Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rating The Suspects.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

    “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
      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
      "Great minds, don't think alike"

      Comment


      • Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post

        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.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

        “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

        Comment


        • 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?’
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

          “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
            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
            "Great minds, don't think alike"

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post


              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.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Lewis C View Post

                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.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                  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.
                  Last edited by Lewis C; 06-07-2024, 09:28 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Lewis C View Post

                    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.
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                    “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                      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

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                        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
                        Hi Jeff,

                        But how is it to be established when the murders ceased? If we look at the victims where the was a suspected interruption, Nichols, Stride, McKenzie and Coles, then Stride is the odd woman out. The others were killed in lonely places, but Stride was murdered next to a Club with a function in full progress. I've always thought that if Coles, and McKenzie, are to be excluded, logically Stride has to also be excluded as a JtR victim. YMMV.

                        Best regards, George
                        The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

                        ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                          Hi Jeff,

                          But how is it to be established when the murders ceased? If we look at the victims where the was a suspected interruption, Nichols, Stride, McKenzie and Coles, then Stride is the odd woman out. The others were killed in lonely places, but Stride was murdered next to a Club with a function in full progress. I've always thought that if Coles, and McKenzie, are to be excluded, logically Stride has to also be excluded as a JtR victim. YMMV.

                          Best regards, George
                          Hi George,

                          Yah, that is tricky. I was thinking for say Druitt, one could award 1 point as his suicide is after the C5, but before the later possible victims. Someone who becomes "out of circulation" after the later possibilities might be given 1.5 or 2 (depending upon the weight one puts on those cases), while someone who is around and free for decades gets 0. Something like that maybe, to take in to account the range of opinions?

                          - Jeff

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                            Hi George,

                            Yah, that is tricky. I was thinking for say Druitt, one could award 1 point as his suicide is after the C5, but before the later possible victims. Someone who becomes "out of circulation" after the later possibilities might be given 1.5 or 2 (depending upon the weight one puts on those cases), while someone who is around and free for decades gets 0. Something like that maybe, to take in to account the range of opinions?

                            - Jeff
                            Hi all

                            Frankly I think this is a bit silly. In all likelihood Mackenzie and Coles were not Ripper victims. I think we should just stick to the C5. Maybe minus Stride though.

                            Cheers John

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by John Wheat View Post

                              Hi all

                              Frankly I think this is a bit silly. In all likelihood Mackenzie and Coles were not Ripper victims. I think we should just stick to the C5. Maybe minus Stride though.

                              Cheers John
                              Hi John,

                              I tend to agree, but the idea of a coding scheme like this isn't to code who fits my beliefs best, but who matches JtR while allowing for some range in error as to when the series ended. Suspects who we could explain why the killings stopped after McKenzie, for example, would still have an explanation whether we are right or wrong to exclude her, while suspects like Druitt, who we can explain an end after the C5 requires McKenzie not be part of the series. So one could say the former is "safer" because we can explain the end of the series regardless of our belief about McKenzie being right or wrong while the latter depends on us making the right call.

                              - Jeff

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                                Hi John,

                                I tend to agree, but the idea of a coding scheme like this isn't to code who fits my beliefs best, but who matches JtR while allowing for some range in error as to when the series ended. Suspects who we could explain why the killings stopped after McKenzie, for example, would still have an explanation whether we are right or wrong to exclude her, while suspects like Druitt, who we can explain an end after the C5 requires McKenzie not be part of the series. So one could say the former is "safer" because we can explain the end of the series regardless of our belief about McKenzie being right or wrong while the latter depends on us making the right call.

                                - Jeff
                                Hi Jeff

                                I see what your saying but we shouldn't in my opinion exclude suspects who were dead when Mckenzie was killed or give suspects extra points as they were alive when Mckenzie was murdered. I still think its best to stick with the C5. Otherwise why not include The Torso Murders and why not Carrie Brown?

                                Cheers John

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X