Sir William Gull

[jmenges]

It’s still available in the Podcast section. Panellists Simon Wood, William Ellis, Chris Scott, John Bennett, Gareth Williams, Ben Holme and Ally Ryder.

I don’t know who William Ellis is and I’m unsure about Ben (he might have been a member from before my time - I’ve read quite a few posts by a ‘Ben’ so this might be the same guy?) Chris is sadly no longer with us of course. John Bennett still does the Ripper Walks. Simon still posts occasionally and Gareth is Sam Flynn. I don’t really need to say who Ally is.

I vaguely recall being a part of that episode also.
It’s all a blur.

JM

[Herlock Sholmes]

One of the RipperCasts (many years ago when they were still doing them) focused in the Royal Conspiracy and its origins.

IIRC, elements of the RC were in circulation soon after the killings, maybe even during the later phases. And the basic original Lees story was from the period. It was Stowell (?sp) that wove them together and made more or less the STORY that we are familiar with. Knight named names, added the Freemason part and ran with it. Joseph Sickert jumped in with both feet and dined off it for the rest of his life. (Just as well- his "talent" certainly wasn't earning him a living!)

It’s still available in the Podcast section. Panellists Simon Wood, William Ellis, Chris Scott, John Bennett, Gareth Williams, Ben Holme and Ally Ryder.

I don’t know who William Ellis is and I’m unsure about Ben (he might have been a member from before my time - I’ve read quite a few posts by a ‘Ben’ so this might be the same guy?) Chris is sadly no longer with us of course. John Bennett still does the Ripper Walks. Simon still posts occasionally and Gareth is Sam Flynn. I don’t really need to say who Ally is.

[C. F. Leon]

I’d still like to know exactly how the Gull/Sickert/Knight/Royal theory came about though. Just out of curiosity. Maybe there was some illegitimate child of some lesser member of the the Royal Family or the gentry and a rumour became a story? I’d love to know.

One of the RipperCasts (many years ago when they were still doing them) focused in the Royal Conspiracy and its origins.

IIRC, elements of the RC were in circulation soon after the killings, maybe even during the later phases. And the basic original Lees story was from the period. It was Stowell (?sp) that wove them together and made more or less the STORY that we are familiar with. Knight named names, added the Freemason part and ran with it. Joseph Sickert jumped in with both feet and dined off it for the rest of his life. (Just as well- his "talent" certainly wasn't earning him a living!)

[C. F. Leon]

For his era, Gull had progressive views on women. He championed women becoming doctors and helped establish Helen Prideaux Memorial Fund. He was also one of rthe first to treat anorexia and coined the term.

For some contrarians that would just PROVE his motive...

[Fiver]

The problem with looking at it in terms of means, motive and opportunity is that it can pretty much be applied to anyone. Anyone could have had a motive that we just don’t know about at the moment. We know a fair bit about Gull because he was well known in society, had family and friends who talked and wrote about him and he was highly esteemed in his profession. Nowhere does anyone suggest that he was violent or that he had any hatred of women in general of prostitutes specifically. So we have no motive (with evidence of it) for him to commit murder.

For his era, Gull had progressive views on women. He championed women becoming doctors and helped establish Helen Prideaux Memorial Fund. He was also one of rthe first to treat anorexia and coined the term.

[Lewis C]

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 agree. In fact, I would say that Lechmere would be a less weak suspect than Gull even if he hadn't been at the scene of Nichols' murder, because any man who lived in the area, was under 50, and was physically capable of committing the murders would make a better suspect than Gull.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Me being a liker of conspiracy theories think the story at the end of Murder By Decree would be a great motive. I just do not think Gull or Albert Victor were involved and this for me is why the theory is laughed at. If you separate the motive and the doer (Gull) you might be onto something. We are often told the murders of Eddowes and Chapman bear an uncanny resemblance to ritual killings, maybe masonic. Long before the 60s my grand mother would refer to Jack as 'Royal Jack' and when I came along I was always told Royal Jack would come at get me if I was not good, I would have preferred 'Santa is watching' but hey ho. No smoke without fire?

Who knows, it's a great story for sure. I just think they took it too far which made it more like s*it from China, i.e. far fetched.

I’d have liked nothing better than for Knight to have solved the case Geddy because there’s no ripper book that I’ve enjoyed reading more. I’m certainly willing to accept the ‘kernel of truth’ point. An illegitimate child, a bit of blackmail, someone ending up in an asylum, maybe even a murder. These things happen. Did someone deliberately weave them into a more exciting ripper-related tale? Or did a rumour get passed from mouth to mouth with bits getting added? I’d love to have heard someone really quiz Joseph Gorman in depth about the story. His friend Harry Jonas too.

[Geddy2112]

I’d still like to know exactly how the Gull/Sickert/Knight/Royal theory came about though. Just out of curiosity. Maybe there was some illegitimate child of some lesser member of the the Royal Family or the gentry and a rumour became a story? I’d love to know.

Me being a liker of conspiracy theories think the story at the end of Murder By Decree would be a great motive. I just do not think Gull or Albert Victor were involved and this for me is why the theory is laughed at. If you separate the motive and the doer (Gull) you might be onto something. We are often told the murders of Eddowes and Chapman bear an uncanny resemblance to ritual killings, maybe masonic. Long before the 60s my grand mother would refer to Jack as 'Royal Jack' and when I came along I was always told Royal Jack would come at get me if I was not good, I would have preferred 'Santa is watching' but hey ho. No smoke without fire?

Who knows, it's a great story for sure. I just think they took it too far which made it more like s*it from China, i.e. far fetched.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’d still like to know exactly how the Gull/Sickert/Knight/Royal theory came about though. Just out of curiosity. Maybe there was some illegitimate child of some lesser member of the the Royal Family or the gentry and a rumour became a story? I’d love to know.

[Mike J. G.]

What motive did Gull have? He was a very well-to-do physician with no history of mental illness or disturbance of any kind.

Means? Well he could walk and would have had access to a knife and medical knowledge.

Opportunity? It looks like he would have had to have travelled and 22 mile journey there and back for each murder. Not impossible of course but perhaps difficult to explain to his wife when he was supposed to be retired and recuperating?

The problem with looking at it in terms of means, motive and opportunity is that it can pretty much be applied to anyone. Anyone could have had a motive that we just don’t know about at the moment. We know a fair bit about Gull because he was well known in society, had family and friends who talked and wrote about him and he was highly esteemed in his profession. Nowhere does anyone suggest that he was violent or that he had any hatred of women in general of prostitutes specifically. So we have no motive (with evidence of it) for him to commit murder.

The main issue with Gull is that his candidature is reliant on the Knight/Sickert story which we know is full of things which were provably untrue.

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.

[Geddy2112]

What motive did Gull have?

You know as well as I do he had two. He was doing experiments into madness and he was cleaning up a rather messy Royal indiscretion under instruction of his Freemason buddies. I thought you knew this?

[Herlock Sholmes]

What motive did Gull have? He was a very well-to-do physician with no history of mental illness or disturbance of any kind.

Means? Well he could walk and would have had access to a knife and medical knowledge.

Opportunity? It looks like he would have had to have travelled and 22 mile journey there and back for each murder. Not impossible of course but perhaps difficult to explain to his wife when he was supposed to be retired and recuperating?

The problem with looking at it in terms of means, motive and opportunity is that it can pretty much be applied to anyone. Anyone could have had a motive that we just don’t know about at the moment. We know a fair bit about Gull because he was well known in society, had family and friends who talked and wrote about him and he was highly esteemed in his profession. Nowhere does anyone suggest that he was violent or that he had any hatred of women in general of prostitutes specifically. So we have no motive (with evidence of it) for him to commit murder.

The main issue with Gull is that his candidature is reliant on the Knight/Sickert story which we know is full of things which were provably untrue.

[John Wheat]

All that been said (and there just opinions) , we still can't say wasn't the ripper based on the "unlikely" argument , there nothing that eliminate him .

A case can just as easily be made for Maybrick, Druitt, Lechmere there just as unlikely when you look deeply into their circumstances and what is known about them.

Gull has means motive and opportunity.

Good enough for me .

But Maybrick and Lechmere are terrible suspects. Druitt not great either.

[FISHY1118]

All that been said (and there just opinions) , we still can't say wasn't the ripper based on the "unlikely" argument , there nothing that eliminate him .

A case can just as easily be made for Maybrick, Druitt, Lechmere there just as unlikely when you look deeply into their circumstances and what is known about them.

Gull has means motive and opportunity.

Good enough for me .

[John Wheat]

To quote a line from Dumb and Dumber...

So you're tellin' me there's a chance?!

Yes. Although not much of one but still far higher than the chance that Gull was Jack the Ripper.