Rating The Suspects.

[FISHY1118]

You can’t prove it because it didn’t happen. You made it up.

You know what you said and the context you said it in . Will we be moving on from this nonsense anytime soon or are we going to play word games all night long ?

[FISHY1118]

Everyone who has contributed to this thread have made reasonable, unbiased contributions. I have had no issue with any of them Fishy. I’ve made changes on advice including one that reduced Druitt and one that increased Sickert. The table has been done with scrupulous fairness. Only two people disagree. You, because it’s your suspect and because you have a bit of an obsession with Druitt and The Baron who, all of a sudden has miraculously transformed himself into Gull defender and has continued his issue with me which causes him to pipe up now and again to make some irrelevant Druitt-related comment. If you two would simply post on the topic and not form your opinion as to whether I’m involved or not we could discuss the case without ill feeling.

I contributed Herlock, and you responded in the way in which i told you that you would . I wont go over all it again, except to say you have a problem with my opinions when there based on evidence that allows me to interpret them it in such a way that makes my point. Every thread or topic weve been on is the same ,it never changes .

When you stop ridiculing my post ,simply because you dont like the way i use and form opinions based on the evidence them maybe things will change .

[FISHY1118]

It’s in black and white. I’m happy to leave it. I doubt that you will though.

As long as you can agree with #217 of course i can .

[FISHY1118]

When you’re looking at things like this you have to take into account who said them (to assess their reliability and to understand who would be in a better position to know something) and how many different accounts there are. So for example, if 10 witnesses said that Mr X had light brown hair and 1 witness said that Mr X had black hair, the likelihood would be that the majority were correct.

You have taken one account and given it the seal of approval because it suits your narrative, whereas I have looked at a few. Then, and this is the most important part, who was in the best position to know about Gull’s health intimately and from personal experience. a) someone writing a generic short biography of a public figure, or b) the son-in-law and colleague of that person…a person who was also a Doctor and would have actually seen Gull in the flesh and spent time with him. Someone who would have been in regular contact getting updates on his health for his concerned wife?

Surely you can’t dispute that Theodore Dyke-Acland is overwhelmingly the best person to have given a fair and accurate (from a Doctor) summary of Gull’s illness? So what did Acland say?

“It was during his holiday in Scotland amid the scenes so congenial to him, that in October, 1887, he was struck down by paralysis, from which he never wholly recovered. In a few weeks he was moved to London. The end did not come until January, 1890, when a fresh and acute illness brought to a rapid close the strong life here too feebly portrayed.”

His obituary in The Times also stated: “ he never sufficiently recovered to resume his practice.”

You are quite free to pick the one that you prefer Fishy but I’ll go with Acland. Gull never fully recovered. Further evidence for this is that he stopped seeing patients (as confirmed in The Times). Hardly a strenuous job but Gull didn’t feel that he was up to it. Even his own words tell us that all was not well:

“one arrow has missed its mark but there are more in the quiver’. “ He knew that further attacks would occur after the initial one in Scotland.

Even Gull’s will recorded 2 more attacks.

Now…..I haven’t said that it was impossible for him to have been involved and I certainly haven’t claimed to be able to prove that he wasn’t involved but we are simply talking about likelihoods. For a start, if we talked about any series of unsolved murders and we suggested a killer who had been 71 at the time..what reaction would we expect to get? Double the average age of the higher age range of an average serial killer? And at a time of shorter lifespans where 71 then would have been the equivalent of an even older man now. How many people would say ‘yeah, 71 isn’t a problem’? Surely you can admit that age alone pushes Gull to the outer edges of likelihood? Then when we add his other health issues. Issues that forced him to retire from a non-physical job.

Purely for the criteria of age and physical health can anyone name another suspect who would rate lower than Gull?

Memorian- Sir William Gull

'' He was at his home in Scotland and while walking alone in the grounds was seized with paralysis , he did not lose consciousness but fell to one knee and was able to walk to the house with assistance Dr Thomas Stowell. [from a doctor]


William Witney Gull a Biographical Sketch

''Sir William took an important part in the public work of his day. From 1856 to 1889 [ which he appeared on the medical register] he served on the Senate of the University of London'' . Theodore Dyke Acland


Clearly we can see the Inconsistancies regarding what actually happened to Gull and the role it played in his life afterwards as a result. During the 1888 Ripper murders, id say not very much, Imo Or the above mentioned for that matter.]

[FISHY1118]

I don't believe I have insulted your opinions or intelligence or the right to respond Fishy. I agree with your point about people getting nasty when evidence contradicts a posters theory. The Lechmerians being a prime example of this generally. Anyway I don't wish to derail the thread.

Cheers John

No Worries John.

[The Rookie Detective]

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

Never say never...



Only in the world of Albert Bachert...



RD

[JeffHamm]

...

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

Hi Herlock,

Sutcliffe was a drinker wasn't he? I think he used to be out with friends at pubs and such, but I'm not sure if he was considered a heavy or frequent drinker (which a 1 in the last category represents). Also, Sutcliffe attacked a woman in 1969 (hit her over the head with a sock filled with something), but while the police tracked him down she didn't press charges. Still, I think that would warrant a pre-arrest coding of at least 1 for violence due to that. I think he was also known to cruise the red-light district (which was part of the police interest in him at the time), so he had some known association with prostitutes pre-arrest as well. That would probably put his pre-arrest score at 8 or maybe 9?

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

But if you are suggesting the same killer for all the murders and that killer removed the organs at the crime scenes how do you explain two different methods of removing the uterus from both Chapman and Eddowes? and in Chapmans case in addition to the uterus itself being removed the fallopian tubes which were still attached to the uterus were also taken

Surely the killer was not that medically trained to the point he was able to hone his skills to make two different removals of the same organ!!!!!!!!!!!!

It all points to two different persons removing the organs from the bodies at the two different mortuaries before the postmortems were carried out

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I think we're getting pretty far off topic, and covering old ground as well. If you want to start a thread on this, we can continue there.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

The one that comes to mind, and it's not a great example, is the 1930's surgeon Dr. Buck Ruxton, who had studied surgery in India, and who killed his British common law wife and maid (who was possibly a witness) with blunt force trauma or other violence (some believe he had stabbed his victims) then meticulously cut them into small pieces in an effort to dispose of the bodies in a way that insured that they could never be identified (which failed).

Not quite a "Ripper" murder, and the victims weren't strangers to Ruxton, but it could explain the motivation behind any of the 'torso' cases.

Hi rj,

Yes, there are examples of doctors and other medically trained people killing with violence, and engaging in post-mortem dismemberments to aid in body disposal, but as per your example, the murders are of known associates with more common motiviations (greed, jealosy, financial gain, anger/rage towards a loved one or spouse/ex-spouse, etc). Serial killing medical people, at least the ones that come to my mind (and I could very well be overlooking a case), seem to target patients and use medical knowledge of how to kill them with medicines/drugs etc. Sometimes there is financial gains as well, as in Shipman, but that doesn't seem to be the primary motivation. There's more of a "god-complex", ruler over life and death, type thing, where they gain some sense of power as a result (sometimes the deaths are secondary, and they may put someone in danger of death so that they can be the saviour, and bring them back from the brink, etc). But I can't think of a case where the victims are strangers, not selected from patients (so targeting those outside of the role as a medical person), where they kill in a "messy way" through extreme violence rather than through some neater, more "refined" method, like poisoning, etc (i.e. Cream).

As I say, I'm not saying it's impossible, and I fully expect there will be just such an example somewhere in the world at some point in time, but it strikes me as being such a very rare phenomenon that it tips the scale away from a doctor as a starting point, and it would require actual evidence to overcome that initial improbability (actual evidence always outweighs probability evaluations after all because rare things do happen, just not very often).

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thank you, Herlock.

If you don't mind, I have run a couple of EXTREMELY unlikely suspects through your system to compare results. Unfortunately, I do not have information concerning some of the points to accurately give a rating. I'm hoping that people with better resources can fill in the blanks.

I've listed:

- Lewis Carroll: (56 in 1888)-?-0-0-0-0-?-1? (The guy was on SOMETHING!)= [at least 1]
- Dr. Cream: (38 in 1888)-0-2-?-0-1-2?-?= ?5
- Michael Kidney (pertaining to the Stride murder ONLY): 2-2-1-?-1-0-0-2= 8
- Michael Ostrog: (55 in 1888)-?-0-1?-1 (SOMEONE apparently suspected him at some point)-?-?-?= [at least 2]
- Mary Pearcey (to represent Jill the Ripper): (22 in 1888)-1-4-?1-0-0-?-?= [at least 5]
- Vincent Van Gogh: (35 in 1888)-0-0-2-0-0-?-1?= [at least 3]

As a control, I added John Williams, the suspect in the 1811 Ratcliffe Highway Murders: (27 in 1811,but apparently lame from a leg wound/infection)-2-0-0-2 (for the RH Murders)-0-0-1= 5

Most modern serial killers that I checked (eg, T. Bundy, Green River) on are/were rovers, moving locations, and so didn't fit well.

Can Someone please fill the missing datum points?

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

[C. F. Leon]

Location - I was thinking 2 points for local or in a reasonably short travelling distance (so perhaps London in general would be appropriate) 1 point for more extensive travel (for example, whether we favour him or not it’s not impossible that Maybrick could have come to London via train) 0 points would be someone living in Aberdeen for example)

Police interest - Just the ripper murders

Gull - I included him based on his own physical traits/age/location etc.

Thank you, Herlock.

If you don't mind, I have run a couple of EXTREMELY unlikely suspects through your system to compare results. Unfortunately, I do not have information concerning some of the points to accurately give a rating. I'm hoping that people with better resources can fill in the blanks.

I've listed:

- Lewis Carroll: (56 in 1888)-?-0-0-0-0-?-1? (The guy was on SOMETHING!)= [at least 1]
- Dr. Cream: (38 in 1888)-0-2-?-0-1-2?-?= ?5
- Michael Kidney (pertaining to the Stride murder ONLY): 2-2-1-?-1-0-0-2= 8
- Michael Ostrog: (55 in 1888)-?-0-1?-1 (SOMEONE apparently suspected him at some point)-?-?-?= [at least 2]
- Mary Pearcey (to represent Jill the Ripper): (22 in 1888)-1-4-?1-0-0-?-?= [at least 5]
- Vincent Van Gogh: (35 in 1888)-0-0-2-0-0-?-1?= [at least 3]

As a control, I added John Williams, the suspect in the 1811 Ratcliffe Highway Murders: (27 in 1811,but apparently lame from a leg wound/infection)-2-0-0-2 (for the RH Murders)-0-0-1= 5

Most modern serial killers that I checked (eg, T. Bundy, Green River) on are/were rovers, moving locations, and so didn't fit well.

Can Someone please fill the missing datum points?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thank you, Herlock.

A couple of clarifications:

- Location: does this refer to Whitechapel in PARTICULAR, or is just known to have been in London during the period sufficient?

- Police Interest: Is this just referring to the Ripper Murders in particular, or charged for other (probably violent) crimes?

- Is Gull included as part of the Royal conspiracy or on his own?

Location - I was thinking 2 points for local or in a reasonably short travelling distance (so perhaps London in general would be appropriate) 1 point for more extensive travel (for example, whether we favour him or not it’s not impossible that Maybrick could have come to London via train) 0 points would be someone living in Aberdeen for example)

Police interest - Just the ripper murders

Gull - I included him based on his own physical traits/age/location etc.

[C. F. Leon]

These are the criteria:


1. Age/physical - 2 = no problem, 1 = some doubt, 0 = eliminated

2. Location - 2 = no problem, 1 = reasonable travel/some doubt, 0 = extremely unlikely

3. Violence - 4 - killed woman (non-family member) with knife, 3 - killed woman (family member) with knife, 2 - violence with a knife, 1 - violence without a knife, 0 - no violence.

4. Mental health issues - 2 = serious/violent, 1 = other, 0 = none known

5. Police interest - 2 = at the time, 1 = later, 0 = none known.

6. Hatred/dislike of prostitutes/women - 2 = yes, 1 = links to prostitution, 0 = none known

7. Medical/anatomical knowledge/(including slaughterman and butcher

- yes = 1, no = 0

8. Alcohol/drug use - 1 = yes, 0 = no.



This is the updated amendment 7


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

G.S.C. 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

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/Lechmere > 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



Most recent changes


Changed Druitt’s location from 2 to 1

Changed Sickert’s location from 1 to 0

Changed Gull’s age/physical score from 1 to 0

Thank you, Herlock.

A couple of clarifications:

- Location: does this refer to Whitechapel in PARTICULAR, or is just known to have been in London during the period sufficient?

- Police Interest: Is this just referring to the Ripper Murders in particular, or charged for other (probably violent) crimes?

- Is Gull included as part of the Royal Conspiracy or on his own?

[Herlock Sholmes]

These are the criteria:


1. Age/physical - 2 = no problem, 1 = some doubt, 0 = eliminated

2. Location - 2 = no problem, 1 = reasonable travel/some doubt, 0 = extremely unlikely

3. Violence - 4 - killed woman (non-family member) with knife, 3 - killed woman (family member) with knife, 2 - violence with a knife, 1 - violence without a knife, 0 - no violence.

4. Mental health issues - 2 = serious/violent, 1 = other, 0 = none known

5. Police interest - 2 = at the time, 1 = later, 0 = none known.

6. Hatred/dislike of prostitutes/women - 2 = yes, 1 = links to prostitution, 0 = none known

7. Medical/anatomical knowledge/(including slaughterman and butcher

- yes = 1, no = 0

8. Alcohol/drug use - 1 = yes, 0 = no.



This is the updated amendment 7


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

G.S.C. 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

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/Lechmere > 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



Most recent changes


Changed Druitt’s location from 2 to 1

Changed Sickert’s location from 1 to 0

Changed Gull’s age/physical score from 1 to 0

[C. F. Leon]

With all of the peripheral bickering, I've lost track of the ratings. The most recent that I was able to find was Amendment #7 of May 30 (post #104, pg 7). Herlock, would you please post an update to get us back on the proper track? (Including the updated criteria)