The Jack the Ripper Mystery is Finally Solved — Scientifically

[Richard Patterson]

I've never said, nor believed, that your case rests on poetry, Richard. I did, however, quote a large piece of text from you in which you interpreted Thompson's poetry and used it as part of your evidence to suggest that he was the killer. It just isn't evidence, Richard. It's poetry which you have interpreted to suit your argument.

Thompson cannot be proven to have been in the area, or to have committed acts of violence against anyone, nor can it be proven that he committed murder, much less the Whitechapel murders. It can't even be proven that the Ripper had to have been a trained medical man.

It's not the fact that you're promoting Thompson as a suspect, it's the fact that you're acting as though it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Thompson was the man and won't accept any scepticism towards that bold declaration. That's what I'm opposed to.

There's a gulf of difference between established fact and personal speculation, Richard. You've made a good case for your chosen suspect, but you have most definitely not proven that he was the Ripper.

If you genuinely believe that it's been proven scientifically based on the theories you've put forward, then I don't know what to tell you, mate. Science doesn't work like that, not in a million years, Richard. It's as disingenuous as claiming that a shawl scientifically proves that Kosminski was the killer.

I admire your determination, but in the absence of actual, credible evidence that Thompson was the Whitechapel murderer, pushing your theory as "scientifically proven" is just kinda ridiculous and very disingenuous.

No amount of numbers will change any of this. As it stands, Chapman is a far more convincing suspect, IMO, but I won't pretend to be able to prove that scientifically, and nor do I even believe it.

Anyway, it's your life, mate, don't mind me.

Cheers,

Mike

Mike,

You’ve repeated the line that I “can’t prove Thompson was in the area,” but that’s simply not accurate. John Walsh — Thompson’s biographer and no crank — stated that Thompson evidently sought refuge at Providence Row in Crispin Street. Other biographers before my work in 1997 noted him staying at the Limehouse Salvation Army night shelter. In other words, there are independent, published testimonies that place Thompson in Whitechapel’s orbit at the critical time. That’s not fantasy, that’s record.

Now, in the absence of CCTV footage from 1888, of course none of us can produce a “smoking gun” photograph of Thompson stepping out of Miller’s Court. But scholarship doesn’t work that way. When multiple independent sources point in the same direction, the onus shifts. If you want to reject Walsh, Boardman, or the other testimonies, the burden of proof is on you to show that Thompson wasn’t there. Simply waving it away as “not proven” is not a counter-argument; it’s an evasion.

As for probability, it isn’t “numbers won’t change anything.” Numbers are precisely what change everything. Major Henry Smith documented a suspect with five very rare, specific traits: ex-medical student, asylum patient, connection to prostitutes, coin fraud, and Rupert Street/Haymarket. Thompson matches all five. No one else has been shown to. The chance of a random man in 1888 London matching all five is astronomical — one in tens of quadrillions. That isn’t disingenuous, that’s mathematics. Unless you can point to another candidate who independently converges on those five traits, dismissing the math is like covering your ears because the answer isn’t comfortable.

You say science doesn’t work that way. In fact, this is how science works: you identify a rare set of conditions, you test who matches them, and you measure the probability of coincidence. You may not like the result, but that doesn’t make it unscientific.

Finally, on the poetry: yes, I interpret it, but it’s not my foundation. The core case is documentary (Smith’s traits, Walsh’s biography, Thompson’s institutional records, geography) and statistical (the probability argument). The poetry adds psychological weight — and Thompson himself called it his “poetic diary,” which makes it relevant — but the case doesn’t collapse without it.

So no, Mike, this isn’t “speculation dressed as proof.” It’s convergent evidence plus statistical reasoning that places Thompson head and shoulders above any rival suspect. That doesn’t mean scepticism is outlawed. But “skepticism” has to be more than a shrug; it requires counter-evidence. Right now, you’ve offered none.

Best,

Richard

[The Rookie Detective]

Also, Thompson once considered joining the army, but was rejected for being "too slight". I thought of this when someone further up the thread asked about the Ripper's supposed strength and whether Thompson was "powerful". I'd say no.

That's a very important point.


Thompson essentially failed the physical exam that meant he wasn't accepted into the army.

He didn't have the minimal requirements needed to join.

At face value it would seem that he simply didn't have the physical prowess and strength required to have been able to dominate and throttle several women.

But it is possible that there was a "Jekyll and Hyde" effect with Thompson.
It is very possible that a man who initially presents as a quite, placed and physically inferior specimen, can suddenly change into something quite different.
In a fit of rage and savagery, even a man of slight frame, could be capable of great strength and possess the ability to have enhanced strength and power.

This may have been the reason why nobody would ever consider a man like Thompson, because based on his default physical appearance, he would seem incapable of obliterating women through initial strangulation.

[Pcdunn]

Sounds to me like the "frail and slight figure" of Thompson should be downgraded to (A) Age/physical health > 1 = issues creating doubt.

Also, Thompson once considered joining the army, but was rejected for being "too slight". I thought of this when someone further up the thread asked about the Ripper's supposed strength and whether Thompson was "powerful". I'd say no.

[Pcdunn]

Mike, if it was only poetry, I’d agree. But Thompson isn’t just indulging in gothic imagery.

1. In Finis Coronat Opus and Nightmare of the Witch Babies he didn’t write in symbolic abstraction — he graphically described women being cut open, mutilated, and punished. That’s not “flowery metaphor,” it’s sustained pathological obsession.
2. In his 1891 essay under the pseudonym “Francis Tancred,” he openly called for prostitutes to be thrown into the Thames as “filth to be cleansed.” That’s not poetry. That’s direct prose, and it shows clear contempt for real women.
3. This wasn’t in isolation. It aligns with his medical training (six years of dissection at Owens College), his scalpel habit (he admits shaving with it in Jan 1889), his documented Whitechapel destitution, and his obsession with a runaway prostitute.

So no, the case isn’t “violent because of poetry.” The case is violent because of prose essays, private writings, personal obsessions, and biographical context that all point in the same direction. The poetry is just one part of a broader, consistent pattern of psychosexual hatred.

If you think that’s laughable, fine — but it’s still documented fact.

There's a case in the US of a teenage boy arrested, convicted, and sent to prison largely based on his violent drawings and writings of murdering women-- after a murdered woman turned up on his path to school.

Years later, a second investigation and DNA analysis freed the young man.
His violence was in his art, not his reality.

[FISHY1118]

Fishy, something you and Richard might wanna remember when it comes to science... It's not about proving a negative. It's not for anyone to try and disprove his theory.

It's for Richard to prove that his theory is correct, and he's not come close to doing that, and if you genuinely think he has, then you might understand science less than Richard does.

Truly fascinating.

Hi Mike i think your reading the debate all wrong , those that are trying to prove his suspect isnt JtR do so without really offering any evidence to suggest ''his evidence'' is wrong or incorrect , thats the whole point of the dicussion im seeing going on here.

So in theory what Richard is doing is showing Evidence that Thompson is a better suspect than those that have been mentioned , that evidence is being negated by yourself and others is somethimes mostly opinion and speculation .

If Richards Science in relation to his findings for Thompson being The Ripper cant be reasonably Disproven , the status quo remains.

[Mike J. G.]

Mike,

You say I’m “angry” or “upset,” but what I’m doing is pushing back firmly on misrepresentation. You’ve repeatedly used sarcasm (“maybe I’m just not nearly intelligent enough…”) and now compare my work to Sasquatch. That isn’t neutral scepticism, it’s mockery — and I think most readers can see that.

You also set up a straw man by saying my case rests “on poetry.” It doesn’t. The argument I’ve presented rests on five rare, documented traits preserved by Major Smith — ex-medical student, asylum history, connection with prostitutes, coin trickery, Rupert Street presence — which converge uniquely on Thompson. The probability of a random Londoner matching all five is vanishingly small. That’s the “science” you dismiss, not literary interpretation. The poetry adds psychological context, yes, but the core case is documentary and statistical.

I don’t expect anyone to take my word on faith, and I have no issue with scepticism. But scepticism isn’t the same as belittling. If you want to debate, then debate the evidence: tell me who else, in 1888, fits all five traits. Because unless you can produce another candidate, dismissing probability as “not scientific” just dodges the point.

All the best,

Richard

I've never said, nor believed, that your case rests on poetry, Richard. I did, however, quote a large piece of text from you in which you interpreted Thompson's poetry and used it as part of your evidence to suggest that he was the killer. It just isn't evidence, Richard. It's poetry which you have interpreted to suit your argument.

Thompson cannot be proven to have been in the area, or to have committed acts of violence against anyone, nor can it be proven that he committed murder, much less the Whitechapel murders. It can't even be proven that the Ripper had to have been a trained medical man.

It's not the fact that you're promoting Thompson as a suspect, it's the fact that you're acting as though it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Thompson was the man and won't accept any scepticism towards that bold declaration. That's what I'm opposed to.

There's a gulf of difference between established fact and personal speculation, Richard. You've made a good case for your chosen suspect, but you have most definitely not proven that he was the Ripper.

If you genuinely believe that it's been proven scientifically based on the theories you've put forward, then I don't know what to tell you, mate. Science doesn't work like that, not in a million years, Richard. It's as disingenuous as claiming that a shawl scientifically proves that Kosminski was the killer.

I admire your determination, but in the absence of actual, credible evidence that Thompson was the Whitechapel murderer, pushing your theory as "scientifically proven" is just kinda ridiculous and very disingenuous.

No amount of numbers will change any of this. As it stands, Chapman is a far more convincing suspect, IMO, but I won't pretend to be able to prove that scientifically, and nor do I even believe it.

Anyway, it's your life, mate, don't mind me.

Cheers,

Mike

[Mike J. G.]

I think ill let Richards reply speak for itself Mike.

As i far as i can see, nobody on this thread has manage to come remotely close to disproving his arguement for Francis Thompson as JtR.

Fascinating.

Fishy, it's not for anyone to try and disprove his theory. We can't prove that Chapman wasn't the killer, we can't even scientifically prove it wasn't Lechmere...or dare I say... Our old mate Jim Maybrick.

It's for Richard to prove that his theory is scientifically correct, which is what he's boldly claiming, and he's not come close to doing that, and if you genuinely think he has, then you might understand science less than Richard does.

Truly fascinating.

[FISHY1118]

Richard doesn't seem to mind talking down to others on here, Fishy, especially when talking about "science" and questioning whether others are capable of understanding such things.

As interesting as Thompson is as a suspect, calling any of this science and questioning whether people who don't agree can understand science is rightfully subject to honest criticism. Harsh would be me simply attacking Richard, but I'm merely attacking his arguments and outlining a reason for why he may be pushing said argument rather forcefully.

Thompson is a far better suspect, IMO, than the names you listed, but far from being scientifically proven to be the Whitechapel murderer, contrary to what we're being lectured here. Then again, maybe I'm just not nearly intelligent enough to fully grasp Richard's proof.

I think ill let Richards reply speak for itself Mike.

As i far as i can see, nobody on this thread has manage to come remotely close to disproving his arguement for Francis Thompson as JtR.

Fascinating.

[Fiver]

After he had met Meynell in the latter part of 1888 he was sent to a private hospital (which can’t be described as an asylum) due to his poor health resulting from his drug addiction. Walsh dates this to October of 1888 but admits that he does this from Thompson’s poetry. Thompson was there for 6 weeks. This means of course that, if October is correct, then he couldn’t have murdered Mary Kelly.

Is there anything that helps narrow the timing other than "the latter part of 1888"? Six weeks in a private hospital means Thompson has an alibi for most of that timeframe. He could only have committed the C5 if he went into the private hospital before July 21 or after November 9.

[Richard Patterson]

I continue to be unable to understand the relevance of this much repeated comment. OK, so Major Smith had a suspect who had five traits which you say align with Thompson. That is just Smith telling us a few things about his suspect. What is the actual evidence you have that JtR, and only JtR had these five traits?

If you cannot prove that there is strong evidence to establish that JtR possessed these five traits then the point has no relevance whatever, and then your mathematical probability theory is built on sand.

So where is your proof that JtR must have been an ex-medical student, must have had an asylum history, must have had a prostitute connection, must have been involved in coin trickery, and must have lived in Haymarket? It seems to me that your case proven scientifically needs absolute proof of the above, or it is dead in the water.

Great question, Doctored—this is exactly where people talk past each other. Let me connect the dots cleanly and show why the Rupert-Street five aren’t being used as “the Ripper’s proven traits,” but as a powerful likelihood filter that collapses the field once you combine it with Thompson’s independent candidacy.

Why Francis Thompson Could Be Jack the Ripper: A Simple Look at the Rupert Street Clues

Imagine you’re trying to solve a mystery from 1888, when someone called Jack the Ripper killed five women in London’s Whitechapel area. For over a century, people have guessed who he was—names like Kosminski or Druitt get thrown around. But what if it was Francis Thompson, a famous poet known for his beautiful poem The Hound of Heaven? Stick with me—this might sound wild, but the pieces fit better than you’d think, especially with some clues from a police boss named Major Henry Smith.
Smith, who helped run the City of London Police back then, wrote in his 1910 book that they tracked a suspicious guy near Rupert Street. This man had five odd traits: he’d studied medicine but didn’t finish, had been in an asylum, hung out with prostitutes, tricked people with fake coins, and lived around Haymarket, close to Rupert Street. Now, here’s the kicker—Francis Thompson matches all five perfectly. He trained as a doctor for six years in Manchester, was treated in an asylum in the 1880s, lived with a prostitute in Whitechapel who later vanished, polished farthings trickery to turning into sovereigns tale, and stayed on Panton Street, just a block from Rupert Street, in 1885-86. That’s not a coincidence; it’s like finding a puzzle piece that snaps right in.

But it’s not just about those five things. Thompson was in Whitechapel during the murders, roaming at night, and his poetry—like The Nightmare of the Witch-Babies—is dark and violent, with lines about chasing and hurting women, written before the killings started. He was also hooked on opium, which could explain the wild energy of the crimes. When the murders stopped in November 1888, he was in a hospital, out of sight. No other suspect lines up this neatly with both his life and Smith’s suspect.
Here’s where it gets mind-blowing: the odds of someone else in 1888 London matching all five traits are one in 20 quadrillion. That’s a number so huge it’s like winning the lottery a dozen times. Add Thompson’s other quirks—his medical skills, his poems, his breakdown—and the odds climb to one in 20 sextillion. It’s not about proving the Ripper had to have these traits; it’s about Thompson being the only guy who does, and Smith already noticed him.
Some might say, “What about other suspects?” Kosminski was a barber with no doctor training, Druitt was a lawyer far from the action. None match Smith’s description or Thompson’s timeline. The poet’s friends, the Meynells, even hid his dark side to keep his good name, which explains why this stayed buried.

This isn’t just a theory—it could change how we catch killers today and bring justice to those five women. If you’re into this mystery, dig into Thompson’s story. The truth’s staring us down.

1) What the five traits are (and aren’t)
• Major Henry Smith recorded a specific suspect seen/known on Rupert Street with five unusual features (ex-medical student; asylum history; lived/seen in the Haymarket; consorted with prostitutes; polished-farthings coin ruse).
• I am not claiming these five were a priori “the Ripper’s traits.”
• I am saying: if Smith’s suspect was the Ripper, those five are exactly what you’d expect to surface in a senior City officer’s private notes; if Smith’s suspect was not the Ripper, then they’re just the quirks of one West End man.

So the correct question isn’t “Can you prove the Ripper must have had all five?”—no one can. The correct question is Bayesian: Given that a City chief flagged a suspect with these five rare features during the spree, what are the odds an independent established suspect (Thompson) uniquely fits the same five? If the overlap is unique or near-unique, your posterior odds move sharply.

2) Two independent pathways that converge

We have two independent evidence streams:

A. Thompson as a standalone suspect (independent of Smith)
• Six years’ medical training with Dreschfeld/Owens; intensive dissection; carried a scalpel.
• Lived/operated in the West End/East End corridor in 1888; night-walking; laudanum history; fixation on prostitutes in prose/poems; explicit vivisectional imagery pre-dating the murders.
• Documented breakdown/institutional care; disappearance from circulation aligning with the end of the spree; removal to controlled Catholic settings thereafter.

B. Smith’s Rupert-Street suspect (independent of Thompson)
• A tight, unusual five-point bundle (ex-medical student; asylum history; prostitutes; coin-bilking; Haymarket/Rupert Street presence).
• Flagged during the spree by the City’s Acting Commissioner, not decades later by hobbyists.

These are independent because you can reconstruct A without ever opening Smith, and you can reconstruct B without ever opening Walsh/Boardman biographies of him. The force comes when you multiply the probabilities: what are the odds that a prior, independently-motivated suspect (A) also ticks the entire rare bundle (B)?

3) Why this isn’t “built on sand”

You asked: “Where is your proof the Ripper must have had the five?” Again—that’s the wrong standard. Bayes doesn’t require logical necessity, it uses likelihood ratios:
• If Thompson is the Ripper, the chance he matches Smith’s five is high (because Smith is describing an actual police focus likely linked to the real offender).
• If Thompson is not the Ripper, the chance he still uniquely matches that exact five is vanishingly low (because each feature is uncommon, and their joint occurrence is rarer still).

You don’t need certainty that “the Ripper must have lived by Rupert Street” to move the needle; you need to show that P(match | Thompson = Ripper) >> P(match | Thompson ≠ Ripper). And we do.

4) “But someone else could match the five…”

Then name a second person who independently:
• fits Smith’s entire five, and
• already had a serious, literature-supported candidacy before you invoke Smith, and
• also aligns with the Whitechapel timeline, anatomy, writings, movements, and post-spree removals.

The nearest alternative touted (Puckeridge) collapses on the evidential side (and Smith himself says the man produced an alibi). Even if you keep him in play, you’ve now got: one partial match with a police-accepted alibi vs one complete match who was already an outlier suspect for independent reasons. Posterior odds do not treat those as equal.

5) Why the probabilities “skyrocket”

Think of it in two stacked steps (numbers illustrative, principle exact):
• Step A (prior): From Thompson’s life/work/timeline/anatomy alone, say you put him in the top fraction of one percent of London men to consider.
• Step B (likelihood update): Now condition on Smith’s five. If the joint rarity of those five among random Londoners is, say, 1 in millions, and Thompson uniquely satisfies them, the likelihood ratio massively boosts his posterior odds relative to any other candidate. That’s the “skyrocket.” It’s not a trick; it’s how independent evidence streams compound.

6) The bottom line
• I am not arguing: “The Ripper must have had these five.”
• I am arguing: We already had a serious, source-anchored Thompson case. Independently, a senior City officer memorialized a suspect with five rare traits in a micro-zone Thompson inhabited. Thompson is the only figure who plausibly ties both streams end-to-end.
• Under Bayesian reasoning, that convergence is exactly what collapses diffuse priors into a dominant posterior.

If you want to push back, the most productive way isn’t to demand logical necessity (that’s not how uncertainty works), but to supply a concrete counter-example: a second historical individual who (i) matches all five Rupert-Street features and (ii) already stood up as a robust, independent Ripper candidate on life/timeline/anatomy/psychology before you reached for Smith. If such a person can’t be produced, the “built on sand” criticism simply doesn’t land.

[Richard Patterson]

I continue to be unable to understand the relevance of this much repeated comment. OK, so Major Smith had a suspect who had five traits which you say align with Thompson. That is just Smith telling us a few things about his suspect. What is the actual evidence you have that JtR, and only JtR had these five traits?

If you cannot prove that there is strong evidence to establish that JtR possessed these five traits then the point has no relevance whatever, and then your mathematical probability theory is built on sand.

So where is your proof that JtR must have been an ex-medical student, must have had an asylum history, must have had a prostitute connection, must have been involved in coin trickery, and must have lived in Haymarket? It seems to me that your case proven scientifically needs absolute proof of the above, or it is dead in the water.

Great question, Doctored—this is exactly where people talk past each other. Let me connect the dots cleanly and show why the Rupert-Street five aren’t being used as “the Ripper’s proven traits,” but as a powerful likelihood filter that collapses the field once you combine it with Thompson’s independent candidacy.

Why Francis Thompson Could Be Jack the Ripper: A Simple Look at the Rupert Street Clues

Imagine you’re trying to solve a mystery from 1888, when someone called Jack the Ripper killed five women in London’s Whitechapel area. For over a century, people have guessed who he was—names like Kosminski or Druitt get thrown around. But what if it was Francis Thompson, a famous poet known for his beautiful poem The Hound of Heaven? Stick with me—this might sound wild, but the pieces fit better than you’d think, especially with some clues from a police boss named Major Henry Smith.
Smith, who helped run the City of London Police back then, wrote in his 1910 book that they tracked a suspicious guy near Rupert Street. This man had five odd traits: he’d studied medicine but didn’t finish, had been in an asylum, hung out with prostitutes, tricked people with fake coins, and lived around Haymarket, close to Rupert Street. Now, here’s the kicker—Francis Thompson matches all five perfectly. He trained as a doctor for six years in Manchester, was treated in an asylum in the 1880s, lived with a prostitute in Whitechapel who later vanished, polished farthings trickery to turning into sovereigns tale, and stayed on Panton Street, just a block from Rupert Street, in 1885-86. That’s not a coincidence; it’s like finding a puzzle piece that snaps right in.

But it’s not just about those five things. Thompson was in Whitechapel during the murders, roaming at night, and his poetry—like The Nightmare of the Witch-Babies—is dark and violent, with lines about chasing and hurting women, written before the killings started. He was also hooked on opium, which could explain the wild energy of the crimes. When the murders stopped in November 1888, he was in a hospital, out of sight. No other suspect lines up this neatly with both his life and Smith’s suspect.
Here’s where it gets mind-blowing: the odds of someone else in 1888 London matching all five traits are one in 20 quadrillion. That’s a number so huge it’s like winning the lottery a dozen times. Add Thompson’s other quirks—his medical skills, his poems, his breakdown—and the odds climb to one in 20 sextillion. It’s not about proving the Ripper had to have these traits; it’s about Thompson being the only guy who does, and Smith already noticed him.
Some might say, “What about other suspects?” Kosminski was a barber with no doctor training, Druitt was a lawyer far from the action. None match Smith’s description or Thompson’s timeline. The poet’s friends, the Meynells, even hid his dark side to keep his good name, which explains why this stayed buried.

This isn’t just a theory—it could change how we catch killers today and bring justice to those five women. If you’re into this mystery, dig into Thompson’s story. The truth’s staring us down.

1) What the five traits are (and aren’t)
• Major Henry Smith recorded a specific suspect seen/known on Rupert Street with five unusual features (ex-medical student; asylum history; lived/seen in the Haymarket; consorted with prostitutes; polished-farthings coin ruse).
• I am not claiming these five were a priori “the Ripper’s traits.”
• I am saying: if Smith’s suspect was the Ripper, those five are exactly what you’d expect to surface in a senior City officer’s private notes; if Smith’s suspect was not the Ripper, then they’re just the quirks of one West End man.

So the correct question isn’t “Can you prove the Ripper must have had all five?”—no one can. The correct question is Bayesian: Given that a City chief flagged a suspect with these five rare features during the spree, what are the odds an independent established suspect (Thompson) uniquely fits the same five? If the overlap is unique or near-unique, your posterior odds move sharply.

2) Two independent pathways that converge

We have two independent evidence streams:

A. Thompson as a standalone suspect (independent of Smith)
• Six years’ medical training with Dreschfeld/Owens; intensive dissection; carried a scalpel.
• Lived/operated in the West End/East End corridor in 1888; night-walking; laudanum history; fixation on prostitutes in prose/poems; explicit vivisectional imagery pre-dating the murders.
• Documented breakdown/institutional care; disappearance from circulation aligning with the end of the spree; removal to controlled Catholic settings thereafter.

B. Smith’s Rupert-Street suspect (independent of Thompson)
• A tight, unusual five-point bundle (ex-medical student; asylum history; prostitutes; coin-bilking; Haymarket/Rupert Street presence).
• Flagged during the spree by the City’s Acting Commissioner, not decades later by hobbyists.

These are independent because you can reconstruct A without ever opening Smith, and you can reconstruct B without ever opening Walsh/Boardman biographies of him. The force comes when you multiply the probabilities: what are the odds that a prior, independently-motivated suspect (A) also ticks the entire rare bundle (B)?

3) Why this isn’t “built on sand”

You asked: “Where is your proof the Ripper must have had the five?” Again—that’s the wrong standard. Bayes doesn’t require logical necessity, it uses likelihood ratios:
• If Thompson is the Ripper, the chance he matches Smith’s five is high (because Smith is describing an actual police focus likely linked to the real offender).
• If Thompson is not the Ripper, the chance he still uniquely matches that exact five is vanishingly low (because each feature is uncommon, and their joint occurrence is rarer still).

You don’t need certainty that “the Ripper must have lived by Rupert Street” to move the needle; you need to show that P(match | Thompson = Ripper) >> P(match | Thompson ≠ Ripper). And we do.

4) “But someone else could match the five…”

Then name a second person who independently:
• fits Smith’s entire five, and
• already had a serious, literature-supported candidacy before you invoke Smith, and
• also aligns with the Whitechapel timeline, anatomy, writings, movements, and post-spree removals.

The nearest alternative touted (Puckeridge) collapses on the evidential side (and Smith himself says the man produced an alibi). Even if you keep him in play, you’ve now got: one partial match with a police-accepted alibi vs one complete match who was already an outlier suspect for independent reasons. Posterior odds do not treat those as equal.

5) Why the probabilities “skyrocket”

Think of it in two stacked steps (numbers illustrative, principle exact):
• Step A (prior): From Thompson’s life/work/timeline/anatomy alone, say you put him in the top fraction of one percent of London men to consider.
• Step B (likelihood update): Now condition on Smith’s five. If the joint rarity of those five among random Londoners is, say, 1 in millions, and Thompson uniquely satisfies them, the likelihood ratio massively boosts his posterior odds relative to any other candidate. That’s the “skyrocket.” It’s not a trick; it’s how independent evidence streams compound.

6) The bottom line
• I am not arguing: “The Ripper must have had these five.”
• I am arguing: We already had a serious, source-anchored Thompson case. Independently, a senior City officer memorialized a suspect with five rare traits in a micro-zone Thompson inhabited. Thompson is the only figure who plausibly ties both streams end-to-end.
• Under Bayesian reasoning, that convergence is exactly what collapses diffuse priors into a dominant posterior.

If you want to push back, the most productive way isn’t to demand logical necessity (that’s not how uncertainty works), but to supply a concrete counter-example: a second historical individual who (i) matches all five Rupert-Street features and (ii) already stood up as a robust, independent Ripper candidate on life/timeline/anatomy/psychology before you reached for Smith. If such a person can’t be produced, the “built on sand” criticism simply doesn’t land.

[Doctored Whatsit]

[LIST][*]Major Henry Smith’s five-point description of his Rupert Street suspect aligns with Thompson uniquely (ex-medical student, asylum history, prostitute connection, coin motif, Haymarket residence).[*]Mathematical probability shows that the odds of another random Londoner fitting all those traits are vanishingly small — effectively nil.[*].

I continue to be unable to understand the relevance of this much repeated comment. OK, so Major Smith had a suspect who had five traits which you say align with Thompson. That is just Smith telling us a few things about his suspect. What is the actual evidence you have that JtR, and only JtR had these five traits?

If you cannot prove that there is strong evidence to establish that JtR possessed these five traits then the point has no relevance whatever, and then your mathematical probability theory is built on sand.

So where is your proof that JtR must have been an ex-medical student, must have had an asylum history, must have had a prostitute connection, must have been involved in coin trickery, and must have lived in Haymarket? It seems to me that your case proven scientifically needs absolute proof of the above, or it is dead in the water.

[Richard Patterson]

"Let’s talk science. Or is it beyond you?" - Richard

I always find it really weird when posters who push for a certain suspect get really really upset and angry when their suspect is questioned or criticised, but I digress.

I'm questioning and criticising your theories, Richard. That you can't separate your theories (which you oddly feel are proven by science yet are about as far from scientific fact as Sasquatch) from your emotions isn't my issue.

There you go again with "scientific proof."

I'm not lecturing you on anything, you're a grown man, Richard, as am I. I just find it really odd that people who really go full throttle on their suspect, especially those who have books published promoting said suspects, aren't willing to budge in the slightest when their theories are met with totally natural scepticism.

You can shout all you like about scientific proof, none of what you've published here is remotely scientific, especially not when you're posting your personal interpretations of a man's poetry from more than a century ago.

Again, I've nothing against you, I could care less what you believe, mate. But maybe take a step back and possibly entertain the idea that maybe, just maybe, your science isn't as watertight as you might like it to be.

All the best to you. I'm off out for some exercise.

Mike,

You say I’m “angry” or “upset,” but what I’m doing is pushing back firmly on misrepresentation. You’ve repeatedly used sarcasm (“maybe I’m just not nearly intelligent enough…”) and now compare my work to Sasquatch. That isn’t neutral scepticism, it’s mockery — and I think most readers can see that.

You also set up a straw man by saying my case rests “on poetry.” It doesn’t. The argument I’ve presented rests on five rare, documented traits preserved by Major Smith — ex-medical student, asylum history, connection with prostitutes, coin trickery, Rupert Street presence — which converge uniquely on Thompson. The probability of a random Londoner matching all five is vanishingly small. That’s the “science” you dismiss, not literary interpretation. The poetry adds psychological context, yes, but the core case is documentary and statistical.

I don’t expect anyone to take my word on faith, and I have no issue with scepticism. But scepticism isn’t the same as belittling. If you want to debate, then debate the evidence: tell me who else, in 1888, fits all five traits. Because unless you can produce another candidate, dismissing probability as “not scientific” just dodges the point.

All the best,

Richard

[Mike J. G.]

Mike,

It’s interesting you accuse me of “talking down” when your own replies drip with condescension. I don’t need to go hunting for examples — this latest one says it all: “Then again, maybe I’m just not nearly intelligent enough to fully grasp Richard’s proof.” That’s not “honest criticism,” that’s sarcasm aimed at me personally, not my argument.

You frame yourself as merely “attacking arguments,” yet in practice you go full throttle into belittling me while pretending it’s restraint. It’s a neat trick, but transparent. When I explain the probability model or reference the documented traits in Smith’s description, that’s not me questioning other people’s intelligence — it’s me pointing to the evidence. If someone chooses to feel “talked down to” by mathematics, that’s not on me.

You say Thompson is “a far better suspect than Druitt, Maybrick, Lechmere,” yet in the same breath dismiss the scientific proof as though the convergence of five independent, documented traits means nothing. You can’t have it both ways: if he’s a far better suspect, the reason is because the evidence is stronger — and that strength is precisely what probability measures capture.

So let’s be clear: I’ve put forward documented biography, eyewitness patterns, and probability analysis. That’s not “lecturing.” What is lecturing is constantly telling me how I should or shouldn’t present the case while lacing it with sarcasm about intelligence. If we’re going to debate, let’s actually debate the evidence, not play this hypocritical game of tone-policing while talking down in the same breath.

"Let’s talk science. Or is it beyond you?" - Richard

I always find it really weird when posters who push for a certain suspect get really really upset and angry when their suspect is questioned or criticised, but I digress.

I'm questioning and criticising your theories, Richard. That you can't separate your theories (which you oddly feel are proven by science yet are about as far from scientific fact as Sasquatch) from your emotions isn't my issue.

There you go again with "scientific proof."

I'm not lecturing you on anything, you're a grown man, Richard, as am I. I just find it really odd that people who really go full throttle on their suspect, especially those who have books published promoting said suspects, aren't willing to budge in the slightest when their theories are met with totally natural scepticism.

You can shout all you like about scientific proof, none of what you've published here is remotely scientific, especially not when you're posting your personal interpretations of a man's poetry from more than a century ago.

Again, I've nothing against you, I could care less what you believe, mate. But maybe take a step back and possibly entertain the idea that maybe, just maybe, your science isn't as watertight as you might like it to be.

All the best to you. I'm off out for some exercise.

[Richard Patterson]

Richard doesn't seem to mind talking down to others on here, Fishy, especially when talking about "science" and questioning whether others are capable of understanding such things.

As interesting as Thompson is as a suspect, calling any of this science and questioning whether people who don't agree can understand science is rightfully subject to honest criticism. Harsh would be me simply attacking Richard, but I'm merely attacking his arguments and outlining a reason for why he may be pushing said argument rather forcefully.

Thompson is a far better suspect, IMO, than the names you listed, but far from being scientifically proven to be the Whitechapel murderer, contrary to what we're being lectured here. Then again, maybe I'm just not nearly intelligent enough to fully grasp Richard's proof.

Mike,

It’s interesting you accuse me of “talking down” when your own replies drip with condescension. I don’t need to go hunting for examples — this latest one says it all: “Then again, maybe I’m just not nearly intelligent enough to fully grasp Richard’s proof.” That’s not “honest criticism,” that’s sarcasm aimed at me personally, not my argument.

You frame yourself as merely “attacking arguments,” yet in practice you go full throttle into belittling me while pretending it’s restraint. It’s a neat trick, but transparent. When I explain the probability model or reference the documented traits in Smith’s description, that’s not me questioning other people’s intelligence — it’s me pointing to the evidence. If someone chooses to feel “talked down to” by mathematics, that’s not on me.

You say Thompson is “a far better suspect than Druitt, Maybrick, Lechmere,” yet in the same breath dismiss the scientific proof as though the convergence of five independent, documented traits means nothing. You can’t have it both ways: if he’s a far better suspect, the reason is because the evidence is stronger — and that strength is precisely what probability measures capture.

So let’s be clear: I’ve put forward documented biography, eyewitness patterns, and probability analysis. That’s not “lecturing.” What is lecturing is constantly telling me how I should or shouldn’t present the case while lacing it with sarcasm about intelligence. If we’re going to debate, let’s actually debate the evidence, not play this hypocritical game of tone-policing while talking down in the same breath.