The Jack the Ripper Mystery is Finally Solved — Scientifically

[Herlock Sholmes]

So now you're imagining surgical kits?

There is no evidence that Thompson carried a scalpel while living rough.

Just as I posted Richard’s ‘and others’ casually slipped in earlier we now have ‘and surgical kits.’ I wonder what’s next? This kind of thing would have your average Cross supporter applauding.

[Fiver]

3. Smith's five point profile has no relevance whatever to identifying JtR -

a) As I have said many times, ex-medical student being a trait, is just a possibility, as JtR could have been a fully qualified doctor or surgeon or slaughterer, for example. Indeed, killing coldly, efficiently and quickly, slitting the throat from behind to avoid getting blood on hands or clothes, would be routine for a slaughterer, but is not taught in medical school. So JtR being an ex-medical student is just one possibility out of several.

b) There is no evidence that JtR ever attended an asylum, so someone who attended an asylum at some time would just be a possible suspect, but no more so than someone who hadn't attended an asylum. It has therefore no grounds for suspicion and is of no mathematical value.

c) There is no evidence that JtR associated with prostitutes, other than to kill them. Therefore association with prostitutes is not a usable clue.

d) There is no evidence that JtR indulged in coin trickery, so therefore this is not a usable trait that steers us in any useful direction.

e) There is no evidence that JtR lived in Haymarket or thereabouts. So this is not a helpful concept.

Richard also ignores a lot of things that Smith said.

* Smith's suspect was found and was proven innocent.

"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."

* Smith did not think the Ripper must have had medical training.

" In addition to this, I visited every butcher's shop in the city, and every nook and corner which might, by any possibility, be the murderer's place of concealment."

* Smith did not say the Ripper must have lived in Haymarket.

"Did he live close to the scene of action ? or did he, after committing a murder, make his way with lightning speed to some retreat in the suburbs?"

* Smith believed his best lead was from a man who claimed ""the man you want is not in London, he's in Manchester. What you think is his writing isn't. He writes just like an orderly-room clerk."

"I waited patiently for the promised visit, and confidently for a further communication from the missioner. The man never came, nor was I able to get the missioner's handwriting identified. Had either of them asked for money, I would have sent it willingly, believing, as I did, that at last I was on the right scent ; but I never had any such application from either."

[Doctored Whatsit]

Doctored,

I see where you’re getting tangled. You keep asking me to prove the Ripper himself had these five traits. That isn’t what I’m claiming — and it isn’t how historical suspect profiles work. Let me lay it out more clearly.

1. What Smith’s five traits are.

They’re not the “DNA markers of the killer.” They’re the written description of a man who, at the time, was taken seriously enough to be noted in memoirs and testimony. That makes them a suspect profile not a universal law.

2. Why the profile matters.

If nobody in the record matched all five, then the description would fade into irrelevance. But Thompson does match them, uniquely. That moves him out of the mass of “possible oddballs” and into a very narrow corridor defined by a contemporary police source.

3. Where this takes us.

You say this only proves “Smith might have suspected Thompson.” But that’s not trivial. In a case where hundreds of suspects have been thrown about, showing that one man aligns precisely with a senior officer’s recorded description is significant. And when that same man also brings independent evidence — advanced anatomical training, surgical instruments, violent verse, timeline collapse — the cumulative picture strengthens.

4. The confusion cleared.

You don’t need to accept that the Ripper must have had all five traits. You only need to accept that an officer recorded a profile, and Thompson alone fits it to the letter. That’s not proof beyond doubt, but it is a collapse of coincidence. From there, the rest of Thompson’s biography is not just “Smith’s suspect” — it’s the most consistent suspect narrative we have.

So the five traits aren’t meant to be the final key to the Ripper’s character. They’re the filter that lets us see why Thompson can’t be dismissed. The cumulative evidence doesn’t stop at Smith’s profile; it starts there.

Yes, Richard, I understood all of this a long time ago, and if I didn't get it the first time, I would have understood the second timed, and the third time ....

Yes, it's specifically Smith's suspect profile, and when you apply it to Thompson and you tell us it fits perfectly, I say "so what?" Smith constructed five traits which he believed relate to a suspect and you tell us that this moves Thompson "into a very narrow corridor defined by a contemporary police source." I have said, give us some evidence that the five traits are relevant to JtR, which four are not, and only one might possibly be, and you say they "aren't meant to be the final key to the Ripper's character. They're the filter that let's us see why Thompson can't be dismissed." They seem to be a filter that doesn't filter out much that appears irrelevant.

We all understand that you are not working from direct factual information relating purely to the Ripper, but to the observations of one man who may or may not have had some relevant suspicions. If they were relevant then all is well and it would have some merit to pursue the issue. If the suspicions were groundless, then further pursuit is a waste of everyones' time. As we know that there is no evidence that four of his traits apply to JtR, and that one is only a possibility, then I have been suggesting that there is no evidence that Smith's traits would lead to the Ripper, even if they did lead, according to you, to Thompson.

The so-called "cumulative evidence" is just a collection of interesting information. He carried a scalpel, apparently to shave with, he said, because he later asked for a razor. But of course, possessing a scalpel is suspicious. There was violence in his poetry! Literature is not real life, no matter what it portrays. Samuel Taylor Coleridge, another laudanum enthusiast, wrote of the voyage of the Ancient Mariner, but hadn't himself travelled the world by sea, and wrote of "a stately pleasure dome" in Xanadu, but never had any connection with any of this! Colin Dexter devised numerous murders in his novels for his Inspector Morse to solve, but nobody suggests that Dexter was a serial killer! Having a prostitute lover doesn't make Thompson a prostitute killer.

I was fascinated by your recent suggestion that living rough had toughened him, as I believe that all of the evidence I have seen suggested that it almost killed him!

Let's end this debate because we are not going to agree, everyone knows exactly what we are going to say, and we must be boring our readers with endless repeats.

[Scott Nelson]

In addition to this, I visited every butcher's shop in the city, and every nook and corner which might, by any possibility, be the murderer's place of concealment."

This quote from Smith's book suggests he was influenced by the proximity to the Mitre Square murder to Aldgate (Butcher's Row).

[Richard Patterson]

You aren't using the facts. You are ignoring them.

Here are Smiths' actual words.

"After the second crime I sent word to Sir Charles Warren that I had discovered a man very likely to be the man wanted. He certainly had all the qualifications requisite. 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", which you falsify as "prostitute connections".
Does not match Francis Thompson.
Might match Oswald Puckridge.

* "whom he bilked by giving them polished farthings instead of sovereigns", which you falsify as "coin trick".
Does not match Francis Thompson.
Might match Oswald Puckridge.

* "I thought he was likely to be in Rupert Street, Haymarket", which you falsify as "Haymarket residence".
Does not match Francis Thompson.
Matches Oswald Puckridge.

You are ignoring Thompson's verifiable biography and claiming Smith said things that Smith never said.

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’ll take your objections in order:

1. Medical student.

Yes — this matches Thompson directly. Puckridge also studied medicine. The question is not whether others were ever students, but who matches the entire set of descriptors together.

2. “In a lunatic asylum.”

Here we have the terminology problem. Victorian memoirs and reports routinely blurred “asylum,” “priory,” and “hospital.” Thompson’s confinement at the Priory was psychiatric, for breakdown and addiction. If we’re being precise about historical usage, it qualifies.

3. “Spent all his time with women of loose character.”

This is exactly what “prostitute connections” means. Thompson lived rough among prostitutes for years, and his closest relationship (the prostitute who later left him) is acknowledged by every major biography. There is no falsification — it’s the same idea, plainer phrasing.

4. “Bilking them with polished farthings.”

This story is in circulation in connection with Thompson. I’ve cited it transparently as the coin-trick element. You can argue about its reliability, but it isn’t invention.

5. “Likely to be in Rupert Street.”

That doesn’t mean a signed lease. It means presence in the district. Thompson was in Panton Street, literally around the corner, during the relevant period. To dismiss that as “does not match” is to miss the point of geographical nexus.

6. The alibi.

Here’s the biggest issue: you treat Smith’s memoir statement of “an alibi without the shadow of doubt” as if it closes the book. Yet even Scotland Yard’s copy of Smith’s memoir carries a handwritten note warning that “his veracity was not always to be trusted.” Smith also boasted he knew more about the murders than any man alive. His alibi story belongs in that context. If we hold his five identifiers as usable, we cannot then elevate his one-sentence dismissal to gospel truth and ignore all else.

So no, this isn’t “ignoring Thompson’s biography.” It’s the opposite — taking the profile literally, matching it to a candidate who uniquely ticks all the boxes, and pointing out that Smith’s glib alibi line doesn’t outweigh the convergence of evidence.

And if you insist that Puckridge fits the profile better, then show it in detail. Lay out each trait, his documented addresses, his connections, his medical record, and his timeline. At the moment, Thompson remains the only candidate whose life lines up with the profile, the training, the instruments, and the writings.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Unsurprising ignoring my questions.

Richard asks that Fiver to lay out each trait in detail. I’ve done this. Thompson isn’t even in the race. It’s Puckridge by a country mile. Anyone not riddled with bias could see it.

[Fiver]

So now you're imagining surgical kits?

There is no evidence that Thompson carried a scalpel while living rough.

Thompson said he had at some point in his life shaved with a dissecting scalpel, not that he carried one while he was homeless.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thompson said he had at some point in his life shaved with a dissecting scalpel, not that he carried one while he was homeless.

It’s what comes of cherrypicking evidence Fiver.

[Paddy Goose]

I was fascinated by your recent suggestion that living rough had toughened him, as I believe that all of the evidence I have seen suggested that it almost killed him!

Amen, Doc.

He was an addict. it dosen't require much to picture his state of health and well-being living rough because of his addiction. just a tiny bit of imagination will do. And duh, that is why he was "confined." It wasn't a breakdown over unrequited luv.


Putting aside the exact wording of the Smith quote, because I don't know enough of the Smith angle, i do agree with Richard though that is doesn't matter in the historical context whether it was a priory hospital or bona fide licensed asylum, public or private. But that misses the point by a country mile, no make that it misses the point by a couple of solar systems. HE WAS AN ADDICT. That is why he badly needed to be, and in fact was "confined."

[Herlock Sholmes]

The issue is that Smith specifically said lunatic asylum and no one ever calls a hospital a lunatic asylum - he can’t just make these things up and expect them to be accepted. For any faults that Smith might have had he was still a senior police officer who wouldn’t have casually called a hospital a lunatic asylum. It’s just a desperate attempt to conflate the two. The fact that Thompson was never in a lunatic asylum should end the point. But even if we allow for the hospital point (which we shouldn’t) we know that Walsh put Thompson’s confinement in a hospital to mid-October. But Smith had contacted Sir Charles Warren (including this ‘lunatic asylum information) just after Chapman’s murder. Warren mentioned Puckeridge in a report on the 19th September. So when Smith told Warren, Thompson hadn’t even been in a hospital yet and his stay in the Priory at Storrington commenced in early 1889. To seal the deal Oswald Puckeridge had been released from Hoxton House Lunatic Asylum on the 4th of August. Then on the 9th after being found wandering the streets he was placed in Bow Infirmary on the 9th. He was discharged on the 18th of that month.

[Paddy Goose]

Thanks Herlock,

Something told me I should not have posted anything at all when the discussion concerns the Smith quote. It's been so long since I studied that in my books such as the Ultimate and A-Z and followed along here on discussions of it. All of which apparently end up with Puckeridge.

I am making a broad general statement concerning the overall suspect status of Francis Thompson. Smith said lunatic asylum. That has a certain ring to it. Anderson said "safely caged." Aha MacMemo had something about Koz being confined if I remember. Aha! As if talk loony bin and it's like a magic bullet for a Ripper Suspect. Enter Francis Thompson, who was in fact "confined." But Francis Thompson was confined for one reason and one reason only: His addiction to opiates. Hello. It should be blindingly simple for everone to get it. Apaprently not.

This is my one and only issue with which I completely demolish any hope there ever was of FT being the Ripper. In my mind and to my satisfaction


Yet the beat goes on.

I am so exasperated I want to sh*t little green apples.
I wonder can Ms Diddles make a pie?

If not the lovely Ms Diddles any chef will do.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks Herlock,

Something told me I should not have posted anything at all when the discussion concerns the Smith quote. It's been so long since I studied that in my books such as the Ultimate and A-Z and followed along here on discussions of it. All of which apparently end up with Puckeridge.

I am making a broad general statement concerning the overall suspect status of Francis Thompson. Smith said lunatic asylum. That has a certain ring to it. Anderson said "safely caged." Aha MacMemo had something about Koz being confined if I remember. Aha! As if talk loony bin and it's like a magic bullet for a Ripper Suspect. Enter Francis Thompson, who was in fact "confined." But Francis Thompson was confined for one reason and one reason only: His addiction to opiates. Hello. It should be blindingly simple for everone to get it. Apaprently not.

This is my one and only issue with which I completely demolish any hope there ever was of FT being the Ripper. In my mind and to my satisfaction


Yet the beat goes on.

I am so exasperated I want to sh*t little green apples.
I wonder can Ms Diddles make a pie?

If not the lovely Ms Diddles any chef will do.

No problem paddy,

When Thompson was placed in that hospital he’d been persuaded to see a doctor by Meynell who pronounced him near to total physical collapse. They decided that while he was in the hospital they would try and get him off the drugs although apparently the doctor was concerned about the possible ‘down side’ of withdrawal.

Thompson does remind me of Van Gogh to an extent. Talented but sadly troubled. Both have become easy targets unfortunately. At least Thompson was in England at the time though. With Van Gogh ‘being in another country’ isn’t classed as an obstacle to one person. We have someone also accusing Neill Cream who was in prison in Chicago at the time…no problem though apparently.

Should we have a bet Paddy, on the first person to be accused of being the ripper who was provably dead at that time?

[FISHY1118]

Jesus Christ, Fishy, lad. I'm gonna have to start calling you Tim, as in "nice but dim."

What I'm talking about when I say that you'll never get it, is the fact that you've had it explained to you umpteen times how the burden of proof rests on Richard and nobody else.

He's offered no credible evidence of anything pertaining to Francis Thompson being a killer, never mind the killer, despite repeatedly claiming, like a drunken lunatic, that's it's a scientific fact.

You, also in the style of an inebriated maniac, keep insisting that everyone needs to "prove him wrong."

There's really nothing to prove, other than for Ricky to actually pull his finger out of his arse and start learning how to scientifically prove his own opinions, erm, "theories" correct.

Until then, Francis Thompson, through no fault of his own, has become a Lechmere level farce.

''You, also in the style of an inebriated maniac, keep insisting that everyone needs to "prove him wrong."

Your almost there . ' The ''evidence'' everyone need to prove him wrong is being claimed as Factual where it has not shown to be . Try to keep up Mike.

[FISHY1118]

Are you ever going to be serious Fishy? Are you ever going to assess evidence rather than just picking a side.

Read the posts. Richard hadn’t countered any of the points. He hadn’t produced any evidence. I’ve shown, using evidence, that he is trying to manufacture a case.

If you are convinced by Richard’s ‘match’ between Thompson and Smith's suspect then you are the only human being in the world that will agree. Read and absorb the evidence Fishy. If you can’t spot his attempt to manufacture a match then there’s no hope. It’s black and white.

Im always serious Herlock . Richard has more than once countered many points you have raised regarding Thompson . What you have shown is [by your own admission] using the same information Richard has available to him and us all , is that nothing youve posted so far as i can see, has disproven his claim.

[FISHY1118]

Fishy, I appreciate you standing your ground. Let me unpack why Herlock’s so-called “facts” don’t hold.

1. Whitechapel — Multiple biographers (Meynell, Walsh) place me lodging in East End doss houses, specifically near Whitechapel. Just because there isn’t a police tenancy form doesn’t erase those testimonies. To say “no evidence” when it exists in biographies is dishonest.
2. Violence — Thompson’s own writings describe mutilation, hunting, blood, and obsession with knives. That’s not a peaceful soul — it’s an author who fantasized violence in detail. To dismiss this is to cherry-pick only the “gentle poet” image.
3. Prostitute companion — Both Meynell and Walsh reference her. The suggestion that he “never bore ill will” ignores the darker undertones in his work written during and after that relationship. It’s selective reading to call it kindness only.
4. Arson — Even small incidents matter when a pattern appears. An adult leaving a smouldering pipe in his pocket or knocking over a lamp fits a broader carelessness with fire. Dismissing it outright shows bias, not balance.
5. Asylum claim — Hospitals and asylums often blurred in Victorian terminology. It’s not “ludicrous” to note that; it’s historically accurate. To declare “never in an asylum” as a fact ignores period usage of the term.
6. Polished farthings — There is a clear difference between street scams with false coins and finding sovereigns. Equating them is a misrepresentation of what I’ve actually argued.
7. Rupert Street — Biographers connect Thompson to Haymarket and its streets, including Rupert. Puckridge living there doesn’t negate Thompson’s own presence nearby. Saying “never lived there” is another overstatement.

So, Fishy, you’re right: repetition of blanket denials isn’t research. Evidence has been laid out, with sources. If others want to disagree, they need to show equally strong sources that refute it — not just call things “facts” by fiat.

So, Fishy, you’re right: repetition of blanket denials isn’t research. Evidence has been laid out, with sources. If others want to disagree, they need to show equally strong sources that refute it — not just call things “facts” by fiat.

It cant be any simpler can it Richard , cant see why they dont get it .