Rating The Suspects.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi George,

I have to say that I’m a bit stuck on this one. Earlier I’d say that I had the books by Millington and Linnell but I’ve just checked my books twice and I don’t appear to have the Linnell book which is strange because I do have a few notes that I made after reading it. I can only assume that I must have picked it up on one of my fairly rare visits to the library. I do have the Millington book though and I’ve also checked the Deeming section in Morley’s suspect book.

I was just looking through my Kindle Library and there was the Linnell book! Why didn’t I think of that before?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve almost made up my mind to remove the drink/drugs criteria. We can list a huge number of serial killers who didn’t use either. I don’t think it gives an accurate picture.

[The Rookie Detective]

I’ve almost made up my mind to remove the drink/drugs criteria. We can list a huge number of serial killers who didn’t use either. I don’t think it gives an accurate picture.

I'm inclined to agree.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm inclined to agree.

I think it risks swaying the poll unfairly Chris. I’m guessing that it wont make a huge difference to the order.

[The Rookie Detective]

I think it risks swaying the poll unfairly Chris. I’m guessing that it wont make a huge difference to the order.

I think alcohol and drugs use may add inadvertent bias to the poll.

History of Violence
History of Violence against women
History of association with unfortunates
Geographical proximity (opportunity)
Previous convictions
Known grievances towards women (motive)
Known skill or capability using a knife (means)

These are some of the criteria that are applicable.


While alcohol and drug use do increase the chances of an individual being violent in terms of their inhibitions being dropped, there is no evidence to support the idea that this would apply to a serial killer.

If anything, drug use and alcohol actually weaken a potential suspects viability as the Ripper.


Bs man for example clearly wasn't a psychopath (If Schwartz is to be believed) but rather a violent drunk.

Also, Bachert on your list has "0" for alcohol and drug use, but it was well documented that he regularly got drunk every week (on a Tuesday IIRC) and so he should score a point for that.
However, as I said, the alcohol and drug use potentially weakens candidacy as the Ripper, and so on that basis it also weakens Bachert.


Let's also take the attack on Emily Smith on 5th November 1892.
IMO, a failed Ripper attack committed by an injured/underperforming killer.
Emily noted that the man who tried to stab her mentioned specifically that he wasn't a drinker of alcohol, and was a teetotaller.
It appears the man got Emily tipsy and then chose his moment to strike just beside Shadwell railway arch; the killer's liking of assaulting women near train lines and arches being an interesting parallel.
He made a point of only drinking coffee IIRC.


These are just a few examples of course, but overall I'd say that a man known for heavy drinking, consuming drugs, walking around eating rubbish from the gutters etc... makes them less and not more likely to have been the Ripper.

[The Rookie Detective]

I think alcohol and drugs use may add inadvertent bias to the poll.

History of Violence
History of Violence against women
History of association with unfortunates
Geographical proximity (opportunity)
Previous convictions
Known grievances towards women (motive)
Known skill or capability using a knife (means)

These are some of the criteria that are applicable.


While alcohol and drug use do increase the chances of an individual being violent in terms of their inhibitions being dropped, there is no evidence to support the idea that this would apply to a serial killer.

If anything, drug use and alcohol actually weaken a potential suspects viability as the Ripper.


Bs man for example clearly wasn't a psychopath (If Schwartz is to be believed) but rather a violent drunk.

Also, Bachert on your list has "0" for alcohol and drug use, but it was well documented that he regularly got drunk every week (on a Tuesday IIRC) and so he should score a point for that.
However, as I said, the alcohol and drug use potentially weakens candidacy as the Ripper, and so on that basis it also weakens Bachert.


Let's also take the attack on Emily Smith on 5th November 1892.
IMO, a failed Ripper attack committed by an injured/underperforming killer.
Emily noted that the man who tried to stab her mentioned specifically that he wasn't a drinker of alcohol, and was a teetotaller.
It appears the man got Emily tipsy and then chose his moment to strike just beside Shadwell railway arch; the killer's liking of assaulting women near train lines and arches being an interesting parallel.
He made a point of only drinking coffee IIRC.


These are just a few examples of course, but overall I'd say that a man known for heavy drinking, consuming drugs, walking around eating rubbish from the gutters etc... makes them less and not more likely to have been the Ripper.

I even think "age" is not particularly relevant, because the killer could have been aged anywhere from 16 to 75.

And it terms of police interest... i think that's potentially the most misleading statistic.

The police didn't have a clue about serial killers.

They were so busy focusing on drunks, vagabonds, Jews, and lunatics, that they had no real idea of what they were dealing with.

So having been suspected by the police at the time, may also have been completely wrong.

All subjective of course.

[Richard Patterson]

Some of you’ve you here have built a list of criteria you think applies to the Ripper. Let’s measure Thompson against them, because this is where the conversation always goes sideways — people dismiss him with a shrug instead of actually running the check.

• History of violence / against women: Thompson’s published poetry is mystical. His unpublished manuscripts are violent, obsessive, and specifically about cutting women and tearing out wombs. That isn’t generic bad temper — that’s a written rehearsal of the very mutilations seen in Whitechapel.
• Association with “unfortunates”: He lived rough in Spitalfields, among prostitutes, relying on them for food and shelter. He had a failed love affair with a Whitechapel prostitute which left him obsessed and broken. This isn’t distant contact — it is direct immersion.
• Geographical proximity: In 1888 Thompson shifted from Limehouse refuges into Spitalfields at the precise moment the murders peaked. His lodgings and his haunts map exactly onto the Ripper’s hunting ground.
• Motive / grievance toward women: His rejection by the prostitute “Ann” is attested by multiple sources. His later writing returns to themes of betrayal, punishment, and sanctified violence against women.
• Means: He studied medicine under Dreschfeld, dissecting human cadavers. He carried surgical instruments while homeless. Few suspects had this level of precise anatomical training.

Now, you want to exclude him because he was a laudanum addict. But that argument collapses once you read the medical facts. Thompson stopped laudanum in mid-1888 under Meynell’s urging. Withdrawal causes hallucinations, hyperaesthesia, and increased sexual drive — exactly the state Dr. Bond described in his police profile: “homicidal and erotic mania.” Saying “drug use weakens candidacy” ignores that in Thompson’s case, withdrawal heightened instability and drive.

The “wilful blindness” here is pretending none of this matters. Pretending his violent manuscripts don’t exist. Pretending his knives don’t matter. Pretending that being institutionalised at the Priory as the murders stop is coincidence. Pretending that Major Smith’s suspect profile — five traits, all of which Thompson uniquely matches — is meaningless.

And let’s be clear: I didn’t just invent this last week. I’ve been publishing Thompson’s biography as a Ripper candidate since well before 2013. Dozens of unrelated, independently attested facts in his life string directly to the murders:

• The cadaver training.
• The prostitute rejection.
• The knives he carried.
• The violent manuscripts.
• His presence in Spitalfields during the killings.
• His psychiatric collapse and confinement as the murders ceased.

Each strand is independent. Together they collapse coincidence.

So no — dismissing Thompson on the basis of “drink/drugs” isn’t just weak, it’s evasive. When the evidence is this convergent, pretending it doesn’t matter is not healthy scepticism. It’s wilful blindness.

If you want to argue against Thompson, then address the totality: the geography, the knives, the manuscripts, the training, the timing, the probability analysis. Until then, brushing him off with clichés about addiction is not an argument. It’s a refusal to look.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m not interested in your repeated script. I’m not interested in any of the things that you say on this subject. Your points have been rebutted with evidence and your, shall we say, ‘highly dodgy’ interpretations have been laid bare for the manipulations that they are. And as you refuse to counter any of the points sensibly or to answer direct questions you cannot be taken seriously. Thompson is an extremely weak suspect with nothing to commend him to our attention. Inventions don’t count in true crime I’m afraid.

And just for your information, I’m not changing the criteria due to Thompson (I only added him in the first place because he’s been named) We can all provide a lengthy list of serial killers who had no issue of problems with drink or drugs - Bundy, Sutcliffe, De Salvo to name only three. So why should we add a criteria which is by no means an indicator of someone being a serial killer? If I’d added - Legal Knowledge - I would be quite rightly accused of adding a criteria to favour Druitt.

No doubt if you created the list you would add - Wrote poetry?

Drink and drugs goes.

[The Rookie Detective]

Thompson's training was virtually non-existent.

He scived off his classes and lost himself in the library more often than not.

His father gave him a lot of money for his practicing on Cadavers, yet he instead spent all his father's money on his drug addiction.

Thompson was seen as an exemplary writer, yet his prose was often driven by his somewhat diminished mental state.

Akin to a pot-head smoking too much weed, and writing any old tosh using random clever words and inexplicable phrasing that in reality meant very little to anyone except Thompson himself.

Over elaborate poems that are often non-sensical.

Coming from a drug addict, it's clear that Thompson was high as a kite when he was writing his so called masterpieces.

He was also physically weak and lacked the physical strength and prowess required by a killer who could pretty much decapitate with one cut.

That wasn't Thompson

He did fantasise about violence towards women, but there's no evidence he was ever violent to anyone...except the self-deprecation of himself by taking copious amount of drugs.

The idea that he was some kind of master surgeon is misleading, as he never completed any formal training, and any money he did get to help in his studies, was p***ed up the wall on drugs.


Thompson didn't have the fundermental requirements of a clinical psychopath.

Aside from being an oddball who wrote a lot of violent claptrap, his candidacy as the Ripper is about as strong as a one-dunk teabag job.

Incidentally, Thompson always wore his distinctive worn brown Ulster coat and carried a worn brown satchel...

Which perfectly matches the description of...

Erm...

The description of....

Er...


Nope, I give up.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Version 19

(A) Age/physical health > 2 = no issue/1 = issues creating doubt.
(B) Access to murder sites > 2 = no issues/ 1 = within reasonable travel (train for e.g./ 0 = presence unproven/doubt
(C) Violence > 4 = murder of a woman with a knife/ 3 = murder of a woman (including the use of a knife) or murder with another weapon/ 2 = wounding a woman with a knife/ 1 = threatening a woman with a knife or physical violence using a weapon/ 0 = no violence (with knife or otherwise) 2 = violence with a knife/1 = violence without a knife/0 = no known violence.
(D) Mental health issues > 2 = serious/violent/sexual/1 = other/0 = none known.
(E) Police interest > 2 = at the time (without proven alibi)/1 = later (within 10 yrs and without exoneration)/0 = none known, not serious or exonerated.
(F) Hatred/dislike of women/prostitutes > 2 = yes/1 = link to prostitutes/0 = none known.
(G) Medical/anatomical knowledge (inc. animals) > 1 = yes/0 = none known


--- (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) ---

13 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 1 : Cutbush, Thomas Hayne

12 = 2 - 2 - 3 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 : Kelly, James

10 = 2 - 2 - 3 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 : Bury, William Henry

10 = 2 - 0 - 4 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 0 : Deeming, Frederick Bailey

09 = 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 : Grainger, William Grant

09 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 1 : Puckridge, Oswald

08 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Hyams, Hyam

08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Kosminski, Aaron (Aron Mordke Kozminski)

08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 : Barnado, Thomas John

08 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Pizer, John (Leather Apron)

08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Cohen, David

07 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Lechmere, George Capel Scudamore

07 = 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 2 - 1 : Tumblety, Francis

07 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 2 - 0 : Smith, G. Wentworth Bell

06 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Kidney, Michael

06 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 : Thompson, Francis

06 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 : Chapman, George (Severin Antonowicz Kłosowski)

06 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 : Levy, Jacob

06 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Druitt, Montague John

06 = 2 - 0 - 4 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Carl Feigenbaum

06 = 2 - 0 - 3 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Hendrik De Jong

06 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Le Grand, Charles

05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Barnett, Joseph

05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 : Sutton, Henry Gawen

05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Buchan, Edward

05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 : Williams, Dr. John

05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Craig, Francis Spurzheim

04 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 : Stephenson, Robert Donston (or Roslyn D'Onston)

04 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Maybrick, James

04 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Stephen, James Kenneth

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Bachert, Albert

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Cross, Charles (Charles Allen Lechmere)

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Hardiman, James

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Hutchinson, George

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Mann, Robert

04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Maybrick, Michael

04 = 1 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 : Gull, Sir William Withey

03 = 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Sickert, Walter Richard



Changes Made


I have removed the drug/alcohol criteria as I feel that it isn’t of value and might be misleading. There are a large number of serial killers that don’t have these issues. I’d point out that by removing this category only 2 suspects have changed position in the list - GCS Lechmere and RD Stephenson.




I also made some changes to Cutbush after re-reading Bullock’s book - the violence criteria changed a while ago and I hadn’t altered Cutbush accordingly - For (E) Cutbush certainly was suspected at the time, Inspector Race was convinced of his guilt - For (F) Hatred of prostitutes has to be a 2. Cutbush blamed a prostitute for giving him syphilis and, according to his aunt, he had brutally raped a prostitute at some point - He also gets a point for anatomical knowledge. He was obsessed by anatomy and medical issues in general, he had books on surgery and anatomy and obsessively drew anatomical drawings.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thompson's training was virtually non-existent.

He scived off his classes and lost himself in the library more often than not.

His father gave him a lot of money for his practicing on Cadavers, yet he instead spent all his father's money on his drug addiction.

Thompson was seen as an exemplary writer, yet his prose was often driven by his somewhat diminished mental state.

Akin to a pot-head smoking too much weed, and writing any old tosh using random clever words and inexplicable phrasing that in reality meant very little to anyone except Thompson himself.

Over elaborate poems that are often non-sensical.

Coming from a drug addict, it's clear that Thompson was high as a kite when he was writing his so called masterpieces.

He was also physically weak and lacked the physical strength and prowess required by a killer who could pretty much decapitate with one cut.

That wasn't Thompson

He did fantasise about violence towards women, but there's no evidence he was ever violent to anyone...except the self-deprecation of himself by taking copious amount of drugs.

The idea that he was some kind of master surgeon is misleading, as he never completed any formal training, and any money he did get to help in his studies, was p***ed up the wall on drugs.


Thompson didn't have the fundermental requirements of a clinical psychopath.

Aside from being an oddball who wrote a lot of violent claptrap, his candidacy as the Ripper is about as strong as a one-dunk teabag job.

Incidentally, Thompson always wore his distinctive worn brown Ulster coat and carried a worn brown satchel...

Which perfectly matches the description of...

Erm...

The description of....

Er...


Nope, I give up.

Although Richard feared that I was doing this to lower Thompson down the list (unlike him I don’t manipulate the evidence) I have just found that only two suspects have changed positions after this change and neither are Thompson.

[Patrick Differ]

Having performed risk analysis in the Corporate Cyber World i find this interesting. My only caution would be that measurement and questions need to be well thought out and without bias to be beneficial. The hardest part is the measurement criteria agreement by stakeholders. You can always come up with more questions , for example⁹ Did the suspect live in the kill zone, where or perhaps age including witness testimony in more detail. Maybe its 50 or 100 top questions with 10 categories as an example. So what would say 0,1,2,3,4 ( 20% each) actually be?

This is not an easy task but well defined measurement criteria i found was always the key to getting a better risk profile. The other piece of this would be the gap analysis created by the task. If one suspect is a 0 is there a way to move it along and point to a research need? What is the gap? And I recognize here that some gaps may be insurmountable or impossible to fill.

Another example of the method would be relative to where the killer live. Would you add more weight to distance ? Suspect A lived x blocks away or inside the FBI profile perimeter?

I love the idea and method. Hope this is helpful. Happy to assist in diving further into the weeds. Getting the measurement criteria and values right is the hardest part. Then you can start asking all the right questions. Might be fun.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Having performed risk analysis in the Corporate Cyber World i find this interesting. My only caution would be that measurement and questions need to be well thought out and without bias to be beneficial. The hardest part is the measurement criteria agreement by stakeholders. You can always come up with more questions , for example⁹ Did the suspect live in the kill zone, where or perhaps age including witness testimony in more detail. Maybe its 50 or 100 top questions with 10 categories as an example. So what would say 0,1,2,3,4 ( 20% each) actually be?

This is not an easy task but well defined measurement criteria i found was always the key to getting a better risk profile. The other piece of this would be the gap analysis created by the task. If one suspect is a 0 is there a way to move it along and point to a research need? What is the gap? And I recognize here that some gaps may be insurmountable or impossible to fill.

Another example of the method would be relative to where the killer live. Would you add more weight to distance ? Suspect A lived x blocks away or inside the FBI profile perimeter?

I love the idea and method. Hope this is helpful. Happy to assist in diving further into the weeds. Getting the measurement criteria and values right is the hardest part. Then you can start asking all the right questions. Might be fun.

I don’t mind any suggestions at all Patrick, thanks. I’ve genuinely tried to do this as honestly as I can, and of course no list of this kind could be perfect even if it was done by an expert in such things, but if we can improve it without making it insanely complicated or massively time consuming I’m quite happy to make changes. I’ve tried not to make it too complex but it’s always difficult and people are always going to disagree on certain points (and it might be the case that they are right and I’m wrong)

A good example of one of the issues is the one that you mentioned “did the suspect live in the kill zone?” I don’t think that the killer had to be a local man but many do. Would we rate Mr X who lived 500 yards from Mitre Square higher that Mr Y who lived a mile away? Do we differentiate someone that lived in Whitechapel from someone that lived elsewhere but worked in Whitechapel, or used to work in Whitechapel or passed through Whitechapel twice a day on his way to work.

[Lewis C]

I’ve almost made up my mind to remove the drink/drugs criteria. We can list a huge number of serial killers who didn’t use either. I don’t think it gives an accurate picture.

I see no reason to suspect that the Ripper took drugs. Since the victims drank and it seems likely that there's a connection between the area pubs and the murders, I think it likely that the Ripper drank. However, a lot of people drank, and there are probably suspects who drank without us knowing about it. SO I think it's fine to drop that criterion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I see no reason to suspect that the Ripper took drugs. Since the victims drank and it seems likely that there's a connection between the area pubs and the murders, I think it likely that the Ripper drank. However, a lot of people drank, and there are probably suspects who drank without us knowing about it. SO I think it's fine to drop that criterion.

I think so Lewis. Cheers.