Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Leaving Aside the "Name Issue"

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Patrick S
    started a topic Leaving Aside the "Name Issue"

    Leaving Aside the "Name Issue"

    I’d like to move away from the “name issue” for a time and examine the other aspects August 31, 1888 that have been used to indict Cross/Lechmere as Jack the Ripper. So, let’s put names aside and assume – for the sake of argument – that Cross/Lechmere was hiding something and was dishonest in relating his name as Cross.

    First, let’s first take a look at what we know of Mary Ann “Polly” Nichols’ last known movements on the morning of her murder. We know that at about 2:30am Emily Holland was returning to Wilmott’s lodging house after going to see the fire at Dible and Co., Engineers, at the dry dock in Shadwell. She encountered Nichols at the corner of Osborne Street and Whitechapel Road. Nichols was drunk. She told Holland that she’d earned the amount needed her nightly lodgings several times, but had spent it. Holland asked Nichols to return to Wilmott’s and spend the night with her. Nichols refused. “I’ll be back soon”, Nichols said, and disappeared down Whitechapel Road. We know that she would be found dead in Buck’s Row sometime around 3:45am. Thus, it’s likely she met her killer within an hour of speaking with Emily Holland.

    When we look at the times given by Cross/Lechmere for his movements on the morning of August 31, 1888, we see that they reconcile perfectly with his distance and route to work, allowing him to arrive a few minutes ahead of the time (4:00am) he was expected for work at Pickford's. He allowed thirty minutes for what was – at a reasonable pace – a 24-25 minute walk. He knew that a delay of more than a few minutes would put him "behind time". Anyone who commutes any distance to work by automobile knows this. If you hit particularly heavy traffic or must stop to refuel you know, without checking the time you realize, "I'm going to be late". In my view, the information given by Cross/Lechmere here seems consistent, plausible, and – in all likelihood – truthful.

    Cross/Lechmere goes on to tell us that, at approximately 3:45am, he entered Buck’s Row. He stated that he “discerned on the opposite side (of the roadway) something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's Row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he (Cross/Lechmere) himself had come from.”

    It may be instructive here to try and view what came next from the perspective of Robert Paul. Paul stated that he quickened his pace as he entered Buck’s Row. “Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about.” He spotted a man standing short distance ahead of him. When he attempted to walk around him, the man approached him, touched his shoulder, and said, “Come and look at this woman.” Robert Paul accompanied Cross/Lechmere a short distance where the two men found, lying on her back in the darkness of Buck’s Row, the body of “Polly” Nichols. Paul felt Nichols’ hands and face and found them cold. Her clothes were “disarranged” and he “helped to pull them down”. He placed his hand on her heart and thought he detected movement, albeit very slight. “I think she is breathing, but very little if she is”, he said. Paul suggested that they prop her up, but Cross/Lechmere refused to touch her. Neither man wished to be late for work, and after spending approximately two minutes in Buck’s Row, the two men agreed to continue on together, in hopes of finding a policeman.

    Without presuming that Cross/Lechmere had killed Nichols’, there is nothing suspicious at all about his behavior in Buck’s Row. He approached Paul and asked him to “come and see this woman”. If he were the killer and was indeed interrupted in the act of mutilating the victim, he would have stowed the murder weapon on his person. He would have had no way of knowing if he had blood on his clothing (Buck’s Row was quite dark), and – perhaps more importantly – his hands. He’d just killed and begun disemboweling a human being and hid the knife in his clothing. It seems less than reasonable to assume that his first plan of action would be to approach a man attempting to avoid him, touch that man’s shoulder with his (very likely) blood covered hands, and ask him to come and see his victim. What’s more, when he was given an opportunity to move the victim, thus providing a very reasonable explanation for any blood that he may have had on his hands and clothing, he refused. It’s been alleged these were the actions of psychopath. Yet, we have not one shred of evidence that tells us that Cross/Lechmere was a man of ill-humor, much less a psychopath.

    The two men walked together for several minutes and in Baker’s Row near, Old Montague Street, the two men found Police Constable (PC) Jonas Mizen, forty years old, and a fifteen year veteran of the Metropolitan Police. Both Cross/Lechmere and Paul stated that they immediately informed PC Mizen that a woman was lying in Buck’s Row, and that she may be dead. “She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead", Cross/Lechmere stated he told Mizen at the inquest into Nichols’ death. Paul in a statement to ‘Lloyd’s Weekly News’ stated flatly, “I told him the woman was dead.” Mizen, in his own inquest testimony disagreed, saying that he was told only that a woman was lying in Buck’s Row. As we know, some controversy arose (that would intensify some 120 years later) when Mizen testified at the inquest that he was told that he was “wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row, where a woman was lying.” Cross/Lechmere testified that he said no such thing:

    A Juryman: “Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's Row?”

    Witness: “No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's Row.”

    Robert Paul, in both his statement to “Lloyd’s Weekly” and in his inquest testimony, makes no mention of either man telling PC Mizen that a policeman was waiting in Buck’s Row. Both Lechmere and Paul offer similar descriptions of Mizen’s reaction upon hearing their information. Lechmere stated that he replied, “Alright” and walked on. Paul states, “I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up…”

    PC Mizen, on the other hand, relates things very differently. He stated that “at a quarter past 4 on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, and a man passing said "You are wanted in Baker's (sic)-row." The man, named Cross, stated that a woman had been found there. In going to the spot he saw Constable Neil, and by the direction of the latter he went for the ambulance. When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street. Cross simply said he was wanted by a policeman, and did not say anything about a murder having been committed. He denied that before he went to Buck's-row he continued knocking people up.”

    Let’s exclude everything we are told by Cross/Lechmere and focus only on those points where Paul and Mizen disagree. Paul makes no mention of Mizen having been told only that he was wanted by a policeman. In fact, Paul’s statement (which preceded Cross/Lechmere’s statement) goes into some detail with respect to what Mizen was told: “I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead.”

    This leaves us to try and answer a very simple question: Who is lying here, Mizen or Paul? In order to answer this question, I believe we must ask another: Who had reason to lie, Mizen or Paul? I can come up with no reason for Paul to lie or make inflammatory comments about Mizen. If Mizen had acted as he (Mizen) claimed he did, why would Paul have voiced such strong condemnation of Mizen’s actions? In the absence of any further information regarding Paul’s possible motivations, we use simple logic. And logic tells us that he would not have. Now we must ask, why would Mizen lie? I think that the answer is undeniably obvious. He lied to justify his less than urgent response upon having been told that a woman was lying, likely dead, in Buck’s Row. Claiming he was told only that he was policeman “wanted” him in Buck’s Row, he justifies his not having asked either man a single question and his less than prompt appearance in Buck’s Row. Although, Mizen does go to the further trouble of telling us he did not continue “knocking-up”.

    In my view, any objective reading of Cross/Lechmere’s words and actions – as he represented them and as they were corroborated by Paul – both in Buck’s Row and Baker’s Row –do nothing to cast any suspicion on him as the killer of Nichols.

  • Richard Patterson
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    Hi Richard
    Ive always been intrigued by FT. Is there anything in the case files(or even the papers) that even mention him and/or is there anything other than he lived in the area that definitively ties him at all to the case?

    Also, When did he write about cutting up prostitutes? Before the ripper killings, during or after? If before that's more interesting because it shows he might have had the fantasy first. if after, perhaps he was just "inspired" by them?
    Hi Abby.
    No, I have found nothing in any newspaper or case file that mention him in connection to the case. Although there are suggestions that he may have been questioned and was a suspect, these are made by biographers after his death in 1907. My book does detail these. It also details that his editor, the one who rescued him from the streets on about November 15th 1888, and placed in hospital and then the monastery, held an intense fascination of the Whitchapel murder investigation. The editor, Wilfrid Meynell, followed the press reports and updated his colleagues on the latest news and constructed his own theories to who might be the murderer.
    Francis Thompson wrote about killing prostitutes before the murders. Here is an extract from my book that discusses this.
    ____
    In his 1988 book, Francis Thompson, Strange Harp Strange Symphony, Chapter 3, The Gutters of Humanity, John Walsh wrote:

    ‘The most painful of these poems was The Nightmare of the Witch Babies, never revived in a fair copy. But in the last of the notebook drafts, he added a reminder, rare for him, of the date of its completion: “Finished before October 1886” – that is within a year of his departure from home.'

    ____
    You can also read a detailed overview of the theory in the following article which appeared in the Ripperologist. It discusses his poem.

    http://www.francisjthompson.com/arti...t-october.html

    This is another extract from my book about his poem. The fact that it was written before the murders is very interesting indeed.
    ____
    There is probably no poem that came out of the 19th century to contend with its unbound revelry for carnage and bloodshed. It provides an awful glimpse into Thompson’s mind and shows that finally the years of solitude, the riot faced by his family, the seeming wickedness of his stepmother, the cruel loss of his mother, all had unhinged him. With the ‘Witch Babies’ his full depravity and abandonment of morality is revealed. It shows his rage against women who abandon and betray him. The poem begins with the protagonist; a ‘lusty knight’ on a hunt, but he hunts in London, after dark and his game is women.

    A lusty knight,
    Ha! Ha!
    On a swart [black] steed,
    Ho! Ho!
    Rode upon the land
    Where the silence feels alone,
    Rode upon the Land
    Rode upon the Strand
    Of the Dead Men's Groan,
    Where the Evil goes to and fro
    Two witch babies, Ho! Ho! Ho!
    A rotten mist,
    Ha! Ha!
    Like a dead man's flesh,
    Ho! Ho!
    Was abhorrent in the air,


    As he rides through a desolate landscape of the metropolis, the knight catches sight of a suitable prey.

    ‘What is it sees he?
    Ha! Ha!
    There in the frightfulness?
    Ho! Ho!
    There he saw a maiden
    Fairest fair:
    Sad were her dusk eyes,
    Long was her hair;
    Sad were her dreaming eyes,
    Misty her hair,
    And strange was her garments’


    Soon he begins to stalk her.

    ‘Swiftly he followed her
    Ha! Ha!

    Eagerly he followed her.
    Ho! Ho!;’


    But then she disappoints him. He discovers she is unclean.

    ‘Lo, she corrupted!
    Ho! Ho!


    The knight captures her and decides to kill her. He slices her open and drags out the contents of her stomach. He guts her like an animal in order to find and kill any unborn offspring she may have. The poem ends with a macabre twist and his rapture at not finding not just a single foetus but two.

    ‘And its paunch was rent
    Like a brasten [bursting] drum;
    And the blubbered fat
    From its belly doth come
    It was a stream ran bloodily under the wall.
    O Stream, you cannot run too red!
    Under the wall.
    With a sickening ooze –
    Hell made it so!
    Two witch-babies,
    ho! ho! ho!’


    The entire poem, contains phrases like ‘the bloody-rusted stone’, ‘blood, blood, blood’, ‘No one life there, Ha! Ha!’ and ‘Red bubbles oozed and stood, wet like blood’, has a plot which reads like the description of a slaughterhouse. Anyone who know poets always ever rely solely on imagination does not know Thompson. To him, his poetry were records of real events in his life, clothed in rhyme and symbolism. In a letter, years later, to his editor, this is how Thompson explained that his poetry was always more fact than fiction, ‘The poems were, in fact, a kind of poetic diary; or rather a poetic substitute for letters.’{Poems.p436]

    _____
    Thank you for your interest,
    Richard.

    Leave a comment:


  • curious
    replied
    Ain't it just?

    From now on, whenever I wander across one of those endless, page-after-page examples of aws, I can just say, "more aws" and move right along with a smile.

    Leave a comment:


  • wigngown
    replied
    Curious and Ausgirl,

    'arrogant willy-swinging' - is probably the funniest thing I've ever read on here. Lol.

    Best regards.

    Leave a comment:


  • Patrick S
    replied
    Originally posted by Billiou View Post
    Could it be simply that Mizen, in his own mind, took the term "you're wanted in Buck's Row" to mean a "policeman wanted him"?

    At the inquest, Mizen claims that the carman (Cross) told him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row. Further, Cross is asked (by a juryman) if told Mizen that he was wanted in Buck's Row by a policeman. Cross said that he didn't, as he saw no policeman in Buck's Row. So, I think it's clear that Mizen claimed that he was told that a policeman wanted him in Buck's Row.

    And at the time he heard "dead and drunk", would not necessarily be a reason to immediately drop everything and run there.....

    I completely agree. I think that's Mizen's point. If he's told ONLY that the woman is lying in Buck's Row then it's understandable that he did not rush to the scene, or even act with any urgency whatsoever. Paul's statement, which appeared the day prior to Mizen's testimony, made issue of Mizen's rather laconic attitude. That attitude is understandable if he had only been told that a woman was lying in the street (maybe drunk, but not dead), AND that another policeman was on scene. This tells Mizen that the situation is being addressed (by the other PC) and that it's not very serious (not having been told the woman is likely dead).

    You know, "a woman dead with her throat cut" would have been different.

    Both Cross and Paul stated they didn't see wounds or blood due to the darkness. However, both said that they told Mizen they thought she was dead. Mizen disagrees.

    Remember both Paul and Cross "thought" she may be dead as a result of an "outrage", not a vicious murder. And where did the "drunk" come from anyway? Did they smell drink on her?

    They may have smelled drink. We know that Nichols has been drinking. Emily Holland stated that she was drunk just over an hour before her body was found. As well, I think it was likely a reasonable assumption (that she was drunk and had passed out). It is likely also the reason Mizen didn't rush to the scene. Drunk men and woman lying unconscious on the street in that part of town was - in all likelihood - far more common than dead bodies lying about.

    So I think maybe Mizen quoted what he "thought" he heard, and as both Paul and Cross confirmed they didn't say that, it was merely him being human.

    Absolutely possible. I to not wish to ascribe any malevolence to Mizen. I doubt there was sinister intent. Just a human reaction to soften the view some may take of his actions (and the Met as a whole), which were inappropriate only when the true nature of the situation was revealed. Had Nichols been lying there drunk, his actions would never have been questioned.

    On a general note not directed at anyone, I don't think we should expect all the witnesses to remember exactly what they said or did. There has to be some leeway given to human error and weaknesses. We don't all have a photographic memory, and the same with what we have said in the past. Some people can remember exactly word for word, others won't. So I have come to the realisation that trying to forensically dissect everything said probably leads no-where.
    See comments above bold.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Richard Patterson View Post
    Hi Harry,

    A very sensible question about sensible investigators. It is the first question I would be asking about this suspect. It is an important and I spend the beginning of my book addressing it. If I can provide here briefly a three part answer.

    1-In 1888 hardly anyone even knew that a then homeless Thompson was even alive. His fame did not reach its height until many years after his death.

    2- Also there is some suggestions that he may have been questioned by the police. In 1967, a biographer of Thompson, the esteemed historian John Walsh, thought that Thompson might have been a suspect questioned by the City Police in Rupert Street, Haymarket. In the footnote on this in his biography, ‘Strange Harp Strange Symphony. The Life of Francis Thompson’ Walsh wrote.

    ‘During the very weeks he was searching for his prostitute friend, London was in an uproar over the ghastly deaths of five such women at the hands of Jack the Ripper… The police threw a wide net over the city, investigating thousands of drifters, and known consorts with the city’s lower elements, and it is not beyond possibility that Thompson himself may have been questioned. He was, after all, a drug addict, acquainted with prostitutes and, most alarming, a former medical student! A young man with a similar background and living only a block away from McMaster’s shop [a Panton Street Shoemakers that Thompson worked in for a time] was one who early came under suspicion,’


    3- Why did no one think Thompson was Jack the Ripper? The drive to reform the image of Thompson, even in later 1888, was in full swing. Typical of the almost Christ like qualities that his editors bestowed on Thompson can be seen in this article that came out months after his death in 1907, from the ‘The Stylus’, 1 March 1908.

    ‘there died quietly in a London hospital a man of the rarest genius…The poet relates how the anatomy classes so sickened him that he never attended them after the first day. Instead of studying medicine, he spent his whole day in the public libraries…To have felt and loved Francis Thompson's poetry is one of those spiritual gains in our life which, come what may, can never be lost entirely. He was rather a soul, a breath, than a man. It is the mind of a woman in the character of a child, so that we feel for him less admiration than tenderness and gratitude. Francis Thompson has done the world an inestimable good, if the world will but recognize it, for he has succeeded in cloaking all things with the divine presence, and so vividly that we can almost see God in our midst. Truly a miracle was performed by this poet inspired of the Holy Ghost, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.’

    Anyone reading this might feel, even if they knew he lived within yards of one of the murders, carried a dissecting scalpel, had several years of training in surgery and was on the streets looking for a prostitute that dumped him, it could not possibly have been a poet. They might have thought he he only wrote about cutting into prostitutes with a knife and disembowelling them.

    You can read more about the possible cover up in this recent news article about my book and theory that appeared in the Northern Echo.

    http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/14423107.Was_Jack_the_Ripper_a_failed_priest_from_ Durham/
    Hi Richard
    Ive always been intrigued by FT. Is there anything in the case files(or even the papers) that even mention him and/or is there anything other than he lived in the area that definitively ties him at all to the case?

    Also, When did he write about cutting up prostitutes? Before the ripper killings, during or after? If before that's more interesting because it shows he might have had the fantasy first. if after, perhaps he was just "inspired" by them?

    Leave a comment:


  • curious
    replied
    Originally posted by Ausgirl View Post
    I think all have merit, if people don't start up with arrogant willy-swinging, with the wild and mostly baseless claims and the like.
    Ausgirl

    Thanks so much for the proper and historically accurate name for much of what is mucking up the threads.

    I knew there was a correct name for it, just had not encountered it yet.

    You've added to my vocabulary and I appreciate it.

    :-) x 10

    Leave a comment:


  • Richard Patterson
    replied
    Sorry no more FT here. Promise. I would be happy to talk about Lechmere and escape routes from Buck's Row though or discrepancies in the documentary about him

    Leave a comment:


  • Columbo
    replied
    Originally posted by wigngown View Post
    The choice is yours Columbo: you don't have to read it.

    Best regards.
    Judging by hoe this thread got hijacked, I'm not the only one who followed your suggestion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Richard Patterson
    replied
    Originally posted by harry View Post
    Richard,
    I believe there were many sensible investigators around in 1888,why do you think your candidate was overlooked?

    Hi Harry,

    A very sensible question about sensible investigators. It is the first question I would be asking about this suspect. It is an important and I spend the beginning of my book addressing it. If I can provide here briefly a three part answer.

    1-In 1888 hardly anyone even knew that a then homeless Thompson was even alive. His fame did not reach its height until many years after his death.

    2- Also there is some suggestions that he may have been questioned by the police. In 1967, a biographer of Thompson, the esteemed historian John Walsh, thought that Thompson might have been a suspect questioned by the City Police in Rupert Street, Haymarket. In the footnote on this in his biography, ‘Strange Harp Strange Symphony. The Life of Francis Thompson’ Walsh wrote.

    ‘During the very weeks he was searching for his prostitute friend, London was in an uproar over the ghastly deaths of five such women at the hands of Jack the Ripper… The police threw a wide net over the city, investigating thousands of drifters, and known consorts with the city’s lower elements, and it is not beyond possibility that Thompson himself may have been questioned. He was, after all, a drug addict, acquainted with prostitutes and, most alarming, a former medical student! A young man with a similar background and living only a block away from McMaster’s shop [a Panton Street Shoemakers that Thompson worked in for a time] was one who early came under suspicion,’


    3- Why did no one think Thompson was Jack the Ripper? The drive to reform the image of Thompson, even in later 1888, was in full swing. Typical of the almost Christ like qualities that his editors bestowed on Thompson can be seen in this article that came out months after his death in 1907, from the ‘The Stylus’, 1 March 1908.

    ‘there died quietly in a London hospital a man of the rarest genius…The poet relates how the anatomy classes so sickened him that he never attended them after the first day. Instead of studying medicine, he spent his whole day in the public libraries…To have felt and loved Francis Thompson's poetry is one of those spiritual gains in our life which, come what may, can never be lost entirely. He was rather a soul, a breath, than a man. It is the mind of a woman in the character of a child, so that we feel for him less admiration than tenderness and gratitude. Francis Thompson has done the world an inestimable good, if the world will but recognize it, for he has succeeded in cloaking all things with the divine presence, and so vividly that we can almost see God in our midst. Truly a miracle was performed by this poet inspired of the Holy Ghost, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.’

    Anyone reading this might feel, even if they knew he lived within yards of one of the murders, carried a dissecting scalpel, had several years of training in surgery and was on the streets looking for a prostitute that dumped him, it could not possibly have been a poet. They might have thought he he only wrote about cutting into prostitutes with a knife and disembowelling them.

    You can read more about the possible cover up in this recent news article about my book and theory that appeared in the Northern Echo.

    http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/14423107.Was_Jack_the_Ripper_a_failed_priest_from_ Durham/

    Leave a comment:


  • harry
    replied
    Richard,
    I believe there were many sensible investigators around in 1888,why do you think your candidate was overlooked?

    Leave a comment:


  • Ausgirl
    replied
    Move a derailment to an existing thread?? Outrageous!

    Of course, and I shall do, forthwith.

    Leave a comment:


  • Richard Patterson
    replied
    Originally posted by Ausgirl View Post
    Richard, this is fiction, that you're writing about me. Honestly, you're maddening at times.

    I think your suspect is an ewcellent one, I've been saying that for how long? Certainly a better one than many, for compelling circumstantial evidence.

    Last I was present here, you were bravely standing on the prow of the "Saints' Day" aspect of your theory, as it slowly sank toward Davy Jones. These other claims and their logical inferences (that Thompson may have peering out his window at Mary Kelly) would be critically important to your case, IF they weren't just join-the-very-sparse-dots suppositions.

    I was hoping their condition had improved. Is all. No need to be snotty.
    Hi Ausgirl. How are you? I hope you are well.Thank you for putting a smile on my face. I certainly wouldn't be wanting to tell stories so thanks for correcting me on the fiction. Because this thread is not about you know who and I wouldn't want to derail it, I am being careful to not bring up logic, inferences, or suppositions here. Saints be praised for books huh? I am welcome to argue finer points on a FT thread of course.

    All the best.

    Richard.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ausgirl
    replied
    Originally posted by Richard Patterson View Post
    Thanks. I will. I would say that the killer was probably someone who had a mental condition that those around him would have had some awareness of. They were probably someone who knew the streets and had spent a great deal of time in them and had become used to the police beats. I suggest it was someone intelligent and shrewd enough to kill in such a populated area while avoiding detection. I wonder if you believe he needed medical skill. I don’t think you do which cancels out Thompson for you. I would guess you probably favour someone more like Kosminski or even Lechmere rather than Thompson because I doubt if you detect any surgical knowledge, in the wounds, even if I do.
    Richard, this is fiction, that you're writing about me. Honestly, you're maddening at times.

    I think your suspect is an ewcellent one, I've been saying that for how long? Certainly a better one than many, for compelling circumstantial evidence.

    Last I was present here, you were bravely standing on the prow of the "Saints' Day" aspect of your theory, as it slowly sank toward Davy Jones. These other claims and their logical inferences (that Thompson may have peering out his window at Mary Kelly) would be critically important to your case, IF they weren't just join-the-very-sparse-dots suppositions.

    I was hoping their condition had improved. Is all. No need to be snotty.

    Leave a comment:


  • Richard Patterson
    replied
    Originally posted by wigngown View Post
    Richard Patterson.

    as I've said previously, I enjoyed reading your book: well researched and well written. I recommend it. Thompson certainly was an interesting character and a worthy suspect.

    Best regards.
    wigngown

    Thank you very much. I am very lucky to have had the opportunity to write a book that a readers would enjoy and recommend. Thompson's life was the embodiment of the paradoxes of the Victorian Age. I also believe he holds the attributes a sensible investigator would proscribe to a suspect for these terrible murders.

    Thanks for cheering me up.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X