The Jack the Ripper Mystery is Finally Solved — Scientifically

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi DW,

Maybe the source that you're using is better than the wiki article on Thompson, but here's the part of that article that's most relevant here:

"Thompson studied medicine for nearly eight years at Owens College, now the University of Manchester. While excelling in essay writing, he took no interest in his medical studies; he had a passion for poetry and for watching cricket matches.^[2] He never practised as a doctor, and tried to enlist as a soldier but was rejected for his slightness of stature. Then in 1885 he fled, penniless, to London, where he tried to make a living as a writer, in the meantime taking odd jobs – working for a bootmaker (John McMaster of Panton Street) and booksellers, and selling matches.^[3] During this time, he became addicted to opium, which he had first taken as medicine for ill health, having experienced a nervous breakdown while still in Manchester. He lived on the streets of Charing Cross and slept by the River Thames, with the homeless and other addicts."

There's no mention of St Bartholomew's Hospital in the article. It says that he studied medicine for nearly 8 years though he wasn't interested in it. Earlier it had said that he studied medicine at the behest of his father. It's saying that he did live in London at the time of the murders, though not as close to where the murders occurred as Patterson is claiming. I do think that the question of whether he was physically strong enough to have committed the Whitechapel murders is a valid one.

Yes, it is quite astonishing that every account of his life is different, either in facts or dates or both. The claim that Thompson was actually in Oxfordshire in 1888 and 1889, for instance seems to have been established by correspondence from Meynell, and an article in The Times, so I believe it. His spell as a vagrant is sometimes said to be 1882 or 1883 to 1885 or 1886, and sometimes as late as 1885 to 1888. The latest date that I have for him being taken in by Meynell is spring of 1888, but all dates I have seen remove him from the East End for that late summer and autumn.

Everything that I consider reliable puts him in very poor health by 1888, including the suggestion that this may have been when he was hospitalised. Also I am as sure as I can reasonably be that he was not in London in the autumn of 1888. His medical studies are a problem, because I have come across several different versions of what he did, but my information about Owens College is that Thompson was there to study classics and literature, and that he left after a few terms because of family financial pressures! Every account is different, so it is a real problem.

[Lewis C]

I am having major problems taking this thread seriously, sorry!

I realise that research into Thompson's life produces slightly different information, and slightly different dates according to the source, but this is the information I had, and why I totally rejected him as a potentially serious suspect -

As to the alleged medical expertise frequently quoted here, my version is that he enrolled at St Bartholomew's Hospital, but was there only a few months, attended a handful of lectures, and never progressed beyond the introductory phase, and left because of poor health and opium addiction.

He found one or two low paid clerical jobs, and wrote some of his early poetry, but his poor health and addiction resulted in him becoming a vagrant for about three years. His ability as a poet was recognised by Wilfred Meynell, who "rescued" him and chose to rehabilitate him. Thompson was said to be so weak after three years of vagrancy, ill health and his addiction, that it was thought that he might die, but a few weeks in hospital organised by Meynell saved him, although his poor health remained until he died aged only 48. With regard to him allegedly living right on the doorstep of the murders, Meynell found him a simple flat in St Giles-in-the-Wood, Oxfordshire, where he lived, close to Meynell himself. His health was said to be so poor that he needed regular medical attention which Meynell arranged. The Times reported him as still being at St Giles in early 1889.

Therefore, I don't think that he had any medical expertise, I don't believe he was in London during the Autumn of 1888, and I don't believe he was anywhere near fit enough to be JtR.

I don't doubt that someone will claim that there is a more reliable source that said that his medical training was very advanced, that his health was really good, and that he was living in the East End in the Autumn of 1888, but I don't believe it.

Hi DW,

Maybe the source that you're using is better than the wiki article on Thompson, but here's the part of that article that's most relevant here:

"Thompson studied medicine for nearly eight years at Owens College, now the University of Manchester. While excelling in essay writing, he took no interest in his medical studies; he had a passion for poetry and for watching cricket matches.^[2] He never practised as a doctor, and tried to enlist as a soldier but was rejected for his slightness of stature. Then in 1885 he fled, penniless, to London, where he tried to make a living as a writer, in the meantime taking odd jobs – working for a bootmaker (John McMaster of Panton Street) and booksellers, and selling matches.^[3] During this time, he became addicted to opium, which he had first taken as medicine for ill health, having experienced a nervous breakdown while still in Manchester. He lived on the streets of Charing Cross and slept by the River Thames, with the homeless and other addicts."

There's no mention of St Bartholomew's Hospital in the article. It says that he studied medicine for nearly 8 years though he wasn't interested in it. Earlier it had said that he studied medicine at the behest of his father. It's saying that he did live in London at the time of the murders, though not as close to where the murders occurred as Patterson is claiming. I do think that the question of whether he was physically strong enough to have committed the Whitechapel murders is a valid one.

[Doctored Whatsit]

I am having major problems taking this thread seriously, sorry!

I realise that research into Thompson's life produces slightly different information, and slightly different dates according to the source, but this is the information I had, and why I totally rejected him as a potentially serious suspect -

As to the alleged medical expertise frequently quoted here, my version is that he enrolled at St Bartholomew's Hospital, but was there only a few months, attended a handful of lectures, and never progressed beyond the introductory phase, and left because of poor health and opium addiction.

He found one or two low paid clerical jobs, and wrote some of his early poetry, but his poor health and addiction resulted in him becoming a vagrant for about three years. His ability as a poet was recognised by Wilfred Meynell, who "rescued" him and chose to rehabilitate him. Thompson was said to be so weak after three years of vagrancy, ill health and his addiction, that it was thought that he might die, but a few weeks in hospital organised by Meynell saved him, although his poor health remained until he died aged only 48. With regard to him allegedly living right on the doorstep of the murders, Meynell found him a simple flat in St Giles-in-the-Wood, Oxfordshire, where he lived, close to Meynell himself. His health was said to be so poor that he needed regular medical attention which Meynell arranged. The Times reported him as still being at St Giles in early 1889.

Therefore, I don't think that he had any medical expertise, I don't believe he was in London during the Autumn of 1888, and I don't believe he was anywhere near fit enough to be JtR.

I don't doubt that someone will claim that there is a more reliable source that said that his medical training was very advanced, that his health was really good, and that he was living in the East End in the Autumn of 1888, but I don't believe it.

[Paddy Goose]

I know the person who posted this on a Facebook group has written a book on Francis Thompson and I'm not sure if he frequents here...

Yes that person posted here before. And he started several threads. About his suspect.

This thread has become instead a gathering place on the top line of Casebook Forums for each poster to mention their favorite suspect. And I think we know who the "usual suspects" who do that sort of posting are.

It's like Pavlov's Dogs.

[John Wheat]

Yeah I don't really disagree too much, tbh. I doubt Chapman was the man. I think it was a lot easier before the boom in behavioural science research to accept that a poisoner could well be a mutilator as well, and I definitely don't think Abberline was naive in thinking it could have been Chapman, he was wrong for the right reasons, IMO, if that makes sense.

I'd agree with that Mike. I don't think Chapman was the Ripper but I wouldn't go as far as to say he definitely wasn't. I make no secret in my belief that Bury was the Ripper. However if it was proved he wasn't I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

[Mike J. G.]

Fair points I just don't see Chapman changing from what Jack did with mutilation etc to be a calculating poisoner. I think Bury a much stronger suspect than Chapman. For various reasons not least the fact he performed post mortem mutilation on his wife.

Yeah I don't really disagree too much, tbh. I doubt Chapman was the man. I think it was a lot easier before the boom in behavioural science research to accept that a poisoner could well be a mutilator as well, and I definitely don't think Abberline was naive in thinking it could have been Chapman, he was wrong for the right reasons, IMO, if that makes sense.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just a quick list..I only had a look out of curiosity so its by no means an extensive list:



Thomas Barnado - studied at London Hospital but didn’t complete his studies.

George Chapman - Apprenticed to a surgeon. Did a course on practical surgery.

Thomas Neill Cream - Doctor

Thomas Cutbush - A medical student.

William Gull - Physician

Francis Thompson - Medical training

Sir John Williams - Obstetrician to the Queen

Robert Mann - Mortuary attendant

John Sanders - Medical student

HH Holmes - Studied medicine

Dr Alfred Pearson - Physician and surgeon

Henry Gawen Sutton - Physician

Oswald Puckridge - Trained as a surgeon?

then…

Jacob Levy - Butcher

Montague John Druitt - Son of a surgeon


And before complaints come rolling in I’ve only added Druitt as someone that might, without any stretch of the imagination, have acquired anatomical/ medical knowledge. There may be other suspects who might fall into this same category.

[John Wheat]

I don't believe it was Chapman or Thompson, to be fair, John. But playing devil's advocate, I could see the argument that Chapman only killed his wives in the manner that he did to avoid detection. He couldn't rip them up and hope to get away with it.

I personally don't believe the killer is on the list, but if I had a gun to my head then the likes of Chapman and Bury would be on there. I think they're decent suspects on the actual list we have. Chapman was in the area, was sadistic, multiple murderer of women, etc.

Just playing devil's advocate, though!

Fair points I just don't see Chapman changing from what Jack did with mutilation etc to be a calculating poisoner. I think Bury a much stronger suspect than Chapman. For various reasons not least the fact he performed post mortem mutilation on his wife.

[Mike J. G.]

Same with me Mike. How many thousands of people have studied this case over the years. How many people with medical knowledge (including doctors, surgeons etc) and yet still we have no consensus. If it was in any way proven I just can’t see how this hasn’t been stated and stated forcefully.

Totally agree with you, Herlock.

[Mike J. G.]

Hi Mike,

Yes, if we were sure, or even if there were a strong preponderance of evidence, that the Ripper had to have surgical knowledge, one would think that locating men with surgical training who lived in the London area and were in their 20s or 30s at the time would be a very active area in Ripper research. We're talking about Thompson now in part because he's famous. Is there really any more reason to think that Thompson might be the Ripper than to think that some other London area surgeon in his 20s or 30s at the time was the Ripper? I don't see his poetry as being a reason to suspect him.

I agree that George Chapman is a considerably stronger suspect than Thompson.

Allo, Lewis. I tend to agree. I'm not entirely sure why the "medical knowledge" angle isn't focused on a lot more when choosing valid suspects, given what we're being told regarding Mary's heart removal.

I'd have thought that would have all but sealed the deal on Jack being a medical man, but IMO, I don't he was. I think he had a basic grasp of anatomy, though, and was familiar with cutting up bodies, human or animal.

Definitely agree on Chapman being more likely than Thompson.

[Mike J. G.]

Chapman is a crap suspect. It's highly unlikely a serial killer could go from doing what Jack did to poisoning.

I don't believe it was Chapman or Thompson, to be fair, John. But playing devil's advocate, I could see the argument that Chapman only killed his wives in the manner that he did to avoid detection. He couldn't rip them up and hope to get away with it.

I personally don't believe the killer is on the list, but if I had a gun to my head then the likes of Chapman and Bury would be on there. I think they're decent suspects on the actual list we have. Chapman was in the area, was sadistic, multiple murderer of women, etc.

Just playing devil's advocate, though!

[Mike J. G.]

I think its subjective mike , people will believe basically what they want to based on how they see the evidence , ive made my point in favour of Thompson and based on the evidence as i understand it . Thompson was certainly capable of preforming the extraction of mary kellys heart where as Bury certainly wasnt . Cheers.

That's fair enough, I definitely agree that the vast majority of what we know about the case is entirely open to our own interpretation.

I don't personally think it was Thompson or Bury, although, from the list we have, I don't think Bury is a bad suspect. I think I'd put Chapman ahead of Thompson, though.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Im simply talking about Dr Bond , and his decription of the ''removal'' of kellys heart and the way it was done . Not sure what your saying there herlock .

We cant have a doctor describing a obvious medical technique with kellys heart removal , and then saying the killer had no medical skill at all . Its a contradiction

Bond was cleary talking about two different things, No Skill in the mutliations , Skill in her heart removal ..... its simple . imo.

So, there were two different people involved in the Kelly murder, in your opinion. Firstly you have Bond saying that the mutilations in each case were performed by someone with no scientific or anatomical knowledge, not even that of a slaughterer, then the highly skilled surgeon with the totally up to date techniques arrived, and expertly removed the heart.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think its subjective mike , people will believe basically what they want to based on how they see the evidence , ive made my point in favour of Thompson and based on the evidence as i understand it . Thompson was certainly capable of preforming the extraction of mary kellys heart where as Bury certainly wasnt . Cheers.

Anyone with a knife and a knowledge of the location of the heart could cut it out.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So Geddys information about Thompson is wrong ... These sounds like motive to me , otherwise i wouldnt have even commented on this thread .



He had a documented history of psychotic violence toward women — including written hatred of prostitutes and dark fantasies of killing them.

He had absolutely no history of violence against women.

→ He lived within 100 metres of the 1888 murder sites.

Unproven

→ He was an active arsonist and fire-starter — linked to sadistic psychopathy.

False

→ He wrote essays at the time describing prostitutes as “putrid ulcers,” “blasphemies,” and called for them to be drowned in the Thames.

None of his poems mention prostitutes as far as I can recall.

→ He delighted in reading and writing about the killing of women with blades — even his own play had this as its central scene.

Shaun Hutson, Stephen King, Clive Barker….i could produce a huge list….were these all potential serial killers?

→ His movements align perfectly with the timeline of the murders and when they ceased (he was removed from the area right after the final killing)

Druitt and Bury both give us an explanation for the cessation of the murders but are they taken as proof of anything?

This isn’t Geddy’s information Fishy. He had cut and pasted it from a source online. It clearly comes from Richard Patterson who wrote a book suggestion Thompson’s as the ripper.