The Jack the Ripper Mystery is Finally Solved — Scientifically

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

[Fiver]

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?

Sounds to me like the "frail and slight figure" of Thompson should be downgraded to (A) Age/physical health > 1 = issues creating doubt.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sounds to me like the "frail and slight figure" of Thompson should be downgraded to (A) Age/physical health > 1 = issues creating doubt.

He doesn’t sound the most robust of men Fiver? No one would suggest the ripper needed to have been 15 stone of muscle but Thompson appears frailer than the norm. At one point in 1886 he was given a job learning the boot making trade but the guy, who was helping him for religious and philanthropic reasons, had to let him go because his opium addiction meant that he couldn’t perform even the simplest of tasks.

[Richard Patterson]

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?

Herlock, you’ve spent a long time studying this case and I respect the sharp eye you bring to the small details. That’s why I’d love to see you put that same energy into something that really shifts the ground — the mathematics of probability around Major Henry Smith’s Rupert Street suspect. Thompson is the only man we know who matches all five rare traits Smith listed, and the odds of anyone else fitting that profile in 1888 London are vanishingly small.

Instead of sparring over side issues like gait or nicknames, your research skills could be a real asset in testing and refining the probability case. If you’re serious about evidence and accuracy, that’s where the real work is — and it’s work that could finally move the debate forward.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, you’ve spent a long time studying this case and I respect the sharp eye you bring to the small details. That’s why I’d love to see you put that same energy into something that really shifts the ground — the mathematics of probability around Major Henry Smith’s Rupert Street suspect. Thompson is the only man we know who matches all five rare traits Smith listed, and the odds of anyone else fitting that profile in 1888 London are vanishingly small.

Instead of sparring over side issues like gait or nicknames, your research skills could be a real asset in testing and refining the probability case. If you’re serious about evidence and accuracy, that’s where the real work is — and it’s work that could finally move the debate forward.

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

[jerryd]

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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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?

[jerryd]

Hi Abby!

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

[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.