Will Scotland Yards HOLMES 2 and AI solve Jack the Ripper?

[Richard Patterson]

We keep getting told about Major Smith's five traits, which he believed a suspect possessed and which were suspicious. There is no evidence that these traits were those of the Ripper, only those of his suspect. We do not know that the Ripper went to medical school, but wasn't a doctor, or wasn't a slaughterer, for example, nor that he attended an asylum, or lived in a specific place etc, so resolving the clues to the owner of these traits might lead us to Major Smith's suspect, but we have absolutely no reason whatever to suppose it could lead us to the Ripper.

As to the coin fraud aspect, this is dubious. I assume that the "second crime" was Chapman, because of the stories that circulated afterwards. The crime scene forensics were conducted by Inspector Chandler and Dr Phillips. The contents of her pockets were detailed, and neither of them reported that farthings or any other coins were found. That story appeared in a newspaper, became part of the legend, and was widely believed, but neither Chandler nor Phillips reported finding any coins.

Doctored,

I think we need to distinguish two different questions that often get blurred together:

1. Do Smith’s five traits prove the Ripper’s identity outright? No. They never could. They are the description of a man Smith took seriously as a suspect.
2. Do Smith’s five traits narrow the suspect pool in a way that can be tested? Yes. And when you run that test, Francis Thompson is the man who comes through the filter in a way no one else does.

That’s the point I’ve been making. It isn’t that “the Ripper must have been an ex-medical student” as a law of nature — it’s that a senior officer said his suspect was one, and Thompson happens to be an ex-medical student with unusually deep dissection training. Likewise with confinement: you’re right that no one proved “the Ripper was in an asylum,” but Smith’s suspect was. Thompson was institutionalised at the Priory after his breakdown. Each trait on its own is debatable; taken together, they form a profile that Thompson uniquely fits.

On the farthings story — I agree with you that the press amplified it, and Chandler/Phillips don’t record coins in Chapman’s pockets. But Smith repeats the anecdote in his memoirs, and the point isn’t whether every detail was documented in the post-mortem notes; it’s that Smith himself believed he was chasing a man known for such cons. Again, the question isn’t “did the Ripper definitely bilk with farthings?” but “who in London matched the cluster of traits Smith actually listed?” Thompson did.

And then we add the independent strands outside Smith:

• He was living rough in Whitechapel and Spitalfields during the killings.
• He carried surgical knives and had cadaver training under Dreschfeld.
• His unpublished writings describe stabbing women and ripping wombs, imagery indistinguishable from the Whitechapel injuries.
• He quit laudanum in mid-1888, leaving him in a state of withdrawal that heightened agitation and sexual drive, exactly when the murders occurred.
• When the murders ceased, he entered the Priory for treatment.

So no — Smith’s traits don’t prove Thompson was the Ripper. But they are a fingerprint left in words by a police chief, and Thompson matches that fingerprint in all its ridges. When you stack that against his biography, geography, and manuscripts, the cumulative weight is a long way past “interesting coincidence.”

[Doctored Whatsit]

Doctored,

I think we need to distinguish two different questions that often get blurred together:

1. Do Smith’s five traits prove the Ripper’s identity outright? No. They never could. They are the description of a man Smith took seriously as a suspect.
2. Do Smith’s five traits narrow the suspect pool in a way that can be tested? Yes. And when you run that test, Francis Thompson is the man who comes through the filter in a way no one else does.

Hi Richard,

I did say previously that I didn't see any point in our further discussions on this issue because neither of us will change our minds, however, in view of the above, and hopefully for the last time, because I don't like boring people with my endless repetition -

Yes, Smith's five traits can narrow his suspect field in a way that can be tested - that is, we can attempt to identify his suspect using his traits. You can then attempt to satisfy everyone that Francis Thompson was a good fit for these traits. I, however, fail to see the point in attempting to identify Smith's suspect, unless we have solid evidence that the traits would or even might lead us to identifying JtR.

1). The suspect was an ex-medical student. It is certainly possible, but is by no means certain. JtR might also have been a fully qualified doctor, or surgeon, or slaughterer, for example. Let's be honest, swiftly and efficiently throat slitting in a manner avoiding getting covered in blood is a basic slaughterer's technique, but is hardly taught in medical school.
2). He attended an asylum. We have absolutely no evidence whatever that JtR was ever in an asylum.
3). He lived in Haymarket. We may well surmise that JtR lived somewhere in the East End, or at least knew it well, but we have no evidence exactly where he lived.
4). He consorted with prostitutes. We have no evidence of JtR doing this, only that he killed them.
5). Coin trickery. There is no evidence that JtR was ever involved in coin trickery. There is no evidence of this in police reports, only reports in newspapers. As Smith wasn't involved in the first stages of the investigation, most, if not all of his information probably came from newspapers.

Satisfying the five criteria above therefore might lead us to Smith's suspect, or someone with similar traits, but we have no reason to claim that it could lead us to the Ripper. Smith was a high-ranking official, but he wasn't a trained and experienced detective who moved up through the ranks based on merit, he was a raconteur and a "sporting country gentleman" who applied for and was awarded the post of Chief Superintendent, City Police in 1885. Traits which he identified in a suspect, and thought suspicious are just possibilities that applied to his suspect. If he found a slaughterer who always carried his sticking knife with him, consorted with prostitutes, some of whom disappeared without trace, and who had a history of knife crime, then those would be useful traits!

As for the other possibilities, I am not sure that you are right about the relevance of laudanum withdrawal symptoms. I thought that he wasn't weaned off laudanum until he went into hospital. But this isn't crucial. I don't think that there is any evidence to suggest that poetry written by a laudanum addict demonstrates that this illustrates features of his actual behaviour in real life. They are usually the stuff of drug-fuelled dreams. Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote of the voyage of the Ancient Mariner in great detail, but he wasn't a seaman. He created, he claimed, in a laudanum stupour, an entire poem about a "stately pleasure dome" decreed by Kubla Khan in Xanadu, but he had never been there, nor did he visit "pleasure domes"! He was interrupted when attempting to write it all down, and was never able to finish it when he "sobered up".

As far as I am aware, laudanum withdrawal symptoms are numerous and very severe, and include hot and cold flushes, sweating, anxiety, opioid craving, nausea, constipation, vomiting, tremor, watery eyes, runny nose, disturbed sleep, joint, bone and muscle pain and headaches. A need to murder prostitutes isn't in the list of symptoms.

And I don't believe that this very sick man, thin, weak addicted to laudanum, and apparently in the early stages of tuberculosis, was in any fit state to swiftly strangle, slit the throats and cut up these women, even though they were also probably less than 100% fit.

Nevertheless, I will follow the debates with interest, in case someone actually produces some new evidence.