Rating The Suspects.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Backsides !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Florence Grace Johnson: “received a wound in the lower part of her back.”

(Dr. Farr, report of the Police Court proceedings, Brixton Free Press, 21st March 1891)


The other woman, Isabel Fraser Anderson had been assaulted “in a similar manner.”

(Daily Chronicle, 16th March 1891)


Dr. Farr said that he had: “found an incised wound on the lower part of her back.”

(Daily Chronicle, 24th March 1891)



No need to thank me Trev.

[Lewis C]

Im not sure that Laudnam or cocaine can be easily dismissed as access to both was not difficult. Both addictive. Laudnam was heavily used in Asylums who used drugs to control its general population. So if the suspect were to be in an asylum before the murders ( Kelly and Levy) does that affect their outcome?

The measurements are not easy but drug use would be a potential factor. OJ Simpson was fueled by Cocaine when he murdered 2 people. A known heavy user as an example.

I said that there's no reason to suspect that the Ripper took drugs. I didn't say that we should dismiss the possibility of him taking drugs. The vast majority of those who take drugs don't murder, there are murderers that don't take drugs, and a suspect could have taken drugs without us knowing that he did.

[Lewis C]

Herlock, I suggest that anyone who has a known alibi should get a zero for (B) Access to murder sites. In particular, I have in mind Oswald Puckridge and John Pizer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, I suggest that anyone who has a known alibi should get a zero for (B) Access to murder sites. In particular, I have in mind Oswald Puckridge and John Pizer.

That’s one of the things that I’d considered a while ago, and not just with the 2 that you’ve named. Puckeridge’s landlord said that he’d slept there every night for the last 4 weeks but..isn’t it at least possible that Puckeridge might have gone out without him seeing? I did wonder if it might be an idea to add an asterix and then note such potential issues. To be honest, and I know this will probably annoy Trevor, I’m still not happy having Feigenbaum in the list because we have no reason to believe that he was in the country at the time. If I kept him in I would have to add an asterix point too.

[Lewis C]

That’s one of the things that I’d considered a while ago, and not just with the 2 that you’ve named. Puckeridge’s landlord said that he’d slept there every night for the last 4 weeks but..isn’t it at least possible that Puckeridge might have gone out without him seeing? I did wonder if it might be an idea to add an asterix and then note such potential issues. To be honest, and I know this will probably annoy Trevor, I’m still not happy having Feigenbaum in the list because we have no reason to believe that he was in the country at the time. If I kept him in I would have to add an asterix point too.

I was figuring that if a policeman who suspected him said categorically that he had an alibi, that's good enough.

If you remove Feigenbaum, then I think that to be consistent, you'd have to remove Sickert too. My understanding is that there's no reason to believe that Sickert was anywhere but in France when some of the murders occurred.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I was figuring that if a policeman who suspected him said categorically that he had an alibi, that's good enough.

If you remove Feigenbaum, then I think that to be consistent, you'd have to remove Sickert too. My understanding is that there's no reason to believe that Sickert was anywhere but in France when some of the murders occurred.

I’m unsure about Sickert. I haven’t read anything about him for ages so I don’t know how strong the evidence is that he was abroad?

[Herlock Sholmes]

A question for those who know more about this than I do (which is probably everyone) - Can AI invent things?

Anyway, isn’t it strange, no ‘weird,’ that Richard appears unwilling or incapable of responding to points. Just check out his last few posts. List after list after list. Nothing more. Often with strange new wordings in an attempt to make things ‘fit.’ Then more and more inventions. Not willing to explain the existing inventions Richard is busy creating and posting new ones. Look at the content of his last post.


”He lived rough in Spitalfields.” - Richard old chap, could you provide a smidgeon of evidence for this please?

”Thompson shifted from Limehouse refuges into Spitalfields at the precise moment the murders peaked.” - Any danger of just the merest scintilla of evidence for this claim please Rich. Awfully grateful.

“His rejection by the prostitute “Ann”“ - Ann was the name of De Quincey’s prostitute. Has AI malfunctioned?

”He carried surgical instruments while homeless.” - We know that he said that he once shaved with a scalpel but clearly I missed the part about him carrying surgical instruments. Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out the location of the evidence for this please?

”Now, you want to exclude him because he was a laudanum addict.” - Don’t worry Richard. His position hasn’t changed on the list and I never mentioned ‘excluding’ him or any suspect. Maybe another malfunction?

“Saying “drug use weakens candidacy” ignores that in Thompson’s case, withdrawal heightened instability and drive.“ - I even have to request evidence for something that you alleged that I’ve said. Could you point out for the boys and girls where I said “drug use weakens candidacy”? How could any human being possibly see a quote that never existed?

“Pretending that being institutionalised at the Priory as the murders stop is coincidence.“ - What is your considered opinion Richard of someone who apparently doesn’t know that Thompson went into The Priory in February of 1889? Are you perhaps getting him mixed up with a different drug-addicted poet who was admitted to an entirely different Priory?

“The knives he carried.“ - It was surgical instruments earlier in the same post, now it’s knives. Perhaps you might consider adding a machete in your next post? Or a rifle perhaps?

“His presence in Spitalfields during the killings.“ - Sorry to repeat the point Rich but can we have a little touch of evidence for this please? Pretty please?


Now, Richard, as you are a ‘genuine’ researcher/author, I’m sure that you will do what all ‘genuine’ researcher/authors would always do. Express a willingness to engage with those who might have bought your book and have genuine questions to ask about the posts that you have repeatedly made (with the emphasis on ‘repeated’ of course. I mean, you wouldn’t want to appear evasive by constant refusing to respond would you? Of course you wouldn’t. You know as well as anyone that evidence is required and that readers can’t be expected to uncritically accept anything and everything an author says. So, that said, I’m certain that I, and anyone else that happens to be reading, can expect some very specific, point-by-point answers from you with the requested evidence (including sources, page numbers etc)

To quote Sir John Gielgud in Arthur: “I await your next syllable with great eagerness.”

No responses to this or my previous post from Richard.

What a surprise.