Rating The Suspects.

[c.d.]

Might not the wording of the MM imply that the person giving the information wasn’t close enough to the family to know Monty’s profession? The phrase “said to be a doctor…” suggests uncertainty on the part of the informer. As if he’d said “I think he’s a doctor, like his father”? When giving that kind of information the person in question’s occupation is hardly high up on the list of important details.

Hello Herlock,

While that is certainly possible, how likely is it that a Druitt family member would divulge such sensitive information as their suspicion regarding Monty to someone not closely associated with the family? Anyone closely associated with the family to that degree would certainly know Monty's profession.

c.d.

[The Baron]

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.

Maybe if you wait a little more Fishy you will see Druitt gets some 10+ points and Gull will be at 0 to 1 point

That is how our unbiased minds work!

You can keep adding categories that suit your favourite suspect, and ignore facts that support your less favourite suspects, give extra points here and less points there..


It is more like a heavily biased game at best.


The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Because I took Jeff’s advice and changed the criteria to:


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

- yes = 1, no = 0


Its the same for everyone.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Might not the wording of the MM imply that the person giving the information wasn’t close enough to the family to know Monty’s profession? The phrase “said to be a doctor…” suggests uncertainty on the part of the informer. As if he’d said “I think he’s a doctor, like his father”? When giving that kind of information the person in question’s occupation is hardly high up on the list of important details. Then of course we would have to ask how long lapsed between Mac receiving the information and him writing it down?

(Of course I could mention Jon Hainsworth’s theory that Druitt’s ID was disguised to protect the family but I don’t want to sidetrack)

[FISHY1118]

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

Thats fine.

[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 ?