Rating The Suspects.

[jerryd]

Hello Jerry,

Thanks for the generous comments. It’s always good to get your input on any topic.

I’ve just checked Morley’s suspect book and he says that Forbes-Winslow agreed with Kebbell that Grainger had been a medical student. I don’t know how I missed this when compiling my list. Give me a day or so and I’ll come up with an excuse. I’ll certainly add the point on my next amendment.

Your point about the ID is an interesting one which I considered when checking on Grainger. Morley mentions the article in the Pall Mall Gazette of May 7th 1895 but it’s a pity that there’s no detail as to who the witness was because, as you said, this kind of ID should result in an extra point at least. Because of the lack of detail (and the time gap that you mentioned) I decided against adding a point in some way but I’d be happy to hear thoughts on this.

…

One thing that I did notice in Morley’s book that has had me scratching my head Jerry/anyone. If Grainger was arrested by PC Frazer 352H on the 16th February 1895 how could the story of the arrest have appeared in the Australian newspaper the Port Phillip Herald on the 12th February 1895. Am I missing something? I must be.

Thanks Herlock.

The attack happened the early morning hours of February 10th and Grainger appeared at Worship Street on Monday the 11th. It sounds like an error in reporting the correct date of the arrest?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock,

I wanted to commend you for a fine job conducting this thread. I, personally, think you have been very fair in all decisions to add, delete, amend etc. all the criteria. Thank you for your efforts!

Regarding one of the suspects, William Grant Grainger. I wanted to point out two criteria that will be accepted by some and rejected by others but may be worth some debate in whether to add these two things to the mix. And to preface this I will say, a lot of what we know about Grainger comes from the mouth of his solicitor, but from what I understand his solicitor, George Kebbell, was a very credible man.

1) George Kebbell stated that his client, William Grainger, was trained as a medical man. (Currently we have Grainger as a zero in that category.)
2) Grainger was identified by a witness to be the man seen with a Ripper victim shortly before she was murdered. (I think this should hold a lot of weight, however, there was time between the ID and the murder which takes away some weight also. Misidentification after a period of time for example) Do we add IDed as the perpetrator as a category?

jerryd

Hello Jerry,

Thanks for the generous comments. It’s always good to get your input on any topic.

I’ve just checked Morley’s suspect book and he says that Forbes-Winslow agreed with Kebbell that Grainger had been a medical student. I don’t know how I missed this when compiling my list. Give me a day or so and I’ll come up with an excuse. I’ll certainly add the point on my next amendment.

Your point about the ID is an interesting one which I considered when checking on Grainger. Morley mentions the article in the Pall Mall Gazette of May 7th 1895 but it’s a pity that there’s no detail as to who the witness was because, as you said, this kind of ID should result in an extra point at least. Because of the lack of detail (and the time gap that you mentioned) I decided against adding a point in some way but I’d be happy to hear thoughts on this.

…

One thing that I did notice in Morley’s book that has had me scratching my head Jerry/anyone. If Grainger was arrested by PC Frazer 352H on the 16th February 1895 how could the story of the arrest have appeared in the Australian newspaper the Port Phillip Herald on the 12th February 1895. Am I missing something? I must be.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks for the credit, Herlock. I do want to repeat that I wasn't advocating any of the listed suspects, but only intended to plug UNLIKELY suspects into your rating system for comparison purposes. I chose the particular ones mainly based on availability of information either at the Casebook or Wikipedia and even with that, I was left with several blanks that prevent any real conclusions.

Not surprisingly, Kidney rates high, but only he can only by connected with the Stride Murder. But that's the problem with virtually ALL of the Suspects, isn't it? Even if a suspect can be connected to one murder (or victim in general), no other connection can be found (other than probably being in the West End during the period). I wouldn't be surprised if Jack came into the Police Radar at some point, but probably late in the search, when the concept of JTR was established and he couldn't be connected with more than the murder that they caught him in the area of. (And of course, that doesn't mean that the record would have survived for us to peruse.)

The only one that I would argue to be added to your listing is Ostrog, since he was apparently suspected at some point and should be included just to be eliminated.

Cheers CF. I’ll add Ostrog with the next amendment.

[jerryd]

Herlock,

I wanted to commend you for a fine job conducting this thread. I, personally, think you have been very fair in all decisions to add, delete, amend etc. all the criteria. Thank you for your efforts!

Regarding one of the suspects, William Grant Grainger. I wanted to point out two criteria that will be accepted by some and rejected by others but may be worth some debate in whether to add these two things to the mix. And to preface this I will say, a lot of what we know about Grainger comes from the mouth of his solicitor, but from what I understand his solicitor, George Kebbell, was a very credible man.

1) George Kebbell stated that his client, William Grainger, was trained as a medical man. (Currently we have Grainger as a zero in that category.)
2) Grainger was identified by a witness to be the man seen with a Ripper victim shortly before she was murdered. (I think this should hold a lot of weight, however, there was time between the ID and the murder which takes away some weight also. Misidentification after a period of time for example) Do we add IDed as the perpetrator as a category?

jerryd

[The Rookie Detective]

I never said it wasn't okay to question the credibility of the C5. I question wether Stride was a Ripper victim. At the end of the day as I've alluded to if you're not going to go off of the C5 where do you draw the line. Some believe Jack committed all The Torso Murders. Some believe Jack never existed and that even all the C5 were murdered by different purpertrators. I myself try to take what I would term a balanced view eg the C5 maybe minus Stride but plus maybe Tabram.

Some excellent points John, well said.



RD

[C. F. Leon]

Amendment 8


Kelly > 2 - 2 - 3 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 = 13

Bury > 2 - 2 - 3 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 = 11

Cutbush > 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 = 9

Deeming > 2 - 1 - 4 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 0 - 0 = 9

Hyams > 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 = 9

Kosminski 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 8

Pizer > 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 = 8

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

GSC Lechmere > 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 -1 = 8

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

Tumblety > 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 = 7

Barnado > 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 = 7

G. Wentworth Bell Smith > 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 2 - 0 - 0 = 7

Cohen > 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 = 7

Kidney > 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 = 7

Thompson > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 = 6

Levy > 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 6

Druitt > 2 - 1 - 0 -1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 5

Barnett > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 = 5

Stephen > 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 -0 = 4

Stephenson > 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 = 5

Bachert > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Cross > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Hardiman > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Hutchinson > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Mann > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Maybrick > 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 = 4

Sickert > 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - = 3

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


Amendment Made

Michael Kidney added at the suggestion of C.F. Leon.

Thanks for the credit, Herlock. I do want to repeat that I wasn't advocating any of the listed suspects, but only intended to plug UNLIKELY suspects into your rating system for comparison purposes. I chose the particular ones mainly based on availability of information either at the Casebook or Wikipedia and even with that, I was left with several blanks that prevent any real conclusions.

Not surprisingly, Kidney rates high, but only he can only by connected with the Stride Murder. But that's the problem with virtually ALL of the Suspects, isn't it? Even if a suspect can be connected to one murder (or victim in general), no other connection can be found (other than probably being in the West End during the period). I wouldn't be surprised if Jack came into the Police Radar at some point, but probably late in the search, when the concept of JTR was established and he couldn't be connected with more than the murder that they caught him in the area of. (And of course, that doesn't mean that the record would have survived for us to peruse.)

The only one that I would argue to be added to your listing is Ostrog, since he was apparently suspected at some point and should be included just to be eliminated.

[John Wheat]

A "time gap" is not a strong enough argument to dismiss Mckenzie as a Ripper victim.

Ask yourself this...


IF Mckenzie was murdered BEFORE MJK, would she then be ACCEPTED as a Ripper victim?

We do her a great disservice by ruling her out just because we can't accept or even consider that the Ripper appeared to take a time out.


RD

I never said the time gap was the only reason to dismiss Mckenzie as a Ripper victim. If Mckenzie was a Ripper victim then why the lack of MJK style mutilations? Unless you are suggesting Jack knew Mckenzie well. A hypothetical suggestion but was Mckenzie's most recent partner ever checked out potentially as Jack? Or even as just Mckenzie's murderer? On balance for this exercise I still think it's best to stick to the C5. Also I think we are on very shaky ground to dismiss any suspect who wasn't alive when Mckenzie was murdered.

[John Wheat]

I see your point and I feel your fear, but its okay to question the credibility of the generic "C5"

The "C5" has IMO been arguably the greatest restrictive hindrance to the Ripper case as a whole.

It takes a lot to move the goalposts and I respect that many many Ripperologists make the choice to not allow themselves to look outside the C5 window and see what else is out there.


RD

I never said it wasn't okay to question the credibility of the C5. I question wether Stride was a Ripper victim. At the end of the day as I've alluded to if you're not going to go off of the C5 where do you draw the line. Some believe Jack committed all The Torso Murders. Some believe Jack never existed and that even all the C5 were murdered by different purpertrators. I myself try to take what I would term a balanced view eg the C5 maybe minus Stride but plus maybe Tabram.

[John Wheat]

Mckenzie is closer to be a Ripper victim than Stride, but the only reason Mckenzie is excluded is because it doesn't fit into the chronology of the bias MJK narrative of her having been the last Ripper victim.



RD

I'm undecided on Stride as a Ripper victim myself just for your information.

[Fiver]

Mckenzie is closer to be a Ripper victim than Stride, but the only reason Mckenzie is excluded is because it doesn't fit into the chronology of the bias MJK narrative of her having been the last Ripper victim.



RD

There are definite similarities between the Mackenzie murder and the C5. It seems probable that her killer was the Ripper or a copycat. Points in favor of a copycat are:

* The large timegap after the Kelly murder.
* The far lesser mutilations, without any indication the murderer was interrupted.
* The body was found two feet from a lamp post. The Ripper liked more darkness than that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Although we can’t be certain whether Mackenzie was a victim or not I think that it has to be said that there appear to be real reasons for doubt. The obvious one is that we see an increase in the level of damage done by the killer from Nichols to Chapman to Eddowes to Kelly and then we get Mackenzie. Why?

Then we get this:

“Neither abdominal cavity opened – or muscular covering divided.”

It difficult to see why someone that had no problem ripping open four previous victims suddenly satisfies himself with this? It surely can’t be blamed on time because we would have to ask why the time wasted on making the scratches? So to me it smacks of someone that didn’t actually want to open up the abdomen which I can’t equate with the ripper.

I’m no medical man but this appears to me to be someone perhaps trying to make this look like a ripper murder. I’ve often wondered if the killer was someone that she knew? Someone who thought that if he made it appear to have been a ripper murder he would be out of the police spotlight if he had alibis for the other murders? Or maybe it was just a disturbed/drunken killer who was simply trying to copy the ripper?

Opinions will continue to differ on this. I’d be more inclined to view this more positively if it had occurred between Tabram and Nichols.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Tabram seems much more likely that Mackenzie, so if this is included, I don't think they should be weighted equally.

Something you might want to consider is the suspect's household. It would be much easier for someone living alone (single or separated) to hide the trophies that the Ripper took than someone with a large family.

Good point Fiver. Certainly worth considering.

[Fiver]

A question for all….

As we aren’t certain about Tabram and Mackenzie, what do we think about possibly adding a half a point for ‘available for Tabram and Mackenzie?’

Tabram seems much more likely that Mackenzie, so if this is included, I don't think they should be weighted equally.

Something you might want to consider is the suspect's household. It would be much easier for someone living alone (single or separated) to hide the trophies that the Ripper took than someone with a large family.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

What was the vote for Ellen Bury?

Cheers, George

Hi George,

She wasn’t listed as an option.

[The Rookie Detective]

I think Mckenzie is not a Ripper victim. Why the time gap?

A "time gap" is not a strong enough argument to dismiss Mckenzie as a Ripper victim.

Ask yourself this...


IF Mckenzie was murdered BEFORE MJK, would she then be ACCEPTED as a Ripper victim?

We do her a great disservice by ruling her out just because we can't accept or even consider that the Ripper appeared to take a time out.


RD