The Jack the Ripper Mystery is Finally Solved — Scientifically

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You called?

Ok, there’s one Hope

[Geddy2112]

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

You called?