The Jack the Ripper Mystery is Finally Solved — Scientifically

[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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

People are always going to favour one suspect over another of course John but, as you say, Cross, Thompson (and the recent Van Gogh book) are examples of the defend-at-all-costs-mentality that some take. Most of us would like to be the one that solves the case but we all know it’s unlikely (to put it mildly) but some take it to such a ridiculous extent. A Victorian era cart driver wears his working clothes to an inquest and it’s indicative of guilt. Someone that’s never been violent but writes some poetry containing some violence and it makes the poet a violent man. A poverty-stricken painter is living in France but just because it’s not physically impossible to have travelled to England it’s dismissed as a ‘no problem.’ A man is seen standing in the middle of the road with the body a short distance ahead and across the road but it becomes ‘standing next to…’ or ‘crouching over.’ A poet has three examples from childhood to adult of mishaps to do with fire and he gets classed as an arsonist which shows that he was a psychopath.

The ‘Waffle Alarm’ will be needed a regular supply of new batteries.

[Mike J. G.]

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.

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

From the same source you say ? , 100% facts ?. Whos to be the judge to say that you have interpreted the ''Facts'' correctly and Richards has not ? . Your seem to be only contradictiong his opinion of those facts from the same source. His just as likely to be correct as you, is he not ?.

I think weve come to the end of this topic . The evidence has been discussed enough for me .

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.

[Mike J. G.]

No im not Richards fanboy ,i just happen to respect the amount of research and evidence that his put into a suspect, which as yet i havent seen anyone disprove .Just a lot of opinions that Thompson wasnt JtR , thats fine there just opinions, were all entitled to them. As yet still tho no evidence to prove his evidence wrong , just opinions .

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

[FISHY1118]

No. Facts are facts. This isn’t about interpretation or opinion. It’s about truth and lies. I prefer the former.

That Thompson was at anytime involved in an ‘trick’ involving coins is a lie and I challenge anyone (including Richard) to prove me wrong.

That Thompson was in a lunatic asylum is a lie. The suggestion that hospitals were sometimes called lunatic asylums is a lie.

That Major Smith would expect to find Thompson in Rupert Street is a lie. Smith clearly wasn’t talking about a ‘general area’ or a ‘nexus’ he was talking about a specific location and anyone that says that Thompson had any connection whatsoever is telling lies.

All of these are proven, rock solid, 100% facts. They are from the exact same source that Richard uses. It’s just that I’m reading them and relating the information honestly.

From the same source you say ? , 100% facts ?. Whos to be the judge to say that you have interpreted the ''Facts'' correctly and Richards has not ? . Your seem to be only contradictiong his opinion of those facts from the same source. His just as likely to be correct as you, is he not ?.

I think weve come to the end of this topic . The evidence has been discussed enough for me .

[FISHY1118]

I couldn't be more on point, Fishy.

As for being silly...

You're acting like a fanboy for Richard's theory and are demanding, like a spoiled child, that everyone needs to disprove his theories, and then you're asking me not to be silly when I spin your own demands back onto you.

That's awkward, mate.

It's been demonstrated to you, and Richard, countless times, how none of this mental gymnastics amounts to anything remotely resembling science. Rather than admit that these are merely theories based on questionable foundations, you just keep doubling down and insisting that people prove these theories wrong.

As for Thompson being a better suspect than Chapman, you opt to avoid addressing that by saying it's not on topic while simultaneously claiming that Thompson is a "much better suspect than others."

I'm not interested in coming here for petty squabbling, but I'll always call it as I see it, and what you're doing here amounts to average childish trolling.

Richard's theories (not facts ) as shown by Fiver, Herlock and others, seem to consist of: "I believe X and Y to be the case, therefore we can speculate that..."

And then he calls that science and you applaud him for it and ask that it be disproven. You're presumably old enough and intelligent enough to know how daft that is...

Yet here we are.

Thompson cannot be proven to have been in the area during the murders.

Thompson cannot be proven to have been violent towards anyone.

Thompson cannot be proven to have carried a knife.

Thompson cannot be proven to have been in enough good health to commit multiple murders and flee the scene.

...

Chapman can be proven to have been in the area during the murders.

Chapman can be proven to have been violent towards women.

Chapman had used a knife to threaten his wife.

Chapman was physically capable of pulling the murders off and had a place in the area to flee to afterwards.

So basically, while I don't believe it was Chapman, he's still a far more likely suspect than Thompson.

Keep mind, this is a THEORY. It'd do you and Richard well to begin to understand the gulf of difference between established fact and personal speculation.

No offence to you, Fishy, but you can't accuse me of being silly when you're in here waffling this sort of mush.

No im not Richards fanboy ,i just happen to respect the amount of research and evidence that his put into a suspect, which as yet i havent seen anyone disprove .Just a lot of opinions that Thompson wasnt JtR , thats fine there just opinions, were all entitled to them. As yet still tho no evidence to prove his evidence wrong , just opinions .

[FISHY1118]

That doesn't make him a better suspect than most others (though he could be anyway for other reasons) because the vast majority of suspects in the case cannot be proven innocent. Cream, Ostrog, Van Gogh, and Prince Albert Victor have been proven innocent, and I think that we can now add Oswald Puckeridge to that list. If not, he's the closest thing to it. I don't believe that there are any others.

A better suspect than the ones we know who have not been proven to be so called ''innocent '' . Bury , Druitt , Lechmere , Maybrick .

[Paddy Goose]

Welcome back to Casebook Richard, I recall your prior discussions here.

Thompson’s collapse, confinement, and medical oversight are attested by family, biographers, and his own letters.

Yes, collapse and confinement due to drug addiction. He was otherwise a talented, inspired young man without a violent bone in his body.

We disagree 100%, but as the Ink Spots sang so beautifully -

To Each His Own

[The Rookie Detective]

Rookie,

You keep invoking “truth and lies” as though merely declaring them decides the issue. But let’s check your inserts against the record:

• “Coin trick is a lie.” Major Henry Smith — Acting Commissioner in 1888 — put it in his memoir. Police on the street recorded polished farthings passed off as sovereigns. Dismissing Smith doesn’t erase him. Either you take police testimony seriously, or you discard it wholesale. You can’t pick and choose.
• “Thompson was never in an asylum.” Victorians used “hospital” and “asylum” interchangeably. Thompson’s collapse, confinement, and medical oversight are attested by family, biographers, and his own letters. Quibbling over labels while denying the reality of his breakdown is semantics, not truth.
• “No Rupert Street connection.” Thompson lived and drifted in precisely that nexus — homeless, drug-dependent, haunting the same streets Major Smith’s men watched. If Smith’s “general area” doesn’t cover Rupert Street, then the map of Whitechapel never existed.

You call these “lies,” but they are simply inconvenient facts.

Now contrast your position with mine. You don’t name a suspect. You don’t supply a probability. You recycle negations. Thompson, on the other hand, is a named individual who uniquely converges: medical training, psychiatric collapse, prostitute ties, Rupert Street geography, and even the coin motif. That bundle of traits has a one-in-quadrillions probability of coincidence.

As for the Virchow report you cite: your own expert concedes the heart removal was done hastily but not incompetently. Exactly what you’d expect from a man with surgical grounding working under time pressure, in darkness, with a knife. Thompson’s training makes sense of it.

So the ledger is simple:

• Your approach — dismiss, deny, and leave the Ripper faceless.
• Thompson — specific, documented, convergent, and statistically overwhelmingly

Interestingly, I never cited a Virchow report.

Someone (or something) has gotten themselves into a mucking fuddle by the sound of it.

The limitations of AI perhaps.

My actual point was that Thompson would be a viable person of interest, even without your input; which inadvertently weakens Thompson's candidacy as the potential Ripper, because you're adding exaggerations, inconsistencies, elaborations, falsehoods and untruths into the mix.

As I said... less is more with Thompson.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.

• “No Rupert Street connection.” Thompson lived and drifted in precisely that nexus — homeless, drug-dependent, haunting the same streets Major Smith’s men watched. If Smith’s “general area” doesn’t cover Rupert Street, then the map of Whitechapel never existed.

Prove it. I realise that you have a form of allergy to evidence but Thompson didn’t live near to Rupert Street. In fact, just before Smith made the point, Thompson was living around 2 miles away in Chelsea.

Secondly and most obviously (and most annoyingly because you simply blank this point) Smith sent his men to Rupert Street. Not to the area around Rupert Street and he clearly did this because he knew that Rupert Street (not a ‘nexus’ or an area but Rupert Street specifically) was where his man was almost certainly going to be. If Smith was looking for Francis Thompson he wouldn’t have sent his men to stand in Rupert Street on the freakish off-chance that Thompson might have, on that particular day, wandered along it for some reason.

THREE of your points out of THREE categorically refuted and dismissed. See if you can find a single person who disagrees and who agrees with your strange interpretation of what the word ‘match’ means.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.

• “Thompson was never in an asylum.” Victorians used “hospital” and “asylum” interchangeably. Thompson’s collapse, confinement, and medical oversight are attested by family, biographers, and his own letters. Quibbling over labels while denying the reality of his breakdown is semantics, not truth.

Just stating that Victorians used hospital and lunatic asylum (Smith’s exact words) won’t make it true. How about providing some evidence for a change. Whilst some family member might have used ‘hospital’ instead of ‘lunatic asylum’ as a euphemism to protect the family reputation, it doesn’t work the other way. Why would anyone call a hospital a lunatic asylum?

This isn’t semantic it’s honesty. You make a bizarre claim - you provide no evidence for it - and you expect everyone else just to brush aside their own very obvious objections and agree. It doesn’t work like that.

It was never the case that a medical hospital was ever called a lunatic asylum. Another point categorically eliminated.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.

• “Coin trick is a lie.” Major Henry Smith — Acting Commissioner in 1888 — put it in his memoir. Police on the street recorded polished farthings passed off as sovereigns. Dismissing Smith doesn’t erase him. Either you take police testimony seriously, or you discard it wholesale. You can’t pick and choose.

You have to assess though. You have to use judgment, reason, sense and honesty. If you are calling two things ‘a match’ as you are then you have to assess that assertion fairly. Two events:

Smith’s man bilked prostitutes using polished farthings

Thompson once found 2 sovereigns in the street.

There won’t be a single person on this entire forum, or JtRForums, or any forum, or any location on the planet outside of an asylum who would call these two things even remotely similar; never mind ‘a match.’ The suggestion of a match is just so crazy that I’m struggling to find the right words. These two cannot, under any circumstances, be considered remotely connected.

They are GONE and no matter how many times you bloody-mindedly keep quoting them as a match it won’t make it so.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have no particular desire to spend time on this line of argument, but you've raised a point that I feel you should address.



One-in-quadrillions, really? Broadly lives in the area of Whitechapel, ties to sex workers, treated in a hospital are three of your traits. One-in-quadrillions. Really?

You're making a statistical argument, which quite frankly looks implausible. If you want anyone to accept that, you will have to show your data and your methodology.

Hi Sean, If you don’t mind me adding - there’s not a single shred of evidence that Thompson ever stayed in the Whitechapel area.

[seanr]

I have no particular desire to spend time on this line of argument, but you've raised a point that I feel you should address.

Now contrast your position with mine. You don’t name a suspect. You don’t supply a probability. You recycle negations. Thompson, on the other hand, is a named individual who uniquely converges: medical training, psychiatric collapse, prostitute ties, Rupert Street geography, and even the coin motif. That bundle of traits has a one-in-quadrillions probability of coincidence.

One-in-quadrillions, really? Broadly lives in the area of Whitechapel, ties to sex workers, treated in a hospital are three of your traits. One-in-quadrillions. Really?

You're making a statistical argument, which quite frankly looks implausible. If you want anyone to accept that, you will have to show your data and your methodology.