Rating The Suspects.

[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.

[JeffHamm]

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

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

[JeffHamm]

A question for all - should I add a category….Can be placed at or near at crime scene at the time of a murder? I want to be fair to all suspects including Cross.

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

[JeffHamm]

Just seen it Roger. Good find. Does it justify moving his location score back to 1 considering that I’ve kept Druitt at 2 knowing that he was in Blandford on the day prior to Nichols murder?

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I think that's reasonable. While I think Cross is a weak suspect, he would be even weaker if we couldn't even place him at or near a crime scene. So George Hutchinson and John Richardson would score here; maybe James Hardiman too, I'm not very well-versed on him.

Hi Lewis,

I’m trying to ensure that I’m being objective because we can see that a few allow their support for a suspect (or indeed their opinions on other suspects) to cloud their judgment. I’ll give it some thought but I’m thinking that it’s worth at least a point. Of course, Cross supporters would give it a 10 as it appears to be the be all and end all for them.

[Lewis C]

A question for all - should I add a category….Can be placed at or near at crime scene at the time of a murder? I want to be fair to all suspects including Cross.

Hi Herlock,

I think that's reasonable. While I think Cross is a weak suspect, he would be even weaker if we couldn't even place him at or near a crime scene. So George Hutchinson and John Richardson would score here; maybe James Hardiman too, I'm not very well-versed on him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And here’s the other poster that gets hysterical every time Druitt is mentioned. Why does it bother you that MacNaghten wasn’t a career police officer? He was the Chief Constable of the Met. His former job is irrelevant.

He is not a suspect only in your opinion. Which counts for nothing.

[The Baron]

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Funny but i never saw it as a game Herlock, perhaps you do, i just a debate the evidence provided on the suspects, and give my honest opinion when ask and invited to do so.

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think your dreaming mate , ive never said you couldnt have an opinion on Druitt as your preferred suspect ,only that he was a very poor one, which ive argued many points as to why that is the case based on the information we have on offer .

1. Because my opinion on Gull bothers you so much .!

Clearly a diversion and not a direct answer.

2. I post on any suspect i think falls in the ''very unlikely catagory'' when others have them in their top 3 whom ever they might be . Others are free to do the same.

Again, not an answer to the question.

3. 70 year old men commit murder Herlock. just as easy as 31 year olds do . In the past ive shown Documented evidence from Guys Hospital own medical records as to the lack of serverity of Gulls MINOR Stroke [ i .e One ] you dont agree with this and you argue from a different standpoint , that doesnt make you right !

Yet again, not an answer but a diversion. I asked you what makes a 71 year old stroke victim likelier than a physically fit 31 year old.

From The Dictionary of National Biography:

“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.”

How can a minor stroke cause him to retire? He was ‘attacked with paralysis,’ that’s not ‘minor.’

If you wish to continue the debate im happy to do so , just dont do it a way that is Offensive or Disrepectful, and i will endeavour to do the same .

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.

[FISHY1118]

And when you realise that the game is up its ‘time to move on.’ Perhaps I should do a poll on who is right here and who is wrong. No point…you wouldn’t get a single vote Fishy because you’re wrong and you know it. Don’t let personal animosity trump reasoning.

Time to move on..

Funny but i never saw it as a game Herlock, perhaps you do, i just a debate the evidence provided on the suspects, and give my honest opinion when ask and invited to do so.

[FISHY1118]

I have no influence over other people’s opinion on Druitt, Fishy. I can only assume that your ‘some’ means me? Here’s a few questions that, if you’re consistent, you will completely ignore. In fact I’ll probably be in danger of a heart attack if you do answer them because it will be a first.

1. Why does my opinion on Druitt bother you so much? (and please don’t say that it doesn’t because your numerous Druitt-related comments prove otherwise)
2. Why, when there is no evidence against any suspect, do you only consider this worth mentioning in regard to Druitt?
3. Why do you think that a physically fit 31 year old is less likely to have been the killer than a 71 year old multiple stroke victim who was no longer able to even continue his job as a Doctor.

As I said…I expect no answer so if you don’t intend an answer please just refrain from the kind of stuff you posted in #43 please. We’ve had enough of that.

I think your dreaming mate , ive never said you couldnt have an opinion on Druitt as your preferred suspect ,only that he was a very poor one, which ive argued many points as to why that is the case based on the information we have on offer .

1. Because my opinion on Gull bothers you so much .!

2. I post on any suspect i think falls in the ''very unlikely catagory'' when others have them in their top 3 whom ever they might be . Others are free to do the same.

3. 70 year old men commit murder Herlock. just as easy as 31 year olds do . In the past ive shown Documented evidence from Guys Hospital own medical records as to the lack of serverity of Gulls MINOR Stroke [ i .e One ] you dont agree with this and you argue from a different standpoint , that doesnt make you right !


If you wish to continue the debate im happy to do so , just dont do it a way that is Offensive or Disrepectful, and i will endeavour to do the same .

[FISHY1118]

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

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