Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rating The Suspects.

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

  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Amendment #17

    (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
    05 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Maybrick, James ^
    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 - 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

    Added a point to James Maybrick for ‘links to prostitutes.’ I’ve been doing some Maybrick reading recently and was reminded that he was known to have frequented a brothel in the USA.
    The only thing wrong with this list is the fact that Cross is too highly placed. I think I might start an extra list for joke suspects which could allow him a slightly higher position just below Van Gogh. I think that we are in a position now where those who propose and have promoted Cross as the ripper should begin apologising to the rest of us. I mean, come on, it’s not difficult to see why this bloke should be eliminated as a suspect by those with a serious interest in the case. All that they have is childish cries of “he was there, he was there,” and their hero and proposer is reduced to deliberately editing the evidence. He has to ‘cook the books’ to make even a weak case.

    It’s a sad indictment of the subject. Charles’s Cross - absolute non-suspect. A child could see that he was obviously innocent.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Fiver View Post

    What about self-claimed?

    The Prisoner, in his defence, said that he had suffered from sunstroke in India, and that sometimes he was not responsible for his actions" - George Capel Scudamore Lechmere

    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Hi chubs,

    I set the category to only include mental health issues which were proven/diagnosed. Like spending time in an asylum. I wanted to distinguish between, if you like, mad and bad even though it’s difficult to tell and I’m certainly not qualified to judge.
    What about self-claimed?

    The Prisoner, in his defence, said that he had suffered from sunstroke in India, and that sometimes he was not responsible for his actions" - George Capel Scudamore Lechmere

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by chubbs View Post

    Yes, I get that.

    In which case, I'll give him a diagnosis - the bloke was mad as a hatter...

    ...2 points, please
    Nice try chubbs.

    Leave a comment:


  • chubbs
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Hi chubs,

    I set the category to only include mental health issues which were proven/diagnosed. Like spending time in an asylum. I wanted to distinguish between, if you like, mad and bad even though it’s difficult to tell and I’m certainly not qualified to judge.
    Yes, I get that.

    In which case, I'll give him a diagnosis - the bloke was mad as a hatter...

    ...2 points, please

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by chubbs View Post
    I've only just seen this thread. What an excellent idea. I must admit that currently I've only read the last 3 posts and the first one, so my next question may already have been addressed elsewhere (apologies if it has)...

    Given the fact that William Bury strangulated his wife, sliced her belly open, performed other mutilations (including to the genital area), broke major bones in order to squeeze her body into a small box, lived with the corpse for several days, then went to the police station to inform them of the 'suicide', I'd suggest that he may at least have been a psychopath? Some may claim that his behaviour was mysogyny but I believe it was more than that. Nobody 'in their right mind' does what he did. Others may argue that psychopathy isn't a mental illness, it's a character trait. I'd agree to some extent, but when it spills over into murder and mutilation Id argue that it has gone beyond being just a character type and slipped into the murky depths of being mental illness.

    Can someone please explain to me why Bury has a zero in column D, 'mental health issues'? He should have at least a '1', imho.


    EDIT: Actually, he should probably have a '2' - "serious/violent/sexual"
    Hi chubs,

    I set the category to only include mental health issues which were proven/diagnosed. Like spending time in an asylum. I wanted to distinguish between, if you like, mad and bad even though it’s difficult to tell and I’m certainly not qualified to judge.

    Leave a comment:


  • chubbs
    replied
    I've only just seen this thread. What an excellent idea. I must admit that currently I've only read the last 3 posts and the first one, so my next question may already have been addressed elsewhere (apologies if it has)...

    Given the fact that William Bury strangulated his wife, sliced her belly open, performed other mutilations (including to the genital area), broke major bones in order to squeeze her body into a small box, lived with the corpse for several days, then went to the police station to inform them of the 'suicide', I'd suggest that he may at least have been a psychopath? Some may claim that his behaviour was mysogyny but I believe it was more than that. Nobody 'in their right mind' does what he did. Others may argue that psychopathy isn't a mental illness, it's a character trait. I'd agree to some extent, but when it spills over into murder and mutilation Id argue that it has gone beyond being just a character type and slipped into the murky depths of being mental illness.

    Can someone please explain to me why Bury has a zero in column D, 'mental health issues'? He should have at least a '1', imho.


    EDIT: Actually, he should probably have a '2' - "serious/violent/sexual"
    Last edited by chubbs; 02-22-2025, 09:17 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Amendment #17

    (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
    05 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Maybrick, James ^
    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 - 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

    Added a point to James Maybrick for ‘links to prostitutes.’ I’ve been doing some Maybrick reading recently and was reminded that he was known to have frequented a brothel in the USA.

    Leave a comment:


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

    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.
    No problem RD. I’ve no problem at all in adding ‘alcohol’ for any suspect as long as we can see that it was more than just a ‘liked a pint or three now and then’ kind of thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Rookie Detective
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    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.

    Last edited by The Rookie Detective; 01-24-2025, 09:46 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Geddy2112
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X