The Jack the Ripper Mystery is Finally Solved — Scientifically

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fiver, you’ve built your objection on two moves that won’t hold: (i) treating neutral paraphrase as “falsification,” and (ii) using a memoir-line “alibi” as a conversation stopper while demanding hyper-literalism everywhere else. Let’s clean this up.

1) Paraphrase ≠ falsification (and why historians normalize language)

You call these “deliberate falsifications”:

• “confined for breakdown” vs. Smith’s “in a lunatic asylum.”
  Late-Victorian usage blurred asylum/hospital/priory for psychiatric confinement; police and memoirists used the terms loosely. “Confined for breakdown” is a neutral normalization of the same underlying fact pattern: psychiatric institutionalization. It preserves the evidential function of Smith’s trait (a man known to have been committed). That’s good practice, not deceit.
• “living rough among prostitutes” vs. “spent all his time with women of loose character.”
  “Loose character” is period euphemism for sex-trade milieu. Rendering it as “prostitute connections / living among prostitutes” is plain-English equivalence, not a switch. Again: we keep the probative meaning while avoiding Victorian rhetoric.
• “linked to coin trickery anecdotes” vs. “bilked…with polished farthings.”
  The polished-farthings line is a press-inflected anecdote that Smith repeats. Flagging it as “linked to coin trickery anecdotes” is the cautious, scholarly way to carry it forward. And importantly: the model works even if you drop this trait entirely. See §4.
• “resident in the Rupert Street/Haymarket nexus” vs. “likely to be in Rupert Street… there he was.”
  Smith reports presence located there. Thompson’s documented lodging in Panton Street puts him in the immediate orbit (a few minutes’ walk). “Nexus” is a fair term for geographic presence/proximity; no one claimed a signed lease on Rupert Street.

When we test profiles, we normalize and group equivalent forms (institutionalization, prostitute milieu, coin-bilking, Haymarket orbit). That’s how you avoid lexical hair-splitting from gutting signal.

2) The “alibi without the shadow of doubt” line isn’t the trump card you think

If you elevate that single memoir sentence to dispositive status, you must answer four basic questions that Smith never does:

• Which date/time does the alibi cover? One murder? Several? All?
• What’s the documentary basis (who, where, when), beyond a boastful aside?
• Why keep the suspect’s full five-point profile if he was truly cleared beyond doubt?
• Why repeat press lore (polished farthings) alongside an ironclad exoneration if you’re being strictly evidential?

You cannot demand laser-literalism for every descriptor, then treat an unspecified, undated, uncorroborated memoir flourish as sacrosanct. Method 101: either we weigh Smith holistically (profile + limits + bombast), or we don’t cherry-pick the one sentence that suits us. At minimum, that “alibi” downgrades one episode; it does not negate the broader convergence.

3) Profiles are filters, not gospels — and Thompson clears the filter uniquely

Smith didn’t claim universal truths about “the Ripper.” He recorded a suspect with five unusual identifiers:

1. ex-medical student
2. psychiatric confinement
3. immersed in the sex-trade milieu
4. polished-farthings bilking
5. found in the Rupert/Haymarket orbit

The use of a profile is to filter a population, not to pre-prove the killer’s CV. The question is: who in the record matches all five? With Thompson, the answer is: he does, and that’s before we add independent strands (documented dissection training, possession of scalpels, violent unpublished verse, collapse/commitment tracking the cessation of murders). That’s cumulative reasoning — the standard you’d expect in any serious historical analysis.

If you think Puckridge (or anyone else) matches the full five and brings those independent strands, lay out the documentation (addresses, dates, medical record, contemporaneous writings, timeline). Hand-waving toward a name isn’t parity.

4) Sensitivity: even granting your strictest takes, the coincidence still collapses

Let’s accept your narrowest readings for the sake of argument:

• Treat “asylum” only as a formal asylum (and still count Thompson’s psychiatric confinement with a clear note).
• Treat the coin story as too weak to include (drop it entirely).
• Treat “Rupert Street” as geographic orbit/proximity (as Smith himself used it).

Even then, you have ex-medical + documented psychiatric confinement + sex-trade milieu + Haymarket orbit — a four-trait cluster that is still vanishingly rare in the London male population of the time. The probability spine isn’t there to impress; it’s there to stop the conversation devolving into vibes. Remove the weakest trait and rerun: the expected number of men who fit even the four-trait filter is ≪ 1. Add back Thompson’s extra-profile anchors (cadaver dissection under Dreschfeld; carrying scalpels while vagrant; manuscripts rehearsing uterine mutilation; hospitalization coincident with the murders’ end) and the posterior tightens further. That’s how cumulative evidence works.

5) Ethical scholarship: pick one standard and apply it consistently

Right now, your standard changes case-by-case:

• Literalist on asylum/loose-women/coin/“Rupert Street,” but credulous on an undefined “alibi.”
• Skeptical of press-inflected farthings, but uncritical when the same source is used to sweep a suspect off the board.
• Demanding of residence paperwork for “Rupert Street,” but satisfied with the vaguest possible alibi claim.

That isn’t rigorous; it’s adversarial selection. The ethical route is stability: either you discount memoir color across the board, or you weigh it — both the five identifiers and the alibi line — with the same caution. Once you do, the identifiers retain probative value (they narrow the field), while the alibi becomes what it is: a non-specific caveat, not a silver bullet.

6) The Puckridge detour (briefly)

You imply Puckridge fits better. Then demonstrate it. Show:

• A documented Haymarket-orbit presence aligned to Smith’s pursuit.
• Independent evidence of anatomical training, instruments, or violent manuscripts paralleling the injuries.
• A timeline that rises and falls with the murders rather than drifting past them.

Without those, invoking Puckridge is a way to avoid the Thompson convergence, not answer it.

7) Bottom line, with standards intact

• Calling plain-English normalizations “falsifications” is a category error.
• Using an undefined memoir “alibi” as dispositive while nitpicking every other line is methodologically incoherent.
• Profiles filter; Thompson uniquely passes the filter.
• Even after you remove the weakest trait(s), the coincidence still collapses, and Thompson’s extra-profile evidence pushes the case from “interesting” to plausibly guilty.

We can disagree on weight. We cannot pretend that terminological hairsplitting plus a memoir aside equals a refutation. If you want to stay in the evidential lane, hold one standard, apply it to every line, and then tell us who — if not Thompson — clears the same filter and brings the same independent anchors. Until then, your objection isn’t toppling anything; it’s just rearranging the furniture.

Repetition but no confronting of the points made.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Thompson fallacy has been debunked for what it is. A work of fiction.

[rjpalmer]

Here's a post that won't please anyone.

Often--but not always--when two parties vehemently argue (such as we see currently see with Richard and his critics) it is because they both own a percentage of the truth. No side is entirely right--though they both think they are, so they are willing to fight to the death to hold their ground.

That Major Smith was primarily referencing Oswald Puckridge in his 1910 memoirs is beyond any reasonable doubt. There's enough surviving documentation to show this.

However, it is also true that Richard is not wrong in pointing out that Major Smith adds a couple of details that are problematic to this identification. Referring to Puckridge as a former medical student is a little odd in reference to murders that involved what might be called dissection because Puckridge was merely a dispensing chemist, and even this was in his distant past; in more recent years he had been a publican. Nor has anyone produced any evidence that Puckridge spent "all of his time" with prostitutes and pawned off polished farthings on them.

So here is my humble contribution.

It was exceedingly common, particularly in a case with so many crime scenes and so many suspects, for police officials writing in the 20th Century to combine two suspects into one. This is one of the theoretical underpinnings of Martin Fido's theory and the supposed confusion over Kozminski/Cohen. Elsewhere we hear of a Russian medical student who committed suicide---an obvious portmanteau of (at least) two suspects: Ostrog and Druitt.

I think it is possible that Smith is doing the same thing. He is primarily remembering, more or less accurately, Oswald Puckridge, but after so many years he's a bit fuzzy on certain elements and has added details that refer to another suspect---the medical student that consorted with prostitutes.

This is nothing I can prove, nor am I suggesting that this student was Francis Thompson, but I think it is possible that Smith has allowed elements of a different investigation to pollute his memory.

But what shouldn't be lost is that the whole point of Smith's anecdote is that police opinions can be wrong.

He is responding to Sir Robert Anderson's insistence that the murderer was a Polish Jew living in a certain district. Smith is admitting that he, too, once had a prime suspect in a certain street but a thorough investigation ultimately proved that the suspect was innocent. Smith had been wrong. That is the moral of his story. He wants the reader (or Anderson himself) to remember this when weighing Anderson's own "solution."

That is Smith's message. Police opinions even when they are certain can be wrong. So, too, can be the opinions of "Ripperologists."

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here's a post that won't please anyone.

Often--but not always--when two parties vehemently argue (such as we see currently see with Richard and his critics) it is because they both own a percentage of the truth. No side is entirely right--though they both think they are, so they are willing to fight to the death to hold their ground.

That Major Smith was primarily referencing Oswald Puckridge in his 1910 memoirs is beyond any reasonable doubt. There's enough surviving documentation to show this.

However, it is also true that Richard is not wrong in pointing out that Major Smith adds a couple of details that are problematic to this identification. Referring to Puckridge as a former medical student is a little odd in reference to murders that involved what might be called dissection because Puckridge was merely a dispensing chemist, and even this was in his distant past; in more recent years he had been a publican. Nor has anyone produced any evidence that Puckridge spent "all of his time" with prostitutes and pawned off polished farthings on them.

So here is my humble contribution.

It was exceedingly common, particularly in a case with so many crime scenes and so many suspects, for police officials writing in the 20th Century to combine two suspects into one. This is one of the theoretical underpinnings of Martin Fido's theory and the supposed confusion over Kozminski/Cohen. Elsewhere we hear of a Russian medical student who committed suicide---an obvious portmanteau of (at least) two suspects: Ostrog and Druitt.

I think it is possible that Smith is doing the same thing. He is primarily remembering, more or less accurately, Oswald Puckridge, but after so many years he's a bit fuzzy on certain elements and has added details that refer to another suspect---the medical student that consorted with prostitutes.

This is nothing I can prove, nor am I suggesting that this student was Francis Thompson, but I think it is possible that Smith has allowed elements of a different investigation to pollute his memory.

But what shouldn't be lost is that the whole point of Smith's anecdote is that police opinions can be wrong.

He is responding to Sir Robert Anderson's insistence that the murderer was a Polish Jew living in a certain district. Smith is admitting that he, too, once had a prime suspect in a certain street but a thorough investigation ultimately proved that the suspect was innocent. Smith had been wrong. That is the moral of his story. He wants the reader (or Anderson himself) to remember this when weighing Anderson's own "solution."

That is Smith's message. Police opinions even when they are certain can be wrong. So, too, can be the opinions of "Ripperologists."

Hello Roger,

You make a very valid point (as usual) It’s certainly possible that, with Puckridge in mind, Smith could have ‘grafted’ on what Richard calls ‘traits’ from another person and it’s not difficult to imagine that someone like a a former medical student might have come under suspicion at some point (maybe one that used to con people by using polished farthings?) With Puckridge being a Chemist this might have provided a false link between the two in Smith’s memory.

We know that it couldn’t have been Thompson of course because he fails entirely on 3 of the 5 traits and and largely fails on one of the remaining two.

I’m not going to push the next point with any confidence because it’s pure speculation and nothing more - the Illustrated Police News, 6th July 1889 reports Puckridge violently assaulting coffee shop owner Henry Frederick Orange. Puckridge claimed that the man tried to rob him. Might Puckridge have tried passing off a polished farthings but Orange spotted it, with Puckridge claiming that he’d given him a genuine coin?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. You imply Puckridge fits better. Then demonstrate it. Show:

• A documented Haymarket-orbit presence aligned to Smith’s pursuit.
• Independent evidence of anatomical training, instruments, or violent manuscripts paralleling the injuries.
• A timeline that rises and falls with the murders rather than drifting past them

Notice that Richard doesn’t mention the lunatic asylum?

Notice the slipperiness in not mention Rupert Street as Smith did. He just continues to waffle about a Haymarket orbit. He does this because Puckridge was definitely living in Rupert Street.

Thompson would, according to Walsh, have been out of hospital in December of 1888 when he returned to living in London (probably Paddington)


Its not even difficult to disprove this tissue of nonsense.

[The Rookie Detective]

Here's a post that won't please anyone.

Often--but not always--when two parties vehemently argue (such as we see currently see with Richard and his critics) it is because they both own a percentage of the truth. No side is entirely right--though they both think they are, so they are willing to fight to the death to hold their ground.

That Major Smith was primarily referencing Oswald Puckridge in his 1910 memoirs is beyond any reasonable doubt. There's enough surviving documentation to show this.

However, it is also true that Richard is not wrong in pointing out that Major Smith adds a couple of details that are problematic to this identification. Referring to Puckridge as a former medical student is a little odd in reference to murders that involved what might be called dissection because Puckridge was merely a dispensing chemist, and even this was in his distant past; in more recent years he had been a publican. Nor has anyone produced any evidence that Puckridge spent "all of his time" with prostitutes and pawned off polished farthings on them.

So here is my humble contribution.

It was exceedingly common, particularly in a case with so many crime scenes and so many suspects, for police officials writing in the 20th Century to combine two suspects into one. This is one of the theoretical underpinnings of Martin Fido's theory and the supposed confusion over Kozminski/Cohen. Elsewhere we hear of a Russian medical student who committed suicide---an obvious portmanteau of (at least) two suspects: Ostrog and Druitt.

I think it is possible that Smith is doing the same thing. He is primarily remembering, more or less accurately, Oswald Puckridge, but after so many years he's a bit fuzzy on certain elements and has added details that refer to another suspect---the medical student that consorted with prostitutes.

This is nothing I can prove, nor am I suggesting that this student was Francis Thompson, but I think it is possible that Smith has allowed elements of a different investigation to pollute his memory.

But what shouldn't be lost is that the whole point of Smith's anecdote is that police opinions can be wrong.

He is responding to Sir Robert Anderson's insistence that the murderer was a Polish Jew living in a certain district. Smith is admitting that he, too, once had a prime suspect in a certain street but a thorough investigation ultimately proved that the suspect was innocent. Smith had been wrong. That is the moral of his story. He wants the reader (or Anderson himself) to remember this when weighing Anderson's own "solution."

That is Smith's message. Police opinions even when they are certain can be wrong. So, too, can be the opinions of "Ripperologists."

Flawlessly brilliant and eloquently written post.

[Fiver]

However, it is also true that Richard is not wrong in pointing out that Major Smith adds a couple of details that are problematic to this identification. Referring to Puckridge as a former medical student is a little odd in reference to murders that involved what might be called dissection because Puckridge was merely a dispensing chemist, and even this was in his distant past; in more recent years he had been a publican. Nor has anyone produced any evidence that Puckridge spent "all of his time" with prostitutes and pawned off polished farthings on them.

Agreed that there is no evidence that Puckridge was a medical student. I have never said that he was, but I have pointed out that the police believed that Puckridge had been a medical student.

"A man called Puckeridge who was released from an asylum on 4 August. He was educated as a surgeon - has threatened to rip people up with a long knife. He is being looked for but cannot be found as yet." - Sir Charles Warren, 19th September 1888.

We also know from police reports that Puckridge was living in Rupert Street.

[GBinOz]

The Thompson fallacy has been debunked for what it is. A work of fiction.

Herlock, my friend, I really would encourage you to reconsider making absolutum statements such as this post. With all good will, I would suggest that it is not generally received in the manner that you may have anticipated.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Just to make an observation. Thompson was perceived as a romantic gentle Victorian poet, but also penned poetry containing extremes of violence. Dave (DJA) proposed that JtR was a Jekyll/Hyde character. Might I suggest that this could be an interpretation for Thompson?

Just an aside on the subject, has anyone heard from Dave(DJA) recently? I tried to enquire as to his well being but his account is no longer receiving PM's. As we all probably know his health was precarious. I'll try his email next.

[The Rookie Detective]

Just to make an observation. Thompson was perceived as a romantic gentle Victorian poet, but also penned poetry containing extremes of violence. Dave (DJA) proposed that JtR was a Jekyll/Hyde character. Might I suggest that this could be an interpretation for Thompson?

Just an aside on the subject, has anyone heard from Dave(DJA) recently? I tried to enquire as to his well being but his account is no longer receiving PM's. As we all probably know his health was precarious. I'll try his email next.

If I recall, Dave chose to make certain comments on a particular thread, and was then warned not to pursue them further, as they were in breach of the rules of the site.
Dave chose to ignore it and chose to make further comment, and his account was subsequently taken off line.
It highlights that none of us are above the rules that govern the site; the integrity of the site of course being paramount.
It's a shame that he chose to go against the warning he was given, as he brought something very unique to the party and contributed some intriguing posts over the years.

[Richard Patterson]

Just to make an observation. Thompson was perceived as a romantic gentle Victorian poet, but also penned poetry containing extremes of violence. Dave (DJA) proposed that JtR was a Jekyll/Hyde character. Might I suggest that this could be an interpretation for Thompson?

Just an aside on the subject, has anyone heard from Dave(DJA) recently? I tried to enquire as to his well being but his account is no longer receiving PM's. As we all probably know his health was precarious. I'll try his email next.

That’s a very sharp observation, George. Thompson embodies the Jekyll/Hyde duality almost too perfectly. On one side, we have the published Thompson: the visionary mystic, the “romantic gentle poet” whose lines were anthologised and praised by the Meynells. But alongside that lies the unpublished Thompson: the man who wrote of stabbing women, opening wombs, and “nightmare births” — images that directly echo the Whitechapel injuries.

That stark polarity isn’t accidental. It matches the exact psychological fracture we’d expect from a man torn between religious devotion and violent compulsion. And it aligns with what Dr Thomas Bond — the police surgeon who examined the Ripper victims — predicted: a killer prone to “erotic mania” with alternating phases of exaltation and breakdown.

So yes, if Jack the Ripper was a Jekyll/Hyde figure, Thompson is one of the only named suspects whose documented life and writings show that split in black and white. The very fact that later generations only remembered the “gentle poet” side proves how effectively his darkness was buried.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, my friend, I really would encourage you to reconsider making absolutum statements such as this post. With all good will, I would suggest that it is not generally received in the manner that you may have anticipated.

Cheers, George

The problem is George that in this case Richard’s points have been shown untrue and he is fully aware of this. This is why he won’t answer direct questions or respond to any direct points….its because he can’t. All that he does is keep posting the same bullet-pointed lists. Either that or he makes posts like the ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ one above. He continues to claim that Thompson’s fictional writing was autobiographical because it’s convenient for him to do so. Not a single scholar has ever suggested this as far as I know. It’s because he knows that there isn’t a jot of evidence that he was ever violent. Now, of course, a lack of evidence of violence isn’t proof of innocence, but it’s proof of a lack of evidence of violence…and that lack of evidence has to be clearly stated in all suspects…and yet Richard claims that his fictional work is proof of violence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is Richard’s claim. Let’s not forget it.


“Friends — please read this carefully. This is about truth, justice, and history — and about a rare chance you now have to help make sure that truth is recognised and remembered, not buried or ignored.

For 136 years, the identity of Jack the Ripper remained one of the world’s most notorious unsolved crimes. The five women who were murdered were dehumanised, their memory clouded by endless false theories. The case became a carnival of myths, movies, books — everything but the real truth.

Now — that truth has finally emerged.

Francis Thompson is Jack the Ripper.

This is no longer a theory. It is now backed by the first scientific-level mathematical analysis of the case — hard, testable, repeatable, and overwhelming in its clarity. Using modern probabilistic analysis (Bayesian maths), the odds that Thompson is the killer, given the combined known facts, are over 100,000 times stronger than for any other suspect — including the ones long favoured by police figures like Macnaghten or Anderson.”

So here we have a clear statement. Richard doesn’t present a balanced opinion, recognising any level of speculation, no, he claims this as a proven fact. A scientifically, mathematically proven fact. Already, before reading his ‘case’ we know that what follows is going to be nonsense. Richard doesn’t disappoint.


“He had a documented history of psychotic violence toward women — including written hatred of prostitutes and dark fantasies of killing them.”

And here’s the first absolute zinger. Note the sneaky wording here - he had a history of violence which included writing. So Richard is being sly in that he leaves the reader with the impression that, as well as Thompson’s fictional writing, there exists actual instances of physical violence. Richard has been asked to produce the evidence for this but it’s hardly surprising that he hasn’t because that evidence doesn’t exist. Nowhere in any piece of writing about Thompson is there talk of violence; not even hints or rumours. Richard is simply stating a provable falsehood. So the very first point in his list..the opening eye-catcher is an invention. I won’t apologise for pointing this out.


“He lived within 100 metres of the 1888 murder sites.”

No one knows where Thompson was living at the time of the murders..not even those that knew him and wrote about him and Thompson himself left no detail. Throughout the writings on Thompson’s numerous locations, areas, streets and buildings are mentioned. Out of all of these instances the only (and I do mean only folks) mention of a location in the East End is from Thompson’s own article for Meynell’s Merry England where he writes of the sad sight of men queueing outside the Providence Row Refuge but we haven’t a clue when he saw this. He went to London in 1885 and the article was published in 1891. So all that we can say is that he’d seen the Refuge at some point between 1885 and 1891. We also have no evidence that he ever stayed there although I wouldn’t claim it as an impossibility. We haven’t a clue no reason however to suggest that he spent time in the East End though and may simply have been passing through.


“He was an active arsonist and fire-starter — linked to sadistic psychopathy.”

After Richard’s first two points it should have been obvious to all that something is seriously amiss in this ‘case’ against Thompson. Why the need for invention if this man was ‘provably’ Jack the Ripper? I have to say that Richard’s third point is one of the most egregious examples of exaggeration that I’ve read of in this case. As a child he spilled some smouldering charcoal buy vigorously swinging a thucible in church. The charcoal was patted out by a housekeeper using a shovel. Then as an adult he accidentally knocked over an oil lamp in his room for which no one accused his of doing it deliberately. Then he left a pipe in his coat pocket which hadn’t properly gone out. How many people on here (or anywhere for that matter) would even suggest arson? No one hold have course but Richard claims this as proof that Thompson was an arsonist. No one that knew Thompson ever mentioned him being an arsonist because he very obviously wasn’t one.


“He wrote essays at the time describing prostitutes as “putrid ulcers,” “blasphemies,” and called for them to be drowned in the Thames.”

So here we have another stark claim, that Thompson wrote ‘essays’ (not poems but factual works) which mentioned these things. I have all of Thompson’s essays. Here is a list of the titles:

Paganism Old and New, In Darkest England, The Fourth Order of Humanity, Form and Formalism, Nature’s Immortality, Sanctity and Song, Don Quixote, The Way of Imperfection, A Renegade Poet on the Poet, Moestitiae Encomium, Finis Coronat Opus, The Poet’s Poet, Sidney’s Prose, Shakespeare’s Prose, Ben Johnson’s Prose, Seventeenth Century Prose, Goldsmith’s Prose, Crashaw, Coleridge, Bacon, Milton, Pope, James Thomson, Thomas De Quincey, Macauley, Emerson, Dante, The ‘Nibelungen Lied,’ Health and Holiness.

Unfortunately for Richard (and for me to be honest as some are hard going) and guess what folks? No mention of any of the things that Richard has claimed. So unless Richard is in possession of some previously unpublished essays then I have to say that this is another invention.


“He delighted in reading and writing about the killing of women with blades — even his own play had this as its central scene.”

I can find no evidence of this assertion anywhere. Will Richard provide evidence? I think that we all know the answer to that one.


“His movements align perfectly with the timeline of the murders and when they ceased (he was removed from the area right after the final killing).”

Richard uses the same sources that I do - John Walsh and Everard Meynell. I’ve read both. Walsh gives more of a ‘timeline’ although an inexact one. He estimates that Thompson went into hospital, because a doctor had said that he was on the verge of a total physical collapse, in mid-October and that he was in there for around six weeks. For someone that claims to have proven ‘mathematically’ that Thompson was the ripper Richard’s maths on this occasion seems a touch…strange? Walsh therefore has Thompson leaving the hospital at some time around the end of November, beginning of December. He then went back to living in London (probably Paddington) so that Thompson was back living in London November/December 1888 where he remained until his relapse in 1889 when he went to the Priory in Storrington.


“He was a known night-wanderer, dressing in disguises, carrying scalpels, and writing about his “prowling by night.”

He was of no fixed abode for various periods of his time in London. Richard uses the word ‘prowling’ to suggest something similar. If this was the case then Annie Chapman was ‘prowling’. George Hutchinson was ‘prowling.’ I have found no evidence of Thompson wearing disguises because he never did. Again, I’ve asked Richard to back this up but, as yet, he hasn’t been able to. That he ‘carried scalpels’ is another exaggeration. Thompson once asked Meynell if he could send him a razor to shave, telling him that he’d known the time when he’d shaved with dissecting scalpel. Can anyone point to the expert that suggested that the ripper might have used a dissecting scalpel? Neither can I.


“His writings match both the tone and the sadistic psychological profile seen in the Ripper letters.”

How many believe the letters are all genuine (if any)?


Richard goes on to say “numbers simply don’t lie.”

No they don’t Richard…but people do. He then says:


“The chance that all this would match Thompson and NOT the killer is astronomically tiny — well below accepted thresholds for scientific proof in any field.”

No one can take this seriously for a second. All of the above points are provably false. Garbage in, garbage out.


A few more snippet’s of nonsense:


“The logical conclusion is no longer in doubt: Francis Thompson was Jack the Ripper.”


Richard then says that if we all suspend belief, ignore the evidence, accept inventions and throw away all principles of honest enquiry then…

“The five poor women — who were dehumanised for 136 years — can finally be honoured as human beings, with a truthful accounting of their killer.”

“You personally will be remembered as one of those who stood for truth when it mattered most. Those who help share this early will be cited in future histories of the case — in forums, articles, books, and even documentaries.”

“You will be seen by your friends, family, and future generations as someone who helped correct history — a person of open mind, integrity, and moral courage.”

We should always view theories with an open mind but with both eyes firmly on the evidence. The so-called case against Thompson is nothing more than a disgraceful mixture of pure invention and the grossest of exaggerations.



We cannot and should not give this nonsense any credit. Nothing that I have written is invention.

[GBinOz]

If I recall, Dave chose to make certain comments on a particular thread, and was then warned not to pursue them further, as they were in breach of the rules of the site.
Dave chose to ignore it and chose to make further comment, and his account was subsequently taken off line.
It highlights that none of us are above the rules that govern the site; the integrity of the site of course being paramount.
It's a shame that he chose to go against the warning he was given, as he brought something very unique to the party and contributed some intriguing posts over the years.

Thanks RD,

As you may know, Dave has severe health problems and I was somewhat concerned for his well being. Despite the rather acerbic nature of his comments at times, I agree that his input will be missed.

Cheers, George