The Jack the Ripper Mystery is Finally Solved — Scientifically

[Mike J. G.]

Dont be silly Mike, and please do stick on point . Its never been about what your claiming in regards to Chapman .Ive never said just because the evidence we have on Thompson cant be disproven, that therefor must make him the Ripper ! Only that its makes him a Much Better suspect than most others . I hope that clears up your misunderstanding .

I couldn't be more on point, Fishy.

As for being silly...

You're acting like a fanboy for Richard's theory and are demanding, like a spoiled child, that everyone needs to disprove his theories, and then you're asking me not to be silly when I spin your own demands back onto you.

That's awkward, mate.

It's been demonstrated to you, and Richard, countless times, how none of this mental gymnastics amounts to anything remotely resembling science. Rather than admit that these are merely theories based on questionable foundations, you just keep doubling down and insisting that people prove these theories wrong.

As for Thompson being a better suspect than Chapman, you opt to avoid addressing that by saying it's not on topic while simultaneously claiming that Thompson is a "much better suspect than others."

I'm not interested in coming here for petty squabbling, but I'll always call it as I see it, and what you're doing here amounts to average childish trolling.

Richard's theories (not facts ) as shown by Fiver, Herlock and others, seem to consist of: "I believe X and Y to be the case, therefore we can speculate that..."

And then he calls that science and you applaud him for it and ask that it be disproven. You're presumably old enough and intelligent enough to know how daft that is...

Yet here we are.

Thompson cannot be proven to have been in the area during the murders.

Thompson cannot be proven to have been violent towards anyone.

Thompson cannot be proven to have carried a knife.

Thompson cannot be proven to have been in enough good health to commit multiple murders and flee the scene.

...

Chapman can be proven to have been in the area during the murders.

Chapman can be proven to have been violent towards women.

Chapman had used a knife to threaten his wife.

Chapman was physically capable of pulling the murders off and had a place in the area to flee to afterwards.

So basically, while I don't believe it was Chapman, he's still a far more likely suspect than Thompson.

Keep mind, this is a THEORY. It'd do you and Richard well to begin to understand the gulf of difference between established fact and personal speculation.

No offence to you, Fishy, but you can't accuse me of being silly when you're in here waffling this sort of mush.

[Mike J. G.]

And it looks like even the scalpel bit is wrong.



Thompson said he had used a dissecting-scalpel to shave, not that he carried a scalpel during the time he was homeless.

Richard's hanging a lot of his theories on the idea that Thompson carried that scalpel...

To be honest, if Thompson had a bolt hole in Whitechapel, it wouldn't even be an issue whether he carried a knife on his person or not, but it's being pushed that he spent time on the street and had this scalpel on his person daily in order to shave... Yet the evidence Richard is basing that on has been shown to be questionable.

I'm sure some more numbers and mathematics are on the way in order to counter these points, though!

[Fiver]

If you want to keep arguing that “Smith’s suspect was Thompson and therefore Thompson is proven innocent,” show the document that names him. Otherwise, you’re just moving the alibi from the man who earned it (Puckridge) to the man who was never asked for one (Thompson). That’s not following evidence—that’s erasing it.


A reasonable request under the circumstances . Anyone ?

Nobody is arguing that way. Here's what people are actually arguing.

* Smith's suspect was proven innocent.
* Puckridge matches 3 of the 5 points and is probably the innocent suspect.
* Thompson matches 1 the 5 points and is clearly not the innocent suspect.
* Therefore Thompson could be the Ripper.

The one erasing evidence is Richard.

* Richard ignores that Smith's suspect was proven innocent.
* Richard ignores that Puckridge matches 3 of the 5 points.
* Richard incorrectly claims that Thompson matches all 5 points, when he only matches one.
* Richard ignores that if he can prove that Thompson was Smith's suspect, then he would be proving Thompson was not the Ripper.