The Jack the Ripper Mystery is Finally Solved — Scientifically

[John Wheat]

And where is the evidence for that?

It's not up to me or others to prove Thompson wasn't Jack the Ripper. Especially when you've made a bold claim that Scientificallly it's been proven that Thompson was Jack the Ripper it's up to you to prove it.

[Fiver]

If Richards Science in relation to his findings for Thompson being The Ripper cant be reasonably Disproven , the status quo remains.

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.

[Fiver]

Major Henry Smith documented a suspect with five very rare, specific traits: ex-medical student, asylum patient, connection to prostitutes, coin fraud, and Rupert Street/Haymarket. Thompson matches all five. No one else has been shown to. The chance of a random man in 1888 London matching all five is astronomical — one in tens of quadrillions.

Richard

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]

I happily accept that you are trying very hard, and with some success, to establish that Thompson was Smith's suspect, but I see no genuine evidence that Smith's suspect was JtR. If you could prove that the five traits mentioned by Smith were demonstrated to be those not just of Thompson but of JtR too, then this thread would be worthwhile.

He keeps ignoring the sixth trait of Smith's suspect - "he proved an alibi without the shadow of doubt". If you can prove that Smith's suspect was Francis Thompson, then you have proven that Thompson was innocent.

[Lewis C]

He keeps ignoring the sixth trait of Smith's suspect - "he proved an alibi without the shadow of doubt". If you can prove that Smith's suspect was Francis Thompson, then you have proven that Thompson was innocent.

Indeed, that's the irony of Richard's argument. I consider Thompson a legitimate longshot suspect, but that requires me to reject Richard's argument that Thompson was Smith's suspect. If Richard were to succeed in convincing me that Thompson were Smith's suspect, that would make him a non-suspect for me, just as the recent discussion has convinced me that I should consider Oswald Puckeridge, who I previously considered a legit suspect, to be a non-suspect. So all of this discussion on Thompson hasn't been a waste of time for me, because it has changed my view on Puckeridge.

[Richard Patterson]

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.

Fiver, this is a mischaracterisation on several levels.

First, to dismiss the probability work as “not science” is simply false. Science is not only microscopes and lab coats — it is method: hypothesis, evidence, testing, and outcome. My model uses documented traits from Smith’s own words, applies conservative base rates from the 1888 London population, and shows that the chance of any random man fitting all five traits is vanishingly small — around one in twenty quadrillion. That is science in its most basic sense: testable, reproducible, and falsifiable. If anyone wishes to disprove it, they need only show another man in London 1888 who demonstrably fits the same five rare traits. None have.

Second, you repeat a common mistake: Smith never names his Rupert Street suspect. What he does say is that the man “proved an alibi without the shadow of doubt.” That remark, when checked against CID reports unearthed by Chris Phillips, applies to Oswald Puckridge — an older apothecary trailed by police who indeed had an alibi. The problem is, Puckridge fits only three of Smith’s five traits and misses the most critical ones: the prostitute connection and the polished farthings. Thompson, by contrast, matches all five traits precisely. So it is inaccurate to say “Smith’s first suspect was Thompson and he was cleared.” The record shows Smith’s named suspect was never given, and the only man cleared (Puckridge) does not match Smith’s full description.

Third, to claim that makes Thompson “one of a handful with a proven alibi” is simply untrue. Thompson never had an alibi tested, because he was never investigated. That is the whole point. He was invisible to police in 1888 — a failed medical student living rough, searching for his runaway prostitute, and later taken under the Meynells’ care. His biography was sanitised afterwards, and so he fell through the cracks. The “proven innocent” label applies to Puckridge, not to Thompson.

So let’s be clear for every reader:

• 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 .

[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]

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 ?

[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]

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'' .