The Jack the Ripper Mystery is Finally Solved — Scientifically

[FISHY1118]

No. Facts are facts. This isn’t about interpretation or opinion. It’s about truth and lies. I prefer the former.

That Thompson was at anytime involved in an ‘trick’ involving coins is a lie and I challenge anyone (including Richard) to prove me wrong.

That Thompson was in a lunatic asylum is a lie. The suggestion that hospitals were sometimes called lunatic asylums is a lie.

That Major Smith would expect to find Thompson in Rupert Street is a lie. Smith clearly wasn’t talking about a ‘general area’ or a ‘nexus’ he was talking about a specific location and anyone that says that Thompson had any connection whatsoever is telling lies.

All of these are proven, rock solid, 100% facts. They are from the exact same source that Richard uses. It’s just that I’m reading them and relating the information honestly.

From the same source you say ? , 100% facts ?. Whos to be the judge to say that you have interpreted the ''Facts'' correctly and Richards has not ? . Your seem to be only contradictiong his opinion of those facts from the same source. His just as likely to be correct as you, is he not ?.

I think weve come to the end of this topic . The evidence has been discussed enough for me .

[Mike J. G.]

No im not Richards fanboy ,i just happen to respect the amount of research and evidence that his put into a suspect, which as yet i havent seen anyone disprove .Just a lot of opinions that Thompson wasnt JtR , thats fine there just opinions, were all entitled to them. As yet still tho no evidence to prove his evidence wrong , just opinions .

You'll never get it, Fishy. Just go easy on the Kool-Aid, it's clearly sent Richard round the bend.

[Herlock Sholmes]

From the same source you say ? , 100% facts ?. Whos to be the judge to say that you have interpreted the ''Facts'' correctly and Richards has not ? . Your seem to be only contradictiong his opinion of those facts from the same source. His just as likely to be correct as you, is he not ?.

I think weve come to the end of this topic . The evidence has been discussed enough for me .

Fortunately you don’t get to choose when a subject ends or not. You have the option of not commenting or paying attention.

Fishy, if you spent less time disputing everything that I say purely because it’s me that’s saying it and more time reading the actual evidence you would be in a much better position to assess that evidence. Simply siding with Richard without examining the evidence itself seems a poor approach. Try reading John Walsh’s biography of Thompson for example, as I have done (Richard too) and that would allow you a more informed and less one-sided opinion.

What I’m contradicting is things that aren’t true. Not opinions but evidence.

1. Nowhere is there one single piece of evidence that Thompson ever stayed in Whitechapel (or even the east end as a whole) Ask Richard to provide any and he won’t be able to. So yes, I am stating a fact.

2. That there is not a single piece of evidence in any of the records that Thompson was ever violent. So yes, I am stating a fact.

3. That Thompson never bore any ill will to his prostitute friend is proven by the written evidence from Thompson himself. So yes I am stating a fact.

4. That Thompson wasn’t an arsonist is shown by the ridiculous examples that Richard cites. A childhood accident in a church involving some smouldering charcoal being spilt. And as an adult he once accidentally knocked over a lamp and he once absent-minded lay left a pipe in his coat pocket which hadn’t properly gone out. If you think that’s ebidence of a proven arsonist you will join Richard as the only two people in the world. So yes I am stating a fact.

5. That Thompson was never in an asylum in his entire life is proven by the evidence. This is why Richard ludicrously claims that hospitals were sometimes called Lunatic Asylums and, as you appear to agree, it leaves you and Richard as the only two people who would believe this. So yes I am stating a fact.

6. That you appear to agree with Richard that ‘bilking prostitutes with polished farthings’ is the same thing as ‘finding two sovereigns in the street’ is testimony to the fact that you are simply agreeing with him because I am on the other side of the argument. So yes I am stating a fact.

7. That Thompson never lived near to Rupert Street is simply a fact. That Puckridge did live in Rupert Street is a fact. To deny this is to deny a cast-iron fact. So yes I am stating a fact.


You’ve taken no meaningful part in this subject Fishy and yet you are adamant that I’m wrong. Why don’t provide some cogent points, after assessing the evidence, to show that you’re not simply disagreeing because it’s me? On second thoughts there’s no need. I know that you’ll only say that you’ve already done it or some such thing.

[Mike J. G.]

Fortunately you don’t get to choose when a subject ends or not. You have the option of not commenting or paying attention.

Fishy, if you spent less time disputing everything that I say purely because it’s me that’s saying it and more time reading the actual evidence you would be in a much better position to assess that evidence. Simply siding with Richard without examining the evidence itself seems a poor approach. Try reading John Walsh’s biography of Thompson for example, as I have done (Richard too) and that would allow you a more informed and less one-sided opinion.

What I’m contradicting is things that aren’t true. Not opinions but evidence.

1. Nowhere is there one single piece of evidence that Thompson ever stayed in Whitechapel (or even the east end as a whole) Ask Richard to provide any and he won’t be able to. So yes, I am stating a fact.

2. That there is not a single piece of evidence in any of the records that Thompson was ever violent. So yes, I am stating a fact.

3. That Thompson never bore any ill will to his prostitute friend is proven by the written evidence from Thompson himself. So yes I am stating a fact.

4. That Thompson wasn’t an arsonist is shown by the ridiculous examples that Richard cites. A childhood accident in a church involving some smouldering charcoal being spilt. And as an adult he once accidentally knocked over a lamp and he once absent-minded lay left a pipe in his coat pocket which hadn’t properly gone out. If you think that’s ebidence of a proven arsonist you will join Richard as the only two people in the world. So yes I am stating a fact.

5. That Thompson was never in an asylum in his entire life is proven by the evidence. This is why Richard ludicrously claims that hospitals were sometimes called Lunatic Asylums and, as you appear to agree, it leaves you and Richard as the only two people who would believe this. So yes I am stating a fact.

6. That you appear to agree with Richard that ‘bilking prostitutes with polished farthings’ is the same thing as ‘finding two sovereigns in the street’ is testimony to the fact that you are simply agreeing with him because I am on the other side of the argument. So yes I am stating a fact.

7. That Thompson never lived near to Rupert Street is simply a fact. That Puckridge did live in Rupert Street is a fact. To deny this is to deny a cast-iron fact. So yes I am stating a fact.


You’ve taken no meaningful part in this subject Fishy and yet you are adamant that I’m wrong. Why don’t provide some cogent points, after assessing the evidence, to show that you’re not simply disagreeing because it’s me? On second thoughts there’s no need. I know that you’ll only say that you’ve already done it or some such thing.

Stop making so much bloody sense, Herlock. This is the Thompson thread, slowly gaining ground on the absolute waffle of the Lechmere threads.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Stop making so much bloody sense, Herlock. This is the Thompson thread, slowly gaining ground on the absolute waffle of the Lechmere threads.

People are always going to favour one suspect over another of course John but, as you say, Cross, Thompson (and the recent Van Gogh book) are examples of the defend-at-all-costs-mentality that some take. Most of us would like to be the one that solves the case but we all know it’s unlikely (to put it mildly) but some take it to such a ridiculous extent. A Victorian era cart driver wears his working clothes to an inquest and it’s indicative of guilt. Someone that’s never been violent but writes some poetry containing some violence and it makes the poet a violent man. A poverty-stricken painter is living in France but just because it’s not physically impossible to have travelled to England it’s dismissed as a ‘no problem.’ A man is seen standing in the middle of the road with the body a short distance ahead and across the road but it becomes ‘standing next to…’ or ‘crouching over.’ A poet has three examples from childhood to adult of mishaps to do with fire and he gets classed as an arsonist which shows that he was a psychopath.

The ‘Waffle Alarm’ will be needed a regular supply of new batteries.

[Richard Patterson]

Stop making so much bloody sense, Herlock. This is the Thompson thread, slowly gaining ground on the absolute waffle of the Lechmere threads.

1.
“No evidence Thompson ever stayed in Whitechapel”

Wrong. Thompson was at Providence Row night refuge, 50 Crispin Street, Spitalfields, in November 1888—just yards from Miller’s Court, where Mary Kelly was murdered. Records place him there from Nov 5 to Nov 15, covering the exact period of the final canonical killing . The refuge’s open-door policy at night gave him freedom to slip out during murders . That is not speculation; it’s geography and timing. Few suspects can be placed so close to a victim at the precise time.

2.
“No evidence Thompson was ever violent”

His writings are evidence of violent obsession. In Nightmare of the Witch-Babies (1886), he depicts a knight slitting a woman open and removing unborn children . In Finis Coronat Opus (1889), a poet murders and disembowels a woman as ritual sacrifice . Thompson admitted his poems were autobiographical “poetic diaries.” To dismiss these as harmless fiction ignores his own testimony.

3.
“No ill will toward his prostitute friend”

Fact: after his prostitute lover abandoned him in June 1888, he refused to leave the East End until he found her, obsessively searching . His biographers confirm his devastation. Calling prostitutes “putrid ulcerations of love” and “a hideous blasphemy” shows his disdain . The murders targeted women exactly like her—this is a textbook motive.

4.
“Not an arsonist”

As a boy at Ushaw College, Thompson set a church on fire after being denied vestments, an event described as more than a “smouldering accident” . Later he dropped lamps and mishandled fire recklessly. Repeated incidents point to a dangerous pattern—especially when paired with his obsession for destruction in poetry.

5.
“Never in an asylum”

Evidence shows otherwise. Thompson had a documented breakdown and was treated at Storrington Priory, referred to in records as an “asylum” in the Victorian sense . The police profile Major Henry Smith gave explicitly mentioned “an ex-medical student with asylum history”—and Thompson is the only man known to fit that . To dismiss Victorian terminology as “ludicrous” ignores the period’s language.

6.
“Coin fraud was just finding two sovereigns”

Not so. Biographers noted Thompson’s peculiar coin fraud—passing polished halfpennies as gold sovereigns . Major Smith described the Rupert Street suspect as doing exactly that: “bilking prostitutes with polished farthings” . The overlap is uncanny. Coin-fraud in this form was rare, and Thompson matches it precisely.

7.
“Never lived near Rupert Street”

He lived on Panton Street, one block from Rupert Street, in 1886 . In 1888, he had a postal address at Charing Cross, again yards away . Major Smith’s Rupert Street suspect had five unique traits: medical student, asylum, prostitutes, coin fraud, Rupert Street. Thompson matches all five, and no other man does . The probability of coincidence is about 1 in 20 quadrillion .

Closing

Mike J. G. calls his points “facts,” but each collapses under primary evidence:

• Whitechapel presence: Proven at Crispin Street refuge during Kelly’s murder.
• Violence: Written confessions of cutting women open.
• Prostitute animosity: Direct motive after abandonment.
• Arson: Multiple fire incidents, including a church blaze.
• Asylum: Storrington treatment, matching Smith’s profile.
• Coin fraud: Identical to police description.
• Rupert Street: Documented residence and postal use.

These aren’t “waffle.” They’re documented links. If he insists otherwise, he must name another suspect who fits all of Smith’s five traits and can be placed at Miller’s Court in November 1888. None exist.

[Herlock Sholmes]

1.
“No evidence Thompson ever stayed in Whitechapel”

Wrong. Thompson was at Providence Row night refuge, 50 Crispin Street, Spitalfields, in November 1888—just yards from Miller’s Court, where Mary Kelly was murdered. Records place him there from Nov 5 to Nov 15, covering the exact period of the final canonical killing . The refuge’s open-door policy at night gave him freedom to slip out during murders . That is not speculation; it’s geography and timing. Few suspects can be placed so close to a victim at the precise time.

This is not the truth. Please show us the evidence that places him Spitalfield’s in that period. And please Richard - don’t just state that he mentioned seeing the men queueing outside of the refuge because that isn’t proof that he stayed there.

2.
“No evidence Thompson was ever violent”

His writings are evidence of violent obsession. In Nightmare of the Witch-Babies (1886), he depicts a knight slitting a woman open and removing unborn children . In Finis Coronat Opus (1889), a poet murders and disembowels a woman as ritual sacrifice . Thompson admitted his poems were autobiographical “poetic diaries.” To dismiss these as harmless fiction ignores his own testimony.

This is not truth. You are quoting works of fiction and imagination. There is not one single example, statement, suggestion or hint of Francis Thompson ever being physically violent but you keep dishonestly skirting around that FACT by waffling on about works of imaginative fiction. No serious adult could call a person ‘violent’ just because he writes about it.

3.
“No ill will toward his prostitute friend”

Fact: after his prostitute lover abandoned him in June 1888, he refused to leave the East End until he found her, obsessively searching . His biographers confirm his devastation. Calling prostitutes “putrid ulcerations of love” and “a hideous blasphemy” shows his disdain . The murders targeted women exactly like her—this is a textbook motive.

Again, because of the embarrassing weakness of your case you are forced again to recourse to Thompson’s fictional work. We have Thompson own writing SPECIFICALLY about his prostitute friend and they are clear expressions of love and kindness.

4.
“Not an arsonist”

As a boy at Ushaw College, Thompson set a church on fire after being denied vestments, an event described as more than a “smouldering accident” . Later he dropped lamps and mishandled fire recklessly. Repeated incidents point to a dangerous pattern—especially when paired with his obsession for destruction in poetry.

Do you have no regard for truth Richard? He did not “set a church on fire” because the smouldering charcoal was stamped out by a housekeeper with a shovel (which you would have stated if you weren’t constantly editing the evidence)

5.
“Never in an asylum”

Evidence shows otherwise. Thompson had a documented breakdown and was treated at Storrington Priory, referred to in records as an “asylum” in the Victorian sense . The police profile Major Henry Smith gave explicitly mentioned “an ex-medical student with asylum history”—and Thompson is the only man known to fit that . To dismiss Victorian terminology as “ludicrous” ignores the period’s language.

This is appalling Richard, it really is. Thompson was never in an asylum. Smith mentions a ‘lunatic asylum’ but he did this in early September of 1888. Why do you try to fool people into ignoring this. Thompson went into a HOSPITAL in around mid-October (so AFTER Smith) And he went in the Priory at Storrington in early 1889!

Please stop making things up and provide a documented evidence of a normal hospital ever being known as a ‘lunatic asylum.’

6.
“Coin fraud was just finding two sovereigns”

Not so. Biographers noted Thompson’s peculiar coin fraud—passing polished halfpennies as gold sovereigns . Major Smith described the Rupert Street suspect as doing exactly that: “bilking prostitutes with polished farthings” . The overlap is uncanny. Coin-fraud in this form was rare, and Thompson matches it precisely.

You are scraping the barrel. I’m actually appalled at the way that you have tried to re-phrase this (clearly what you have being working on while you haven’t been posting) Major Smith’s suspect (who is proven to have been Oswald Puckridge) bilked prostitutes with polished farthings. THIS HAS NEVER BEEN SAID OF FRANCIS THOMPSON ANYWHERE EVER! He found 2 sovereigns in the street. It’s not even remotely connected.

7.
“Never lived near Rupert Street”

He lived on Panton Street, one block from Rupert Street, in 1886 . In 1888, he had a postal address at Charing Cross, again yards away . Major Smith’s Rupert Street suspect had five unique traits: medical student, asylum, prostitutes, coin fraud, Rupert Street. Thompson matches all five, and no other man does . The probability of coincidence is about 1 in 20 quadrillion .

Another disgrace.

What you are suggesting is that Major Henry Smith sent two men to stand specifically in Rupert Street on the off chance that Thompson might pass because he had lived a block away w years previously!! Listen to yourself Richard. You are totally embarrassing yourself. Oswald Puckridge actually lived in Rupert Street and had been released from an asylum just a month before Smith contacted Warren.

The probability that this man - medical student/tick….in an asylum/tick….lived in Rupert Street at the time/tick could have been anyone other that Puckridge is non-existent.

Closing

Mike J. G. calls his points “facts,” but each collapses under primary evidence:

• Whitechapel presence: Proven at Crispin Street refuge during Kelly’s murder. Provable Lie
• Violence: Written confessions of cutting women open. Provable Lie
• Prostitute animosity: Direct motive after abandonment. Provable Lie
• Arson: Multiple fire incidents, including a church blaze. Provable Lie
• Asylum: Storrington treatment, matching Smith’s profile. Provable Lie
• Coin fraud: Identical to police description. Provable Lie
• Rupert Street: Documented residence and postal use. Provable Lie

These aren’t “waffle.” They’re documented links. If he insists otherwise, he must name another suspect who fits all of Smith’s five traits and can be placed at Miller’s Court in November 1888. None exist.

I would seriously suggest that by now not a single serious person with an interest in the case will have looked at the above and shook their head at the utterly contemptible way that you consistently try to manipulate evidence and post things which are provably untrue. I’d ask any person to stand up and say that they defend and agree with the points that you have made.

Seriously Richard…you should be ashamed of yourself.