Most ridiculous suspect

[Ms Diddles]

So, we are supposed to believe that the physically frail drug addict Thompson scaled the walls of the London Docks, started fires there, and then climbed back out thinking that the Dock police and fireman would have to call on the resources of the Met to help fight the fires thus drawing PC’s up in Whitechapel - Neal, Mizen, Thain etc - from their beats.

I think bonkers covers it. :-)

Good point, Well made!

[MrBarnett]

Yup!

The bit about the fire is right at the beginning of the book, and I was kind of reading whilst dozing off.

I do recall thinking it wasn't the most auspicious start.....

So, we are supposed to believe that the physically frail drug addict Thompson scaled the walls of the London Docks, started fires there, and then climbed back out thinking that the Dock police and fireman would have to call on the resources of the Met to help fight the fires thus drawing PC’s up in Whitechapel - Neal, Mizen, Thain etc - from their beats.

I think bonkers covers it. :-)

[Ms Diddles]

At one stage Richard was claiming that from his room in the refuge Thompson could look down Dorset Street towards Millers Court. When it was pointed out to him that the male section of the refuge was at the back of the building and its windows did not look out onto Dorset Street, he backed down from that.

Another of Richard’s ideas is that Thompson started fires in the docks as a diversion from the Nichols murder. That’s bonkers on a number levels.

Yup!

The bit about the fire is right at the beginning of the book, and I was kind of reading whilst dozing off.

I do recall thinking it wasn't the most auspicious start.....

[MrBarnett]

Interesting, Mr B!

The author certainly appeared a bit desperate for Thompson to have been accommodated in Providence Row (owing to it's location).

The logic appeared to be that he was catholic / had initially trained as a priest and would therefore inevitably gravitate to such a place.

I hadn't realised that this presumption that he stayed there was based on just one quotation, but can't say I'm surprised.

That was the overall vibe that I got from the book.

At one stage Richard was claiming that from his room in the refuge Thompson could look down Dorset Street towards Millers Court. When it was pointed out to him that the male section of the refuge was at the back of the building and its windows did not look out onto Dorset Street, he backed down from that.

Another of Richard’s ideas is that Thompson started fires in the docks as a diversion from the Nichols murder. That’s bonkers on a number levels.

[Ms Diddles]

Your take on the book is very similar to mine, Ms D. I would add, though, that the evidence of Thompson’s being in Spitalfields/Whitechapel in 1888 is very weak. It depends on a particular interpretation of a quotation from an article Thompson wrote about being outside the Providence Row refuge. Patterson admits to not having read the full article. As far as I can tell, it could have been describing an incident in 1887.

Interesting, Mr B!

The author certainly appeared a bit desperate for Thompson to have been accommodated in Providence Row (owing to it's location).

The logic appeared to be that he was catholic / had initially trained as a priest and would therefore inevitably gravitate to such a place.

I hadn't realised that this presumption that he stayed there was based on just one quotation, but can't say I'm surprised.

That was the overall vibe that I got from the book.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Abby Normal / GBinOz / MrBarnett,
I finished the Francis Thompson book.

To be brutally honest, I wasn't really feeling it.

In favour of Thompson as a suspect you have the fact that he was in the area, was a failed medical student and seemed a bit of a weirdo.

For these reasons alone, he doesn't qualify for the "most ridiculous" title, and should remain on the list.

I would stick with my original "total long shot" assessment though.

The book contained so many stretches that it felt like a marathon yoga session!

I noticed that Patterson explained how when Thompson's prostitute friend / partner left him, she may have gone to ply her trade in Whitechapel (It wasn't entirely clear why this should be the case??). This was repeated several times throughout the book, until by the end she had "almost definitely" relocated to Whitechapel.

Some of the biographical details were quite interesting and well researched, but every facet of his existence was given a sinister spin, based on little or no evidence.

The childhood fire raising incidents (to give just one example) sounded pretty innocuous and nothing like a serial killer in the making.

Plus as stated previously, the whole "rippy" poetry angle doesn't really do it for me.

Perhaps I'm just a bit cynical about suspect books generally having read so many over the years.

Personally I really like the few suspect books where evidence both for and against the named suspect is given.

They provide more balance and invest the reader with a bit of intelligence and discernment.

This book however felt like a huge attempt to cram a round peg into a square hole IMHO.

I've read worse though!!!!

Your take on the book is very similar to mine, Ms D. I would add, though, that the evidence of Thompson’s being in Spitalfields/Whitechapel in 1888 is very weak. It depends on a particular interpretation of a quotation from an article Thompson wrote about being outside the Providence Row refuge. Patterson admits to not having read the full article. As far as I can tell, it could have been describing an incident in 1887.

[Ms Diddles]

Hi Abby Normal / GBinOz / MrBarnett,
I finished the Francis Thompson book.

To be brutally honest, I wasn't really feeling it.

In favour of Thompson as a suspect you have the fact that he was in the area, was a failed medical student and seemed a bit of a weirdo.

For these reasons alone, he doesn't qualify for the "most ridiculous" title, and should remain on the list.

I would stick with my original "total long shot" assessment though.

The book contained so many stretches that it felt like a marathon yoga session!

I noticed that Patterson explained how when Thompson's prostitute friend / partner left him, she may have gone to ply her trade in Whitechapel (It wasn't entirely clear why this should be the case??). This was repeated several times throughout the book, until by the end she had "almost definitely" relocated to Whitechapel.

Some of the biographical details were quite interesting and well researched, but every facet of his existence was given a sinister spin, based on little or no evidence.

The childhood fire raising incidents (to give just one example) sounded pretty innocuous and nothing like a serial killer in the making.

Plus as stated previously, the whole "rippy" poetry angle doesn't really do it for me.

Perhaps I'm just a bit cynical about suspect books generally having read so many over the years.

Personally I really like the few suspect books where evidence both for and against the named suspect is given.

They provide more balance and invest the reader with a bit of intelligence and discernment.

This book however felt like a huge attempt to cram a round peg into a square hole IMHO.

I've read worse though!!!!

[MrBarnett]

Hi Gary,

All of its name, in fact.

St Mary Matfelon was the original 'white chapel' that gave its name to Whitechapel.

Love,

Caz
X

Indeed. He seemed unaware that Westminster was also named after a place of worship or that parishes were named after their churches. I think I drew up a list of London areas that referenced places of worship or contained other religious references (Blackfriars, Clerkenwell, Marylebone, Shadwell etc etc etc…).

[caz]

I seem to recall Richard Patterson arguing that Thompson chose Whitechapel as the location of the murders because of its religious significance. He (Richard) claimed that Whitechapel was the only district of London to have a place of worship as part of its name.

Hi Gary,

All of its name, in fact.

St Mary Matfelon was the original 'white chapel' that gave its name to Whitechapel.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ms Diddles]

Having discovered the identity of the Ripper, Richard went on to demonstrate that Australia was the cradle of human civilisation and its hope for the future.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rKyotoG1LFI

I've seen that profile pic on here too.

It always makes me think of Adrien Brody in Predators!!

adrien brody predator - Bing images

Anyone else getting that???

[MrBarnett]

Really???? Has he heard about our current Prime Minister???

Cheers, George

All you have to do to usher in a golden age of peace and love is to re-erect the stones of the Aussie Stonehenge in the right formation.

[GBinOz]

Having discovered the identity of the Ripper, Richard went on to demonstrate that Australia was the cradle of human civilisation and its hope for the future.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rKyotoG1LFI

Really???? Has he heard about our current Prime Minister???

Cheers, George

[MrBarnett]

Having discovered the identity of the Ripper, Richard went on to demonstrate that Australia was the cradle of human civilisation and its hope for the future.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rKyotoG1LFI

[Abby Normal]

re jacob levy
Has it been established definitively that he was the cousin of Joseph Hyam Levy, one of lawendes companions at the eddowes sighting? I think this is very significant because now at least he has a connection, at least tenuous, to the case.

[Ms Diddles]

Hi George / Gary,

I'll post my thoughts when I've finished the book.

I started reading it last night.

I didn't get far before I dozed off (busy day at work yesterday!!) but from the little I read, I thought the actual writing seemed pretty good.

I've never heard of the Virchow surgical technique, so that's something new for me to get my head round!

I read Tracey I'Anson's Levy book a while ago.

To use Abby's categorisation, I think I'd go "long shot" for him.