Rating The Suspects.

[JeffHamm]

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?’

Not out of the question. Perhaps then another category, like there is a known event that would explain the cessation of the murders (i.e. death, left the country, arrested for other crime, etc).

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think that's reasonable, since half a point isn't much, and a suspect need not check every box to be one of the strongest suspects. I think Mackenzie is the only one that's variable. I don't know of any suspect that has no alibi for any of the C5 murders, but has an alibi for the Tabram murder. I wouldn't include Coles though. There we're talking about someone who's unlikely to be a Ripper victim, and for someone who was available, the question of why he stopped seems more important than if he was available for Coles.

Until the research over on JtRForums it was assumed that Druitt had a cricket-based alibi for the Tabram murder (from Leighton) but it turns out that he hadn’t after all. It might actually have been Roger Palmer who found this out? Obviously being dead is a fairly good one for Mackenzie though.

[Lewis C]

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?’

I think that's reasonable, since half a point isn't much, and a suspect need not check every box to be one of the strongest suspects. I think Mackenzie is the only one that's variable. I don't know of any suspect that has no alibi for any of the C5 murders, but has an alibi for the Tabram murder. I wouldn't include Coles though. There we're talking about someone who's unlikely to be a Ripper victim, and for someone who was available, the question of why he stopped seems more important than if he was available for Coles.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I guess it doesn't hurt to add Kidney, but my impression, which may be wrong, is that some people suspect him of killing Stride, but no one or almost no one thinks that he killed any of the other Ripper victims.

I’d certainly agree with that Lewis.

[Lewis C]

No problem CF,

I made the decision to omit any female suspects because like 99.9% of people I’m convinced that the killer was a man.

Dr. Cream was provably in Joliet Prison, Illinois at the time of the murders (as an aside, I didn’t know until recently that it was used in the Blues Brothers as the prison that John Belushi was released from at the start of the movie) so I eliminate him.

Vincent Van Gogh was in Arles at the time of the murders and completely penniless so I eliminate him.

Michael Ostrog had been arrested in France on 26th July 1888 (under the name Grand Guidon) and held in custody until 18th November 1888 when he was convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment. He was released in November of 1890. So he can be eliminated.

Lewis Carroll was promoted in Richard Wallace’s book (it’s not worth buying if you ever think about getting it - his theory was that he committed the crimes with his friend Thomas Vere Bayne then announced them in anagrams in his books. I bought it when it first came out and still resent the money I paid) 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 1, I won’t bother adding him to the list but I certainly will if you want me to.

Michael Kidney scores quite well by my own assessment but I really don’t rate him as a suspect. Certainly a drunk who wasn’t averse to using his fists on a woman. 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 = 7

I’ll add Kidney on the next amendment.

I did do one for Peter Sutcliffe (before and after arrest as an illustrative point)


2 - 2 - 4 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 = 14 post arrest

2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 0 - 0 = 6 pre-arrest

I guess it doesn't hurt to add Kidney, but my impression, which may be wrong, is that some people suspect him of killing Stride, but no one or almost no one thinks that he killed any of the other Ripper victims.

[The Rookie Detective]

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?’

I think that is a good idea personally; controversial perhaps, but still worth extending the parameters.

It may be interesting to see and visualize a 'Canonical 5' version and then compare the data directly to an extended version.

I would include Mckenzie, Tabram and COLES too.


Worth a try at the very least




RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?’

[Herlock Sholmes]

I absolutely love the concept of this Herlock

The numbering system may be somewhat subjective; based on what we know about particular individuals, but the idea behind it is extraordinary and I think it very beneficial to see the data listed in this way.


Bravo to you Herlock



RD

Thanks RD.

[The Rookie Detective]

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.

I absolutely love the concept of this Herlock

The numbering system may be somewhat subjective; based on what we know about particular individuals, but the idea behind it is extraordinary and I think it very beneficial to see the data listed in this way.


Bravo to you Herlock



RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[jmenges]

And I don’t ask for nor care for commentary on my admonitions. If you have something you need to say you should contact me privately.

JM

[jmenges]

We’re starting to heavily enforce the following rule:

ANY post that does not further the topic of conversation could be considered trolling and deleted if it is done with a hostile tone/intent.

Hostile tone or intent includes name calling. It can count as two infractions.

Ask yourself before you post.

Thanks

JM

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ll make my final comment on this point.


The purpose of this thread was never, as I’ve said before, to provide a ‘best to worst’ list of ripper suspects. There would be no fair and accurate way of doing that because the likelihood of a suspect being guilty can only be down to our own individual and varying interpretations. So I thought that I’d make a list of the criteria that are regularly suggested and compare them to each giving a rough picture of the type of person that ‘might’ have been likeliest to have been the killer.

As this was the aim and because everything was out in the open I didn’t for a minute expect any accusations of bias. Druitt had no known issues with drink or drugs so he gets a zero. Cross had no record of violence so he gets a zero etc. Anyone could, and did, make suggestions and I then decided which to apply. One suggestion reduced Druitt’s score; something that I had absolutely no issue with doing as I never claimed that my list was infallible.

There has been a big issue made over my scoring on Gull’s age and physical health which I don’t really understand the reason for. The same criteria is applied to all across the board. The average age for serial killers tends to be 25-35 I believe. Of course this isn’t so hard and fast that we should consider eliminating anyone outside of that range but the further a suspect is from that range increases their unlikeliness. So whilst certainly not impossible, a man of 45 or 50 would be considered less likely. This goes for all suspects. So when we have a suspect that is double the upper age range then we can’t fail to consider this a serious issue. Individuals are quite free to disagree but it can’t be dismissed by anyone. If we looked at any unsolved series of murders any suspect who was 71 at the time would be considered to be on the extremest edge of unlikeliness. If that wasn’t the case then how old would we have to go before we considered them to have been ‘probably too old’? 75, 80, 85? There has to be a point where age counts against a suspect and few would argue against 60. William Gull was 71 at the time of the murders therefore this cannot fail to make him unlikely on that particular criteria. A score of zero was absolutely unavoidable. Likewise we couldn’t fail to conclude that on the basis of a history of violence Kelly and Bury make likelier suspects than Druitt or Cross (to name but two)

Then we have had issues with Gull’s stroke(s). Different obituary’s give slightly differing pictures so we take an overall view. I still strongly suggest that Acland would be the most accurate source as he was not only a doctor but he was Gull’s son-in-law and would have been at the centre of events with intimate family knowledge. Gull had his first stroke in Scotland in October of 1887 so 10 months before Nichols. He appeared to improve in that he could walk and talk and continue a fairly normal life but we have to accept that Acland said that “…he never wholly recovered.” So it wasn’t a full recovery and it certainly resulted in him retiring from actual practice so we can say that he felt unable to perform his job. It’s worth remembering of course that his wasn’t a physical job and he wasn’t a surgeon requiring a steady hand. The Ditionary of National Biography (written by a colleague of Gull’s at Guy’s) said:

“In the autumn of 1887 he was attacked with paralysis, which compelled him to retire from practice; a third attack caused his death on 29 Jan. 1890”

We don’t know know exactly what happened to Gull as far as his health went between his first stroke and his death but clearly he wasn’t in particularly good health. But health aside, his age justifies a score of zero on that particular criteria.

Looking again at Druitt I can see nothing that requires changing. In fact I think that I’ve been too harsh by awarding him only a 1 for location. I originally gave him two but thought that I’d reduce it due to the travel required for the Nichols murder. I did this because I was wary of being accused of bias. So I’ll make this clear - I firmly believe that Druitt should get a 2 on location but I’ll leave it at 1.00. I’ll also add that anyone can read back through this thread and they will see that I have never claimed that Gull had strokes during the period of the murders despite the accusation.

This exercise was done with an absolute lack of bias. That said, there is now no reason for further comment on Gull or Druitt.

[FISHY1118]

That is not an accurate summary.

Some doctors thought that the Ripper had a lot of anatomical knowledge. Some doctors thought the Ripper had some anatomical anatomical knowledge, but not enough to be a doctor. Some doctors thought the Ripper had no anatomical knowledge at all.

I beg to differ , the inquest testimony says otherwise . But at least we can disagree .

[FISHY1118]

And there we are again. I haven’t said one single offensive thing in this thread. Not one. But there you are using the same tactic that you used in the Richardson thread. Stick to the topic Fishy.

You made a point about Sickert….i changed it accordingly. How is that being unfair?

Great, you added to the Sickert score which i acknowleged, move on . I didnt say you ''Said'' anything offensive i said you become ''Offensive''. Now do you see how you used the arguement to deny the ''3 strokes gull had'' ripper quote ? ?