaps, instead of adding another scoring criteria, to instead incorporate and use a colour code for each individual on the list.

For example, those like...
Bury, Kosminski and Druitt that can't have murdered McKenzie, Pinchin Street, or Coles, could have their names in Red...
... while others like Kelly, Klosowski and Lechmere could have their names written in an alternative colour because they were all alive years after the autumn of 1888.

That would then give us all an immediate visual reference to those who essentially died before January 1889, and those who didn't.

That would then avoid adding a new criteria that is arguably too subjective and divisive to warrant giving additional points to.

In other words, a list of those who died between MJK and McKenzie; the "Canonical 5" group, compared with those who were alive at the time and could have murdered McKenzie and beyond, ergo, the "Canonical 5 plus" group.

Just a thought

Worth a thought.

Maybe even a simple ‘asterisk after the name’ system?

* Alibi for Tabram
** Alibi for Mackenzie
*** Alibi for Mackenzie and Tabram.

[The Rookie Detective]

A suggestion for consideration.


Does anyone think that it’s worthwhile to award an extra point for any suspect who was ‘available’ for Tabram and Mackenzie? The jury is out on both but I just wanted everyone’s opinion as the idea came to me last night. I’ll give three options -

1. We award an extra point for any suspect in the list who was in London at the time that Tabram and Mackenzie were killed and any suspect that wasn’t gets a zero.
2. We award an extra 0.5 for each of the two victims.
3. We leave things as they are.

I’ll be guided by opinion on this.

Thanks

Could it be phrased as being divided into 2 distinct groups; either "Canonical 5" or "Canonical 5 plus" ?

And perhaps, instead of adding another scoring criteria, to instead incorporate and use a colour code for each individual on the list.

For example, those like...
Bury, Kosminski and Druitt that can't have murdered McKenzie, Pinchin Street, or Coles, could have their names in Red...
... while others like Kelly, Klosowski and Lechmere could have their names written in an alternative colour because they were all alive years after the autumn of 1888.

That would then give us all an immediate visual reference to those who essentially died before January 1889, and those who didn't.

That would then avoid adding a new criteria that is arguably too subjective and divisive to warrant giving additional points to.

In other words, a list of those who died between MJK and McKenzie; the "Canonical 5" group, compared with those who were alive at the time and could have murdered McKenzie and beyond, ergo, the "Canonical 5 plus" group.

Just a thought