The Jack the Ripper Mystery is Finally Solved — Scientifically

[Richard Patterson]

I can only offer up this reply , as ive already explained .

With the ''Mutlilation'' not the Heart Removal ,which he decribes in his post mortem as a known new Medical Procedure , and please dont reply with he didnt say it was , i know that ,we all know that , my point being he ''Described'' it as such . Conclusion ? , Medical Skill Heart Removal ..... No evidence of scientific or anatomical knowledge Mutilation .

I given valid reasons why Dr Bond didnt yell it from the rooftops in previous post so i think ill leave it at that .

Bond stated in the autopsy report that the pericardium was open from below and the heart was absent. Accessing the heart from the abdominal cavity was leading edge at the time, and the surgical removal of the heart from its enclosing sheath does not meet the description of a slash and grab. I would suggest that Bond's knowledge of the latest medical procedures was not up to standard. If you do some research into Bond, including Prosector's remarks on the subject, you may deduce that Bond was far from being in the same league as Phillips and Brown.

[FISHY1118]

No he didn’t. He said quite clearly that: “ In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals.”

That is what Bond thought. At no time ever did he say “the heart was removed using a procedure that only a medical expert would have been able to perform.” Or anything remotely like it.

Its as simple as that. So, of Brown, Sequiera, Bond and Phillips only Phillips saw evidence of medical knowledge. That’s one in four Fishy.

I can only offer up this reply , as ive already explained .

With the ''Mutlilation'' not the Heart Removal ,which he decribes in his post mortem as a known new Medical Procedure , and please dont reply with he didnt say it was , i know that ,we all know that , my point being he ''Described'' it as such . Conclusion ? , Medical Skill Heart Removal ..... No evidence of scientific or anatomical knowledge Mutilation .

I given valid reasons why Dr Bond didnt yell it from the rooftops in previous post so i think ill leave it at that .

[FISHY1118]

This raises a very obvious question Fishy. Why did you just accept it as being true without checking the facts first?

I, on the other hand, have just begun re-reading Strange Harp, Strange Symphony. It’s biography of Thompson by John Walsh and I’m reading it again because I’d like to refresh my memory of what an unbiased writer wrote about him.

I could ask you the same question Herlock, Why did you accept it wasnt ? as yet, i havent seen anything presented to let belive otherwise . I seen a lot of post that claim its all untru but very little or no evidence to prove it so .

[Richard Patterson]

"I sent up two men, and there he was; but, polished farthings and all, he proved an alibi without the shadow of doubt."

Also Richard, could you please help me with the source/s that you're using for the farthing bit with Thompson? I truly haven't heard you mention it before. I'm not doubting you, I just want to see the context is all.

You will find it in Everard Meynell’s, “Life of Francis Thompson” 1913 edition.

[FISHY1118]

We were quoting Bond, who saw "no evidence of scientific or anatomical knowledge, not even that of a slaughterer" and this was "in each case". It doesn't matter what order he performed his evil work, Bond saw no evidence of the skills you insist he had. Presumably the excisions were performed roughly and not surgically, I don't know, but his opinion, which is all that is being discussed, was no evidence of expertise. Personally, I don't have a high opinion of Bond, I have a higher opinion of Phillips and Brown, but the point being claimed was that he clearly stated he saw no evidence of expertise. It would have been ridiculous for him to say that if he saw even a hint of surgical know-how in the excisions.

With the ''Mutlilation'' not the Heart Removal ,which he decribes in his post mortem as a known new Medical Procedure , and please dont reply with he didnt say it was , i know that ,we all know that , my point being he ''Described'' it as such . Conclusion ? , Medical Skill Heart Removal ..... No evidence of scientific or anatomical knowledge Mutilation . SIMPLE.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"I sent up two men, and there he was; but, polished farthings and all, he proved an alibi without the shadow of doubt."

Also Richard, could you please help me with the source/s that you're using for the farthing bit with Thompson? I truly haven't heard you mention it before. I'm not doubting you, I just want to see the context is all.

Hi Jerry,

I’m currently re-reading Walsh’s biography of Thompson and came across this:

While walking along the crowded sidewalk he heard a clink on the pavement and looked down to see a coin rolling in the gutter. He picked it up thinking it was a bright new halfpenny and, when no one stepped forward, put it in his pocket. Wandering back the same way a few minutes later he saw another coin in the same place, picked it up and discovered it was a gold sovereign. Excitedly he looked at the first coin: “That was a sovereign, too, Evi; I looked and saw it was a sovereign too!”

I’m fairly certain that ‘Evi’ was Everard Meynell, the son of Wilfrid. Everard was Thompson’s first biographer. Unless Richard is aware of another coin related event where Thompson actually tried to pass off polished coins I can’t see the connection between this event and anything that Major Smith said about his medical student.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock,

It’s always telling how quickly some people reach for sneers rather than substance. You dismiss this as “advertising” or “cancel culture,” but never actually engage the mathematics, the documented evidence, or the convergence of traits that make Thompson the only man who fits Smith’s Rupert Street suspect profile. That silence says more than your colourful insults.

I didn’t “pull a name out of a hat.” I spent decades assembling verifiable, testable evidence: medical training under Dreschfeld, time in Whitechapel during 1888, carrying a scalpel, violent misogynistic writings, the prostitute connection, the asylum history, the Rupert Street lodging, the polished coin fraud. Major Smith’s suspect listed five rare features. Thompson ticks all five. The odds of another man doing so are in the realm of 1 in 20 quadrillion. That is not opinion — that is calculation.

You don’t have to like my conclusion. You don’t have to agree. But dismissing it as “stomach-churning crap” without offering a single counter-fact only exposes a refusal to deal with uncomfortable truths. If you want to argue, argue on the evidence. Otherwise, it’s just noise.

As for the women who died, they deserve more than weary jokes about “Church missions” or “TV shows.” They deserve justice — and justice begins with naming their killer based on the strongest available evidence. That evidence points, again and again, to Francis Thompson.

So mock if you like. But history isn’t moved by sneers. It’s moved by facts. And the facts are on the record now.

— Richard

You have unsurprisingly decided to avoid answering my question about Thompson being in an asylum. I can see why.

I can find no mention of Thompson ever being in an asylum as Smith’s ‘suspect’ supposedly had. After he had met Meynell in the latter part of 1888 he was sent to a private hospital (which can’t be described as an asylum) due to his poor health resulting from his drug addiction. Walsh dates this to October of 1888 but admits that he does this from Thompson’s poetry. Thompson was there for 6 weeks. This means of course that, if October is correct, then he couldn’t have murdered Mary Kelly. That aside, then next time that Thompson was in any kind of institution was the Priory at Storrington and that was in 1889.

Therefore a) we have no evidence of Thompson being in an asylum, and b) the only institutions that he was in are the private hospital (probably in October 1888) and then the Priory in 1889.

How then could Major Smith write to Charles Warren just after the murder of Annie Chapman to tell him about this medical student who had been in an asylum? Clearly he can’t have been talking about Thompson.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, Thompson’s “repugnance” at flowing blood is not a contradiction — it is exactly what links him to the Ripper’s method. He left medicine partly because of it, and yet, if anyone knew how to kill without being drenched in blood, it was him. Six years in infirmaries taught him, as Owens students were instructed, how to open vessels so the spray was directed away from the operator.

That matches the Whitechapel scenes. Nichols was killed in such darkness that Cross and Paul didn’t even notice blood at first. As the Journal of Investigative Psychology summary makes clear, the victims were seized, suffocated, lowered flat, and only then cut — a method that minimised spurting and left the killer clean enough to vanish.

In other words: the aversion to flowing blood is mimicked in the murders themselves. Thompson knew how to achieve that result. Far from ruling him out, it strengthens the case. And the irony is that while he hated the sight of blood in practice, he was obsessed with it in poetry and prose — “Red has come to be a colour feared; it ought rather to be the colour loved… the tinge of clotted blood… a prince of the Blood indeed.” Or in Nightmare of the Witch Babies: “The reeds they were pulpy with blood, blood, blood!”

So we are not talking about a squeamish man incapable of violence. We are talking about someone who both loathed and loved blood — and who shaped his crimes to control it. That is precisely what the Whitechapel evidence shows.

Herlock. Your ignorance of Thompson, I can forgive, but your lack of understanding of the Ripper crimes in this forum, makes discussions with you an uphill climb.

You clearly don’t need a knowledge of these murders because you simply invent your own Richard. Annie Chapman was killed at 5.30am a time at which blood would have been entirely visible. Mary Jane Kelly was killed in a lit room. And why do you think that you can get away with homing in on the ‘repugnance at flowing blood’ and yet you sidestep the repugnance at dissecting corpses. How could this be a man that not only killed and mutilated but removed organs.

Only a man obsessively defending a theory could turn the fact that a man that was repelled by dissection and flowing blood into a point in his favour of his guilt. It’s a joke.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Why do we have this continuing reliance on what Major Smith thought? When did he become the number one authority on the Ripper? What happened to Abberline, and the opinions of those who had the necessary expertise and actually viewed what the Ripper had done - Drs Brown and Phillips?

[jerryd]

Add to that the alibi City accepted at the time (“slept every night the last four weeks”), and it’s not hard to see why the officers closed the book on him.

"I sent up two men, and there he was; but, polished farthings and all, he proved an alibi without the shadow of doubt."

Also Richard, could you please help me with the source/s that you're using for the farthing bit with Thompson? I truly haven't heard you mention it before. I'm not doubting you, I just want to see the context is all.

[Richard Patterson]

Thanks Richard.


The one item you leave out is Major Smith stated, "I thought he was likely to be in Rupert Street, Haymarket. I sent up two men, and there he was." Coincidentally Richard, two policemen (PC Benham and PCP Smith) followed Puckeridge to Rupert Street, where he lodged. Was Major Smith that lucky when recollecting these events in 1910? Adding this detail to the Puckeridge side, what are the odds, Richard? My math is not nearly as good as yours.

P. C. P. 105 Benham reports that at 3.30. P.M. 24th
Inst, he saw Puckridge at the west End of Cheapside
followed him through Cheapside, Threadneedle Street, Austinfrias
to No 2 Circas Place London Wall, Puckridge remained
there till 6. P.M. when he left followed by Benham
& P. C. P Smith, he went into Lehmans Confectioners
London Wall, then to the Stirling Castle P. H. &
then through Coleman Street into Cheapside
through the Strand to Charing Cross, waited outside
the Post Office Charing Cross, then on to Leicester
Square, Coventry Street, Lockharts Coffee House,
remained there one hour & 30 minutes then came
out & walked up & down Coventry Street
then returned to Lockharts remained there about
ten Minutes then walked up & down Coventry
Street for about half an hour, then went into
a P. H. in Rupert Street, stopped about 10 minutes
then went to the Imperial Coffee House 50 Rupert
Street, opened the Private door with a latch Key
and went in at 9.45. P.M. I watched the Place
till 12.30. A.M. when the Place was [?]Cosed [Closed?], there
is a notice in the Window - Beds to let for Gentlemen.

25th Sepr.
1888

Thomas Benham
P. C 105

Thanks for that detailed post. Yes — I’m familiar with the Benham and Smith tailing of Puckridge on the 24th, and I think you’ve highlighted something important: it shows exactly why he doesn’t fit Smith’s later description.

Those surveillance notes give us a man who was eccentric, alcoholic, with medical training and asylum history, lodging at Rupert Street. That gets him 3 of the 5 features Smith listed. But what they don’t give us are the other two: (1) association with prostitutes, and (2) the polished farthings scam. Both appear in Smith’s 1910 description as if they were central identifiers, yet neither appears in the actual 1888 file you’ve quoted. Add to that the alibi City accepted at the time (“slept every night the last four weeks”), and it’s not hard to see why the officers closed the book on him.

Now compare the math. The odds of any random man in 1888 London ticking all five of Smith’s traits is vanishingly small — about 1 in 20 quadrillion. Puckridge gets 3, with no evidence for the other 2, and with an alibi that makes even the 3 less useful. Thompson, by contrast, ticks all 5 in documented sources: six years medical training, an asylum breakdown, an obsessive relationship with a prostitute, the “miracle coin” anecdote paralleling polished farthings, and his residence one street from Rupert. When probability is factored in, the full convergence makes Thompson astronomically more likely than Puckridge to be Smith’s Rupert Street man.

So was Smith “lucky” in 1910? I’d say no. He wasn’t misremembering Puckridge — he was describing someone else, someone who matched his five-point list point for point. The odds don’t lie.

Richard

[jerryd]

Now look at the two September 24–25 City CID notes you quoted. For Puck(er)ridge they confirm:

• ex-medical training (educated as a surgeon) ✅
• ex-asylum inmate ✅
• lodging at 50 Rupert St. ✅
• “eccentric,” “excessive drinking,” “ample means” — but no mention of prostitutes or polished farthings ❌❌
• and an owner saying he “had slept every night for the last four weeks.” (That window covers 27 Aug–24 Sept — i.e., through Nichols on 31 Aug and Chapman on 8 Sept.)

So the file you cite gives Puckridge 3 of Smith’s 5 features, and an alibi City accepted at the time. Smith himself later writes that the Rupert St. man “proved an alibi without the shadow of doubt.”

Thanks Richard.


The one item you leave out is Major Smith stated, "I thought he was likely to be in Rupert Street, Haymarket. I sent up two men, and there he was." Coincidentally Richard, two policemen (PC Benham and PCP Smith) followed Puckeridge to Rupert Street, where he lodged. Was Major Smith that lucky when recollecting these events in 1910? Adding this detail to the Puckeridge side, what are the odds, Richard? My math is not nearly as good as yours.

P. C. P. 105 Benham reports that at 3.30. P.M. 24th
Inst, he saw Puckridge at the west End of Cheapside
followed him through Cheapside, Threadneedle Street, Austinfrias
to No 2 Circas Place London Wall, Puckridge remained
there till 6. P.M. when he left followed by Benham
& P. C. P Smith, he went into Lehmans Confectioners
London Wall, then to the Stirling Castle P. H. &
then through Coleman Street into Cheapside
through the Strand to Charing Cross, waited outside
the Post Office Charing Cross, then on to Leicester
Square, Coventry Street, Lockharts Coffee House,
remained there one hour & 30 minutes then came
out & walked up & down Coventry Street
then returned to Lockharts remained there about
ten Minutes then walked up & down Coventry
Street for about half an hour, then went into
a P. H. in Rupert Street, stopped about 10 minutes
then went to the Imperial Coffee House 50 Rupert
Street, opened the Private door with a latch Key
and went in at 9.45. P.M. I watched the Place
till 12.30. A.M. when the Place was [?]Cosed [Closed?], there
is a notice in the Window - Beds to let for Gentlemen.

25th Sepr.
1888

Thomas Benham
P. C 105

[Richard Patterson]

I’m assuming that this is Richard Patterson, Geddy. He has posted on here in the past. This sounds like a cynical and unpleasant advertising ploy. How desperate are some people to be ‘the one’? First we get The Church of Charles Cross TV Mission then we got the Shawl DNA Debacle Show and now a lower than whaleshit attempt to make people feel guilty for not denouncing a troubled poet as a serial killer. It’s like a twisted, dishonest attempt a cancelling someone. Stomach-churning crap. Combine this with Diary obsession and we should collectively weep for the state of ripperology.

Herlock,

It’s always telling how quickly some people reach for sneers rather than substance. You dismiss this as “advertising” or “cancel culture,” but never actually engage the mathematics, the documented evidence, or the convergence of traits that make Thompson the only man who fits Smith’s Rupert Street suspect profile. That silence says more than your colourful insults.

I didn’t “pull a name out of a hat.” I spent decades assembling verifiable, testable evidence: medical training under Dreschfeld, time in Whitechapel during 1888, carrying a scalpel, violent misogynistic writings, the prostitute connection, the asylum history, the Rupert Street lodging, the polished coin fraud. Major Smith’s suspect listed five rare features. Thompson ticks all five. The odds of another man doing so are in the realm of 1 in 20 quadrillion. That is not opinion — that is calculation.

You don’t have to like my conclusion. You don’t have to agree. But dismissing it as “stomach-churning crap” without offering a single counter-fact only exposes a refusal to deal with uncomfortable truths. If you want to argue, argue on the evidence. Otherwise, it’s just noise.

As for the women who died, they deserve more than weary jokes about “Church missions” or “TV shows.” They deserve justice — and justice begins with naming their killer based on the strongest available evidence. That evidence points, again and again, to Francis Thompson.

So mock if you like. But history isn’t moved by sneers. It’s moved by facts. And the facts are on the record now.

— Richard

[Richard Patterson]

Lewis,

Here is the link to the thread in question. My post is based on the research from Chris and I in no way, imply my research in this.

"Puckeridge" - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums (Post #13 and #14 by Chris)

Abby,

was he definitely smiths suspect? he actually never names him, and in tje context it seems he may be talking about one of the medical students, morford even?

Did you read post #14? notice the reports were initialled by Major Henry Smith. Chris states:

"Among the surviving City of London CID records at the London Metropolitan Archives are two reports, relating how on 24 September 'Puckridge' had been shadowed from Cheapside to his lodgings in a coffee house in Rupert Street in the West End, and how on the following day two detectives called on the proprietor of the coffee house, who told them that Puckridge had slept there every night for the previous four weeks. The report on how Puckridge was traced to Rupert Street, to which a description of him has been added below, appears to have been initialled by Henry Smith."

Here is Report 1 on 25 September

25th Sept. 1888

I beg to report that in company
with D. S. Child, I saw Mr. W. Tolfree, Proprietor
of the Imperial Coffee House, 50 Rupert Street.
in answer to our Enquiry he informed us that
the man Puckridge had been Lodging with
him for the last four weeks, and had slept
every night in the House. he also said Puckridge
was Eccentric in his habits and given to Eccessive
Drinking, and appears to have ample means.

Fredk. Lawley
D. S.
R. Child. D. S.

Here is Report 2.

24th Sept. 1888

P. C. P. 105 Benham reports that at 3.30. P.M. 24th
Inst, he saw Puckridge at the west End of Cheapside
followed him through Cheapside, Threadneedle Street, Austinfrias
to No 2 Circas Place London Wall, Puckridge remained
there till 6. P.M. when he left followed by Benham
& P. C. P Smith, he went into Lehmans Confectioners
London Wall, then to the Stirling Castle P. H. &
then through Coleman Street into Cheapside
through the Strand to Charing Cross, waited outside
the Post Office Charing Cross, then on to Leicester
Square, Coventry Street, Lockharts Coffee House,
remained there one hour & 30 minutes then came
out & walked up & down Coventry Street
then returned to Lockharts remained there about
ten Minutes then walked up & down Coventry
Street for about half an hour, then went into
a P. H. in Rupert Street, stopped about 10 minutes
then went to the Imperial Coffee House 50 Rupert
Street, opened the Private door with a latch Key
and went in at 9.45. P.M. I watched the Place
till 12.30. A.M. when the Place was [?]Cosed [Closed?], there
is a notice in the Window - Beds to let for Gentlemen.

25th Sepr.
1888

Thomas Benham
P. C 105

Also, it seems that he was never actually a surgeon or doctor, but only a chemist. correct?

A chemist is like a pharmacist and had medical training. If you look at the statement by Major Smith he states his man had been a medical student. The next statement I copied here from Chris is Charles Warrens statement that covers two of Major Smiths points. Puckeridge was educated as a surgeon and released from an asylum on August 4th.

'Puckeridge' was mentioned in a report by Sir Charles Warren to the Home Office dated 19 September 1888:
"A man called Puckeridge was released from an asylum on 4 August. He was educated as a Surgeon - has threatened to rip people up with a long knife. He is being looked for but cannot be found as yet."
[Evans and Skinner, Ultimate Sourcebook, p. 132]


Now, here is the statement in 1910 from Henry Smith.

"After the second crime I sent word to Sir Charles Warren that I had discovered a man very likely to be the man wanted. He certainly had all the qualifications requisite. He had been a medical student; he had been in a lunatic asylum; he spent all his time with women of loose character, whom he bilked by giving them polished farthings instead of sovereigns, two of these farthings having been found in the pocket of the murdered woman. Sir Charles failed to find him. I thought he was likely to be in Rupert Street, Haymarket. I sent up two men, and there he was; but, polished farthings and all, he proved an alibi without the shadow of doubt."
[Smith, From Constable to Commissioner, p. 147]


To summarize, look at the dates of the reports. Sept 24th and 25th. Those occurred AFTER the second crime (Annie Chapman). He was a chemist and educated as a surgeon. (Obviously had medical training). AND Sir Charles looked for him but could not find him. Last, he lodged on Rupert Street. What are the chances it is NOT Puckeridge he was talking about?

Back to you, Richard.

Jerry — thanks for laying those docs out so clearly. They’re exactly why the math cuts the two ways you’re asking about.

What Smith actually described was vs. what the Rupert St. file shows

Sir Henry Smith’s later summary of “my man” lists five hard traits:

1. ex-medical student
2. ex-asylum inmate
3. frequented prostitutes
4. passed polished farthings
5. found in (or tied to) Rupert St./Haymarket

Now look at the two September 24–25 City CID notes you quoted. For Puck(er)ridge they confirm:

• ex-medical training (educated as a surgeon) ✅
• ex-asylum inmate ✅
• lodging at 50 Rupert St. ✅
• “eccentric,” “excessive drinking,” “ample means” — but no mention of prostitutes or polished farthings ❌❌
• and an owner saying he “had slept every night for the last four weeks.” (That window covers 27 Aug–24 Sept — i.e., through Nichols on 31 Aug and Chapman on 8 Sept.)

So the file you cite gives Puckridge 3 of Smith’s 5 features, and an alibi City accepted at the time. Smith himself later writes that the Rupert St. man “proved an alibi without the shadow of doubt.”

Why this matters probabilistically

If you treat Smith’s five points as the identifying bundle, the odds that any random London man in 1888 ticks all five is tiny. Using conservative rates often cited in this thread:

• ex-med student ~ 1/2,000 (0.0005)
• asylum history ~ 1/1,000 (0.001)
• frequents prostitutes ~ 1/100 (0.01)
• polishes farthings ~ 1/10,000 (0.0001)
• lives in Haymarket/Rupert St. ~ 1/10,000 (0.0001)

Multiply = 5 × 10⁻¹⁷ ≈ 1 in 20 quadrillion.

That’s the rarity of a full match to what Smith described.

Now compare two candidates to that target:

• Puckridge (from the surviving reports): we can document 3/5 (medical, asylum, Rupert St.). We cannot document prostitutes or polished farthings. The three-trait coincidence (0.0005 × 0.001 × 0.0001) is 5 × 10⁻¹¹ ≈ 1 in 20 billion — rare, but not astronomically so — and it comes with an accepted alibi spanning the first two canonical murders. On Smith’s own telling, that ends him as the killer.
• Francis Thompson (from biography & writings): ex-medical student ✅; asylum/mental collapse ✅; lived and moved between Haymarket/Charing Cross and the East End ✅; obsessive contact with/proximity to prostitutes ✅; polished coins behavior reported in the record ✅. That is a 5/5 hit on the traits Smith enumerated — i.e., the full improbability bundle that drives the 1-in-20-quadrillion figure.

So, was Smith “definitely talking about Puckridge”?

The two Rupert St. memos show City shadowed Puckridge and then alibied him. But Smith’s five-point description (with prostitutes and polished farthings) does not match what those memos actually say about Puckridge. Either:

• Smith later conflated more than one lead, or
• the Rupert St. man Smith meant was not the same man in the two memos, or
• crucially, the only known person who fits all five traits Smith listed is Thompson, not Puckridge.

Whichever way you cut it, the probability work separates them:

• Puckridge: 3/5 traits + a period alibi accepted by City ⇒ mathematically and operationally weak as “the man wanted.”
• Thompson: 5/5 traits, no contemporaneous alibi blocking the window, and an independent biographical/psychological fit to the murders ⇒ the full Smith-bundle match that drives the vanishing odds of coincidence.

That’s why I keep stressing the math: it doesn’t “name” anyone by magic — it simply tells you how incredibly unlikely it is that anyone other than the one person who hits all five is the same man Smith meant. On the documentary record we have, that person isn’t Puckridge. It’s Thompson.

[Richard Patterson]

I apologize for being a bit harsh on this, but I did read your list of identifiers for the "data" you correlated. In fact, just looking at this broadly, your independent variables could have fit the three, if not more, primary suspects mentioned in the memorandums, etc. too. You are missing, in my view, the sexual component to these killings. Moreover, if you believe the "Lusk" letter and Goulston Graffito are linked to JtR, which I do, I doubt he was writing essays in his spare time.

He was medically trained (passed his medical exams, lived with a surgeon, knew dissection techniques).
→ He had a documented history of psychotic violence toward women — including written hatred of prostitutes and dark fantasies of killing them.
→ He lived within 100 metres of the 1888 murder sites.
→ He was an active arsonist and fire-starter — linked to sadistic psychopathy.
→ He wrote essays at the time describing prostitutes as “putrid ulcers,” “blasphemies,” and called for them to be drowned in the Thames.
→ He delighted in reading and writing about the killing of women with blades — even his own play had this as its central scene.
→ His movements align perfectly with the timeline of the murders and

Filby, I appreciate you pressing the “sexual component” question, because it lets us look straight at what Thompson himself put on paper.

In Nightmare of the Witch-Babies we meet the “lusty knight” — a figure who doesn’t woo but rends, who rides not toward love but toward desecration. He is conjured in the poem as the scourge of a degenerate world, a knight whose passion is cutting, whose lust is mutilation. It isn’t romantic fantasy. It’s sexualised violence reframed as cleansing — the same twisted impulse we see in the Ripper murders, where the body of a prostitute becomes the text upon which rage and obsession are carved.

Now place that alongside what Thompson published under the pseudonym “Francis Tancred” in Catholics in Darkest England. Here he writes as a crusader, explicitly borrowing the name of a medieval knight of Jerusalem, and describes London’s streets as a kind of fallen Holy Land, black even in daylight, filled with “girls harlots in the mother’s womb.” He casts himself as one who “unveils secret meanings,” who “diagnoses the disease” of the city, and then — chillingly — declares that “the Assassin has left us a weapon which but needs a little practice to adapt it to the necessity of the day.”

This is not the language of a gentle poet. This is Thompson self-fashioning as the very “lusty knight” of his verse — a crusader-assassin, licensed in his own mind to cleanse London of corruption. The sexual motive is there, but refracted through a religious and moral lens: prostitutes are not women to him, they are “ulcers,” “blasphemies,” “harlots in the womb.” Cutting them open was, in his warped psyche, both a lust and a purification ritual.

And remember, when the West India Docks went up in flames on the very night of Nichols’ murder, Thompson was sleeping rough at a Salvation Army shelter nearby. Contemporary voices worried that the Army’s militant revivalism might inspire a deranged imitator to see killing as crusade. Thompson all but confesses to see killing as crusade. Thompson all but confesses to that role in his Tancred essay. When he tells readers that “the Assassin has left us a weapon which but needs a little practice to adapt it to the necessity of the day,” he is not writing as a detached social critic. He is writing as a man who already carries a surgeon’s scalpel in his pocket, who has lived among the very “harlots in the womb” he describes, and who has framed himself as both poet and knight, lusting not for love but for mutilation and purification.

So the “lusty knight” is not an ambiguous metaphor. It is Thompson’s alter ego. The poems, the essays, the biographical facts — they align. He saw himself as a crusader in London’s “darkest England,” wielding the blade of the Assassin in a moral war against prostitutes. When we recognise that, the supposed gap between literature and life collapses. His verse is his confession; his “lusty knight” was not imagined, but embodied in Whitechapel’s streets.