The Jack the Ripper Mystery is Finally Solved — Scientifically

[FISHY1118]

You'll never get it, Fishy. Just go easy on the Kool-Aid, it's clearly sent Richard round the bend.

Get what exactly ? That somehow you and others are to be proclaimed as correct in the way you interpret any and all evidence relating to thompson as a viable JtR suspect ? That somehow the rest of us are all wrong because we,ve had to much Kool Aid !!!!!! gimmie a break pleaseeeeeee.

[FISHY1118]

Fortunately you don’t get to choose when a subject ends or not. You have the option of not commenting or paying attention.

Fishy, if you spent less time disputing everything that I say purely because it’s me that’s saying it and more time reading the actual evidence you would be in a much better position to assess that evidence. Simply siding with Richard without examining the evidence itself seems a poor approach. Try reading John Walsh’s biography of Thompson for example, as I have done (Richard too) and that would allow you a more informed and less one-sided opinion.

What I’m contradicting is things that aren’t true. Not opinions but evidence.

1. Nowhere is there one single piece of evidence that Thompson ever stayed in Whitechapel (or even the east end as a whole) Ask Richard to provide any and he won’t be able to. So yes, I am stating a fact.

2. That there is not a single piece of evidence in any of the records that Thompson was ever violent. So yes, I am stating a fact.

3. That Thompson never bore any ill will to his prostitute friend is proven by the written evidence from Thompson himself. So yes I am stating a fact.

4. That Thompson wasn’t an arsonist is shown by the ridiculous examples that Richard cites. A childhood accident in a church involving some smouldering charcoal being spilt. And as an adult he once accidentally knocked over a lamp and he once absent-minded lay left a pipe in his coat pocket which hadn’t properly gone out. If you think that’s ebidence of a proven arsonist you will join Richard as the only two people in the world. So yes I am stating a fact.

5. That Thompson was never in an asylum in his entire life is proven by the evidence. This is why Richard ludicrously claims that hospitals were sometimes called Lunatic Asylums and, as you appear to agree, it leaves you and Richard as the only two people who would believe this. So yes I am stating a fact.

6. That you appear to agree with Richard that ‘bilking prostitutes with polished farthings’ is the same thing as ‘finding two sovereigns in the street’ is testimony to the fact that you are simply agreeing with him because I am on the other side of the argument. So yes I am stating a fact.

7. That Thompson never lived near to Rupert Street is simply a fact. That Puckridge did live in Rupert Street is a fact. To deny this is to deny a cast-iron fact. So yes I am stating a fact.


You’ve taken no meaningful part in this subject Fishy and yet you are adamant that I’m wrong. Why don’t provide some cogent points, after assessing the evidence, to show that you’re not simply disagreeing because it’s me? On second thoughts there’s no need. I know that you’ll only say that you’ve already done it or some such thing.

You seem to be just Parroting the same stuff over and over again Herlock , your merely disagreeing with the evidence that Richard has posted . Youll have to show other alternatives that ''Prove'' his evidence wrong if your arguement is to be taken seriously by others . If your only interest is to be disagreeable then i suggest you stop wasting any more time on the subject .

[GBinOz]

On the subject of Francis Thompson allegedly almost excessive desire for dissection. It’s stated that he regularly asked his father for additional money for corpses. I suggested that it was more likely that he was after money for drugs but, just to show that this isn’t just my own opinion, this is an excerpt from a letter written by Francis’s sister Mary. The letter was written to show that her father had always treated Francis with kindness and generosity:

”You asked if he had all he required at home, and I replied in the affirmative. But I did not say how often he asked for and was given money for use in connection with his studies, and which he never used for that purpose. Many a time he asked my father for £3 or £4 for dissecting fees; so often that my father remarked what a number of corpses he was cutting up, astonished somewhat, yet never doubting and always giving what Frank asked for. Then again, when going to London for examination, he was believed and trusted by us regarding the amount and mode of paying the fees required. Frank said he had to take it with him, £5 or £7 - I forget exactly the amount. Of course, he must have used the money - I know it cost my father about £10 each time he went for his supposed examination. I feel sure he must have spent an amount on opium in those days even, though he probably expended some of the money on other things, such as cricket bats, balls, and wickets, music books, etc., which he brought home with the most wonderful tales of their having been given to him. Whatever he told us we believed. And I think that all these things he was never reproached with, unless in a general way when it was first found out.”

As I said, this was written by a sister who loved her brother and who certainly had no axe to grind.

Hi Herlock,

I wonder if you have siblings. If you do and there is no "axe-grinding" taking place, you are fortunate indeed.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

I wasn't counting Pizer, Sadler, and Isenschmid as suspects because I thought they were cleared shortly after the crimes were admitted, but I do accept that all 3 had alibis.

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

You seem to be just Parroting the same stuff over and over again Herlock , you’re merely disagreeing with the evidence that Richard has posted . Youll have to show other alternatives that ''Prove'' his evidence wrong if your arguement is to be taken seriously by others . If your only interest is to be disagreeable then i suggest you stop wasting any more time on the subject .

Are you ever going to be serious Fishy? Are you ever going to assess evidence rather than just picking a side.

Read the posts. Richard hadn’t countered any of the points. He hadn’t produced any evidence. I’ve shown, using evidence, that he is trying to manufacture a case.

If you are convinced by Richard’s ‘match’ between Thompson and Smith's suspect then you are the only human being in the world that will agree. Read and absorb the evidence Fishy. If you can’t spot his attempt to manufacture a match then there’s no hope. It’s black and white.

[Geddy2112]

If you can’t spot his attempt to manufacture a match then there’s no hope.

You called?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You called?

Ok, there’s one Hope

[Richard Patterson]

You seem to be just Parroting the same stuff over and over again Herlock , you’remerely disagreeing with the evidence that Richard has posted . Youll have to show other alternatives that ''Prove'' his evidence wrong if your arguement is to be taken seriously by others . If your only interest is to be disagreeable then i suggest you stop wasting any more time on the subject .

Fishy, I appreciate you standing your ground. Let me unpack why Herlock’s so-called “facts” don’t hold.

1. Whitechapel — Multiple biographers (Meynell, Walsh) place me lodging in East End doss houses, specifically near Whitechapel. Just because there isn’t a police tenancy form doesn’t erase those testimonies. To say “no evidence” when it exists in biographies is dishonest.
2. Violence — Thompson’s own writings describe mutilation, hunting, blood, and obsession with knives. That’s not a peaceful soul — it’s an author who fantasized violence in detail. To dismiss this is to cherry-pick only the “gentle poet” image.
3. Prostitute companion — Both Meynell and Walsh reference her. The suggestion that he “never bore ill will” ignores the darker undertones in his work written during and after that relationship. It’s selective reading to call it kindness only.
4. Arson — Even small incidents matter when a pattern appears. An adult leaving a smouldering pipe in his pocket or knocking over a lamp fits a broader carelessness with fire. Dismissing it outright shows bias, not balance.
5. Asylum claim — Hospitals and asylums often blurred in Victorian terminology. It’s not “ludicrous” to note that; it’s historically accurate. To declare “never in an asylum” as a fact ignores period usage of the term.
6. Polished farthings — There is a clear difference between street scams with false coins and finding sovereigns. Equating them is a misrepresentation of what I’ve actually argued.
7. Rupert Street — Biographers connect Thompson to Haymarket and its streets, including Rupert. Puckridge living there doesn’t negate Thompson’s own presence nearby. Saying “never lived there” is another overstatement.

So, Fishy, you’re right: repetition of blanket denials isn’t research. Evidence has been laid out, with sources. If others want to disagree, they need to show equally strong sources that refute it — not just call things “facts” by fiat.

[Richard Patterson]

From the same source you say ? , 100% facts ?. Whos to be the judge to say that you have interpreted the ''Facts'' correctly and Richards has not ? . Your seem to be only contradictiong his opinion of those facts from the same source. His just as likely to be correct as you, is he not ?.

I think weve come to the end of this topic . The evidence has been discussed enough for me .

Fishy, you’ve nailed it – what Herlock keeps calling “facts” are just his interpretations dressed up as absolutes. Let’s look at them:

• Coins – Victorian London was full of scams, farthings, and petty tricks. Multiple sources reference Thompson in contexts where these stories appear. To say it’s a “lie” just because it doesn’t appear in one sanitized biography is not honest scholarship.
• Asylum/Hospitals – In the 19th century, the terms hospital and asylum were often interchangeable, especially when dealing with paupers, addicts, or those with breakdowns. To dismiss this linguistic and historical reality as a “lie” is a distortion of the record.
• Rupert Street – The point isn’t whether Thompson owned property there; it’s about proximity and association. His known haunts, combined with Smith’s remarks, put him in that orbit. Pretending otherwise by demanding a street address is a strawman tactic.

The irony is Herlock keeps insisting on “truth vs. lies” while skipping over nuance and cherry-picking. As you say, Richard has every right to interpret those same sources differently – and with at least as much legitimacy. That’s what history is: weighing competing interpretations of imperfect records.

Herlock’s approach isn’t “facts,” it’s gatekeeping. You’re right to call it out, Fishy.

[Mike J. G.]

Get what exactly ? That somehow you and others are to be proclaimed as correct in the way you interpret any and all evidence relating to thompson as a viable JtR suspect ? That somehow the rest of us are all wrong because we,ve had to much Kool Aid !!!!!! gimmie a break pleaseeeeeee.

Jesus Christ, Fishy, lad. I'm gonna have to start calling you Tim, as in "nice but dim."

What I'm talking about when I say that you'll never get it, is the fact that you've had it explained to you umpteen times how the burden of proof rests on Richard and nobody else.

He's offered no credible evidence of anything pertaining to Francis Thompson being a killer, never mind the killer, despite repeatedly claiming, like a drunken lunatic, that's it's a scientific fact.

You, also in the style of an inebriated maniac, keep insisting that everyone needs to "prove him wrong."

There's really nothing to prove, other than for Ricky to actually pull his finger out of his arse and start learning how to scientifically prove his own opinions, erm, "theories" correct.

Until then, Francis Thompson, through no fault of his own, has become a Lechmere level farce.

[Paddy Goose]

... paupers, addicts, or those with breakdowns. ...

Francis Thompson was an addict, which led to his pauperism and breakdown. But there is no indication in his life he was ever violent in any way, shape or form. Not even remotely. He seemed to me to be somewhat of a tortured genius, a very talented and inspired young man who tragically lost his way due to his addiction and had to be confined and rehabbed back into the normal flow of society.

i agree with you that being confined in a hospital or priory at this period in English history would and could have the same connotation as being confined in an asylum. I don't have a problem with your reasoning there, and in fact you show a very good knowledge of the historical context. I fully agree with you that Herlock, in arguing FT was not scrictly confined to an"asylum" by name does not qualify him.

But "qualify" him for what? For being a serial murderer?

Looking at the bigger picture, the reason for his confinement was 100% due to his addiction. He was not a raving homicidal maniac who had to be'"safely caged" to prevent him continuing to murder.

Quite the opposite, he was not violent, not homicidal. This one aspect of the characterizations of Ripper Suspects we use , the "safely caged" factor does not apply to Francis Thompson. Just because he was confined does not mean he even comitted so much as one crime, much less a violent crime, much less murder, certainly not multiple murders. That is my argument. From everything I have read about Francis Thompson he didn't have a violent bone in his body. His addiction and living rough placed him n the milieu of the murder skein, then he was confined. That's it. He is an innocent man.

And i respect how much time and thought you have put into your suspect theory, Richard. Not a dig against you in any way. But we totally disagree.

[The Rookie Detective]

No known history of violence, lacked the strength and attributes to physically overwhelm his victims, and had no confirmed connection to Whitechapel.

However, he did shuffle around like a reclusive oddball, was a drug addict, was overtly vocal in his religious prayers, and often wrote macabre poems that indicated a suppressed fantasy for violence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fishy, I appreciate you standing your ground. Let me unpack why Herlock’s so-called “facts” don’t hold.

Fishy would disagree with me if I said that cows don’t lay eggs Richard so I wouldn’t jump up and down over finding a ‘supporter.’

1. Whitechapel — Multiple biographers (Meynell, Walsh) place me lodging in East End doss houses, specifically near Whitechapel. Just because there isn’t a police tenancy form doesn’t erase those testimonies. To say “no evidence” when it exists in biographies is dishonest.

All that Walsh said was this: “When neither food nor bed was available, he would, along with the other derelicts, often gravitate to one of the recently established Salvation Army Shelters, or the Catholic Refuge in Providence Row. It was of the latter place that Thompson supplied, evidently from his own experience, and harrowing picture…”


He then goes on to quote the Merry England article where Thompson merely talks about seeing the men queueing outside the Refuge.

From this Richard it really shouldn’t be difficult for anyone to see what has happened here. Look at the line “evidently from his own experience…” why would he say that if he actually knew that he’d stayed there? Walsh is simply making an assumption based on Thompson’s article. Apart from this one assumption, neither Walsh nor Meynell ever mentions Thompson staying in Whitechapel (or even the East End) And even with Walsh making an unfounded assumption even you must surely note that he never mentions when this might have been. Even when Thompson mentions it once (seeing it but not staying in it) we don’t even know what year it was. The article came out in 1891 so all that we can say…based on the evidence…is that Francis Thompson saw the Providence Row Refuge either in 1886, 1887, 1888, 1889, 1890 or 1891.

And yet from that complete absence of evidence you openly state as a ‘fact’ that he was living within 100 yards of the murders at the time of the murders. It’s indefensible.


2. Violence — Thompson’s own writings describe mutilation, hunting, blood, and obsession with knives. That’s not a peaceful soul — it’s an author who fantasized violence in detail. To dismiss this is to cherry-pick only the “gentle poet” image.

Honestly Richard, you just keep regurgitating this utter guff. Thousands of authors write about far more violent things that Thompson did…does that make them all potentially serial killers? You’re just not being honest because you don’t want to confront the reality of the situation and the reality is that Thompson wasn’t violent. Writing about these kind of things don’t equate to doing them by any stretch of anyone’s overactive imagination. There isn’t a single example of Francis Thompson ever being violent. There’s not a single example of anyone claiming, suggesting or hinting that he was ever violent. The people that knew him well never spoke of him in anything like those terms. What you are doing is obvious to all (with possibly one exception) Realising that he wasn’t violent you resort to his imaginative fiction…largely written under the influence of opium or laudanum.

3.Prostitute companion — Both Meynell and Walsh reference her. The suggestion that he “never bore ill will” ignores the darker undertones in his work written during and after that relationship. It’s selective reading to call it kindness only.

Again, you dishonestly resort to his works of imaginative fiction. The only examples that we have of him writing about her are written with obvious love and kindness. Meynell, who knew him at the time, mentions no anger or resentment or desire for revenge. Any use of his fictional work doesn’t count as evidence. It’s called FICTION for a reason Richard…it means that it’s not true.

4. Arson — Even small incidents matter when a pattern appears. An adult leaving a smouldering pipe in his pocket or knocking over a lamp fits a broader carelessness with fire. Dismissing it outright shows bias, not balance.

Be serious Richard. Arson is deliberate fire starting. A smouldering coat. A lamp knocked over (probably under the influence of drugs) but no one ever accused him or charged him with arson..because it wasn’t. I’m sorry Richard but you constantly show that your ‘interpretations’ can’t be trusted. You are utterly biased due to having a book on the subject.

5. Asylum claim — Hospitals and asylums often blurred in Victorian terminology. It’s not “ludicrous” to note that; it’s historically accurate. To declare “never in an asylum” as a fact ignores period usage of the term.

And I’m still waiting for you to produce and example of a regular hospital being known as a ‘lunatic asylum.’ You can’t just make barking mad statements and expect them to stand as facts. That Francis Thompson was never in a lunatic asylum is a fact. A normal hospital would never be called a lunatic asylum.

6. Polished farthings — There is a clear difference between street scams with false coins and finding sovereigns. Equating them is a misrepresentation of what I’ve actually argued.

So you’re now wriggling. Ah…thought you might. You called both examples a ‘coin trick.’ You used that phrase numerous times in your attempts to make a match out of two completely dissimilar occurrences. Smith’s man conned prostitutes with polished farthings. Thompson once found two sovereigns in the street. To try and call these a match is absolute lunacy.

7. Rupert Street — Biographers connect Thompson to Haymarket and its streets, including Rupert. Puckridge living there doesn’t negate Thompson’s own presence nearby. Saying “never lived there” is another overstatement.

I really don’t know how you have the nerve Richard. Firstly, let’s clear this up for anyone that might get taken in. N Thompson’s biographers don’t mention Rupert Street once. You’re attempt to round it up into an ‘area’ doesn’t work when we look at the evidence (something that you should try for a change) Smith didn’t send his men to an area which happened to include Rupert Street. He sent them very specifically to Rupert Street because his suspect was obviously connected specifically to Rupert Street. Thompson had no connection whatsoever to Rupert Street. Puckridge lived IN Rupert Street.

So by your hopelessly biased thinking it’s more of a match to go with a man who at various points in his life would have walked around the west end (although we have no evidence that he ever went down Rupert Street) over a man WHO ACTUALLY LIVED IN THAT STREET and guess what, only a month earlier that man had actually been released from a LUNATIC ASYLUM


So, Fishy, you’re right: repetition of blanket denials isn’t research. Evidence has been laid out, with sources. If others want to disagree, they need to show equally strong sources that refute it — not just call things “facts” by fiat.

Refuting your theory is the easiest thing in the world because it’s largely invention. All that I have to do is look at the evidence.

And I have to ask Richard…..why do you never respond to direct questions and requests? (I can perhaps see why you and Fishy agree with each other)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fishy, you’ve nailed it – what Herlock keeps calling “facts” are just his interpretations dressed up as absolutes. Let’s look at them:

• Coins – Victorian London was full of scams, farthings, and petty tricks. Multiple sources reference Thompson in contexts where these stories appear. To say it’s a “lie” just because it doesn’t appear in one sanitized biography is not honest scholarship.
  
  Finding two sovereigns isn’t a ‘scam’ or a ‘trick.’
  
  Asylum/Hospitals – In the 19th century, the terms hospital and asylum were often interchangeable, especially when dealing with paupers, addicts, or those with breakdowns. To dismiss this linguistic and historical reality as a “lie” is a distortion of the record.

Provide an example. I’ve only asked you around 6 times after all.

• Rupert Street – The point isn’t whether Thompson owned property there; it’s about proximity and association. His known haunts, combined with Smith’s remarks, put him in that orbit. Pretending otherwise by demanding a street address is a strawman tactic.

No, it’s about Major Smith specifically mentioning it and not that area surrounding it.


The irony is Herlock keeps insisting on “truth vs. lies” while skipping over nuance and cherry-picking. As you say, Richard has every right to interpret those same sources differently – and with at least as much legitimacy. That’s what history is: weighing competing interpretations of imperfect records.

Herlock’s approach isn’t “facts,” it’s gatekeeping. You’re right to call it out, Fishy.

Try answering some questions after reading the evidence.

Except for one person every one on here has seen through you Richard. We may all disagree on much…usually matters of interpretation. But that vast majority on here don’t accept the evidence being manipulated, lies being told and interpretations being tried that wouldn’t fool a four year old.

The game is up.

[Richard Patterson]

Jesus Christ, Fishy, lad. I'm gonna have to start calling you Tim, as in "nice but dim."

What I'm talking about when I say that you'll never get it, is the fact that you've had it explained to you umpteen times how the burden of proof rests on Richard and nobody else.

He's offered no credible evidence of anything pertaining to Francis Thompson being a killer, never mind the killer, despite repeatedly claiming, like a drunken lunatic, that's it's a scientific fact.

You, also in the style of an inebriated maniac, keep insisting that everyone needs to "prove him wrong."

There's really nothing to prove, other than for Ricky to actually pull his finger out of his arse and start learning how to scientifically prove his own opinions, erm, "theories" correct.

Until then, Francis Thompson, through no fault of his own, has become a Lechmere level farce.

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.