Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rating The Suspects.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Filby
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Apologies for the late response Filby. I take your point. It would perhaps be difficult to get a consensus as to which criteria deserve more weight though. It’s certainly a fair point though.
    Agree, yes and no apologies necessary. I very much appreciate all of your methods for assessing suspects.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Filby View Post

    Interesting statistical analysis. I would even go so far as to apply some weighting to each criterion - such as "Police Interest" - for me that should be weighted higher in its rating than Anatomical Knowledge.
    Apologies for the late response Filby. I take your point. It would perhaps be difficult to get a consensus as to which criteria deserve more weight though. It’s certainly a fair point though.

    Leave a comment:


  • C. F. Leon
    replied
    Originally posted by C. F. Leon View Post
    ... (other than probably being in the West End during the period). ...
    Oops: Typo that I didn't catch at the time: should be EAST End, of course.

    [sigh] I'm going to the back yard and eat worms...

    Leave a comment:


  • Filby
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Maybe there’s little or no value in this exercise but I did it anyway. I tried to apply a tick box checklist to a list of suspects that I selected from CJ Morley’s book. The scoring is my own of course but I’ve attempted this in a totally impartial way.

    I reserved the right to immediately dump someone like Charles Akehurst who scared a woman in November 1888 or Alaska which was just an example of a fanciful story. Many of those names listed are nothing more that curiosities, attention-seekers or drunks. I’ve also left out any ‘sex’ category because the ripper was undoubtedly a man in my opinion. Also if it can’t be shown that a suspect was definitely in the country at the time of the murders I will eliminate them; might have been isn’t good enough imo. (sorry Trevor).

    On the Police Interest criteria I won’t give a point to someone like Barnett who was questioned by the police but any partner/former partner would have been and there’s no evidence that he was ever seriously considered a suspect.

    I’m working on the basis that Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were definitely victims, so if a suspect was incarcerated, out of the country or dead for any of those I’ll eliminate him.


    The scoring system is my own of course…



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

    * Maybe a suspect is much older than we would expect for a serial killer or there were health-related issues.


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


    3. Violent - 4 = killed with a knife, 3 = violence with knife against woman, 2 = violence with knife against man, 1 = other forms of violence, 0 = no known 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 - 2 = yes, 1 = slaughterman/ butcher level, 0 = none known.


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


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

    Cutbush > 2 - 2 - 3 - 2 - 0 - 2 - 0 = 11

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

    Hyams > 2 - 2 - 3 - 3 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 10

    Chapman > 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 2 = 8

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

    Tumblety > 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 2 - 2 = 8

    Thompson > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 2 = 7

    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 - 1 - 0 -1 - 1 = 5

    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 - 2 = 5

    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 - 2 = 4

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

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




    Happy to here comments/suggestions of course.
    Interesting statistical analysis. I would even go so far as to apply some weighting to each criterion - such as "Police Interest" - for me that should be weighted higher in its rating than Anatomical Knowledge.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
    Without trying to detract too far from this thread (sorry Herlock) I just wanted to add that for those who believe Alice McKenzie WAS a Ripper victim...then Dr Barnardo almost certainly WASN'T the Ripper.


    I say this because this following article refers to an event that occurred on the 16th July 1889, less than 24 hours BEFORE McKenzie was murdered...

    Click image for larger version

Name:	South_Wales_Echo_16_July_1889_0003_Clip.jpg
Views:	166
Size:	192.5 KB
ID:	835746

    Dr Barnardo's appeal was rejected and based on this report, he was sent to prison just a few hours before McKenzie was murdered.

    This is particularly interesting because it has been assumed that Barnardo didn't spent any time in jail; especially in the late 1880's.

    But... the attached report suggests otherwise...unless he used his charm to walk free at the 11th hour.



    RD
    Thanks for that RD.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post


    Hi Scott, but we have a Shawl and a mtDNA match!



    The Baron
    Yes, thank you Baron. I keep forgetting about those for some reason.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Rookie Detective
    replied
    Without trying to detract too far from this thread (sorry Herlock) I just wanted to add that for those who believe Alice McKenzie WAS a Ripper victim...then Dr Barnardo almost certainly WASN'T the Ripper.


    I say this because this following article refers to an event that occurred on the 16th July 1889, less than 24 hours BEFORE McKenzie was murdered...

    Click image for larger version

Name:	South_Wales_Echo_16_July_1889_0003_Clip.jpg
Views:	166
Size:	192.5 KB
ID:	835746

    Dr Barnardo's appeal was rejected and based on this report, he was sent to prison just a few hours before McKenzie was murdered.

    This is particularly interesting because it has been assumed that Barnardo didn't spent any time in jail; especially in the late 1880's.

    But... the attached report suggests otherwise...unless he used his charm to walk free at the 11th hour.



    RD

    Leave a comment:


  • The Rookie Detective
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    It would be interesting to know why she attacked him?

    I am not sure why she attacked him, but I would imagine it may have concerned him having taken away her child without her consent or permission; in the name of Philanthropy of course

    Barnardo was in the habit of taking children away from destitution, but then failing to hand them back when the mother inquired about their child.

    Barnardo often used the ploy of sending them off to Canada as an excuse, but there is some suggestion that some children went missing entirely.


    A form of philanthropic child trafficking so to speak


    RD
    Last edited by The Rookie Detective; 06-10-2024, 10:23 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

    Thanks Lewis. For those who adhere to the Swanson Marginalia, Cohen would be the only foreign-born Jew who was insane and went to a workhouse, followed by confinement in Colney Hatch Asylum just after the C-5 murders and dying shortly afterwards. The other stuff, like having a brother, remains unknown in Cohen's case. And Swanson, like Macnaghten, may have been using his European name instead of an 'anglicized' one.

    Hi Scott, but we have a Shawl and a mtDNA match!



    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffHamm
    replied
    Originally posted by Fiver View Post

    There are definite similarities between the Mackenzie murder and the C5. It seems probable that her killer was the Ripper or a copycat. Points in favor of a copycat are:

    * The large timegap after the Kelly murder.
    * The far lesser mutilations, without any indication the murderer was interrupted.
    * The body was found two feet from a lamp post. The Ripper liked more darkness than that.
    Hi Fiver,

    While I am not arguing McKenzie is a victim of JtR, just to consider possible lines of thought to the above differences, with regards to the time gap it seems that if she's not, the timegap post Kelly becomes even larger (as in JtR has stopped killing altogether). While that is often used as a pointer to JtR being out of circulation (dead, incarcerated for another crime, left the area, etc), it is only that, a pointer not proof. So if he was none of those things, then perhaps the cessation of the murders until July of the next year was simply because for much of that time it was winter, and the weather, being cold, etc, made his outdoor mode of killing less viable somehow. Either victims harder to find or it was just too unpleasant for him to be outside prowling the streets at night. Basically, something mundane as the season conditions could potentially influence his behaviour in such a way that he's no longer putting in the time looking for victims.

    For the second, there was a lot of activity in the area, with police patrolling around Castle Alley very frequently. While nobody was seen leaving the area as if scared off, whoever killed Alice had a pretty small time window of opportunity given the patrols. Interruption need not be someone comes upon him and he flees, of course, it may simply be he hears something that spooks him (such as the footsteps of a patrolling PC echoing nearby), or even the conditions just make him too jittery - somethings not right about the situation.

    That last one connects to the lighting. As you say, JtR favoured darker areas, so the lamp itself might have been what spooked him. He starts cutting and just realises he is too visible in this location.

    There are some similarities to consider as well.
    She had 2 wounds to the left side of her neck (point of difference, these were stabs "carried forward towards the right", and while this severed the left cartoid artery it was not the throat cutting to the point of near decapitations of many of the C5).
    She was found on her back.
    It appeared her throat was cut while she was on the ground (as per the C5)
    Her clothes were lifted up above the body, displaying her, as many of the C5 were displayed.
    She had bruising on her shoulders (which I think Stride also showed).
    While the cuts to her abdomen were not as extensive or as deep, her abdomen and privates were attacked.
    And victim characteristics and location are both similar.

    The reduced throat cutting wounds, combined with the less extensive abdominal wounds, could reflect the knife was different and less suitable to his purposes, but that doesn't mean it was necessarily held by a different person.

    Dr. Phillips' opinion was the medical evidence did not suggest a common killer with the C5, but he did qualify that by saying that if other evidence were to point to that conclusion he would not, in effect, not object. Dr. Bond thought the medical evidence was consistent with the C5 sufficiently to suggest it was the same person.

    If McKenzie is a victim of a copycat, then obviously it just means JtR was for some reason no longer active, and so with regards to JtR, we have to explain why that was the case.

    But, if she is a victim of JtR, then why the time gap and why the reduction in the injuries? I've suggested a couple ideas above, but another occurs to me. If JtR was psychotic (rather than psychopathic), and so has bizarre thinking and thoughts, psychotic episodes do wax and wane. The time gap may reflect JtR's psychotic thinking and compulsions reducing over a period of time, and re-emerging in July of 1889. Psychotic individuals can be glib and chatty, and it can take awhile to really notice the bizarreness of their thought processes, so being psychotic is not the presumed problem with respect to interacting with the woman for long enough to convince them he's "safe" - they aren't gibbering lunatics, those with such sever symptoms would be in an asylum at that time after all. However, I think part of me would be more inclined to suggest he's just got a different knife at this time, and he found it wasn't up to the task he had in mind, resulting in less extensive wounds and in him leaving the scene (that becoming the "interruption", it just wasn't working for him).

    Anyway, I just want to repeat, I'm not convinced by those arguments either, but they are the sort of things that make me hesitant to dismiss her case entirely.

    Hmmmm, we're getting a bit off-topic though.

    - Jeff


    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post


    Of course, for the sake of balance; Barnardo appeared to have been on the receiving end of violence himself.

    Here's a noteworthy incident that occurred in 1878 (but reported on 2nd Jan 1879) when a prostitute named Clara Rivers did this...

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Echo_London_02_January_1879_0003_Clip.jpg
Views:	169
Size:	48.1 KB
ID:	835734

    Motive anyone?


    (now if Clara Rivers ended up dissappearing at some point; how peculiar would that be?)


    RD
    It would be interesting to know why she attacked him?

    Leave a comment:


  • The Rookie Detective
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Amendment 10


    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

    Grainger > 2 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 1 -1 = 9

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

    Pizer > 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 = 8

    GSC Lechmere > 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 -1 = 8

    Barnado > 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 = 8

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

    Tumblety > 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 2 - 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

    Kidney > 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 = 7

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

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

    Druitt > 2 - 1 - 0 -1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 5

    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 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - = 3

    Gull > 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 2


    Amendment made

    A point added to Barnado for criteria 3 (Violence) after information from RD.


    Of course, for the sake of balance; Barnardo appeared to have been on the receiving end of violence himself.

    Here's a noteworthy incident that occurred in 1878 (but reported on 2nd Jan 1879) when a prostitute named Clara Rivers did this...

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Echo_London_02_January_1879_0003_Clip.jpg
Views:	169
Size:	48.1 KB
ID:	835734

    Motive anyone?


    (now if Clara Rivers ended up dissappearing at some point; how peculiar would that be?)


    RD

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    Originally posted by Lewis C View Post

    Hi Scott,

    Cohen currently has a zero for police interest despite the fact that he first became a suspect because Martin Fido thought that he was the person most likely to be Anderson's Polish Jew suspect. I consider Cohen to be one of the stronger suspects in part because I think there's a good chance that Fido was right about that. We can't be sure that there was police interest in Cohen, but we also can't be sure there was police interest in Aaron Kosminski - Swanson and MacNaughton said "Kosminski", not "Aaron Kosminski". Kosminski is given a point, so unless "Kosminski" on the list means just that - Swanson's Kosminski, and not necessarily Aaron Kosminski - if Kosminski gets a point for police interest, maybe Cohen should too, or at least half a point.
    Thanks Lewis. For those who adhere to the Swanson Marginalia, Cohen would be the only foreign-born Jew who was insane and went to a workhouse, followed by confinement in Colney Hatch Asylum just after the C-5 murders and dying shortly afterwards. The other stuff, like having a brother, remains unknown in Cohen's case. And Swanson, like Macnaghten, may have been using his European name instead of an 'anglicized' one.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Rookie Detective
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    No problem RD and Ms D. I’ll add a point with my next amendment.
    Thank you kindly for that Herlock


    RD

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Amendment 10


    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

    Grainger > 2 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 1 -1 = 9

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

    Pizer > 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 = 8

    GSC Lechmere > 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 -1 = 8

    Barnado > 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 = 8

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

    Tumblety > 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 2 - 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

    Kidney > 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 = 7

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

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

    Druitt > 2 - 1 - 0 -1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 5

    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 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - = 3

    Gull > 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 2


    Amendment made

    A point added to Barnado for criteria 3 (Violence) after information from RD.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X