Most ridiculous suspect

[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

[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…).

[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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

[GBinOz]

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.

Hi Ms D,

Thanks for the feedback on the book. I haven't read the book but from the author's you-tube presentation and his posts I also got the impression that some of his evidence contained assumptions and presumptions.

Did the book contain mention of the rarely taught Virchow surgical method, or a physical description of Thompson, particularly of his eyes?

Cheers, George

[Ms Diddles]

Hi Ms D,

Thanks for the feedback on the book. I haven't read the book but from the author's you-tube presentation and his posts I also got the impression that some of his evidence contained assumptions and presumptions.

Did the book contain mention of the rarely taught Virchow surgical method, or a physical description of Thompson, particularly of his eyes?

Cheers, George

Hi George,

It's interesting that you mention those two elements of the book.

Yeah, Patterson mentions them, but not in any great detail.

I would have thought that these were two of the stronger aspects of his arguments, however relatively little space is dedicated to them.

Instead, he seems to focus on Thompson's supposed obsessive search for the prostitute who dumped him.

IIRC this was based on a comment which Thompson made to his publisher / mentor / friend, but whilst he had stated that he was looking for her, I saw no evidence that his search was particularly obsessive or unnatural.

And then there's the rippy poetry.

Always, the rippy poetry!!

A lot is made of Thompson's interest in the occult and there are more pages devoted to his interest in numerology (FIVE apparently being a particularly significant number in that field) and a fascination which he had with triangles (this relates to the murder sites).

By that point I was losing the will to live, as you can well imagine!

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

It's interesting that you mention those two elements of the book.

Yeah, Patterson mentions them, but not in any great detail.

I would have thought that these were two of the stronger aspects of his arguments, however relatively little space is dedicated to them.

Instead, he seems to focus on Thompson's supposed obsessive search for the prostitute who dumped him.

IIRC this was based on a comment which Thompson made to his publisher / mentor / friend, but whilst he had stated that he was looking for her, I saw no evidence that his search was particularly obsessive or unnatural.

And then there's the rippy poetry.

Always, the rippy poetry!!

A lot is made of Thompson's interest in the occult and there are more pages devoted to his interest in numerology (FIVE apparently being a particularly significant number in that field) and a fascination which he had with triangles (this relates to the murder sites).

By that point I was losing the will to live, as you can well imagine!

Hi Ms D,

Thanks for the review. I also find Patterson to be a little obsessed in the areas you have nominated.

Patterson has dominated the discussion on Thompson recently, but there is an interesting archived thread here: https://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4922/10360.html.

I am particularly interested in sightings near the C5 murders of men with strange eyes, which was apparently one of Thompson's physical attributes. As with all persons of interest, there is a lot of speculation, but I can't see that there is any more actual evidence for (say) Druitt or Kosminski than for Thompson.

Cheers, George

[rjpalmer]

If anyone wanted to protect a friend or relative from being implicated in a serious crime, a faked confessional diary in someone else's handwriting would appear to be a most effective way of doing so.

Hi Caz.

When you posted this back in March, I dismissed it as a strange joke, but I still wondered about it.

Now that you have made a nearly identical statement on another site, I'm no longer so certain this is a joke, and had to take another gawk.

Are you suggesting that the diary, with handwriting that is obviously not Maybrick’s (sorry, Ike!), was deliberately constructed to 'protect' Maybrick from suspicion?

That the whole point was for the diary to be inept and unconvincing—which I suspect most would admit is the case. (Sorry again, Ike!)

And presumably, the only reason Maybrick would need protecting is that his family believed he was Jack the Ripper?

Thus, this fake confession points to Maybrick’s actual guilt?

If this is correct, the Maybrick Hoax was placed under the floorboards as a sort of time capsule to the future. Whenever it was eventually found—even in the belated month of March 1992—it was calculated to draw attention away from someone who was never suspected in the first place.

A truly proactive scheme.

I can only imagine that Ike must be deeply torn whether to support this breakthrough or to find the courage to denounce it.

But perhaps I'm wrong and he's delighted.

If the diary is fake, Maybrick is the Ripper.
If the diary is real, Maybrick is the Ripper.

Heads I win, tails you lose!

[caz]

Hi Caz.

When you posted this back in March, I dismissed it as a strange joke, but I still wondered about it.

Now that you have made a nearly identical statement on another site, I'm no longer so certain this is a joke, and had to take another gawk.

Are you suggesting that the diary, with handwriting that is obviously not Maybrick’s (sorry, Ike!), was deliberately constructed to 'protect' Maybrick from suspicion?

No, RJ, I was suggesting no such thing.

I was merely suggesting, just as I posted, that:

If anyone wanted to protect a friend or relative from being implicated in a serious crime, a faked confessional diary in someone else's handwriting would appear to be a most effective way of doing so.

I very clearly didn't suggest that anyone had actually tried to pull off such a stunt. It merely struck me as rather amusing to think that the unintended effect of this diary on so many people appears not to have put the real person at the heart of it in the frame for the ripper murders at all, but to have prevented him ever entering the picture, or coming within a million miles of it.

In fact, I would only need to tweak the wording a bit in order to reproduce what you believe was achieved. Let's call it the Anne Graham effect:

You believe that Anne effectively protected herself, by accident rather than design, from being implicated in the fairly serious crime of fraud, by having composed an intentionally fictional story, which was then copied into Mike's old scrapbook, making no attempt to forge Maybrick's handwriting.

Love,

Caz
X

[Holmes' Idiot Brother]

Elephant Man. Queen Victoria. Winston Churchill.

I believe Winston was at Harrow at the time of the murders, and was barely a teenager. Who proposed him as a candidate???

However, in the Sherlock Holmes vs. Ripper novel, "The Whitechapel Horrors," author Edward B. Hanna makes Winston's father, Sir Randolph Spencer Churchill, a strong suspect. A good read, by the way.