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

[MrBarnett]

Thank you for correcting me on John Walsh. I wrote from memory, while you checked the facts. You set a fine example of what is the right thing to do.

If Thompson was searching for his prostitute in the West End why was he trying to sleep in Spitalsfield in the East End and sleeping in the Salvation Army men's shelter in Limehouse?

Thompson wrote that he tried to gain access to Providence Row in Spitalsfield and I have shown that the only plausible time was in November 1888. There is no reason to think he was not admitted.

You have not shown that November 1888 was the only time Thompson could have stayed at Providence Row. You have rather unconvincingly argued the case. At one stage you were also saying that from the room where his bed was located he could look down Dorset Street towards the entrance to Miller's Court, despite the fact that it was only the women's section of the refuge that faced in that direction.

According to Walsh, Thompson had ceased looking for the prostitute by September, 1888. Indeed, Walsh suggests he entered hospital in October of that year. Now, do we accept Walsh, or do you have access to material which he did not?

[MrBarnett]

I take Thompson literally because I do not think it safe to make assumption or interpretation on his use of the words 'before now'. I accept his words as meaning exactly what they suggest. As in prior to that time of writing them (February 1888). Thompson was a writer, poet, and an excellent student of English. I see no reason state otherwise, than he meant proceeding his request for a razor. To do so would risk being misleading and nobody wants to do that about something as important as finding the murderer of so many women. I would not want to lose sleep over worrying I had done the wrong thing and by not taking his words for their intent be surreptitiously defending a multiple murderer.

If you take Thompson literally, then you must agree with me that we have no idea when he shaved with a dissecting scalpel.

Unfortunately, that's not how it comes across when you put your case for Thompson as the Ripper.

[Richard Patterson]

You have not shown that November 1888 was the only time Thompson could have stayed at Providence Row. You have rather unconvincingly argued the case. At one stage you were also saying that from the room where his bed was located he could look down Dorset Street towards the entrance to Miller's Court, despite the fact that it was only the women's section of the refuge that faced in that direction.

According to Walsh, Thompson had ceased looking for the prostitute by September, 1888. Indeed, Walsh suggests he entered hospital in October of that year. Now, do we accept Walsh, or do you have access to material which he did not?

You should read carefully Walsh's on footnotes on how he makes his conclusions on when Thompson was in hospital. You will see his is simply making guesswork and his conclusion conflicts with the timeline of Providence Row's months of operation. There is more than one biography on Thompson. Bridget Boardman's who wrote her biography after Walsh, gives a different chronology. I did at one stage say from his room he could have seen down the entrance to Miller's court, and that was a mistake on my part, a mistake of a few meters. That you bring up a discrepancy of mere meters in regard to proximity when most suspects are looked at closely despite being probably in all corners of the globe, says much about Thompson's precision of locality as it does your efforts to find fault in my premises. Of course, considering the gravity of the subject, I would not expect any less of you. So thanks for your efforts.

I have not shown to you perhaps that Thompson stayed at Providence Row to you. Yet, I am satisfied that others see that I have, of course it is name dropping to mention Paul Begg here, but we both know of him so when I tell you he states. 'Patterson plausibly argues that the only time Thompson met the necessary conditions to stay there was in November 1888' You can see why your not seeing that I have shown this to be the case, will hardly distract me as you will believe what you want to, as is your right and your decision to hold on to. Good luck with that.

[Richard Patterson]

If you take Thompson literally, then you must agree with me that we have no idea when he shaved with a dissecting scalpel.

Unfortunately, that's not how it comes across when you put your case for Thompson as the Ripper.

I have an idea. That he shaved with a dissecting scalpel before requesting a razor in February of 1889. To have ideas that it was not simply before that date and was instead him referring to some distant time in his past, would be an idea without a justification. How that comes across is not my concern. It's not competition but an exploration to reach some sort of truth that i wish to engage in.

[Joshua Rogan]

Thompson wrote that he tried to gain access to Providence Row in Spitalsfield and I have shown that the only plausible time was in November 1888. There is no reason to think he was not admitted.

Why would he write that he'd "tried to gain access" unless he'd not been admitted?
Surely if he actually had been admitted he would have said as much.

[MrBarnett]

I have an idea. That he shaved with a dissecting scalpel before requesting a razor in February of 1889. To have ideas that it was not simply before that date and was instead him referring to some distant time in his past, would be an idea without a justification. How that comes across is not my concern. It's not competition but an exploration to reach some sort of truth that i wish to engage in.

For the scalpel-shaving episode to have any relevance to his candidacy as the Ripper it has to have taken place between the end of August 1888 and the beginning of November of that year. You do see that, don't you?

All I'm saying is that the phrase 'before now' is too vague for you to claim that it adds to the case for Thompson being a good suspect. Do you follow.

If you want to be honest with your readers you should point out the uncertainty or provide them with the quote on which you base your unwarranted speculation.

[MrBarnett]

Why would he write that he'd "tried to gain access" unless he'd not been admitted?
Surely if he actually had been admitted he would have said as much.

OK, Richard, supply us with the wording of his claim to have tried to have gained access.

[Richard Patterson]

Why would he write that he'd "tried to gain access" unless he'd not been admitted?
Surely if he actually had been admitted he would have said as much.

That's a very sound question. The point of him writing that he tried to gain access was to emphasize the degraded poor that could not gain entry and so the reader would feel empathy and pity for the majority of men who were turned away. Not sympathy towards himself. Why he leaves the reader not knowing if he indeed entered Providence Row may have been partly because he felt it inconsequential to the purpose of his article. It could have been (and not just because he might have been the Ripper) because he felt such an outcome was between himself and the Sisters of Charity who ran the refuge.

[MrBarnett]

You should read carefully Walsh's on footnotes on how he makes his conclusions on when Thompson was in hospital. You will see his is simply making guesswork and his conclusion conflicts with the timeline of Providence Row's months of operation. There is more than one biography on Thompson. Bridget Boardman's who wrote her biography after Walsh, gives a different chronology. I did at one stage say from his room he could have seen down the entrance to Miller's court, and that was a mistake on my part, a mistake of a few meters. That you bring up a discrepancy of mere meters in regard to proximity when most suspects are looked at closely despite being probably in all corners of the globe, says much about Thompson's precision of locality as it does your efforts to find fault in my premises. Of course, considering the gravity of the subject, I would not expect any less of you. So thanks for your efforts.

I have not shown to you perhaps that Thompson stayed at Providence Row to you. Yet, I am satisfied that others see that I have, of course it is name dropping to mention Paul Begg here, but we both know of him so when I tell you he states. 'Patterson plausibly argues that the only time Thompson met the necessary conditions to stay there was in November 1888' You can see why your not seeing that I have shown this to be the case, will hardly distract me as you will believe what you want to, as is your right and your decision to hold on to. Good luck with that.

'Plausibly' isn't the same as 'convincingly'.

Of course it's plausible if you tell your reader that the refuge would absolutely refuse entry to anyone who looked beggarly or who did not have a reference in their hands, and that November, 1888 was the only time during his homeless spell in London that Thompson could have met those criteria. The facts are not that clear cut.

As for Walsh's uncertainty about the dates, he states very clearly that there is not enough evidence to be certain about the exact timing of any of the events in question. None of this uncertainty appears in your version of events.

There is no contradiction between Walsh's educated guess as to the time of Thompson's search for the prostitute (Aug - Sept, 88) and his stay (if indeed he did gain entrance) in the refuge for two reasons:

First, Thompson was most likely searching for her in the West End not in Spitalfields.

Secondly, there is nothing to prove that he did not stay at the refuge the previous year.

[Michael W Richards]

Out of the hundreds of named suspects, only one can be shown to have even carried a knife in the area, during the time period. Can you guess who that was?

I believe that many tradesmen carried knives, such as butchers and bootmakers. There are suspects in both those trades. We also know that at least one unfortunate carried a knife the night she was killed. We also know that many, many people in that area routinely carried knives, that they were carried for mostly utilitarian purposes, but it appears at least some were carried for killing.

If you've narrowed it down to just about any 28-35 year old man living within walking distance of the murders who was on the streets after midnight I hope the book is no more than a page.

[Richard Patterson]

OK, Richard, supply us with the wording of his claim to have tried to have gained access.

You can find the article in an 1892 Merry England issue. It’s called Catholics in Darkest England. William Booth enjoyed reading it and so did W.T Stead (you will know of him from your Ripper research I expect.) I won’t supply the wording because you are distracting me from the TV series, Fear of the Walking Dead, and it’s more fun right now. I’m sure you will track it down, if you care to. I think it's in my book too. I think you have a copy.

[Harry D]

We all know that in the ensuing years after the great knife shortage of 1887, only a privileged few had access to these sharp implements. Truly Francis Thompson is the suspect to end all suspects.

[Richard Patterson]

We all know that in the ensuing years after the great knife shortage of 1887, only a privileged few had access to these sharp implements. Truly Francis Thompson is the suspect to end all suspects.

Ha ha. You give me real fits Harry. I suppose we must count ourselves fortunate that Jerry Lewis recently died to make room for you and your brilliant cutting sarcasm. Did you think that all up as you typed? I would tell you to keep up with the mockery, but I don't need to do that. I'm sure you can run on your own steam. Slow clap for Harry!

[mklhawley]

Hi Richard,

And now we have sworn testimony of Tumblety having surgical instruments in his travel chest. Point, he would not have carried these knives on his person, but then again, why did he travel with them?

Sincerely,

Mike

[MrBarnett]

You can find the article in an 1892 Merry England issue. It’s called Catholics in Darkest England. William Booth enjoyed reading it and so did W.T Stead (you will know of him from your Ripper research I expect.) I won’t supply the wording because you are distracting me from the TV series, Fear of the Walking Dead, and it’s more fun right now. I’m sure you will track it down, if you care to. I think it's in my book too. I think you have a copy.

You may remember we have discussed this before. The extract from the article I have seen is of Thomson describing the scene outside the refuge. Walsh says this was 'evidently' taken from his own experience. No date is indicated.

On that meagre evidence you conclude that Thompson was staying at the refuge in the 1st week of November, 1888.