The Jack the Ripper Mystery is Finally Solved — Scientifically

[Richard Patterson]

Excellent Herlock


We also know that Thompson spent some time living in Kilburn/Maida Vale/Paddington/City of Westminster area of London.

He had several addresses at various times all within a relatively small geographical radius.

He certainly attended various Catholic establishments in and around that area (and further away across London), as well as frequenting the pubs around Kilburn.

It seems that he was based in West London shortly before his death in 1907.

There doesn't seem to be any direct link to the East End; although it's reasonable to assume that he visited the Catholic churches all over London at some point.

The image of a "slight" framed man shuffling along quickly in his distinct brown ulster, and carrying his worn sachel, whilst avoiding not speaking to anyone, is perhaps indicative of a man suffering from the ills of uncontrollable drug use.

Unless he was like Mr Hyde, then it's difficult to imagine him overpowering anyone.

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

[Richard Patterson]

This thread on Thompson being a suspect has been done to death. May I remind posters that in Criminal Investigations, there are 2 different types of categories of suspects. The first is a person of interest which in my opinon is the catergory most of the suspects named on here fit, none of them were to my knowledge ever arrested or interviewed about the murders to make them a full blown suspect and the fact that some of them were mentioned in later years by officers counts for nothing, if it did I have to ask why were they not interviewed at the time or even arrested on suspicion.

The second category is a true suspect "In criminal law a person under investigation by law enforcement is considered a suspect." of all the names of suspects being mentioned, how many were actually interviewed? It has been so easy for senior officers when interviewed in later years to so "I thought it was him------because" and what we see is reseachers actually wanting to believe what they say with no proof

Now changing topic in relation to the Virchow procedure, which has been discussed many times and some researchers suggest it showed medical skill in removing Kellys heart. I Posted a couple of days ago an extract of a report I commissioned from a modern-day forensic pathologist. The relevant parts are set out below.

The Virchow “method” isn’t really a specific technique for removing the heart in particular, but it refers more generally to the principle of removing organs one-by-one for individual examination. My preference for most cases is to remove all the organs together as a single “block”, and then place them onto a dissection bench for systematic examination. However, in certain cases (e.g. stabbings) I will adopt the one-organ-at-a-time (Virchow) approach, as this makes it easier to follow stab wound tracks through the body (whereas removing them all together distorts measurements and makes it easier to lose track).

Getting back to the reports you sent, where it says things like, “…the Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent…” this is what you might expect if the heart has been removed on its own (i.e. the “Virchow” method). For better access and to allow us to see the various vascular attachments, we tend to open the pericardium (fibrous sac enclosing the heart) using an inverted T-shape incision, so if the pericardium really was just “open below” then that implies that someone either didn’t know (or care) what they were doing, or didn’t have time to do it “properly”. So it goes against the person having anatomical skill / knowledge... but only very slightly!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,

It’s interesting to see you call out “truth and lies” while defending your own favored line. Let’s be blunt: the merchant seaman theory you’ve long promoted is one of the oldest Ripper suspects in the book. Edward Larkins floated it in 1888. Queen Victoria even speculated about the cattle boats. A century later, you presented it as “new.” The problem is not only that it isn’t new—it isn’t anchored to a single verifiable individual. You list ships, not men. That’s not a suspect; it’s a shadow cast on the Thames.

Now contrast that with Thompson. He is not a vague category of profession, he is a named individual, with:

• Medical training documented at Owens College, dissecting corpses with skill.
• Psychiatric collapse admitted by his own family and biographers—Victorians used “asylum” loosely, and pretending otherwise ignores the reality of his confinement.
• Prostitute connections, confirmed by Hopkins and biographical testimony, with his lover vanishing just before the murders.
• Rupert Street proximity, fitting Major Smith’s nexus of watch, where Thompson lived and wandered during his drug-ridden years.
• Coin trick motif, corroborated by Smith’s farthing anecdote, which you dismiss outright—but only by deciding in advance it “must” not apply.

Your argument boils down to calling all this “lies” because it inconveniences the neat box you’d like the evidence to fit into. But “facts are facts,” as you say: Thompson fits a bundle of traits no other named man does.

Finally, on your commissioned report: the pathologist you cite admits that the Kelly heart removal suggests either lack of time or a rushed hand. But speed does not mean incompetence—it means urgency. No modern pathologist operates crouched in darkness, in minutes, with crude blades. For such conditions, even a “slight” hint of anatomical familiarity is telling. Thompson had years of precisely that.

So here’s the stark contrast:

• The merchant seaman theory is vague, recycled, and never tied to a single man.
• The Thompson case is specific, document-based, and mathematically improbable to be coincidence.

Between the two, only one delivers a suspect in the legal sense you demand: a named individual matching multiple independent police traits. And it is not the seaman.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Excellent Herlock


We also know that Thompson spent some time living in Kilburn/Maida Vale/Paddington/City of Westminster area of London.

He had several addresses at various times all within a relatively small geographical radius.

He certainly attended various Catholic establishments in and around that area (and further away across London), as well as frequenting the pubs around Kilburn.

It seems that he was based in West London shortly before his death in 1907.

There doesn't seem to be any direct link to the East End; although it's reasonable to assume that he visited the Catholic churches all over London at some point.

The image of a "slight" framed man shuffling along quickly in his distinct brown ulster, and carrying his worn sachel, whilst avoiding not speaking to anyone, is perhaps indicative of a man suffering from the ills of uncontrollable drug use.

Unless he was like Mr Hyde, then it's difficult to imagine him overpowering anyone.

The only thing that tells us that he was ever in the East End appears to be the article that he wrote in which he mentioned seeing the men queueing outside the Providence Row Refuge. We don’t know when this occurred so it may well have been before the murders. It’s also, of course, not evidence of staying in the East End. I saw The Ritz recently but I didn’t stay there. We have no evidence that he stayed there and yet, from these facts, Richard states as a fact the Thompson was living within a 100 yards of the murder sites at the time of the murders. What also has to be factored in is that Thompson’s friend was a West End prostitute and the only thing that we know about her is that she lived somewhere in Chelsea. So if Thompson was searching for her it would have made far more sense for him to have searched the West End (a daunting task) It’s not impossible that he might have tried the East End after having no success or after receiving a tip but this would be speculation as we have no reason to believe so.

You rightly mention Thompson’s physical condition which was never robust and was made much worse by his rough sleeping, his poor diet and his drug addiction. By around early October when he was examined by a doctor he was in a state of near total physical collapse and was sent to a hospital to recover. A condition like that doesn’t come on over night so this means that all through the period of the first four murders Thompson was in extremely poor health, almost certainly malnourished, under the influence of drugs, ragged, unwashed and unclean and focused on one thing only - persuading his friend to come back.

One final short point RD about this woman. Richard tries to paint a picture of an angry Thompson scouring the East End searching for this woman that betrayed him intent on murder and committing other murders along the way. This, in absolutely no way, accords with what we know about a man who committed not one single recorded act of violence in his life. He wrote about that woman in later life and it was made clear that he bore her absolutely no ill will. Only fondness and affection. Even years later he spoke wistfully of wishing that he could see her again. No one that knew him ever mentioned Thompson displaying an anger or resentment toward her after she had left. So Richard has to resort to poetry. To fiction.

Francis Thompson was no killer.

[The Rookie Detective]

Just thought I’d post a rough ‘Thompson Timeline’ based on Walsh.

November 8th 1885 - There is a falling out between Thompson and his father with various possible reasons being suggested - his father accusing him of being a drunkard because of his flushed appearance (though we now know that this was due to drugs) - his father finding out about his drug habit - his father finding that Francis had been stealing from his stock of laudanum - Francis being unhappy about his father’s upcoming second marriage - or maybe a combination. Thompson left for London on foot.

November 15th 1885 - This is John Walsh’s estimated time of Thompson’s arrival in London. One of the first things that he did was to write to his sister Mary giving the address of a reading room in the Strand so that his father could send his allowance of seven shillings a week. He soon found work as a collector at a bookstore but this didn’t last long.

The first half of 1886 - Thompson is surviving on his allowance and whatever odd jobs he can pick up. He is still using opium. Thompson, at some point, began to use the Guildhall Library but was eventually asked to leave because he was so poorly dressed. He spent some time in galleries and museums.

July 1886 - Walsh suggests that it is perhaps likely that Thompson was living entirely on the streets by this time and spending most of whatever money that he received on drugs.

Early August 1886 - Thompson meets John McMaster who owned a boot shop just off Leicester Square. He was a religious man who often helped those in need. He saw Thompson (possibly while he was trying to sell matches but the exact circumstances are unknown) After contacting the Ashton police to confirm his good background he gave Francis a job learning the trade, had him examined by a doctor, bought him new clothes, arranged his daily food and found him a room in Southampton Row. He even attempted a family reconciliation. Thompson was still writing at this time.

Around mid-January 1887 - McMaster let Thompson go as his drug taking began to affect his work. He tried to get him to stop taking them but to no avail.

On 23rd February 1887 - Thompson sends a packet of manuscripts to a Catholic monthly called Merry England, edited by Wilfrid Meynell. He gave his return address as Poste Restante at Charing Cross Post Office but by the time that a reply arrived Thompson had disappeared. At around this time Walsh believes that Thompson was on the streets.

Around mid 1887 - According to the niece of Thompson’s father’s second wife his father and new bride went to London to look for Francis after they had been married on April 27th.

Around mid-June 1887 - Wilfrid Meynell finally gets around to reading Thompson’s submission. He sends a letter to the address given by Thompson.

- Walsh has Thompson living among the city’s “drifting horde of derelicts.” Thompson later spoke of a time when hunger and homelessness invested his life with “unspeakable misery.” He published no specific recollections of those days. He slept in doorways, on benches by the Thames or even under the arches of the bridges.

Late Summer 1887 - This is the time that Walsh believes the approximate time that Thompson might have met his prostitute girlfriend and that he lived with her at least intermittently.

September/October 1887 - Meynell’s letter to Thompson is returned to him undelivered.

Early 1888 - Thompson bought a large amount of laudanum and intended to commit suicide somewhere behind Covent Garden but he saw in his mind the image of the poet Chatterton so he didn’t go through with it.

End of March 1888 - Thompson is informed by a priest that one of his poems has been published in Merry England.

April 14th 1888 - Thompson writes to Meynell giving a return address of a chemist in Drury Lane.

Mid-May 1888 - Thompson and Meynell meet for the first time at Meynell’s office. Thompson reveals nothing of his background or circumstances.

June/July 1888 - Thompson continues to visit Meynell at his office and even at his home (where he persuaded Thompson to take a bath.

Around August/September 1888 - Thompson is searching for his friend.

Possibly around mid-October - Thompson has accepted that she had gone for good. Around this time Thompson was seen by a doctor. He was near total physical collapse exacerbated by his drug use. He was admitted to a private hospital to help him recover and to wean him off drugs.

Around December 1888 - Thompson was out of hospital and living in lodgings (probably in Paddington according to Walsh) but visiting the Meynell’s almost every day.

Around the beginning of 1889 - Thompson relapses.

February 1889 - Thompson arrives at the Priory of Our Lady of England in Storrington, near Kithurst Hill on the South Downs in Sussex.

March 1890 - Thompson returned to London.

Excellent Herlock


We also know that Thompson spent some time living in Kilburn/Maida Vale/Paddington/City of Westminster area of London.

He had several addresses at various times all within a relatively small geographical radius.

He certainly attended various Catholic establishments in and around that area (and further away across London), as well as frequenting the pubs around Kilburn.

It seems that he was based in West London shortly before his death in 1907.

There doesn't seem to be any direct link to the East End; although it's reasonable to assume that he visited the Catholic churches all over London at some point.

The image of a "slight" framed man shuffling along quickly in his distinct brown ulster, and carrying his worn sachel, whilst avoiding not speaking to anyone, is perhaps indicative of a man suffering from the ills of uncontrollable drug use.

Unless he was like Mr Hyde, then it's difficult to imagine him overpowering anyone.

[Lewis C]

The original version of the Royal Conspiracy had Anderson instead Sickert.

OK, Thanks!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just thought I’d post a rough ‘Thompson Timeline’ based on Walsh.

November 8th 1885 - There is a falling out between Thompson and his father with various possible reasons being suggested - his father accusing him of being a drunkard because of his flushed appearance (though we now know that this was due to drugs) - his father finding out about his drug habit - his father finding that Francis had been stealing from his stock of laudanum - Francis being unhappy about his father’s upcoming second marriage - or maybe a combination. Thompson left for London on foot.

November 15th 1885 - This is John Walsh’s estimated time of Thompson’s arrival in London. One of the first things that he did was to write to his sister Mary giving the address of a reading room in the Strand so that his father could send his allowance of seven shillings a week. He soon found work as a collector at a bookstore but this didn’t last long.

The first half of 1886 - Thompson is surviving on his allowance and whatever odd jobs he can pick up. He is still using opium. Thompson, at some point, began to use the Guildhall Library but was eventually asked to leave because he was so poorly dressed. He spent some time in galleries and museums.

July 1886 - Walsh suggests that it is perhaps likely that Thompson was living entirely on the streets by this time and spending most of whatever money that he received on drugs.

Early August 1886 - Thompson meets John McMaster who owned a boot shop just off Leicester Square. He was a religious man who often helped those in need. He saw Thompson (possibly while he was trying to sell matches but the exact circumstances are unknown) After contacting the Ashton police to confirm his good background he gave Francis a job learning the trade, had him examined by a doctor, bought him new clothes, arranged his daily food and found him a room in Southampton Row. He even attempted a family reconciliation. Thompson was still writing at this time.

Around mid-January 1887 - McMaster let Thompson go as his drug taking began to affect his work. He tried to get him to stop taking them but to no avail.

On 23rd February 1887 - Thompson sends a packet of manuscripts to a Catholic monthly called Merry England, edited by Wilfrid Meynell. He gave his return address as Poste Restante at Charing Cross Post Office but by the time that a reply arrived Thompson had disappeared. At around this time Walsh believes that Thompson was on the streets.

Around mid 1887 - According to the niece of Thompson’s father’s second wife his father and new bride went to London to look for Francis after they had been married on April 27th.

Around mid-June 1887 - Wilfrid Meynell finally gets around to reading Thompson’s submission. He sends a letter to the address given by Thompson.

- Walsh has Thompson living among the city’s “drifting horde of derelicts.” Thompson later spoke of a time when hunger and homelessness invested his life with “unspeakable misery.” He published no specific recollections of those days. He slept in doorways, on benches by the Thames or even under the arches of the bridges.

Late Summer 1887 - This is the time that Walsh believes the approximate time that Thompson might have met his prostitute girlfriend and that he lived with her at least intermittently.

September/October 1887 - Meynell’s letter to Thompson is returned to him undelivered.

Early 1888 - Thompson bought a large amount of laudanum and intended to commit suicide somewhere behind Covent Garden but he saw in his mind the image of the poet Chatterton so he didn’t go through with it.

End of March 1888 - Thompson is informed by a priest that one of his poems has been published in Merry England.

April 14th 1888 - Thompson writes to Meynell giving a return address of a chemist in Drury Lane.

Mid-May 1888 - Thompson and Meynell meet for the first time at Meynell’s office. Thompson reveals nothing of his background or circumstances.

June/July 1888 - Thompson continues to visit Meynell at his office and even at his home (where he persuaded Thompson to take a bath.

Around August/September 1888 - Thompson is searching for his friend.

Possibly around mid-October - Thompson has accepted that she had gone for good. Around this time Thompson was seen by a doctor. He was near total physical collapse exacerbated by his drug use. He was admitted to a private hospital to help him recover and to wean him off drugs.

Around December 1888 - Thompson was out of hospital and living in lodgings (probably in Paddington according to Walsh) but visiting the Meynell’s almost every day.

Around the beginning of 1889 - Thompson relapses.

February 1889 - Thompson arrives at the Priory of Our Lady of England in Storrington, near Kithurst Hill on the South Downs in Sussex.

March 1890 - Thompson returned to London.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Now changing topic in relation to the Virchow procedure, which has been discussed many times and some researchers suggest it showed medical skill in removing Kellys heart. I Posted a couple of days ago an extract of a report I commissioned from a modern-day forensic pathologist. The relevant parts are set out below.

The Virchow “method” isn’t really a specific technique for removing the heart in particular, but it refers more generally to the principle of removing organs one-by-one for individual examination. My preference for most cases is to remove all the organs together as a single “block”, and then place them onto a dissection bench for systematic examination. However, in certain cases (e.g. stabbings) I will adopt the one-organ-at-a-time (Virchow) approach, as this makes it easier to follow stab wound tracks through the body (whereas removing them all together distorts measurements and makes it easier to lose track).

Getting back to the reports you sent, where it says things like, “…the Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent…” this is what you might expect if the heart has been removed on its own (i.e. the “Virchow” method). For better access and to allow us to see the various vascular attachments, we tend to open the pericardium (fibrous sac enclosing the heart) using an inverted T-shape incision, so if the pericardium really was just “open below” then that implies that someone either didn’t know (or care) what they were doing, or didn’t have time to do it “properly”. So it goes against the person having anatomical skill / knowledge... but only very slightly!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thanks for clearing that up Trevor. I had read only one piece on the method but ended wondering if I’d mis-read it and needed to go back. I took from it that the Virchow method wasn’t describing a method of organ removal but that it was a preferred method of dissecting a corpse for forensic examination which involved removing the organs and examining them individually as opposed removing them all and selecting which order you wish to examine them in; just as you have now confirmed. I hadn’t previously known this.

The most interesting part of your forensic pathologists report, for me, is this part:

”so if the pericardium really was just “open below” then that implies that someone either didn’t know (or care) what they were doing, or didn’t have time to do it “properly”.

This appears to me to eliminate the suggestion that Thompson’s medical education makes him a better suspect.

Thanks Trevor

[Herlock Sholmes]

Posted in error

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

This thread on Thompson being a suspect has been done to death. May I remind posters that in Criminal Investigations, there are 2 different types of categories of suspects. The first is a person of interest which in my opinon is the catergory most of the suspects named on here fit, none of them were to my knowledge ever arrested or interviewed about the murders to make them a full blown suspect and the fact that some of them were mentioned in later years by officers counts for nothing, if it did I have to ask why were they not interviewed at the time or even arrested on suspicion.

The second category is a true suspect "In criminal law a person under investigation by law enforcement is considered a suspect." of all the names of suspects being mentioned, how many were actually interviewed? It has been so easy for senior officers when interviewed in later years to so "I thought it was him------because" and what we see is reseachers actually wanting to believe what they say with no proof

Now changing topic in relation to the Virchow procedure, which has been discussed many times and some researchers suggest it showed medical skill in removing Kellys heart. I Posted a couple of days ago an extract of a report I commissioned from a modern-day forensic pathologist. The relevant parts are set out below.

The Virchow “method” isn’t really a specific technique for removing the heart in particular, but it refers more generally to the principle of removing organs one-by-one for individual examination. My preference for most cases is to remove all the organs together as a single “block”, and then place them onto a dissection bench for systematic examination. However, in certain cases (e.g. stabbings) I will adopt the one-organ-at-a-time (Virchow) approach, as this makes it easier to follow stab wound tracks through the body (whereas removing them all together distorts measurements and makes it easier to lose track).

Getting back to the reports you sent, where it says things like, “…the Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent…” this is what you might expect if the heart has been removed on its own (i.e. the “Virchow” method). For better access and to allow us to see the various vascular attachments, we tend to open the pericardium (fibrous sac enclosing the heart) using an inverted T-shape incision, so if the pericardium really was just “open below” then that implies that someone either didn’t know (or care) what they were doing, or didn’t have time to do it “properly”. So it goes against the person having anatomical skill / knowledge... but only very slightly!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fiver]

I didn't know that anyone had ever considered Anderson a suspect, but I agree that he had an alibi.

The original version of the Royal Conspiracy had Anderson instead Sickert.

[Lewis C]

Robert Anderson - not in England at the time of some of the murders.

Jacob Isenschmid - confined to a hospital during the Double Event.

John Pizer - was talking to a police constable at the time of the Nichols murder.

James Thomas Sadler - at sea at the time of the first four of the C5 murders.

Walter Sickert - not in England at the time of some of the murders.

Robert Donston Stephenson - confined to a hospital during the murders.

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. I didn't know that anyone had ever considered Anderson a suspect, but I agree that he had an alibi. In the cases of Sickert and Stephenson, I thought that there was at least a theoretical chance that Sickert went to England to commit the murders and returned to France, and that Stephenson left the hospital to commit the murders and returned without anyone noticing or thinking anything of it, though I'll agree that both scenarios are highly unlikely.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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. Does this really portray Thompson as a man almost obsessively needing corpses for dissection? Clearly it shows an addict coming up with any excuse that he can to get money from his father. The fact that he not only spent his money on drugs but on other items (that he claimed were given to him) shows a man that might easily be called a ‘wastrel’. The fact that his sister used the telling phrase “…each time he went for his supposed examination” shows us that Thompson wasn’t actually attending his examinations but was happy to take the money from his father for them. And if a student is deliberately avoiding examinations it is only reasonable to assume that he wasn’t doing the work that would allow him to pass them.

Thompson studied for 6 years and it seems unlikely that he would have been allowed to continue studying had he done no work at all or that he had avoided every single examination, so is it possible, and I’m only making a suggestion here, that he avoided (at least to some unknown extent) one aspect of his studies or at least did far less work on one aspect which left him unable to sit examinations? Could this have been surgery? In his book, Walsh said that Thompson had a ‘horror of the dissecting room’. Walsh doesn’t strike me as a man to simply make things up as he had absolutely no reason to. So might this have been true and that it was something that Thompson wasn’t prepared to admit to his father?

The picture that we get from his own sister certainly isn’t one of the rigorous student; of the zealous dissector of corpses. She gives us a rather more real and more rounded one based on personal experience and real knowledge of a poor student, of an addict spending more time in pursuit of pleasure (or to be fair, I tend to think that Thompson believed drugs to have been a means of ‘unlocking’ his poetic imagination) of someone quite willing to lie to his father to get his fix. Someone one not doing the work required to sit exams. That he would still have had enough medical/anatomical knowledge to have committed the ripper murders (despite us not being able to agree on what, if any, level was required) remains uncontested of course.

[Fiver]

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.

Robert Anderson - not in England at the time of some of the murders.

Jacob Isenschmid - confined to a hospital during the Double Event.

John Pizer - was talking to a police constable at the time of the Nichols murder.

James Thomas Sadler - at sea at the time of the first four of the C5 murders.

Walter Sickert - not in England at the time of some of the murders.

Robert Donston Stephenson - confined to a hospital during the murders.

[Lewis C]

Dont be silly Mike, and please do stick on point . Its never been about what your claiming in regards to Chapman .Ive never said just because the evidence we have on Thompson cant be disproven, that therefor must make him the Ripper ! Only that its makes him a Much Better suspect than most others . I hope that clears up your misunderstanding .

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As long as we agree with ''Your Facts'' , is that it ? . Sorry but we,ve all been down that road before . Not interested

Im fairly certain Herlock that Richard has already successfully covered these point you,ve bought up .... again . But im sure he would only be happy to brouch them a 2nd time [or 3rd for that matter] . As far as voting in favour of Richards post just to spite you or anyone else is of course ridiculous, but none the less expected from you .


Evidence must be disproven with Evidence, not speculation ,opinion or accusations of ''Invention Things'' .

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.