Rating The Suspects.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I assume you mean 1867

This is interesting tho.

Just checking that you were paying attention Tani.

[Tani]

I’m afraid not Tani.

Im thinking that I should award him a point for medical knowledge though. He never qualified as a Doctor but he registered as a medical student at the London Hospital in 1967 so it looks like he would have had at least some training and surely anatomy would have been an early part of any training? Morley says that it was said that he took a keen interest in anatomy (again with no source though)

I assume you mean 1867

This is interesting tho.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Has he a source for this?

I’m afraid not Tani.

Im thinking that I should award him a point for medical knowledge though. He never qualified as a Doctor but he registered as a medical student at the London Hospital in 1967 so it looks like he would have had at least some training and surely anatomy would have been an early part of any training? Morley says that it was said that he took a keen interest in anatomy (again with no source though)

[Tani]

Hi Robert,

I just checked the Morley book. I based it on this: He returned to religion and after attempts to start a mission in the East End failed, suffered the first of several nervous breakdowns, which occurred during stressful periods of his life.

Has he a source for this?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Robert,

I just checked the Morley book. I based it on this: He returned to religion and after attempts to start a mission in the East End failed, suffered the first of several nervous breakdowns, which occurred during stressful periods of his life.

Sorry Paddy, I called you Robert. I was just answering a post from a Robert on the other thread.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Amended.


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

2. Location - 2 = no problem, 1 = reasonable travel/some doubt, 0 = eliminated imo

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




……,,,,,,……,,,,,,……,,,,,,……,,,,,,……,,,,,,……,,, ,,,…… ,,,,,,……,,,,,,……,,,,,,……



Kelly > 2 - 2 - 3 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 = 12
Bury > 2 - 2 - 3 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 = 10
Cutbush > 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 9
Hyams > 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 8
Kosminski 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 = 8
Grainger > 2 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 = 7
Chapman > 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 = 7
Tumblety > 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 2 - 1 = 7
GSC Lechmere > 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 7
Thompson > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 = 6
Barnado > 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 6
Cohen > 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 6
Levy > 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 = 6
Druitt > 2 - 2 - 0 -1 - 1 - 0 = 6
Barnett > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 5
Stephen > 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4
Stephenson > 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 = 4
Bachert > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4
Cross > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4
Hardiman > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4
Hutchinson > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4
Mann > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4
Gull > 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 = 3
Maybrick > 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 3
Sickert > 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 3


If it could be shown that it was reasonably possible that they were in England…

Deeming > 2 - 1 - 4 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 7
Feigenbaum > 2 - 1 - 4 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 7

[Herlock Sholmes]

And by the way Hurley, I like your poll, but I have questions for you about something I noticed in you ratings, concerning category 4:

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

You awarded Kelly, Cutbush, Hyams and Kosminski a "2" and in fact those persons were certified insane. But Cohen and Levy received only a "1" yet they were certified also. Why not a 2?

Also, why were Barnardo and Druitt each awarded a "1" and Stephen a "2" in this category? As far as I know none of those persons were certified insane.

Please answer at your convenience,

Paddy

I wasn’t going by ‘certified insane’, I was using a vague ‘mental health’ issues angle and dividing them between violent and non-violent. So for Druitt it was his suicide with note thinking that he might end up like his mother, who was in an asylum. Stephen should have been a 1 as you rightly pointed out so I’ve changed it.

It’s interesting that you should mention James Kelly in another post Robert. I’ve been intending for about 3 years to re-read Tully’s book but I haven’t got there yet. I only read it once, when it first came out. I was looking through my stuff a few months ago and came across John Morrison’s pamphlet Jimmy Kelly’s Year of the Ripper Murders.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Good morning Hurley,

Why do you award Barnardo a point for "Mental Health Issues" ?

Hi Robert,

I just checked the Morley book. I based it on this: He returned to religion and after attempts to start a mission in the East End failed, suffered the first of several nervous breakdowns, which occurred during stressful periods of his life.

[Paddy Goose]

Thanks Hurley,

Im starting to wish that I hadn’t started this now.

But I like it! James Kelly won.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Good morning Hurley,

Why do you award Barnardo a point for "Mental Health Issues" ?

Hi Paddy, I read the write up in Morley’s book which I don’t have with me. I’ll have a look when I’m back and let you know why I did it. Unless I just made an error of course.

Ill also check your points in post 15 Paddy.

Im starting to wish that I hadn’t started this now.

[Paddy Goose]

And by the way Hurley, I like your poll, but I have questions for you about something I noticed in you ratings, concerning category 4:

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

You awarded Kelly, Cutbush, Hyams and Kosminski a "2" and in fact those persons were certified insane. But Cohen and Levy received only a "1" yet they were certified also. Why not a 2?

Also, why were Barnardo and Druitt each awarded a "1" and Stephen a "2" in this category? As far as I know none of those persons were certified insane.

Please answer at your convenience,

Paddy

[Fiver]

I was tempted to do the same with Gull Fiver.

I was going to ask you this a few days ago but could you point me in the direction of some info on this other Lechmere. I’d be quite happy to add him when I make some changes later.

The less unlikely Lechmere, George Capel Scudamore Lechmere.

[Paddy Goose]

Good morning Hurley,

Why do you award Barnardo a point for "Mental Health Issues" ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'd give Gull a 0 on age/physicality. He was in his 70s and a recovering stroke victim.

I'll also pitch a -1 on Hatred of Women. It's not just that Dr Gull had no known hatred of women, Gull actively promoted women being trained as doctors.

I'd also like to mention the less unlikely Lechmre, George Capel Scudamore Lechmere.

1. Age/physicality - 2 Aged 38.

2. Location - 2

3. Violent - 3 Tried, but failed to murder his wife by slitting her throat.

4. Mental health issues - 1 At his trial, claimed to have no memory of his actions and that "sometimes he was not responsible for his actions".

5. Police interest - 0

6. Hatred/dislike of prostitutes/women - 1 No evidence that he consorted with prostitutes, but his wife testified "the prisoner had before said he would settle me—I have gone in fear of my life for a very long time."

7. Medical/anatomical knowledge - 0 He was a barber.

GCS Lechmere > 2 - 2 - 3 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 9

I was tempted to do the same with Gull Fiver.

I was going to ask you this a few days ago but could you point me in the direction of some info on this other Lechmere. I’d be quite happy to add him when I make some changes later.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ive done more than enough research on all 3 suspects to stand by my reasoning for each score. The thread ask for comments or suggestion , so i obliged.

As expected you jumped the gun and flew off the handle , now had you ask nicely why i added to Gull , and Sickert and subtracted from Druitt i would have given you my thoughts, but alas you didnt . So when you imply that im being bias and unfair just to razz you up, you are hughly mistaken.

I didnt see the point in giving my reasoning for the score adjustment . That would then require follow up discussion and debate ,which when it comes to my opinion/s your incapable of a such thing without making it personal. Many threads and topics can attest to that.

I’m not going to get back into this Fishy. If you want me to spend the time looking back at how many times you’ve taken the opportunity without prompting to leap in with a Druitt-related dig I can do it. You focus on Druitt for one reason only because you have the misguided opinion that I somehow promote Druitt as a suspect and so by digging at him you feel that you have a ‘safe’ way of indirectly having a dig at me. I know it, you know it, everyone that can read knows it. I’ve lost count of the times I’ve been contacted privately telling me to ignore you because you’re simply trying to ‘wind me up.’ I’ve explained my position on Druitt two or three hundred times but obviously it makes no difference.

Ive just looked at Druitt again. I was too harsh on him. So I’ve amended it to the score that I was originally going to give him.


Kelly > 2 - 2 - 4 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 = 13

Bury > 2 - 2 - 4 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 = 11

Cutbush > 2 - 2 - 3 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 10

Hyams > 2 - 2 - 3 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 9

Kosminski 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 = 8

Grainger > 2 - 1 - 3 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 = 8

Chapman > 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 = 7

Tumblety > 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 2 - 1 = 7

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

Barnado > 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 6

Cohen > 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 6

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

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

Barnett > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 5

Stephen > 2 - 1 - 0 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 5

Stephenson > 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 = 4

Bachert > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Cross > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Hardiman > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Hutchinson > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Mann > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

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

Maybrick > 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 3

Sickert > 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 3



If it could be shown that it was reasonably possible that they were in England…


Deeming 2 - 1 - 4 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 7

Feigenbaum 2 - 1 - 4 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 7