Francis Thompson - A Reality Check

[The Rookie Detective]

The Moorings of Francis Thompson and Mary Jane Kelly

Doctored, thank you for drawing attention to this puzzle of “moorings,” because it touches one of the deepest questions: how do we anchor Thompson to Mary Jane Kelly’s world? If we cannot place them in overlapping orbits, the theory risks floating free. But when we look closer, the moorings are there—documented, attested, even staring us in the face through Hopkins’s veiled words.

Let’s start with Providence Row. This was Thompson’s known abode during his homeless years, a Catholic refuge for men and women in Crispin Street, a stone’s throw from Spitalfields Market and within sight of Miller’s Court. Crucially, it was also remembered as a place Mary Kelly herself used. In a 1973 BBC interview, an elderly nun described how, back in 1884, another nun told her that Kelly had lodged at Providence Row, pretending to reform in order to secure a bed for a night or two. She even trained briefly as a domestic servant under its auspices. That is not conjecture—it’s oral testimony, passed down from the very women who ran the refuge. This testimony matters because it establishes a shared institutional link between Thompson and Kelly. Both used the Row. Both walked through the same doors. Both lived off the same fragile charity.

Now add Robert Thurston Hopkins. Hopkins (1884–1958) was not a fringe fantasist but a respected literary figure who, in the 1920s, went out of his way to research Thompson. He sought out John McMaster, the shoemaker of Panton Street, who took Thompson in off the streets in 1886. Hopkins preserved those conversations in This London – Its Taverns, Haunts and Memories (1927). But when he came to write about the Ripper in Life and Death at the Old Bailey (1935), he deliberately disguised his poet-friend’s name as “Mr. Moring.” He had good reason: Thompson by then had become a Catholic icon, his collected works published by the Meynells, his memory bound up in religious devotion. Hopkins could not risk the scandal of putting Thompson’s real name into print in connection with Jack the Ripper. So he created “Moring”—but left a breadcrumb trail of unmistakable clues.

What did Hopkins say? He described “Moring” as a poor devil-driven poet haunting East End taverns, walking the courts and alleys at night, smoking opium, proclaiming “alcohol for fools, opium for poets,” and muttering fatalistic lines like “To-morrow one dies … will it stop the traffic on London Bridge?” He gave him lank black hair, a moustache, and the long dark face of a bard. He said this man knew every opium den in the East End, and that when he read Hutchinson’s testimony about the man with Kelly, the description “fitted him down to the ground.” This is not Dowson. Dowson was a heavy drinker, not an opium man. Dowson died in 1900, when Hopkins was only sixteen—far too young for them to have walked the alleys together as adult friends. But Thompson died in 1907, when Hopkins was twenty-three, and Hopkins certainly had time to strike up acquaintance.

The “Moring” clue itself seals it. Almost all of Thompson’s published works before 1935 were decorated only with rings on the cover. On his gravestone the epitaph is “More rings,” carved as two entwined circles forming a vesica piscis. What looks meaningless becomes a pun on Thompson’s own symbolism. Hopkins, careful not to name him, chose “Moring” as the mask: More Rings. It is almost too neat.

This is how the mooring puzzle begins to resolve. Thompson’s Providence Row lodging literally stood in Hutchinson’s line of sight. When Hutchinson watched Kelly enter her room with a dark-haired, moustached man in astrakhan, all he had to do was turn his head and see the windows of Providence Row—where Thompson himself was housed. Hopkins says his poet-friend looked exactly like Hutchinson’s suspect. And Hutchinson’s testimony is central, because if Thompson is that man, then Thompson is the last known companion of Mary Jane Kelly.

But what about Walsh’s account of Thompson’s prostitute-lover? John Walsh, in his Strange Harp, Strange Symphony (1967), tells us that Thompson lived with a prostitute for a year, until she left him in the summer of 1888. Barnett testified that Kelly lived with him for one year and eight months, the last eight months in Miller’s Court. On the surface, the dates don’t overlap. Yet this is precisely where history resists neatness. Walsh may have been imprecise with dates; he wrote seventy years after the fact, relying on fragmentary reminiscence. Or Thompson’s unnamed partner may indeed have fled west-to-east in the summer of 1888—fleeing him, but remaining within the same orbit of prostitution that led directly into Whitechapel. In either scenario, Thompson is propelled into Kelly’s world: searching obsessively for the woman who abandoned him, burning with resentment, frequenting the very districts where Kelly lived. His poems—especially Nightmare of the Witch Babies—rehearse disembowelments of prostitutes in London streets.

And here the convergence sharpens. Walsh places Thompson with a prostitute until June. The nun places Kelly at Providence Row in 1884. Hopkins places Thompson walking East End alleys, resembling Kelly’s companion, calling him “Moring” to mask his name. Hutchinson places the suspect directly at Kelly’s side. These are not scattered whispers. They are multiple witnesses across decades aligning into a coherent picture.

Why does this matter? Because the Ripper case is full of suspects who float on speculation—Kosminski, Druitt, Bury, Maybrick, Sickert—yet none are moored to Kelly in this way. Thompson is. He is moored by geography (Providence Row, Panton Street), by testimony (Hopkins, Hutchinson, the nun), by biography (his lost prostitute-lover), and by symbolism (Moring/More Rings). The odds of this convergence being accidental are microscopic.

Hopkins himself wrote: “I could not connect a man of such extraordinary gentleness committing such a dreadful series of outrages.” That is the last barrier—the disbelief that the gentle, opium-addled poet could slaughter. But gentleness in public is the mask. Thompson’s poetry seethes with hatred for “harlots in the mother’s womb,” with imagery of womb-rending and blood. His medical training at Owens College drilled him in cutting into cadavers. His possession of a scalpel while homeless is attested. His breakdowns, hospitalizations, and institutionalizations fit Smith’s “asylum history.” And the murders ceased the moment Thompson was removed into six weeks of private hospital care after Kelly’s death.

This is not mere conjecture. This is evidence upon evidence, converging. To reduce Hopkins’s “Moring” to a literary quirk is to miss that Hopkins himself was a careful chronicler who spoke to police officers, preserved East End memories, and worked in the shadow of scandal. He chose his disguise deliberately. He wanted the truth remembered without inviting the libel suit of naming Francis Thompson outright.

So when we speak of the “mooring puzzle,” we are not inventing. We are recognizing that the poet and the prostitute shared the same institutions, the same lodgings, the same alleys, the same line of sight. That Thompson was already abandoned by a prostitute-lover in the summer of 1888. That Kelly herself had used Providence Row. That Hopkins masked Thompson as “Moring” and linked him to Kelly explicitly. That Hutchinson described a man who fits Thompson precisely. And that all of this comes not from one partisan theory but from multiple independent sources—nun, biographer, memoirist, shoemaker, police memoir, witness testimony.

It is fashionable to dismiss each link in isolation. But probability does not work that way. The chance that one man in 1888 London matches all five traits of Smith’s Rupert Street suspect—ex-medical student, asylum history, prostitute association, polished farthings, Haymarket residence—is already vanishingly small. Add the “moorings” to Kelly, and the probability collapses further. Thompson was not one of many candidates. He was uniquely positioned, uniquely moored.

That is why the Hopkins testimony is a gift. He knew Thompson. He disguised him. He preserved him as “Moring.” He tied him to Kelly’s orbit. And in doing so, he gave us the very key to the final puzzle: why Mary Jane Kelly was the Ripper’s last victim, and why the murders ended there.

I find your stance very admirable, and your views rather compelling.

"But gentleness in public is the mask"

Perhaps the fundermental answer to why the Ripper was never caught, rests in that very sentence.

[The Rookie Detective]

We know that Thompson attended several different Catholic churches across London; and we know that Mary Kelly was a Catholic also.

IIRC, it was alleged that Mary Kelly attended a Salvation Army event not long before her death.

Despite the S.A. not being Catholic, the religious links are there and it highlights that Kelly did try and reach out.

The Salvation Army ran soup kitchens and various events to help the destitute.

Could this be a possible connection also?

Could the Catholic connection be a possible clue?

All conjecture of course, but worth a try to see where it leads. And after all these years; what have we got to lose?

[Doctored Whatsit]

The other suspect for Mr Moring was Ernest Dowson, whose father had a dry dock business connected with boats and small ships. A clue "Moring = Mooring perhaps?

[Tel]

And speaking of autopsies, apparently not all in the profession are weighed down with ethics. This popped up today.

https://www.westernadvocate.com.au/story/9064280/museum-kept-and-displayed-human-remains-without-consent/

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let’s finally put to bed, with evidence, Richard’s frankly bizarre suggestion that Major Smith’s suspect was Francis Thompson when we know that it was Oswald Puckeridge. (From a post by Chris Scott over on JtRForums)


Major Henry Smith

"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."

[From Constable to Commissioner, p. 147]

——————————————————————

Sir Charles Warren to the Home Office dated 19 September 1888

"A man called Puckeridge 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."

[Evans and Skinner, Ultimate Sourcebook, p. 132]

——————————————————————————

On September 24th 1888 Major Henry Smith sent two men to arrest his suspect. He was followed from Cheapside to his lodgings in a Rupert Street coffee house.

The following reports were initialled by Major Smith himself.


25th Sepr. 1888


I beg to report that in company

with D. S. Child, I saw Mr. W. Tolfree, Proprietor

of the Imperial Coffee House, 50 Rupert Street.

in answer to our Enquiry he informed us that

the man Puckridge had been Lodging with

him for the last four weeks, and had slept

every night in the House. he also said Puckridge

was Eccentric in his habits and given to Eccessive

Drinking, and appears to have ample means.


Fredk. Lawley

D. S.

R. Child. D. S.


and


P. C. P. 105 Benham reports that at 3.30. P.M. 24th

Inst, he saw Puckridge at the west End of Cheapside

followed him through Cheapside, Threadneedle Street, Austinfrias

to No 2 Circas Place London Wall, Puckridge remained

there till 6. P.M. when he left followed by Benham

& P. C. P Smith, he went into Lehmans Confectioners

London Wall, then to the Stirling Castle P. H. &

then through Coleman Street into Cheapside

through the Strand to Charing Cross, waited outside

the Post Office Charing Cross, then on to Leicester

Square, Coventry Street, Lockharts Coffee House,

remained there one hour & 30 minutes then came

out & walked up & down Coventry Street

then returned to Lockharts remained there about

ten Minutes then walked up & down Coventry

Street for about half an hour, then went into

a P. H. in Rupert Street, stopped about 10 minutes

then went to the Imperial Coffee House 50 Rupert

Street, opened the Private door with a latch Key

and went in at 9.45. P.M. I watched the Place

till 12.30. A.M. when the Place was [?]Cosed [Closed?], there

is a notice in the Window - Beds to let for Gentlemen.


25th Sepr.

1888


Thomas Benham

P. C 105

————————————————————————

So….Smith’s quote about his suspect - Sir Charles Warren writing to the Home Secretary about the suspect, Puckeridge - then two reports from the actual officers involved in tracking Puckeridge down to RUPERT STREET - and as Smith stated that he had an alibi, there we have it in black and white…his landlord said that Puckeridge had slept at his premises every night for the previous four weeks; exonerating him of the murders of Nichols and Chapman

———————————————————————

Evidence rarely gets this conclusive. Oswald Puckeridge has been proven to be Major Smith’s suspect. Will Richard accept this? No, because it’s true. Will he provide a detailed rebuttal? I think that we all know the answer to that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is me posting by the way. I’m using my own brain combined with whatever knowledge, intelligence and experience that I have and I’m combining it with my own judgment and I’m using evidence, reason and common sense which I’m posting honestly. If I make any errors then I’ll acknowledge them if pointed out; but they will be errors and not deliberate manipulations which is what we are seeing on here time and again.


What we are seeing in the case for Thompson is a combination of AI-generated results which have been shaped by the input of inaccurate information. We have also seen statements being made which are obviously and provably untrue, but despite the fact that the proof has been provided which confirms this level of manipulation the same points are simply repeated without confirmation or explanation. Time and again we are seeing the same lists posted in a blatant attempt to turn this forum into one man’s propaganda machine.


If someone makes claims then he (applicable to both sexes of course but the person in question is a man) should be prepared to answer questions and respond to points. When this doesn’t happen we can only make two conclusions:

1. That the person realises that his case has no foundation in evidence and so he tries to avoid drawing attention to this fact so he refuses to engage.
2. That his only purpose is to promote his theory via overkill. A Big Brother-type approach where he simply makes pronouncement after pronouncement expecting no one to spot the deceit. An attempt to convince by sheer quantity which he continues despite the fact that it appears that only one person has been taken in.

I’m not for a minute claiming that Cutbush was the ripper but I’m going to use him as a point of comparison against Thompson to combat the campaign of falsehood that we are being subjected to. So….

…….


Can we reasonably make the claim that either of these two regularly, habitually carried a knife?


Cutbush YES - Absolutely proven. His family took his knife from his pocket while he slept so that he could be arrested without harming anyone. That he bought another knife whilst on the run is absolutely proven as the shopkeeper from whom he bought it identified him. And of course he stabbed two women with a knife.

- We have no evidence that he ever carried a knife. All that we have is Thompson asking Meynell to send him a shaving razor, mentioning that he’d known the time that he’d shaved using a scalpel. From this Patterson assumes that this meant that he always carried a scalpel (despite the fact that we know that the rippers victims weren’t killed with a scalpel. Then Richard does what he always does in his writing; we see ‘scalpel’ becoming ‘knife’ becoming ‘knives’ becoming ‘surgical knives.’ Perhaps it will end up being a sword.


Can we place either in or connect them to Whitechapel during the time of the murders?

Cutbush YES - Absolutely. Cutbush had at least 2 jobs in that area, the first of which he began around a month before the Nichols murder. The second job would have required him walking around the area.

Thompson NO - We only have evidence of him SEEING the Providence Row Refuge ONCE. We have no evidence of him staying there although it’s not impossible that he might have. We certainly CANNOT pin this down to 1888 though. This sighting of the Refuge could have occurred in 1885 or 1886 or 1887 or 1888 or 1889. So when Richard claims that Thompson was staying 100 yards from the murder sites at the time of the murders he’s simply not telling you the truth.

We also have to remind ourselves that Thompson’s prostitute friend was a West End prostitute. She lived there and worked there…so why would Thompson have searched for her in an area that she had no connection to? Thompson himself said that he looked for her in the places where they had usually met…ie the West End.


Did either have a reason for hating prostitutes?


Cutbush YES - Absolutely proven. We have written evidence of him stating that a prostitute had given him syphilis.

Thompson NO - We don’t have a single example of Thompson ever speaking of his prostitute friend with anything but love and kindness. Even after she had left him there was no anger. He called her his ‘saviour’ and spoke of her with fondness years after he’d last seen her.


Do we have evidence for either of them being violent?


Cutbush YES - Absolutely proven. He pushed an old man downstairs. He attacked a female servant with a knife for entering his room without permission. He tried to cut his mother’s throat. He stabbed to women in the back. No need to say more.

Thompson NO - We don’t have a single example of Thompson ever laying a hand or a weapon on anyone. Not even a hint of violence has ever been suggested on his behalf. Richard embarrassingly thinks that poetry is violence. By this thinking we should all be wary of every writer of horror fiction.


Cutbush was suspected by the police - Thompson wasn’t (as far as we know)

Cutbush was committed to an asylum as a disturbed and dangerous man - Thompson was never in an asylum and was never considered dangerous.

Cutbush’s room contained anatomical drawings, a large knife, and clothes smelling of turpentine hidden in a chimney - Nothing suspicious was ever found in relation to Thompson.

….


It is absolutely impossible, logically, reasonable and evidentially for anyone to say that Thompson is a likelier suspect than Thompson. Thompson cannot even be suspected if we look at him honestly. All that we have is - a troubled drug-addict with medical training who had a West End prostitute for a girlfriend.

Yet again we have someone willing to scrape any barrel to promote his discredited suspect. You would have to be incredibly gullible to fall for this tissue of falsehoods and propaganda. Francis Thompson doesn’t deserve to be on the same page as Cutbush. Likewise the top 20 or so suspects. We can forget Thompson as a suspect because we have no reason to suspect him.

…..

[Herlock Sholmes]

I was too late to edit the second paragraph:

Thompson NO - We have no evidence that he ever carried a knife. All that we have is Thompson asking Meynell to send him a shaving razor, mentioning that he’d known the time that he’d shaved using a scalpel. From this Patterson assumes that this meant that he always carried a scalpel (despite the fact that we know that the rippers victims weren’t killed with a scalpel. Then Richard does what he always does in his writing; we see ‘scalpel’ becoming ‘knife’ becoming ‘knives’ becoming ‘surgical knives.’ Perhaps it will end up being a sword.

and this…

that Thompson is a likelier suspect than Thompson

should read Cutbush is likelier of course

[Newbie]

Having a suspect is fine. Making the case for him is fine. Altering reality isn’t. Spotting non-existent links isn’t. Claiming opinion as facts isn’t. Claiming that the case is 100% solved isn’t. Claiming that we all have some kind of moral duty to accept Thompson’s guilt certainly isn’t.


Let’s list the points made by Richard in his original post on the other thread (which was taken from Facebook and posted on here by Geddy) and examine them individually. No leaps of faith, no assumptions, no one plus one equals three and certainly no propaganda.


> That by using modern probability analysis and Bayesian maths Francis Thompson is over 100,000 times more likely to have been Jack the Ripper then any other suspect.

This can be dismissed without discussion. I’m no mathematician but Richard plugs in the information about Smith’s suspect which a child could see are inaccurate. Garbage in, garbage out. This will be discussed further down.


[/B]

Well, I can attest that you accurately present yourself as not being a mathematician, and then you proceed to render mathematical judgement, without specifying any basis what so ever to support your opinion, other than the questionable assertion that a child could see that it is inaccurate.

Of course, the question is not who might be able to see that it is innacurate, but why might they think so?


Then the wing flapping and insults that you are so good at ... garbage in, garbage out .... and the circular argument, of which you are a master - here, as to why exactly it is garbage:

It is garbage that even a child can see, and a child can see it as such because it is garbage.

1. Why should anyone read any further on in your new wing flapping episode?

2. If you are so firmly convinced that Thompson is not the Ripper, why bother to come here and create a new thread on it?

There are two question for you Herlock, of which you are always willing to respond.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, I can attest that you accurately present yourself as not being a mathematician, and then you proceed to render mathematical judgement, without specifying any basis what so ever to support your opinion, other than the questionable assertion that a child could see that it is inaccurate.

Of course, the question is not who might be able to see that it is innacurate, but why might they think so?


Then the wing flapping and insults that you are so good at ... garbage in, garbage out .... and the circular argument, of which you are a master - here, as to why exactly it is garbage:

It is garbage that even a child can see, and a child can see it as such because it is garbage.

1. Why should anyone read any further on in your new wing flapping episode?

2. If you are so firmly convinced that Thompson is not the Ripper, why bother to come here and create a new thread on it?

There are two question for you Herlock, of which you are always willing to respond.

Why do you bother posting Newbie? You haven’t posted for ages (thankfully) and do you return with any meaningful content? No, just another pointless homing in on me. Same old…


Ill answer your two questions.

1. Why should anyone read any further on in your new wing flapping episode?

No one has to respond if they don’t want to. Especially you. I was talking specifically to Richard. But if someone proposes a theory they should be prepared to respond to questions and criticisms. Richard won’t. The situation doesn’t require a comment from you.

2. If you are so firmly convinced that Thompson is not the Ripper, why bother to come here and create a new thread on it?

What a bizarre question (par for the course I suppose) I started the thread as a response to Richard’s nonsense. I don’t believe that any suspect WAS the ripper so should I not post on any suspect.

If you have any more strange questions….don't bother.

[FISHY1118]

Well, I can attest that you accurately present yourself as not being a mathematician, and then you proceed to render mathematical judgement, without specifying any basis what so ever to support your opinion, other than the questionable assertion that a child could see that it is inaccurate.

Of course, the question is not who might be able to see that it is innacurate, but why might they think so?


Then the wing flapping and insults that you are so good at ... garbage in, garbage out .... and the circular argument, of which you are a master - here, as to why exactly it is garbage:

It is garbage that even a child can see, and a child can see it as such because it is garbage.

1. Why should anyone read any further on in your new wing flapping episode?

2. If you are so firmly convinced that Thompson is not the Ripper, why bother to come here and create a new thread on it?

There are two question for you Herlock, of which you are always willing to respond.

''Wing Flapping'' i like that phase , welcome back to the boards Newbie.

[GBinOz]

The other suspect for Mr Moring was Ernest Dowson, whose father had a dry dock business connected with boats and small ships. A clue "Moring = Mooring perhaps?

Hi Doc,

Dowson was only 21 in 1888. His poetry spoke of the brevity of life and, AFAIK, none of them addressed the dark bloodletting themes contained in some of Thompson's poetry.

They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
Out of a misty dream
Our path emerges for a while, then closes
Within a dream.

Cheers, George

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Doc,

Dowson was only 21 in 1888. His poetry spoke of the brevity of life and, AFAIK, none of them addressed the dark bloodletting themes contained in some of Thompson's poetry.

They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
Out of a misty dream
Our path emerges for a while, then closes
Within a dream.

Cheers, George

Thanks George, but I wasn't suggesting that either poet was a likely candidate for the Ripper, only that Dowson was likely to have been "Mr Moring".

[Richard Patterson]

Well, I can attest that you accurately present yourself as not being a mathematician, and then you proceed to render mathematical judgement, without specifying any basis what so ever to support your opinion, other than the questionable assertion that a child could see that it is inaccurate.

Of course, the question is not who might be able to see that it is innacurate, but why might they think so?


Then the wing flapping and insults that you are so good at ... garbage in, garbage out .... and the circular argument, of which you are a master - here, as to why exactly it is garbage:

It is garbage that even a child can see, and a child can see it as such because it is garbage.

1. Why should anyone read any further on in your new wing flapping episode?

2. If you are so firmly convinced that Thompson is not the Ripper, why bother to come here and create a new thread on it?

There are two question for you Herlock, of which you are always willing to respond.

Newbie, I appreciate your clarity and the fact you were willing to say what many here quietly see but hesitate to voice. It takes a bit of courage to call out circular reasoning in a place that’s too used to it passing for debate. You’ve cut straight to the issue—why keep attacking something you claim to dismiss?

I’m not here to trade insults with anyone, just to test ideas and evidence. It’s refreshing to see someone else interested in the logic rather than the noise. Thank you for bringing a little fairness back into the room.

[The Rookie Detective]

World Cup Group A...

Herlock
Fishy
Trevor
Newbie
Richard P


Tough group Herlock


Hahaha!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let’s address the “garbage in/garbage out” point which was mentioned in relation to ‘results’ obtained via AI. It’s entirely linear (and definitely not circular) reasoning in that if you plug in ‘evidence’ that is provably not legitimate then you cannot expect to get an accurate, legitimate outcome. So let me address some individual points with accuracy and without agenda.


1.Richard makes the claim that the Thompson lived within 100 metres of the murder sites.

By this he means that Thompson stayed in the Providence Row Refuge at the time of the murders. Please note this - Richard isn’t saying “Thompson might have stayed…” or Thompson “could have stated…” No, Richard is stating this as a fact; as if it is proven. I hope that I’m being clear and open here? So is this indeed the proven fact that Richard claims?

The short answer is ‘no.’ To explain…the only time that the East End/Whitechapel was ever mentioned in relation to Thompson was in an article that he wrote for the publication Merry England which came out in 1891. Thompson mentions seeing the refuge with the men queueing outside. He never, at any time, mentions actually staying there. His biographer Walsh felt that he had stayed there but without any presenting any evidence so clearly he was just making an assumption. Seeing a building doesn’t equate to staying in it. It’s also important to point out that we have no idea when Thompson saw the Refuge. He went to London in 1885 so very obviously he could have seen the place in 1885 or 1886 or 1887 or 1888 or 1889 so why assume 1888? The fact is that Richard makes yet another assumption - he assumes that Thompson searched for his prostitute/girlfriend in Whitechapel but again, we have absolutely no evidence to back this up; indeed the facts are strongly against this as his girlfriend both lived and worked in the West End and Thompson also said that he looked for her in the places where they used to meet, ie the West End.

So Richard’s claim that Francis Thompson definitely stayed in Whitechapel is factually untrue. This is not my opinion; this isn’t an elaboration of the evidence, this is an unbiased presentation of the known facts.


2. Richard makes the claim that Thompson was a violent man.

Richard states openly and forcefully that Thompson was a violent man. He doesn’t hint at a possibility; he doesn’t relate some kind of rumour, he states it as a fact; as if it’s proven. And what does he base this on? Poetry…nothing more. He makes the claim that writing equates to actual violence. If that was the case then we should be wary of Shaun Hutson or Stephen King or Val McDermid. So is there any evidence in the record of Francis Thompson ever being actually, physically violent. The answer is a categorical “no.” Not a mention; not a hint; not a suggestion; not even a rumour. No one considered him violent..ever.

Therefore to make the statement that Francis Thompson was a violent man is factually untrue and should be treated as such.


3. Richard claims that Thompson was an arsonist which can be linked to psychopathy.

The first point to make of course is that not all psychopaths are arsonists and not all arsonists are psychopaths.

We have three examples which are used which illustrate mention briefly. When he was a child in church he was unhappy that another child got the job of swinging the Thucible with the incense. Thompson grabbed it and swung it around; it hit the floor and the smouldering charcoal flew out to be batted out by a female housekeeper with a shovel. When he was older the curtains in his room set alight and he then knocked over a lamp (probably trying to put it out) burning his hands in the process. Then later he put his pipe in his coat pocket before it had properly gone out causing some smouldering. He was never accused of arson at the time.

There can be no justification for calling these incidents, taking place over the course of years, evidence of arson.


4. Richard not only claims that Thompson carried a scalpel in 1888 but he changes this regularly post by post.

It goes from “scalpel” to “knife” to “knives” to “surgical knives.” The truth is that we have no reason to believe any of the claims. It comes from one source only; when Thompson wrote to Wilfrid Meynell requesting that he send him a razor to shave with. Thompson adds (and I’m not quoting exactly here) something like “I’ve known the time when I’ve shaved with a scalpel.” So Richard makes another leap to state that he permanently carried a scalpel (or a knife or knives or surgical knives) during his time living rough. It also has to be added of course that no doctor ever suggested that the ripper used a scalpel.

So not only is the point irrelevant it’s also untrue.


5. Then we have Richard’s claim that Thompson was Major Smith’s suspect. That the criteria matched exactly.

a) The suspect passed off polished farthings as higher value coins.

We have no evidence that Thompson ever did this. He was involved in no ‘trick’ involving coins. Nothing. All we have is Thompson story of finding two sovereigns in the street which clearly cannot be connected in any way to Major Smith’s suspect.

b) That Smith was saying that his suspect lived in the Rupert Street/Haymarket area.

He wasn’t. Smith said “Rupert Street, Haymarket” he did not say “Rupert Street/Haymarket.” He wasn’t talking about an area he was talking about a specific street; a street that Francis Thompson had no connection to whatsoever.

c) That Thompson spent time in an asylum like Smith’s suspect.

To do this Richard tries to claim that hospitals were routinely called “lunatic asylums” a claim that is clearly untrue. No one would accept this. Francis Thompson was never in a lunatic asylum, ever. This is a fact.

What about hospitals? We only have two examples in the records that we have and Richard has unsurprisingly failed to produce any other evidence. He stayed in a private hospital, arranged by Meynell, and according to Walsh’s estimate this occurred sometime in mid-October. It was also said that he was there for around 6 weeks which obviously seriously calls into question whether Thompson was at large when Kelly was killed. The only other period of incarceration is when he relapsed and was admitted to The Priory at Storrington. This occurred in February of 1889 and so, like the private hospital, it’s entirely irrelevant to Smith’s suspect because Smith mentioned his suspect to Warren in early September of 1888; before the hospital stay and before Storrington.

Added to the above of course we have documented proof that Smith’s suspect was Oswald Puckeridge. We have the statements of the two officers that Smith sent to arrest him.

……..

This is evidence presented without agenda.