Sir William Gull

[Fiver]

As previously mentioned,RLS' novella was based on Gull and Sutton.

That makes no sense. Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde was published two years before the Ripper murders started.

[DJA]

Hi Dave,

I often think of you, and your battle with fibromyalgia. I hope that you are receiving some relief from the constant pain. Can you update us on your attempts and hopes for a book or film on your theory? I would like to see a thread on your theory, but understand that this could impact on any aforementioned projects.

Cheers, George

Hi George.

Still seeking a suitable screenwriter.Most of my theory is on Casebook.I'll add a little below ......

As previously mentioned,RLS' novella was based on Gull and Sutton.Here is where he "found" the names ......

Walter Jekyll - Wikipedia

Edward Hyde, 3rd Earl of Clarendon - Wikipedia

Mary Ann Kelly has been covered,local lass of 29."Trampled" by Mr Hyde when a child.

Stupid OT had me do something dumb which put me in hospital twice.Been on a walking frame for 16 months.

Thanks Buddy.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

So McNaughten is saying " I have absolute proof of what I am saying, which I am now destroying....because I don't want to defend my absolute proof". Odd, to say the least.

IMHO, McNaughten is an textbook example of the Peter Principle - a man promoted into a position for which he possesses no semblance of competence. JMO

Best regards, George

Hi George,

I'm unaware of him every saying he has "absolute proof", only that he destroyed what proof he had. That suggests to me that the "proof" is only "proof he was told", not "proof with regards to the crime", as he would be aware that what he was told was "scuttle but" rather than evidence for a court to examine. If it was evidence, as we think of it, I am pretty sure he would not have destroyed it, and if he did, he would not announce it. As such, what he destroyed must have been something that would not be useful in a court, but might cause embarrassment to the person who contacted him (or perhaps the Druitt family).

I think the information he received was of a nature that would not build a case, but rather pointed suspicion which any decent lawyer would be able to argue was "unfounded". Doesn't mean it wasn't valid, only that it wasn't definitive, and could be viewed as nothing more than rumour (due to lack of proper physical evidence, etc). It makes Druitt interesting, but in my view, only because he gets mentioned at the time. My personal view, which isn't worth much, is that Druitt was unlikely to be JtR, and his cricket schedule just about clears him. But because he was mentioned at the time, we are obliged to consider him until that last window gets closed. It's just about there, but until it is closed, he's worth a punt, but he's a 25:1 horse in my books.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Gull's little mate Sutton was JtR.
He was not caught because all Hell would have broken out,given his connections.
The police knew,Phillips knew,staff at London Hospital knew.Crikey,a trainee nun knew.
Whole mess goes back to when Sutton was Vestry Medical Officer and a young Mary Ann Kelly was a member of that church.

Hi Dave,

I often think of you, and your battle with fibromyalgia. I hope that you are receiving some relief from the constant pain. Can you update us on your attempts and hopes for a book or film on your theory? I would like to see a thread on your theory, but understand that this could impact on any aforementioned projects.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Hi Fishy,

As I say, we will never know because, according to McNaughten, he himself destroyed what he had (which sounds like written documents). However, I would not go so far as to say it was "probably an off the cuff remark", rather that is one extreme of the range of situations we would have to consider. I rather doubt his claims were without any foundation, on the other hand, I also rather doubt whatever it was that brought Druitt to his attention was conclusive or something that would be considered "evidence" in a court of law. We know Andersen was aware of McNaughten's idea, and was of the opinion it didn't amount to much, so that probably rules out anything spectacular like a bloody knife, or written confession, etc. Rather, by the sounds of it, he heard third hand from someone that Druitt's family may have had some concerns (McNaughten's phrase is that he has little doubt about the family's suspicions - I think I have the exact wording wrong, but the gist is there), so it seems to me that whomever McNaughten spoke to there is a good argument to be made that the person was not of Druitt's family, but probably someone who knows them in some capacity. In short, I think it is safe to say that McNaughten was given some sort of information, and that information made him consider Druitt, and also it was enough to raise his suspicions but given Druitt was dead, those suspicions could not be tested. However, as the murders ceased (in his view) with Druitt's death, those suspicions appear to have become confirmed in his mind. That's not "off the cuff", but it is also not "conclusive proof" either, and so other members of the police were free to formulate their own personal preferences as to their favourite suspect. Were any of them correct? Maybe, but maybe not.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

So McNaughten is saying " I have absolute proof of what I am saying, which I am now destroying....because I don't want to defend my absolute proof". Odd, to say the least.

IMHO, McNaughten is an textbook example of the Peter Principle - a man promoted into a position for which he possesses no semblance of competence. JMO

Best regards, George

[DJA]

Gull's little mate Sutton was JtR.
He was not caught because all Hell would have broken out,given his connections.
The police knew,Phillips knew,staff at London Hospital knew.Crikey,a trainee nun knew.
Whole mess goes back to when Sutton was Vestry Medical Officer and a young Mary Ann Kelly was a member of that church.

[JeffHamm]

''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''


''His own family believed him to be the killer ''was probably an off the cuff remark by Mac then , seeings how at this point in time, prove its authenticity .

Hi Fishy,

As I say, we will never know because, according to McNaughten, he himself destroyed what he had (which sounds like written documents). However, I would not go so far as to say it was "probably an off the cuff remark", rather that is one extreme of the range of situations we would have to consider. I rather doubt his claims were without any foundation, on the other hand, I also rather doubt whatever it was that brought Druitt to his attention was conclusive or something that would be considered "evidence" in a court of law. We know Andersen was aware of McNaughten's idea, and was of the opinion it didn't amount to much, so that probably rules out anything spectacular like a bloody knife, or written confession, etc. Rather, by the sounds of it, he heard third hand from someone that Druitt's family may have had some concerns (McNaughten's phrase is that he has little doubt about the family's suspicions - I think I have the exact wording wrong, but the gist is there), so it seems to me that whomever McNaughten spoke to there is a good argument to be made that the person was not of Druitt's family, but probably someone who knows them in some capacity. In short, I think it is safe to say that McNaughten was given some sort of information, and that information made him consider Druitt, and also it was enough to raise his suspicions but given Druitt was dead, those suspicions could not be tested. However, as the murders ceased (in his view) with Druitt's death, those suspicions appear to have become confirmed in his mind. That's not "off the cuff", but it is also not "conclusive proof" either, and so other members of the police were free to formulate their own personal preferences as to their favourite suspect. Were any of them correct? Maybe, but maybe not.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

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

''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''


''His own family believed him to be the killer ''was probably an off the cuff remark by Mac then , seeings how at this point in time, prove its authenticity .

[FISHY1118]

Yes, I can't imagine how any of the murders, with the possible but unlikely exception of Kelly's, could have furthered medical science, if the mutilations have nothing to do with it. Keeping in mind that he couldn't have removed the organs without mutilating, and aside from Kelly, he only spent a few minutes with the victims. If that means that I don't have much imagination, then please aid my limited imagination by telling me how the murders could have furthered medical science.

. So even if what you're imagining is a reasonable possibility, it's the case for any suspect that they could have a motive that we don't know about. The only reason I'm talking about motive is that you brought it up. Motive is usually something I don't pay much attention to in comparing suspects in this case, because I think the probable motive is that the killer got sexual pleasure from mutilating, and there's no telling who might have that motive.

''then please aid my limited imagination by telling me how the murders could have furthered medical science''.

I didnt say the murders themselves could futher medical science, but the way in which the organs can be removed in different ways and or methods.


''More importantly though is that what you're doing here is imagining a possible motive that Gull could have had''

Im not ''imagining'' a possible motive, merely suggesting one that Gull might have had . Theres never been a murder without one .

[A P Tomlinson]

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.

I was doing my best to try and be generous...
Saying "We all know the Royal Conspiracy is a steaming pile of Horse ****" would have been more accurate, but it invites the sort of distracting remarks that tend to begin "Are you saying..." and paraphrase your comment in a way that tries to discredit the position, in an attempt to ignore the substance and focus on turning the discussion away from the subject by steering the conversation toward the etymology of manure.

[Lewis C]

So nothing at all comes to mind about working on a human body uninhibited to further medical science ?

Not much imagination.

Yes, I can't imagine how any of the murders, with the possible but unlikely exception of Kelly's, could have furthered medical science, if the mutilations have nothing to do with it. Keeping in mind that he couldn't have removed the organs without mutilating, and aside from Kelly, he only spent a few minutes with the victims. If that means that I don't have much imagination, then please aid my limited imagination by telling me how the murders could have furthered medical science.

More importantly though is that what you're doing here is imagining a possible motive that Gull could have had. So even if what you're imagining is a reasonable possibility, it's the case for any suspect that they could have a motive that we don't know about. The only reason I'm talking about motive is that you brought it up. Motive is usually something I don't pay much attention to in comparing suspects in this case, because I think the probable motive is that the killer got sexual pleasure from mutilating, and there's no telling who might have that motive.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.