Rating The Suspects.

[The Rookie Detective]

lol no worries.

on a seperate note.. as you know im big on proximity to victim/ murder site. i would just add 3 for strong proximity in that category(location) so for example, barnett, lech hutch etc would receive a 3 in that one.

Herlock


Is there a chance you can add a point for Bachert for Alcohol use?

He was reported during court proceedings to have been a regular drinker at a particular pub and often found under the influence of alcohol.

It appears that when his world began to unravel and he was essentially ousted as having been a fraud; he turned to alcohol.

I will try and find the data to corroborate what I'm saying.

It makes virtually no difference to his validity as a potential person of interest, but for completeness I fell he needs a point added for Alcohol use.

I will locate the data I am referring to, and get back to you once I have recalled it.


p.s. not sure why I quoted your post Abby; I meant to write a direct message on the thread, my apologies.

[Abby Normal]

Amendment #16


(A) Age/physical health > 2 = no issue/1 = issues creating doubt.
(B) Location/access to murder sites > 2 = no issues/1 = reasonable travel/0 = serious doubt.
(C) Violence > 4 = killed woman (non-relative) with knife/3 = killed female relative with knife/
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 exoneration)/1 = later (within 10 yrs and without exoneration)/0 = none known or not serious.
(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
(H) Alcohol/drug issue > 1 = yes/0 = none known.

^ means that a suspect has moved up the table after the latest amendment

* means that a suspect has moved down the table after the latest amendment


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

13 = 2 - 2 - 3 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Kelly, James
11 = 2 - 2 - 3 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Bury, William Henry
11 = 2 - 1 - 4 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 0 : Deeming, Frederick Bailey
10 = 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 : Grainger, William Grant
09 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Cutbush, Thomas Hayne
09 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 : Hyams, Hyam
09 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Puckridge, Oswald
08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Kosminski, Aaron (Aron Mordke Kozminski)
08 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Lechmere, George Capel Scudamore
08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 : Barnado, Thomas John
08 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Pizer, John (Leather Apron)
08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Cohen, David ^
07 = 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 : Tumblety, Francis
07 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 2 - 0 - 0 : Smith, G. Wentworth Bell
07 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Kidney, Michael
06 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Chapman, George (Severin Antonowicz Kłosowski)
06 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 : Thompson, Francis
06 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Levy, Jacob
05 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Druitt, Montague John
05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Barnett, Joseph
05 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 : Stephenson, Robert Donston (or Roslyn D'Onston)
05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Sutton, Henry Gawen
05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Buchan, Edward
05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Williams, Dr. John
05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Craig, Francis Spurzheim
04 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Stephen, James Kenneth
04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Bachert, Albert
04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Cross, Charles (Charles Allen Lechmere)
04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Hardiman, James
04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Hutchinson, George
04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Mann, Robert
04 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 : Maybrick, James
04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Le Grand, Charles
04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Maybrick, Michael
04 = 1 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Gull, Sir William Withey
03 = 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Sickert, Walter Richard

Changes


Thanks to CF Leon for reminding me why I’d originally given Cohen a 1 for (F) I’ve put it back.

Sorry Abby, it was hopeless cutting and pasting by me which caused Gull and Sickert to be left out. I have to put them back. (I know what you mean though)

Text changes made to Cutbush and Buchan thanks to Geddy.

lol no worries.

on a seperate note.. as you know im big on proximity to victim/ murder site. i would just add 3 for strong proximity in that category(location) so for example, barnett, lech hutch etc would receive a 3 in that one.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Amendment #16


(A) Age/physical health > 2 = no issue/1 = issues creating doubt.
(B) Location/access to murder sites > 2 = no issues/1 = reasonable travel/0 = serious doubt.
(C) Violence > 4 = killed woman (non-relative) with knife/3 = killed female relative with knife/
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 exoneration)/1 = later (within 10 yrs and without exoneration)/0 = none known or not serious.
(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
(H) Alcohol/drug issue > 1 = yes/0 = none known.

^ means that a suspect has moved up the table after the latest amendment

* means that a suspect has moved down the table after the latest amendment


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

13 = 2 - 2 - 3 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Kelly, James
11 = 2 - 2 - 3 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Bury, William Henry
11 = 2 - 1 - 4 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 0 : Deeming, Frederick Bailey
10 = 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 : Grainger, William Grant
09 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Cutbush, Thomas Hayne
09 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 : Hyams, Hyam
09 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Puckridge, Oswald
08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Kosminski, Aaron (Aron Mordke Kozminski)
08 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Lechmere, George Capel Scudamore
08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 : Barnado, Thomas John
08 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Pizer, John (Leather Apron)
08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Cohen, David ^
07 = 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 : Tumblety, Francis
07 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 2 - 0 - 0 : Smith, G. Wentworth Bell
07 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Kidney, Michael
06 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Chapman, George (Severin Antonowicz Kłosowski)
06 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 : Thompson, Francis
06 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Levy, Jacob
05 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Druitt, Montague John
05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Barnett, Joseph
05 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 : Stephenson, Robert Donston (or Roslyn D'Onston)
05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Sutton, Henry Gawen
05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Buchan, Edward
05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Williams, Dr. John
05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Craig, Francis Spurzheim
04 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Stephen, James Kenneth
04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Bachert, Albert
04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Cross, Charles (Charles Allen Lechmere)
04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Hardiman, James
04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Hutchinson, George
04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Mann, Robert
04 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 : Maybrick, James
04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Le Grand, Charles
04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Maybrick, Michael
04 = 1 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Gull, Sir William Withey
03 = 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Sickert, Walter Richard

Changes


Thanks to CF Leon for reminding me why I’d originally given Cohen a 1 for (F) I’ve put it back.

Sorry Abby, it was hopeless cutting and pasting by me which caused Gull and Sickert to be left out. I have to put them back. (I know what you mean though)

Text changes made to Cutbush and Buchan thanks to Geddy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

i see all characters associated from the royal conspiracy have been removed. good job!! maybrick should at least come off as well. these type of joke suspects have taken up too much space as it is.

Actually I didn’t know that I’d done that Abby. A mistake in cutting and pasting yet again! How am I still doing this?

[Abby Normal]

i see all characters associated from the royal conspiracy have been removed. good job!! maybrick should at least come off as well. these type of joke suspects have taken up too much space as it is.

[Geddy2112]

The Cutbush, Thomas Hayne needs a = instead of a - and Buchan, Edward needs a 'space' after the 1 as it's doing my chuffing OCD right in... thanks.

[C. F. Leon]

Amendment #14

...

F - I don’t know why I’ve given Cohen a 1 here? Reading back I see no link to prostitutes so I’m removing the point - obviously if someone can refresh my memory as to why the point should remain I’ll reinstate it.

...

On your Point #F, above, IIRC one of the Podcasts mentions that Cohen was arrested in a raid in a brothel.

[C. F. Leon]

I just noticed…

...

I didn’t know that there were two Pizer’s? I haven’t a clue how that happened? And with different points? I’ll put it right tomorrow.

The second Pizer with the higher rating must be the evil twin. (Or the one from the Mirror Universe!)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Amendment #15

(A) Age/physical health > 2 = no issue/1 = issues creating doubt.
(B) Location/access to murder sites > 2 = no issues/1 = reasonable travel/0 = serious doubt.
(C) Violence > 4 = killed woman (non-relative) with knife/3 = killed female relative with knife/
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 exoneration)/1 = later (within 10 yrs and without exoneration)/0 = none known or not serious.
(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
(H) Alcohol/drug issue > 1 = yes/0 = none known.

--- (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) ---
13 = 2 - 2 - 3 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Kelly, James
11 = 2 - 2 - 3 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Bury, William Henry
11 = 2 - 1 - 4 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 0 : Deeming, Frederick Bailey ^
10 = 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 : Grainger, William Grant
09 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Cutbush, Thomas Hayne
09 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 : Hyams, Hyam
09 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Puckridge, Oswald
08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Kosminski, Aaron (Aron Mordke Kozminski)
08 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Lechmere, George Capel Scudamore
08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 : Barnado, Thomas John
08 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Pizer, John (Leather Apron)
07 = 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 : Tumblety, Francis
07 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 2 - 0 - 0 : Smith, G. Wentworth Bell
07 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Cohen, David
07 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Kidney, Michael
06 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Chapman, George (Severin Antonowicz Kłosowski) *
06 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 : Thompson, Francis
06 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Levy, Jacob
05 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Druitt, Montague John
05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Barnett, Joseph
05 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 : Stephenson, Robert Donston (or Roslyn D'Onston)
05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Sutton, Henry Gawen
05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Buchan, Edward
05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Williams, Dr. John
05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Craig, Francis Spurzheim
04 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Stephen, James Kenneth
04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Bachert, Albert
04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Cross, Charles (Charles Allen Lechmere)
04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Hardiman, James
04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Hutchinson, George
04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Mann, Robert
04 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 : Maybrick, James
04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Le Grand, Charles

…

^ means that a suspect has moved up the table after the latest amendment

* means that a suspect has moved down the table after the latest amendment

………

General request to those that know more about tech than I do (which only exempts the Amazonian Korubu tribe)…

I have an iPad and have the above table in Pages. No matter what I’ve tried whenever I cut and pasted onto them onto Casebook a gap appears between the lines (yes, I’ve tried reducing the line spacing on Pages) which makes the table very long. I’ve already put the criteria at the top and horizontally because I want to reduce the scrolling that people have to do to remind themselves of what criteria is being represented by each letter. I had to remove all of the gaps manually after cutting and pasting to get the above which is hardly hard work but it would be simpler if I cut just cut a paste and table without gaps. Any suggestions?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You have voluntarily taken on an onerous task, so a few minor errors can be expected. I don't think it would be presumptive to offer congratulations and thanks on behalf of all concerned.

Cheers, George

Thank you George

[Lewis C]

The sad statistic is that when a murder is committed, the first suspect is the usually the spouse (Bury, Chapman), but as tragic as that may be, when the murder also includes innocent children it inflicts an injury on my soul. I am unable to comprehend the darkness of the motives of anyone that would resort to such an atrocity to further his own needs, and I feel that it would be such a man that could be capable of the injuries visited upon Eddowes and Kelly.

Absolutely George. I'm reminded of a dissertation on this site about Deeming by someone who doesn't think that Deeming was the Ripper who said something like, "Deeming was worse than the Ripper, because at least the Ripper didn't kill defenseless children".

[GBinOz]

The sad statistic is that when a murder is committed, the first suspect is the usually the spouse (Bury, Chapman), but as tragic as that may be, when the murder also includes innocent children it inflicts an injury on my soul. I am unable to comprehend the darkness of the motives of anyone that would resort to such an atrocity to further his own needs, and I feel that it would be such a man that could be capable of the injuries visited upon Eddowes and Kelly.

[GBinOz]

thanks george
i did t know he was ever a suspect by police, and he may have been in london or close enough during the murders. back on the list he goes!

Cheers Abby -

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

As well as the death mask mentioned by RD, when Deeming was arrested in Western Australia in 1892 he was question by police regard the Whitechapel murders. It was reported in The Mercury in 1892 that Deeming had confessed to a Detective Cawsey that he was responsible for the last two Whitechapel murders (Eddowes and Kelly???).



I'm aware that you're sceptical with regard to him being in London in 1888, but an 1892 article from the NY Times quoted Deeming's sister in law as stating that "while he was living in Birkenhead in 1888, Deeming made regular trips to London". This would have been made easy by the new rail link from Birkenhead to London. When Deeming's (aka Williams) picture was published after his arrest, a dressmaker identified him as a man she was with in Whitechapel only hours before the Eddowes murder, but that the name he gave her was Harry Lawson, a known Deeming alias.

If you haven't done so already, there is a great deal of information on recent research here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQxYiUUDZqk&t=10s&ab_channel=DarkHistory

Cheers, George

thanks george
i did t know he was ever a suspect by police, and he may have been in london or close enough during the murders. back on the list he goes!

[GBinOz]

hi george
Deeming was a police suspect in 1892? can you please provide more detail? thanks!!

Hi Abby,

As well as the death mask mentioned by RD, when Deeming was arrested in Western Australia in 1892 he was question by police regard the Whitechapel murders. It was reported in The Mercury in 1892 that Deeming had confessed to a Detective Cawsey that he was responsible for the last two Whitechapel murders (Eddowes and Kelly???).



I'm aware that you're sceptical with regard to him being in London in 1888, but an 1892 article from the NY Times quoted Deeming's sister in law as stating that "while he was living in Birkenhead in 1888, Deeming made regular trips to London". This would have been made easy by the new rail link from Birkenhead to London. When Deeming's (aka Williams) picture was published after his arrest, a dressmaker identified him as a man she was with in Whitechapel only hours before the Eddowes murder, but that the name he gave her was Harry Lawson, a known Deeming alias.

If you haven't done so already, there is a great deal of information on recent research here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQxYiUUDZqk&t=10s&ab_channel=DarkHistory

Cheers, George