The Jack the Ripper Mystery is Finally Solved — Scientifically

[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.

[Observer]

I forgot the incomparable

She was on the bridge at midnight

[Observer]

I've just read Thompson's Hound of Heaven, and I have to say that I agree with the genuine genius of Paul Dirac when he said that

The aims of physics and poetry were fundamentally opposed, asserting that science seeks to make new, difficult concepts understandable to everyone, while poetry aims to make simple things incomprehensible.

Thompson's poem is the epitome of the above, a real doozy.

As for my tastes in poetry, I'm more inclined towards

There was an old man of Kentucky....

Twas on the good ship Venus

You get the drift

[Fiver]

If you want to keep arguing that “Smith’s suspect was Thompson and therefore Thompson is proven innocent,” show the document that names him. Otherwise, you’re just moving the alibi from the man who earned it (Puckridge) to the man who was never asked for one (Thompson). That’s not following evidence—that’s erasing it.


A reasonable request under the circumstances . Anyone ?

Nobody is arguing that way. Here's what people are actually arguing.

* Smith's suspect was proven innocent.
* Puckridge matches 3 of the 5 points and is probably the innocent suspect.
* Thompson matches 1 the 5 points and is clearly not the innocent suspect.
* Therefore Thompson could be the Ripper.

The one erasing evidence is Richard.

* Richard ignores that Smith's suspect was proven innocent.
* Richard ignores that Puckridge matches 3 of the 5 points.
* Richard incorrectly claims that Thompson matches all 5 points, when he only matches one.
* Richard ignores that if he can prove that Thompson was Smith's suspect, then he would be proving Thompson was not the Ripper.

[Mike J. G.]

And it looks like even the scalpel bit is wrong.



Thompson said he had used a dissecting-scalpel to shave, not that he carried a scalpel during the time he was homeless.

Richard's hanging a lot of his theories on the idea that Thompson carried that scalpel...

To be honest, if Thompson had a bolt hole in Whitechapel, it wouldn't even be an issue whether he carried a knife on his person or not, but it's being pushed that he spent time on the street and had this scalpel on his person daily in order to shave... Yet the evidence Richard is basing that on has been shown to be questionable.

I'm sure some more numbers and mathematics are on the way in order to counter these points, though!

[Mike J. G.]

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 .

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.

[FISHY1118]

What is reasonable is to ask Richard to stop inventing things because unfortunately some people, who don't know the facts, are being taken in by it.

Francis Thompson was never, ever accused of being involved in any 'coin trick' and it has never even been suggested that he ever carried polished farthings (even though Smith's suspect was indeed found with polished farthings on him) All that Thompson ever did was that he said that he once found 2 sovereign's in the street. If you think that those to things are even on the same planet as a match then there's no hope.

Thompson was also never in a Lunatic Asylum. And I do mean NEVER. Richard knows this and so he tries the embarrassingly desperate suggestion that sometimes people called a normal hospital a lunatic asylum. He has made this up. No one could take this seriously. Well..you appear to.

The the pathetic Rupert Street connection. Thompson had no connection whatsoever to Rupert Street and remember, Smith didn't send his men to the vicinity around Rupert Street. No he sent the specifically do Rupert Street because experience told him that he was likely to find his suspect there...which he did. He absolutely couldn't have expected to find Thompson there.

Richard's claim that Smith's suspect (who was actually found) is a Thompson is a joke. Either you haven't read the evidence properly or you've voted for Richard's point purely because it's a vote against me (which frankly wouldn't surprise me or anyone else I'd guess)

(I'll answer other posts later as I'm in London)

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'' .

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you want to keep arguing that “Smith’s suspect was Thompson and therefore Thompson is proven innocent,” show the document that names him. Otherwise, you’re just moving the alibi from the man who earned it (Puckridge) to the man who was never asked for one (Thompson). That’s not following evidence—that’s erasing it.


A reasonable request under the circumstances . Anyone ?

What is reasonable is to ask Richard to stop inventing things because unfortunately some people, who don't know the facts, are being taken in by it.

Francis Thompson was never, ever accused of being involved in any 'coin trick' and it has never even been suggested that he ever carried polished farthings (even though Smith's suspect was indeed found with polished farthings on him) All that Thompson ever did was that he said that he once found 2 sovereign's in the street. If you think that those to things are even on the same planet as a match then there's no hope.

Thompson was also never in a Lunatic Asylum. And I do mean NEVER. Richard knows this and so he tries the embarrassingly desperate suggestion that sometimes people called a normal hospital a lunatic asylum. He has made this up. No one could take this seriously. Well..you appear to.

The the pathetic Rupert Street connection. Thompson had no connection whatsoever to Rupert Street and remember, Smith didn't send his men to the vicinity around Rupert Street. No he sent the specifically do Rupert Street because experience told him that he was likely to find his suspect there...which he did. He absolutely couldn't have expected to find Thompson there.

Richard's claim that Smith's suspect (who was actually found) is a Thompson is a joke. Either you haven't read the evidence properly or you've voted for Richard's point purely because it's a vote against me (which frankly wouldn't surprise me or anyone else I'd guess)

(I'll answer other posts later as I'm in London)

[FISHY1118]

If you want to keep arguing that “Smith’s suspect was Thompson and therefore Thompson is proven innocent,” show the document that names him. Otherwise, you’re just moving the alibi from the man who earned it (Puckridge) to the man who was never asked for one (Thompson). That’s not following evidence—that’s erasing it.


A reasonable request under the circumstances . Anyone ?

[FISHY1118]

So far, Richard hasn't provided any science to back his theory.

He has insisted that Henry Smith's first suspect was Thompson, but that suspect "proved an alibi without the shadow of doubt". If Thompson was the suspect, then that makes him one of a handful of Ripper suspects with a proven abibi.

Fortunately for the Thompson theory, Henry Smith's proven innocent suspect was probably Oswald Puckridge.

I believe Richard has Adequately responded your Henry Smith concern . I shall leave that as it stands

[FISHY1118]

Go for it, Fishy, show me some evidence that it wasn't Chapman. If you can't prove that it wasn't Chapman, then it was Chapman...

See how embarrassingly silly we can be when we don't try hard enough, Fish?

Luckily, the Thompson Kool-Aid doesn't seem to have been passed around the entire forum yet, so that's something...

It's a wonder why Richard's scientifically proven theory hasn't broken the internet, but maybe the world is still struggling to comprehend all of the evidence.

Cheers

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 .

[Fiver]

Fiver, this is a mischaracterisation on several levels.

It is a statement of fact. You have presented no science in any of your posts.

• The science is valid probability, not hand-waving.
• Smith’s composite five-trait suspect is unique and has never been shown to fit anyone other than Thompson.
• The “proven alibi” belongs to Puckridge, who fails the profile; Thompson had no such alibi tested.

That is why the case against Thompson stands, and why dismissing it by conflating him with Puckridge is a mistake.

Probability is mathematics, not science. Your probability is based on handwaving the odds and ignoring the points that don't apply to Thompson.

Here are Smiths' actual words.

"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"
Does not match Francis Thompson.
Might match Oswald Puckridge.

* "whom he bilked by giving them polished farthings instead of sovereigns"
Does not match Francis Thompson.
Might match Oswald Puckridge.

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

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]

The case being put forward, this so-called "scientific proof" that Thompson was the man, seems to be "might have been in the area, known to carry a scalpel, medically trained and wrote violent poetry."

I'm sorry, mate, but that's not scientific evidence of anything. It's a theory...

And it looks like even the scalpel bit is wrong.



Thompson said he had used a dissecting-scalpel to shave, not that he carried a scalpel during the time he was homeless.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Richard is quite happy to use Walsh when it suits him. It’s said by Walsh, who read the records (and Richard has called him reliable) that Thompson spent August and September searching for his prostitute friend. By October he’d given up. Being alone he was more amenable to accepting help from his friends (meaning the Meynell’s) They got him to see a Doctor who said that he was close to a total collapse in health. This would have been sometime around the beginning of October. By mid-October, again according to the reliable Walsh Thompson was in a hospital trying to get better whilst at the same time trying to kick his drug habit. It’s said that he was in the hospital for around 6 weeks (Richard has also used this figure)

This means that unless Walsh was wrong (which we have zero evidence for) then Thompson was in hospital when Kelly was killed.

It’s very inconvenient though Fiver so of course some way now needs to be found to show that Walsh was wrong. So…cue a bit more creative ‘evidence’ I suspect.

[Richard Patterson]

Here are Smiths' actual words.

"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"
Does not match Francis Thompson.
Might match Oswald Puckridge.

* "whom he bilked by giving them polished farthings instead of sovereigns"
Does not match Francis Thompson.
Might match Oswald Puckridge.

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

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, you’ve bundled together two different things and then treated them as the same. That’s what’s creating your “gotcha” that isn’t.

1) The Rupert Street man with an alibi ≠ Francis Thompson.

The City CID papers Chris Phillips surfaced (shadowing to Rupert St, coffee-house keeper vouching he’d slept there nightly, etc.) point squarely to Oswald Puckridge as the man Smith’s officers tailed and then cleared. That fits Smith’s “there he was… he proved an alibi” line. It doesn’t make Thompson “one of the handful with a proven alibi,” because Thompson was never investigated or alibi-tested at all. So your “sixth trait” objection is misapplied: the “alibi without the shadow of doubt” attaches to Puckridge, not Thompson.

2) What Smith wrote vs. what you’re inferring.

Smith’s paragraph contains (a) a composite thumbnail of the kind of man he thought “very likely” (ex-medical student, asylum background, loose women, coin-bilking), and (b) the specific Rupert Street chase-and-check that ends with “he proved an alibi.” The City file shows the Rupert Street check was Puckridge. He checks some boxes (medical/student, asylum) but not all (no solid evidence of him “spending all his time” with prostitutes, and his polished-farthings anecdote only lives in Smith’s memoir). Thompson, by contrast, is the only established suspect whose life independently aligns with the full rare bundle Smith described (ex-medical student; institutional breakdown; deep entanglement with a prostitute; the Haymarket/Charing Cross base). That’s the point you’re sidestepping: the cleared Rupert Street man and the unique five-trait profile need not be the same individual.

Trait-by-trait, without goalpost-shifting:

• “He had been a medical student.”
  Thompson: six years at Owens with heavy anatomy. Match.
  Puckridge: “believed to have been” / apothecary; weaker, second-hand.
• “He had been in a lunatic asylum.”
  Thompson: documented breakdown and institutional care (Victorian usage blurs “asylum/priory/hospital” routinely in memoirs; the substance is mental collapse + placement). Functional match to the pattern Smith flags.
  Puckridge: yes, explicitly. Match.
• “Spent all his time with women of loose character.”
  Thompson: lived with and then searched for a prostitute partner; autobiographical and biographical testimony puts him deeply, repeatedly among “fallen” women. Strong fit.
  Puckridge: no primary evidence he “spent all his time” with prostitutes—this is conjectural at best.
• “Bilking … with polished farthings.”
  This anchors the Rupert Street surveillance strand that culminates in the alibi—i.e., Puckridge. Treating this sub-trick as a personal fingerprint that must be reproduced by any true suspect is how you accidentally turn Smith’s decoy who was cleared into the yardstick for guilt. The correct reading is: it’s the tell that led City men to watch that man; it is not the sine qua non of the murderer’s identity.
• “Likely to be in Rupert Street … I sent up two men … there he was … he proved an alibi.”
  That is the Puckridge chase—and it exonerates him. It neither touches Thompson nor “proves” anything about him.

So, your table claiming four “Does not match Francis Thompson” boxes is built on a category error: you’ve fused the cleared Rupert Street check (Puckridge) to the broader qualifications requisite Smith lists. Once you disentangle them, two things are clear:

1. The “alibi without a shadow of doubt” applies to Puckridge.
2. The rare composite Smith thought “very likely” (ex-medical; institutional breakdown; steeped in prostitutes; Haymarket/Charing Cross base; a coin-chicanery tell that sent City men to the West End) maps uniquely to Thompson’s independently attested life—not to Puckridge’s.

On the “no science” jab:

What I’ve presented is straight probability: take five independent, rare traits preserved by a contemporary senior officer; apply conservative base rates for 1888 London; calculate the joint probability of a random man matching all five. You can disagree with a base rate, but that’s a parameter debate—not “no science.” To falsify the conclusion, produce another documented 1888 individual who meets all five traits. Saying “Puckridge!” won’t do; he fails the full bundle and, per the City file, is the very man who was cleared.

Bottom line for readers:

• The Rupert Street alibi = Puckridge, not Thompson.
• Smith’s five-trait qualifications requisite are a rarity bundle; Thompson is the only known suspect who aligns across them and aligns on timeline, setting, medical training, and the cessation pattern.
• Calling the probability work “not science” doesn’t answer it. Meeting it means naming a second person who actually fits the full set. No one has.

If you want to keep arguing that “Smith’s suspect was Thompson and therefore Thompson is proven innocent,” show the document that names him. Otherwise, you’re just moving the alibi from the man who earned it (Puckridge) to the man who was never asked for one (Thompson). That’s not following evidence—that’s erasing it.