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

[rjpalmer]

expo facto reasoning

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.

[MrBarnett]

People would normally use a razor to shave, and not a knife, but of course knives made for one particular purpose might be used for another. A cheese knife to slice cheese or a fish knife to descale a fish are examples. What sort of knife did Thompson claim to keep on his person to shave? It was a dissecting scalpel. A reminder of his days as a medical student. We know what they are designed to be used for. I have a feeling that people carrying knives made to cut into human flesh and remove human organs were a rarity, and in Spitalsfields, where Thompson lived, perhaps unique.

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?

[Jon Guy]

Even 7 years later? The closest we can place him near to 1888 is a 1901 census listing him as living on the Isle of Wight.

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

[Richard Patterson]

Hi Richard

But if having a knife on you was as common as being able to use the excuse 'to shave' then surely the majority of men worldwide would carry one and thompson would be one of thosands.

Again it would stand even more to look for those who didn't - guilty conscience.....

People would normally use a razor to shave, and not a knife, but of course knives made for one particular purpose might be used for another. A cheese knife to slice cheese or a fish knife to descale a fish are examples. What sort of knife did Thompson claim to keep on his person to shave? It was a dissecting scalpel. A reminder of his days as a medical student. We know what they are designed to be used for. I have a feeling that people carrying knives made to cut into human flesh and remove human organs were a rarity, and in Spitalsfields, where Thompson lived, perhaps unique.

[MrBarnett]

Trevor. I had great the pleasure in reading your fine book, ‘Jack the Ripper, the Secret Police Files.’ I was particularly interested in what you thought would make a Prime Suspect. In your book. you wrote.

‘The “suspect” lived in Whitechapel, the police believed the killer to live locally.’
Thompson lived in Spitalsfields, at the end of Dorset Street.

You wrote.
‘The “suspect” fits the description of the offender.’
Thompson fits the descriptions given by Schwartz, Hutchinson, and Sargent Stephen White.

You wrote,
‘The “suspect” was known to carry a knife,’
Thompson was known to carry a knife. How we know that is from Thompson himself who wrote that he did.

Your wrote,
‘The “suspect” associated with prostitutes.’
Thompson, just before the murders, had broken up with a prostitute that he had a yearlong relationship with.

You wrote,
‘The “suspect” having been spoken to’
The acclaimed historian, John Walsh, in his 1968 biography on Thompson, wrote that it is likely that the police may have questioned him on the Ripper murders. In addition, as my book details the ex-medical student with the history of mental illness that Major Henry Smith’s men questioned was probably Francis Thompson.

You wrote,
‘could not give a satisfactory account as to where he was or who he was with on the dates of the murders.’
Thompson account as to where he was on the Ripper murders was that he was in the East End, with the knife he said he carried, seeking out his prostitute who fled him. Not hardly satisfactory, but more specifically incriminatory.

Thank you for your assistance Trevor. I hope you can see how much I value the opinion of an ex-detective, assigned to murder cases, who was in the Special Branch.

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.

[tji]

Hi Richard

But if having a knife on you was as common as being able to use the excuse 'to shave' then surely the majority of men worldwide would carry one and thompson would be one of thosands.

Again it would stand even more to look for those who didn't - guilty conscience.....

[Richard Patterson]

Yes, that`s what he told the police.
He did sort out that pesky bit of leather in his shoe with a sharper knife at some point that morning.




Was he in Ireland in 1888 ?
Attacking Spitalfield prostitutes with a crudely fashioned knife puts Grant at the top of any suspect list, until his whereabouts are confirmed.

Even 7 years later? The closest we can place him near to 1888 is a 1901 census listing him as living on the Isle of Wight.

[Richard Patterson]

I think any suspect who wasn't 'caught in the act' would be very careful NOT to be caught with a knife - a guilty conscience is a powerful motivator.

Tj

True, but so is pride a powerful driver. Thompson, on his part, boasted that his knife that he carried on his person was razor sharp. Like in the Dear Boss letter with the words 'my knife is nice and sharp, but a guilty conscious, is a powerful motivator too. When asked why he had it Thompson said he used it to shave. Problem solved, with suspicion eased.

[Jon Guy]

John Richardson? Can not be shown to have had a knife of any use. His blunt knife was only fit to cut carrots and it was quickly determined that it could not have been the murder weapon.

Yes, that`s what he told the police.
He did sort out that pesky bit of leather in his shoe with a sharper knife at some point that morning.

William Grant? Can not be shown to have had a knife, apart from 7 years after the murders. Grant cannot even be shown to have been in London during the murder period, and esd most probably 358 miles away in Ireland.

Was he in Ireland in 1888 ?
Attacking Spitalfield prostitutes with a crudely fashioned knife puts Grant at the top of any suspect list, until his whereabouts are confirmed.

[tji]

I think any suspect who wasn't 'caught in the act' would be very careful NOT to be caught with a knife - a guilty conscience is a powerful motivator.

Tj

[Richard Patterson]

I can think of two, John Richardson and William Grant.

John Richardson? Can not be shown to have had a knife of any use. His blunt knife was only fit to cut carrots and it was quickly determined that it could not have been the murder weapon.

William Grant? Can not be shown to have had a knife, apart from 7 years after the murders. Grant cannot even be shown to have been in London during the murder period, and esd most probably 358 miles away in Ireland.

[rjpalmer]

Thomas James Sadler. Not shown to have a knife apart from an old blunt one that, when examined, was said to be unusable.

I think I would rewrite that this way: Thomas Sadler, shown to have had a knife that, when examined, was blunt and thus said to be unusable.

I always rather imagined Terrible Tom scraped that knife as dull as War and Peace before he swiftly got rid of it.

Of course, like Ostrog, Terrible Tom was obviously not the murderer of 1888, but Mackenzie and Coles are officially listed as Whitechapel Murder victims and deserve some investigative consideration.

It's true that Kosminski, Klosowski, and Cutbush are expo facto reasoning, but it shows a behavioral pattern.

[Richard Patterson]

Its not because there is evidence that he was in London at the time of the murders, and was responsible for one some or perhaps all.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor. I had great the pleasure in reading your fine book, ‘Jack the Ripper, the Secret Police Files.’ I was particularly interested in what you thought would make a Prime Suspect. In your book. you wrote.

‘The “suspect” lived in Whitechapel, the police believed the killer to live locally.’
Thompson lived in Spitalsfields, at the end of Dorset Street.

You wrote.
‘The “suspect” fits the description of the offender.’
Thompson fits the descriptions given by Schwartz, Hutchinson, and Sargent Stephen White.

You wrote,
‘The “suspect” was known to carry a knife,’
Thompson was known to carry a knife. How we know that is from Thompson himself who wrote that he did.

Your wrote,
‘The “suspect” associated with prostitutes.’
Thompson, just before the murders, had broken up with a prostitute that he had a yearlong relationship with.

You wrote,
‘The “suspect” having been spoken to’
The acclaimed historian, John Walsh, in his 1968 biography on Thompson, wrote that it is likely that the police may have questioned him on the Ripper murders. In addition, as my book details the ex-medical student with the history of mental illness that Major Henry Smith’s men questioned was probably Francis Thompson.

You wrote,
‘could not give a satisfactory account as to where he was or who he was with on the dates of the murders.’
Thompson account as to where he was on the Ripper murders was that he was in the East End, with the knife he said he carried, seeking out his prostitute who fled him. Not hardly satisfactory, but more specifically incriminatory.

Thank you for your assistance Trevor. I hope you can see how much I value the opinion of an ex-detective, assigned to murder cases, who was in the Special Branch.

[Jon Guy]

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 can think of two, John Richardson and William Grant.

[Trevor Marriott]

Of course if he was in London and if he committed one or more murders, but that is not shown to have had a knife, that is speculation.

Its not because there is evidence that he was in London at the time of the murders, and was responsible for one some or perhaps all.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk