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:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 2 hours ago.
Thompson, Francis: Francis Thompson. The Perfect Suspect. - by Roy Corduroy 3 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by jerryd 3 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 3 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (13 posts)
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - (5 posts)
General Discussion: Albert Backert - did he emigrate? - (3 posts)
Thompson, Francis: Francis Thompson. The Perfect Suspect. - (2 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (2 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Was Ernest Dowson Jack the Ripper? - (2 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 > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #71  
Old 05-31-2017, 03:52 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,270
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Hi Richard

I don't understand why so many people appear to vehemently oppose Thompson as a possible JTR.
Compare him to Cross, Hutchinson, Mann and Barnett. Take away the one fact that they were around at the time and there's absolutely nothing left.

I even thought of the similarities with the myth of Matter's Dr Stanley. There you had a doctor, whose son, also a doctor caught a disease from a prostitute, so he searched Whitechapel for that prostitute killing others on the way.
With Thompson you have someone who trained as a doctor. He was ill (addiction) and he searched Whitechapel for a prostitute (possibly killing others). Who knows where these oral histories come from? Then you have stories of insane medical students. Some researchers have made greater 'leaps.' Even Druitt was called a doctor.
I hope that your research is ongoing. Facts emerge all the time so who knows?
Until then, surely Thompson should be considered as, at the very least, one of the most plausible candidates? I'm looking forward to reading the Walsh biography. Who knows, I may spot something.
Regards
HS
Except that he has no ties whatsoever to the case.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 05-31-2017, 03:36 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,032
Default

Hi
I do find it surprising to say the least that people find nothing wrong with proposing Cross because he discovered a body and nothing else. Or Hutchinson because he said that he saw MJK and nothing else. Or Mann because he worked in a mortuary and nothing else. Or Barrett because he knew MJK and nothing else. Or some of the other suspects who might have slightly better claims. Yet people won't even consider a medically trained man with mental health and drug problems. A man who hated fallen women and wrote about disembowling them. A man with a religious mania who stalked the streets of London carrying a dissecting scalpel looking for a prostitute who broke his heart. Of course that kind of person could never be Jack.
I'm not claiming that Thompson was Jack. I'm saying that, after reading Richard Pattersons book, that he Could have been. Further research is needed. This research might rule him out completely. Who knows?
Very few suspects can be absolutely ruled out. I can think of 2. The rest are possibilities, no matter how slight. Surely we should keep open minds?

Regards
HS
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 05-31-2017, 03:53 PM
MrBarnett MrBarnett is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Romford
Posts: 1,309
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Hi
I do find it surprising to say the least that people find nothing wrong with proposing Cross because he discovered a body and nothing else. Or Hutchinson because he said that he saw MJK and nothing else. Or Mann because he worked in a mortuary and nothing else. Or Barrett because he knew MJK and nothing else. Or some of the other suspects who might have slightly better claims. Yet people won't even consider a medically trained man with mental health and drug problems. A man who hated fallen women and wrote about disembowling them. A man with a religious mania who stalked the streets of London carrying a dissecting scalpel looking for a prostitute who broke his heart. Of course that kind of person could never be Jack.
I'm not claiming that Thompson was Jack. I'm saying that, after reading Richard Pattersons book, that he Could have been. Further research is needed. This research might rule him out completely. Who knows?
Very few suspects can be absolutely ruled out. I can think of 2. The rest are possibilities, no matter how slight. Surely we should keep open minds?

Regards
HS
Hi Michael,

One thing at a time.

How do you know Thompson was carrying a dissecting scalpel in 1888?

'Because it says so in Richard's book,' is not an acceptable answer.

Gary
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 05-31-2017, 04:09 PM
MrBarnett MrBarnett is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Romford
Posts: 1,309
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Except that he has no ties whatsoever to the case.
Hi Abby,

But we know he was in the East End at the time of the murders. (Don't we?)

And that he could look down to Miller's Court from the women's section of the PR Refuge, where he could only have stayed between the 5th - 8th of November, 1888. (Surely?)

And that he was still carrying the scalpel he had shaved with as a student - and kept it sharp! (He was so particular about his appearance at the time he would never have allowed his shaving blade to become blunt - duh!)

Plus, it's obvious that he was looking for his upmarket Chelsea prostitute in the doss-houses of Spitalfields. (Where else?)

And don't forget, Spitalfields had once been a Catholic place - with a hospital - and Thompson was a Catholic who once worked in a hospital. (I bet you're feeling a bit foolish now, eh?)

There's lots more along the same lines if you're not convinced.


Compare effete Thompson, who may not have even been in the East End in 1888, to Pearly Poll's East End born violent husband who ended up in a mental asylum and you realise how good a suspect he (Frank, not Foggy!) really was.



Gary

Last edited by MrBarnett : 05-31-2017 at 04:29 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 05-31-2017, 10:39 PM
Pcdunn Pcdunn is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,519
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Hi
I do find it surprising to say the least that people find nothing wrong with proposing Cross because he discovered a body and nothing else. Or Hutchinson because he said that he saw MJK and nothing else. Or Mann because he worked in a mortuary and nothing else. Or Barrett because he knew MJK and nothing else. Or some of the other suspects who might have slightly better claims. Yet people won't even consider a medically trained man with mental health and drug problems. A man who hated fallen women and wrote about disembowling them. A man with a religious mania who stalked the streets of London carrying a dissecting scalpel looking for a prostitute who broke his heart. Of course that kind of person could never be Jack.
I'm not claiming that Thompson was Jack. I'm saying that, after reading Richard Pattersons book, that he Could have been. Further research is needed. This research might rule him out completely. Who knows?
Very few suspects can be absolutely ruled out. I can think of 2. The rest are possibilities, no matter how slight. Surely we should keep open minds?

Regards
HS
Hello, Herlock.

While it's true I haven't purchased Patterson's book, I have read most of his threads about Thompson here on Casebook, and frankly, I'm just not sure many of the things you have listed above about Thompson are factual. Further research on my part is definitely needed, I know that.

One Patterson thread I recall well suggested that Thompson chose the dates he murdered women on due to a complicated system of his own devising based on the feast days of particular saints. (To Richard's credit, he did admit his logic was flawed when others pointed out he was mixing Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox saints' days.)

I did want to mention one thing about Catholic books, which I know from my own childhood. Anything written for a Roman Catholic audience underwent a sort of theological censorship, in which it was examined to make sure there was nothing in the content which could lead readers astray by going against the teachings of the Church. Approved books would have a Latin phrase on the back of the title page which meant, "Nothing obstructs" (or perhaps it was "objectionable", my Latin is not extensive.)

I mention this because Mr. Patterson asked in a previous post why Catholic books about Francis Thompson would frequently insist on mentioning how virtuous the poet was. I think, rather than covering up anything sinister, they are assuring the reader that he was a good Catholic even if he had lived a poverty-stricken life among the lowly-- something which Victorian custom looked down upon as meaning a person was out of favor with God (i.e., "sinful.")
__________________
Pat D.
---------------
Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
---------------
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 06-01-2017, 02:49 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,032
Default

Hi, I know absolutely nothing about Thompson except for Hounds of Heaven. I just read Richard s book and felt that he seemed to have more going for him as a suspect than most. After I've read the Walsh biography I'm may not feel the same. But just for trying to keep an open mind, whilst admitting my lack of Thompson knowledge it seems that to some people that I'm a gullible idiot and they respond to points by adding 'duh' on the end. I like debate but I've never insulted anyone. At the very least, I can say that I actually read the book first. I joined the site for debate and discussion but it appears that my moderate views are blasphemous. Perhaps I should just stay silent.
Regards
HS
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 06-01-2017, 11:15 PM
Pcdunn Pcdunn is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,519
Default

I don't think comments have been too bad so far, Herlock, nor do I think you need to resort to keeping your thoughts to yourself. Casebook has a lot of members, but a relatively small group of regular active participants, many of whom know each other and have long-running debates. It isn't uncommon for newer members to feel out of their depth and ignored-- I've only been here since late 2014, myself, and often am ignored.

I think there have been so many "suspect books" (and, lately, films or TV programs) that the hard core Ripperologist community is primed to be stubborn about accepting the latest one.
Some members have their own suspect. Others don't know, but are skeptics about historical people being named, sometimes on flimsy evidence or imaginative conjecture.

Don't give up on the forums yet, Herlock!
__________________
Pat D.
---------------
Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
---------------
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 06-02-2017, 12:54 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,032
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pcdunn View Post
I don't think comments have been too bad so far, Herlock, nor do I think you need to resort to keeping your thoughts to yourself. Casebook has a lot of members, but a relatively small group of regular active participants, many of whom know each other and have long-running debates. It isn't uncommon for newer members to feel out of their depth and ignored-- I've only been here since late 2014, myself, and often am ignored.

I think there have been so many "suspect books" (and, lately, films or TV programs) that the hard core Ripperologist community is primed to be stubborn about accepting the latest one.
Some members have their own suspect. Others don't know, but are skeptics about historical people being named, sometimes on flimsy evidence or imaginative conjecture.

Don't give up on the forums yet, Herlock!
Hi Pat

To be honest I may have partially mixed comments on here with ones made on the JTR Forum but it can be a but frustrating. If you read a book on a suspect and then make an assessment then that's what you're doing; assessing the suspect as he appears in that book, especially if you have no prior knowledge of the suspect(although I recall him being mentioned years ago. For eg I'm sure that everyone that read Richard Wallace's book on Dodgson didn't go out and read every Dodgson biography as background. Others on here and on the forum appear to have read Thompson biographies before and so have a yardstick that I don't have. If I got a bit defensive, and I probably did, it may be because I recall when the diary came out in '91, think. Many were immediately screaming 'forgery,' and 'amateurish fake,' many of them probably before they'd read the thing. And I always felt that some allowed personal bias to take over.

My copy of the Walsh biography came today so I can form a clearer opinion. After 30 years of being interested in the subject entering the world of technology can be tricky.

All the best
HS
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 11:25 PM.


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