The Jack the Ripper Mystery is Finally Solved — Scientifically

[Lewis C]

The original version of the Royal Conspiracy had Anderson instead Sickert.

OK, Thanks!

[The Rookie Detective]

Just thought I’d post a rough ‘Thompson Timeline’ based on Walsh.

November 8th 1885 - There is a falling out between Thompson and his father with various possible reasons being suggested - his father accusing him of being a drunkard because of his flushed appearance (though we now know that this was due to drugs) - his father finding out about his drug habit - his father finding that Francis had been stealing from his stock of laudanum - Francis being unhappy about his father’s upcoming second marriage - or maybe a combination. Thompson left for London on foot.

November 15th 1885 - This is John Walsh’s estimated time of Thompson’s arrival in London. One of the first things that he did was to write to his sister Mary giving the address of a reading room in the Strand so that his father could send his allowance of seven shillings a week. He soon found work as a collector at a bookstore but this didn’t last long.

The first half of 1886 - Thompson is surviving on his allowance and whatever odd jobs he can pick up. He is still using opium. Thompson, at some point, began to use the Guildhall Library but was eventually asked to leave because he was so poorly dressed. He spent some time in galleries and museums.

July 1886 - Walsh suggests that it is perhaps likely that Thompson was living entirely on the streets by this time and spending most of whatever money that he received on drugs.

Early August 1886 - Thompson meets John McMaster who owned a boot shop just off Leicester Square. He was a religious man who often helped those in need. He saw Thompson (possibly while he was trying to sell matches but the exact circumstances are unknown) After contacting the Ashton police to confirm his good background he gave Francis a job learning the trade, had him examined by a doctor, bought him new clothes, arranged his daily food and found him a room in Southampton Row. He even attempted a family reconciliation. Thompson was still writing at this time.

Around mid-January 1887 - McMaster let Thompson go as his drug taking began to affect his work. He tried to get him to stop taking them but to no avail.

On 23rd February 1887 - Thompson sends a packet of manuscripts to a Catholic monthly called Merry England, edited by Wilfrid Meynell. He gave his return address as Poste Restante at Charing Cross Post Office but by the time that a reply arrived Thompson had disappeared. At around this time Walsh believes that Thompson was on the streets.

Around mid 1887 - According to the niece of Thompson’s father’s second wife his father and new bride went to London to look for Francis after they had been married on April 27th.

Around mid-June 1887 - Wilfrid Meynell finally gets around to reading Thompson’s submission. He sends a letter to the address given by Thompson.

- Walsh has Thompson living among the city’s “drifting horde of derelicts.” Thompson later spoke of a time when hunger and homelessness invested his life with “unspeakable misery.” He published no specific recollections of those days. He slept in doorways, on benches by the Thames or even under the arches of the bridges.

Late Summer 1887 - This is the time that Walsh believes the approximate time that Thompson might have met his prostitute girlfriend and that he lived with her at least intermittently.

September/October 1887 - Meynell’s letter to Thompson is returned to him undelivered.

Early 1888 - Thompson bought a large amount of laudanum and intended to commit suicide somewhere behind Covent Garden but he saw in his mind the image of the poet Chatterton so he didn’t go through with it.

End of March 1888 - Thompson is informed by a priest that one of his poems has been published in Merry England.

April 14th 1888 - Thompson writes to Meynell giving a return address of a chemist in Drury Lane.

Mid-May 1888 - Thompson and Meynell meet for the first time at Meynell’s office. Thompson reveals nothing of his background or circumstances.

June/July 1888 - Thompson continues to visit Meynell at his office and even at his home (where he persuaded Thompson to take a bath.

Around August/September 1888 - Thompson is searching for his friend.

Possibly around mid-October - Thompson has accepted that she had gone for good. Around this time Thompson was seen by a doctor. He was near total physical collapse exacerbated by his drug use. He was admitted to a private hospital to help him recover and to wean him off drugs.

Around December 1888 - Thompson was out of hospital and living in lodgings (probably in Paddington according to Walsh) but visiting the Meynell’s almost every day.

Around the beginning of 1889 - Thompson relapses.

February 1889 - Thompson arrives at the Priory of Our Lady of England in Storrington, near Kithurst Hill on the South Downs in Sussex.

March 1890 - Thompson returned to London.

Excellent Herlock


We also know that Thompson spent some time living in Kilburn/Maida Vale/Paddington/City of Westminster area of London.

He had several addresses at various times all within a relatively small geographical radius.

He certainly attended various Catholic establishments in and around that area (and further away across London), as well as frequenting the pubs around Kilburn.

It seems that he was based in West London shortly before his death in 1907.

There doesn't seem to be any direct link to the East End; although it's reasonable to assume that he visited the Catholic churches all over London at some point.

The image of a "slight" framed man shuffling along quickly in his distinct brown ulster, and carrying his worn sachel, whilst avoiding not speaking to anyone, is perhaps indicative of a man suffering from the ills of uncontrollable drug use.

Unless he was like Mr Hyde, then it's difficult to imagine him overpowering anyone.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Excellent Herlock


We also know that Thompson spent some time living in Kilburn/Maida Vale/Paddington/City of Westminster area of London.

He had several addresses at various times all within a relatively small geographical radius.

He certainly attended various Catholic establishments in and around that area (and further away across London), as well as frequenting the pubs around Kilburn.

It seems that he was based in West London shortly before his death in 1907.

There doesn't seem to be any direct link to the East End; although it's reasonable to assume that he visited the Catholic churches all over London at some point.

The image of a "slight" framed man shuffling along quickly in his distinct brown ulster, and carrying his worn sachel, whilst avoiding not speaking to anyone, is perhaps indicative of a man suffering from the ills of uncontrollable drug use.

Unless he was like Mr Hyde, then it's difficult to imagine him overpowering anyone.

The only thing that tells us that he was ever in the East End appears to be the article that he wrote in which he mentioned seeing the men queueing outside the Providence Row Refuge. We don’t know when this occurred so it may well have been before the murders. It’s also, of course, not evidence of staying in the East End. I saw The Ritz recently but I didn’t stay there. We have no evidence that he stayed there and yet, from these facts, Richard states as a fact the Thompson was living within a 100 yards of the murder sites at the time of the murders. What also has to be factored in is that Thompson’s friend was a West End prostitute and the only thing that we know about her is that she lived somewhere in Chelsea. So if Thompson was searching for her it would have made far more sense for him to have searched the West End (a daunting task) It’s not impossible that he might have tried the East End after having no success or after receiving a tip but this would be speculation as we have no reason to believe so.

You rightly mention Thompson’s physical condition which was never robust and was made much worse by his rough sleeping, his poor diet and his drug addiction. By around early October when he was examined by a doctor he was in a state of near total physical collapse and was sent to a hospital to recover. A condition like that doesn’t come on over night so this means that all through the period of the first four murders Thompson was in extremely poor health, almost certainly malnourished, under the influence of drugs, ragged, unwashed and unclean and focused on one thing only - persuading his friend to come back.

One final short point RD about this woman. Richard tries to paint a picture of an angry Thompson scouring the East End searching for this woman that betrayed him intent on murder and committing other murders along the way. This, in absolutely no way, accords with what we know about a man who committed not one single recorded act of violence in his life. He wrote about that woman in later life and it was made clear that he bore her absolutely no ill will. Only fondness and affection. Even years later he spoke wistfully of wishing that he could see her again. No one that knew him ever mentioned Thompson displaying an anger or resentment toward her after she had left. So Richard has to resort to poetry. To fiction.

Francis Thompson was no killer.

[Richard Patterson]

This thread on Thompson being a suspect has been done to death. May I remind posters that in Criminal Investigations, there are 2 different types of categories of suspects. The first is a person of interest which in my opinon is the catergory most of the suspects named on here fit, none of them were to my knowledge ever arrested or interviewed about the murders to make them a full blown suspect and the fact that some of them were mentioned in later years by officers counts for nothing, if it did I have to ask why were they not interviewed at the time or even arrested on suspicion.

The second category is a true suspect "In criminal law a person under investigation by law enforcement is considered a suspect." of all the names of suspects being mentioned, how many were actually interviewed? It has been so easy for senior officers when interviewed in later years to so "I thought it was him------because" and what we see is reseachers actually wanting to believe what they say with no proof

Now changing topic in relation to the Virchow procedure, which has been discussed many times and some researchers suggest it showed medical skill in removing Kellys heart. I Posted a couple of days ago an extract of a report I commissioned from a modern-day forensic pathologist. The relevant parts are set out below.

The Virchow “method” isn’t really a specific technique for removing the heart in particular, but it refers more generally to the principle of removing organs one-by-one for individual examination. My preference for most cases is to remove all the organs together as a single “block”, and then place them onto a dissection bench for systematic examination. However, in certain cases (e.g. stabbings) I will adopt the one-organ-at-a-time (Virchow) approach, as this makes it easier to follow stab wound tracks through the body (whereas removing them all together distorts measurements and makes it easier to lose track).

Getting back to the reports you sent, where it says things like, “…the Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent…” this is what you might expect if the heart has been removed on its own (i.e. the “Virchow” method). For better access and to allow us to see the various vascular attachments, we tend to open the pericardium (fibrous sac enclosing the heart) using an inverted T-shape incision, so if the pericardium really was just “open below” then that implies that someone either didn’t know (or care) what they were doing, or didn’t have time to do it “properly”. So it goes against the person having anatomical skill / knowledge... but only very slightly!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,

It’s interesting to see you call out “truth and lies” while defending your own favored line. Let’s be blunt: the merchant seaman theory you’ve long promoted is one of the oldest Ripper suspects in the book. Edward Larkins floated it in 1888. Queen Victoria even speculated about the cattle boats. A century later, you presented it as “new.” The problem is not only that it isn’t new—it isn’t anchored to a single verifiable individual. You list ships, not men. That’s not a suspect; it’s a shadow cast on the Thames.

Now contrast that with Thompson. He is not a vague category of profession, he is a named individual, with:

• Medical training documented at Owens College, dissecting corpses with skill.
• Psychiatric collapse admitted by his own family and biographers—Victorians used “asylum” loosely, and pretending otherwise ignores the reality of his confinement.
• Prostitute connections, confirmed by Hopkins and biographical testimony, with his lover vanishing just before the murders.
• Rupert Street proximity, fitting Major Smith’s nexus of watch, where Thompson lived and wandered during his drug-ridden years.
• Coin trick motif, corroborated by Smith’s farthing anecdote, which you dismiss outright—but only by deciding in advance it “must” not apply.

Your argument boils down to calling all this “lies” because it inconveniences the neat box you’d like the evidence to fit into. But “facts are facts,” as you say: Thompson fits a bundle of traits no other named man does.

Finally, on your commissioned report: the pathologist you cite admits that the Kelly heart removal suggests either lack of time or a rushed hand. But speed does not mean incompetence—it means urgency. No modern pathologist operates crouched in darkness, in minutes, with crude blades. For such conditions, even a “slight” hint of anatomical familiarity is telling. Thompson had years of precisely that.

So here’s the stark contrast:

• The merchant seaman theory is vague, recycled, and never tied to a single man.
• The Thompson case is specific, document-based, and mathematically improbable to be coincidence.

Between the two, only one delivers a suspect in the legal sense you demand: a named individual matching multiple independent police traits. And it is not the seaman.

[Richard Patterson]

Excellent Herlock


We also know that Thompson spent some time living in Kilburn/Maida Vale/Paddington/City of Westminster area of London.

He had several addresses at various times all within a relatively small geographical radius.

He certainly attended various Catholic establishments in and around that area (and further away across London), as well as frequenting the pubs around Kilburn.

It seems that he was based in West London shortly before his death in 1907.

There doesn't seem to be any direct link to the East End; although it's reasonable to assume that he visited the Catholic churches all over London at some point.

The image of a "slight" framed man shuffling along quickly in his distinct brown ulster, and carrying his worn sachel, whilst avoiding not speaking to anyone, is perhaps indicative of a man suffering from the ills of uncontrollable drug use.

Unless he was like Mr Hyde, then it's difficult to imagine him overpowering anyone.

Rookie,

You keep invoking “truth and lies” as though merely declaring them decides the issue. But let’s check your inserts against the record:

• “Coin trick is a lie.” Major Henry Smith — Acting Commissioner in 1888 — put it in his memoir. Police on the street recorded polished farthings passed off as sovereigns. Dismissing Smith doesn’t erase him. Either you take police testimony seriously, or you discard it wholesale. You can’t pick and choose.
• “Thompson was never in an asylum.” Victorians used “hospital” and “asylum” interchangeably. Thompson’s collapse, confinement, and medical oversight are attested by family, biographers, and his own letters. Quibbling over labels while denying the reality of his breakdown is semantics, not truth.
• “No Rupert Street connection.” Thompson lived and drifted in precisely that nexus — homeless, drug-dependent, haunting the same streets Major Smith’s men watched. If Smith’s “general area” doesn’t cover Rupert Street, then the map of Whitechapel never existed.

You call these “lies,” but they are simply inconvenient facts.

Now contrast your position with mine. You don’t name a suspect. You don’t supply a probability. You recycle negations. Thompson, on the other hand, is a named individual who uniquely converges: medical training, psychiatric collapse, prostitute ties, Rupert Street geography, and even the coin motif. That bundle of traits has a one-in-quadrillions probability of coincidence.

As for the Virchow report you cite: your own expert concedes the heart removal was done hastily but not incompetently. Exactly what you’d expect from a man with surgical grounding working under time pressure, in darkness, with a knife. Thompson’s training makes sense of it.

So the ledger is simple:

• Your approach — dismiss, deny, and leave the Ripper faceless.
• Thompson — specific, documented, convergent, and statistically overwhelmingly

[Herlock Sholmes]

Exactly as I said in an earlier post. Richard just ploughs on regardless and keeps repeating the same obvious untruths.

[seanr]

I have no particular desire to spend time on this line of argument, but you've raised a point that I feel you should address.

Now contrast your position with mine. You don’t name a suspect. You don’t supply a probability. You recycle negations. Thompson, on the other hand, is a named individual who uniquely converges: medical training, psychiatric collapse, prostitute ties, Rupert Street geography, and even the coin motif. That bundle of traits has a one-in-quadrillions probability of coincidence.

One-in-quadrillions, really? Broadly lives in the area of Whitechapel, ties to sex workers, treated in a hospital are three of your traits. One-in-quadrillions. Really?

You're making a statistical argument, which quite frankly looks implausible. If you want anyone to accept that, you will have to show your data and your methodology.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have no particular desire to spend time on this line of argument, but you've raised a point that I feel you should address.



One-in-quadrillions, really? Broadly lives in the area of Whitechapel, ties to sex workers, treated in a hospital are three of your traits. One-in-quadrillions. Really?

You're making a statistical argument, which quite frankly looks implausible. If you want anyone to accept that, you will have to show your data and your methodology.

Hi Sean, If you don’t mind me adding - there’s not a single shred of evidence that Thompson ever stayed in the Whitechapel area.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.

• “Coin trick is a lie.” Major Henry Smith — Acting Commissioner in 1888 — put it in his memoir. Police on the street recorded polished farthings passed off as sovereigns. Dismissing Smith doesn’t erase him. Either you take police testimony seriously, or you discard it wholesale. You can’t pick and choose.

You have to assess though. You have to use judgment, reason, sense and honesty. If you are calling two things ‘a match’ as you are then you have to assess that assertion fairly. Two events:

Smith’s man bilked prostitutes using polished farthings

Thompson once found 2 sovereigns in the street.

There won’t be a single person on this entire forum, or JtRForums, or any forum, or any location on the planet outside of an asylum who would call these two things even remotely similar; never mind ‘a match.’ The suggestion of a match is just so crazy that I’m struggling to find the right words. These two cannot, under any circumstances, be considered remotely connected.

They are GONE and no matter how many times you bloody-mindedly keep quoting them as a match it won’t make it so.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.

• “Thompson was never in an asylum.” Victorians used “hospital” and “asylum” interchangeably. Thompson’s collapse, confinement, and medical oversight are attested by family, biographers, and his own letters. Quibbling over labels while denying the reality of his breakdown is semantics, not truth.

Just stating that Victorians used hospital and lunatic asylum (Smith’s exact words) won’t make it true. How about providing some evidence for a change. Whilst some family member might have used ‘hospital’ instead of ‘lunatic asylum’ as a euphemism to protect the family reputation, it doesn’t work the other way. Why would anyone call a hospital a lunatic asylum?

This isn’t semantic it’s honesty. You make a bizarre claim - you provide no evidence for it - and you expect everyone else just to brush aside their own very obvious objections and agree. It doesn’t work like that.

It was never the case that a medical hospital was ever called a lunatic asylum. Another point categorically eliminated.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.

• “No Rupert Street connection.” Thompson lived and drifted in precisely that nexus — homeless, drug-dependent, haunting the same streets Major Smith’s men watched. If Smith’s “general area” doesn’t cover Rupert Street, then the map of Whitechapel never existed.

Prove it. I realise that you have a form of allergy to evidence but Thompson didn’t live near to Rupert Street. In fact, just before Smith made the point, Thompson was living around 2 miles away in Chelsea.

Secondly and most obviously (and most annoyingly because you simply blank this point) Smith sent his men to Rupert Street. Not to the area around Rupert Street and he clearly did this because he knew that Rupert Street (not a ‘nexus’ or an area but Rupert Street specifically) was where his man was almost certainly going to be. If Smith was looking for Francis Thompson he wouldn’t have sent his men to stand in Rupert Street on the freakish off-chance that Thompson might have, on that particular day, wandered along it for some reason.

THREE of your points out of THREE categorically refuted and dismissed. See if you can find a single person who disagrees and who agrees with your strange interpretation of what the word ‘match’ means.

[The Rookie Detective]

Rookie,

You keep invoking “truth and lies” as though merely declaring them decides the issue. But let’s check your inserts against the record:

• “Coin trick is a lie.” Major Henry Smith — Acting Commissioner in 1888 — put it in his memoir. Police on the street recorded polished farthings passed off as sovereigns. Dismissing Smith doesn’t erase him. Either you take police testimony seriously, or you discard it wholesale. You can’t pick and choose.
• “Thompson was never in an asylum.” Victorians used “hospital” and “asylum” interchangeably. Thompson’s collapse, confinement, and medical oversight are attested by family, biographers, and his own letters. Quibbling over labels while denying the reality of his breakdown is semantics, not truth.
• “No Rupert Street connection.” Thompson lived and drifted in precisely that nexus — homeless, drug-dependent, haunting the same streets Major Smith’s men watched. If Smith’s “general area” doesn’t cover Rupert Street, then the map of Whitechapel never existed.

You call these “lies,” but they are simply inconvenient facts.

Now contrast your position with mine. You don’t name a suspect. You don’t supply a probability. You recycle negations. Thompson, on the other hand, is a named individual who uniquely converges: medical training, psychiatric collapse, prostitute ties, Rupert Street geography, and even the coin motif. That bundle of traits has a one-in-quadrillions probability of coincidence.

As for the Virchow report you cite: your own expert concedes the heart removal was done hastily but not incompetently. Exactly what you’d expect from a man with surgical grounding working under time pressure, in darkness, with a knife. Thompson’s training makes sense of it.

So the ledger is simple:

• Your approach — dismiss, deny, and leave the Ripper faceless.
• Thompson — specific, documented, convergent, and statistically overwhelmingly

Interestingly, I never cited a Virchow report.

Someone (or something) has gotten themselves into a mucking fuddle by the sound of it.

The limitations of AI perhaps.

My actual point was that Thompson would be a viable person of interest, even without your input; which inadvertently weakens Thompson's candidacy as the potential Ripper, because you're adding exaggerations, inconsistencies, elaborations, falsehoods and untruths into the mix.

As I said... less is more with Thompson.