The Jack the Ripper Mystery is Finally Solved — Scientifically

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

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

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

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

[GBinOz]

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

Hi Lewis,

You are quite correct on the alibis. Isenshmid's alibi was that he was incarcerated after the Chapman murder, so could not have been the ripper. This is based on the assumption of certainty that one person killed the C5. Isenschmid makes a very good suspect for Nichols and Chapman.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

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

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

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

Hi Herlock,

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

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

[FISHY1118]

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

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

OK, thank you Herlock for the clarification. No iron clad alibi for the Kelly murder, but very good reason to doubt that he could have done it.

No problem Lewis.

[Lewis C]

Even if it meant the end of September, 6 weeks takes us past the 9th. This problem is that we don’t know how Walsh came to his estimations of the approximate times. What we do know is that he appears to be a reliable biographer with no axe to grind. He certainly wasn’t writing to defend Thompson from accusations. The best that we can say is that we have no reason to doubt his estimations on times and time periods which means that we can’t categorically eliminate him on the grounds of him having an alibi. The doubt is a very substantial one though.

Richard likes to mention the fact that, in a footnote, Walsh mentions the coincidence of Thompson being out looking for a prostitute at the same time as the ripper was active. Richard tries to paint a picture of Walsh suspecting his guilt and so hiding away this ‘coincidence’ in a footnote. This is nonsense of course. As if no one reads footnotes. A fuller reading of the quote which Richard, true to form, edits explains that Walsh believed that this gave Thompson even more of a sense of urgency in his attempt to find her because he wouldn’t have wanted her to fall victim to the ripper.

OK, thank you Herlock for the clarification. No iron clad alibi for the Kelly murder, but very good reason to doubt that he could have done it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This appeared in the publication Merry England in January 1891. The article was called Catholics In Darkest England. It’s by Francis Thompson (under the name Francis Tancred):

“What such an institution does, and how much remains to do, may be impressively realised by one who watches the nightly crowd of haggard men outside this Refuge; the anxious waiting while the ticket-holders are slowly admitted, the thrill - the almost shudder - through the crowd when the manager emerges to pick out men for vacant beds left over after the ticket-holders admission, the sickening suspense and fear in all the eyes as - choosing a man here and there - he passes along the huddled ranks, the cold clank with which the gates of mercy shut in those fortunate few, but out the rest; and then the hopeless, helpless drifting off of the dreary crowd. “

Despite what Richard said I never once suggested that this Refuge was miles away; Richard has made that up. What I said was that the only location that we have for Thompson at this point was Chelsea, where appeared to have lived with his prostitute friend. Neither Richard nor anyone else can name a single address where it was known for Thompson to have stayed (for no matter how short a time)

That Walsh was clear that Thompson stayed in Providence Row is very obviously an assumption on Walsh’s part. The only time that Thompson mentioned that refuge was in the piece that I quoted above, and anyone can see that Thompson doesn’t mention staying there; only that he saw the men queueing outside. What Walsh said was this:

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

He goes on to quote from the Merry England article quoted above. Walsh is clearly making a fairly obvious assumption based on the quote. Thompson however never once mentioned staying at the Refuge and we certainly have no evidence from any other source that he ever stayed there. We can’t assume this; naturally Richard does. And even if he had stayed there we have no idea of any dates. Note that the article was published in 1891. How do we know that Thompson didn’t see the Refuge in 1891 or 1890 or 1889 or 1887 or 1886. The answer is that we definitely don’t know. What we do know is that we have absolutely zero evidence from Thompson (or anyone else) that he a) actually stayed there, or b) if he did..when?

Richard’s point 2. Could anything be more feeble that this? We have no evidence that he was there so whether or not he had adequate clothing is a moot point. What about when Thompson was being helped by McMaster in the second half of 1886?

Richard’s point 3. Are my eyes deceiving me or is Richard now trying to claim that this 6 week hospital stay was actually a 6 week stay at the Refuge? I can only assume that, as he has previously suggested that hospitals were often known as lunatic asylums, the Refuge’s were also known as lunatic asylums too? I don’t know…it’s difficult to aim at the goalposts when Richard keeps moving them around. It’s like trying to wrestle an eel.

A please note, yet again, how Richard doesn’t mind quoting John Walsh if he thinks that it suits him to do so, but he ignores anything that Walsh says that he doesn’t like. I prefer the honest approach so I’ll quote what John Walsh actually said in his book (and not the Patterson version)

Page 76 of Walsh’s book:

“Perhaps by mid-October Thompson had accepted the fact that the girl had vanished for good, but like De Quincey with Ann, he did not forget her…..Alone, Thompson became more amenable to Thompson’s offers of help. He allowed himself to be examined by a doctor, who reported that Thompson was near total physical collapse, a condition which might be hastened if the opium were denied to him, but “the risk was taken, and Francis was sent to a private hospital”…..The stay in the hospital covered perhaps six weeks….It was probably in mid-October, while still in the hospital, that he wrote Not Even In Dream, a direct reference to the opium which he had given up.”

So we can see when Thompson spent his 6 weeks in a private hospital.

In the past Richard has falsely claimed that this hospital stay provides a reason for the cessation of the murders after Kelly but we can see from the actual evidence that this wasn’t the case. Walsh tells us that:

“By December Thompson was out of the hospital, and living in lodgings, probably in Paddington…” So in December he was very much ‘at large.’


At every turn Richard’s fiction is exposed for what it is. He even mentions the Priory at Storrington and that Thompson was despatched there before the New Year. You will hardly be surprised when I tell you that Walsh said nothing of the kind:

“ In February 1889 he arrived at the monastery,”

……

Evidence beats invention every time.

[Richard Patterson]

Yes, even if "mid-October" means a date as early as October 10th, and even if "around 6 weeks" is 5 weeks, that would still mean that Thompson was in a hospital on the day that Kelly was murdered.

You’ve misunderstood both Walsh’s material and the timeline. The evidence is more nuanced than you’re suggesting.

1. Providence Row attendance – John Walsh (1967) was clear that Thompson stayed at Providence Row, and Thompson himself described the harrowing queues in his own essay. The confusion came from Walsh misplacing Providence Row in the West End due to cartography, when in reality the refuge had moved to Crispin Street, Spitalfields in 1868 – directly opposite Dorset Street, where Mary Kelly lived and died. This wasn’t “miles away,” as Herlock suggests, but in the very heart of the Ripper’s hunting ground.
2. Refuge entry conditions – Providence Row only opened for the winter months (November–May), with stays capped at six weeks. Entry required respectable clothing and a reference. For most of Thompson’s vagrancy (1885–1888) he couldn’t have qualified – he was in rags, cut off from family and friends. Only in November 1888 did circumstances align: his editor Wilfrid Meynell and Canon Carroll had given him money and clothes, and as a published poet with Catholic patrons, he could finally provide the needed reference.
3. The timing – The Row reopened on 5 November 1888, allowing a potential six-week stay. However, we know Thompson also spent ~6 weeks in a private hospital (the exact dates unrecorded, Meynell’s margin note: “Six weeks, my son!”). He was later dispatched to Storrington before New Year. Reconciling these facts, the likeliest scenario is that Thompson entered the Row at its November opening, stayed briefly (perhaps 10 days), and was then placed in hospital around mid-November. That means he was at large in Whitechapel on 9 November, the date of Kelly’s murder, before his hospital confinement.
4. Mary Kelly connection – A 1973 BBC interview with a nun recalled Kelly herself using Providence Row in the 1880s, pretending reform to get a bed. Robert Thurston Hopkins also hinted that a poet friend of Kelly’s may have known her. If true, that overlap deepens the link between Thompson and the final victim.

So no, Lewis – the “hospital” argument doesn’t exonerate Thompson for Kelly’s murder. The Providence Row calendar, Walsh’s testimony, and Meynell’s note together place him in Spitalfields precisely when the murders peaked. The hospital stay only afterwards explains his sudden disappearance.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, even if "mid-October" means a date as early as October 10th, and even if "around 6 weeks" is 5 weeks, that would still mean that Thompson was in a hospital on the day that Kelly was murdered.

Even if it meant the end of September, 6 weeks takes us past the 9th. This problem is that we don’t know how Walsh came to his estimations of the approximate times. What we do know is that he appears to be a reliable biographer with no axe to grind. He certainly wasn’t writing to defend Thompson from accusations. The best that we can say is that we have no reason to doubt his estimations on times and time periods which means that we can’t categorically eliminate him on the grounds of him having an alibi. The doubt is a very substantial one though.

Richard likes to mention the fact that, in a footnote, Walsh mentions the coincidence of Thompson being out looking for a prostitute at the same time as the ripper was active. Richard tries to paint a picture of Walsh suspecting his guilt and so hiding away this ‘coincidence’ in a footnote. This is nonsense of course. As if no one reads footnotes. A fuller reading of the quote which Richard, true to form, edits explains that Walsh believed that this gave Thompson even more of a sense of urgency in his attempt to find her because he wouldn’t have wanted her to fall victim to the ripper.

[Lewis C]

What “records?” Let Richard produce these “records.” But I’ll tell you what Lewis…he won’t, because there are none. All we have is from Walsh who said that Thompson was searching for his prostitute friend in August/September (he gives no dates, he doesn’t mention a single address where he stayed and there is only one mention anywhere, ever of Thompson being in the area of the murders and that is when he mentioned in an article seeing the men queueing outside the Providence Row refuge but we have no idea when that was and we certainly don’t have any evidence that he ever stayed there himself. Walsh goes on to say that Thompson was sent to a hospital in mid-October (100% certainly not a lunatic asylum but a hospital) It’s estimated that he was there around 6 weeks but again we have no definite dates. But 6 weeks added to mid-October certainly would take us past the Kelly murder which introduces a very serious doubt that Thompson was at large for the Kelly murder. Facts don’t really matter though because Richard just makes up his own.

Yes, even if "mid-October" means a date as early as October 10th, and even if "around 6 weeks" is 5 weeks, that would still mean that Thompson was in a hospital on the day that Kelly was murdered.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"Thompson was at Providence Row night refuge, 50 Crispin Street, Spitalfields, in November 1888—just yards from Miller’s Court, where Mary Kelly was murdered. Records place him there from Nov 5 to Nov 15, covering the exact period of the final canonical killing . The refuge’s open-door policy at night gave him freedom to slip out during murders . That is not speculation; it’s geography and timing. Few suspects can be placed so close to a victim at the precise time."

I believe that it has been determined that Thompson was confined to a hospital at the time of the Kelly murder.

What “records?” Let Richard produce these “records.” But I’ll tell you what Lewis…he won’t, because there are none. All we have is from Walsh who said that Thompson was searching for his prostitute friend in August/September (he gives no dates, he doesn’t mention a single address where he stayed and there is only one mention anywhere, ever of Thompson being in the area of the murders and that is when he mentioned in an article seeing the men queueing outside the Providence Row refuge but we have no idea when that was and we certainly don’t have any evidence that he ever stayed there himself. Walsh goes on to say that Thompson was sent to a hospital in mid-October (100% certainly not a lunatic asylum but a hospital) It’s estimated that he was there around 6 weeks but again we have no definite dates. But 6 weeks added to mid-October certainly would take us past the Kelly murder which introduces a very serious doubt that Thompson was at large for the Kelly murder. Facts don’t really matter though because Richard just makes up his own.

[Lewis C]

"Thompson was at Providence Row night refuge, 50 Crispin Street, Spitalfields, in November 1888—just yards from Miller’s Court, where Mary Kelly was murdered. Records place him there from Nov 5 to Nov 15, covering the exact period of the final canonical killing . The refuge’s open-door policy at night gave him freedom to slip out during murders . That is not speculation; it’s geography and timing. Few suspects can be placed so close to a victim at the precise time."

I believe that it has been determined that Thompson was confined to a hospital at the time of the Kelly murder.

[Herlock Sholmes]

1.
“No evidence Thompson ever stayed in Whitechapel”

Wrong. Thompson was at Providence Row night refuge, 50 Crispin Street, Spitalfields, in November 1888—just yards from Miller’s Court, where Mary Kelly was murdered. Records place him there from Nov 5 to Nov 15, covering the exact period of the final canonical killing . The refuge’s open-door policy at night gave him freedom to slip out during murders . That is not speculation; it’s geography and timing. Few suspects can be placed so close to a victim at the precise time.

This is not the truth. Please show us the evidence that places him Spitalfield’s in that period. And please Richard - don’t just state that he mentioned seeing the men queueing outside of the refuge because that isn’t proof that he stayed there.

2.
“No evidence Thompson was ever violent”

His writings are evidence of violent obsession. In Nightmare of the Witch-Babies (1886), he depicts a knight slitting a woman open and removing unborn children . In Finis Coronat Opus (1889), a poet murders and disembowels a woman as ritual sacrifice . Thompson admitted his poems were autobiographical “poetic diaries.” To dismiss these as harmless fiction ignores his own testimony.

This is not truth. You are quoting works of fiction and imagination. There is not one single example, statement, suggestion or hint of Francis Thompson ever being physically violent but you keep dishonestly skirting around that FACT by waffling on about works of imaginative fiction. No serious adult could call a person ‘violent’ just because he writes about it.

3.
“No ill will toward his prostitute friend”

Fact: after his prostitute lover abandoned him in June 1888, he refused to leave the East End until he found her, obsessively searching . His biographers confirm his devastation. Calling prostitutes “putrid ulcerations of love” and “a hideous blasphemy” shows his disdain . The murders targeted women exactly like her—this is a textbook motive.

Again, because of the embarrassing weakness of your case you are forced again to recourse to Thompson’s fictional work. We have Thompson own writing SPECIFICALLY about his prostitute friend and they are clear expressions of love and kindness.

4.
“Not an arsonist”

As a boy at Ushaw College, Thompson set a church on fire after being denied vestments, an event described as more than a “smouldering accident” . Later he dropped lamps and mishandled fire recklessly. Repeated incidents point to a dangerous pattern—especially when paired with his obsession for destruction in poetry.

Do you have no regard for truth Richard? He did not “set a church on fire” because the smouldering charcoal was stamped out by a housekeeper with a shovel (which you would have stated if you weren’t constantly editing the evidence)

5.
“Never in an asylum”

Evidence shows otherwise. Thompson had a documented breakdown and was treated at Storrington Priory, referred to in records as an “asylum” in the Victorian sense . The police profile Major Henry Smith gave explicitly mentioned “an ex-medical student with asylum history”—and Thompson is the only man known to fit that . To dismiss Victorian terminology as “ludicrous” ignores the period’s language.

This is appalling Richard, it really is. Thompson was never in an asylum. Smith mentions a ‘lunatic asylum’ but he did this in early September of 1888. Why do you try to fool people into ignoring this. Thompson went into a HOSPITAL in around mid-October (so AFTER Smith) And he went in the Priory at Storrington in early 1889!

Please stop making things up and provide a documented evidence of a normal hospital ever being known as a ‘lunatic asylum.’

6.
“Coin fraud was just finding two sovereigns”

Not so. Biographers noted Thompson’s peculiar coin fraud—passing polished halfpennies as gold sovereigns . Major Smith described the Rupert Street suspect as doing exactly that: “bilking prostitutes with polished farthings” . The overlap is uncanny. Coin-fraud in this form was rare, and Thompson matches it precisely.

You are scraping the barrel. I’m actually appalled at the way that you have tried to re-phrase this (clearly what you have being working on while you haven’t been posting) Major Smith’s suspect (who is proven to have been Oswald Puckridge) bilked prostitutes with polished farthings. THIS HAS NEVER BEEN SAID OF FRANCIS THOMPSON ANYWHERE EVER! He found 2 sovereigns in the street. It’s not even remotely connected.

7.
“Never lived near Rupert Street”

He lived on Panton Street, one block from Rupert Street, in 1886 . In 1888, he had a postal address at Charing Cross, again yards away . Major Smith’s Rupert Street suspect had five unique traits: medical student, asylum, prostitutes, coin fraud, Rupert Street. Thompson matches all five, and no other man does . The probability of coincidence is about 1 in 20 quadrillion .

Another disgrace.

What you are suggesting is that Major Henry Smith sent two men to stand specifically in Rupert Street on the off chance that Thompson might pass because he had lived a block away w years previously!! Listen to yourself Richard. You are totally embarrassing yourself. Oswald Puckridge actually lived in Rupert Street and had been released from an asylum just a month before Smith contacted Warren.

The probability that this man - medical student/tick….in an asylum/tick….lived in Rupert Street at the time/tick could have been anyone other that Puckridge is non-existent.

Closing

Mike J. G. calls his points “facts,” but each collapses under primary evidence:

• Whitechapel presence: Proven at Crispin Street refuge during Kelly’s murder. Provable Lie
• Violence: Written confessions of cutting women open. Provable Lie
• Prostitute animosity: Direct motive after abandonment. Provable Lie
• Arson: Multiple fire incidents, including a church blaze. Provable Lie
• Asylum: Storrington treatment, matching Smith’s profile. Provable Lie
• Coin fraud: Identical to police description. Provable Lie
• Rupert Street: Documented residence and postal use. Provable Lie

These aren’t “waffle.” They’re documented links. If he insists otherwise, he must name another suspect who fits all of Smith’s five traits and can be placed at Miller’s Court in November 1888. None exist.

I would seriously suggest that by now not a single serious person with an interest in the case will have looked at the above and shook their head at the utterly contemptible way that you consistently try to manipulate evidence and post things which are provably untrue. I’d ask any person to stand up and say that they defend and agree with the points that you have made.

Seriously Richard…you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Richard Patterson]

Stop making so much bloody sense, Herlock. This is the Thompson thread, slowly gaining ground on the absolute waffle of the Lechmere threads.

1.
“No evidence Thompson ever stayed in Whitechapel”

Wrong. Thompson was at Providence Row night refuge, 50 Crispin Street, Spitalfields, in November 1888—just yards from Miller’s Court, where Mary Kelly was murdered. Records place him there from Nov 5 to Nov 15, covering the exact period of the final canonical killing . The refuge’s open-door policy at night gave him freedom to slip out during murders . That is not speculation; it’s geography and timing. Few suspects can be placed so close to a victim at the precise time.

2.
“No evidence Thompson was ever violent”

His writings are evidence of violent obsession. In Nightmare of the Witch-Babies (1886), he depicts a knight slitting a woman open and removing unborn children . In Finis Coronat Opus (1889), a poet murders and disembowels a woman as ritual sacrifice . Thompson admitted his poems were autobiographical “poetic diaries.” To dismiss these as harmless fiction ignores his own testimony.

3.
“No ill will toward his prostitute friend”

Fact: after his prostitute lover abandoned him in June 1888, he refused to leave the East End until he found her, obsessively searching . His biographers confirm his devastation. Calling prostitutes “putrid ulcerations of love” and “a hideous blasphemy” shows his disdain . The murders targeted women exactly like her—this is a textbook motive.

4.
“Not an arsonist”

As a boy at Ushaw College, Thompson set a church on fire after being denied vestments, an event described as more than a “smouldering accident” . Later he dropped lamps and mishandled fire recklessly. Repeated incidents point to a dangerous pattern—especially when paired with his obsession for destruction in poetry.

5.
“Never in an asylum”

Evidence shows otherwise. Thompson had a documented breakdown and was treated at Storrington Priory, referred to in records as an “asylum” in the Victorian sense . The police profile Major Henry Smith gave explicitly mentioned “an ex-medical student with asylum history”—and Thompson is the only man known to fit that . To dismiss Victorian terminology as “ludicrous” ignores the period’s language.

6.
“Coin fraud was just finding two sovereigns”

Not so. Biographers noted Thompson’s peculiar coin fraud—passing polished halfpennies as gold sovereigns . Major Smith described the Rupert Street suspect as doing exactly that: “bilking prostitutes with polished farthings” . The overlap is uncanny. Coin-fraud in this form was rare, and Thompson matches it precisely.

7.
“Never lived near Rupert Street”

He lived on Panton Street, one block from Rupert Street, in 1886 . In 1888, he had a postal address at Charing Cross, again yards away . Major Smith’s Rupert Street suspect had five unique traits: medical student, asylum, prostitutes, coin fraud, Rupert Street. Thompson matches all five, and no other man does . The probability of coincidence is about 1 in 20 quadrillion .

Closing

Mike J. G. calls his points “facts,” but each collapses under primary evidence:

• Whitechapel presence: Proven at Crispin Street refuge during Kelly’s murder.
• Violence: Written confessions of cutting women open.
• Prostitute animosity: Direct motive after abandonment.
• Arson: Multiple fire incidents, including a church blaze.
• Asylum: Storrington treatment, matching Smith’s profile.
• Coin fraud: Identical to police description.
• Rupert Street: Documented residence and postal use.

These aren’t “waffle.” They’re documented links. If he insists otherwise, he must name another suspect who fits all of Smith’s five traits and can be placed at Miller’s Court in November 1888. None exist.