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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Richard Patterson]

I'm not supposing anything - you are. As far as I'm concerned 'before now' could mean at any point between Thompson's medical school days and 1889. It is you who take that as evidence that he carried a knife in 1888, which is what I would call speculation without warrant.

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.

[MrBarnett]

Because he wrote 'before now' in February 1889. To suppose any other time gap from that date to way back in medical school is speculation without warrant. To suppose he shaved with one at medical school is speculation since I would be right in saying mist medical students do not shave with their dissecting scalpels. It would be more in keeping with a person who had no other means. More in keeping with Thompson the vagrant in London than Thompson the medical student, years earlier in Manchester.

I'm not supposing anything - you are. As far as I'm concerned 'before now' could mean at any point between Thompson's medical school days and 1889. It is you who take that as evidence that he carried a knife in 1888, which is what I would call speculation without warrant.

[Richard Patterson]

That should be ex post facto reasoning, of course. Anyway, if Cutbush could get a knife in 1891, couldn't he get one in 1888? And technically, you don't know when Kosminski threatened his sister with a knife. I think it is reasonable to assume that this was also in 1891, just prior to his trip to the infirmary, but that is merely reasonable speculation.

Anyone could get a knife in 1888, you just had to be in 1888, but it can not be shown that Cutbush had a knife in 1888. It is reasonable to assume that Cutbush had a knife 3 years after the time of the Ripper murders, but since it was his sister he threatened, it is reasonable to assume that his threat occurred in a domestic situation, such as in the kitchen of their home where knives are kept. Which leads to the probably conclusion the knife was simply one he picked up on the occasion of the threat and was that is was not something he would carry.

[Richard Patterson]

Where was he living when he was arrested for attacking Alice Graham in Spitalfields?

No idea.

[Richard Patterson]

Richard,


Again, you're misleading people. Thompson did not say he was in the East End when the Ripper murders took place. He wrote a description of events outside the Providence Row night shelter and from that you have inferred that he lived there in November, 1888.

Incidentally, John Walsh did not say it was 'likely' that Thompson had been interviewed as a Ripper suspect, he said it was 'not beyond possibility' that he had been. His reasoning for that was that Thompson was a drug addict, was acquainted with prostitutes and 'most alarming' had been a medical student. I find it odd that you reference this piece of idle musing by Walsh but ignore the fact that he says that Thompson searched for his Chelsea prostitute in the West End between August and September, 1888.

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.

[Richard Patterson]

There you go again. How does 'I have shaved with a dissecting scalpel before now' become keeping one 'on his person' while in Spitalfields? Is it inconceivable that he might have shaved himself that way while he was a medical student?

Because he wrote 'before now' in February 1889. To suppose any other time gap from that date to way back in medical school is speculation without warrant. To suppose he shaved with one at medical school is speculation since I would be right in saying mist medical students do not shave with their dissecting scalpels. It would be more in keeping with a person who had no other means. More in keeping with Thompson the vagrant in London than Thompson the medical student, years earlier in Manchester.