The Jack the Ripper Mystery is Finally Solved — Scientifically

[Richard Patterson]

I remain confused by your logic and mathematics.

1. Smith listed five traits that made him suspect one individual, but did not offer any evidence that these traits were specifically those which were shown to be possessed by JtR. Therefore you cannot argue that someone with these traits is probably JtR, only that he possessed certain traits which Smith found suspicious.

2. Because of 1, above, matching suspected traits is merely steering us towards the sort of person that Smith suspected, and no more than that.

3. Smith's five point profile has no relevance whatever to identifying JtR -

a) As I have said many times, ex-medical student being a trait, is just a possibility, as JtR could have been a fully qualified doctor or surgeon or slaughterer, for example. Indeed, killing coldly, efficiently and quickly, slitting the throat from behind to avoid getting blood on hands or clothes, would be routine for a slaughterer, but is not taught in medical school. So JtR being an ex-medical student is just one possibility out of several.

b) There is no evidence that JtR ever attended an asylum, so someone who attended an asylum at some time would just be a possible suspect, but no more so than someone who hadn't attended an asylum. It has therefore no grounds for suspicion and is of no mathematical value.

c) There is no evidence that JtR associated with prostitutes, other than to kill them. Therefore association with prostitutes is not a usable clue.

d) There is no evidence that JtR indulged in coin trickery, so therefore this is not a usable trait that steers us in any useful direction.

e) There is no evidence that JtR lived in Haymarket or thereabouts. So this is not a helpful concept.

4. I am not suggesting that Smith's views have no value just because he was not from the Met and was not involved in the earlier cases, although that has some relevance, I am saying that he talked about certain traits of a suspect, but did not establish any link between these traits and the Ripper.

5. When you are evaluating possibilities, you cannot make a watertight case no matter how many possibilities you collect. You can continue telling us about the remarkable similarity between Smith's observed traits and Thompson, but there is almost no evidence that the five traits are relevant to JtR - four have no evidence, and one is a mere possibility only, There is no valid argument that Thompson was JtR based on Smith's writing.

And as for Smiths's written record, I do not wish to denigrate his reliability totally, but we must recognise that he was not always accurate in his memoirs. I view his comments with caution. There is a handwritten note in the copy of his memoirs at Scotland Yard to the effect that "his veracity was not always to be trusted". This is the man who was never directly involved in the Ripper investigation until canonical murder number four, but announced in his memoirs that "There is no man living who knows as much of these murders as I do". A significant and surely inaccurate boast. He claimed to have been within five minutes of the Ripper, because of an alleged finding of blood in a street sink, but his own account of his movements never put him anywhere near the Ripper. Of course, we wonder how even a brilliant detective like Smith could have been sure that the blood was from JtR washing his hands and nobody else, and that he somehow knew that JtR was there just five minutes before. If there was a witness, he doesn't appear in the official records.

So, I have some reservations about Smith, and view him with caution, whilst not ignoring him, but his five stated traits cannot be claimed to lead us to JtR.

Doctored,

The heart of your confusion lies in treating Smith’s five traits as if they were supposed to be proven facts about the Ripper himself. They aren’t. They are descriptive features of a named suspect profile recorded by a senior officer. That distinction matters.

1. What Smith gave us

Smith never said “these five traits are universally true of the killer.” He said “the man I suspected had these traits.” That is testimony. Like any police record, its value is that it narrows the field. It creates a filter. The historical question then becomes: how many men alive in London matched this precise five-trait filter?

2. Why probability belongs here

You argue that because we cannot prove the Ripper was an ex-medical student, or coin trickster, or asylum inmate, these categories have “no mathematical value.” But that misunderstands the logic. The mathematics is not about proving the killer was those things. It is about testing the chance of anyone else coincidentally matching the entire suspect description. That is what makes it probabilistic rather than anecdotal.

Think of it this way: if a witness says “the man I saw was tall, red-haired, and missing two fingers,” we don’t discard those traits because not all killers are red-haired or maimed. We test whether any known person fits that cluster. Smith’s description works the same way.

3. Independence from “possibility talk”

Yes, the Ripper could have been a slaughterman. He could have been a doctor. But Smith didn’t describe him that way. He described him as an ex-medical student, asylum inmate, etc. The point isn’t to argue slaughtermen are impossible — it’s to show that Thompson uniquely matches the profile actually given by an officer. That is what raises him above the level of “just another possibility.”

4. On Smith’s reliability

You’re right that Smith’s memoirs should be read with caution. All memoirs should. But even if you halve their reliability, the key fact remains: Thompson matches all five identifiers, in the exact geographical nexus named. The odds of that happening by chance are vanishingly small. To dismiss that convergence because Smith occasionally boasted is to throw out the fingerprint with the ink.

5. Why the case doesn’t collapse

You say collecting “possibilities” can’t make a watertight case. True — but collecting independent, unlikely convergences does build a cumulative argument. Thompson’s medical training, instruments, violent verse, breakdown, prostitute connections, and residence converge on the same man who also matches Smith’s five traits. That isn’t mere possibility stacking — it’s probability compounding.

So your confusion dissolves when you stop asking: “Did Smith prove the Ripper had these traits?” and instead ask: “Who on record fits the suspect description Smith actually gave?” Once you frame it that way, the logic is straightforward: Thompson fits it uniquely, and the chance of another man doing so by coincidence is effectively nil.

That doesn’t mean we raise a gavel and say “case closed.” It means Thompson cannot be dismissed as “interesting but irrelevant.” He sits exactly where the filter places him.

[Richard Patterson]

Richard, it seems to me that what you should have called this thread is "Francis Thompson Possibly Scientifically Proven to be Smith's Suspect", but even that would be a pretty monumental stretch of the imagination, considering you've done no such thing.

You're basically telling the world that you've scientifically proven that Francis Thompson was Jack the Ripper solely because you personally reckon he fits Smith's suspect despite the troublesome fact that other posters have demonstrated to you that this belief appears to be questionable.

What you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is:

A) Prove that Smith actually knew who the killer was, and that his suspect was indeed the actual killer.

B) Prove that Francis Thompson was the suspect in question and was in fact the killer of at least the canonical five.

But you've not done any such thing. You're not even remotely close to having done any of that.

No amount of desperate word and number salad can even begin to demonstrate that you've accomplished points A and B.

As has been pointed out, you won't even attempt to address these problems, because you're so blinded by your own opinions. To actually have the gall to go on the internet and tell the world that you've scientifically proven that Francis Thompson was the Ripper based on the waffle that you've presented as evidence on here is quite a stunt.

Mike,

You’re confusing two very different levels of claim and then holding me accountable for the wrong one. Let me explain carefully.

1. Smith’s suspect profile.

I have never claimed that Major Henry Smith had supernatural knowledge of the Ripper’s identity. What Smith left us is a description of a man he and others found suspicious: ex-medical student, prior asylum committal, consorting with prostitutes, involved in coin fraud, living around Rupert Street/Haymarket. That is what historians call a profile, a fingerprint in words. The correct historical move isn’t to demand Smith prove omniscient, but to ask: “Does anyone on record fit this unusual profile, and if so, how likely is that to be coincidence?”

2. Probability and why it matters.

The maths I use aren’t “number salad.” They are the simplest way to answer the question above. If each trait is rare in the London population, then the probability of another random man having all five together is astronomically low — trillions-to-quadrillions to one. That’s not courtroom proof, it’s probability collapsing coincidence. If you believe my frequency estimates are wrong, you can propose better ones and we can rerun the calculation. But you haven’t done that. Instead, you’ve just waved the whole structure away because it doesn’t fit your comfort zone.

3. Burden of proof.

You demand that I prove A) Smith’s suspect was the killer, and B) Thompson was that killer. But those are impossible standards for a 19th-century cold case. No historian can conjure “beyond reasonable doubt” evidence the way a modern court might. What we can do — and what I have done — is demonstrate a convergence of independent strands: Thompson uniquely fits the rare five-trait profile, he had advanced anatomical training, he carried surgical instruments, he wrote verse rehearsing the exact violence committed in Whitechapel, and his breakdown aligns with the timeline. That is cumulative case-building.

4. Why you find this difficult.

You keep branding it “waffle” or “stunt” because you are trying to process a high-order probability argument with a low-order demand for black-and-white proof. You want a smoking gun, a confession, a piece of physical evidence. That is courtroom thinking. Historical reasoning often operates in higher-order logic: weighing independent data points, testing them against probability, and drawing inferences from convergence. That requires the ability to hold conditional reasoning in mind — to see that the absence of a perfect chain of “proofs” doesn’t mean the evidence is meaningless.

So yes, in one sense you are right: I have not “proven beyond reasonable doubt” that Thompson was the Ripper. But in the real sense that matters — testing coincidences, measuring convergence, eliminating alternative candidates — the case stands. The problem isn’t that the knowledge isn’t there; the problem is that your framework for processing it isn’t built to handle higher-order probabilistic reasoning.

That’s why you dismiss it as “number salad.” Not because the numbers are wrong, but because you are not used to moving beyond binary thinking into cumulative probability. I don’t say that as an insult. I say it to clarify why we keep talking past each other.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Doctored,

Thanks for engaging. A few clarifications on method and scope:

1) What the “five traits” are doing.

I’m not claiming those traits are known properties of the killer. I’m using them exactly as Major Henry Smith used them: as the descriptive fingerprint of the man he regarded as a serious suspect in the Haymarket/Rupert St orbit. That makes the case testable. We can ask: among London men of the time, how many would coincidentally match all five? If the answer is effectively “none,” then anyone who does match them deserves close scrutiny.

2) “Possibilities” vs probability.

This isn’t maths sprinkled on vibes. It’s a standard conditional question: given a population base, and conservative frequencies for each trait, what is the chance that some other man matches the full set? Run the multiplication with hostile inputs if you like; the expected number of five-for-five matches stays ≪1. If you think my trait frequencies are off, name the numbers you’ll accept and I’ll rerun them. That’s how we keep this empirical.

3) “But those are Smith’s traits, not JtR’s.”

Correct—and that’s precisely my point. We don’t get the killer’s CV; we get what senior officers recorded about the suspect(s) they took seriously. If Smith’s five-point profile is garbage, then show why. If it isn’t garbage, then a man who uniquely fits it—while also bringing dissection training, instruments, macabre verse, and time/place proximity—can’t be dismissed as merely “interesting.”

4) “Smith came in late (Eddowes/C4).”

True, he was City, and his direct involvement peaks from the Mitre Square murder onward. That doesn’t nullify his suspect description; it contextualises it. We can weight it accordingly—but we shouldn’t pretend it carries no probative value because it wasn’t penned by Abberline.

5) Claim scope.

I don’t say “case closed.” I say the coincidence argument collapses: the joint occurrence of those independent traits is vanishingly unlikely in another random man. From there, we add independent strands (training, kit, writings, geography) and ask whether the posterior gets stronger or weaker.

I remain confused by your logic and mathematics.

1. Smith listed five traits that made him suspect one individual, but did not offer any evidence that these traits were specifically those which were shown to be possessed by JtR. Therefore you cannot argue that someone with these traits is probably JtR, only that he possessed certain traits which Smith found suspicious.

2. Because of 1, above, matching suspected traits is merely steering us towards the sort of person that Smith suspected, and no more than that.

3. Smith's five point profile has no relevance whatever to identifying JtR -

a) As I have said many times, ex-medical student being a trait, is just a possibility, as JtR could have been a fully qualified doctor or surgeon or slaughterer, for example. Indeed, killing coldly, efficiently and quickly, slitting the throat from behind to avoid getting blood on hands or clothes, would be routine for a slaughterer, but is not taught in medical school. So JtR being an ex-medical student is just one possibility out of several.

b) There is no evidence that JtR ever attended an asylum, so someone who attended an asylum at some time would just be a possible suspect, but no more so than someone who hadn't attended an asylum. It has therefore no grounds for suspicion and is of no mathematical value.

c) There is no evidence that JtR associated with prostitutes, other than to kill them. Therefore association with prostitutes is not a usable clue.

d) There is no evidence that JtR indulged in coin trickery, so therefore this is not a usable trait that steers us in any useful direction.

e) There is no evidence that JtR lived in Haymarket or thereabouts. So this is not a helpful concept.

4. I am not suggesting that Smith's views have no value just because he was not from the Met and was not involved in the earlier cases, although that has some relevance, I am saying that he talked about certain traits of a suspect, but did not establish any link between these traits and the Ripper.

5. When you are evaluating possibilities, you cannot make a watertight case no matter how many possibilities you collect. You can continue telling us about the remarkable similarity between Smith's observed traits and Thompson, but there is almost no evidence that the five traits are relevant to JtR - four have no evidence, and one is a mere possibility only, There is no valid argument that Thompson was JtR based on Smith's writing.

And as for Smiths's written record, I do not wish to denigrate his reliability totally, but we must recognise that he was not always accurate in his memoirs. I view his comments with caution. There is a handwritten note in the copy of his memoirs at Scotland Yard to the effect that "his veracity was not always to be trusted". This is the man who was never directly involved in the Ripper investigation until canonical murder number four, but announced in his memoirs that "There is no man living who knows as much of these murders as I do". A significant and surely inaccurate boast. He claimed to have been within five minutes of the Ripper, because of an alleged finding of blood in a street sink, but his own account of his movements never put him anywhere near the Ripper. Of course, we wonder how even a brilliant detective like Smith could have been sure that the blood was from JtR washing his hands and nobody else, and that he somehow knew that JtR was there just five minutes before. If there was a witness, he doesn't appear in the official records.

So, I have some reservations about Smith, and view him with caution, whilst not ignoring him, but his five stated traits cannot be claimed to lead us to JtR.

[Mike J. G.]

Mike, you’ve repeated the mantra of “burden of proof” without actually looking at what has been laid on the table. Let’s be exact:

1. Major Smith’s Rupert Street suspect is described with five unusual traits: ex-medical student, prior asylum committal, prostitute connections, coin trick, and Haymarket residence. Francis Thompson matches all five, exactly. That’s not “opinion” — that’s verifiable biography against published police testimony.
2. The probability spine: when you multiply the documented rarity of each trait, the odds of any other man in London coincidentally matching the full set is astronomically low (1 in tens of trillions to quadrillions, depending on conservative estimates). That isn’t “scientific fact” shouted in a pub — it’s mathematics anyone can re-run.
3. Archival additions: Thompson’s dissection training under Dreschfeld, his possession of surgical instruments, and his violent misogynistic verse add further weight. These are primary-sourced, not fantasies.

So when you say “nothing credible,” what you really mean is you’ve chosen not to engage with the credible. You are, of course, free to reject the interpretation. But dismissing documented records and probability analysis as “lunatic rambling” is not argument — it’s avoidance.

Richard, it seems to me that what you should have called this thread is "Francis Thompson Possibly Scientifically Proven to be Smith's Suspect", but even that would be a pretty monumental stretch of the imagination, considering you've done no such thing.

You're basically telling the world that you've scientifically proven that Francis Thompson was Jack the Ripper solely because you personally reckon he fits Smith's suspect despite the troublesome fact that other posters have demonstrated to you that this belief appears to be questionable.

What you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is:

A) Prove that Smith actually knew who the killer was, and that his suspect was indeed the actual killer.

B) Prove that Francis Thompson was the suspect in question and was in fact the killer of at least the canonical five.

But you've not done any such thing. You're not even remotely close to having done any of that.

No amount of desperate word and number salad can even begin to demonstrate that you've accomplished points A and B.

As has been pointed out, you won't even attempt to address these problems, because you're so blinded by your own opinions. To actually have the gall to go on the internet and tell the world that you've scientifically proven that Francis Thompson was the Ripper based on the waffle that you've presented as evidence on here is quite a stunt.

[Richard Patterson]

Thank you for your response, Richard, but your five traits are at best interesting possibilities but not probabilities, and they relate to Smith's suspect, and not to JtR. You keep telling us that Thompson matches some traits of a suspect, but there is no evidence of JtR possessing these specific traits. You are creating a person of interest by detailing certain traits, but that is all.

You have made a detailed case to suggest that Thompson is a very interesting character, but claiming to have proved the case based on some selected traits of a suspect named by an officer who wasn't directly involved in the investigation until canonical murder number four is stretching credibility to breaking point.

Applying maths to possibilities does not prove anything.

Doctored,

Thanks for engaging. A few clarifications on method and scope:

1) What the “five traits” are doing.

I’m not claiming those traits are known properties of the killer. I’m using them exactly as Major Henry Smith used them: as the descriptive fingerprint of the man he regarded as a serious suspect in the Haymarket/Rupert St orbit. That makes the case testable. We can ask: among London men of the time, how many would coincidentally match all five? If the answer is effectively “none,” then anyone who does match them deserves close scrutiny.

2) “Possibilities” vs probability.

This isn’t maths sprinkled on vibes. It’s a standard conditional question: given a population base, and conservative frequencies for each trait, what is the chance that some other man matches the full set? Run the multiplication with hostile inputs if you like; the expected number of five-for-five matches stays ≪1. If you think my trait frequencies are off, name the numbers you’ll accept and I’ll rerun them. That’s how we keep this empirical.

3) “But those are Smith’s traits, not JtR’s.”

Correct—and that’s precisely my point. We don’t get the killer’s CV; we get what senior officers recorded about the suspect(s) they took seriously. If Smith’s five-point profile is garbage, then show why. If it isn’t garbage, then a man who uniquely fits it—while also bringing dissection training, instruments, macabre verse, and time/place proximity—can’t be dismissed as merely “interesting.”

4) “Smith came in late (Eddowes/C4).”

True, he was City, and his direct involvement peaks from the Mitre Square murder onward. That doesn’t nullify his suspect description; it contextualises it. We can weight it accordingly—but we shouldn’t pretend it carries no probative value because it wasn’t penned by Abberline.

5) Claim scope.

I don’t say “case closed.” I say the coincidence argument collapses: the joint occurrence of those independent traits is vanishingly unlikely in another random man. From there, we add independent strands (training, kit, writings, geography) and ask whether the posterior gets stronger or weaker.

[The Rookie Detective]

Applying maths to possibilities does not prove anything.

And of course;

72% of all statistics, are completely made up.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Doctored,

You’ve put your finger on the distinction: Smith’s five traits don’t prove the Ripper’s identity in isolation, but they do define the profile that Smith himself was working with. That profile is what makes the Thompson case testable. Let me break it down:

1. Ex-medical student — We don’t have to prove that the Ripper must have been an ex-student rather than a surgeon. What matters is that Smith’s description narrowed his suspect to that status. Thompson happens to fit it, and his anatomy training was unusually extensive. That’s a documented convergence.
2. Asylum committal — Again, it isn’t about showing every killer was locked up; it’s about matching the police’s own list. Thompson was confined at the Priory with diagnoses consistent with breakdown. Whether we call it “hospital” or “asylum,” the fact is he was institutionalised, which matches the trait as it was expressed.
3. Prostitute connections — Smith says the man consorted with prostitutes. Thompson, in his homeless period, lived among and relied upon that community. His relationship with one woman in particular ended traumatically and lines up with his subsequent collapse.
4. Coin trickery — You’re right that the polished farthings story comes via the press. But Smith was explicitly drawing on known confidence games in that district. Thompson was associated with precisely that anecdote. Even if you bracket it, the other four stand solid.
5. Haymarket residence — Thompson’s Panton Street lodging sits right in the Haymarket/Rupert Street area Smith identified. That’s not a generic London address — it’s the exact nexus mentioned.

So, you’re correct: ticking all five boxes doesn’t equal “case closed.” But probability comes in here. The more independent, unusual traits a person shares with a suspect description, the less likely coincidence becomes. That’s why the maths are run — not to pretend we have courtroom “proof,” but to demonstrate just how vanishingly unlikely it is that any other man in London matched Smith’s notes.

The right way to frame it is this: Smith left us a fingerprint in words, not blood. Thompson happens to fit that fingerprint in all its ridges. That’s why he can’t be waved off as just another oddball poet.

Thank you for your response, Richard, but your five traits are at best interesting possibilities but not probabilities, and they relate to Smith's suspect, and not to JtR. You keep telling us that Thompson matches some traits of a suspect, but there is no evidence of JtR possessing these specific traits. You are creating a person of interest by detailing certain traits, but that is all.

You have made a detailed case to suggest that Thompson is a very interesting character, but claiming to have proved the case based on some selected traits of a suspect named by an officer who wasn't directly involved in the investigation until canonical murder number four is stretching credibility to breaking point.

Applying maths to possibilities does not prove anything.

[Richard Patterson]

Hi Richard,

You keep telling us that Major Smith described five traits possessed by his suspect, and that you have somehow used these five traits to prove scientifically that Thompson was the Ripper. But Smith was merely telling us things about his suspect which made him suspicious. Identifying his suspect or someone who was very like him, doesn't necessarily lead us to the Ripper, unless it can be demonstrated that the five traits are positively those of The Ripper himself.

Would you please demonstrate,

How it has been proved that JtR was an ex-medical student, and not a qualified doctor, surgeon or slaughterer, for example.
How it has been proved that JtR was committed to an asylum.
How it has been proved that JtR had prostitute connections - other than that he killed them, of course.
How JtR was proved to be involved in coin trickery. The coin story relating to Chapman is a newspaper story, and is not part of the evidence of Chandler or Phillips.
How it has been proved that JtR had a Haymarket residence.

Attempting to prove that Thompson fitted Smith's five criteria only demonstates a reason for Smith to suspect him, and no more than that.

Doctored,

You’ve put your finger on the distinction: Smith’s five traits don’t prove the Ripper’s identity in isolation, but they do define the profile that Smith himself was working with. That profile is what makes the Thompson case testable. Let me break it down:

1. Ex-medical student — We don’t have to prove that the Ripper must have been an ex-student rather than a surgeon. What matters is that Smith’s description narrowed his suspect to that status. Thompson happens to fit it, and his anatomy training was unusually extensive. That’s a documented convergence.
2. Asylum committal — Again, it isn’t about showing every killer was locked up; it’s about matching the police’s own list. Thompson was confined at the Priory with diagnoses consistent with breakdown. Whether we call it “hospital” or “asylum,” the fact is he was institutionalised, which matches the trait as it was expressed.
3. Prostitute connections — Smith says the man consorted with prostitutes. Thompson, in his homeless period, lived among and relied upon that community. His relationship with one woman in particular ended traumatically and lines up with his subsequent collapse.
4. Coin trickery — You’re right that the polished farthings story comes via the press. But Smith was explicitly drawing on known confidence games in that district. Thompson was associated with precisely that anecdote. Even if you bracket it, the other four stand solid.
5. Haymarket residence — Thompson’s Panton Street lodging sits right in the Haymarket/Rupert Street area Smith identified. That’s not a generic London address — it’s the exact nexus mentioned.

So, you’re correct: ticking all five boxes doesn’t equal “case closed.” But probability comes in here. The more independent, unusual traits a person shares with a suspect description, the less likely coincidence becomes. That’s why the maths are run — not to pretend we have courtroom “proof,” but to demonstrate just how vanishingly unlikely it is that any other man in London matched Smith’s notes.

The right way to frame it is this: Smith left us a fingerprint in words, not blood. Thompson happens to fit that fingerprint in all its ridges. That’s why he can’t be waved off as just another oddball poet.

[Lewis C]

I’m just sick to death of Richard’s ducking and diving. All that he’s doing is repeating things that are factually untrue. It’s nothing to do with interpretation. Has no one noticed that he won’t answer questions? That he won’t provide evidence when asked? It’s like debating a brick wall with a parrot on top repeating the same old untruths. And that’s what they are…untruths.

Richard claimed that “ Thompson lived 100 yards from the murder scenes.” That’s quite a claim. No ‘if’s’ ‘but’s’ or ‘maybe’s’ he claims this as a fact. Ok….

I will publicly beg Richard’s forgiveness if he proves this. A claim like that requires proof.

Over to you Richard. And if you start waffling on about dress codes at the Refuge I’ll just laugh btw.

Hi Herlock,

He won't be able to prove that, because there is no location that's within 100 yards of both the Nichols murder and the Eddowes murder.

When he said that the odds were hundreds of trillions to one against a particular person meeting all 5 of Smith's criteria, while saying that picking up 2 coins is enough to meet one of the criteria, I wonder what he was figuring the odds were against a particular person picking up 2 coins in the street.

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis,

You are quite correct on the alibis. Isenshmid's alibi was that he was incarcerated after the Chapman murder, so could not have been the ripper. This is based on the assumption of certainty that one person killed the C5. Isenschmid makes a very good suspect for Nichols and Chapman.

Cheers, George

Hi Geroge,

The only assumption that really needs to be made here is that the man who killed Nichols and Chapman also killed Eddowes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Cue Richard to repeat his usual list without providing detailed responses or evidence when asked.

Goodnight all.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So…a quick summing up of Thompson.

Violence - 100% no.
Motive to kill - 100% no.
Suspected by anyone - 100% no.
Placed in Whitechapel at the right time - 100% no.
Insanity/Asylum - 100% no.
Match to Smith’s suspect - 100% no…not even close.

Jack the Ripper…..don’t make me laugh.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. and moving in the Haymarket–Rupert Street orbit named by Major Henry Smith

This is more slipperiness. Smith wasn’t talking about an ‘orbit.’ He was giving a very specific address. You do realise that the rest of us can read don’t you Richard?

Smith: “I thought he was likely to be in Rupert Street, Haymarket.”

Rupert Street comma Haymarket. He’s clearly saying that the man was likely to be found in Rupert Street which is in the Haymarket area of London.

He would have had ZERO reason to send two men to stand in Rupert Street on the billion to one chance of Thompson walking down there. But, he would certainly have expected them to fairly soon see a man who actually lived in that street.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. So I put the question back: if another suspect had left writings vividly fantasising about mutilating prostitutes and had the surgical skill to enact it, would we brush it aside as harmless genius? Or would we call it what it looks like — a blueprint?

We would look in the dictionary and find the definition for the word fiction. I’ll do it for you:

“the type of book or story that is written about imaginary characters and events and not based on real people and facts“

“something invented by the imagination or feigned.”

“refers to books and stories about imaginary people and events, rather than books about real people or events.”

“literature created from the imagination, not presented as fact.”


Hope I’ve cleared up that mystery for you Richard.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. The “frail poet” image is deceptive. Thompson was a trained runner in youth, accustomed to carrying surgical kits, and, in his opium years, hardened by rough sleeping. Whitechapel victims were often frail, intoxicated, or taken by surprise in narrow alleys. Overwhelming brute strength was less required than speed, anatomical precision, and a sharp blade — which he had.

So all the people that knew him and described him as such were just making it up. He’d even failed to get into the army because of his health. In early October of 1888 a doctor described this Adonis as at the point of total physical collapse. That was just before he was admitted to a hospital (which can’t be confused with a lunatic asylum of course)