Rating The Suspects.

[The Rookie Detective]

It’s not important Trevor. We’re looking at the case unofficially so we are free to use our own terminology.

Good points all around, Herlock. And even from an official perspective the terms suspect and person of interest are not hard and fast and rigidly defined. And a person of interest can become a suspect at some point.

c.d.

Totally agree, well said.

[c.d.]

It’s not important Trevor. We’re looking at the case unofficially so we are free to use our own terminology.

Good points all around, Herlock. And even from an official perspective the terms suspect and person of interest are not hard and fast and rigidly defined. And a person of interest can become a suspect at some point.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I wish posters would stop using the term "suspect" when 99% of the names mentioned from the long list of suspects are nothing more than "persons of interest"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It’s not important Trevor. We’re looking at the case unofficially so we are free to use our own terminology. As I’ve said before, it would be different for police in an ongoing investigation. They would have to narrow down and prioritise and any errors made by them could have far-reaching consequences. This isn’t the case for us. No one is going to escape justice, no further victims might suffer. Ripperology is separate from an actual police investigation. In Ripperology a suspect is anyone that has been suspected at any time by anyone. As long as we all know that’s the case it causes no issues. We could call them ‘sheep’ and it wouldn’t matter as long as we all know what we mean.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi George,

That’s a tricky one. It’s a fair point of course but I would be uncomfortable just calling his actions as “violence with a knife,” a category which could include minor wounding. I’m tempted to change the criteria “murder including knife use?”When you think about it I could also add “post mortem” mutilation as a category which is a rarity and only Bury would score.

I wish posters would stop using the term "suspect" when 99% of the names mentioned from the long list of suspects are nothing more than "persons of interest"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

That’s a tricky one. It’s a fair point of course but I would be uncomfortable just calling his actions as “violence with a knife,” a category which could include minor wounding. I’m tempted to change the criteria “murder including knife use?”When you think about it I could also add “post mortem” mutilation as a category which is a rarity and only Bury would score.

Hi Herlock,

It is a dilemma and I fully appreciate your reservation. However, I beg your indulgence on some considerations.

The C5 + Mckenzie +Coles all had the signature of the throat cut. There was evidence of strangulation (as opposed to garrotting ) but possibly only to induce unconsciousness and to lower the blood pressure, and not as a method to produce their death. I believe that every doctor attributed the actual cause of death to be the throat cut. The mutilations varied from none, Stride and Coles, to Kelly, in various gradations of severity, with Ellen Bury rating at the lower end of severity. Bury initially told police that his wife had suicided by hanging herself, but suicide by cutting her own throat would have been as, if not more, believable.

I take your point that a category of post mortem mutilation would be populated by a single representative, but that same representative fails to accommodate the basic requirement of the throat cut as the means of actually killing the victim. The throat cut was the means of producing a body for the ultimate purpose of dissection. The degree of dissection was dependant on interruption and perceived time available. Bury had even more time available than the killer of Kelly, but the mutilations were minimal.
As you suggest...a tricky question, with the decision within your purview.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks. I recommend dropping Thompson from a 2 to a 1 on physical condition.

Good point Fiver. He was described in mid-May of 1888 as “…a waif of a man…more ragged and unkempt than the average beggar, with no shirt beneath his coat and bare feet in broken shoes.” This was a guy sleeping rough apart from his time in Chelsea in that period. Malnourished and addicted to drugs. In the early part of the year he bought a large dose of laudanum so that he could commit suicide.

Yes, we have to be fair. Thompson’s health doesn’t preclude him but it adds a layer of doubt.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I notice that you are still rating Bury as a 3 in category "C". As I pointed out in a previous post, as far as is known, Bury never killed anyone with a knife. He garrotted his wife and any injuries inflicted on her with a knife were post mortem.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

That’s a tricky one. It’s a fair point of course but I would be uncomfortable just calling his actions as “violence with a knife,” a category which could include minor wounding. I’m tempted to change the criteria “murder including knife use?”When you think about it I could also add “post mortem” mutilation as a category which is a rarity and only Bury would score.

[GBinOz]

Hi Herlock,

I notice that you are still rating Bury as a 3 in category "C". As I pointed out in a previous post, as far as is known, Bury never killed anyone with a knife. He garrotted his wife and any injuries inflicted on her with a knife were post mortem.

Cheers, George

[Fiver]

Version 17

In addition, I’ve awarded another point to Francis Thompson. This has nothing to do with recent discussions with Richard. I just noticed that for some unknown reason I hadn’t awarded him the point for drug use. This was an oversight on my part and occurred way before Richard started posting again.

Thanks. I recommend dropping Thompson from a 2 to a 1 on physical condition.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Version 17


--- (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
11 = 2 - 1 - 4 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 0 : Deeming, Frederick Bailey
10 = 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 : Grainger, William Grant
10 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Puckridge, Oswald
09 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Cutbush, Thomas Hayne
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 - 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 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Pizer, John (Leather Apron)
08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Cohen, David
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 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Kidney, Michael
07 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 1 : Thompson, Francis
06 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Chapman, George (Severin Antonowicz Kłosowski)
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
05 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Maybrick, James
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 - 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

Changes

This may be controversial but I’ve awarded a point to Oswald Puckridge for having a link to prostitutes. This is my reasoning..

It appears certain that Oswald Puckridge was the suspect mentioned by Major Henry Smith. The matches can’t be coincidence:

Medical student

In an asylum (Smith said that he told Warren about this man just after September 8th and Puckridge had been released from an asylum a month previously.)

Smith’s suspect was expected to be found, and was indeed found in Rupert Street and Puckridge lived in Rupert Street.


This has to be Smith’s man. So following on from this Smith said that this man had spent all of his time with women of loose character and that he had ‘bilked prostitutes by using polished farthings.’ When this man was arrested he had polished farthings on him.

Therefore, this gives us a connection between Puckridge and prostitutes.

…

In addition, I’ve awarded another point to Francis Thompson. This has nothing to do with recent discussions with Richard. I just noticed that for some unknown reason I hadn’t awarded him the point for drug use. This was an oversight on my part and occurred way before Richard started posting again.

[Fiver]

The pattern here is clear: instead of engaging with the documented record, you keep reaching for absolute denials (“no asylum,” “no coin link,” “no Rupert Street”).

Richard

Here is your "evidence".

The Police Suspect Profile

In his memoir From Constable to Commissioner (1910), Major Henry Smith recalled the hunt for the Ripper. He noted that the police had focused on a suspect who possessed five extremely unusual characteristics:
1. He had studied medicine extensively.
2. He had a history of asylum confinement.
3. He associated with prostitutes.
4. He had committed coin fraud.
5. He had resided in the Haymarket district, specifically on Rupert Street.

Here is what Smith actually said.

"After the second crime, I sent word to Sir Charles Warren that I had discovered a man very likely to be the man wanted. He certainly had all the qualifications requisite. He had been a medical student; he had been in a lunatic asylum; he spent all his time with women whom he bilked by giving them polished farthings instead of sovereigns, two of these farthings having been found in the pocket of the murdered woman.

Sir Charles failed to find him. I thought he was likely to be in Rupert Street, Haymarket. I sent up two men, and there he was; but, polished farthings and all, he proved an alibi without the shadow of a doubt.” - [Sir Henry Smith, From Constable to Commissioner, p. 147]

1. "He had been a medical student". Smith also said "I visited every butcher's shop in the city." Clearly, Smith did not believe the Ripper must have had medical training, let alone "had studied medicine extensively".

* Thompson had been a medical student.
* Puckridge was believed to have been a medical student.

2. "He had been in a lunatic asylum". This was not Smith saying the Ripper must have been in an asylum, merely that his suspect had been in one.

* Thompson had not been in an asylum.
* Puckridge had been in an asylum.

3. "He spent all his time with women of loose character".

* This does not match what is known of Thompson.
* We don't know yf this matches Puckridge.

4. "Whom he bilked by giving them polished farthings instead of sovereigns".

* There is no example of Thompson doing this.
* We don't know of this matches Puckridge.

5. "I thought he was likely to be in Rupert Street, Haymarket." Smith also said "Did he live close to the scene of the action? or did he, after committing a murder, make his way to lighting speed to some retreat in the suburbs?" Smith's words show he did not believe that the Ripper must have lived on Rupert Street, that was just the location of a specific suspect who "proved an alibi without the shadow of a doubt".

* There is no record of Thompson living on Rupert Street.
* Puckridge lived in Rupert Street.

Thompson matches on point 1, does not match point 2 or 4, and we don't have the information to answer points 3 or 5.
Puckridge matches points 1, 2, and 5; and we don't have the information to answer points 3 or 4.

Smith's suspect who "proved an alibi without the shadow of a doubt" was probably Oswald Puckridge and clearly was not Francis Thompson. Which is good for your theory.

* If Thompson was Smith's first suspect, then Thompson was innocent.
* If Thompson was not Smith's first suspect, then Thompson might be the Ripper.

I say first, because having proven the Rupert Street man was not the Ripper, Smith continued to follow up other leads.

"After the meeting in the West-End square, I had a short note from my short friend. "Now," he said, " I know I can trust you, I'll be at the Old Jewry as soon as I can." I had also a letter from the missioner, in which he told me that the man I had met had "some very startling revelations to make." I waited patiently for the promised visit, and confidently for a further communication from the missioner. The man never came, nor was I able to get the missioner's handwriting identified. Had either of them asked for money, I would have sent it willingly, believing, as I did, that at last I was on the right scent ; but I never had any such application from either."

"At the exit leading direct to Goulston Street, opposite the corner where the murder was committed, there was a club, the members of which were nearly all foreigners. One, a sort of hybrid German, was leaving the club-he was unable to fix the hour-when he noticed a man and woman standing close together. The woman had her hand resting on the man's chest. It was bright moonlight, almost as light as day, and he saw them distinctly. This was, without doubt, the murderer and his victim. The inquiries I made at Berners Street, the evidence of the constable in whose beat the square was, and my own movements, of which I had kept careful notes, proved this conclusively. The description of the man given me by the German was as follows : Young, about the middle height, with a small fair moustache, dressed in something like navy serge, and with a deerstalker's cap - that is, a cap with a peak both fore and aft. I think the German spoke the truth, because I could not "lead" him in any way. "You will easily recognize him, then," I said. "Oh no!" he replied ; "I only had a short look at him." The German was a strange mixture, honest apparently, and intelligent also. He "had heard of some murders," he said, but they didn't seem to concern him."

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dear Herlock,

Just a line to say I keep seeing you clip the links that actually tie, and it makes me chuckle. I’ll try a new pen for you—red ink (ink, mind you, not blood)—so the points don’t smudge.

What are you talking about. I’ve ‘clipped’ nothing. I’m the only one going on what Smith actually and what is actually known about Thompson.

About the coins.

You keep shouting “no link” as if a phrase must read ‘polished farthings = Thompson’ in the same breath or it doesn’t count. Smith’s Rupert Street suspect is explicitly tagged with a coin-bilking trick; Thompson’s biography carries its own odd coin episode from his street years. No one says the anecdotes are identical; the point is convergence of an unusual motif around a man who otherwise matches the medical and geographic profile. You asked for sourcing on the “asylum note” re false coinage—fair ask. If that specific line can’t be documented to an archival page, I’ll drop that sub-point without blinking; the probability stack never relied on it. But don’t pretend the coin strand vanishes just because you insist on a single magic sentence.

You’re just making things up Richard. I’ve just read the Thompson biography. You keep jumping between things like “coin trick” to “coin episode” but neither match. You are supposed talking about Smith’s suspect being a match, to a mathematical certainty with Thompson. I asked you for evidence because you said there was evidence of Thompson doing some kind of coin trick in the ‘asylum records.’ As Thompson was never in an asylum I now know that you are just not being truthful. Smith specifically said that his suspect bilked prostitutes with polished farthings. What Thompson did was find two sovereigns in the street.

These two cannot be connected apart from that they mention a type of coin. There is no similarity. You are the only person that would think this.

About “asylum.”

You keep treating Victorian labels as if they were ICD codes. In practice, “lunatic asylum,” “private hospital,” “priory,” and “institutional care” were sloshed together in contemporary usage. Thompson’s uncle testified to a breakdown in the early 1880s; we have his late-1888 six-week institutionalization and then Storrington soon after. You can stomp your foot and say “never in an asylum,” but contemporaries didn’t police the doorplates the way you do. The fact pattern—documented breakdown + confinement under care—is the piece that matters against Smith’s trait list.

Nope. You are making things up. Thompson saw a Doctor because he was ill. He was sent to a hospital not an asylum. No one calls a normal hospital a lunatic asylum. You are the only person that would think this but I know that you don’t think this because no adult could think this. You are simply ducking and weaving. Francis Thompson was 100% never in a lunatic asylum but Smith’s suspect was.

About Rupert Street.

You keep saying “never, ever, ever lived in Rupert Street,” as if Smith’s line requires a tenancy agreement. His five-point note says seen on Rupert Street and operating out of the Haymarket grid. Thompson’s addresses cluster right there (Panton Street / Charing Cross postal, the Haymarket fringe). That’s the nexus. We both know City CID tailed Puckridge to Rupert Street and accepted an alibi for that window—fine. Two things can be true: Smith’s team chased one man that week and cleared him; the same five-trait schema still fits Thompson unusually well, without the alibi that retired Puckridge. That’s why the match retains probative weight.

Smith’s five point note doesn’t say “seen on Rupert Street.” Do you think that the rest of us can’t read Richard? Or that we don’t have Smith’s book? What he actually said was “I thought he was likely to be in Rupert Street, Haymarket.” Anyone could have ‘gone to Rupert Street’ at some point in their lives. Just because Thompson might have been in that rough vicinity at some brief point is not a match. You need a specific link to Rupert Street and there isn’t one for Thompson.

You keep breaking links by insisting they must be identical twins; I’m showing they’re fraternal—distinct, but unmistakably related. That’s how historical inference works when we’re not handed a signed confession.



Yours truly,

“Red Ink, not red hands”

—Richard

Only when you are trying to manipulate the outcome as you are.

[Richard Patterson]

You are making links that don’t exist.

Dear Herlock,

Just a line to say I keep seeing you clip the links that actually tie, and it makes me chuckle. I’ll try a new pen for you—red ink (ink, mind you, not blood)—so the points don’t smudge.

About the coins.

You keep shouting “no link” as if a phrase must read ‘polished farthings = Thompson’ in the same breath or it doesn’t count. Smith’s Rupert Street suspect is explicitly tagged with a coin-bilking trick; Thompson’s biography carries its own odd coin episode from his street years. No one says the anecdotes are identical; the point is convergence of an unusual motif around a man who otherwise matches the medical and geographic profile. You asked for sourcing on the “asylum note” re false coinage—fair ask. If that specific line can’t be documented to an archival page, I’ll drop that sub-point without blinking; the probability stack never relied on it. But don’t pretend the coin strand vanishes just because you insist on a single magic sentence.

About “asylum.”

You keep treating Victorian labels as if they were ICD codes. In practice, “lunatic asylum,” “private hospital,” “priory,” and “institutional care” were sloshed together in contemporary usage. Thompson’s uncle testified to a breakdown in the early 1880s; we have his late-1888 six-week institutionalization and then Storrington soon after. You can stomp your foot and say “never in an asylum,” but contemporaries didn’t police the doorplates the way you do. The fact pattern—documented breakdown + confinement under care—is the piece that matters against Smith’s trait list.

About Rupert Street.

You keep saying “never, ever, ever lived in Rupert Street,” as if Smith’s line requires a tenancy agreement. His five-point note says seen on Rupert Street and operating out of the Haymarket grid. Thompson’s addresses cluster right there (Panton Street / Charing Cross postal, the Haymarket fringe). That’s the nexus. We both know City CID tailed Puckridge to Rupert Street and accepted an alibi for that window—fine. Two things can be true: Smith’s team chased one man that week and cleared him; the same five-trait schema still fits Thompson unusually well, without the alibi that retired Puckridge. That’s why the match retains probative weight.

You keep breaking links by insisting they must be identical twins; I’m showing they’re fraternal—distinct, but unmistakably related. That’s how historical inference works when we’re not handed a signed confession.

Yours truly,

“Red Ink, not red hands”

—Richard

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock,

Once again you’re trying to win points by caricature rather than by evidence. Let me address your latest flurry:

1. Coins.

You keep insisting that unless the word “farthings” and “sovereigns” appear in the same sentence, there is no link. But Smith’s memoir gives a Rupert Street suspect associated with coin fraud (“polished farthings”), and Thompson’s biography records his own coin episode. Both are unusual enough details to merit comparison. That isn’t “making things up” — it’s weighing convergences. As for your claim that I “invented” the asylum note about false coinage, you may want to revisit the archival material before dismissing so readily. You’ll find I don’t throw in phrases without a trail.

When you make a claim, the onus is on you to provide the proof. Could you provide it please? I’ve already said that naturally I’ll accept the point if I see the proof.

2. Asylum.

Here’s where your black-and-white thinking fails you. In the 1880s, “lunatic asylum” could mean a range of institutions, from county asylums to private religious retreats. Thompson’s uncle, James, stated he had a breakdown in 1882 and was institutionalised at Storrington Priory. Owens’ records show his absence. Call it Priory, call it asylum, call it what you like — contemporaries used the words loosely and interchangeably. You can stamp your foot and insist “never in an asylum,” but the evidence of breakdown and confinement is there in the sources.

This is untrue. Everyone knows it. You are quite deliberately stretching the evidence beyond breaking point to make a fake point.

3. Rupert Street.

This is where your geography lets you down. Thompson gave Charing Cross as his postal address, lodged with the Meynells in Panton Street, and lived on the Haymarket fringe — literally steps from Rupert Street. To write that off because he had also lived with a woman in Chelsea earlier in the year is disingenuous. Suspects move. What matters is that when Smith spoke of Rupert Street, Thompson was demonstrably embedded in that neighbourhood. That is a fact, not a flourish.

I know all of that. I’ve mentioned those facts on another thread. Smith didn’t send a man to wander around the west end. He sent him SPECIFICALLY to Rupert Street. Thompson…hold on I’ll just try and be as clear as I can…..never, ever, ever, ever, ever, lived or stayed in Rupert Street. This is no more a link than if someone had said “the suspect lives in Berner Street,” and someone said “John Richardson, that’s a match, he lived in the area, it’s close enough.”

The pattern here is clear: instead of engaging with the documented record, you keep reaching for absolute denials (“no asylum,” “no coin link,” “no Rupert Street”). That may make you feel like the last man standing, but it doesn’t impress anyone who has actually opened Walsh, Boardman, or Smith.

Richard

You are making links that don’t exist.

[Richard Patterson]

There’s only one person here sticking to evidence and it’s certainly not you.

Herlock,

Once again you’re trying to win points by caricature rather than by evidence. Let me address your latest flurry:

1. Coins.

You keep insisting that unless the word “farthings” and “sovereigns” appear in the same sentence, there is no link. But Smith’s memoir gives a Rupert Street suspect associated with coin fraud (“polished farthings”), and Thompson’s biography records his own coin episode. Both are unusual enough details to merit comparison. That isn’t “making things up” — it’s weighing convergences. As for your claim that I “invented” the asylum note about false coinage, you may want to revisit the archival material before dismissing so readily. You’ll find I don’t throw in phrases without a trail.

2. Asylum.

Here’s where your black-and-white thinking fails you. In the 1880s, “lunatic asylum” could mean a range of institutions, from county asylums to private religious retreats. Thompson’s uncle, James, stated he had a breakdown in 1882 and was institutionalised at Storrington Priory. Owens’ records show his absence. Call it Priory, call it asylum, call it what you like — contemporaries used the words loosely and interchangeably. You can stamp your foot and insist “never in an asylum,” but the evidence of breakdown and confinement is there in the sources.

3. Rupert Street.

This is where your geography lets you down. Thompson gave Charing Cross as his postal address, lodged with the Meynells in Panton Street, and lived on the Haymarket fringe — literally steps from Rupert Street. To write that off because he had also lived with a woman in Chelsea earlier in the year is disingenuous. Suspects move. What matters is that when Smith spoke of Rupert Street, Thompson was demonstrably embedded in that neighbourhood. That is a fact, not a flourish.

The pattern here is clear: instead of engaging with the documented record, you keep reaching for absolute denials (“no asylum,” “no coin link,” “no Rupert Street”). That may make you feel like the last man standing, but it doesn’t impress anyone who has actually opened Walsh, Boardman, or Smith.

Richard