The Jack the Ripper Mystery is Finally Solved — Scientifically

[Richard Patterson]

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.

Paddy, your courtesy is appreciated. Let’s meet your core point directly: “Thompson was never violent in any way.”

1. His own writings contradict that view. Thompson’s unpublished verses (the Nightmare of the Witch Babies among them) describe the killing and dissection of women in grotesque detail, complete with foetuses torn from wombs. That isn’t a man without a violent imagination — it’s a man rehearsing in verse the very crimes committed in Whitechapel.
2. His instruments and training. He was not simply an opium dreamer. He had years of anatomical dissection at Owens College, under Virchow’s protégé Dreschfeld. He retained scalpels and surgical kits while living rough. These are not the props of a harmless “tortured genius.”
3. Context of confinement. I agree with you that the hospital/priory = asylum distinction is a red herring. What matters is why he was confined: he was collapsing, addicted, and dangerous to himself. That does not prove homicidal violence, but it shows instability consistent with someone capable of it. When paired with his verses and his proximity to the East End murders, the pattern is far darker than the benign portrait suggests.

I respect your view that he seemed “innocent” in temperament. But when poetry, training, instruments, breakdown, and geography all converge, we are compelled to test the evidence rather than the image.

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?

[Richard Patterson]

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.

Rookie, you’ve touched both edges of the truth here, and it’s worth sharpening them.

1. No “known” violence. You’re right — the records don’t list bar fights or assaults. Thompson’s violence survives in another form: on the page. His verse is not just gloomy; it depicts women cut open, wombs torn, foetuses dangled. That isn’t neutral symbolism — it’s imaginative rehearsal. In a man with medical dissection training, the gap between fantasy and act narrows dangerously.
2. Strength and attributes. 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.
3. Connection to Whitechapel. He was not just a “reclusive oddball.” He was living on the streets of London at the time, carrying his scalpels, consorting with prostitutes, and moving in the Haymarket–Rupert Street orbit named by Major Henry Smith. That is a form of connection, even if not an address pinned in Whitechapel.
4. The odd mix you note. Yes: addict, recluse, fervent in prayer, macabre in verse. That combination — ascetic piety fused with grotesque sexual violence — is precisely what makes him viable. The very contradictions you listed are the educational key: Thompson was not a simple harmless addict, but a man whose inner world was split between saint and butcher.

[Doctored Whatsit]

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.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No one has ever, ever, anywhere, at any time, called a hospital a lunatic asylum. I’ve asked for evidence of this and surprise, surprise, none has been forthcoming. And none has been forthcoming because Richard has made it up.

And for the record….Thompson was put in a private hospital in mid-October 1888. Major Smith told Charles Warren about his man who had been in a lunatic asylum at the time of Chapman’s murder. So September 8th/9th. So by that time Thompson hadn’t even been in a hospital. Richard can waffle all he likes about any breakdown that Thompson might have had earlier in his life but again…he’s just making things up. Thompson had drug issues but he was never in a hospital. Richard can’t just wish-think a hospital stay into place, then wish-think a hospital into being called a lunatic asylum, and then wish-think Major Smith having a complete rundown of Thompson’s life

He was never in a lunatic asylum. He was only in a hospital in mid-October.

How much clearer can this be?

oh and PS….Oswald Puckridge had been in a lunatic asylum. And he lived in Rupert Street. And he was absolutely certainly Smith’s suspect. Thompson was no one’s suspect because he never did anything wrong in his entire life.

[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)

[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]

. 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…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]

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

Goodnight all.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[The Rookie Detective]

Applying maths to possibilities does not prove anything.

And of course;

72% of all statistics, are completely made up.