Rating The Suspects.

[FISHY1118]

Amendment Six


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

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

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

Druitt > 2 - 2 - 0 -1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 6

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 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - = 4

Gull > 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 3


Latest Changes


1. In the Location section I’ve changed 0 = eliminated to 0 = extremely unlikely.

2. I’ve added John Pizer at Jeff’s suggestion.

3. I’ve added a new criteria at Jeff’s suggestion …. 8. Alcohol/drug use - 1 = yes, 0 = no.

Can you explain why you deducted a point from Gull in this catagory when you originally had him as a ''2''


7. Medical/anatomical knowledge - 2 = yes, 1 = slaughterman/ butcher level, 0 = none known.

[FISHY1118]

''Not once, ever. You’re simply making that up''. I can prove that you’ve done it in black and white. You’ve done it numerous times and had it pointed out in black and white by myself and others then you either try and wriggle out of it or you change the subject. I recall fairly recently you refused to answer a point by saying that you had already answered it when you hadn’t. You couldn’t even point me to the explanation you had supposedly already made - because you hadn’t made it. Others have noticed it and mentioned it too.

Simply Untrue Herlock. 1 Richardson Thread ,2 Jfk Thread . All of the above can be said of yourself, 1000s of posts debated back and forth month after month in these two threads where you ignored the plain black and white , where you wiggled out , where you chose to ignore the evidence put in front of you. And yes other posters noticed it as welll, dont think ive havent my share of messages regards your behaviour during those two threads , So please spare me the sympathy card and move on .

[FISHY1118]

If that’s your biggest objection to Druitt, then I think he will remain a toptier suspect.

Abberline speaks of Druitt as a doctor. So clearly he was not particularly well informed and his assessment of “nothing” could therefore be questioned.

MM explicitly states that his information was “private”, so Abberline may have been unaware of it.

The Macnaghten Memoranda


(1) A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family -- who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder, & whose body (which was said to have been upwards of a month in the water) was found in the Thames on 31st December -- or about 7 weeks after that murder. He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer.

Its clear they were both talking about the same person.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Amendment Six


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

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

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

Druitt > 2 - 2 - 0 -1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 6

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 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - = 4

Gull > 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 3


Latest Changes


1. In the Location section I’ve changed 0 = eliminated to 0 = extremely unlikely.

2. I’ve added John Pizer at Jeff’s suggestion.

3. I’ve added a new criteria at Jeff’s suggestion …. 8. Alcohol/drug use - 1 = yes, 0 = no.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve never really understood why Abberline is raised so regularly on this point. He retired in 1892. Is it likely that Macnaghten would have received his private information and then thought “I must remember to let Fred know”?

[Herlock Sholmes]

As you yourself have done, not only on this thread but on many others over a long period of time .

Not once, ever. You’re simply making that up. I can prove that you’ve done it in black and white. You’ve done it numerous times and had it pointed out in black and white by myself and others then you either try and wriggle out of it or you change the subject. I recall fairly recently you refused to answer a point by saying that you had already answered it when you hadn’t. You couldn’t even point me to the explanation you had supposedly already made - because you hadn’t made it. Others have noticed it and mentioned it too.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sickert > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 5

Sickert often used / paid prostitutes to pose in his paintings .



Herlock, Will you be making the same Amendment as you did for Cohen with this Sickert information ?

It’s already been changed. I haven’t posted a new amendment yet because I have other things to add/change.

[Kattrup]

The biggest objection to Druitt as a viable suspect is that Inspector Abberline most certainly didn't think he could have been the Ripper.

In an interview with the Pall Mall Gazette in 1903, Abberline is quoted as saying:-

''I know all about that story. But what does it amount to? Simply this. Soon after the last murder in Whitechapel the body of a young doctor was found in the Thames, but there is absolutely ''nothing'' beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him. ”

Its worth noting Baron, the man in charge of the entire Investigation didnt think he could have been the ripper, yet MM based on ''nothing'' thinks he could have . Strange that anyone would support what MM said after the above quote from Abberline .

If that’s your biggest objection to Druitt, then I think he will remain a toptier suspect.

Abberline speaks of Druitt as a doctor. So clearly he was not particularly well informed and his assessment of “nothing” could therefore be questioned.

MM explicitly states that his information was “private”, so Abberline may have been unaware of it.

[FISHY1118]

Druitt is NOT a suspect, all we have is a tea merchant who passed down hearsays that the family of a person with that name but a different occupation and different age, might have suspected him of being the ripper, the tea merchant didn't get this any step further, didn't make the slightest of investigations on the man whatsoever, and continued enjoying his cup of indian tea on his comfortable chair.

That all. Thats it. Nothing more.

Whether one gives him one point, 10 points, it doesn't really matter, doesn't change anything, he is not a suspect of anything we know.


The Baron

The biggest objection to Druitt as a viable suspect is that Inspector Abberline most certainly didn't think he could have been the Ripper.

In an interview with the Pall Mall Gazette in 1903, Abberline is quoted as saying:-

''I know all about that story. But what does it amount to? Simply this. Soon after the last murder in Whitechapel the body of a young doctor was found in the Thames, but there is absolutely ''nothing'' beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him. ”

Its worth noting Baron, the man in charge of the entire Investigation didnt think he could have been the ripper, yet MM based on ''nothing'' thinks he could have . Strange that anyone would support what MM said after the above quote from Abberline .

[FISHY1118]

Sickert > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 5

Sickert often used / paid prostitutes to pose in his paintings .



Herlock, Will you be making the same Amendment as you did for Cohen with this Sickert information ?

[FISHY1118]

It becomes an impossible ‘game’ when you deny what’s in black and white.

As you yourself have done, not only on this thread but on many others over a long period of time .

[FISHY1118]

I’ll debate/discuss with anyone as long as they do it honestly and that they don’t debate something that’s in black and white.

And ps, don’t try the tactic of throwing in words like ‘offensive’ or ‘disrespectful’ because I’ve said nothing offensive here.

You clearly cant except what i posted herlock so i wont bother going over it again. Just dont go on and on about how i dont reply to your questions or that i completely ignore them . Its wearing thin, seriously give it rest . I suggest sticking to the evidence, speaking of which Wilks and Bettanys Biographical Histoy of Guys Hospital 1892 Edition .


''While enjoying himself in Scotland he was seized with ''SLIGHT'' paralysis the right side in october 1887. He recovered in Great Measure and returned to London''.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thinking about the location score a bit more. Maybe that should be a "negative" scoring system? So rather than 2 for being in London, that just gets a 0, with -1 for being "outside London but within simple travel", and -2 for "further a field", and even -16 for "alibied - known to be somewhere else, and 16 is the maximum score otherwise, so eliminated should bring it to a negative, or eliminated, value); i.e. Prince Eddy".

My reasoning is that it means that there isn't a sort of low but positive score that gets assigned to every eye-witness and police officer involved in the case. Simply being in London isn't really a pointer to being JtR, but the further away one is, the more that points against?

I'm probably just being a bit pedantic here, but I would feel a bit odd by saying "Long gets a 2 because she's in London" (or a 3 because she's in the vicinity of the Chapman murder). It sort of means that the vast majority of people that get mentioned start off with a 2 (or 3 if one codes near a crime scene as that). To me, something that the vast majority of people would score should be 0, and things that detract get a negative, and things that "fit with" get a positive (i.e. the Age thing, so fitting well with witness descriptions gets a 2, fitting not quite so well gets a 1, and well off gets 0). So the categories can be seen as "positive" and "negative" bits of information - things that increase the fit between the individual to JtR (violence, fit to description, etc) and things that make it harder for them to be JtR (out of town for example).

Anyway, I like the idea of trying to rate/score individuals, and think what you've proposed is very good.

Out of curiosity, how would Pizer score (prior to him being located with family of course)? I don't think he had any known mental health issues, and I don't think he had any anatomical knowledge? He was accused of roughing up woman though, so 1 for violence and 1 for "association with prostitutes"?

...........Age....Location....Violent....MentalHea lth....PoliceInterest...Hatred/woman/Prost...Med/Anatomical Knowledge...Total
Pizer: 2...........2.............1.................0..... ...............2.....................1............ ..................0............................... 8

If we go with my adjustment of 0 for location being in London, then his score becomes 6, and given his alibi (-16) then it then drops him to a -10 (indicating he's been eliminated).

- Jeff

I’ll add Pizer to the list.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Hmmm, I don't think that would be required unless perhaps we had some suspects who could be placed near more than one crime scene. What I mean is, say we gave 3 points for "location near a crime scene", then all of a sudden every eye witness gets a 3.

That also suggests something. What if we applied this rating system to eye-witnesses, or other people associated with the case (i.e. Lusk), rather than suspects. What sort of scores do "non-suspects" get? One would think a "good suspect" should get a score higher than is typical of someone chosen at random.

- Jeff

Good points Jeff.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I would think that with regards to location both Druitt and Gull would get a 1, given that from what we know, both appear to have been outside London around that time, but with reasonable travel could have made the trip. Perhaps Location would be 2=known to be in London 1=In England (maybe within some range of London?) and 0 = outside the "1" range and/or location unknown?

With regards to age/physicality, if Gull doesn't score a 0 on that, given he's over 70, known to have had a stroke, and so forth, then how could anyone get a zero on that? While there is debate about the validity of the sightings, men seen in the company of the victims (if valid), tend to suggest a male of age around 30. Perhaps 2 would apply to something like Age: between 25-35, 1=20-24, or 36 to 40, and 0 is <20 or >40? I would hesitate to refer to 0 as "eliminated" though, as age isn't something that can eliminate a suspect, but being sufficiently wide of the mark doesn't "add" to their suspect score.

One thing that seems common amongst serial killers is alcohol/drug use. Perhaps a 1 or 0 coding on that front, (1=known alcohol/drug issues or 0=no known issues) might be considered?

- Jeff

Hello Jeff,

After reading your post I’ve decided to make two changes for the next amendment. On the Location criteria I’ll replace ‘eliminate’ with ‘extremely unlikely.’ And I’ll add a single point for alcohol/drug use.