The Graffito and the Poet: Francis Thompson’s Chalk Confession

[GBinOz]

Thanks for clarifying, c.d. — I do appreciate that you’re not singling me or Thompson out. And I agree with you on one point: there is a hierarchy. Some suspects really do sit higher than others based on how much verifiable evidence can be laid against them.

Where we differ is that I think Thompson’s case doesn’t just climb a rung or two up that ladder — it moves into a different category altogether. Most suspects rest on a diary, a coincidence, or a witness impression. Thompson brings six years of dissection training, possession of a scalpel, confirmed presence in Whitechapel refuges, violent confessional writings, and a police profile from Henry Smith that he alone matches point-for-point. When probability is factored in, the chance of another man in 1888 London sharing all those traits is astronomically small.

That’s why I don’t see it as “case closed by preference,” but “case closed by elimination.” And until someone can show another figure who matches that same rare profile with the same strength of evidence, Thompson does stand apart.

Hi Richard,

I have to say that I admire your perseverance and patience. It is my observation that there is very little verifiable evidence still available on this case. Most theories are built on a foundation of conjecture and supposition that is extrapolated to the point of resembling Sagan's Venution Dinosaur Fallacy. I don't have a suspect, but I do have a list of names that I deem to be of sufficient interest as to warrant my time (at 77 years old I have intimations of my mortality) in further consideration. Most of the popular suspects are not on my list, but Thompson, or someone very like him, is high on the list while others are more lowly rated for the specific reason that they cannot have possessed the skill set required for the dissections described in the autopsies of Eddowes and Kelly. I have yet to be convinced that the C5, or surrounding murders, were all perpetrated by one man, but in that, and most other opinions, I am happy to be in the minority.

On a more personal note, I often wonder why keep hitting my head against a brick wall. The only answer that ever presents itself for consideration is that it feels so good when I stop.

Best regards, George

[Richard Patterson]

Hi Richard,

I have to say that I admire your perseverance and patience. It is my observation that there is very little verifiable evidence still available on this case. Most theories are built on a foundation of conjecture and supposition that is extrapolated to the point of resembling Sagan's Venution Dinosaur Fallacy. I don't have a suspect, but I do have a list of names that I deem to be of sufficient interest as to warrant my time (at 77 years old I have intimations of my mortality) in further consideration. Most of the popular suspects are not on my list, but Thompson, or someone very like him, is high on the list while others are more lowly rated for the specific reason that they cannot have possessed the skill set required for the dissections described in the autopsies of Eddowes and Kelly. I have yet to be convinced that the C5, or surrounding murders, were all perpetrated by one man, but in that, and most other opinions, I am happy to be in the minority.

On a more personal note, I often wonder why keep hitting my head against a brick wall. The only answer that ever presents itself for consideration is that it feels so good when I stop.

Best regards, George

George,

Thank you for such a thoughtful and generous reply. I really do appreciate your support, and equally, your openness in laying out your own views. It’s refreshing to read someone who doesn’t feel the need to shut down discussion but instead shares their perspective plainly and with good humour.

I agree with you entirely that verifiable evidence is thin on the ground, which is why I’ve leaned so heavily on probability and convergence — not to pretend the gaps don’t exist, but to show that the sheer rarity of Thompson’s combination of traits makes him different in kind, not just degree, from most names in the mix. I also respect your point about not being convinced the C5 were all the work of one hand; it’s a debate that will probably never be put to rest, but I admire that you’re comfortable being in the minority. That kind of honesty is what keeps these conversations alive.

And as for hitting our heads against brick walls — I know the feeling! But your words remind me why it’s still worth the effort: every now and then you meet someone like yourself who can debate without malice, share without defensiveness, and keep the door open for new angles.

Best regards,

Richard

[GBinOz]

I was just thinking that perhaps a title could be coined for the poor tortured souls that keep voluntarily turning up on this forum to eternally engage in the examination and disputation of the puzzle that has most of the pieces missing. Ripperology Addiction Syndrome (RAS)?

[New Waterloo]

Francis Thompson probably would have written the chalked letters larger than 3/4". And probably wouldn't have invoked a double negative into the poorly-crafted sentence.

The Graffito was therefore likely written by a Jewish schoolboy resident in the dwellings. I'll go with young Simon De Lafuente.

I think Francis Thompson and anybody else would have written letters bigger than 3/4in. I have mentioned this before and it has been supported but if all of us take a ruler and actually see how big 3/4in is. I just cannot see how a person could write anything with a piece of chalk that small. Well with great difficulty. Blimey i dont know about starting a riot it would be hard pushed to see. I think more than likely it was 3 or 4 inches as in 3/4 inches not three quarters of an inch. Wouldn't it??

NW

[Doctored Whatsit]

Yes, I am quite sure that this was intended to be read as letters 3 to 4 inches in height, about the height of one layer of bricks would be logical.