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.

[Lewis C]

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?

This is from a dissertation from our site by Stephen Ryder, toward the end, and much of this is also stated in Paul Begg's Jack the Ripper the Facts, pp. 410-411 (but Ryder is cited below):

Sickert's biographer, Matthew Sturgis, recently elaborated on this evidence in an article in the Sunday Times (3 November 2002). According to Sturgis, although the exact date Sickert left for France can not be determined, he apparently departed sometime in mid-August. His last London sketch is dated August 4th, and there are no sources to indicate that he was in London after that date. On September 6th, Sickert's mother wrote from St. Valéry-en-Caux, describing how Walter and his brother Bernhard were having such a "happy time" swimming and painting there. A letter sent by a French painter, Jacques-Emile Blanche, to his father described a visit with Sickert on September 16th. Walter's wife Ellen wrote to her brother-in-law on September 21st, stating that her husband was in France for some weeks now.

There is evidence to suggest that Sickert stayed in the Dieppe area at least until early October, 1888. He painted a local buther's shop, "flooded with sunlight" in a piece he titled The October Sun.

Although any one of these several bits of evidence could feasibly be ignored or explained away, the combination of all these independent sources confirming the same thing - namely, that Sickert was in France at the time of the Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes murders - suggests that Sickert could not have been the killer. While it is true that ferry service between England and France was widely available, and technically Sickert could have travelled back and forth before and after each murder, that is pure speculation and there is no evidence to suggest this was the case.

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Patricia Cornwell and Walter Sickert: A Primer

[Lewis C]

double post

[Lewis C]

double post

[GBinOz]

I can’t see why Cutbush garners so little interest George? What are the objections?

Hi Herlock,

I can only say that I haven't previously been aware of the offenses that you cite except for his stabbing two women in the buttocks. From this dissertation by Cristopher Morley:

https://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/cjmorley/44.html

"He soon escaped, and was at liberty for four days, taking with him a knife which he used to stab Florence Grace Johnson in the buttocks, and also attempted to do the same to Isabella Frazer Anderson, in Kennington. These crimes appeared to be imitations of a criminal called Colicott, who a couple of months previous had stabbed six young women in the behind with a pointed awl"

Cheers, George

[The Rookie Detective]

I don't believe there should be a "0" for Access to murder sites, because it would need to encompass ALL of the murders, and there's no evidence to suggest that all of the victims were murdered by the same hand.

Access to murder sites is the most difficult to get right, because the fact is that unless a suspect was already dead (like Bury was by the time of the McKenzie murder) then there's always a slight chance that ANY of the names suspects on your list had access to the murder sites.

I would instead INCREASE the scores for those individuals who were definitely able to have proximal access to the various murder sites.

Bachert, Levy, Chapman for example, were all known to live and work locally.

So as an example, the likes of Deeming, Thomspon, Faigenbum etc... would score a point less than the likes of Bachert, Levy, Chapman etc...


In other words, Access to murder sites should be the only category that doesn't have a "0" points system.


Things like known History of Violence, Criminal record etc... CAN have a "0" because we know that the likes of Lechmere had no known history of violence.


Hope that all makes sense


It does to me anyway, haha!!!

[The Rookie Detective]

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.

Could you have...


Access to murder sites....

3 - known proximity and access to murder sites

2 - possible proximity and access to murder sites

1 - known issues with proximity and access to murder sites


If you have a "0" it's essentially ruling them out as the killer already, because it implies they couldn't have been there. Which then negates the need for them to be on the list and considered in the first place.


So for example,

Bachert would score a 3 because he lived for decades in the same house and within proximity to the majority of murder sites.
Chapman also would score a 3 because he had a shop on Cable Street.

Thompson would score a 2 because he spent most of his time on the Embankment sleeping under arches, and so could have possible access to Whitechapel. But there's no evidence he was in Whitechapel


Deeming would score a 1, because it's often argued he was abroad, but this can't be conclusively proven.


Just a thought

[The Rookie Detective]

Cutbush would score a 3

Even though he claimed to have no knowledge of Whitechapel, and he lived in South London and stabbed women all in the same location (on the same road) he still purchased a 6 inch "toy" (which it wasn't) knife from a shop in the Minories, ergo, the heart of Whitechapel.

He lied about not having knowledge of Whitechapel


But the fact he was proven to have visited the Minories thus proves he had a known proximal geographical connection to Whitechapel.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Re Feigenbaum
Here is a quote from William Lawton the lawyer who represented him throughout his incarceration for the murder he committed in The USA

So what did Lawton reveal? He stated, “One night I stayed talking with him for over two hours and during this time, he told me, “I have for years suffered from a singular disease which induces an all absorbing passion, this passion manifests itself in a desire to kill and mutilate every woman who falls in my way. At such times I am unable to control myself” Lawton went on to say, “I began to search Feigenbaum’s record. I learned that he was in Wisconsin at the time the country was startled by the news of the murder and mutilation of several women there, when I saw him again I mentioned the Whitechapel murders to which he replied, “The lord was responsible for my acts, and that to him only could I confess.” I was so startled that for the moment I did not know what to do I then looked up the dates of the Whitechapel murders and selected two. When I saw Feigenbaum again and was talking with him I said: "Carl, were you in London from this date to that one," naming those selected. "Yes", he answered.

Assistant District Attorney Vernon M. Davis, who prosecuted Feigenbaum, said: “If it were proved that Feigenbaum was 'Jack the Ripper' it would not greatly surprise me, because I always considered him a cunning fellow, surrounded by a great deal of mystery, and his life history was never found out.

The results of my in-depth investigation into Feigenbaum can be found in my book -"Jack The Ripper-The Real Truth" https://bit.ly/4h1IlnW

www.trevormarriott.co.uk