Only one suspect can be shown to have carried a knife.

[Richard Patterson]

Let's suppose at it's worst, that the theory that Francis Thompson was Jack the Ripper is all maybe and might, none come from thin air.

Thompson might have had a dissecting scalpel at the time - an idea got from the fact that he wrote a letter in February 1889 stating that he had shaved with a dissecting scalpel 'before now.

Thompson might have stayed at Providence Row - an idea got from an article in which he described applying to stay there and from a respected biographer that stated that he often gravitated there, seeking shelter.

Thompson might have stayed in November 1888 - and idea got from the fact that it opened on the start of November each year and that the practice was that applicant were reference checked on past employment. Thompson was not able to provide a good reference until November of 1888.

Thompson might have hated his prostitute that left him and had a motive to kill prostitutes - an idea got from the fact that his only story involved a woman who is killed with a knife. His only play involved a prostitute who was killed with a bayonet. He wrote poetry, even before 1888, in which described a corrupt women being disemboweled. His favorite prose to read was about a women is seduced by a man pretending to stab her in the heart with a sword.

[MrBarnett]

What it all boils down to is that we have no idea whether Thompson was in Spitalfields in 1888 or whether he carried a dissecting knife during his homeless period. He was a clumsy individual who was a heavy smoker and had a couple of accidents involving fire. He seems to have been genuinely fond of the Chelsea prostitute who took him under her wing and when she disappeared he searched for her in the West End. Walsh dates the search to Aug/Sept,1888. And he places Thompson in hospital for approx 6 weeks starting at some point in October, 1888.

I shan't comment on this subject again.

[MrBarnett]

The link, after the extract you posted, goes on to say;

"t must be distinctly understood however that the poor applicant is not kept waiting for relief, but is lodged and fed, whilst the investigation is proceeding."

Elsewhere It was said that if there was room, no deserving case was ever turned away. Thompson had studied for the priesthood - but according to Richard he would not have appeared a deserving case to the nuns at the refuge.

[Joshua Rogan]

Thanks Jerryd.

I read from the link you give that,

'All the inmates are called upon to make a statement as to their last employment, and the cause of their misfortune, which is afterwards inquired into'

If this was the truth, between needing a reference of present employment or none needed at all, I wonder how they would have dealt with Thompson. His last and only employment, apart from with his editor from the middle of 1888 was with the shoemaker who fired him after Thompson inured one of his customer. The shoemaker said that of all those he employed Thompson was his only failure.

The link, after the extract you posted, goes on to say;

"t must be distinctly understood however that the poor applicant is not kept waiting for relief, but is lodged and fed, whilst the investigation is proceeding."

[MrBarnett]

Thanks Jerryd.

I read from the link you give that,

'All the inmates are called upon to make a statement as to their last employment, and the cause of their misfortune, which is afterwards inquired into'

If this was the truth, between needing a reference of present employment or none needed at all, I wonder how they would have dealt with Thompson. His last and only employment, apart from with his editor from the middle of 1888 was with the shoemaker who fired him after Thompson inured one of his customer. The shoemaker said that of all those he employed Thompson was his only failure.

Richard,

Surely you're aware that the job at McMaster's was not his only job while he was in London?

And I'm glad you'be touched on his clumsiness, which in my mind serves to dispel the notion that he was some kind of twisted fire starter.

Gary

[MrBarnett]

You're apparently the expert on the subject, why didn't you make the effort to obtain this crucial documemt before you wrote your book or approached your documentary producer?

Richard,

Do you really believe that every single one of the homeless people who gained entrance to the refuge were carrying a written reference when they arrived?

As Roy says, we have been through this all before.

I once posted a report which described how during one particularly savage winter (1889, I think) volunteers from Providence Row scoured the streets of London looking for rough sleepers and gave them entry tickets to the refuge and where appropriate bus passes to Whitechapel.

Some of them were so dirty and ragged that they were refused entry to the buses, but when they got to the refuge they were admitted.

According to you, though, no one who looked like a beggar or who did not have a written reference was ever admitted to the refuge.

Let's not forget that, scruffy or not, Thompson was an educated and deeply religious man who had contacts in London, some family and others from his student days (according to Walsh). How can you be so sure that prior to his meeting with Meynall hr would not have been able to get into the refuge for a single night. (Assuming he ever did.)

By the way, when he wrote to Meynell from hospital he was apparently still wearing the old boots he had worn while on the streets and he had nothing to shave with, so even at that late stage he was still doing a passable impression of a beggar.

[Richard Patterson]

Not sure if this helps, but has some information about the refuge and how to apply.

http://spotlight.nottingham.ac.uk/st...page4Item2.asp

Thanks Jerryd.

I read from the link you give that,

'All the inmates are called upon to make a statement as to their last employment, and the cause of their misfortune, which is afterwards inquired into'

If this was the truth, between needing a reference of present employment or none needed at all, I wonder how they would have dealt with Thompson. His last and only employment, apart from with his editor from the middle of 1888 was with the shoemaker who fired him after Thompson inured one of his customer. The shoemaker said that of all those he employed Thompson was his only failure.

[jerryd]

Not sure if this helps, but has some information about the refuge and how to apply.

http://spotlight.nottingham.ac.uk/story001/transcripts/page4Item2.asp

[Richard Patterson]

It's deja vu all over again

click here - http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=378599

You and Barnett had this entire conversation last year with different results. Be sure to read the very last sentence on the page

Roy

It is deja vu all over again Roy, but with one exception. I changed my mind. I decided as MrBarnett wisely wrote in the last post you have directed me to that,

'The Casebook dissertation is an excellent overview, but the reality seems to have been more complicated than it suggests.'

The readership of the Catholic Magazine, 'The Tablet' was far different to those who sought refuge at Providence Row. While 'The Tablet' may have wanted their readers to believe just how open and accepting they were of the homeless, I believe that the reality is more in line with how Casebook described it. That in practicality the refuge operators did vet their applicants by requiring a work reference. That is why I have left that condition of entry in my book.

[Roy Corduroy]

It's deja vu all over again

click here - http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=378599

You and Barnett had this entire conversation last year with different results. Be sure to read the very last sentence on the page

Roy

[Richard Patterson]

Roy,

This refuge was different to others, the reference had to come from an employer. Those who attended this refuge, even if many were turned away, all needed references to show that they had gainful employment. These references were checked. This is something that Thompson could only supply twice. The first time was in 1886, when he worked for a short time in Haymarket for a shoemaker, but then the shoemaker arranged lodgings for him. The only other time was when his editor paid him for his articles, but that was not till around June of 1888 and the Refuge opened in November.

[Roy Corduroy]

I don't think it required deceit on his part. Just as it didn't require deceit on the part of the hundreds of others who successfully passed the test. They got references. He got references. Street people have all day to meet and talk to others. To find along their way kind souls who will vouch for them such as a recommendation to a shelter. It's nothing out of the ordinary.

That's why I asked the rhetorical question - how in the world did all the others get in, but not him, until he magically met Meynell. It doesn't ring true.

Your original argument, the one in your book. That is what I don't agree with because common sense tells me it didn't work that way.

You say he could not have gotten references. Why would you say that? How about all the others. They got references. Why not him. Somethings not adding up here. He is different from everyone else? That doesn't make any sense what you said - he could not have gotten references.

Roy

[Richard Patterson]

Hi Richard, having not read your book, if I understand correctly, what you have written in your book is that Francis Thompson was staying at the Providence Row Night Refuge, Crispin Street in November 1888. And you argue he was there in November 88' and in November 88' only, to the exclusion of any of the other three winter seasons he was in London 1885, 86' and 87'. And you argue this because it was in May 1888 he met Mr. Meynell, and therefore had the proper reference to obtain admission to the Providence Row Night Refuge when it opened in November for the season. Again correct me if I am wrong. You stated it in this and other threads. And Paul Begg also wrote you made a plausible case about November being the only time he stayed there in his review of your book. And by the way we are all indebted to Paul Begg for the reviews he does in Ripperology magazine. I look forward to them every issue.

I find the idea counter intuitive that Francis Thompson could have stayed at the Providence Row Night Refuge in November 1888 only and in none of the previous three years he was in London. In fact, I find it much more likely his stay there was during one or more of the three entire winter seasons previous to November 1888. At that point in 1888 there were only two months remaining until he was taken away to the monastery in Surrey.

For the simple reason, I ask myself - how in the world did all those hundreds of people who did in fact gain admittance to the night refuge those three years ever manage, against all odds, to do so, when Francis Thompson could not? Did those other people have clout, or especially glowing recommendations, or references from influential people? Did they game the system? How did all those other people succeed in obtaining the coveted ticket? After all, Francis Thompson came to London in 1885 an intelligent young man, son of a doctor from Manchester, a Catholic, a well read and erudite soul whose only failing was his addiction. Surely he could have figured a way to gain admittance to the night refuge along with the others.

Roy

Hi Roy,

Thompson may have been able to stay at the Row prior to November 1888, but he would have needed to 'trick' his way in, since he could not have gained a reference. The only time he could have entered and stay at Providence Row, without resorting to deception, would have been in November 1888. If Thompson stayed at the Row before 1888, and possibly also during 1888, then this would only serve to secure his association with the area of the murders. It would even lend credibility that he may have encountered Mary Kelly, who is thought to have also stayed at the Refuge. As it stands, though I have to conclude that he stayed in November 1888, simply because I have nothing to show that Thompson used his intelligence for deceit. If I could show Thompson he did, it would only be to my advantage regarding my claim that he might have been Jack the Ripper.

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Richard, having not read your book, if I understand correctly, what you have written in your book is that Francis Thompson was staying at the Providence Row Night Refuge, Crispin Street in November 1888. And you argue he was there in November 88' and in November 88' only, to the exclusion of any of the other three winter seasons he was in London 1885, 86' and 87'. And you argue this because it was in May 1888 he met Mr. Meynell, and therefore had the proper reference to obtain admission to the Providence Row Night Refuge when it opened in November for the season. Again correct me if I am wrong. You stated it in this and other threads. And Paul Begg also wrote you made a plausible case about November being the only time he stayed there in his review of your book. And by the way we are all indebted to Paul Begg for the reviews he does in Ripperology magazine. I look forward to them every issue.

I find the idea counter intuitive that Francis Thompson could have stayed at the Providence Row Night Refuge in November 1888 only and in none of the previous three years he was in London. In fact, I find it much more likely his stay there was during one or more of the three entire winter seasons previous to November 1888. At that point in 1888 there were only two months remaining until he was taken away to the monastery in Surrey.

For the simple reason, I ask myself - how in the world did all those hundreds of people who did in fact gain admittance to the night refuge those three years ever manage, against all odds, to do so, when Francis Thompson could not? Did those other people have clout, or especially glowing recommendations, or references from influential people? Did they game the system? How did all those other people succeed in obtaining the coveted ticket? After all, Francis Thompson came to London in 1885 an intelligent young man, son of a doctor from Manchester, a Catholic, a well read and erudite soul whose only failing was his addiction. Surely he could have figured a way to gain admittance to the night refuge along with the others.

Roy

[MrBarnett]

It's obviously too much trouble for Richard to research his theory in the northern hemisphere. We should all wish him well in pursuing his suspect without getting out of his armchair.


Blimey, I thought I was replying to a post that seems to have gone AWOL...