Sir William Gull

[Mike J. G.]

Organ harvesting is Trevor Marriott domain, not mine .

I'm merely pointing out the way in which one' might experiment as to the way in which some medical procedures were conducted at the time. As to further enhance the science and knowledge of the human body.

What could Gull have learned about the science of the human body that wasn't already known by him and the rest of the world by conducting a speedy and seemingly random mutilation on a corpse in the pitch black night?

I still think Merrick is a better suspect. He had means, motive and was in the area. Nobody would suspect him, he was as able bodied as Gull, he might have had a hatred of women through feelings of rejection and being regarded as a freak and having definite mother issues.

There ya go, Merrick is a more likely suspect than Gull, and apparently more than an actual murderer in your imagination.

What progress we've made in this case.

[FISHY1118]

What could Gull have learned about the science of the human body that wasn't already known by him and the rest of the world by conducting a speedy and seemingly random mutilation on a corpse in the pitch black night?

I still think Merrick is a better suspect. He had means, motive and was in the area. Nobody would suspect him, he was as able bodied as Gull, he might have had a hatred of women through feelings of rejection and being regarded as a freak and having definite mother issues.

There ya go, Merrick is a more likely suspect than Gull, and apparently more than an actual murderer in your imagination.

What progress we've made in this case.

So Medical Science in your eyes need not have progressed after 1888 because all was known ? Yeah i think this discussion is over .

Yet still we havent been able to eliminate Gull ,not as easy as first thought .

[FISHY1118]

Hi Herlock,

Indeed, while I agree with Fishy's suggestion that Gull and Maybrick are in the same "as good as anybody as long as you allow for anybody" category, Druitt is not in that category. Druitt's name is associated with the actual case through McNaughton's mentioning of him. That makes him very different.

Regardless of one's evaluation of Druitt as Jack, a person whose name is connected to the case by the police can only be seen as a "better suspect" (in Ripperology's use of the word) than someone who, apart from being alive at the time, has no connection to the case whatsoever (I don't count being part of a fictional story as constituting a connection to a factual case).

Better, of course, is a relative term. It is entirely possible for someone to acknowledge that Druitt is a better Ripperology suspect than Gull, but to also argue that Druitt is not a good candidate for being JtR. That's not a self contradictory set of statements. A dirt sandwich might be a better meal than a bowl of dirt - at least it has bread after all - , but that doesn't mean it's a good meal.

Obviously, for those who feel Druitt is a better candidate than I've used in my example (I've only used an extreme negative evaluation to illustrate my point), it's even easier to understand how one could view things this way.

What I think would be interesting, and would sort of illustrate my point, would be to apply your suspect rating scale to as many different people from the case as possible. I suppose you could add a 0/1 rating for female/male, so females will generally get a slightly lower rating given it is unlikely JtR was female. Then, one would get an idea of what score a person gets even though we have no reason to suspect them. I rather suspect, Gull would end up with a score in the same range as say Dr. Openshaw, or Dr. Llewellyn. Basically, he would show a score typical of anybody, chosen at random, from the medical profession. In fact, he may even have a score on the lower side, given his age and the fact his location outside of London at the time would tend to reduce his score relative to younger doctors and those known to be in London at the time.

With the scale being applied to "non-suspects" as a control group, then we could evaluate "suspects" relative to "non-suspects". The more divergent a "suspect" is from the "non-suspects" the better they are (with regards to that scoring system of course). My belief is that Gull would be indistinguishable from the non-suspects, but of course that's an empirical question.

- Jeff

Are you suggesting that Gulls only connection to the Murders is through the Royal Conspiracy ?

[JeffHamm]

Are you suggesting that Gulls only connection to the Murders is through the Royal Conspiracy ?

Well, technically I'm suggesting Gull has no connection to the murders, but that his name is only associated with the case through the Royal Conspiracy theory (or perhaps spin offs of the original version, but I sort of lump them all together). I could be overlooking some report where he's mentioned, but his name doesn't feature in the case, either indicating he was of interest to the police, or that he was consulted for his medical opinion. However, as I say, there could be some report where he gets mentioned given his connection to the Queen and she had expressed concern about the murders.

- Jeff

[Mike J. G.]

So Medical Science in your eyes need not have progressed after 1888 because all was known ? Yeah i think this discussion is over .

Yet still we havent been able to eliminate Gull ,not as easy as first thought .

Ah, I get it, you're a troll. Makes sense now.

I'm suggesting that performing speedy mutilations in the dark would in no way further our knowledge of the human anatomy, but you already knew that, didn't you? If you didn't, I'm concerned for your ability to comprehend the obvious.

Talk about this discussion being over, lol.

[Mike J. G.]

Are you suggesting that Gulls only connection to the Murders is through the Royal Conspiracy ?

Yes. That's correct.

[FISHY1118]

Well, technically I'm suggesting Gull has no connection to the murders, but that his name is only associated with the case through the Royal Conspiracy theory (or perhaps spin offs of the original version, but I sort of lump them all together). I could be overlooking some report where he's mentioned, but his name doesn't feature in the case, either indicating he was of interest to the police, or that he was consulted for his medical opinion. However, as I say, there could be some report where he gets mentioned given his connection to the Queen and she had expressed concern about the murders.

- Jeff

Are you aware of any evidence that was produced by Macnaghten as to prove the statement " his own family ( druitt) believed him to be the killer"

Does his used of that comment indicate he was an interest to police if not at least in Macnaghten eyes. ,?

[JeffHamm]

Are you aware of any evidence that was produced by Macnaghten as to prove the statement " his own family ( druitt) believed him to be the killer"

Does his used of that comment indicate he was an interest to police if not at least in Macnaghten eyes. ,?

Druitt, while raised as a sideline, isn't the topic of the thread, Gull is. But, as I said, it's not about the strength or weakness of the case McNaughten hints at, but rather the fact that Druitt does get named as a suspect in the case by the police. Whether McNaughten's reasons amount to nothing more than hot air or he at one time had in his possession factual proof of Druitt's guilt we will never know. But Druitt gets a mention by the police - Gull gets crickets.

In short, Druitt is of interest because he is mentioned. Gull, apart from the made up Royal Conspiracy story, has no reason to be looked at with connection to the JtR murders other than he was still alive at the time. One could draw a name at random out of the census and claim "my suspect, Randy Badman, is just as good a suspect as Gull" and not be telling a lie.

Basically, people don't have to prove Gull is not involved, rather, one has to present a reason to consider him - a reason based upon facts not speculation. Druitt is named by the police as a possible JtR, that's a fact, hence he gets a look. Gull ... I can't think of a reason why one would look at him based upon what we know about him. There's nothing that ties him to the JtR murders, and as far as I know, his name doesn't ever come up in any communications even in a tangential way.

It just looks very much like he was simply drawn from the census at random, and then accused of being a very naughty boy.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

“Yet still we haven't been able to eliminate Gull ,not as easy as first thought.”

The problem with this statement is that it sets the bar as low as it can possibly be set. It’s incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to eliminate any of the named suspects so being unable to eliminate isn’t really worth mentioning. How many of the named suspects can we categorically eliminate? Cream was in prison in Chicago. PAV was recorded as being at various official engagements. We have no evidence that Feigenbaum was in England for example. That’s about it. We can’t exonerate Lewis Carroll or Melville Macnaghten or Fred Abberline; all of these have been named. None can be exonerated. None can be connected to the murders. And so all are equal suspects to Gull. I think that we’d all agree that we need more than ‘alive at the time, within reasonable distance and with no alibi,’ to name someone as a valid suspect.

…

If we looked at Druitt as a person no one could deny that he doesn’t look like a promising suspect. Compared to Gull we could perhaps say - in Gull’s favour we have the certain medical knowledge, in Druitt’s his age and physical fitness. Neither points come close to entitling them to suspect status. So we have to look at why they exist as suspects. Gull appears through a Royal Conspiracy theory which we now know was true and this fact removes any reason for considering Gull a suspect. Druitt appears (unnamed) in a story from an MP and then in the Chief Constable’s memorandum. So we are left to ask “what might Macnaghten have known that we don’t?” We don’t know of course but it’s intriguing and it leaves Druitt as an unanswered question.

If in 20 years time we found a Chief Constable’s diary and in it he said that he believed that Richard Madeley (TV personality) had killed Jill Dando. Would we think, a) I wonder what he might have known to have made him suggest Madeley, we should look into this further? Or, b) Richard Madeley doesn’t seem like a killer so the CC must have been lying or mistaken, we should ignore what he wrote?

I’d suggest that the vast majority of us would take option a)? It always surprises me that where Druitt is concerned some people would rather take the illogical option b)

…

Does anyone want to promote Dr. Llewelyn as a suspect?


05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Llewelyn, Dr, Rees Ralph

04 = 1 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Gull, Sir William Withey

[A P Tomlinson]

It seems like Gull is just another "suspect" where the bar for entry is "You can't prove it wasn't him, therefore he is a valid suspect!"

Any suspects require a firm theory from those defending their candidacy. Not a series of "What IF..." statements strung together with florid story telling.

Apart from the Royal Conspiracy, which I hope we all agree is, at best, EXTREMELY unlikely... could someone/anyone who is defending keeping him on the "valid suspect list" put a case for why?

Just in basic sort of "I think he could have been the Whitechapel Murderer because; a, b, c and d... way. Where none of the elements are "he cannot be excluded" but are instead based on why he SHOULD be included. Then we can see the strength of the case, and decide how much time and effort to put into determining whether any of it is worth looking further into.

[Fiver]

Are you suggesting that Gulls only connection to the Murders is through the Royal Conspiracy ?

Correct. Gull's only connection to the case is Royal Conspiracy, an admitted hoax that makes no sense.

Gull was not a witness. Gull did not examine the medical evidence. Gull was not invited or investigated by the police. Gull was not mentioned in newspaper coverage of the murders. Gull did not make any public comments on the case.

In 1895, an American newspaper article claimed the Ripper was "a medical man of high standing and extensive practice". This was denounced as a hoax by the supposed source, Dr. Benjamin Howard. Later writers have tried to shoehorn Gull into the story, but Gull does not match the fictional doctor of the hoax article. By 1888, Gull no longer had an extensive practice. Gull's children were adults with homes of their own. Gull lived over a year after the fictional doctor was placed in an asylum.

Another version of the 1895 hoax had the Ripper discovered by a psychic instead of by fellow doctors. Gull does not match the fictional doctor of this hoax article, either. Gull was not buried in a family vault. Gull was not buried in Kensal Green. Gull's death was not considered untimely - he was 73 and his health had been failing for years.

Gull's only connection with the case is the admitted hoax created in the 1970s.

[rjpalmer]

could someone/anyone who is defending keeping him on the "valid suspect list" put a case for why?

Certainly.

Many years later, Walter Sickert painted a landscape featuring a seagull.

Q.E.D.

[Fiver]

Apart from the Royal Conspiracy, which I hope we all agree is, at best, EXTREMELY unlikely...

You give the Royal Conspiracy too much credit.

* A group of semi-homeless alcoholic prostitutes decide to blackmail the British government over something provably false.
* The British government decides this is a serious threat to the monarchy.
* They assign as killers a man who wasn't in England, an elderly stroke victim, and a coachman.
* The men assigned to eliminate the blackmailers decide the best way to do this is murder them in a way that turns the women from nobodies to household names, implicates the Masons, and undermines public confidence in the authorities.
* The British government agrees this is the best way to quietly and secretly eliminate the blackmailers.
* The victims fail to notice or respond when only members of their blackmail club are being messily butchered by the Ripper.
* Over a year after the doctor stops murdering and leaving clues implicating the Masons, the Conspiracy decides he is a threat to them.
* Though the doctor is well known in the medical community and pictures of him have appeared in the print, the Conspiracy decides to fake the doctor's death and put him in an asylum instead of killing him.
* The painter betrays the Conspiracy by spending the next several decades leaving clues in his paintings and hiding a child from them, but makes no attempt to flee or hide his identity.
* The Conspiracy, who have the resources of the entire British Empire, send only the lone coachman after the painter and the child.
* When after over a decade of failure, the world's most inept assassin gets run over by his own carriage, the Conspiracy does not replace him.
* The painter lives for 4 more decades, untouched by the Conspiracy.

It's total nonsense that requires everyone involved to be an inept idiot even before we consider that the source of the story admitted it was a hoax.

[JeffHamm]

You give the Royal Conspiracy too much credit.

* A group of semi-homeless alcoholic prostitutes decide to blackmail the British government over something provably false.
* The British government decides this is a serious threat to the monarchy.
* They assign as killers a man who wasn't in England, an elderly stroke victim, and a coachman.
* The men assigned to eliminate the blackmailers decide the best way to do this is murder them in a way that turns the women from nobodies to household names, implicates the Masons, and undermines public confidence in the authorities.
* The British government agrees this is the best way to quietly and secretly eliminate the blackmailers.
* The victims fail to notice or respond when only members of their blackmail club are being messily butchered by the Ripper.
* Over a year after the doctor stops murdering and leaving clues implicating the Masons, the Conspiracy decides he is a threat to them.
* Though the doctor is well known in the medical community and pictures of him have appeared in the print, the Conspiracy decides to fake the doctor's death and put him in an asylum instead of killing him.
* The painter betrays the Conspiracy by spending the next several decades leaving clues in his paintings and hiding a child from them, but makes no attempt to flee or hide his identity.
* The Conspiracy, who have the resources of the entire British Empire, send only the lone coachman after the painter and the child.
* When after over a decade of failure, the world's most inept assassin gets run over by his own carriage, the Conspiracy does not replace him.
* The painter lives for 4 more decades, untouched by the Conspiracy.

It's total nonsense that requires everyone involved to be an inept idiot even before we consider that the source of the story admitted it was a hoax.

Hmmm, when you put it like that Fiver, perhaps I've not fully appreciated the strength of Gull's direct line connection to the case.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hmm, this discussion has highlighted something that, in my opinion, is often a source of tension in many discussions surrounding the evaluation of suspects in the case. It's also a point that has been touched upon before in some threads, though I can't point directly to a comment at the moment.

But to be short (if I can), there are two concepts by which we often describe a suspect as being "good" or "bad" as a suspect. There is the issue of whether or not there is some reason to investigate someone, and there is the issue of whether or not that investigation allows one to suggest a person is likely to be JtR. Sometimes this comes up in the form of whether someone should be called a "suspect" or "person of interest", where passing the first criterion could make one a "person of interest" (a lead perhaps), and then if the investigation of that person results in information that increases their connection to the murders it results in them graduating to "suspect for JtR".

Gull, in my opinion, fails at the first of those tests. Setting aside the Royal Conspiracy Theory, a known and admitted fabrication, there is nothing to suggest he is worth looking at in connection to the case. Sure, there are examples of cold cases that have been solved (through genetic geneology, for example), where the killer had never been associated with the crime. But those are very rare situations, and they are not solved by random selection of people from the population.

Druitt, again to use him as an example because his name has come up in this thread, passes that test (for us, as modern day students of the case) because his name shows up in the police records where he is named specifically as a candidate for being JtR.

So with regards to "worth the time investigating", Gull gets a no (from me), while Druitt gets a yes, making Druitt a "good" suspect by this criterion and Gull not. I would say the same for Cross, for example. Cross is connected to the case, he did find a body, so he needs to be looked at - making him a "good" suspect in this regard. In short, at this point, both Druitt and Cross can be said to be "good suspects", while Gull cannot.

However, when move up to the next level of evaluation and we further investigate Druitt and Cross, some interesting points are found, although they are by no means conclusive, for Druitt (he dies and the murders appear to cease - presuming McKenzie and Cole are not JtR victims of course; he may have gotten into some sort of trouble at his work, there are some things that seem to allude to him being connected to the case long before McNaughton's report, etc) but his cricket matches add counter-weight to all of those, and while there is the possibility he could have travelled back and forth, so far that remains to be demonstrated. As such, although he ends up being a "good suspect to look at" the case against him being JtR hinges on him actually making those train journeys between matches in order to be in London. Without that very specific detail being confirmed we are left with the evidence currently placing him outside of London with only the unconfirmed potential of him getting there, and so the case against him cannot be said to be strong.

Cross, on the other hand, has been put under the microscope, and unlike Druitt, nothing comes up that is at all suspicious- there are none of the interesting "hmmmm points" that Druitt has. So while Cross is a "good suspect" in the sense he was worth looking at, upon investigation, nothing further arises. So, while the cases against Druitt and Cross can both be said to be weak (and so in this regard could be said to be "bad suspects for JtR"), at least Druitt has some interesting "hmmm" moments, while Cross does not, ranking the case against Druitt above Cross, but neither can said to have a "good case" against them.

And not surprisingly, despite Gull failing at the first hurdle, upon looking at him anyway, like Cross, there are none of those "hmmm points" arising, making him "bad" at this level as well.

I think in many "debates", particularly with regards to Druitt and Cross, where some people are claiming they are "good suspects", and others are arguing they are "bad suspects", those involved are talking about those two different levels of evaluation. Those who say they are good suspects are arguing they are worth investigating, while those who say they are bad suspects are saying the case for them actually being JtR is very weak, to the point they are unacceptable solutions.

In my own view, we simply lack the information to ever truly end up with a "good suspect" at the 2nd of those criterions. We just do not have the type of evidence to really make anything but a "hmmm point based case" against anyone, but there are a number of individuals who pass the first criterion - I just don't think Gull is one of them.

- Jeff