Rating The Suspects.

[The Baron]

and yet a physically fit

Like what?! 70- 80% of England population at the time?!

son of a surgeon

Are son of surgeons known to be serial killers

If anything, a surgeon like Gull would be a better suspect than a son of a surgeon.

whose mother is committed to an asylum weeks before the first murder

No one knows what and when was the first ripper murder

Do serial killers start killing after their mothers been committed to asylums?!

and who killed himself just after the Kelly murder

Druitt didn't kill himself just after the Kelly murder

The Kelly murder must not be the last ripper murder

And most serial killers don't kill themselves.

and is mentioned as a likely suspect by the Chief Constable of the Met

Ostrog was mentioned by the tea merchant too, does that make him a better suspect

is somehow a non-starter. Where’s the sense of balance?

Exactly, where is the sense of balance?

Of course, from what we know of him he sounds an unlikely ripper and yet he’s mentioned?

like Ostrog?!

It’s likelier of course that the ripper was someone like Bury or Kelly

Then Druitt is out.



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Agree with you Fishy.


The Baron

An opinion based on absolutely nothing but your attitude toward me. Everything that you post is riddled with bias and your personal dislikes. I’ve produced evidence of the seriousness of Gull’s strokes, and there’s undoubtedly more out there, but if you want to argue with a man that was Gull’s son-in-law then that’s up to you.

You do tend to post then run away don’t you Baron? Perhaps that’s why you never manage to respond to awkward questions. I’ll remind you for a third time.

I tell you what Baron, based on the criteria that I openly and very clearly stated at the beginning, please point out to me where I’ve been biased in favour of Druitt. If you can’t ….. and you won’t be able to….id suggest that you post on non-Druitt-related threads as all mention of him clearly upsets you so much thatyou lose all sense of balance.

And btw you never answered when I asked why you think it so important to keep mentioning that Macnaghten had a different job before he joined the Met? I’ll save you the trouble because we all know the answer - because your favoured suspect, Kosminski, is also reliant on someone that had a different job before he became a high ranking police officer. I’m talking about Anderson of course. But clearly in your ‘unbiased’ world there appears to be one rule for Anderson and another for Macnaughten

A bit too tricky are they.

[The Baron]

Gull did not have 3 strokes during the ripper murders, you are factually incorrect ........ Again .

Agree with you Fishy.


The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Do we think that it’s also worth pointing out that it’s not just anatomical knowledge that they suggested but three of them mention anatomical skill. Surely this would mean skill at removing organs? If so then it would have to be pointed out that Gull wasn’t a surgeon. Would he have ever removed organs? He’d have had anatomical knowledge but skill?

[JeffHamm]

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?

It is also important to take into consideration when those opinions were formed. I think the only case where opinions reach "great and/or medical level knowledge" is the Chapman case, and that appears to be solely based upon the the removal of the uterus. Coroner Baxter, with his "uterii for sale" idea, could be viewed as being potentially biased to see things in this light (not intentionally so, only that he may be more inclined to accept that opinion as it fit with his idea). Opinions seem to decline on that front as the series continued, perhaps due to the medical men becoming more familiar with the evil men do.

While mutilation murders are, fortunately, very rare, there have been many cases where quite extensive mutilations have been undertaken by people with no medical or professional training. Many, though, do have a background history of cutting up or mutilating dead animals. Richard Chase, who was psychotic, removed the kidneys from one of his victims, cut at least one of them in half, then placed them back in the body in their location. He had no medical background, but he did kill and mutilate animals.

- Jeff

[Fiver]

Gull did not have 3 strokes during the ripper murders, you are factually incorrect ........ Again .

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

[Fiver]

Well it is your thread and your scoring sytem, and you indeed have that option. However given the very nature of the crimes and the near certainty that the Ripper had a degree medical skill ,i think thats a poor move to have Medical Knowledge lumped in with a lowly slaughterman/ butcher.

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?

[Lewis C]

Well it is your thread and your scoring sytem, and you indeed have that option. However given the very nature of the crimes and the near certainty that the Ripper had a degree medical skill ,i think thats a poor move to have Medical Knowledge lumped in with a lowly slaughterman/ butcher.

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.

[Lewis C]

Yes but the fact remains the body of Montague J''Druitt'' that which was pulled from the Thames is what Abberline the man who was in charge of the entire investigation was clearly saying when he gave his interview. ''But there is absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him. ”

Hi Fishy,

Kattrup isn't denying that. All he's saying is that Abberline doesn't appear to be very well-informed about Druitt.

[Fiver]

Personally I think that Gull should dwell in the same category as Lewis Carrol and Prince Eddy as there is nothing to remotely connect him to the murders accept an old man’s story that contained so many falsehoods that it can’t even be considered remotely reliable.

And that man later admitted the whole Royal Conspiracy was a hoax.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Gull did not have 3 strokes during the ripper murders, you are factually incorrect ........ Again .

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hey it’s it’s your time Herlock ,you should manage it better if you feel that way . Another Herlock misconseption, that somehow you actually prove ''My opinions'' wrong, which of coure is untrue. Enough said , Richardson and Jfk can attest to all the above is far from accurate, there your achillies heel in many, many ways . Time to move on .

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.

[FISHY1118]

Exactly. If a 71 year old man who had 3 strokes isn’t an unlikely in the extreme ripper then who is? He’s only mentioned in regard to a crazy theory involving Royalty and the Freemasons. And yet a physically fit, 31 year old son of a surgeon whose mother is committed to an asylum weeks before the first murder and who killed himself just after the Kelly murder and is mentioned as a likely suspect by the Chief Constable of the Met, is somehow a non-starter. Where’s the sense of balance?

Of course, from what we know of him he sounds an unlikely ripper and yet he’s mentioned? It’s likelier of course that the ripper was someone like Bury or Kelly but we just don’t know. Too many people in attack or defend mode when it comes to suspects. As if they’re defending their own honour.

All that I know about who was the ripper was John is...it wasn’t me.

Gull did not have 3 strokes during the ripper murders, you are factually incorrect ........ Again .

[FISHY1118]

Please stop wasting my time Fishy. I’m tired of constantly proving you wrong. I’m not interested in what you gave to say on this subject. Ask ANYONE else (apart from The Baron) if they think that I’ve been biased on this thread. Ask them….see what they say.

I don’t duck questions….ever. If I miss one by mistake I’ll reply when it’s pointed out. And when I make a point I give my thinking behind it and the evidence that it’s based on. I don’t just say ‘I’ve explained it’ and expect someone to wade through numerous threads and hundreds of posts trying to find something that I haven’t said in the first place. You just keep ruining threads by starting arguments. Thread after thread after thread. And I keep getting drawn in. I’m not getting drawn in here.

Hey its your time Herlock ,you should manage it better if you feel that way . Another Herlock misconseption, that somehow you actually prove ''My opinions'' wrong, which of coure is untrue. Enough said , Richardson and Jfk can attest to all the above is far from accurate, there your achillies heel in many, many ways . Time to move on .

[FISHY1118]

Maybe if you wait a little more Fishy you will see Druitt gets some 10+ points and Gull will be at 0 to 1 point

That is how our unbiased minds work!

You can keep adding categories that suit your favourite suspect, and ignore facts that support your less favourite suspects, give extra points here and less points there..


It is more like a heavily biased game at best.


The Baron

Ive voiced my concerned on the matter with him .