Just from conjecture, is there a better candidate?

[Paul Sutton]

Since the evidence almost takes us nowhere, I'm (along with a few others I've discovered) convinced conjecture is the more profitable exercise.

If one had to create, as an exercise, the perfect conjectural candidate, then Francis Thompson fits best. Yes, this reiterates what Richard Patterson brilliantly posted almost a decade ago:

1. Detailed (if embittered) medical knowledge and practical experience of dissections.
2. Known obsession with dismemberment (father had to pay for his excessive cadavers, at Owen's College). Childhood arsonist.
3. Years of living on the streets - often close to Whitechapel.
4. Opium addict with near maniacal religious visions.
5. Shabby genteel - almost as a definitive look.
6. Obsession with a prostitute (but may have been ripping off De Quincey's account). Possible links to MJK - highly disputed.
7. Disappeared from street-life about early December 1888, then kept under close attention in retreats/asylums.
8. Evidence his editor Wilfred Meynell censored aspects of his life as a vagrant.
9. Evidence that Meynell's wife Alice forbade him access to their children.
10. Many textual references to evisceration and genital attacks, in his verse.

The stumbling block is a direct link to Whitechapel in the autumn of terror - so no direct locational evidence. This is no different from Druitt, but he has none of the above (though of course, is named plus topped himself).

I find another rejecting argument - his frailty and terrible health - less convincing. He'd survived the rigours of street living for years, prior to 1888. He died from the effects nearly twenty years later.

The other argument (he's too famous) doesn't work. He was unknown in 1888 and remained largely so until the 1920s or 30s. His candidacy cannot be compared with the random accusation against Sickert.

It's true that few first-rank creative geniuses have been homicidal. But then few 'normal' people become serial killers, even fewer of the JtR type.

The only other first XI artist who was a murderer - to my knowledge - was Caravaggio. But one could be more modern and name Phil Spector (wildly different circumstances).

[Sam Flynn]

The only other first XI artist who was a murderer - to my knowledge - was Caravaggio.

The great Renaissance composer Carlo Gesualdo, a near-exact contemporary of Caravaggio, was also a murderer.

[Paul Sutton]

The great Renaissance composer Carlo Gesualdo, a near-exact contemporary of Caravaggio, was also a murderer.

Thanks.

A fascinating detail about Thompson is the possibility he was the ex-medical student alluded to - living I think in Haymarket area - and either questioned or being sought. I think this has been disproved - some actual student identified?

I'm re-reading Patteron's book - great on Thompson, but a shame it has some weird errors. For example, that James II was beheaded as a result of losing the English Civil War! (as opposed to being deposed in the Glorious Revolution).

[Fiver]

Thompson started getting help in April of 1888, so him being the Ripper seems unlikely.

[Lombro2]

I can heartily agree that almost all of what is considered “evidence” gets you nowhere because it’s based on speculation—things like a witness’ credibility. That’s not empirically knowable.

So then, on which basis should candidates be evaluated? Speculation or conjecture? “No knowledge” vs “Incomplete Knowledge”?

Speculations about mental health and social circles aside, there are plenty of authors who were murderers. There are other killers who engaged in activities, occupations and interests related in a narrow and a broad sense to the arts.

[Wickerman]

I wonder how many would be interested in what has been described as arguably the first Serial Killer Profile. This was written by Dr. Thomas Bond in 1888.

“The murderer must have been a man of physical strength and of great coolness and daring. There is no evidence that he had an accomplice.....
The murderer in external appearance is quite likely to be a quiet inoffensive looking man probably middle aged and neatly and respectably dressed. I think he must be in the habit of wearing a cloak or overcoat or he could hardly have escaped notice in the streets if the blood on his hands or clothes were visible.
…..he would probably be solitary and eccentric in his habits, also he is most likely to be a man without regular occupation, but with some small income or pension. He is possibly living among respectable person's who have some knowledge of his character and habits and who may have grounds for suspicion that he is not quite right in his mind at times.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

The great Renaissance composer Carlo Gesualdo, a near-exact contemporary of Caravaggio, was also a murderer.

Thomas Wainwright too.

[John Wheat]

Since the evidence almost takes us nowhere, I'm (along with a few others I've discovered) convinced conjecture is the more profitable exercise.

If one had to create, as an exercise, the perfect conjectural candidate, then Francis Thompson fits best. Yes, this reiterates what Richard Patterson brilliantly posted almost a decade ago:

1. Detailed (if embittered) medical knowledge and practical experience of dissections.
2. Known obsession with dismemberment (father had to pay for his excessive cadavers, at Owen's College). Childhood arsonist.
3. Years of living on the streets - often close to Whitechapel.
4. Opium addict with near maniacal religious visions.
5. Shabby genteel - almost as a definitive look.
6. Obsession with a prostitute (but may have been ripping off De Quincey's account). Possible links to MJK - highly disputed.
7. Disappeared from street-life about early December 1888, then kept under close attention in retreats/asylums.
8. Evidence his editor Wilfred Meynell censored aspects of his life as a vagrant.
9. Evidence that Meynell's wife Alice forbade him access to their children.
10. Many textual references to evisceration and genital attacks, in his verse.

The stumbling block is a direct link to Whitechapel in the autumn of terror - so no direct locational evidence. This is no different from Druitt, but he has none of the above (though of course, is named plus topped himself).

I find another rejecting argument - his frailty and terrible health - less convincing. He'd survived the rigours of street living for years, prior to 1888. He died from the effects nearly twenty years later.

The other argument (he's too famous) doesn't work. He was unknown in 1888 and remained largely so until the 1920s or 30s. His candidacy cannot be compared with the random accusation against Sickert.

It's true that few first-rank creative geniuses have been homicidal. But then few 'normal' people become serial killers, even fewer of the JtR type.

The only other first XI artist who was a murderer - to my knowledge - was Caravaggio. But one could be more modern and name Phil Spector (wildly different circumstances).

Bury is a better candidate than Thompson.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I wonder how many would be interested in what has been described as arguably the first Serial Killer Profile. This was written by Dr. Thomas Bond in 1888.

“The murderer must have been a man of physical strength and of great coolness and daring. There is no evidence that he had an accomplice.....
The murderer in external appearance is quite likely to be a quiet inoffensive looking man probably middle aged and neatly and respectably dressed. I think he must be in the habit of wearing a cloak or overcoat or he could hardly have escaped notice in the streets if the blood on his hands or clothes were visible.
…..he would probably be solitary and eccentric in his habits, also he is most likely to be a man without regular occupation, but with some small income or pension. He is possibly living among respectable person's who have some knowledge of his character and habits and who may have grounds for suspicion that he is not quite right in his mind at times.”

I think he was not yet middle-aged, but about 30 years old, not neatly and respectably dressed but shabby, not wearing an overcoat but a waist-length jacket, with an occupation that allowed him to take long breaks and accumulate sufficient savings to take them, and living in the least respectable part of town, solitary and largely unnoticed.

[Lewis C]

I think he was not yet middle-aged, but about 30 years old, not neatly and respectably dressed but shabby, not wearing an overcoat but a waist-length jacket, with an occupation that allowed him to take long breaks and accumulate sufficient savings to take them, and living in the least respectable part of town, solitary and largely unnoticed.

I've wondered when I've heard the term "middle aged" used in this case if it meant the same thing to people living at that time as it means to people living today. Or it could even be that it means different things to different people living today. To me, a middle-aged person could be as young as 40 or as old as 64.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I've wondered when I've heard the term "middle aged" used in this case if it meant the same thing to people living at that time as it means to people living today. Or it could even be that it means different things to different people living today. To me, a middle-aged person could be as young as 40 or as old as 64.

I think it is generally accepted that someone aged less than 40 is not yet middle-aged.

I think your estimated range is about right.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I wonder how many would be interested in what has been described as arguably the first Serial Killer Profile. This was written by Dr. Thomas Bond in 1888.

“The murderer must have been a man of physical strength and of great coolness and daring. There is no evidence that he had an accomplice.....
The murderer in external appearance is quite likely to be a quiet inoffensive looking man probably middle aged and neatly and respectably dressed. I think he must be in the habit of wearing a cloak or overcoat or he could hardly have escaped notice in the streets if the blood on his hands or clothes were visible.
…..he would probably be solitary and eccentric in his habits, also he is most likely to be a man without regular occupation, but with some small income or pension. He is possibly living among respectable person's who have some knowledge of his character and habits and who may have grounds for suspicion that he is not quite right in his mind at times.”

I'd say he got most of that wrong, but in the context of the Victorian period and the way they thought it wasn't a bad attempt at all.

I reckon he more than likely got it right when he said: 'a quite inoffensive looking man', and that was a decent bit of insight considering many of the age would have assumed this was someone wandering around looking demented.

Physical strength? He'd have to put some meat on the bones as to exactly what he meant, but the murderer didn't need to be strong in the sense most would consider that word.

Without regular occupation? Debatable. I think experience tells us that some serial killers aren't as disciplined when it comes to work and turn up late and so on and lose their jobs, but I wouldn't go as far as to say serial killers are generally without 'regular occupation'.

'Respectable persons having suspicions'? I reckon we can be reasonably sure that Dr Bond was wrong in that assertion.

'Wearing a cloak or overcoat to escape notice', I don't think so but I appreciate that one can be argued until the cows come home and nobody will get very far.

Respectably dressed? I reckon he had the right type of man in that respect.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I think perhaps his main mistake concerns the social class of the murderer and reflects what seems to have been the prevailing view at that time.

[Lombro2]

I think perhaps his main mistake concerns the social class of the murderer and reflects what seems to have been the prevailing view at that time.

Finally, a conjecture that I can agree with for comparative purposes! I guess you’d have to first agree or disagree with the prevailing view. I would disagree.

Anyway, it would be hard to compare strength or inoffensiveness. It’s much easier to just agree on which class he really is and then compare class. It’s the same with age. It’s quantifiable.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Finally, a conjecture that I can agree with for comparative purposes! I guess you’d have to first agree or disagree with the prevailing view. I would disagree.

Anyway, it would be hard to compare strength or inoffensiveness. It’s much easier to just agree on which class he really is and then compare class. It’s the same with age. It’s quantifiable.

Thanks for your support!

But I do not think that my estimates of his age or class, or how well dressed he was, are pure conjecture.

The man most likely to have been the murderer did appear to be about 30 years old, did look rough, did look like a sailor, and did appear to be shabby.