The Jack the Ripper Mystery is Finally Solved — Scientifically

[FISHY1118]

Fishy, you’ve nailed it – what Herlock keeps calling “facts” are just his interpretations dressed up as absolutes. Let’s look at them:

• Coins – Victorian London was full of scams, farthings, and petty tricks. Multiple sources reference Thompson in contexts where these stories appear. To say it’s a “lie” just because it doesn’t appear in one sanitized biography is not honest scholarship.
• Asylum/Hospitals – In the 19th century, the terms hospital and asylum were often interchangeable, especially when dealing with paupers, addicts, or those with breakdowns. To dismiss this linguistic and historical reality as a “lie” is a distortion of the record.
• Rupert Street – The point isn’t whether Thompson owned property there; it’s about proximity and association. His known haunts, combined with Smith’s remarks, put him in that orbit. Pretending otherwise by demanding a street address is a strawman tactic.

The irony is Herlock keeps insisting on “truth vs. lies” while skipping over nuance and cherry-picking. As you say, Richard has every right to interpret those same sources differently – and with at least as much legitimacy. That’s what history is: weighing competing interpretations of imperfect records.

Herlock’s approach isn’t “facts,” it’s gatekeeping. You’re right to call it out, Fishy.

Someone has to . Ive always maintained that we all share the same Evidence in the case, and of course we are going to interpret it somewhat differently . But dont anyone dare say their interpretation is correct and minds wrong . Its common place around here , and thats a big problem with some posters have .

[Abby Normal]

id like to thank richard for starting this thread. i used to think francis thompson was viable suspect. But from the research of jerry, herlock and others i no longer do. so theres a silver lining in this after all lol.

[GBinOz]

Hi Geroge,

The only assumption that really needs to be made here is that the man who killed Nichols and Chapman also killed Eddowes.

Hi Lewis,

There is indeed a following for that opinion.

Cheer, George

[GBinOz]

Someone has to . Ive always maintained that we all share the same Evidence in the case, and of course we are going to interpret it somewhat differently . But dont anyone dare say their interpretation is correct and minds wrong . Its common place around here , and thats a big problem with some posters have .

Well said Fishy.

[GBinOz]

id like to thank richard for starting this thread. i used to think francis thompson was viable suspect. But from the research of jerry, herlock and others i no longer do. so theres a silver lining in this after all lol.

Hi Abby,

Were Herlock to apply his standards of research to his own suspect, how do you think that his suspect would fare? Or any other suspect? Fishy's post contains a lot of home truths.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

id like to thank richard for starting this thread. i used to think francis thompson was viable suspect. But from the research of jerry, herlock and others i no longer do. so theres a silver lining in this after all lol.

So basically you let the opinions of two others ''Interpretation'' of the evidence presented about Francis Thompson change your own judgement of him ? Sold out cheap enough i guess.

[The Rookie Detective]

The issue is that the title of this thread claims to have proven a negative.

(I should know because I've made the same mistake and done the same thing myself several times - I'm called "Rookie" for a reason)


And what's one of the fundermental principals of investigation?...


You can't prove a negative.


Richard's claims on Thompson are as provable as saying that the first man to drown on the titanic had forgotten to take his broken watch with him when he jumped overboard, because a broken watch was found in a cabin in 1st class, and then arguing that because it was broken, he chose to leave it behind on purpose.

Total proof


Really?


The entire thing is pointless and nonsensical.

We know this, because Thompson's enigmatic qualities that supported his candidacy as the Ripper, have been pretty much obliterated in one go.

Like a soldier in an advanced position on a battlefield, running back to his comrades at the front line and shouting; "hey fellas, I just found this unexploded gren..."

Just ridiculous.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Abby,

Were Herlock to apply his standards of research to his own suspect, how do you think that his suspect would fare? Or any other suspect? Fishy's post contains a lot of home truths.

Cheers, George

It contains no home truths whatsoever. Please point out where I have lied about Druitt. Please point out where I have exaggerated. Please point out where I have made untrue claims about Druitt. Please point out where I have ever said that Druitt was likely to have been the ripper.

Despite your dig George I absolutely know that I post without bias and that I post honestly.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So basically you let the opinions of two others ''Interpretation'' of the evidence presented about Francis Thompson change your own judgement of him ? Sold out cheap enough i guess.

Ladies and Gentlemen, here we can see an absolutely perfect example of what has recently been spoken about. Suspects supported like a football team. As if you should show loyalty to a suspect and stupidly stick to a belief in the face of evidence to the contrary. Abby has taken the honest approach (as he always does) and changed his mind. Richard has his opinion but it’s not the opinions of two others. It’s pretty much the opinion of everyone except you (and you won’t read the evidence)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well said Fishy.

So we all have to agree on everything?

[Herlock Sholmes]

''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.

Point out an example where the evidence against Thompson has been proven wrong.

Prediction:

a) Fishy will ignore this.
b) Fishy will change the subject.
c) Fishy will say that he’s already answered (when he hasn’t of course)
d) Fishy will just say that the answers are somewhere on Casebook and it’s up to me to trawl through thread after thread.

Or, will Fishy come up with a new excuse?

[The Rookie Detective]

Here we go, fasten your seat belts!...

*grabs popcorn

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Then you haven’t read the evidence. You can’t have. Anyone that gives an opinion without reading and assessing the evidence isn’t actually giving a valid opinion - all that they are doing is ‘picking a side.’ Obviously you have form for this where I’m concerned. You desperately want Richard (the good guy) to be right, and Herlock (the bad guy) to be wrong.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I notice that Richard still hasn’t answered my very straightforward questions. He’s either thinking of another, more imaginative way of shifting the evidence before responding. Or he isn’t intending to respond but he’ll probably repost the script of things that aren’t true.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here we go, fasten your seat belts!...

*grabs popcorn

I don’t intend these things to occur Chris but we can see the evidence and Fishy appears to think that if one person says one thing and the other responds then it’s somehow a score draw. A simple example (which Fishy will ignore)

In both biographies (Everard Meynell, 1913, John Walsh, 1968) nowhere is it ever shown that Francis Thompson was in the East End in 1888. Nowhere. And yet Richard pretends that this is somehow a ‘fact’ and Fishy obviously accepts that on face value. Walsh said:

“When neither food nor bed was available, he would, along with the other derelicts, often gravitate to one of the recently established Salvation Army shelters, or the Catholic Refuge in Providence Row. It was of the latter place that Thompson supplied, evidently from his own experience, a harrowing picture: the nightly crowd of haggard men…”

There is no mention anywhere from Thompson himself that he stayed there. Walsh, as he states, is going by the fact that Thompson mentioned seeing the Refuge, no more. So Walsh assumes that he probably stayed there at some point. But even if he might have stayed there we can state with 100% certainty that we don’t know in what year. Thompson went to London in 1885. The article that included the comment about the Refuge was published in 1891. So pick a possible year.

In both biographies numerous locations are mentioned. Apart from Thompson seeing the Refuge the East End is never mentioned.

Despite this Richard claims as a fact that Thompson was staying within 100 yards of the murders at the time that they occurred.

Right is right and wrong is wrong. Richard is provably wrong.