Hint-of-Smegma on Sun Mar 23 2008 19:06:54
"It's certainly believed by Met officers who have had access to study the original files, plus the materials not released to the public regarding the case, that Gull was indeed the killer regardless of the current crop of theories floating around."
"Put it this way, despite current public opinion regarding the different theories, Metropolitan police officers who have actually studied the case still believe it was Gull, along with an accomplice (who did the physical work of procuring, possibly drugging and moving the women)...."
"And again I go back to this; I will err on the side of the beliefs of those who've seen and studied the actual case notes and the material not released to the public. If they think he was involved, I'll believe them before I believe so-called writers who've not had access to the same amount of material".
Which "Met police officers" exactly ever "certainly believed" Gull and co were the Ripper? None of the Met/City officers involved in 1888 and after ever did-Abberline, Swanson, Warren, Anderson, Dew, Macnaghten, Monro etc. I've never heard this theory being offered by anybody who had any involvment in the case or who has seen "the files" subsequently (actually they have been open for quite a while and say nothing about Gull, Netley, Clarence etc).So what unseen material are you referring to? Who are your police sources telling you they "believed" Gull was involved, what are these mysterious "files", not "open to the public", but seemingly available enough for you to have knowledge of their content about Sir William Gull and the Whitechapel killings?
The idea of Gull as the killer, with or without Mr Netley's help, is a risible scenario to anyone with even a superficial knowledge of the east end "Ripper" murders. An entertaining fiction for a film, but such fiction, based in the ludicrous long exploded "Royal conspiracy" stuff, should not be regarded as the truth about the Ripper crimes.
.
"What people need to understand however is that over the years a lot of false information has been made out to be fact regarding the case"...
A heck of as lot is currently perpetuated about the Ripper and the Royals/Masons by filmakers who therby pour slime over the reputations of completely innocent men (Gull, Clarence, Netley, Stephen etc) The late Stephen Knight is the yarn spinning author who really set this rolling 30 years ago. It has absolutely no credibility whatever among any experts on the case. For it totally lacks any evidence whatever to back it up, it is supported by mere speculations about the Ripper crimes, much of it pure imagination and quite inconsistent with the facts about the killings which are firmly established and beyond rational dispute.
"Quick cut 'surgery' on women brought to him probably unconscious is certainly a possibility".
No it certainly isn't. The victims died almost immediately when attacked-suffocation/the cutting of the carotid artery was usually the immediate cause of death for most victims. The killer had some anatomical knowledge and skill, but need not have been a surgeon or doctor (as attested by the various medical witnesses).There was no evidence in the autopsies that any of the women were "drugged", nor that they been moved "unconscious" from where the bodies were found. In fact, in many cases the women had only been dead minutes before discovery; indeed doctors were quickly on the scene-the idea they had been killed or drugged, transported to Gull across London for mutilation brought back again and dumped near where they often had been seen only minutes earlier alive and well by witnesses, simply doesn't match the established facts-it's just nonsense. On this matter the examining doctors and coronors and police officials and witnesses were agreed. The idea they were drugged and moved has no evidential basis-it is fiction. The women were not brought out unconscious from Whitechapel by coach to be butchered by Gull, or anyone else. It all happened quite quickly at the scene (except for Kelly, the murderer was indoors there, and thus had a long time to complete his terrible dismembering and mutilation of that victim). It is clear that in some caes-Stride the most obvious-the killer was interrupted by an approaching person and could not complete his mutilations on the corpse.
The Ripper probably killed between 4 and 8 women, most in 1888, a couple more he may have committed a few years later. They were prostitutes, mostly of the lowest sort, middle aged and desperate in most cases. There is no good evidence of any personal connection between the women. Kelly, the youngest, possibly Jack's last victim (she's the main focus of the conspiracy fantasy) was clearly butchered by a sadistic sexual psychopath, like the others-the killer here had time to do his worst mutilations.
In almost all cases the killer was skillful and clever in evading capture, but luck did play a big part in preventing him being caught in the act or in flight. For cunning establishment "conspirators" to commit mass murder just to shut people up in such a terribly risky way, is scarcely credible.
The Ripper was a white male, probably of average height for the time and of a stocky build. He probably was of working class or lower middle class background and killed alone and on foot. The victims were slain where they were discoverd. His true identity remains a mystery, but there is no credible evidence for the thesis peddled in this and other films about conspiracy and Gull. All of this is easily checkable from the many decent books which use the actual evidence to examine the case. Even a cursory study of the Ripper crimes shows the Gull stuff cannot be right.
Gull was a respected physician, he should not be being disgracefully smeared like this as the worst sort of killer-unless those pointing the finger can produce some sound evidence to support the notion-but of that there is none.
reply
share