Was Sir William Gull 'Jack the Ripper'? - Jack the Ripper (1988) Discussion

[–] yeoldevincente 19 years ago

We may never know for sure, but we do know that there are too many odd facts to suggest it not being someone of influence such as the writing being washed off the wall and the blood being cleaned before the police arrived.

Plus, if the murderer was never caught, why did the murders stop suddenly? You can't help but think that maybe they had caught the killer, but they were just covering up for him because he was someone of importance, as this film suggests.

However, you could also say, if it was someone of influence such as the prince or William Gull, why didn't the police fit someone else up for the murders to protect them?

reply

[–] nicholas1987 17 years ago

yeoldevincente, The writing was washed off the walls to avaoid race riot, "Juws"
being jews, this would of been done even if was a butcher.

reply

[–] besantgull 16 years ago

I would be mega freaked if he was because I am his great great niece so that would be very shocking really. That's quite a one to tell the friends "did you know my great great uncle was Jack the ripper?" Classic!!

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kellymariekitty 9 years ago

Hahahahahahaha awesome conversation starter :)i would be talking to u all night if u said this to me :)

reply

[–] adam-1009 15 years ago

> Plus, if the murderer was never caught, why did the murders stop suddenly?

There could be dozens of reasons - he could moved to other country, he could die in accident, he could have been arrested / killed during investigation for other crime than murder, he could have been killed by f.e. robber, he could have died of natural causes, he could have become seriously ill and was unable to move or walk, etc

This really isn't any argument for cover up theory

reply

[–] Fillies44 (1) 2 years ago

They did say it was Kosminski.He took the blame.The cover up story is not that far fetched as the word juwesis is a meaning in the masons law book

reply

[–] Nbates-3 19 years ago

The thing about "he had to be a surgeon" is not entirely correct. (Forgive me, but I´ve forgotten the details) the surgeons that went over the bodies of the victims didn´t think that a surgeon had done the mutilations. That is propably why the police in 1888 were looking for even some butchers and what not. Also, I think that an old man aristocrat would have been easily recognised in the Whitechapel district at the time - I mean he stood out, so if you saw him you would remember him as walking away with the victim. But about the mutilations (I still haven´t seen this TV show), there is one thing that might suggest that it actually was a surgeon; when Catherine Eddowes was killed, the Mitre Square street lamp was so far away that the one that mutilated her had to use a candle or something to be able to cut her so precisely, and the killer only had a few minutes to do so according to the police officer that was circling the killing route. The mutilations were done, as the coroner said "the perpertrater of the act must have had some considerable knowledge of the position of the organs in the abdominal cavity..."
But 2 people saw the man walking with Eddowes, just before the kill. They descriped the man like he was a sailor, of 30 years of age. So Gull it was not likely.

reply

[–] helixkahn 19 years ago

Top suspects do not include Gull, Prince Albert, or the conspiracy theory involving a Royalty coverup. While Jack the Ripper is a case where we will probably never know, the biggest suspects are:

1. Montague John Druitt - however cricket matches he was involved in can help to eliminate him. Melville Macnaughton's chief suspect but he wasn't on the force until at least 2 years after the Ripper murders. Druitt committed suicide in November 1888 by drowning himself in the Thames. Possible later Ripper-like murders (Alice Mackenzie, Frances Coles) couldn't have been committed by Druitt.

2: Aaron Kosminski - a Polish Jew hairdresser that was a tad bit insane but tentatively identified by witness Lawende. Potential Ripper victims (ie Frances Coles) after Mary Kelly that may be attributed to the Ripper occured while Kosminski was confined to asylum.

3: Michael Ostrog - a Russian 'doctor' that had numerous prison and asylum stays during his life. A petty thief and con-man that even claimed to be the son of the dead Polish king. Physical description also doesn't fit with witnesses.

4. Francis Tumblety - a Canadian 'doctor' murderer that collect uteruses (uteri?) from his victims. A purported homosexual but women turned up dead when he was around.

5. George Chapman - born Severin Klosowski, also worked as a barber; he was a multi-identity user, polygamist, woman beater, convicted murderer (poisoning of three wives), and hanged in 1903. He was an apprenticed surgeon while in Poland. To remain brief... The slayings began not long after Chapman moved to London (having taken residence in George Yard, site of the first attributed Ripper slaying) and ceased when he moved to America, where similar crimes began arising. He also threatened his actual wife that he was going to behead her after which she returned to London, followed shortly by Chapman whence he began taking other 'wives' and poisoned them. Detective Abberline's main suspect and most likely to have been Jack the Ripper.

6. James Maybrick - of the published "Diary of Jack the Ripper' however thie entire book is a fake and little else connected him to the crimes

forget all about Patricia Cornwell's claim that Walter Sickert was the Ripper as her evidence is so stretched it shouldn't even be discussed. I recommend you check out "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper" by Philip Sugden, best book on the subject I have read to date.

The Kahn

reply

[–] edhesk 19 years ago

Not quite so, Kahn. (Why not KHAN?)
The Walter Sickert connection was actually first made by Stephen Knight in his book "Jack The Ripper: The Final Solution". His claim came at the very end of the book, and was acknowledged as supposition by the author. What gave particular weight to Knight's theories was that he was investigating a tale by Sickert's son that claimed JTR to be three men acting in concert: Royal surgeon William Gull, cabbie John Netley and one other. When he attempted to verify the story of Joseph Sickert, Knight found that many of the details Sickert could not have had access to were accurate, effectively substantiating the story. It was the image of the tall gentleman with the gladstone bag, an image associated with JTR through the scant eyewitness accounts, joined with the high level of detail W. Sickert had given his son about the murders, which prompted Knight to challenge J. Sickert with the possibility that the third man was Walter Sickert himself. Joseph Sickert reluctantly agreed that this was both possible and probable, then went on TV to recant the entire story, despite the fact that Knight had already verified most of it.

Despite the wealth of evidence against Chapman and Tumblety, both of whom had the right profile and were in London at the right time, no complete theory fits as well as that of Gull/Netley/Sickert.

reply

[–] smokehill retrievers 16 years ago

My main problem with Knight's book is that I don't consider him even remotely honest. I'm not enough of a Ripper expert to critique his book, though I believe some serious Ripperologists have done this quite effectively.

I am, however, a bit of an expert on the Freemasons and the Knights Templars -- long before the connection was turned into a public spectacle. And, not being a Freemason (nor even knowing one), I believe I'm impartial -- something Knight can hardly be accused of in his dealings with the Brotherhood. It was just plain nuts, in parts.

I read Knight's Masonic "expose" when it first came out, and still have it, though I haven't re-read it -- basically, it isn't worth a second read ... and barely worth the first, except for amusement at Knight's silly exaggerations and obsession with finding deep, dark conspiracies. Calling him a "researcher," as some have, is an insult to those who truly can be honest and impartial.

Unfortunately, books on subjects like the Ripper or the Freemasons don't sell well unless there's a great "hook" -- and third-rate authors like Knight will often furnish one if necessary. Based on his Masonic "research," I don't trust anything Knight tells us about his Sickert interviews. I believe he was perfectly capable of cranking out details that Sickert "couldn't know."

Not a scholarly evaluation of his Ripper work, of course, but it's something I believe Ripper "fans" should know when referring to Knight's Ripper book.

reply

[–] elizabethdicely 15 years ago

I have always believed the Ripper to be Prince Clarence, grandson of Queen Victoria. A doctor back then talked about his patient "S" who had syphilis (spelling?)and his picture of a deerstalker cap, holding a fishing pole and the way he was standing. The picture was of Prince Clarence. I saw the picture in the 70's in a true crime section of The New York newspaper that was sold here in my section of the state on Sundays. The letters were found long after the doctor had died and the doctor said that the patient was Jack the Ripper. Though the Prince was somewhere else at the times of the killings, being the Prince, the servants, etc., would have lied for him. He was schooled so he would have known about anatomy. The disease could/would have come from the prostitutes and he lost his money because of the disease and went after them. There have been theories that he had married Mary Kelly and had a child by her.

reply

[–] tasscif 13 years ago

NO DEFINATLEY NOT

reply

[–] Movie_Tech 19 years ago

You oft jump to illogical conclusion.

Save Arrested Development :: www.imdb.com/title/tt0367279/board/nest/29749410

reply

[–] themightymartin 19 years ago

I personally think it's likely that there was more than one killer, either in a gang or individuals. Someone kills a couple of girls and immediately we have Jack the Ripper. After that anyone else could've killed another girl in a similar fashion, and that killing is Jack the Ripper as well! If the police are looking for a single murderer the odds of getting caught are far more in the favour of the killers.

"Groovy"

reply

[–] ipreach4ever 19 years ago

Michael Caine did it!

Nah, what about the lawyer that killed himself with a pocket watch with all of the victims names engraved on it?

reply

[–] scottyp-terriep 19 years ago

I think, ipreach4ever, you are referring to the Cotton Trader from Liverpool by the name of James Maybrick (Maybrick didn't commit suicide but was killed by his wife.). There was a book produced a number of years ago called 'The Diary Of Jack The Ripper' which was allegedly Maybricks diary in which he confessed to being Jack The Ripper. The Diary was found in a house in Liverpool during some renovations on the property. However, the book has been proved to be a fake by the majority of Ripper-ologists.

If you want to know who Jack The Ripper could have been, I implore you to try and get hold of an Audiobook called 'The Truth About Jack The Ripper' by Martin Fido (I only have it on Audiobook and have no idea if it is available in Paperback/Hardback etc). In it, Fido looks at all the Ripper theories (Sir William Gull, the Royal Ripper etc) and delivers his own conclusion as to the identity of Jack.

IMHO, his conclusion seems the most logical and plausable....

reply

[–] ipreach4ever 19 years ago

Thank you.

reply

[–] griffic-2 19 years ago

Gull probably wasn't the killer. I'm inclined to believe it may have been a guy named David Cohen (real name Kaminsky or something like that). I don't know if anyone mentioned here but another interesting book to read is "The Cases That Haunt Us" by John Douglas who worked for the FBI and has been called America's foremost expert on criminal profiling. Among many famous cases he goes into Jack the Ripper and gives his own analysis as well as covering other experts.

The thing about poor Patricia Cornwall is that she spent millions of dollars on Sickert artwork to try to prove her case (even destroying one of his works for possible DNA evidence). Well she found no DNA evidence, but after spending all that money do you think she was going to change her mind?

Anyway, no matter who the killer was, this is a great TV-Movie. I remember my mom being upset because she believes they identified the wrong man, but I told her that it doesn't really matter because not only was it the only film to take the Ripper seriously and investigate the case, but it was exciting, suspensful and had a powerful performance from the great Michael Caine!

reply

[–] justindombrowski 18 years ago

Well heres the deal lads. It would be nearly impossible for Sir William Gull to have been the infamous ripper. First off being he was 72 years old. He had recently suffered a stroke and the entire right side of his body had been paralyzed. Alot of this so called "Conspiracy theory" is complete bogus so to speak. They say that the prostitutes knew each other,yet there is no evidence to constitute this at all. alot of ripper films that show the royal family/conspiracy theory point to also use of carriages,etc. which was virtually impossible in the murders of Nichols and others. The point is that it is not possible for gull to have been the killer. Other candidates such as Tumblety and Koslowski/Chapman are way better candidates. There is even no evidence to constitute or backup this theory that seems like something only mother goose would consist of.

reply

[–] image-2 18 years ago

It was the Masons

reply

[–] Vassago 19 years ago

Gull had about as much to do with being the Whitechapel killer - who, of course, never called himself "Jack the Ripper" - as Lewis Carroll, Walter Sickert or Queen Victoria.

reply

[–] themightymartin 19 years ago

Didn't he refer to himself as Jack in the "Dear Boss" letters?

"Groovy"

reply

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 19 years ago

How about Lon Chaney, Crusader Rabbit and Edward Teller?

Nothing exists more beautifully than nothing.

reply

[–] themightymartin 19 years ago

I think the point that Vassago is trying to make is that all the people he named have been theorised as being the ripper. He was not plucking names at random, which is what you seem to be doing, messpile.

"Groovy"

reply

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 19 years ago

No one will ever know and that is the ultimate mystery.

Nothing exists more beautifully than nothing.

reply

[–] spike3271 19 years ago

i believe William Gull was the killer but not because of he was mad like this film suggests but i believe the conspiracy about him working for the queen and killing these prostitutes because they threatened to let everyone know that the prince had a secret daughter with a prostitute etc see from hell (the johnny depp version) to get what i mean or copy and paste this link into your adress bar and scroll down
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_the_Ripper_royal_conspiracy_theories

reply

[–] Hanslick 19 years ago

Gull was over 70 years old at the time of the murders, and had already suffered a severe stroke. He was hardly capable of dodging through the streets of Whitechapel and wrestling with streetwise women. There is absolutely zero evidence that a carriage was needed, or used, to perform the murders, or indeed that Gull was ever involved in the police investigations as either suspect or as an expert witness.

Great film, though.

reply

[–] thewholebrevitything 19 years ago

"Gull had about as much to do with being the Whitechapel killer - who, of course, never called himself "Jack the Ripper" - as Lewis Carroll, Walter Sickert or Queen Victoria. "

Thanks. Now I cant get this image out of my mind - queen victoria dressed in drag killing women.

Now theres a movie !

This message will soon be deleted by an administrator

reply

[–] walrus75 19 years ago

There was a really good documentary called ' The first American serial Killer' shown on BBC that supposed that a quack called 'Edward Tumbelty' was arrested in connection to the murders. He was been watched at the time because his land lady had seen him return covered in blood. as the police could only hold him for a limited time he was bailed. Tumblety fled to France and then back to England. Detectives from Scotland Yard were sent to New York to track him. This story ran in the New York Times. It was compelling viewing and had some great eveidence. Looking into Tumblety's back ground they discovered he was a homo sexual with an intense hatred of women. He collected uteris' and female genitalia and kept them on display at his home. I recall it was all supposition and Kosminski was also named as the Ripper a few years later. The documentary is usually repeated on the history channel

reply

[–] RealTyche 19 years ago

The Tumblety story has also been proven inaccurate. There is evidence that he was not in Whitechapel during the height of the Ripper scare.

The most likely candidate for Jack the Ripper was George Chapman. He lived in Whitechapel at the time, was violent towards women, murdered three 'wives' via poison, and bore a striking resemblance to the man witness George Hutchinson testified he saw with Mary Jane Kelly just before her death. Of course, none of this is proof. :)

Gull was clearly not Jack the Ripper. None of the men witnesses described in the presence of the canonical victims around the times of their death match his. In addition, it would have been impossible not to notice a well dressed distingushed older man illiciting prosititutes; and yet no claim has ever come from witness testimony of any such type of man.

This of course could speculate that the coach driver Nedley picked up the prositutes. But is it feasable? On it's face, no. At no scene of the Ripper murders was a coach ever seen in the vicinity. Also, Nedley was uneducated. Those that heard men speaking to the canonical victims--what few their were--all describe his diction as: 'Quick and Sharp, he had the manner of an educated man, like a clerk." And..most importantly.. Nedley does not come close to any of the descriptions of the Ripper suspects as seen by witnesses of the time.

Tyche--Ripperologist

reply

[–] maxrobinson 18 years ago

>Gull was clearly not Jack the Ripper. None of the men witnesses described in the presence of the canonical victims >around the times of their death match his. In addition, it would have been impossible not to notice a well dressed >distingushed older man illiciting prosititutes; and yet no claim has ever come from witness testimony of any such type >of man.

But if, as suggested in the movie, Gull stayed waiting in the coach while Netley went off in search of possible victims, there would have been no "well dressed distinguished old man" to see.......
And that means that Gull could be the Ripper.

reply

[–] maxrobinson 18 years ago

>Gull was clearly not Jack the Ripper. None of the men witnesses described in the presence of the canonical victims >around the times of their death match his. In addition, it would have been impossible not to notice a well dressed >distingushed older man illiciting prosititutes; and yet no claim has ever come from witness testimony of any such type >of man.

But if, as suggested in the movie, Gull stayed waiting in the coach while Netley went off in search of possible victims, there would have been no "well dressed distinguished old man" to see.......
And that means that Gull could be the Ripper.

reply

[–] GroovyDave1973 18 years ago

Coach? lol anything but the drabbest Hansom cab would have been noticed in Whitechapel, there are no reports of coaches at the time of the murders.

The truth is Jack was probably a local lad who we do not even know the name of. It certianly was not Gull.

This is a good film, but it is Fiction.

"Just A Little Bit Further" www.summerisle.tk

reply

[–] GroovyDave1973 18 years ago

Coach? lol anything but the drabbest Hansom cab would have been noticed in Whitechapel, there are no reports of coaches at the time of the murders.

The truth is Jack was probably a local lad who we do not even know the name of. It certianly was not Gull.

This is a good film, but it is Fiction.

"Just A Little Bit Further" www.summerisle.tk

reply

[–] FilmExaminer 12 years ago

Sir William was paralyzed, sorry but he's out of the running.

Also, it might be important to consider that the night of "double-event" might not have been a double-event at all! White Chapel was a fairly lawless place in the 1880s, as lawless one could argue as Tombstone, Arizona or Deadwood in the Dakota territories; the bloody murder of a prostitute would have been far from uncommon. Any such murder at that time would have been attributed to Jack.

reply

[–] s_woman 19 years ago

My personal opinion is that "James Kelly" was the ripper. He was put in Broadmoor Lunatic Asylum for cutting his wifes throat due to (supposedly) being insane. He caught a disease from a prostitute, and went loony. And in 1988 he escaped from the asylum before the killings started, a few months i think. He was an upholsterer by trade, and back then they were called "rippers" now one of the letters that the ripper sent to police said, "Jack the ripper by trade" or something to that effect.
And also the police seemed to have known because after the Mary Kelly murder police went straight to his mother in laws to question where he was.
Honestly there was a lot in the books i can't remember, but i highly recommend reading, "The Real Jack The Ripper, The secret of prisoner 1167". Written by James Tully.

reply

[–] imdb-8351 18 years ago

gull wasn't the ripper for sure. way too old and he was still recovering from a stroke.

thomas
www.jacktheripper.de

reply

[–] naillon-2 18 years ago

Much of the "knowledge" about the Ripper crimes is fallacy.

1. The Ripper was NOT a doctor, nor did he have any medical knowledge. He ripped open the women's abdomens and cut out whatever came to hand. He wasn't after any specific organs; he merely took what he could and left the rest (which is why his victims were often found disemboweled; he must have pulled out the intestines when he grabbed his prizes from the abdomen).

2. It's highly unlikely that the Ripper was a member of the royal family. This theory wasn't even posited until 1976. It makes a good story, but there's no way a royal could have entered the Whitechapel district, even in those days, without standing out like a sore thumb.

3. He was not left-handed.

Colin Wilson's Ripper works are worth reading, as well as the aforementioned material by John Douglas. Douglas creates a profile of the man capable of committing the Ripper murders, and Gull certainly doesn't fit the profile. Gull was 70 years old at the time, he had already suffered several strokes, and most importantly, he had no history of violence against women. Nor did any of the members of the royal family.

reply

[–] Caz1964 18 years ago

This film is very entertaining but it is purely fiction and i was really disapointed that To Hell starring Jonnny Depp used the same storyline.
The facts on Jack The Ripper have become so distored over the years that we seem to becoming further and further away from the truth,suspects that shouldnt even be suspects,William Gull being one of them,he had a stroke in 1887 followed by two more strokes,it left him paralysed down one side.If an elderley man of today had a stroke and then went out murdering women it would be amazing let alone back in the 1880's with primitive medical care and in the cold and fog and poor lighting conditions.Not very likely.
The Duke of Clarence theory was invented because it goes well with the ledgend nothing more,there is no real evidence to support him being the Ripper.
And then theres the books an films-if any of these tell you that the Ripper killed five prostitutes then there not worth watching or reading in the first place.
There were fourteen women brutelly murdered in the Whitechapel district between 1887-1891 only three of these killings were identical,Mary Ann Nichols,Annie Chapman and Catharine Eddowes,these were definately killed by the same hand and they were stranguled before their throats were cut,so the blood would not have spurted out onto the killer as the blood supply would have already stopped pumping.So he probably got away with a minimum amount of blood on him and was able to avoid attention,so it seems he knew exactly what he was doing and wasnt just a crazed lunatic but more of a cold calculating one.We only assume he must have been Elizabeth Stride and Mary Jane Kelly's killer.
Also another fact which keeps getting overlooked was that Catharine Eddowes was not a prostitute her family and friends had always insisted she wasnt.And theres also no evidence to say that Elizabeth Stride was.
So where we have always believed that Jack The Ripper was a hater and killer of prostitutes,this isnt entirely true he was most likely a hater of all women but prostitutes were easier to find.

reply

[–] adster81-1 18 years ago

I read somewhere cant remember where that the killer kept the Vitim's Uterus

reply

[–] ivy7om 18 years ago

Show me a man who lived in 1888 and I'll show you a book 'proving' he is Jack the Ripper.

reply

[–] west-end 18 years ago

There was a programme on sky one a few nights ago where Vic Reeves went through all of the evidence and spoke to professionals and got their opinions and one by one crossed suspects off the list. In the end he came to the conclusion it was Francis Tumblety. Other people have come to that same conclusion and going by the info on that programme, i'd say it's highly likely.

reply

[–] Fingaroo 18 years ago

Tumblety was too tall, too well-dressed, and too flamboyant to have been the Ripper. He would have stuck out in the East End like a sore thumb. He was also a homosexual. Male homosexual serial killers tend to kill other males, mostly other homosexuals. For being Jack the Ripper my money is on Montague J. Druitt. Contrary to some reports, it would have been entirely possible for him to have played in his cricket matches and committed the murders. As an athlete he certaintly had the upper body strength to kill with his hands (unlike Gull). He fits the witness descriptions more closely than any of the other named suspects. He was going insane and killed himself just after the last of the canonical murders. And most importantly, the police had private information that his family believed him to be Jack--information that has never been revealed and is now thought to be lost.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Caz1964 18 years ago

I agree with Finger Doo Tumblety was too tall and also had an American accent he would have stood out in the crowd.
My theory is that who ever JKR was, looked,acted and sounded like the average man and went unnoticed.
Although of coarse i could be wrong.

reply

[–] Noruh 17 years ago

Most evidence seems to point to Aaraon Kosminsky, the Polish Jew "hairdresser". He meets the psychological profile typically found of a serial killer (chronic public masturbation, hatred of women, violent episodes, delusions, hallucinations, father issues, etc.), and his supposed apartment was the geographic center of the murders.

The police were well aware of him being a main suspect so they placed him under 24 hour surveillance. At which point, coincidentally, the murders stopped! He was institutionalized for schizophrenia in 1891. One of the main reasons that he wasn't arrested was because he was a Polish Jew and the British police were fearing reprisals against local immigrants and Jews. Remember, London was in a state of terror during these murders, so anything was possible if a "scapegoat" could be found. So they hoped that 24 hour surveillance would work instead. It appears that it did.

Also the Discovery Channel (I believe) had a special a few years back where current FBI and Scotland Yard investigators concluded that he was the most likely murderer.

reply

[–] Caz1964 17 years ago

Also shortly after Kosminsky was incarcerated his mother changed her last name she didnt want to be connected with a JTR suspect even though he was never charged with any of the murders. She did totally disown him and its rumoured that she herself believed him to be the killer,he died in 1919 and she had never once visited him.

reply

[–] griffic-2 16 years ago

And Kosminski is said to have lived in a neighborhood called Sion Square...DEAD CENTER from all the Ripper murders.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] griffic-2 16 years ago

That's what makes the mystery fun. Well, maybe "fun" wasn't the right word.

reply