The Jack the Ripper Mystery is Finally Solved — Scientifically

[Mike J. G.]

Mike, if it was only poetry, I’d agree. But Thompson isn’t just indulging in gothic imagery.

1. In Finis Coronat Opus and Nightmare of the Witch Babies he didn’t write in symbolic abstraction — he graphically described women being cut open, mutilated, and punished. That’s not “flowery metaphor,” it’s sustained pathological obsession.
2. In his 1891 essay under the pseudonym “Francis Tancred,” he openly called for prostitutes to be thrown into the Thames as “filth to be cleansed.” That’s not poetry. That’s direct prose, and it shows clear contempt for real women.
3. This wasn’t in isolation. It aligns with his medical training (six years of dissection at Owens College), his scalpel habit (he admits shaving with it in Jan 1889), his documented Whitechapel destitution, and his obsession with a runaway prostitute.

So no, the case isn’t “violent because of poetry.” The case is violent because of prose essays, private writings, personal obsessions, and biographical context that all point in the same direction. The poetry is just one part of a broader, consistent pattern of psychosexual hatred.

If you think that’s laughable, fine — but it’s still documented fact.

The trouble is, Richard, that whether he truly meant those words or not, it's not proof that he was in any way violent in real life. He wasn't just writing violent prose about women on his bedroom wall randomly, he was a writer, and so it's not really logical to take any of it as evidence of anything. It doesn't matter what a person writes, it's not a crime. It's not indicative of violence.

It was argued that the M*ybrick diary was indicative of a warped mind as well, and I've similarly never understood that, either.

[Richard Patterson]

You can't be considered violent towards women because of poetry, mate. It's laughable.

Mike, if it was only poetry, I’d agree. But Thompson isn’t just indulging in gothic imagery.

1. In Finis Coronat Opus and Nightmare of the Witch Babies he didn’t write in symbolic abstraction — he graphically described women being cut open, mutilated, and punished. That’s not “flowery metaphor,” it’s sustained pathological obsession.
2. In his 1891 essay under the pseudonym “Francis Tancred,” he openly called for prostitutes to be thrown into the Thames as “filth to be cleansed.” That’s not poetry. That’s direct prose, and it shows clear contempt for real women.
3. This wasn’t in isolation. It aligns with his medical training (six years of dissection at Owens College), his scalpel habit (he admits shaving with it in Jan 1889), his documented Whitechapel destitution, and his obsession with a runaway prostitute.

So no, the case isn’t “violent because of poetry.” The case is violent because of prose essays, private writings, personal obsessions, and biographical context that all point in the same direction. The poetry is just one part of a broader, consistent pattern of psychosexual hatred.

If you think that’s laughable, fine — but it’s still documented fact.

[Mike J. G.]

Herlock, when you reduce Thompson to “a gentle but troubled poet who never harmed anyone,” despite the mountain of evidence — his violent writings, his own testimony of life in Whitechapel, his scalpel, his medical training, his fire-setting, his asylum stays, and his obsession with a runaway prostitute — it shows you’re not actually engaging with the sources. You’re repeating a hagiography written by his editors, not the man himself.

I’ve laid out documented facts; you dismiss them with a slogan. That tells me you’re not interested in the truth, only in defending a preferred image.

At that point, there’s no point continuing. I’ll leave you to your view, but for me the record stands as it is.

His writing was writing, I do it myself, never killed anyone, though.

His testimony of life in Whitechapel? Unless he testified to killing someone then it ain't evidence.

His scalpel? What about it?

Medical training is a fair point, but there's no consensus on whether the killer was medically trained.

His fire setting? Is that confirmed, then?

The other stuff is largely irrelevant, IMO.

We're approaching the level of looking at photos of Francis and getting spooky feelings about his guilt, like the Lechmere crowd are fond of doing.

[Mike J. G.]

With respect, flat denials like “he just didn’t / wasn’t / don’t” aren’t an argument. Thompson’s record speaks for itself:

1. Violence & Misogyny – Thompson’s unpublished works (Nightmare of the Witch Babies, Finis Coronat Opus) graphically describe cutting open women. He also wrote of prostitutes as “filth to be cleansed” — in his 1891 essay signed “Francis Tancred” he suggested they should be thrown into the Thames. That is a documented disdain for women, not an invention.
2. Fire-starting – Thompson’s pyromania is recorded from boyhood. John Walsh’s Strange Harp, Strange Symphony recounts his Corpus Christi fire incident at Ashton, where he nearly set the altar alight. Later, he scattered burning charcoal in the vestry, and even set fire to his lodgings, nearly killing his landlady. When confronted, he coldly replied: “A house on fire is no place for tarrying.”
   Now add this: on the night of 31 August 1888, when Mary Ann Nichols was murdered, the West India Docks blazed with two enormous fires — Spirit Quay and Shadwell. Thompson was staying at the Salvation Army Shelter just minutes away. Those fires pulled H Division police off Whitechapel streets and brought in raw recruits — precisely when the Ripper struck. That isn’t a coincidence; it’s tactical opportunity.
3. Timeline & Geography – Walsh confirms Thompson queued with “the nightly crowd of haggard men” at Providence Row Refuge in Whitechapel. He was there, living among the destitute, carrying his dissecting scalpel (his own January 1889 letter admits he shaved with it). The murders ceased only after Thompson entered hospital in late 1888.
4. Police Profile – Major Henry Smith (City Police Commissioner) described a prime suspect as an ex-medical student, asylum inmate, coin fraudster, and prostitute associate connected to Rupert Street. Francis Thompson is the only man who matches all four rare traits.

So we have: documented misogynistic violence in his writings, a lifelong pattern of arson culminating in the very night of the first canonical murder, confirmed presence in Whitechapel refuges, a scalpel in his possession, medical knowledge under the Virchow system, and alignment with Smith’s suspect profile.

That is evidence. To dismiss it with “he just didn’t” is to ignore the record. If there’s counter-evidence that clears Thompson, I’m open to it — but the facts as they stand place him squarely at the centre of the case.

You can't be considered violent towards women because of poetry, mate. It's laughable.

[Mike J. G.]

He just didn’t.



He just wasn’t.



They just don’t.

I'm truly baffled by the "history of psychotic violence against women" bit.

[Richard Patterson]

A gentle but troubled, drug addicted vagrant poet who never harmed anyone in his life.

Herlock, when you reduce Thompson to “a gentle but troubled poet who never harmed anyone,” despite the mountain of evidence — his violent writings, his own testimony of life in Whitechapel, his scalpel, his medical training, his fire-setting, his asylum stays, and his obsession with a runaway prostitute — it shows you’re not actually engaging with the sources. You’re repeating a hagiography written by his editors, not the man himself.

I’ve laid out documented facts; you dismiss them with a slogan. That tells me you’re not interested in the truth, only in defending a preferred image.

At that point, there’s no point continuing. I’ll leave you to your view, but for me the record stands as it is.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The method considered to be the best at the time was to access the heart via a rib spreading in the thorax. I don't dismiss that because it wasn't what was described in the autopsy. The heart was accessed via the abdominal cavity. That wasn't the method of the time and the procedure was so little known that Bond may not have known what he was looking at.

So someone with medical was much likelier to have used a different method?

[GBinOz]

Why do you dismiss that the killer just used the method that he felt was best at the time George?

The method considered to be the best at the time was to access the heart via a rib spreading in the thorax. I don't dismiss that because it wasn't what was described in the autopsy. The heart was accessed via the abdominal cavity. That wasn't the method of the time and the procedure was so little known that Bond may not have known what he was looking at.

[GBinOz]

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.

Not quite one in four. Brown also saw medical knowledge. According to Prosector, Sequiera had a minimum qualification and was unlikely to have ever had dissection experience more than the bare minimum to gain his low level qualification. The opinions of Phillips and Brown are the only historical opinions worth consideration, and they entertained medical knowledge.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The pericardium is an integral part of the heart. It was left in place. The problem is that the heart was not extracted in whole. The heart proper was incised from the enclosing sheath known as the pericardium with a medical procedure taught by Virchow. The heart proper was medically incised from the pericardium, not just hacked out of the thorax. If you cannot understand this difference, how would the likes of Bury known the difference.

Why do you dismiss that the killer just used the method that he felt was best at the time George? Why did Dr Bond not say “wow, this guy really had knowledge of surgical procedures?”

[GBinOz]

The heart is a piece of meat George. If someone knew where it was and had a sharp knife where is the problem?

The pericardium is an integral part of the heart. It was left in place. The problem is that the heart was not extracted in whole. The heart proper was incised from the enclosing sheath known as the pericardium with a medical procedure taught by Virchow. The heart proper was medically incised from the pericardium, not just hacked out of the thorax. If you cannot understand this difference, how would the likes of Bury known the difference.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He had a documented history of psychotic violence toward women — including written hatred of prostitutes and dark fantasies of killing them.

He had absolutely no history of violence against women. Again , lets see if we can get some verification on this instead of just fogging it off as untrue. Ill p.m Geddy for some clarification on the above.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Anyone with a canvas and a set of brushes could have painted the Mona Lisa. I don't think so.

The heart is a piece of meat George. If someone knew where it was and had a sharp knife where is the problem?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Im not suggesting that about Dr Bond at all ,why would you even think that ? . Im merely pointing out a fact, that in his post mortem report Bond decribes the removal of kelly heart in such a way that would require medical knowledge . One can only speculate as to why he may or may not have communicated that to the police at the time. At a guess, if i had to id say, maybe to protect his medical profession colleagues which George has already mentioned as a possiblity , who knows .


[/B]

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.

[GBinOz]

Anyone with a knife and a knowledge of the location of the heart could cut it out.

Anyone with a canvas and a set of brushes could have painted the Mona Lisa. I don't think so.