Sir William Gull

[FISHY1118]

Totally agree. I don't understand why Gull could be even remotely considered as a good suspect.

He had no motive, limited means and unlikely opportunity. He's basically only a suspect because a work of fiction put him forward as one, much like Maybrick.

Lechmere was at least at the scene of Polly's murder, so he's got that going for him, despite not being a good suspect himself.

I'll disagree. What document did you read that said Gull had ,"No motive" How would you know? I've shown a possible motive, more than enough means due to nothing more than a minor stroke , and easy enough opportunity due to his location in and around London. That in my opinion makes him a good suspect.

Many disagree ,but until something concrete eliminates him entirely, he like the rest of the suspects cant be dismissed just by using the "unlikely" argument.

Maybrick , Sickert Druitt all unlikely suspects, who has eliminated them completely with evidence to back it up .?

I've yet to see it.....

[Mike J. G.]

I'll disagree. What document did you read that said Gull had ,"No motive" How would you know? I've shown a possible motive, more than enough means due to nothing more than a minor stroke , and easy enough opportunity due to his location in and around London. That in my opinion makes him a good suspect.

Many disagree ,but until something concrete eliminates him entirely, he like the rest of the suspects cant be dismissed just by using the "unlikely" argument.

Maybrick , Sickert Druitt all unlikely suspects, who has eliminated them completely with evidence to back it up .?

I've yet to see it.....

He was 70+ years old, recovering from a stroke, living miles away from the murder sites and had no history of violence or criminality in his entire life.

I'm not sure what kind of document you need to see in order to eliminate Gull from the "probable" section of the suspect list, fella.

You can't prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist, and you shouldn't have to, because that's not how science works. Nobody needs to prove that Gull isn't currently still living among the heavily wooded mountains of the Pacific Northwest, knocking on trees and fooling cryptozoologists into believing he's a 6-8 foot tall ape-man. It's total nonsense. Gull wasn't a murderer, nor was he the Whitechapel murderer, but if you want to try and make a case for him then I won't stop you...

The trouble is, people have already tried to make the case for Gull being the killer, and it was complete and utter swollocks.

[Fiver]

I'll disagree. What document did you read that said Gull had ,"No motive" How would you know? I've shown a possible motive, more than enough means due to nothing more than a minor stroke , and easy enough opportunity due to his location in and around London. That in my opinion makes him a good suspect.

So what motive do you think Gull would have had? The Royal Conspiracy is the only one I have seen and it's utter nonsense.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Druitt cannot and should not be put into the same category as Gull, Sickert and Maybrick and to do so displays bias I’m afraid. Gull and Sickert are only named due to a conspiracy theory which has been categorically proven false so it’s difficult to see how someone’s candidature can survive that. In reality it shouldn’t. Maybrick is a candidate due to a forged diary.

Druitt however is a suspect because he was named by the Chief Constable Of the Metropolitan Police (not some third rate fantasist or pub drunk) and then by other senior officers. And this was after a politician had spoken about him as the ripper (albeit without a name) three years before Macnaghten in a newspaper. Whatever anyone’s assessment, that kind of background cannot be dismissed and is in a completely different category, indeed it’s a thousand miles away from two fairy stories. This is not a case of me favouring a suspect; it’s me stating that we have to remain as unbiased as possible and view suspects dispassionately. Whether we like it or not a suspect named as possible or even ‘likely’ by a very senior police officer has to be taken very seriously until evidence to exonerate them is found and after 136 years of trying no one has found evidence to dismiss Druitt yet. However, in the 1970’s Simon Wood researched Knight’s theory just after it emerged and had no trouble finding falsehood after falsehood after falsehood. So that theory can now be dismissed. Likewise the diary.

So the question for us should really be…how can Gull and Maybrick survive as suspects when their claims are both based on proven falsehoods? Sickert is slightly different because of the Cornwell angle but still a very poor suspect imo.

We need more caution and restraint and less supporting of suspects with the commitment someone would give to a favourite football team.

[John Wheat]

Druitt cannot and should not be put into the same category as Gull, Sickert and Maybrick and to do so displays bias I’m afraid. Gull and Sickert are only named due to a conspiracy theory which has been categorically proven false so it’s difficult to see how someone’s candidature can survive that. In reality it shouldn’t. Maybrick is a candidate due to a forged diary.

Druitt however is a suspect because he was named by the Chief Constable Of the Metropolitan Police (not some third rate fantasist or pub drunk) and then by other senior officers. And this was after a politician had spoken about him as the ripper (albeit without a name) three years before Macnaghten in a newspaper. Whatever anyone’s assessment, that kind of background cannot be dismissed and is in a completely different category, indeed it’s a thousand miles away from two fairy stories. This is not a case of me favouring a suspect; it’s me stating that we have to remain as unbiased as possible and view suspects dispassionately. Whether we like it or not a suspect named as possible or even ‘likely’ by a very senior police officer has to be taken very seriously until evidence to exonerate them is found and after 136 years of trying no one has found evidence to dismiss Druitt yet. However, in the 1970’s Simon Wood researched Knight’s theory just after it emerged and had no trouble finding falsehood after falsehood after falsehood. So that theory can now be dismissed. Likewise the diary.

So the question for us should really be…how can Gull and Maybrick survive as suspects when their claims are both based on proven falsehoods? Sickert is slightly different because of the Cornwell angle but still a very poor suspect imo.

We need more caution and restraint and less supporting of suspects with the commitment someone would give to a favourite football team.

All good points Herlock. While I don't particularly rate Druitt as a suspect he is a far better suspect than Gull, Sickert and Maybrick who are essentially joke suspects.

Cheers John

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think that in general, apart from an unnamed killed which is a very serious possibility imo, it makes sense to put in a first category those suspects that had a definite, proven propensity toward violence against women or who provably hated women or prostitutes in particular. So that would include people like Bury and Kelly as two examples. Then we have those that senior police officers expressed a serious interest in and who haven’t been exonerated by alibi - I think that the sensible attitude toward them would be that we should accept that those senior officers were in a position to know things that we aren’t privy to. Of course this proves nothing and we should never claim that it does, but to dismiss those suspects out of hand would exhibit an agenda which deliberately dismisses possibilities. So we should remain open-minded on these. After that, to be honest, we have a mish-mash.

The unfortunate part of this subject as a whole is that we have numerous suspects who were just vertical at the time, so they have been looked at to see if any kind of back story can be created to advance that person to suspecthood. People like writing books; people make money from writing books. Someone like Robert Mann for example. He worked at a mortuary. That’s it. We don’t know a single thing to his detriment. We have absolutely no reason to suspect him of anything. Imagine being arrested on that criteria? He was there. So the reality is that Robert Mann has absolutely no reason for ever being mentioned in terms of being a suspect. Not one. But there he is. I’d add Hardiman. I’d add Hutchinson. I’d add Cross. Of the 38 suspects on my list, at a push, I might keep 10 and half of them I wouldn’t be totally happy about.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I just noticed…



--- (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

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 - 1 - 4 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 0 - 0 : Deeming, Frederick Bailey

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 - 1 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Pizer, John "Leather Apron"

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

O8 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 1 : Thompson, Francis

07 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Chapman, George (Severin Antonowicz Kłosowski)

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 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Cohen, David

07 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Kidney, Michael

06 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 : Thompson, Francis

06 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Levy, Jacob

06 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Pizer, John

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


I didn’t know that there were two Pizer’s? I haven’t a clue how that happened? And with different points? I’ll put it right tomorrow.

Sorry, I just realised, wrong thread.