|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
D. E.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 1:44 am: | 
|
Hello
I have been studying the ripper for a while and have wondered who really are the best suspects in this imfamous case.I thought of the idea of trying to get a market type representation of the suspects, and mould it with some help from the public to paint the best picture. My cousin, who is a bookmaker at the track, showed me how he represents the horses and how he prices them with the information he has.
I thought of trying this with the top suspects, using his techniques for pricing. I am only going with the info that I have collected about the case over the years, and want to try to get a good picture. For e.g. 4.50 means a $4.50 return for a $1.00 investment. Here is a go anyway.
Joseph Barnett 3.40 (favourite)
J.M. Druitt 4.50
George Chapman 5.20
Arron Kosminski 6.00
Francis Tumblety 7.50
Thomas Cutbush 7.50
James Maybrick 9.00
James Kelly 9.00
R.D. Stephenson 12.00
The Lodger 12.00
Francis Thompson 15.00
S.W. Gull + Netly 18.50
Dr Cream 25.00
Walter Sickert 42.00
Let me know how accurate this market is. Thanks |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 869
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 11:04 am: |
|
Calling Richard Brian Nunweek -- your comments on the subject would be most welcome.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Maria Giordano
Chief Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 525
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 11:35 am: |
|
My thoughts exactly, Don!
Maybe we should have a thread of just lists.
Mags
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1596
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Hi Guys,
It is my profession to analyze form and to produce odds from that interpretation.
So here we go.
The market is a open one simply because of the amount of suspects known , and not known..
However my odds as accurately as i can professionaly form them and being as unbiased as possible are as following.
5/1. A unknown suspect.
8/1 Joseph Barnett as a killer of at least one.
9/1 Druitt, simply because of uncanny details by White.
12/1. Walter sickert, because of a lot of circumstancial evidence.
16/1. Kosminsky or a vagrant such as he.
16/1. The unnamed Mr Astracan.
16/1. Mr BLotchy face. with slight preference of the three similar priced to him.
And to be perfectly honest its 50/1 bar the rest.
I should state that the suspect list are so ludricous ie Maybreck, Cream, Prince Albert, Gull, Stephen, Kelly, Randolph Churchill. that i would place them as non starters at 100/1 plus.
The top three in my professional opinion although that profession is not targeted towards this subject but one of Racing, sports, and entertainment, are .
Mr Unknown.
Joseph Barnett .
Walter Sickert.
I can only offer guys my interpretation of the form book which is inprinted in my mind to endeavour to carry out my daily duties.
Regards Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5324
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 4:35 pm: |
|
Richard, could you give me odds on it being ALL the suspects - as in "Murder on the Orient Express"? It may not be very likely, but if it comes up, I'm a billionaire.
I can just see Gull plunging the knife in and saying, "For my gentleman."
Robert |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 287
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 4:44 pm: |
|
This is kind of useless. No one agrees on the suspects, so it is pointless unless everyone made their own odds, and then that would be pointless as well. For example I find Barnett and Sickert to be way down on the list, perhaps off it. So my odds would be maybe 1200 to 1.
Have fun
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1597
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 4:45 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
You would indeed be a Billonaire, I must make it clear I can only produce odds from the form book, if i did not, then I would not last long in my proffesion for the Bible as we call it is the only way bookmakers can interpret odds and keep the [ to be honest] profits rolling in.
But i must repeat the form book of 'Jack' is old and dated and must be judged as a professional view and not as Gospel.
Richard. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1598
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 5:06 pm: |
|
Hi Baron,
When I Place a bet i try if backing in serious money try to obtain value for money, if Sir you are serious in offering such value as 1200/1 per suspect such as Barnett and Sickert
Then sir as a word of a gentleman if such a bet was launched I would gladly place my shall we say twenty pounds wager with you at the odds on offer therefore you would gain the sum of forty pounds sterling, and yours truely would inherit the sum of...... hang on a minute can you afford it.
regards Richard. |
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 629
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 5:07 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Yes, I don't see the point of making a bet on a result that will likely never happen but that's just me. I've already listed my five favorites on another thread. If I was going to make a bet, I'd pick unknown subject because that is almost all the people on Earth at the time. The Lodger is too vague as well. I think a requirement should be that you have to name a name otherwise I'll go with John Doe.
Best wishes,
Stan |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 872
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 5:26 pm: |
|
No, not likely to see a payoff on the bet any time soon (what, Richard, might be the odds on irrefutable proof of guilt against anyone emerging in, say, five years?), but an actual Ripper tote board would be more credible than something like the voting for suspects on Casebook.
You know, someone like Richard posts tentative odds and they are adjusted as people actually bet. When folks put their money where their mouth is they are more apt to be serious. I know I am, which is why I generally won't even bet that I know who I am. Still, were I to take a flutter here it would likely be on the "field."
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 289
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 6:53 pm: |
|
Richard,
How about we place bets on who the next suspect is to be exposed in a book? Wait, it would have to be a book that sold, say 5,000 copies, else we would all be scrambling to write one just to get that wager money.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1929
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 1:28 am: |
|
G'day,
Whenever I want to see the most popular Ripper suspects, (according to the entire book reading public), I go to the 'Suspects' page of casebook, zoom down to the bottom and open 'Who are the Most Popular Ripper Suspects?'
Currently it is:
1) Maybrick, James (probably because of the impact of 'The Diary of....'),
2) Chapman, George,
3)Tumblety, Francis,
4) Barnett, Joseph (who used to be near the bottom of the list when I first found 'Casebook')
-
-
-
-
15) Sickert, Walter (I believe this guy should be right down the bottom because he was just a post-impressionist artist, who painted life around him using colour & technique which was fashionable at the time),
-
-
-
22) Carroll, Lewis.
The above poll is according to everyone who visits this Website, so it is like a poll of the most popular book. I'd like to see one according to the 'Message Board' users, most of whom have closely studied the case.
A poll that changes as people's opinion changes, because who's job will it be to decide when the competition is over? Who''s job will it be to decide that the case has been solved? Why do we all have to bet for money?
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 231
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 4:18 am: |
|
Richard,
No bookmaker would frame a market using unknown(as in this case),and the market would reflect the opinion of punters and tipsters,the former by the weight of money invested.
Most bookmakers lose money backing their own fancy,and jockey,s opinions are best left to themselves.
In this case,the trainers as represented by the police of the day,have no idea as to the form of the field,and the chief steward,Mr Anderson,is besotted with his own fancy,whose name he won't divulge,and is untrustworthy to boot.Aberline has a doubtfull starter in Chapman,while clerk of the course Swanson disagrees with the given name of one of the field.
Myself, I'll go along with Charley down at the bar,and have a little each way on G.H.at 100-1 |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1599
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 3:03 pm: |
|
Hi Harry,
The reason i quoted the 5/1 favourite as 'Unknown' is simply because that is proberly the case, however instinct tells me that when forming a book in the case of 'Jack' the majority of people that would back on this event would have there own suspects in the back of there minds and place money on the suspects put forward on the hundreds of publications over the years and the amount of money would be spread across a wide area, therefore what would seem to be a generous price on a unknown suspect would proberly not be a liability to a bookmaker. even if the unknown person is the most realistic conclusion .
Regards Richard. |
David Knott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 131
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 3:34 pm: |
|
As a former professional betting exchange trader I am astonished by some of the odds put up on this thread. D.E's book is 171.54% without even including the obvious favourite 'unknown'.
Richard then quotes 5/1 'unknown', despite thinking that this is probably the case (so should be odds on?) Richard, do you mean 1/5? That would be nearer the mark, although still possibly a bit generous. I know what you're saying about the money that would come in for the various named suspects but the pros would be rubbing their hands at that 5/1!
Harry, I don't agree that no bookmaker would frame a market using 'unknown' - there are plenty of markets such as winners of reality TV shows, Christmas number 1 single etc. where 'any other' is quoted.
David |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 877
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 3:38 pm: |
|
Richard,
therefore what would seem to be a generous price on a unknown suspect would proberly not be a liability to a bookmaker. even if the unknown person is the most realistic conclusion.
Exactly, which is why you are doubtless a success in the trade.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1601
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 4:03 pm: |
|
Hi David,
I am not pricing up for my company on these boards just a tonque in cheek show.
I understand that the faces[ so to speak] would jump in at 5/1 against if this was a race in reality but it is a 117 year old mystery that is not everyones idea of a betting medium.
I just gave my opinion on what odds would be fair in this mammoth field, although the unknown suspect has to be favourite simply because anyone in the entire planet could have been 'Jack' although the expertise which has emerged over the years has put forward some viable suspects albeit some extremely far fetched, and the general public which in general the bookmakers deal with on a daily basis would as a matter of course speculate on various names put forward.
of course a Certain JP Macmanus, or Several large punters could hold a fascination for the Whitechapel murderer and bet accordingly on a 'Unknown' for profit but that would be unlikely and a general spread on all the suspects named would proberly ensure a profit if one day the killer walked forward.
David.
I know all about overounds and precentages i exist from day to day on a diet of statistics, BhB Handicap ratings etc,but in the tissue for 'Jack' that is how yours truely would Market it if my company approached me, which incidently is hardly likely infact a suggestion by myself would proberly see myself being packed off to Bournemouth for a spot of rest.
Regards Richard. |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 878
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 4:17 pm: |
|
Richard,
Would the "spot of rest" in Bournemouth be with pay? If so, go for it! But maybe not until summer, eh? That reminds me, last year your company had odds on snow in London on Christmas. Are they doing that again?
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1602
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 4:33 pm: |
|
Hi Don,
A spot of rest in Teneriffe, then that would be acceptable.
odds on it snowing on xmas day, remembering of course the bet will only be valid if there is a measureable amount of snow falling on the Roof of the London weather centre will have to be reviewed as forecasters predict the worst winter is about to hit us for the last ten years.
The very fact that already we have snow falling at Wolverhampton/ southwell today/ bad enough for safety reasons to abandon the former after three races.
I Would say that my company will have strong reservations in being to generous price wise for snow on Xmas day.
Stay tuned Don, your be the first to know via myself when the market is decided.
Richard. |
David Knott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 132
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 4:36 pm: |
|
Hi Richard,
I understand what you're saying - what annoys me is when you see a bit of value like that and then try and have a decent bet and get told you can only have a fiver. (£1.50 if it's a dog at Wimbledon or the Stow!) That's why I use Betfair for 99% of my betting now - at least you can get a bet on! I don't know what company you work for, so I won't name names, but one of the 'big 3' restricted me to £1 after four bets, three of which were losers! And I was £75 down at the time!! It seems to me that if you manage to have a bet with a bookie these days then it is a sure sign that you're a loser!!
David |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1603
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 5:09 pm: |
|
David,
I Do work for one of the 'Big Three' i will not name the company because it would not be proffesional, however let me make this clear.
Any punter backing with any of the big three will be able to back any selection providing you are not warned of, for any sum of money providing a single selection does not exceed five thousand pounds, in which betting control will have to accept that liability and give the shop manager clearance which in the case of 99.9 percent is certain to happen.
Restriction of bets that you have described would never happen in any bookmaker i have ever encountered in over thirty years in the game.
Bookmakers have what is called Monitored customers and believe me the average Joe is not encluded.
Customerary to belief, we are not out to rob the betting shop punter of his cash, in modern days the shops are run with great staff that enjoy a club like atmosphere , we are socially responsible and do our very best to ensure clients have the very best opportunety to enjoy their afternoon.
But back to the original point.
Unless you are a known rogue, or a extremely high risk monitored client your bets will be accepted by any of the bookmakers in this country.
The only time bookmakers have reservations is if someone places a large multiple bet or single on a greyhound meeting for Eg. Harlow/ sittingbourne, that are out of town events so to speak.
Regards Richard. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1604
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 5:13 pm: |
|
Hi David,
When i said does not exceed five thousand pounds i meant the liability . not the stake.
Richard. |
David Knott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 133
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 5:36 pm: |
|
Hi Richard,
That's interesting! I never have large multiple bets or bets at provincial dog tracks (and I'm not a known rogue!)
The example I gave of being restricted after four bets is genuine - the company involved had also installed spyware on my PC - when I phoned them to ask what was going on I was told that I had been restricted as I had an 'unfair advantage' over them!!! (they wouldn't tell me what the unfair advantage was!!)
The others at least waited until I was a few grand up before they started restricting me.
David
PS - Will your company lay me me to lose £5k each-way where there's an odds on fav or to win at BAGS meetings? Would be grateful if you could fix it for me ... then I can give up work again!! |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1605
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 2:06 am: |
|
Hi David,
The PS section of your post there are of course stringent rules about under the section' careful EW races in which every shop manager and staff are made aware of before racing commences.
This applies to all horse racing events and open greyhound events and for obvious reasons the amount of money that can be accepted by a shop is regulated.
Sorry mate its carry on as normal i am afraid.
Regards Richard. |
D. Evans
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 12:53 am: |
|
Hi again,
Hi David Knott: I was only trying to get the ball rolling, so I can get an idea of a more accurate market. As for my market being 171.54%, well I think if you check the book for next years soccer world cup in Germany, you will find it greater than 171%.( it is nearly as hard to pick a winner in it, with 190 countries initially, as it is this case). I did omit Mr unknown.
As for the market itself,if you want 100% unbias, you can only go by what the general feeling is in the public at any one time. Some suspects may shorten in the market, and then drift,such as Maybrick. When the diary came out he was new favourite, lets say $5.00. As the likelyhood of the diary being real has diminished with time, he would drift to about $15.00.
This website has contributed immensly to getting that feel, as people post messages from all over the globe.If you want to be for real, you must put any favourite you might have in it's correct place.
I think it is a good way of representing suspects, and thier weight with the public at any one time.I will have another go with the help I have got.
Unknown 6.00
Barnett 6.50
Druitt 8.00
Chapman 10.00
Sickert 16.00
Maybrick18.00
J. Kelly 20.00
Cutbush 20.00
Tumblety 20.00
Gull + Netly 40.00 |
David Knott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 134
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 2:49 pm: |
|
Hi
D.E. - well, I don't know about US bookmakers, but the best prices of UK bookmakers for the World Cup add up to 113%, and individual books are up to 130%. Exchanges are 102% but you have to pay commission.
But back to Jack, I would happily back 'unknown' at 1.5 (1/2) ... I would also happily lay Sickert, Maybrick, Gull or Netley at any price you care to name!
David |
D. Evans
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 1:04 am: |
|
David Knott,
Yes, I made a few miscalculations here.I should have had the market at less than 130%. It was my first attempt ever at doing this using track techniques, so I am still finding my feet.
I slightly disagree with Mr Unknown at odds on though.The police in 1888 put in a massive effort to catch him, and came up with some plausible suspects. Since then, millions of dollars have been spent, and dozens of good suspects have been unearthed by people studying the case.I think the list is over 80.I think that it is most likely that one of the current suspects had something to do with at least one of the murders.
Given that, I would still offer unknown at $4.00.
One final question? Is it legal to open a book for real on this.Any money taken at all would be money in the bank, as it is unlikely we will never know for certian the person/s responsible.
Infact, I would give the odds of this case being solved for certian at about 50 to 1.
Thanks again - D. Evans. |
David Knott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 135
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 2:20 pm: |
|
Hi D.E.,
Whether it's legal probably depends on where you are, as I know the laws in the U.S. are different to those in the U.K. and vary from state to state.
If it was a current criminal case then I don't think that bookies would be allowed to bet on it over here (UK) but given that 'Jack' is certainly dead by now then I don't think that there would be a problem. You would have to define what is acceptable as proof of guilt, and probably put a time limit on it... for example you could open a book on Stewart Evans, Paul Begg and Don Rumbelow all agreeing that a certain suspect was Jack beyond reasonable doubt within the next ten years.
David |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
