Sir William Gull

[JeffHamm]

https://youtu.be/esKnWAIgpLY?si=Vt4rwc96pdqB5v_g

John Lydon knew in 1978

- Jeff

[DJA]

Full Disturbing Fix-It Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris from 1976 - YouTube

Once upon a time,who would have suspected .......

[FISHY1118]

It counts as much as any lead counts, meaning it makes the person of interest but it does not count as evidence against them unless further corroborating evidence is found. No corroborating evidence is found for any "suspects" in JtR, although there are circumstantial pointers for some.

Basically, in the legal sense, there are no good suspects for JtR. But, with regards to those looking at the case from a historical perspective, then Druitt is a good person to look at because we know his name was given to the police, and at least one senior official felt there might be something to it. The same, of course, goes for Kosminski, Tumblety, and Chapman, each with their contemporary police proponent. Some other proposed suspects don't have any contemporary police official who felt they were possible JtRs but have been proposed by modern researchers for one reason or another, and the justification behind those choices vary considerably in terms of their logic (anagrams, for example, would be one I view as a poor logical foundation).

So in the end, Driutt is a decent suspect to have on the list, his name was on the police radar at the time after all (at least after his death it was, and by police I just mean McNaughten of course). Modern research into his life has uncovered quite a bit about him, and his cricket matches all but result in excluding him. They don't quite, so he's worth pursuing until something is found that either does place him in London (indicating he made the trip) or definitely rules him out of London at the time. Those who feel the former has a reasonable chance of occurring will rate Druitt higher than those who feel the latter is far more probable - but neither should view their opinion as is if it fact. We don't have the information yet, so the lead needs to be pursued.

Gull, the topic of this thread, has nothing to connect him to the actual case other than his name was mentioned in the fictional Royal Conspiracy tale. As such, he's not even an actual lead. Unfortunately, because the Royal Conspiracy theory became very popular in the public domain, Gull's name has been artificially connected to the case, which just creates confusion.

- Jeff

I just wanted to get your thoughts on that particular comment made by Macnaghten .
I'm not sure whether your aware that a Gull family member at the time made some interesting comments about him in relation to the crimes .

Merely drawing a comparison. That's for confirming a point of reference.

[JeffHamm]

Thanks Jeff , in referencing druitt as jtr, that family suspicion doesnt count for much then i should think.

It counts as much as any lead counts, meaning it makes the person of interest but it does not count as evidence against them unless further corroborating evidence is found. No corroborating evidence is found for any "suspects" in JtR, although there are circumstantial pointers for some.

Basically, in the legal sense, there are no good suspects for JtR. But, with regards to those looking at the case from a historical perspective, then Druitt is a good person to look at because we know his name was given to the police, and at least one senior official felt there might be something to it. The same, of course, goes for Kosminski, Tumblety, and Chapman, each with their contemporary police proponent. Some other proposed suspects don't have any contemporary police official who felt they were possible JtRs but have been proposed by modern researchers for one reason or another, and the justification behind those choices vary considerably in terms of their logic (anagrams, for example, would be one I view as a poor logical foundation).

So in the end, Driutt is a decent suspect to have on the list, his name was on the police radar at the time after all (at least after his death it was, and by police I just mean McNaughten of course). Modern research into his life has uncovered quite a bit about him, and his cricket matches all but result in excluding him. They don't quite, so he's worth pursuing until something is found that either does place him in London (indicating he made the trip) or definitely rules him out of London at the time. Those who feel the former has a reasonable chance of occurring will rate Druitt higher than those who feel the latter is far more probable - but neither should view their opinion as is if it fact. We don't have the information yet, so the lead needs to be pursued.

Gull, the topic of this thread, has nothing to connect him to the actual case other than his name was mentioned in the fictional Royal Conspiracy tale. As such, he's not even an actual lead. Unfortunately, because the Royal Conspiracy theory became very popular in the public domain, Gull's name has been artificially connected to the case, which just creates confusion.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

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

Thanks Jeff , in referencing druitt as jtr, that family suspicion doesnt count for much then i should think.

[FISHY1118]

Same thing. The point is that one can suggest a possible motive for any suspect, so doing that doesn't strengthen the case against the suspect.

What it does tho is puts him on a parr with every other suspect who has a possible motive suggested be anyone interested in the case .

[Fiver]

Gull would be facing two years hard labor for homosexuality.

How about a motive for Gull that has any basis in reality.

[DJA]

Same thing. The point is that one can suggest a possible motive for any suspect, so doing that doesn't strengthen the case against the suspect.

Gull would be facing two years hard labor for homosexuality.

[Lewis C]

''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 .

Same thing. The point is that one can suggest a possible motive for any suspect, so doing that doesn't strengthen the case against the suspect.

[DJA]

Read what I posted.You are missing the point.

[Fiver]

The stage play was the catalyst for the murders.

The murders bear no resemblance to anything done by any character in the play.

[DJA]

The stage play was the catalyst for the murders.

[Fiver]

And returned as a stage play just before the murders.

That further proves my point. How could Stevenson be alluding to events that hadn't happened yet?

[DJA]

John Addington Symonds

Symonds was shocked by the book, writing to Stevenson that "viewed as an allegory, it touches one too closely."^[14] - Wikipedia

[DJA]

And returned as a stage play just before the murders.