Rating The Suspects.

[GBinOz]

But you could say that about almost anyone George.

Well yes. The ripper was probably someone that no-one noticed. A face in the crowd without any circumstances that would attract attention. As is said, hiding in plain sight.

[Herlock Sholmes]

An everyman who would never be suspected by anyone?

But you could say that about almost anyone George.

[GBinOz]

A gentle but troubled, drug addicted vagrant poet who never harmed anyone in his life.

An everyman who would never be suspected by anyone?

[Herlock Sholmes]

But

Herlock, dismissing everything as “speculation” is easy — but it doesn’t make the documented facts go away.

• Thompson’s language about prostitutes is not ambiguous. He doesn’t need to spell the word “prostitute” for the reference to be obvious. “Girls whose practice is a putrid ulceration of love… venting foul and purulent discharge” is 19th-century code for venereal disease from sex work. That is pathological disgust directed at prostitutes, full stop.
  
  No. This is women of low morals. He makes no specific mention of ‘prostitutes’ and yet you leave everyone who hasn’t checked believing that he did.
• Providence Row isn’t some vague “visited once” reference. John Walsh (Strange Harp, Strange Symphony) records Thompson living among the “nightly crowd of haggard men” queueing there for a bed. That places him in Whitechapel during the critical years — exactly when the murders happened.
  
  Critical years? Could you possibly be more vague Richard? When are we talking? 1887, 1887, 1888? And if 1888, when in 1888? January? Basically you are saying that at some point in his life he saw Providence Row refuge. You don’t have an iota of evidence that he ever stayed there. A hundred thousand people would have seen men queueing outside that building. It’s not ever remotely evidence of anything.
• The scalpel matters because Thompson himself admitted in January 1889 that he shaved with his dissecting knife until it was blunt. This isn’t a harmless penknife; it’s a surgical blade carried by a man with six years’ medical training.
  
  The rippers victims weren’t killed with a blunt knife either. The act of admitting to owning a knife isn’t evidence of anything. It’s a mundane fact that would have applied to thousands and not just a frail, gentle, drug addicted poet who never committed an act of violence on anyone
• Medical knowledge: contemporary doctors disagreed — but all agreed that at least some skill was shown in organ removal.
  
  This simply isn’t true Richard.
  
  Thompson’s training at Owens College under the Virchow autopsy system gave him precisely the background that explains those removals better than “random butcher.”
  
  It explains nothing. The killer didn’t require surgical knowledge and not one single doctor made this claim.
• His obsession with the runaway prostitute is double-edged: he called her his “salvation” but also wrote repeatedly of betrayal, blood, and punishment. That contradiction is the very hallmark of psychosexual fixation.
  
  In your opinion. Did he specifically talk of blood and punishment about that specific prostitute?
• Murders stopping in November 1888 is not coincidence. Thompson entered hospital then. Whether one accepts Mackenzie or not, the canonical series ended exactly when his freedom ended.
  
  Fair enough…but there’s always a collective shrugging of the shoulders when this is mentioned in regard to Druitt so I can’t see why it becomes more relevant with Thompson?

The cumulative weight isn’t “convenient interpretation.” It’s multiple independent lines converging: violent writings, Whitechapel homelessness, scalpel in hand, medical training, psychosexual motive, exact timeline match, and a police description (Smith 1910) that he uniquely fits.

Speculation is one thing. A profile this tight is another.

It’s your opinion shaped to fit

A gentle but troubled, drug addicted vagrant poet who never harmed anyone in his life.

[Richard Patterson]

The case is totally reliant on speculation and the convenient interpretation of things to ‘fit’ a killer.

But

Herlock, dismissing everything as “speculation” is easy — but it doesn’t make the documented facts go away.

• Thompson’s language about prostitutes is not ambiguous. He doesn’t need to spell the word “prostitute” for the reference to be obvious. “Girls whose practice is a putrid ulceration of love… venting foul and purulent discharge” is 19th-century code for venereal disease from sex work. That is pathological disgust directed at prostitutes, full stop.
• Providence Row isn’t some vague “visited once” reference. John Walsh (Strange Harp, Strange Symphony) records Thompson living among the “nightly crowd of haggard men” queueing there for a bed. That places him in Whitechapel during the critical years — exactly when the murders happened.
• The scalpel matters because Thompson himself admitted in January 1889 that he shaved with his dissecting knife until it was blunt. This isn’t a harmless penknife; it’s a surgical blade carried by a man with six years’ medical training.
• Medical knowledge: contemporary doctors disagreed — but all agreed that at least some skill was shown in organ removal. Thompson’s training at Owens College under the Virchow autopsy system gave him precisely the background that explains those removals better than “random butcher.”
• His obsession with the runaway prostitute is double-edged: he called her his “salvation” but also wrote repeatedly of betrayal, blood, and punishment. That contradiction is the very hallmark of psychosexual fixation.
• Murders stopping in November 1888 is not coincidence. Thompson entered hospital then. Whether one accepts Mackenzie or not, the canonical series ended exactly when his freedom ended.

The cumulative weight isn’t “convenient interpretation.” It’s multiple independent lines converging: violent writings, Whitechapel homelessness, scalpel in hand, medical training, psychosexual motive, exact timeline match, and a police description (Smith 1910) that he uniquely fits.

Speculation is one thing. A profile this tight is another.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thompson isn’t “zilch.” His own writings show explicit hatred of prostitutes: “These girls whose practice is a putrid ulceration of love, venting foul and purulent discharge… a blasphemy against love’s language.” That is psychosexual contempt, not neutral metaphor.

There’s nothing ambiguous in that Thompson passage. For clarity: he is not describing illness in the abstract, nor speaking symbolically about “sin” in some vague sense. He is explicitly describing prostitutes and likening their sexual activity to a festering venereal wound.

“Putrid ulceration of love” = a disease-ridden parody of love.

“Venting foul and purulent discharge” = the imagery of syphilis and gonorrhoea, tied directly to prostitution in the 19th century.

“A blasphemy against love’s language” = the idea that their very work was a desecration of true intimacy.

In modern terms: Thompson is saying that prostitutes corrupt love itself, spreading disease and blasphemy with every act. That’s not the language of mere moral disapproval — it is disgust so pathological that it reduces women to pus and infection in his imagination.

For context, this wasn’t just one stray outburst. Thompson wrote in the same violent register across multiple pieces, combining sexual loathing with imagery of knives, blood, and punishment. It is part of a consistent pattern of thought.

So yes, he was directly condemning prostitutes, and in terms far more visceral than almost any other Victorian writer. To pretend it’s ambiguous is to ignore the plain meaning of the words.

Does he actually mention the word ‘prostitute.’

John Walsh (Strange Harp, Strange Symphony) records Thompson at Providence Row Refuge in Whitechapel — so he was there, among the “nightly crowd of haggard men.” Add his childhood and adult fire-starting, asylum stays, laudanum addiction, and Major Henry Smith’s 1910 profile (ex-medical student, asylum, coin fraud, prostitute links, Rupert Street) — which Thompson uniquely matches.

But we don’t know when. Visiting a place at some point isn’t evidence of him being there at the time of the murders.

Factor in his scalpel,

Irrelevant, the ripper didn’t kill with a scalped. It’s no more suspicious than any man who might have carried a penknife.

medical training,

Opinion is divided on the whether the killer had medical knowledge. Phillips said yes, Brown said no, Sequeira said no, Bond said no.

obsession with a runaway prostitute,

Who he described as his salvation; a woman that he harboured no hatred for.

and the murders stopping when he was hospitalised in Nov ’88,

Ok, but others might say that Mackenzie was a ripper victim.

and it’s clear: the case against Thompson rests on documented facts, not speculation.

The case is totally reliant on speculation and the convenient interpretation of things to ‘fit’ a killer.

[Richard Patterson]

Violent written imagery cannot be equated to actual violence or else every writer of horror fiction would be a potential killer. Thoughtcrime doesn’t count.

Is there anywhere in Thompson’s writing where he specifically expresses a hatred of prostitutes?

On the criteria list (first page) I list Mental Health issues that are serious and are connected to violence. This wasn’t the case with Thompson.

Police interest is zero. We need evidence first that the police had interest in him and we have zilch.

You say a runaway lover in the East End. Surely she was a West End prostitute?

Why do you say that he was living close to the murder sites at the time of the murders (Providence Row) when there’s no evidence for this?

Thompson isn’t “zilch.” His own writings show explicit hatred of prostitutes: “These girls whose practice is a putrid ulceration of love, venting foul and purulent discharge… a blasphemy against love’s language.” That is psychosexual contempt, not neutral metaphor.

There’s nothing ambiguous in that Thompson passage. For clarity: he is not describing illness in the abstract, nor speaking symbolically about “sin” in some vague sense. He is explicitly describing prostitutes and likening their sexual activity to a festering venereal wound.

“Putrid ulceration of love” = a disease-ridden parody of love.

“Venting foul and purulent discharge” = the imagery of syphilis and gonorrhoea, tied directly to prostitution in the 19th century.

“A blasphemy against love’s language” = the idea that their very work was a desecration of true intimacy.

In modern terms: Thompson is saying that prostitutes corrupt love itself, spreading disease and blasphemy with every act. That’s not the language of mere moral disapproval — it is disgust so pathological that it reduces women to pus and infection in his imagination.

For context, this wasn’t just one stray outburst. Thompson wrote in the same violent register across multiple pieces, combining sexual loathing with imagery of knives, blood, and punishment. It is part of a consistent pattern of thought.

So yes, he was directly condemning prostitutes, and in terms far more visceral than almost any other Victorian writer. To pretend it’s ambiguous is to ignore the plain meaning of the words.

John Walsh (Strange Harp, Strange Symphony) records Thompson at Providence Row Refuge in Whitechapel — so he was there, among the “nightly crowd of haggard men.” Add his childhood and adult fire-starting, asylum stays, laudanum addiction, and Major Henry Smith’s 1910 profile (ex-medical student, asylum, coin fraud, prostitute links, Rupert Street) — which Thompson uniquely matches.

Factor in his scalpel, medical training, obsession with a runaway prostitute, and the murders stopping when he was hospitalised in Nov ’88, and it’s clear: the case against Thompson rests on documented facts, not speculation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Violent written imagery cannot be equated to actual violence or else every writer of horror fiction would be a potential killer. Thoughtcrime doesn’t count.

Is there anywhere in Thompson’s writing where he specifically expresses a hatred of prostitutes?

On the criteria list (first page) I list Mental Health issues that are serious and are connected to violence. This wasn’t the case with Thompson.

Police interest is zero. We need evidence first that the police had interest in him and we have zilch.

You say a runaway lover in the East End. Surely she was a West End prostitute?

Why do you say that he was living close to the murder sites at the time of the murders (Providence Row) when there’s no evidence for this?

[Richard Patterson]

It’s a really interesting exercise, Herlock, and thanks for putting the effort into it. The trouble with these checklist ratings, though, is that they can flatten out crucial distinctions and end up under-scoring someone like Francis Thompson, who in my view deserves to sit right at the top.

Major Henry Smith — Acting Commissioner of the City Police and one of the only men to confront a likely Ripper suspect face to face — described a man with a very specific set of rare traits in his 1910 memoirs: an ex-medical student, an asylum patient, a man who consorted with prostitutes, who committed coin fraud, and who lived on Rupert Street near the Haymarket. Francis Thompson is the only identified historical figure who fits that profile to the letter.

If we run Thompson back through your criteria with that in mind:

• Violence: his own writings are steeped in violent imagery against women, and we have testimony of him habitually carrying and using a dissecting scalpel (he admitted to shaving with it in 1889). While there’s no court record of him stabbing a woman, it’s misleading to treat him as “0 violence.” His life and letters show clear homicidal ideation.
• Mental health: he was hospitalised for laudanum addiction and mental collapse, with episodes of delusion and instability. That’s a “2” by your own scoring.
• Police interest: again, Smith’s description isn’t idle gossip. If we take Smith seriously, Thompson was at minimum a near-missed police suspect at the time. That should put him as “2” rather than “0.”
• Hatred/dislike of prostitutes: Thompson openly wrote of prostitutes as “witches” and “unclean,” and his obsessions with a runaway lover in the East End fit the pattern of misogynistic fixation. That is squarely a “2.”

Re-scoring on that basis:

Thompson > 2 (age) – 2 (location) – 2 (violence/weapon) – 2 (mental health) – 2 (police) – 2 (hatred of prostitutes) – 2 (medical training) = 14

That score suddenly makes him the single strongest suspect on the list. And unlike most of the others, he has both presence in Whitechapel at the critical time and a unique, demonstrable overlap with the City Police’s own suspect profile.

The bigger point here is that a “tick box” only works if the boxes themselves reflect the strongest available evidence. When you add Smith’s testimony, Thompson’s poetry as confessional evidence, his scalpel possession, his proximity to the murders, and the fact the killings cease when he enters hospital in late 1888, the case against him becomes overwhelming.

In other words: Thompson isn’t a 7. He’s the one man who should be up in the 14–15 range.

[Duran duren]

Welcome back Chubbs! Yea they found him, he was living in a van down by the river

[chubbs]

Hi

I haven't been on the forum for a few months. Has anyone found him yet?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Amendment #17

(A) Age/physical health > 2 = no issue/1 = issues creating doubt.

(B) Location/access to murder sites > 2 = no issues/1 = reasonable travel/0 = serious doubt.

(C) Violence > 4 = killed woman (non-relative) with knife/3 = killed female relative with knife/

2 = violence with a knife/1 = violence without a knife/0 = no known violence.

(D) Mental health issues > 2 = serious/violent/sexual/1 = other/0 = none known.

(E) Police interest > 2 = at the time (without exoneration)/1 = later (within 10 yrs and without exoneration)/0 = none known or not serious.

(F) Hatred/dislike of women/prostitutes > 2 = yes/1 = link to prostitutes/0 = none known.

(G) Medical/anatomical knowledge (inc. animals) > 1 = yes/0 = none known

(H) Alcohol/drug issue > 1 = yes/0 = none known.


^ means that a suspect has moved up the table after the latest amendment

* means that a suspect has moved down the table after the latest amendment


--- (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) ---

13 = 2 - 2 - 3 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Kelly, James
11 = 2 - 2 - 3 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Bury, William Henry
11 = 2 - 1 - 4 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 0 : Deeming, Frederick Bailey
10 = 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 : Grainger, William Grant
09 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Cutbush, Thomas Hayne
09 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 : Hyams, Hyam
09 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Puckridge, Oswald
08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Kosminski, Aaron (Aron Mordke Kozminski)
08 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Lechmere, George Capel Scudamore
08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 : Barnado, Thomas John
08 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Pizer, John (Leather Apron)
08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Cohen, David
07 = 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 : Tumblety, Francis
07 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 2 - 0 - 0 : Smith, G. Wentworth Bell
07 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Kidney, Michael
06 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Chapman, George (Severin Antonowicz Kłosowski)
06 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 : Thompson, Francis
06 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Levy, Jacob
05 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Druitt, Montague John
05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Barnett, Joseph
05 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 : Stephenson, Robert Donston (or Roslyn D'Onston)
05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Sutton, Henry Gawen
05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Buchan, Edward
05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Williams, Dr. John
05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Craig, Francis Spurzheim
05 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Maybrick, James ^
04 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Stephen, James Kenneth
04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Bachert, Albert
04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Cross, Charles (Charles Allen Lechmere)
04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Hardiman, James
04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Hutchinson, George
04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Mann, Robert
04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Le Grand, Charles
04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Maybrick, Michael
04 = 1 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Gull, Sir William Withey
03 = 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Sickert, Walter Richard

Changes

Added a point to James Maybrick for ‘links to prostitutes.’ I’ve been doing some Maybrick reading recently and was reminded that he was known to have frequented a brothel in the USA.

The only thing wrong with this list is the fact that Cross is too highly placed. I think I might start an extra list for joke suspects which could allow him a slightly higher position just below Van Gogh. I think that we are in a position now where those who propose and have promoted Cross as the ripper should begin apologising to the rest of us. I mean, come on, it’s not difficult to see why this bloke should be eliminated as a suspect by those with a serious interest in the case. All that they have is childish cries of “he was there, he was there,” and their hero and proposer is reduced to deliberately editing the evidence. He has to ‘cook the books’ to make even a weak case.

It’s a sad indictment of the subject. Charles’s Cross - absolute non-suspect. A child could see that he was obviously innocent.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What about self-claimed?

The Prisoner, in his defence, said that he had suffered from sunstroke in India, and that sometimes he was not responsible for his actions" - George Capel Scudamore Lechmere

[Fiver]

Hi chubs,

I set the category to only include mental health issues which were proven/diagnosed. Like spending time in an asylum. I wanted to distinguish between, if you like, mad and bad even though it’s difficult to tell and I’m certainly not qualified to judge.

What about self-claimed?

The Prisoner, in his defence, said that he had suffered from sunstroke in India, and that sometimes he was not responsible for his actions" - George Capel Scudamore Lechmere

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, I get that.

In which case, I'll give him a diagnosis - the bloke was mad as a hatter...

...2 points, please

Nice try chubbs.