Rating The Suspects.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yer he did , there is no error in that .

Prove it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Try reading Fishy. His son-in-law…..never wholly recovered.

or….. “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.“

1 + 2 = 3.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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 .

Simply untrue. I spent post after post asking for responses and explanations which I wouldn’t have had to do if you had answered questions.

[The Baron]

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.

Is it a habit for you to withdraw from what you say whenever you get caught?!

"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"


Promoting a mere son of a surgeon against a doctor with an Honour in Surgery and an Anatomy lecturer at medical school

And eating your own words, that the 71 years old Gull who had 3 strokes...

Had he 3 strokes when he was 71 during the ripper murders?!



The Baron

[FISHY1118]

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.



A bit too tricky are they.

Yet i produced evidence that contradicts that '' seriousness ''. So your point is void . Move on .