Tweet
George Chapman vs Francis Thompson – The Wrong Killer in the Right Place
Every few years, the same names circle back through the fog. One of them is George Chapman. He’s become a kind of reflex suspect—a fallback for those who can’t resist the comfort of a confirmed murderer. And I get it: Chapman actually killed people, and he killed women. But that single overlap doesn’t make him Jack the Ripper any more than being left-handed makes a man Van Gogh.
Let’s remember who Chapman really was. Seweryn Kłosowski, barber-surgeon turned poisoner, a man who worked behind a shop counter by day and served slow death by night. His victims were his partners, women who trusted him enough to share a bed or a kitchen. He watched them die over days, maybe weeks, in small rented rooms while neighbours heard the coughing. That’s not the Ripper. The Ripper struck like a gust of wind, a minute of silence and then a corpse in an alley. Chapman’s method required proximity, patience, and deceit. The Ripper’s required precision, courage, and an indifference to being caught in the act.
Some will argue that Chapman’s training as a barber gave him some anatomical sense. True, he handled razors. So did every man in Whitechapel who shaved his face. There’s a world of difference between knowing how to nick a cheek and knowing how to remove a kidney in the dark without botching the body. The Ripper’s skill, while exaggerated at times, was deliberate enough to show familiarity with internal anatomy. Chapman’s experience ended at the skin.
Then there’s the matter of motive and temperament. Chapman’s murders were domestic power plays—quiet acts of ownership and resentment. He poisoned women who nagged him, who didn’t obey, who threatened his control. He wasn’t hunting strangers in the street; he was cleaning house. The Ripper’s motive, if we can call it that, was ritualistic and psychosexual. The mutilations weren’t acts of anger but of compulsion. Chapman’s poisonings were utilitarian; the Ripper’s killings were expressive. These are two different psychologies. One hides from blood; the other lives for it.
Even the timing collapses under scrutiny. Chapman’s verified murders took place years after the Whitechapel killings. No evidence places him near any of the 1888 crime scenes. He’d have been a foreign newcomer still finding his footing, and yet the Ripper moved with uncanny familiarity, slipping through back passages, vanishing across the warren of the East End like someone who knew its rhythm. To imagine a newly arrived barber committing the most elusive series of murders in London’s history, then switching to household poison as his style, is a stretch even pulp fiction wouldn’t risk.
And this is where Francis Thompson enters the frame, not as a convenient substitute but as someone whose life collides with the murders in time, place, and pathology. Thompson was no stranger to scalpels—he trained in medicine and surgery. He walked those same streets as a destitute addict, sleeping rough near the very sites where the women died. He carried his instruments with him; he admitted it. He was haunted by visions and a religious mania focused on women’s purity and sin, and his writings describe acts of cutting and sacrifice that mirror the Ripper’s signature. The killings begin during his breakdown; they end as he’s taken into care and seclusion. His trajectory maps onto the crimes with unnerving precision.
People often resist Thompson because he’s uncomfortable. He doesn’t fit the image of a foreign brute or an obvious maniac. He was articulate, sensitive, revered later as a poet. That contradiction disturbs people—it asks us to face the idea that genius and horror can share the same mind. Chapman, on the other hand, feels safe. He’s brutish, uneducated, easy to condemn. Naming him lets the city breathe a sigh of relief. But easy suspects rarely hold up under analysis. The Ripper wasn’t easy.
Abberline’s remark, if he ever said it, was likely born of frustration. After years of chasing ghosts, he’d caught a man who had at least murdered someone. It must have felt close enough. But history shouldn’t reward relief over rigour. The evidence doesn’t place Chapman at the scene, it doesn’t align his psychology with the acts, and it doesn’t explain the anatomical competence or the pattern of escalation that stopped as abruptly as it began. Thompson explains all three.
That’s why the comparison matters. Chapman’s inclusion in the canon isn’t based on data—it’s based on fear of ambiguity. Thompson’s candidacy is the opposite: it’s built on converging lines of opportunity, ability, and obsession. One name fills a gap; the other fits the shape of the hole.
People can dislike the idea all they like. But if this case is about following where the evidence leads, not where comfort points, then Chapman is a footnote and Thompson is the storm that still hasn’t passed.
Every few years, the same names circle back through the fog. One of them is George Chapman. He’s become a kind of reflex suspect—a fallback for those who can’t resist the comfort of a confirmed murderer. And I get it: Chapman actually killed people, and he killed women. But that single overlap doesn’t make him Jack the Ripper any more than being left-handed makes a man Van Gogh.
Let’s remember who Chapman really was. Seweryn Kłosowski, barber-surgeon turned poisoner, a man who worked behind a shop counter by day and served slow death by night. His victims were his partners, women who trusted him enough to share a bed or a kitchen. He watched them die over days, maybe weeks, in small rented rooms while neighbours heard the coughing. That’s not the Ripper. The Ripper struck like a gust of wind, a minute of silence and then a corpse in an alley. Chapman’s method required proximity, patience, and deceit. The Ripper’s required precision, courage, and an indifference to being caught in the act.
Some will argue that Chapman’s training as a barber gave him some anatomical sense. True, he handled razors. So did every man in Whitechapel who shaved his face. There’s a world of difference between knowing how to nick a cheek and knowing how to remove a kidney in the dark without botching the body. The Ripper’s skill, while exaggerated at times, was deliberate enough to show familiarity with internal anatomy. Chapman’s experience ended at the skin.
Then there’s the matter of motive and temperament. Chapman’s murders were domestic power plays—quiet acts of ownership and resentment. He poisoned women who nagged him, who didn’t obey, who threatened his control. He wasn’t hunting strangers in the street; he was cleaning house. The Ripper’s motive, if we can call it that, was ritualistic and psychosexual. The mutilations weren’t acts of anger but of compulsion. Chapman’s poisonings were utilitarian; the Ripper’s killings were expressive. These are two different psychologies. One hides from blood; the other lives for it.
Even the timing collapses under scrutiny. Chapman’s verified murders took place years after the Whitechapel killings. No evidence places him near any of the 1888 crime scenes. He’d have been a foreign newcomer still finding his footing, and yet the Ripper moved with uncanny familiarity, slipping through back passages, vanishing across the warren of the East End like someone who knew its rhythm. To imagine a newly arrived barber committing the most elusive series of murders in London’s history, then switching to household poison as his style, is a stretch even pulp fiction wouldn’t risk.
And this is where Francis Thompson enters the frame, not as a convenient substitute but as someone whose life collides with the murders in time, place, and pathology. Thompson was no stranger to scalpels—he trained in medicine and surgery. He walked those same streets as a destitute addict, sleeping rough near the very sites where the women died. He carried his instruments with him; he admitted it. He was haunted by visions and a religious mania focused on women’s purity and sin, and his writings describe acts of cutting and sacrifice that mirror the Ripper’s signature. The killings begin during his breakdown; they end as he’s taken into care and seclusion. His trajectory maps onto the crimes with unnerving precision.
People often resist Thompson because he’s uncomfortable. He doesn’t fit the image of a foreign brute or an obvious maniac. He was articulate, sensitive, revered later as a poet. That contradiction disturbs people—it asks us to face the idea that genius and horror can share the same mind. Chapman, on the other hand, feels safe. He’s brutish, uneducated, easy to condemn. Naming him lets the city breathe a sigh of relief. But easy suspects rarely hold up under analysis. The Ripper wasn’t easy.
Abberline’s remark, if he ever said it, was likely born of frustration. After years of chasing ghosts, he’d caught a man who had at least murdered someone. It must have felt close enough. But history shouldn’t reward relief over rigour. The evidence doesn’t place Chapman at the scene, it doesn’t align his psychology with the acts, and it doesn’t explain the anatomical competence or the pattern of escalation that stopped as abruptly as it began. Thompson explains all three.
That’s why the comparison matters. Chapman’s inclusion in the canon isn’t based on data—it’s based on fear of ambiguity. Thompson’s candidacy is the opposite: it’s built on converging lines of opportunity, ability, and obsession. One name fills a gap; the other fits the shape of the hole.
People can dislike the idea all they like. But if this case is about following where the evidence leads, not where comfort points, then Chapman is a footnote and Thompson is the storm that still hasn’t passed.