The Jack the Ripper Mystery is Finally Solved — Scientifically

[Abby Normal]

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.

got it thanks jerry!

[jerryd]

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.

[Filby]

Filby, I understand the instinct — the Ripper case has been littered with “final solutions” that turned out to be little more than hunches. Skepticism is healthy.

But what I’m arguing isn’t just a slogan. It’s based on a convergence of hard, documented evidence: six years of medical training under Julius Dreschfeld at Owens College, possession of a dissecting scalpel, documented nights in Whitechapel refuges, obsessive writings about prostitutes, and a police description from Major Henry Smith that Thompson alone matches point-for-point. When you add probability calculations, the odds of anyone else fitting that profile in 1888 London collapse to nearly zero.

So while most suspect theories rely on a diary, a coincidence, or a clever interpretation, this one rests on verifiable biographical facts that line up with what the police themselves recorded. That’s why I present it with confidence: not because I want to say “case closed” for the sake of it, but because the evidence is strong enough to demand it be taken seriously.

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

[Richard Patterson]

I'm very much an amateur sleuth here on these forums, but even I know that any one author or scientist who claims to have "finally solved" the JtR case is probably the farthest from it.

Filby, I understand the instinct — the Ripper case has been littered with “final solutions” that turned out to be little more than hunches. Skepticism is healthy.

But what I’m arguing isn’t just a slogan. It’s based on a convergence of hard, documented evidence: six years of medical training under Julius Dreschfeld at Owens College, possession of a dissecting scalpel, documented nights in Whitechapel refuges, obsessive writings about prostitutes, and a police description from Major Henry Smith that Thompson alone matches point-for-point. When you add probability calculations, the odds of anyone else fitting that profile in 1888 London collapse to nearly zero.

So while most suspect theories rely on a diary, a coincidence, or a clever interpretation, this one rests on verifiable biographical facts that line up with what the police themselves recorded. That’s why I present it with confidence: not because I want to say “case closed” for the sake of it, but because the evidence is strong enough to demand it be taken seriously.

[Filby]

I'm very much an amateur sleuth here on these forums, but even I know that any one author or scientist who claims to have "finally solved" the JtR case is probably the farthest from it.

[GBinOz]

From Walsh, p32.

“…neighbours remembered the dragging shoelaces of the young man who passed their doors on Stamford Street, and “the quick, short step, the sudden and apparently causeless hesitation or full stop. Then the old, quick pace again, the continued muttered soliloquy, the frail and slight figure.” His erratic walk was emphasised, it appears, by some peculiarity in the gait, which at one time among the small boys of the neighbourhood had earned him the nickname of “Elasticlegs.”

Can anyone recall any one of the witnesses mentioning this peculiar kind of gait?

Yes, I do recall a peculiar gait being mentioned. I just don't recall where. Wasn't it suggested that Henry Wentworth BellSmith had a peculiar gait? I seem to recall that a peculiar gait and strange eyes were on Wickerman's list of Ripper attributes. Perhaps it may have been the Bethnal Green Botherer.

[Richard Patterson]

John Walsh, Thompson’s biographer spent a year studying the primary documents concerning Thompson and also studied the Thompson Collection at Boston College and even talked to people that knew Thompson. A man that knew his subject. Tbh I’d forgotten about this next point from when I first read the book a few years ago.

“an admission that he more than once employed a dissecting scalpel in place of a razor to shave himself and, in conversation, a confession of physical repugnance for the dissection of corpses and the sight of flowing blood,”

A post mortem mutilator who was repulsed by the sight of corpses and flowing blood.

Surely a first?

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.

[jerryd]

Hi Abby!

Doing this on my phone is a pain. Let me get back when I am at home on my computer.

[Abby Normal]

Oswald Puckeridge was Smiths suspect. There is a thread about it somewhere.

hi jerry
thanks! what a nut job he was. couple of questions..

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?

apparently one of the lodging house managers said he was in his lodging house " the past four weeks" in the west end. but couldnt puckridge come and go as he pleased? whats your opinion on how solid his alibi is?

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


So with all we know about puckridge now, what is his validity as a suspect for the ripper in your opinion?

[Richard Patterson]

I'm not dismissing it Richard, I'm simply putting a different point of view
I have no problem with yours....I obviously haven't done the same amount of research as you have, if its not on "Google"or on this site I'm mainly useless
But I have seen folk get fixated on one particular person and simply look at nothing else.....I don't have a problem with the way you do it...it mainly makes sense, and you simply say it as you see it...which is a change from some..I remember one years ago that went through contortions to label Druitt...went so far as to state his "Cricket form" went off, and posted some scorecard where he had taken 7 wickets in his last game..Now I will readily admit me knowledge of JTR is sketchy, but I played cricket in Sheffield lower leagues for many years, and I know damn well if taking seven wickets is a "Drop off in form"..I would love to have seen his returns when he "Was in form"
Its why I go for "Uknown local man".....(it mainly means I have to do bugger all bar pick spots off others...)..but in the end..it all helps...thanks for your replies mate, its always easier when its a debate rather than argument

Thanks for that, mate — and I genuinely appreciate the way you’ve put it. You’re right, debates go a lot further than arguments. I completely understand the “unknown local man” position — it’s safe ground, because it means you don’t have to pin your colours to any single mast.

The reason I focus on Thompson isn’t just preference or fixation — it’s because of a set of hard, documented overlaps that you don’t get with most suspects: six years of dissection training at Owens College, a scalpel on him in 1888, his documented time in Whitechapel refuges, his violent writings, and the fact that Major Henry Smith described a Rupert Street suspect who matches Thompson point for point. When you put those together, you move out of “anyone could be the Ripper” and into the territory of a genuinely testable case.

So while I get that “unknown local” feels comfortable, I’d argue Thompson is the one figure who actually bridges the gap between conjecture and evidence. At the very least, he deserves to be studied as seriously as the better-known names.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, it wasn’t a simple matter of “breakdown then asylum” with Thompson. The record is more complex and better documented.

• 1882 – His uncle James said Francis suffered a nervous breakdown while at Owens. The College register shows him absent from the summer session, confirming he dropped out of his medical studies then (Between Heaven and Charing Cross, pp. 50–51).
• Late 1888–early 1889 – After years of homelessness in Whitechapel and Providence Row, he was placed in a private hospital. Within days of release he was transferred to Storrington Priory, a monastic retreat with high walls and even a guard dog

From there he wrote to his editor asking for a razor, noting: “I have shaved with a dissecting scalpel before now” (Letters, p.25).

I was fortunate to have visited the Priory during my research on my book on Thompson as a suspect. It’s a magical village, Storrington, and the caretaker of the Priory treated my guide and myself with respect and openness.

So there is absolutely no evidence of him being in an asylum before early 1889?

[jerryd]

My phone seems to not want to co-operate. It’s a thread here on Casebook under suspects> general discussion> “Puckeridge”. Won’t let me copy the thread for some reason. Start about Post #13 and #14 by Chris.

[Richard Patterson]

Oswald Puckeridge was Smiths suspect. There is a thread about it somewhere.

No he wasn’t. Check the thread and see how Puckeridge compares to Thompson. I can wait.

[Lewis C]

Oswald Puckeridge was Smiths suspect. There is a thread about it somewhere.

I would be interested in seeing that thread, because I consider Puckeridge a legit longshot suspect. But if he was definitely Smith's suspect, Smith says he has an alibi, meaning that he's innocent, which would mean I wouldn't consider him even a longshot suspect anymore.

[Richard Patterson]

When did Thompson enter an asylum? Are you talking about the Priory at Storrington?

Herlock, it wasn’t a simple matter of “breakdown then asylum” with Thompson. The record is more complex and better documented.

• 1882 – His uncle James said Francis suffered a nervous breakdown while at Owens. The College register shows him absent from the summer session, confirming he dropped out of his medical studies then (Between Heaven and Charing Cross, pp. 50–51).
• Late 1888–early 1889 – After years of homelessness in Whitechapel and Providence Row, he was placed in a private hospital. Within days of release he was transferred to Storrington Priory, a monastic retreat with high walls and even a guard dog

From there he wrote to his editor asking for a razor, noting: “I have shaved with a dissecting scalpel before now” (Letters, p.25).

I was fortunate to have visited the Priory during my research on my book on Thompson as a suspect. It’s a magical village, Storrington, and the caretaker of the Priory treated my guide and myself with respect and openness.