The reputation of Sir William Withey Gull

[Trapperologist]

It was Gull’s own daughter who allegedly got the ball rolling with the story of the police visit.

[FISHY1118]

It was Gull’s own daughter who allegedly got the ball rolling with the story of the police visit.

Lady Gull also.

[Trapperologist]

Lady Gull also.

She died in 1894. I think Stowell got his information in the late 1920's. But of course, Gull's daughter got married in 1888 so she probably wasn't present for the police intrusion, and would have heard it from her mother. Is that what you mean?

[Fiver]

Lady Gull also.

Neither Gull's wife nor his daughter ever made any accusations against him.

[DJA]

The Royal Society met towards the end of the five murders.

Both Gull and WE Gladstone attended.

Gladstone's letter to The Times, telling it's readers that Jack the Ripper was actually conducting research that would benefit mankind, was most likely influenced by Gull.

[DJA]

[Fiver]

Gull was suspected of being the ripper well before knights books and the bbc mini series , why wouldn't he be considered a suspect . A minor stroke and 70 years old doesn't remove him from be more than capable of murder.

The 1895 to 1897 US newspaper articles accuse a London physician, but no evidence is provided and the suspect does not match Gull on several points. Their supposed source was a Dr. Benjamin Howard, who responded to the newspaper claims by saying "there is not a single item of this startling statement concerning me which has the slightest foundation in fact. Beyond what I may have read in the newspapers, I have never known anything about Jack the Ripper. I have never made any public statement about Jack the Ripper – and at the time of the alleged public statement by me I was thousands of miles distant from San Francisco where it was alleged that I made."

In 1970, a Dr Thomas Stowall claimed that the Ripper was a patient of Dr Gull, and that Dr. Gull had the Ripper committed to an asylum.

The first claim that Dr Gull was the Ripper came from Joseph Gorman. This resulted in a 1973 BBC series and Knight's book in 1976. Much of Gorman's story is provably false and Gorman soon admitted his story was a hoax.

On October 15, 1887, The British Medical Journal reported that Gull had been "completely paralysed on the right side" and that three days later he was able to move his right arm. On November 5, 1887, The British Medical Journal, reported that by November 3, Gull was "able to sit up a short time every day." That hardly sounds like a minor stroke. Between then and his death in 1890, Gull suffered multiple attacks, some resulting in unconsciousness, others in confusion and weakness.

[FISHY1118]

he died in 1894. I think Stowell got his information in the late 1920's. But of course, Gull's daughter got married in 1888 so she probably wasn't present for the police intrusion, and would have heard it from her mother. Is that what you mean?

Correct, it was Stowells claim that Lady Gull was there and she was questioned by police inspector .

Lets not dismiss Stowells importance here , look at his relationship he had with Catherine Gull and Dyke Ackland , he was an executor of his will , they were very close . No motive for him to make up a story like that way way back in the 1920s when the word ''conspiracy'' probably wasn't even in the dictionary.

[FISHY1118]

The 1895 to 1897 US newspaper articles accuse a London physician, but no evidence is provided and the suspect does not match Gull on several points. Their supposed source was a Dr. Benjamin Howard, who responded to the newspaper claims by saying "there is not a single item of this startling statement concerning me which has the slightest foundation in fact. Beyond what I may have read in the newspapers, I have never known anything about Jack the Ripper. I have never made any public statement about Jack the Ripper – and at the time of the alleged public statement by me I was thousands of miles distant from San Francisco where it was alleged that I made

."

Like most things in life Fiver , just because Benjamin Howard denied that he was the source, doesn't mean it didnt happen and that he in fact was. i disagree, the suspect in question matches gulls description perfectly. Take another look .

The first claim that Dr Gull was the Ripper came from Joseph Gorman. This resulted in a 1973 BBC series and Knight's book in 1976. Much of Gorman's story is provably false and Gorman soon admitted his story was a hoax.

Ive already made my thoughts clear on people who start by saying Joseph Sickert admitted to making the whole thing up and it was a hoax . Just means they haven't done enough research.

On October 15, 1887, The British Medical Journal reported that Gull had been "completely paralysed on the right side" and that three days later he was able to move his right arm. On November 5, 1887, The British Medical Journal, reported that by November 3, Gull was "able to sit up a short time every day." That hardly sounds like a minor stroke. Between then and his death in 1890, Gull suffered multiple attacks, some resulting in unconsciousness, others in confusion and weakness.

Hmmmm where would you like me to start on this one ? There are multiple reports on gulls condition and his ''MINOR'' stroke , ive already listed other journal reports that explain exactly what a minor stroke entails.

[FISHY1118]

The Royal Society met towards the end of the five murders.

Both Gull and WE Gladstone attended.

Gladstone's letter to The Times, telling it's readers that Jack the Ripper was actually conducting research that would benefit mankind, was most likely influenced by Gull.

Interesting point DJA

[FISHY1118]

Neither Gull's wife nor his daughter ever made any accusations against him.

I dont recall anyone saying that they did , only that lady gull was present when the police turned up to interview Gull, and that her daughter passed on that information later in her life , Thats all.

[FISHY1118]

On October 15, 1887, The British Medical Journal reported that Gull had been "completely paralysed on the right side" and that three days later he was able to move his right arm. On November 5, 1887, The British Medical Journal, reported that by November 3, Gull was "able to sit up a short time every day." That hardly sounds like a minor stroke. Between then and his death in 1890, Gull suffered multiple attacks, some resulting in unconsciousness, others in confusion and weakness.

. Wilkes and Bettany,s Biographical History of Guy's Hospital

"Sir william gull had two or three short illnesses before the one which was the commencement of his fatal malady, but at this time he was well and enjoying himself in Scotland, near killiecrankie, when he was seized with slight paralysis on the right side of and aphasia. this was in October 1887. he recovered in great measure and returned to London, where he remained for some months comparatively well. friends who then saw him did not discern much difference in his looks and manner but he said he felt another man and gave up his practice. he subsequently had three epileptiform attacks, from which he rapidly recovered, but on January the 29th 1890 he was suddenly seized with a apoplectic attack, fell into a coma , and gradually passed away.....' now that sounds like a minor stroke to me .

it all depends which article ones want to believe doesn't it ?.

[Fiver]

Like most things in life Fiver , just because Benjamin Howard denied that he was the source, doesn't mean it didnt happen and that he in fact was. i disagree, the suspect in question matches gulls description perfectly. Take another look .

The mad doctor story started appearing in American newspapers in 1895. This version of the killer had occasional fits where his wife locked herself and their children away. The killer did not remember his actions and when convinced by others voluntarily committed himself. In 1888 William Gull's children were married adults who did not live with their parents.

Within a month the story changed to a dozen physicians acting as a medical court of inquiry. This version portrays reputed psychic Robert James Lees having visions of Jack's killings, and Jack slitting the throat of his ninth victim after avoiding a cordon of "3,000 constables in citizens' clothes and 1,500 detectives disguised as mechanics were patrolling the courts and alleys of Whitechapel." After the death of a tenth victim, Lees supposedly led the police to a West End mansion, the physician was committed to "private insane asylum in Islington", and to account for his disappearance an empty coffin was placed in "the family vault at Kensal Green" while London mourned the physician's "untimely death".

William Gull's death in 1890 was neither unexpected nor untimely, he had suffered from a series of strokes for several years and died at age 73. William Gull was buried in a tomb, not a vault. His grave is not in Kensal Green, it isn't even in London. William Gull was buried in the St Michael Churchyard in Essex, 89 miles away.

All of the clues about the mad doctor - his living circumstances, his age and health, the circumstances and location of his burial are all completely wrong for Dr William Gull. The US newspaper story also contradicts known facts about the Ripper, doubling his actual total number of victims and it contradicts the Joseph Gorman story - which is about a lone madman, not a conspiracy.

Ive already made my thoughts clear on people who start by saying Joseph Sickert admitted to making the whole thing up and it was a hoax . Just means they haven't done enough research.

I note you don't refute people who point out Joseph Gorman admitted to making the whole thing up, The Gorman account is full of provably false things and makes no sense.

Gorman's/Knight's 'Royal Conspiracy' requires
* A group of semi-homeless alcoholic prostitutes decide to blackmail the British government over something provably false.
* The British government decides this is a serious threat to the monarchy.
* With the full resources of the British government at their disposal, the conspirators put together a kill squad made up of a man who wasn't in England, an elderly stroke victim, and a coachman.
* The men assigned to eliminate the blackmailers decide the best way to do this is to murder them in a way that turns the women from nobodies to household names, implicates the Masons, and undermines public confidence in the authorities.
* The British government agrees this is the best way to quietly and secretly eliminate the blackmailers.
* The victims fail to notice or respond when only members of their blackmail club are being messily butchered by the Ripper.
* Over a year after the doctor has stopped murdering or doing anything to implicate the conspiracy, the conspirators decide that he is a threat.
* Rather than kill the elderly doctor, the British government decides to fake his death and put him in an asylum, even though he was well known in the medical community and his picture had appeared in the newspapers.
* The painter then spends decades hiding a child from the authorities and leaving still more clues that implicate the Masons. The conspirators do not decide he is a threat and do nothing to stop the painter.
* The coachman, even though no one else cares, spends more than a decade repeatedly and ineptly failing to kill the painter and the child.

In short, the Royal Conspiracy requires everyone involved - conspirators, killers, and victims to act in an incredibly stupid manner. It's patent nonsense even before we consider that the original source of the story admitted it was a hoax.

[Fiver]

I dont recall anyone saying that they did , only that lady gull was present when the police turned up to interview Gull, and that her daughter passed on that information later in her life , Thats all.

The police never interviewed William Gull about the Ripper murders.

[Fiver]

The Royal Society met towards the end of the five murders.

Both Gull and WE Gladstone attended.

Gladstone's letter to The Times, telling it's readers that Jack the Ripper was actually conducting research that would benefit mankind, was most likely influenced by Gull.

Do you have a source for these claims?