Rating The Suspects.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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

[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?

[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]

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]

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]

This may actually be your weakest post yet Baron. Quite an achievement when we consider the others.

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

and yet a physically fit


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

- Surely purpose of this exercise can’t be lost on you? I applied a series of criteria, that have been applied to suspects in general over the years, just to get a picture of what ‘type’ of person might be the likeliest to have been the killer. I invited input from others and then I applied the criteria to a list of suspects. I displayed everything in the open, I invited comment and suggestion and have made numerous changes after taking advice from others. I could not have been fairer. Only 2 people seem to disagree (both of whom have an obvious antagonism toward me and so appear unable to use calm reason)
The fact that Druitt is ok on age and fitness isn’t intended to prove that he was the killer. Of a list of 28 suspects, 26 scored the full 2 points. You’ve expressed no issue that anyone else has 2 points (your own suspect Kosminski included) and yet you feel it worthwhile to single out Druitt. Again.


Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

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.


- Sorry to disappoint you but Gull wasn’t a surgeon.


Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

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


No one knows what and when was the first ripper murder

- Most consider either Tabram or Nichols to have been the first. It doesn’t matter which unless a suspect has an alibi for that murder and Druitt doesn’t.


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


- What a strange thing to say? Who knows what might trigger a serial killer but they are often affected by traumatic events in their lives. I haven’t suggested that Druitt became a killer after his mother had been committed. I simply expressed the possibility that this might have adversely affected the balance of his mind. It was a point worth noting; that’s all. No one else took issue with it very abuse they could see that it was only a piece of speculation on my part. Your reaction as ever is entirely disproportionate.


Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

and who killed himself just after the Kelly murder


Druitt didn't kill himself just after the Kelly murder


- If you are going to quibble over what ‘just after’ means then please do it elsewhere. ‘Just after’ doesn’t have to mean minutes or seconds later. A matter of days.


The Kelly murder must not be the last ripper murder


- Like Tabram, Mackenzie is disputed. We have no way of being certain. Unsurprisingly you have, in the past, claimed for a certainty that she was, purely because abuse you want to dismiss Druitt. That’s up to you. Though I’m guessing that you make sure to dismiss Coles as a victim because she died after Kosminski was incarcerated.


And most serial killers don't kill themselves.


- If you can find me some solid evidence that a suicide must be excluded as a potential serial killer then I’ll listen. Until then I’ll give it a miss thanks.


Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

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


- If Macnaghten is so clueless on Druitt, then why isn’t he clueless on Kosminski as he’s mentioned too? So the man that you criticise for his former job is only a poor judge of suspects in 2 out of 3 suggestions? It’s good to see that you can retain a sense of balance Baron. You’re suspect was named by a Barrister and a religious obsessive.


Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

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


Exactly, where is the sense of balance?


- I’m happy with my assessments. Only you and Fishy have complained and that doesn’t bother me in the slightest.


Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

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


like Ostrog?!


- And Kosminski. You keep forgetting to mention him.


Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

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


Then Druitt is out.

- Well, if you take that viewpoint Baron then is bye bye Kosminski too.



The Baron

I won’t bother explaining the purpose of this thread again Baron. If you couldn’t grasp it the first time I fear that repetition won’t help. Basically you’re only posting for personal reasons. You have no interest in contributing or making constructive comments but then again, this is all that you appear to do when you post on here.

I’ll leave it to others to decide if I’ve been fair and unbiased on this thread.

[The Baron]

- Sorry to disappoint you but Gull wasn’t a surgeon.

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

[Fiver]

Agree with you Fishy.


The Baron

Fishy is attacking something that Herlock didn't say.

[Kattrup]

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

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.