The Reid Scale: Classic Unsolved Murder Cases

[sdreid]

Hello,

There seems to be some dispute about what cases should be considered unsolved so I thought I'd create a scale like we have for tornadoes. I'll post it here and over on that other site. Here are the categories and at least one example of each.

The Reid Scale: Classic Unsolved Murder Cases

Level 0: Cases with a standing conviction and where there is no serious doubt regarding the verdict (Ted Bundy).

Level 1: Cases where there is a standing conviction but some doubt about it (James Hanratty) or cases where there is no conviction but where there is little doubt regarding the perpetrator (Bella Kiss).

Level 2: Cases where there is no standing conviction but where there is a better than even chance that one suspect did it (Lizzie Borden).

Level 3: Cases where there are good suspects but they are independent and/or conflicting (Jack the Ripper).

Level 4: Cases where there is no serious suspect (The Original Nightstalker).

So there you be.

[ChrisGeorge]

Thanks, Stan.

I have an immediate question about your "Level 3: Cases where there are good suspects but they are independent and/or conflicting (Jack the Ripper)."

Do we really think any of the suspects in the case are good suspects?

Or when it comes down to it, are all of the suspects that so far have been mentioned "iffy" with some being somewhat better than others?

Chris

[sdreid]

Hi Chris,

By "good", I meant of some merit not that they are likely. There are also some of little or no merit.

[Tom_Wescott]

By this scale, the JonBenet Ramsey case would have to be level 2, with Patsy as the prime suspect.

You might consider adding a level where one known suspect was caught, but not the conspirators, such as with Oswald Hauptmann.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[ChrisGeorge]

By this scale, the JonBenet Ramsey case would have to be level 2, with Patsy as the prime suspect.

You might consider adding a level where one known suspect was caught, but not the conspirators, such as with Oswald Hauptmann.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom

I believe you mean Bruno Hauptmann, in the Lindbergh kidnapping and murder, do you not?

As for Patsy Ramsey, the latest developments have appeared to have cleared her. See the July 9, 2008 letter (pdf file) from the Boulder prosecutor to Patsy's widower, John Ramsey, saying that new DNA evidence had cleared Patsy and her son Burke of suspicion of involvement in the crime. Since the state now lacks a serious suspect presumably, this puts the Ramsey case back to a category level 4 per Stan's classification.

Chris

[Tom_Wescott]

Chris,

Oops, I meant to write Oswald AND Hauptmann. As for Ramsey, there is nothing to the supposed 'DNA evidence' that Ramsey and his buddies are claiming clears them. It is a smokescreen, much like the convenient 'suspect' that came out a few years ago right after Patsy's death. From the word go, they knew he wasn't their guy, but played him up in the press to get people thinking it was an intruder.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[sdreid]

There will always be arguments about where some cases belong. No doubt that some, perhaps even me, would want to put Hanratty at Level 0. I would consider Hauptmann at Level 1 - Category 1. Originally, I had 4 or 5 sub categories at Level 1 but I thought it was getting too cumbersome and decided to winnow it down to a pair which was as far as I could take it. There are often variations. I could have made them two separate levels but it depends on the case which you would think of as the "most unsolved" so I decided to keep them under the same heading. That's just my view though.

[sdreid]

Also, I think I reworded Level 3 a little more concisely when I posted this over on that other site but when I came back here my edit time had run out.

[sdreid]

As well, I put "Classic" in the header so cases less than several years old aren't up. Almost all cases are unsolved for the first minute so some time is needed before going to the trouble.

[Tom_Wescott]

Also, I think I reworded Level 3 a little more concisely when I posted this over on that other site but when I came back here my edit time had run out.

What other site?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[sdreid]

Yer ole bud How's.

I think in that more intelligently worded version, Ramsey would fit into Level 3 as I see the case in its current stage.

[sdreid]

When I posted in JTRF about 20 minutes later, I had the thought to word Level 3 a little better I think. Like this:

Level 3: Cases where there are suspect(s) of merit but they are doubtful and/or conflicting.

I hope that clears it up a bit.

[Nothing to see]

Well, I certainly agree with you on your Level 2 and Lizzie Borden. Myself, I've always pictured Lizzie naked, lying in wait to do in Mom and Dad. But that probably says more about me than it does about Lizzie.

[sdreid]

That was how Elizabeth Montgomery played it and she probably looked a lot better sans garments than Lizzy.

[perrymason]

Hi Stan,

Its seems like you feel JtR belongs in #3, rather than in my opinion, a #4 on the scale.

Identifying people known at the time to be of a character type that would fit a serial killer profile....which is in this case itself was bound to 5 set victims of the period by the majority of contemporary opinion,.. are not in my opinion valid "suspects" at all. I think that also applies to "suspects" named in memorandums, book notes, private letters or conversations among investigators and reporters.

Isnt the real truth here that not one person that we call "suspect" here has any evidence or investigative clues that would suggest they committed the 5 crimes alleged to have been by Jacks hand?

For me thats the oddity of this study....sound researchers and historians and criminologists assess the viability of suspects compiled... based on little more than their known character flaws and known criminal behavior...not always violent in nature.

I suppose thats a bit blasphemous in Ripperology, the entity that feeds off those "suspected" men.....but without intending disrespect to anyone, we really have no right to call literally every man suggested as a possibility as a "suspect".

In this study, "suspect" is just someone with access to the women and knowledge of the area, we have no idea whether the illness that the killer had manifested itself in prior crimes or violent behaviors before the murders.....in which case the list of "possibles" could be pages in length.

My personal opinion is that the term "suspect" in these cases is misleading.

All the best Stan.