Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Elizabeth Stride: Elizabeth's murder and the double event - by Madam Detective 14 minutes ago.
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - by ChrisGeorge 18 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Fisherman 26 minutes ago.
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - by mklhawley 47 minutes ago.
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - by jmenges 56 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - by Paddy 1 hour and 2 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - (16 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (14 posts)
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - (10 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (9 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (6 posts)
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - (4 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > General Suspect Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #71  
Old 10-16-2017, 05:52 PM
Roy Corduroy Roy Corduroy is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,572
Default

Hi Richard, having not read your book, if I understand correctly, what you have written in your book is that Francis Thompson was staying at the Providence Row Night Refuge, Crispin Street in November 1888. And you argue he was there in November 88' and in November 88' only, to the exclusion of any of the other three winter seasons he was in London 1885, 86' and 87'. And you argue this because it was in May 1888 he met Mr. Meynell, and therefore had the proper reference to obtain admission to the Providence Row Night Refuge when it opened in November for the season. Again correct me if I am wrong. You stated it in this and other threads. And Paul Begg also wrote you made a plausible case about November being the only time he stayed there in his review of your book. And by the way we are all indebted to Paul Begg for the reviews he does in Ripperology magazine. I look forward to them every issue.

I find the idea counter intuitive that Francis Thompson could have stayed at the Providence Row Night Refuge in November 1888 only and in none of the previous three years he was in London. In fact, I find it much more likely his stay there was during one or more of the three entire winter seasons previous to November 1888. At that point in 1888 there were only two months remaining until he was taken away to the monastery in Surrey.

For the simple reason, I ask myself - how in the world did all those hundreds of people who did in fact gain admittance to the night refuge those three years ever manage, against all odds, to do so, when Francis Thompson could not? Did those other people have clout, or especially glowing recommendations, or references from influential people? Did they game the system? How did all those other people succeed in obtaining the coveted ticket? After all, Francis Thompson came to London in 1885 an intelligent young man, son of a doctor from Manchester, a Catholic, a well read and erudite soul whose only failing was his addiction. Surely he could have figured a way to gain admittance to the night refuge along with the others.

Roy
__________________
Sink the Bismark
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 10-16-2017, 06:06 PM
Richard Patterson Richard Patterson is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 522
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Corduroy View Post
Hi Richard, having not read your book, if I understand correctly, what you have written in your book is that Francis Thompson was staying at the Providence Row Night Refuge, Crispin Street in November 1888. And you argue he was there in November 88' and in November 88' only, to the exclusion of any of the other three winter seasons he was in London 1885, 86' and 87'. And you argue this because it was in May 1888 he met Mr. Meynell, and therefore had the proper reference to obtain admission to the Providence Row Night Refuge when it opened in November for the season. Again correct me if I am wrong. You stated it in this and other threads. And Paul Begg also wrote you made a plausible case about November being the only time he stayed there in his review of your book. And by the way we are all indebted to Paul Begg for the reviews he does in Ripperology magazine. I look forward to them every issue.

I find the idea counter intuitive that Francis Thompson could have stayed at the Providence Row Night Refuge in November 1888 only and in none of the previous three years he was in London. In fact, I find it much more likely his stay there was during one or more of the three entire winter seasons previous to November 1888. At that point in 1888 there were only two months remaining until he was taken away to the monastery in Surrey.

For the simple reason, I ask myself - how in the world did all those hundreds of people who did in fact gain admittance to the night refuge those three years ever manage, against all odds, to do so, when Francis Thompson could not? Did those other people have clout, or especially glowing recommendations, or references from influential people? Did they game the system? How did all those other people succeed in obtaining the coveted ticket? After all, Francis Thompson came to London in 1885 an intelligent young man, son of a doctor from Manchester, a Catholic, a well read and erudite soul whose only failing was his addiction. Surely he could have figured a way to gain admittance to the night refuge along with the others.

Roy
Hi Roy,

Thompson may have been able to stay at the Row prior to November 1888, but he would have needed to 'trick' his way in, since he could not have gained a reference. The only time he could have entered and stay at Providence Row, without resorting to deception, would have been in November 1888. If Thompson stayed at the Row before 1888, and possibly also during 1888, then this would only serve to secure his association with the area of the murders. It would even lend credibility that he may have encountered Mary Kelly, who is thought to have also stayed at the Refuge. As it stands, though I have to conclude that he stayed in November 1888, simply because I have nothing to show that Thompson used his intelligence for deceit. If I could show Thompson he did, it would only be to my advantage regarding my claim that he might have been Jack the Ripper.
__________________
Author of

"Jack the Ripper, The Works of Francis Thompson"

http://www.francisjthompson.com/
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 10-16-2017, 06:36 PM
Roy Corduroy Roy Corduroy is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,572
Default

I don't think it required deceit on his part. Just as it didn't require deceit on the part of the hundreds of others who successfully passed the test. They got references. He got references. Street people have all day to meet and talk to others. To find along their way kind souls who will vouch for them such as a recommendation to a shelter. It's nothing out of the ordinary.

That's why I asked the rhetorical question - how in the world did all the others get in, but not him, until he magically met Meynell. It doesn't ring true.

Your original argument, the one in your book. That is what I don't agree with because common sense tells me it didn't work that way.

You say he could not have gotten references. Why would you say that? How about all the others. They got references. Why not him. Somethings not adding up here. He is different from everyone else? That doesn't make any sense what you said - he could not have gotten references.

Roy
__________________
Sink the Bismark
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 10-16-2017, 06:42 PM
Richard Patterson Richard Patterson is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 522
Default

Roy,

This refuge was different to others, the reference had to come from an employer. Those who attended this refuge, even if many were turned away, all needed references to show that they had gainful employment. These references were checked. This is something that Thompson could only supply twice. The first time was in 1886, when he worked for a short time in Haymarket for a shoemaker, but then the shoemaker arranged lodgings for him. The only other time was when his editor paid him for his articles, but that was not till around June of 1888 and the Refuge opened in November.
__________________
Author of

"Jack the Ripper, The Works of Francis Thompson"

http://www.francisjthompson.com/
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 10-16-2017, 07:29 PM
Roy Corduroy Roy Corduroy is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,572
Default

It's deja vu all over again

click here - http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=378599

You and Barnett had this entire conversation last year with different results. Be sure to read the very last sentence on the page

Roy
__________________
Sink the Bismark
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 10-16-2017, 08:06 PM
Richard Patterson Richard Patterson is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 522
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Corduroy View Post
It's deja vu all over again

click here - http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=378599

You and Barnett had this entire conversation last year with different results. Be sure to read the very last sentence on the page

Roy
It is deja vu all over again Roy, but with one exception. I changed my mind. I decided as MrBarnett wisely wrote in the last post you have directed me to that,

'The Casebook dissertation is an excellent overview, but the reality seems to have been more complicated than it suggests.'

The readership of the Catholic Magazine, 'The Tablet' was far different to those who sought refuge at Providence Row. While 'The Tablet' may have wanted their readers to believe just how open and accepting they were of the homeless, I believe that the reality is more in line with how Casebook described it. That in practicality the refuge operators did vet their applicants by requiring a work reference. That is why I have left that condition of entry in my book.
__________________
Author of

"Jack the Ripper, The Works of Francis Thompson"

http://www.francisjthompson.com/
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 10-16-2017, 08:28 PM
jerryd jerryd is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 917
Default

Not sure if this helps, but has some information about the refuge and how to apply.

http://spotlight.nottingham.ac.uk/st...page4Item2.asp
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 10-16-2017, 08:38 PM
Richard Patterson Richard Patterson is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 522
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerryd View Post
Not sure if this helps, but has some information about the refuge and how to apply.

http://spotlight.nottingham.ac.uk/st...page4Item2.asp
Thanks Jerryd.

I read from the link you give that,

'All the inmates are called upon to make a statement as to their last employment, and the cause of their misfortune, which is afterwards inquired into'

If this was the truth, between needing a reference of present employment or none needed at all, I wonder how they would have dealt with Thompson. His last and only employment, apart from with his editor from the middle of 1888 was with the shoemaker who fired him after Thompson inured one of his customer. The shoemaker said that of all those he employed Thompson was his only failure.
__________________
Author of

"Jack the Ripper, The Works of Francis Thompson"

http://www.francisjthompson.com/
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 10-17-2017, 03:30 AM
MrBarnett MrBarnett is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Romford
Posts: 1,308
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBarnett View Post
You're apparently the expert on the subject, why didn't you make the effort to obtain this crucial documemt before you wrote your book or approached your documentary producer?
Richard,

Do you really believe that every single one of the homeless people who gained entrance to the refuge were carrying a written reference when they arrived?

As Roy says, we have been through this all before.

I once posted a report which described how during one particularly savage winter (1889, I think) volunteers from Providence Row scoured the streets of London looking for rough sleepers and gave them entry tickets to the refuge and where appropriate bus passes to Whitechapel.

Some of them were so dirty and ragged that they were refused entry to the buses, but when they got to the refuge they were admitted.

According to you, though, no one who looked like a beggar or who did not have a written reference was ever admitted to the refuge.

Let's not forget that, scruffy or not, Thompson was an educated and deeply religious man who had contacts in London, some family and others from his student days (according to Walsh). How can you be so sure that prior to his meeting with Meynall hr would not have been able to get into the refuge for a single night. (Assuming he ever did.)

By the way, when he wrote to Meynell from hospital he was apparently still wearing the old boots he had worn while on the streets and he had nothing to shave with, so even at that late stage he was still doing a passable impression of a beggar.

Last edited by MrBarnett : 10-17-2017 at 03:47 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 10-17-2017, 03:47 AM
MrBarnett MrBarnett is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Romford
Posts: 1,308
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Patterson View Post
Thanks Jerryd.

I read from the link you give that,

'All the inmates are called upon to make a statement as to their last employment, and the cause of their misfortune, which is afterwards inquired into'

If this was the truth, between needing a reference of present employment or none needed at all, I wonder how they would have dealt with Thompson. His last and only employment, apart from with his editor from the middle of 1888 was with the shoemaker who fired him after Thompson inured one of his customer. The shoemaker said that of all those he employed Thompson was his only failure.
Richard,

Surely you're aware that the job at McMaster's was not his only job while he was in London?

And I'm glad you'be touched on his clumsiness, which in my mind serves to dispel the notion that he was some kind of twisted fire starter.

Gary
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.