In plain sight.

[MrBarnett]

I should add that when Thompson and Meynell met he was described as being 'more ragged and unkempt than the average beggar'. Yet you would have us believe that he would have been clean shaven at the time because he wouldn't have wanted to look like an escaped convict.

[MrBarnett]

No. He did not say at "at some point' you misquote him, he said 'before now'.

No. You are speculating to say the repeated experiments happened on the streets. He said, in the same letter, that a beard made him looked like an escaped convict and because that is very opposite thing that a man on the streets would have wanted, your speculation is about the improbable.

I didn't misquote him, I paraphrased his statement. His precise words do not matter. The point is that he did not specify when he had shaved with a dissecting scalpel, so you have no evidence that he carried a knife in 1888. Or do you think that the phrase 'before now' can only relate to the period Aug - Nov, 1888?

Isn't it the case that during his homeless period he was ejected from the Guidhall Library because he looked so bedraggled? Clearly he was unable to keep himself looking decent during that time - but, of course, it's 'improbable' that he neglected to shave himself then.

Furthermore, you have no evidence that he was in the East End in 1888. The prostitute he was looking for had been based in Chelsea. Why would he look for her in Spitalfields?i

[Richard Patterson]

So, the fact that at some point in his life he had used a sharp knife is worthy of mention when considering him as a Ripper suspect? I wonder how many men at the time could have truthfully claimed to have used a sharp knife 'before now'. Pretty much all of them I'd have thought.

Didn't Thompson say in the same letter that he had had 'repeated experiments' at growing a beard? Might not some of those experiments have been when he was living on the streets?

This is actually a very important point, Richard, because you give your readers the impression that you have evidence that Thompson carried a knife at the time of the murders rather than that at some unspecified point in the past he had used a sharp implement to shave.

No. He did not say at "at some point' you misquote him, he said 'before now'.

No. You are speculating to say the repeated experiments happened on the streets. He said, in the same letter, that a beard made him looked like an escaped convict and because that is very opposite thing that a man on the streets would have wanted, your speculation is about the improbable.

[MrBarnett]

Yes. "before now" refers to things that happened before, meaning "prior to", the time "now".

dissecting scalpel, a small straight knife with a thin sharp blade used in surgery and dissection.

shaved = razor sharp, as in"my knife is nice and sharp".

So, the fact that at some point in his life he had used a sharp knife is worthy of mention when considering him as a Ripper suspect? I wonder how many men at the time could have truthfully claimed to have used a sharp knife 'before now'. Pretty much all of them I'd have thought.

Didn't Thompson say in the same letter that he had had 'repeated experiments' at growing a beard? Might not some of those experiments have been when he was living on the streets?

This is actually a very important point, Richard, because you give your readers the impression that you have evidence that Thompson carried a knife at the time of the murders rather than that at some unspecified point in the past he had used a sharp implement to shave.

[Richard Patterson]

In February, 1889 he wrote a letter to Wilfred Meynell in which he claimed 'I have shaved with a dissecting scalpel before now.'

Is that it, is that the evidence that Thompson was carrying a 'knife' in the autumn of 1888?

Yes. "before now" refers to things that happened before, meaning "prior to", the time "now".

dissecting scalpel, a small straight knife with a thin sharp blade used in surgery and dissection.

shaved = razor sharp, as in"my knife is nice and sharp".

[MrBarnett]

I think he referred to it as a "scalpel", and stated he shaved with it. It was in a letter.

In February, 1889 he wrote a letter to Wilfred Meynell in which he claimed 'I have shaved with a dissecting scalpel before now.'

Is that it, is that the evidence that Thompson was carrying a 'knife' in the autumn of 1888?

[Pcdunn]

So he wrote 'I carried a knife during the autumn of 1888'?

I think he referred to it as a "scalpel", and stated he shaved with it. It was in a letter.

[MrBarnett]

What evidence? The strongest that there ever can be. From Francis Thompson himself, who wrote that he did.

So he wrote 'I carried a knife during the autumn of 1888'?

[Richard Patterson]

What evidence do you have that Thompson was in possession of a knife in 1888?

What evidence? The strongest that there ever can be. From Francis Thompson himself, who wrote that he did.

[MrBarnett]

No. Every other suspect, no one can show obtained a knife.

What evidence do you have that Thompson was in possession of a knife in 1888?

[Richard Patterson]

So every other suspect was incapable of obtaining a knife?



That's as maybe, but this "point" is so insignificant as to not be worth mentioning at all.

No. Every other suspect, no one can show obtained a knife.

[Harry D]

Certainly the Ripper was carrying a knife. So was Thompson and perhaps 3 other suspects that we can put a name to. That Thompson carried a knife seems to be irrelevant, to you, to what makes a candidate. Any point, taken in isolation, means little.

So every other suspect was incapable of obtaining a knife?

Any point, taken in isolation, means little.

That's as maybe, but this "point" is so insignificant as to not be worth mentioning at all.

[Richard Patterson]

I'm sure you read the Kelly inquest.where/when did Francis come in and killed her? What do you think of Blotchy or the Lewis's lurking man? Was he a client,friend,intruder?

I believe that Mary Kelly was killed at around 3:30 am. The man that Mary Ann Cox saw at 11:45pm, the man with a blotchy face, looked nothing like Thompson, and I believe that he was a client or possible client, but not the Ripper. Lewis's lurking man also did not resemble Thompson and was possibly another client, but I also do not think was the Ripper.

[Varqm]

I'm sure you read the Kelly inquest.where/when did Francis come in and killed her? What do you think of Blotchy or the Lewis's lurking man? Was he a client,friend,intruder?

[Richard Patterson]

[QUOTE=Harry D;432616]This is such a non-point. Whoever the Ripper was, we know he was carrying a knife. Does that mean Thompson was the only man tooled up?[/QUOTE

Certainly the Ripper was carrying a knife. So was Thompson and perhaps 3 other suspects that we can put a name to. That Thompson carried a knife seems to be irrelevant, to you, to what makes a candidate. Any point, taken in isolation, means little.