The Jack the Ripper Mystery is Finally Solved — Scientifically

[Herlock Sholmes]

Unsurprising ignoring my questions.

Richard asks that Fiver to lay out each trait in detail. I’ve done this. Thompson isn’t even in the race. It’s Puckridge by a country mile. Anyone not riddled with bias could see it.

[Richard Patterson]

You aren't using the facts. You are ignoring them.

Here are Smiths' actual words.

"After the second crime I sent word to Sir Charles Warren that I had discovered a man very likely to be the man wanted. He certainly had all the qualifications requisite. He had been a medical student ; he had been in a lunatic asylum ; he spent all his time with women of loose character, whom he bilked by giving them polished farthings instead of sovereigns, two of these farthings having been found in the pocket of the murdered woman. Sir Charles failed to find him. I thought he was likely to be in Rupert Street, Haymarket. I sent up two men, and there he was; but, polished farthings and all, he proved an alibi without the shadow of doubt."

* "He had been a medical student"
Matches Francis Thompson.
Matches what the police believed about Oswald Puckridge.

* "he had been in a lunatic asylum"
Does not match Francis Thompson.
Matches Oswald Puckridge.

* "he spent all his time with women of loose character", which you falsify as "prostitute connections".
Does not match Francis Thompson.
Might match Oswald Puckridge.

* "whom he bilked by giving them polished farthings instead of sovereigns", which you falsify as "coin trick".
Does not match Francis Thompson.
Might match Oswald Puckridge.

* "I thought he was likely to be in Rupert Street, Haymarket", which you falsify as "Haymarket residence".
Does not match Francis Thompson.
Matches Oswald Puckridge.

You are ignoring Thompson's verifiable biography and claiming Smith said things that Smith never said.

And you keep ignoring the sixth and most important trait of Smith's suspect "he proved an alibi without the shadow of doubt".

If you believe that Francis Thompson is the Ripper, then you should be doing everything in your power to prove that Smith's innocent suspect was not Francis Thompson. Instead, you are arguing for a match that proves Thompson is innocent.

Fiver,

I’ll take your objections in order:

1. Medical student.

Yes — this matches Thompson directly. Puckridge also studied medicine. The question is not whether others were ever students, but who matches the entire set of descriptors together.

2. “In a lunatic asylum.”

Here we have the terminology problem. Victorian memoirs and reports routinely blurred “asylum,” “priory,” and “hospital.” Thompson’s confinement at the Priory was psychiatric, for breakdown and addiction. If we’re being precise about historical usage, it qualifies.

3. “Spent all his time with women of loose character.”

This is exactly what “prostitute connections” means. Thompson lived rough among prostitutes for years, and his closest relationship (the prostitute who later left him) is acknowledged by every major biography. There is no falsification — it’s the same idea, plainer phrasing.

4. “Bilking them with polished farthings.”

This story is in circulation in connection with Thompson. I’ve cited it transparently as the coin-trick element. You can argue about its reliability, but it isn’t invention.

5. “Likely to be in Rupert Street.”

That doesn’t mean a signed lease. It means presence in the district. Thompson was in Panton Street, literally around the corner, during the relevant period. To dismiss that as “does not match” is to miss the point of geographical nexus.

6. The alibi.

Here’s the biggest issue: you treat Smith’s memoir statement of “an alibi without the shadow of doubt” as if it closes the book. Yet even Scotland Yard’s copy of Smith’s memoir carries a handwritten note warning that “his veracity was not always to be trusted.” Smith also boasted he knew more about the murders than any man alive. His alibi story belongs in that context. If we hold his five identifiers as usable, we cannot then elevate his one-sentence dismissal to gospel truth and ignore all else.

So no, this isn’t “ignoring Thompson’s biography.” It’s the opposite — taking the profile literally, matching it to a candidate who uniquely ticks all the boxes, and pointing out that Smith’s glib alibi line doesn’t outweigh the convergence of evidence.

And if you insist that Puckridge fits the profile better, then show it in detail. Lay out each trait, his documented addresses, his connections, his medical record, and his timeline. At the moment, Thompson remains the only candidate whose life lines up with the profile, the training, the instruments, and the writings.

[Scott Nelson]

In addition to this, I visited every butcher's shop in the city, and every nook and corner which might, by any possibility, be the murderer's place of concealment."

This quote from Smith's book suggests he was influenced by the proximity to the Mitre Square murder to Aldgate (Butcher's Row).

[Doctored Whatsit]

Doctored,

I see where you’re getting tangled. You keep asking me to prove the Ripper himself had these five traits. That isn’t what I’m claiming — and it isn’t how historical suspect profiles work. Let me lay it out more clearly.

1. What Smith’s five traits are.

They’re not the “DNA markers of the killer.” They’re the written description of a man who, at the time, was taken seriously enough to be noted in memoirs and testimony. That makes them a suspect profile not a universal law.

2. Why the profile matters.

If nobody in the record matched all five, then the description would fade into irrelevance. But Thompson does match them, uniquely. That moves him out of the mass of “possible oddballs” and into a very narrow corridor defined by a contemporary police source.

3. Where this takes us.

You say this only proves “Smith might have suspected Thompson.” But that’s not trivial. In a case where hundreds of suspects have been thrown about, showing that one man aligns precisely with a senior officer’s recorded description is significant. And when that same man also brings independent evidence — advanced anatomical training, surgical instruments, violent verse, timeline collapse — the cumulative picture strengthens.

4. The confusion cleared.

You don’t need to accept that the Ripper must have had all five traits. You only need to accept that an officer recorded a profile, and Thompson alone fits it to the letter. That’s not proof beyond doubt, but it is a collapse of coincidence. From there, the rest of Thompson’s biography is not just “Smith’s suspect” — it’s the most consistent suspect narrative we have.

So the five traits aren’t meant to be the final key to the Ripper’s character. They’re the filter that lets us see why Thompson can’t be dismissed. The cumulative evidence doesn’t stop at Smith’s profile; it starts there.

Yes, Richard, I understood all of this a long time ago, and if I didn't get it the first time, I would have understood the second timed, and the third time ....

Yes, it's specifically Smith's suspect profile, and when you apply it to Thompson and you tell us it fits perfectly, I say "so what?" Smith constructed five traits which he believed relate to a suspect and you tell us that this moves Thompson "into a very narrow corridor defined by a contemporary police source." I have said, give us some evidence that the five traits are relevant to JtR, which four are not, and only one might possibly be, and you say they "aren't meant to be the final key to the Ripper's character. They're the filter that let's us see why Thompson can't be dismissed." They seem to be a filter that doesn't filter out much that appears irrelevant.

We all understand that you are not working from direct factual information relating purely to the Ripper, but to the observations of one man who may or may not have had some relevant suspicions. If they were relevant then all is well and it would have some merit to pursue the issue. If the suspicions were groundless, then further pursuit is a waste of everyones' time. As we know that there is no evidence that four of his traits apply to JtR, and that one is only a possibility, then I have been suggesting that there is no evidence that Smith's traits would lead to the Ripper, even if they did lead, according to you, to Thompson.

The so-called "cumulative evidence" is just a collection of interesting information. He carried a scalpel, apparently to shave with, he said, because he later asked for a razor. But of course, possessing a scalpel is suspicious. There was violence in his poetry! Literature is not real life, no matter what it portrays. Samuel Taylor Coleridge, another laudanum enthusiast, wrote of the voyage of the Ancient Mariner, but hadn't himself travelled the world by sea, and wrote of "a stately pleasure dome" in Xanadu, but never had any connection with any of this! Colin Dexter devised numerous murders in his novels for his Inspector Morse to solve, but nobody suggests that Dexter was a serial killer! Having a prostitute lover doesn't make Thompson a prostitute killer.

I was fascinated by your recent suggestion that living rough had toughened him, as I believe that all of the evidence I have seen suggested that it almost killed him!

Let's end this debate because we are not going to agree, everyone knows exactly what we are going to say, and we must be boring our readers with endless repeats.

[Fiver]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard also ignores a lot of things that Smith said.

* Smith's suspect was found and was proven innocent.

"I thought he was likely to be in Rupert Street, Haymarket. I sent up two men, and there he was ; but, polished farthings and all, he proved an alibi without the shadow of doubt."

* Smith did not think the Ripper must have had medical training.

" In addition to this, I visited every butcher's shop in the city, and every nook and corner which might, by any possibility, be the murderer's place of concealment."

* Smith did not say the Ripper must have lived in Haymarket.

"Did he live close to the scene of action ? or did he, after committing a murder, make his way with lightning speed to some retreat in the suburbs?"

* Smith believed his best lead was from a man who claimed ""the man you want is not in London, he's in Manchester. What you think is his writing isn't. He writes just like an orderly-room clerk."

"I waited patiently for the promised visit, and confidently for a further communication from the missioner. The man never came, nor was I able to get the missioner's handwriting identified. Had either of them asked for money, I would have sent it willingly, believing, as I did, that at last I was on the right scent ; but I never had any such application from either."

[Herlock Sholmes]

So now you're imagining surgical kits?

There is no evidence that Thompson carried a scalpel while living rough.

Just as I posted Richard’s ‘and others’ casually slipped in earlier we now have ‘and surgical kits.’ I wonder what’s next? This kind of thing would have your average Cross supporter applauding.

[Fiver]

He retained scalpels and surgical kits while living rough.

So now you're imagining surgical kits?

There is no evidence that Thompson carried a scalpel while living rough.

[Fiver]

[*]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.

You aren't using the facts. You are ignoring them.

Here are Smiths' actual words.

"After the second crime I sent word to Sir Charles Warren that I had discovered a man very likely to be the man wanted. He certainly had all the qualifications requisite. He had been a medical student ; he had been in a lunatic asylum ; he spent all his time with women of loose character, whom he bilked by giving them polished farthings instead of sovereigns, two of these farthings having been found in the pocket of the murdered woman. Sir Charles failed to find him. I thought he was likely to be in Rupert Street, Haymarket. I sent up two men, and there he was; but, polished farthings and all, he proved an alibi without the shadow of doubt."

* "He had been a medical student"
Matches Francis Thompson.
Matches what the police believed about Oswald Puckridge.

* "he had been in a lunatic asylum"
Does not match Francis Thompson.
Matches Oswald Puckridge.

* "he spent all his time with women of loose character", which you falsify as "prostitute connections".
Does not match Francis Thompson.
Might match Oswald Puckridge.

* "whom he bilked by giving them polished farthings instead of sovereigns", which you falsify as "coin trick".
Does not match Francis Thompson.
Might match Oswald Puckridge.

* "I thought he was likely to be in Rupert Street, Haymarket", which you falsify as "Haymarket residence".
Does not match Francis Thompson.
Matches Oswald Puckridge.

You are ignoring Thompson's verifiable biography and claiming Smith said things that Smith never said.

And you keep ignoring the sixth and most important trait of Smith's suspect "he proved an alibi without the shadow of doubt".

If you believe that Francis Thompson is the Ripper, then you should be doing everything in your power to prove that Smith's innocent suspect was not Francis Thompson. Instead, you are arguing for a match that proves Thompson is innocent.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Medical student - Thompson YES - Puckridge YES
Spent nearly all of his time with prostitutes - Thompson NO - Puckridge UNKNOWN BY US
Bilked prostitutes with polished farthings Thompson NO - Puckridge UNKNOWN BY US
Time in a lunatic asylum - Thompson NO - Puckridge YES
Connection to Rupert Street in the Haymarket - Thompson NO - Puckridge YES

Hands up anyone who considers this a match for Thompson.

Hands up anyone who considers this an absolute slam dunk for Oswald Puckridge.

Three of the 5 ‘traits’ match Puckridge exactly, perfectly…to the letter. The other two we don’t know about. So we can’t even call those two traits absolutely a ‘no.’ But we can give Thompson 4 ‘no’s.’

In my post I list the ‘traits’ with absolute factual accuracy. No alterations, no widening of the criteria just a absolutely unbiased assessment that no reasonable person could dispute.

Richard looks at these two and what is his conclusion?

and Thompson alone fits it to the letter

[Herlock Sholmes]

. What Smith left us is a description of a man he and others found suspicious

Note the insidious slipping in of a couple of words to change reality. In this case “..and others.” Who are these “..and others?” Smith mentions no “and others.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

Medical student - Thompson YES - Puckridge YES
Spent nearly all of his time with prostitutes - Thompson NO - Puckridge UNKNOWN BY US
Bilked prostitutes with polished farthings Thompson NO - Puckridge UNKNOWN BY US
Time in a lunatic asylum - Thompson NO - Puckridge YES
Connection to Rupert Street in the Haymarket - Thompson NO - Puckridge YES

Hands up anyone who considers this a match for Thompson.

Hands up anyone who considers this an absolute slam dunk for Oswald Puckridge.

Three of the 5 ‘traits’ match Puckridge exactly, perfectly…to the letter. The other two we don’t know about. So we can’t even call those two traits absolutely a ‘no.’ But we can give Thompson 4 ‘no’s.’

[Richard Patterson]

My confusion exists because you don't ask whether the Ripper had these traits. Pursuing Smith's declared five traits possessed by a suspect will lead us where? Only to someone that Smith might have suspected. So you are endeavouring to prove scientifically that Smith might have considered Thompson a valid suspect. Where does that take us in a search for the Ripper? You talk of cumulative evidence piling up, but it is only evidence that you say leads to a Smith suspect based on five traits.

If you are going to pursue Smith's five traits as relevant to identifying JtR, then you are going to have to prove that these were also five traits possessed by the Ripper. It has been shown that one trait might be relevant, although there are other strong possibilities, and there is no evidence whatever to support a link with any of the other four traits.

Doctored,

I see where you’re getting tangled. You keep asking me to prove the Ripper himself had these five traits. That isn’t what I’m claiming — and it isn’t how historical suspect profiles work. Let me lay it out more clearly.

1. What Smith’s five traits are.

They’re not the “DNA markers of the killer.” They’re the written description of a man who, at the time, was taken seriously enough to be noted in memoirs and testimony. That makes them a suspect profile not a universal law.

2. Why the profile matters.

If nobody in the record matched all five, then the description would fade into irrelevance. But Thompson does match them, uniquely. That moves him out of the mass of “possible oddballs” and into a very narrow corridor defined by a contemporary police source.

3. Where this takes us.

You say this only proves “Smith might have suspected Thompson.” But that’s not trivial. In a case where hundreds of suspects have been thrown about, showing that one man aligns precisely with a senior officer’s recorded description is significant. And when that same man also brings independent evidence — advanced anatomical training, surgical instruments, violent verse, timeline collapse — the cumulative picture strengthens.

4. The confusion cleared.

You don’t need to accept that the Ripper must have had all five traits. You only need to accept that an officer recorded a profile, and Thompson alone fits it to the letter. That’s not proof beyond doubt, but it is a collapse of coincidence. From there, the rest of Thompson’s biography is not just “Smith’s suspect” — it’s the most consistent suspect narrative we have.

So the five traits aren’t meant to be the final key to the Ripper’s character. They’re the filter that lets us see why Thompson can’t be dismissed. The cumulative evidence doesn’t stop at Smith’s profile; it starts there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A Simple Challenge for Richard Patterson


As we all can see, Richard continues to avoid answering direct questions in favour of the repeat posting of the same, almost verbatim, points. Is it possible that we could stop the repetition for once and the time wasting and the attempts at misdirection and start actually confronting the evidence? After all, Richard has made some very definite points and claims (as opposed to suggesting possibles) and positive claims/points require evidence/proof and we can all agree that the onus for providing these lie with Richard. Remember Sagan: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” in the case of Richard’s theories all that we ask for is proper evidence and not just Richard’s opinions stated as if they are facts. I’ve responded in detail to every single point that Richard has made and I’ve done it using the existing evidence so it shouldn’t be too much to ask to expect the same curtesy from a published author promoting a theory? So, will Richard answer questions, a) by supplying actual evidence/proof/sources, b) will he resist the temptation to widen out criteria so far that by doing so absolutely anything can be made to mean anything, c) without just repeating points that he’s already made as if he’s reciting a manifesto, and d) without stating his own opinion as fact? Ok…


As the evidence only tells us that Francis Thompson saw the men queueing for the Providence Row Refuge and that he never mentions staying there and also that we have no mention ever of anywhere in the East End being mentioned in connection with him and that his view of the Refuge was mentioned in an article published in 1891 so that he could have seen the Refuge in 1885, 1886, 1887, 1888, 1889, 1890 or indeed (but less likely) 1891. We also know that his prostitute friend was a West End prostitute who lived in Chelsea giving Thompson no obvious reason for searching the Easy End…

1. Could you please provide actual proof that Francis Thompson stayed in the Providence Row Refuge and that he did so in 1888? (And before you try to use it as a ‘get out’ clause, no I’m not asking for the Reguge registers because I know that it no longer exists.)


As we know that we cannot equate works of fictional writing with actual events and we know that no one ever accused Thompson of physical violence and that there isn’t even any anecdotal evidence of him being violent…

2. Could you please provide us with any actual evidence that Francis Thompson was ever physically violent? (I would accept a one word answer on this)


As we know that many people would have owned and carried a knife at that time; and that we know that not a single person at the time or since have suggested a scalpel as the murder weapon; and we know from Thompson himself that he tended to use it for shaving when he was living rough..

3. Could you give us a cogent reason why the possession of a scalpel makes Thompson any more likely to have been the killer?


We only have three documented examples relating vaguely to ‘fire.’ Thompson swung a Thucible too vigorously as a child in church which caused smouldering charcoal to go on the floor which a housekeeper swatted out with a shovel. As a drug-addicted adult he knocked over a lamp in his room and not one person at the time spoke of any suggestion of it being in any way deliberately. And again, as a drug-addicted adult Thompson absent-mindedly put his pipe in his coat pocket when it hadn’t fully gone out. These three examples took place over an estimated 15 or 20 years..

4. Can you please explain to us why you feel it right to call Thompson an arsonist on the basis of these three insignificant incidents?


5. Could you provide us with a documented example of someone calling a normal hospital a lunatic asylum?


As we only have documented evidence of Thompson being in a hospital in mid-October of 1888 - and we know that Major Smith told Sir Charles Warren, on or around September 8th 1888, that his suspect had been in a lunatic asylum..

6. Could you provide us with actual evidence, not assumptions or maybes or “it’s not impossible that…etc, that Francis Thompson was ever confined in a ‘lunatic asylum’ or even a hospital before October of 1888?


7. Could you give and everyone else on here any logical, sensible reason why anyone should connect, a) a man who bilked prostitutes with polished farthings, and b) a man who found two sovereigns in the street. And please don’t use tricks like lumping in ‘finding sovereigns’ as a ‘coin trick.’ Can you give a specific, factual reason why any adult might connect the two?

We know that Major Henry Smith sent his two men to Rupert Street, Haymarket to find his suspect. We also know that you have tried to alter this to ‘the Rupert Street - Haymarket’ area to try and create a larger area. But Rupert Street was in the Haymarket area and Smith was clearly sending his men specifically to Rupert Street expecting them to find his man..

8. Could you give us a reason why Major Henry Smith would have wasted time sending two men to Rupert Street on the millions to one off-chance that Francis Thompson might have walked down that street?


9. When you talk about things being ‘a match’ could you explain to everyone why you feel that Francis Thompson, who never lived in Rupert Street or, as far as we know, never had any connection whatsoever to that street is a good ‘match, for Smith’s suspect, whilst a man who actually lived in Rupert Street at the time and had 4 weeks earlier been released from an actual lunatic asylum isn’t considered a better match?



So…we have nine very straight forward, easy to understand questions all requiring specific answers. Please don’t try obfuscating by disputing the validity of the questions themselves, please don’t try widening the criteria so that you can make anything mean anything and please don’t just repeat what you have said before like a script. Proper answers are required with supporting evidence….so no opinions dressed up as facts. (Remember…I have Meynell’s and Walsh’s biographies too)

[Doctored Whatsit]

Doctored,


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

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

My confusion exists because you don't ask whether the Ripper had these traits. Pursuing Smith's declared five traits possessed by a suspect will lead us where? Only to someone that Smith might have suspected. So you are endeavouring to prove scientifically that Smith might have considered Thompson a valid suspect. Where does that take us in a search for the Ripper? You talk of cumulative evidence piling up, but it is only evidence that you say leads to a Smith suspect based on five traits.

If you are going to pursue Smith's five traits as relevant to identifying JtR, then you are going to have to prove that these were also five traits possessed by the Ripper. It has been shown that one trait might be relevant, although there are other strong possibilities, and there is no evidence whatever to support a link with any of the other four traits.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Richard, I'd like to take a moment, once again, to remind you of the title of your own thread.

If you now agree that you have not proven, scientifically or otherwise, that Francis Thompson was Jack the Ripper, then I'm good with that.

As I've mentioned before, I've no issues with your own personal beliefs, but once you start shouting from the rooftops that you've solved the case and everyone is ignorant to your science... That's a different story, because this obviously isn't science, and nor is it the solution to the mystery that it was presented as.

Hi MJG,

You and I are, I think, making the same basic argument, and getting very similar responses. There is no basis in logic or maths to examine and test any persons to match Smith's five traits, as they are not traits that can be shown to be linked to JtR. In fact, if I were to award marks out of twenty for each of the five traits as a potential guide to JtR, as there is no evidence whatever that four apply, and only a possibility that one might be correct, I would be awarding a score of say 5 out of a hundred, which isn't quite case closed!