Rating The Suspects.

[Herlock Sholmes]

From Wikipedia :

"Gull, encouraged by Harrison, determined to make the most of his opportunity, and resolved to try for every prize for which he could compete in the hospital in the course of that year. He succeeded in gaining every one. During the first year of his residence at Guy's, together with his other studies he carried on his own education in Greek, Latin, and Mathematics, and in 1838 he matriculated at the recently founded University of London. In 1841 he took his M.B. degree, and gained honours in physiology, comparative anatomy, medicine, and surgery"


I am waiting for your apology, for yet another factual error.



The Baron

As Kattrup has already pointed out. Gull wasn’t a surgeon. A surgeon performs operations. Find me one example of Gull performing an operation.

He was a Physician.

[Herlock Sholmes]

To the Glory of God and in memory of William Withey Gull, Bart M.D., F.R.S.D., C.L., Oxon., Cantab., and Edin
Physician to Her Majesty Queen Victoria and to Albert Edward, Prince of Wales
Physician and Lecturer and finally A Governor of this Hospital

No mention of F.R.C.S. Clearly not a surgeon.

I wonder when the apology will show up. I predict a period of silence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fishy is attacking something that Herlock didn't say.

And The Baron is agreeing with someone who is attacking something that was never said in the first place. You couldn’t make this up Fiver.

Then again, I remember years ago in a Richardson someone sarcastically said that perhaps Richardson didn’t see the body because he was blind in one eye and had long hair which fell over his left eye.

Guess who thought that was actually the case?

[The Baron]

Hello Baron

you May have to wait a while. Taking a class in surgery does not mean qualifying as a surgeon.

In order to become a surgeon, Gull would have to have passed an examination at the Royal College of Surgeons. I do not believe he did, and so he was never a surgeon.

Hi Kattrup,

So an honour degree in Surgery, not just some class as you mentioned, wouldn't allow him to practice any kind of operations in his hospital you say?

And please don't tell me that the Ripper must have passed an examination at the royal college of surgeons.

A person who has an honour degree in Surgery is a better suspect than a son of a surgeon, if this category is important at all.


The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Gull wasn’t a surgeon. End of debate.

That category is one of eight categories. No one can say for certain what level of skill the killer had. You’ve deliberately disregarded the aim of the exercise all because you cannot let go of a grudge.

[The Baron]

Gull wasn’t a surgeon. End of debate.

That category is one of eight categories. No one can say for certain what level of skill the killer had. You’ve deliberately disregarded the aim of the exercise all because you cannot let go of a grudge.

And again just for you, a person who has an honour degree in Surgery is a better suspect than a son of a surgeon.


Aka Gull is a better suspect than Druitt in that regard, remember this always whenever you try to promote Druitt as a son of a surgeon



The Baron

[Kattrup]

Hi Kattrup,

So an honour degree in Surgery, not just some class as you mentioned, wouldn't allow him to practice any kind of operations in his hospital you say?

And please don't tell me that the Ripper must have passed an examination at the royal college of surgeons.

A person who has an honour degree in Surgery is a better suspect than a son of a surgeon, if this category is important at all.


The Baron

Hi baron

I think you’re getting your arguments mixed up.

After you chided Herlock for saying Gull was not a surgeon, I just pointed out that Herlock was correct, Gull was not.

What that means, if anything, for his suspectstatus is another matter. As is Gull possibly having surgical knowledge or skill.

[The Baron]

What that means, if anything, for his suspectstatus is another matter. As is Gull possibly having surgical knowledge or skill.

Hi Kattrup,

Not possibly, Gull had an honour degree in Surgery and he was a lecturer for Anatomy in the medical school, he of course is better than a mere son of a surgeon like Druitt.


The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

And again just for you, a person who has an honour degree in Surgery is a better suspect than a son of a surgeon.


Aka Gull is a better suspect than Druitt in that regard, remember this always whenever you try to promote Druitt as a son of a surgeon



The Baron

And again, just for you Baron. From the list.


Druitt > 2 - 1 - 0 -1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 5

Gull > 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 2


1) If you had bothered to look at the list you would have seen that Gull has the maximum full point and Druitt gets a zero so I’m not putting them at the same level on that particular criteria and never have. You have complained about a non-existent point. Well done.

2) I haven’t ‘promoted’ him as the son of a surgeon because, again if you’d actually read what I’d written elsewhere, all that I said was that while we have no evidence of Druitt having any medical/anatomical knowledge, more than most he’d have had easy access to it. Thats all that I said. No more than that and I certainly awarded him no points for that entirely harmless and fair suggestion.

3) We can’t judge a suspect based on just one of the 8 criteria which is what you are pointlessly trying to do. The list is about an accumulation of points. I thought that this was obvious to all.

4) The criteria are stated openly so everyone can see what each individual suspect has been awarded so it’s actually impossible for me to get away with being biased in favour of Druitt. As everyone can see.

5) I have made changes based on the thoughts of others several times. I even added a point to Sickert after Fishy made the suggestion proving that I’m not biased.

6) A person is more inclined to bias if they have a definite suspect/theory to support. You think that Kosminski was the killer. Fishy thinks that Gull was the killer. I only suggest that Druitt might have been the killer. Posts by yourself and Fishy support this in that they show obvious bias.

7) Kosminski is named by a senior police officer. Druitt is named by a senior police officer. Conveniently you only have a problem with the latter though.

8) Anderson was a Barrister before he joined the police. Macnaghten was in business before he joined the police. Conveniently you only have a problem with the latter though.

9) We have no other evidence against Kosminski. We have no other evidence against Druitt. Conveniently you only have a problem with the latter though.

10) And to finish off….this is a discussion board. We make points for discussion and ask and answer questions. It would be nice, although a shock, if you could occasionally bring yourself to actually responding to a point that’s made. I answer everyone of the points made by yourself and Fishy. You two avoid responding directly to points at all costs. I can only conclude that’s it’s because you have no answers to give and that you know this.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Kattrup,

Not possibly, Gull had an honour degree in Surgery and he was a lecturer for Anatomy in the medical school, he of course is better than a mere son of a surgeon like Druitt.


The Baron

No, he didn’t have an honours degree in surgery. He had an honours degree of which surgery was one of the modules. Gull chose not to pursue surgery as a career though. We know that he didn’t pursue surgery as a career because he wasn’t a surgeon. No one calls him a surgeon. He isn’t listed as a surgeon. He performed no operations. He wasn’t a member of the F.R.C.S. Every time his name appears he’s called a Physician. Not a surgeon. And he is never called a surgeon because…..he wasn’t a surgeon.

On the criteria - medical/anatomical knowledge - Gull very obviously scores higher than Druitt. It’s why I gave him the full point and Druitt no point. I don’t really see how I can make this any clearer Baron? If you tell me why you aren’t getting it then I might be better able to explain it to you better.

If he is a better suspect than Druitt because of the medical/anatomical knowledge criteria, as you say, then you would have to concede of course that it would mean that he was also a better suspect than Kosminski too? Being fair of course.

[FISHY1118]

No. If someone claims to have explained or answered something and someone says that they haven’t seen any explanation or answer it’s a matter of basic manners to either repeat the explanation/answer or to provide a link to it rather than expect someone to Wade through random threads to find it. If you have a conversation with someone and they don’t hear your answer properly do you refuse to repeat? The other threads were ruined by yourself and PI. Instead of ignoring you both I foolishly tried to reason with you and became irritated.

You were shown links, and or #post on both the threads i mentioned ,so another misconception on your behalf . What you called ''reason'' i and others call a total lack of other posters opinions based on the evidence as they interpret it .

[FISHY1118]

A classic piece of Fishy sleight-of-hand where you change the criteria by adding a bit to try and make it appear that you are right. I never specified that he had strokes during the murders Fishy, as you well know so don’t even try it.


Let’s put to bed once and for all your attempt to paint the 71 year old Gull as someone who had one minor stroke from which he fully recovered shall we, because everyone here knows that it’s not true.


From William Withey Gull - A Biographical Sketch (1896) by Theodore Dyke-Acland. So Gull’s son-in-law.

“It was during his holiday in Scotland amid the scenes so congenial to him, that in October, 1887, he was struck down by paralysis, from which he never wholly recovered. In a few weeks he was moved to London. The end did not come until January, 1890, when a fresh and acute illness brought to a rapid close the strong life here too feebly portrayed.”

- So there we have a man who knew him intimately saying that he had a stroke in October of 1887 (10 months before the murders began) from which he NEVER WHOLLY RECOVERED.


From the Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Gull, William Withey.

“In the autumn of 1887 he was attacked with paralysis, which compelled him to retire from practice; a third attack caused his death on 29 Jan. 1890.”

- So, he had the attack in Scotland mentioned here and from which TD Acland said that he never wholly recovered (10 months before the murders remember) and then he had 2 more resulting in his death in 1890.


From his tailors Henry Poole & co who have a Hall of Fame on their website where biographies of famous clients have been written over the years. On Gull:

“In 1887 Sir William suffered the first of a series of strokes correctly diagnosing his malady by saying ‘one arrow has missed its mark but there are more in the quiver’. “


From Gull’s obituary in The Times (30th January 1890)

“We regret to announce that Sir William Gull died at half-past 12 yesterday at his residence, 74, Brook-street, London, from paralysis. Sir William was seized with a severe attack of paralysis just over two years ago while staying at Urrard, Killiecrankie, and never sufficiently recovered to resume his practice.”


I’m not going to keep going over the obvious just because you can’t accept it Fishy. I’m sure that those who have access to newspaper archives can post more obituaries if they have a few minutes to spare? Not that you’ll accept it of course.

Exactly. ''If a 71 year old man who had 3 strokes isn’t an unlikely in the extreme ripper then who is?''



Still you cant see how you yourself play word games, your clearly implying that as the ripper , that he had 3 strokes . , Nice try . but youve fail on that one .



You clearly cant except what i posted herlock so i wont bother going over it again. Just dont go on and on about how i dont reply to your questions or that i completely ignore them . Its wearing thin, seriously give it rest . I suggest sticking to the evidence, speaking of which Wilks and Bettanys Biographical Histoy of Guys Hospital 1892 Edition .


''While enjoying himself in Scotland he was seized with ''SLIGHT'' paralysis the right side in october 1887. He recovered in ''Great Measure'' and returned to London''.


We,ve been down this road before havent we herlock? you quote from one source while ignoring another . You must accept the evidence from all sources when debating a topic and not just the ones your convinced are correct when clearly they are contradictory . A another misconception on your behalf.

[FISHY1118]

I think that these days, most agree that the Ripper didn't need to have had a surgeon's level of anatomical knowledge. Most either think that a butcher's anatomical knowledge would have been enough, or that he didn't even need to have a butcher's knowledge of anatomy.

Depends on how one views the case, based on the doctors inquest testimony on anatomical knowledge. imo

[FISHY1118]

If it was a "near certainty that the Ripper had a degree medical skill", then why did so many of the dcotors disagree with that opinion?

Here are the opinions of the medical types.

Dr Llewellyn - “some rough anatomical knowledge”

Coroner Baxter - "considerable anatomical skill and knowledge”

Dr Phillips - "seemed to indicate great anatomical knowledge.”

Dr Sequeira - "not possessed of any great anatomical skill"

Dr Brown - “a great deal of knowledge”

Dr Saunders did not think the killer showed anatomical skill.

Dr Bond - "no scientific nor anatomical knowledge" IIRC, Thomas Bond read the reports in the victims, he did not examine the bodies.

So the assessments of skill are:
None - Bond, Saunders
Some - Lllewellyn, Sequeira
A lot - Baxter, Brown, Phillips

So who knows?

I think there is enough evidence to say that the some of doctors involved in the case were of the opinion that some degree of medical knowledge took place


Dr sequeira quote could be interpruted as ' not any great' but indeed some knowledge , just not great .

Dr Phillips - "seemed to indicate great anatomical knowledge. ill take that as a yes .


Its worth noting that Dr Bond was only talking about the mutilations of Mary Kelly in regards to ''no scientific nor anatomical knowledge" and not her organ removal as such. Interesting enough tho, he uses medical terms when describing the removal of some of her organs i.e ''breast'

[FISHY1118]

Herlock did not claim that Gull's strokes took place during the Ripper murders. So you, not Herlock, is in error on this point.

Yer he did , there is no error in that .