The Jack the Ripper Mystery is Finally Solved — Scientifically

[GBinOz]

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.

Hi Herlock,

Calm down my friend, and I'll briefly parody some questions that you have posed to Richard. Where can it be shown that your suspect was ever east of his law office? Where is there any suggestion that he was violent? Where can it be shown that he hated prostitutes? What evidence is there that he had even the slightest interest in medical procedures.

If I have mis-understood that Druitt is your favoured suspect for having been the ripper then I offer my apologies. I'm not having a dig at you. I had hoped that we were all here on a collegiate basis rather than confrontational, but I understand that those with a preferred suspect feel the need to defend against others who have their own preferred suspect, and even those who have no suspect. Some assumption and speculation is inevitable, but there remains the fact that there is no actual proof against anyone.

Cheers, George

[Richard Patterson]

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.

Rookie,

I think the snag in your reasoning comes from treating this as an attempt to “prove a negative.” That’s not what’s going on. The case for Thompson isn’t built on trying to disprove everyone else; it’s built on stacking rare, independently verifiable traits from a police profile and testing whether anyone in London at the time could have matched them. That’s not a negative claim, it’s a positive probability exercise .
Here’s where the analogy with a broken watch on the Titanic breaks down: the watch is random clutter in a sea of random clutter. Thompson’s profile is not random. He was an ex-medical student trained in dissection, confined for breakdown, living rough among prostitutes, linked to coin trickery anecdotes, and resident in the Rupert Street/Haymarket nexus at the precise time Major Henry Smith’s team trailed a suspect there . When you multiply the rarity of each trait across the London male population, the odds of coincidence drop to 1 in 20 quadrillion or worse . That isn’t “pointless” — it’s how probability works in criminology when direct forensic proof is absent.

And the “enigmatic qualities obliterated in one go” argument ignores chronology. The murders ceased the moment Thompson entered hospital in late 1888, a timeline match no other suspect offers . Add to this his violent misogynistic verse, which describes mutilations uncannily similar to the Whitechapel crimes, and his known scalpel possession, and you’ve got cumulative evidence far stronger than metaphorical unexploded grenades .

So yes — it’s not a courtroom “case closed.” But it’s also not nonsense. The mathematics and the biography converge to make Thompson not just “interesting,” but plausibly guilty. To dismiss it as “ridiculous” is to sidestep the very evidence that makes him unique.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Calm down my friend, and I'll briefly parody some questions that you have posed to Richard. Where can it be shown that your suspect was ever east of his law office? Where is there any suggestion that he was violent? Where can it be shown that he hated prostitutes? What evidence is there that he had even the slightest interest in medical procedures.

There’s a big difference though George. I’ve never claimed that we can place Druitt in the East End. Richard however had made the claim that Thompson was definitely living within 100 yards of the murder sites at the time of the murders. I’ve never suggested that Druitt was violent because we have zero evidence that he was. Richard however tries to claim violence on Thompson’s part in the form of his fictional writing. I’ve never claimed that Druitt hated prostitutes or that he ever expressed an opinion about them. Richard however claims that this gentle poet was so imbued with hatred for them that he went on a murderous rampage despite the fact that he never spoke or wrote in anything but terms of love and kindness about his alleged target. I’ve never claimed that Druitt ever had an interest in medicine. Thompson was three-times a failed medical student.

If I have mis-understood that Druitt is your favoured suspect for having been the ripper then I offer my apologies. I'm not having a dig at you. I had hoped that we were all here on a collegiate basis rather than confrontational, but I understand that those with a preferred suspect feel the need to defend against others who have their own preferred suspect, and even those who have no suspect. Some assumption and speculation is inevitable, but there remains the fact that there is no actual proof against anyone.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

When you say that I have a preferred suspect, the way that I’ve always explained my viewpoint is that Druitt is the suspect that continues to interest me most. If I had to pick just one of the named suspects I’d probably name Druitt but I’d never put money on it. I’d certainly never claim it as proven or even particularly likely. The most that I say is that I think that he tends to be too easily dismissed and, as there is no evidence against any suspect, I’ve never understood why this point is the standard dismissal point against Druitt; when the same applies to all of them. I think that its probably likeliest that the killer hadn’t been named yet.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Rookie,

I think the snag in your reasoning comes from treating this as an attempt to “prove a negative.” That’s not what’s going on. The case for Thompson isn’t built on trying to disprove everyone else; it’s built on stacking rare, independently verifiable traits from a police profile and testing whether anyone in London at the time could have matched them. That’s not a negative claim, it’s a positive probability exercise .
Here’s where the analogy with a broken watch on the Titanic breaks down: the watch is random clutter in a sea of random clutter. Thompson’s profile is not random. He was an ex-medical student trained in dissection, confined for breakdown, living rough among prostitutes, linked to coin trickery anecdotes, and resident in the Rupert Street/Haymarket nexus at the precise time Major Henry Smith’s team trailed a suspect there . When you multiply the rarity of each trait across the London male population, the odds of coincidence drop to 1 in 20 quadrillion or worse . That isn’t “pointless” — it’s how probability works in criminology when direct forensic proof is absent.

And the “enigmatic qualities obliterated in one go” argument ignores chronology. The murders ceased the moment Thompson entered hospital in late 1888, a timeline match no other suspect offers . Add to this his violent misogynistic verse, which describes mutilations uncannily similar to the Whitechapel crimes, and his known scalpel possession, and you’ve got cumulative evidence far stronger than metaphorical unexploded grenades .

So yes — it’s not a courtroom “case closed.” But it’s also not nonsense. The mathematics and the biography converge to make Thompson not just “interesting,” but plausibly guilty. To dismiss it as “ridiculous” is to sidestep the very evidence that makes him unique.

Try telling the truth for a change Richard.

“confined for breakdown‘ - invention.

”linked to coin trickery anecdotes” - Well whaddya know…another phrase to try and make a lie true. Thompson found 2 coins. That’s it. Finding something isn’t ’trickery.’

Your theory has been debunked. It’s over.

[Paddy Goose]

Good morning Richard,

I fully understand and it is only natural and normal in human nature for you to avoid any mention of Francis Thompson's addiction. To me, on the other hand, his addiciton is the raison d'atre for his confinement. This was so readily apparent to me the first time I heard of Francis Thompson So easy to grasp. So blatantly obvious is almost goes without mentioning. Almost.

He was not some raving homicidal maniac who need to be "safely caged." He was an addict.

Again, not questioning your integrity in the least, Richard. It is perfectly normal for you to avoid mention of his addiction.

[seanr]

Key point, Francis Thompson was not ‘confined’ he was treated willingly (perhaps after friendly persuasion) at the expense of a benefactor. His association with the Meynells started in April 1888. The year 1888 was the year his life changed as he found his supporters and an income. He went into the Priory from choice, to treat an addiction.

[Lewis C]

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,

I've gone through a similar change in my thinking. Thompson now appears to me to be a significantly longer longshot than before. I still don't 100% rule him out, but the chances of him being the Ripper are quite remote.

The recent discussion about Thompson has also been helpful to me because I once thought Oswald Puckeridge was a viable suspect, but no longer do.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

When you say that I have a preferred suspect, the way that I’ve always explained my viewpoint is that Druitt is the suspect that continues to interest me most. If I had to pick just one of the named suspects I’d probably name Druitt but I’d never put money on it. I’d certainly never claim it as proven or even particularly likely. The most that I say is that I think that he tends to be too easily dismissed and, as there is no evidence against any suspect, I’ve never understood why this point is the standard dismissal point against Druitt; when the same applies to all of them. I think that its probably likeliest that the killer hadn’t been named yet.

Hi Herlock,

I agree with what you say above. I also find Druitt, and the circumstances surrounding his death, to be of interest.

I also like some of Thompson's poetry, "In No Strange Land" in particular. But the concept of a poem about a knight setting forth, not on the usual theme of a quixotic crusade, but on a quest to murder and cut open women falls, IMO, very close on the ground to JtR. Perhaps that is why it wasn't published at the time. There is also the possibility of bitterness over perceived betrayal and abandonment to be considered.

I do recall your suggestion that Druitt may have acquired medical knowledge from his father, but acknowledge that was a suggestion rather than an insistence.

As you know, I don't have a suspect, and agree the culprit in most likely yet to be named, if ever. However those that do have a single suspect, often Kosminski, Chapman, Bury or Lechmere, are convinced that their perception of their clues and hypotheses are convincing, while others are not convinced. I suggest to label this as "lying" is a bridge too far.

Cheers, George

[Fiver]

Thompson’s profile is not random. He was an ex-medical student trained in dissection, confined for breakdown, living rough among prostitutes, linked to coin trickery anecdotes, and resident in the Rupert Street/Haymarket nexus at the precise time Major Henry Smith’s team trailed a suspect there .

Here's what Smith actually said.

"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 was an ex-medical student" - this matches Smith's "He had been a medical student".

* "confined for breakdown" deliberately falsifies Smith's "he had been in a lunatic asylum".

* "living rough among prostitutes" deliberately falsifies Smith's "he spent all his time with women of loose character".

* "linked to coin trickery anecdotes" deliberately falsifies Smith's "whom he bilked by giving them polished farthings instead of sovereigns"

* "resident in the Rupert Street/Haymarket nexus at the precise time Major Henry Smith’s team trailed a suspect there" matches Smith's "he was likely to be in Rupert Street, Haymarket", but you have yet to provide a shred of evidence that Thompson was living on Rupert Street at the time.

And you continue to ignore that "he proved an alibi without the shadow of doubt".