Is Thompson the Ripper in Three Questions

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Herlock Sholmes
    Commissioner
    • May 2017
    • 23382

    #31
    Another question for Richard to ignore……

    If Thompson was staying at the Providence Row Refuge during the murders as he claims as a fact…

    why did Smith send his two men to Rupert Street?
    Herlock Sholmes

    ”I don’t know who Jack the Ripper was…and neither do you.”

    Comment

    • Doctored Whatsit
      Sergeant
      • May 2021
      • 842

      #32
      Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
      No one can take someone seriously who keeps stating that Thompson is a match for Smith’s suspect when we know the actual identity through documented police evidence. An absolutely cast iron source.

      You can dispute an opinion or an interpretation but you can’t dispute a proven fact…unless your name is Richard Patterson of course.
      Also, I have a huge problem with the concept of "Smith's suspect" being treated as especially significant compared to other suspects. Smith was a "man about town", then a "sporting country gentleman" when in 1885 he applied for, and became chief superintendent of the City Police. He had no experience whatever as a serving police officer, despite calling his memoirs "From Constable to Commissioner" which rather suggests a successful career and numerous deserved promotions. He was never a serving detective, so why are his suspicions considered to be particularly relevant? So caution!

      If he wasn't an experienced detective unlike most of the others, can we at least consider his recollections to be reliable - well, it has to be said that the copy of Smith's memoirs in the Scotland Yard library carries the message that "Smith's veracity was not always to be trusted." So, a little caution therefore! For example, this is the man who claimed to have been "within five minutes of the perpetrator one night, and with a very fair description of him besides". Allegedly the Ripper had washed his bloodied hands in a public sink. However, we know from his original account of the Eddowes' murder that Smith's movements never put him within an hour of the Ripper. To have known it was just five minutes, and to have JtR'S description, there had to be a witness providing this information, but there is no evidence of such a witness, and no description. So caution!

      The City police were not involved until the fourth of the canonical five murders, and I believe that Smith's suspicions date from his temporary involvement before this, which was before the City police had any formal and detailed briefings of the known facts. His information seems to have come from newspapers, which is why he referred to coin trickery as a trait, whereas there was no coin trickery as far as JtR himself was concerned. That story existed only in newspapers, so the coin trickery trait is totally irrelevant to the investigation, and demonstrates Smith's ignorance of the facts, and not his detective skills. So caution!

      Smiths five traits are merely traits he saw in a suspect, and they are not even remotely identified as traits demonstrated by the Ripper. There is absolutely no reason whatever to suppose that Smith's suspect could have been JtR. So caution!

      Comment

      • Herlock Sholmes
        Commissioner
        • May 2017
        • 23382

        #33
        Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

        Also, I have a huge problem with the concept of "Smith's suspect" being treated as especially significant compared to other suspects. Smith was a "man about town", then a "sporting country gentleman" when in 1885 he applied for, and became chief superintendent of the City Police. He had no experience whatever as a serving police officer, despite calling his memoirs "From Constable to Commissioner" which rather suggests a successful career and numerous deserved promotions. He was never a serving detective, so why are his suspicions considered to be particularly relevant? So caution!

        If he wasn't an experienced detective unlike most of the others, can we at least consider his recollections to be reliable - well, it has to be said that the copy of Smith's memoirs in the Scotland Yard library carries the message that "Smith's veracity was not always to be trusted." So, a little caution therefore! For example, this is the man who claimed to have been "within five minutes of the perpetrator one night, and with a very fair description of him besides". Allegedly the Ripper had washed his bloodied hands in a public sink. However, we know from his original account of the Eddowes' murder that Smith's movements never put him within an hour of the Ripper. To have known it was just five minutes, and to have JtR'S description, there had to be a witness providing this information, but there is no evidence of such a witness, and no description. So caution!

        The City police were not involved until the fourth of the canonical five murders, and I believe that Smith's suspicions date from his temporary involvement before this, which was before the City police had any formal and detailed briefings of the known facts. His information seems to have come from newspapers, which is why he referred to coin trickery as a trait, whereas there was no coin trickery as far as JtR himself was concerned. That story existed only in newspapers, so the coin trickery trait is totally irrelevant to the investigation, and demonstrates Smith's ignorance of the facts, and not his detective skills. So caution!

        Smiths five traits are merely traits he saw in a suspect, and they are not even remotely identified as traits demonstrated by the Ripper. There is absolutely no reason whatever to suppose that Smith's suspect could have been JtR. So caution!
        Exactly. We know who Smith’s suspect was but he had an alibi as his landlord had said that he’d slept there on the nights of the murders.
        Herlock Sholmes

        ”I don’t know who Jack the Ripper was…and neither do you.”

        Comment

        • Richard Patterson
          Sergeant
          • Mar 2012
          • 701

          #34
          Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

          Also, I have a huge problem with the concept of "Smith's suspect" being treated as especially significant compared to other suspects. Smith was a "man about town", then a "sporting country gentleman" when in 1885 he applied for, and became chief superintendent of the City Police. He had no experience whatever as a serving police officer, despite calling his memoirs "From Constable to Commissioner" which rather suggests a successful career and numerous deserved promotions. He was never a serving detective, so why are his suspicions considered to be particularly relevant? So caution!

          If he wasn't an experienced detective unlike most of the others, can we at least consider his recollections to be reliable - well, it has to be said that the copy of Smith's memoirs in the Scotland Yard library carries the message that "Smith's veracity was not always to be trusted." So, a little caution therefore! For example, this is the man who claimed to have been "within five minutes of the perpetrator one night, and with a very fair description of him besides". Allegedly the Ripper had washed his bloodied hands in a public sink. However, we know from his original account of the Eddowes' murder that Smith's movements never put him within an hour of the Ripper. To have known it was just five minutes, and to have JtR'S description, there had to be a witness providing this information, but there is no evidence of such a witness, and no description. So caution!

          The City police were not involved until the fourth of the canonical five murders, and I believe that Smith's suspicions date from his temporary involvement before this, which was before the City police had any formal and detailed briefings of the known facts. His information seems to have come from newspapers, which is why he referred to coin trickery as a trait, whereas there was no coin trickery as far as JtR himself was concerned. That story existed only in newspapers, so the coin trickery trait is totally irrelevant to the investigation, and demonstrates Smith's ignorance of the facts, and not his detective skills. So caution!

          Smiths five traits are merely traits he saw in a suspect, and they are not even remotely identified as traits demonstrated by the Ripper. There is absolutely no reason whatever to suppose that Smith's suspect could have been JtR. So caution!
          You’re taking a dangerous shortcut here, Doctor. Dismissing Major Sir Henry Smith’s credibility because he wasn’t a career detective isn’t the same as disproving what he observed. It’s a rhetorical trick—one that has haunted the Ripper field for decades: when the evidence threatens a pet theory, the goalposts shift from data to ad hominem.

          Let’s unpack it properly.

          1. “From Constable to Commissioner” and the Myth of Inexperience

          Smith wasn’t pretending to have risen through the beat ranks. His title was part of a long Victorian tradition of stylised autobiography. But by the time of the murders, he had nine years of senior policing behind him—as Assistant Commissioner and later Acting Commissioner of the City of London Police. That force, though smaller than the Met, was famously rigorous and legalistic. Smith was a barrister by training, versed in evidentiary standards most of his contemporaries lacked. He led an elite, courtroom-savvy force in one of the most densely patrolled areas of Europe.

          Calling him “not an experienced detective” misses the point. He commanded detectives, directed the City’s entire investigative arm, and oversaw one of the five canonical Ripper murder scenes. The Mitre Square investigation—the most thoroughly documented of them all—was under his authority. That case file remains the cleanest and most professionally handled in the series.

          2. “Veracity not always to be trusted”

          That marginal note in the Yard’s library isn’t evidence of dishonesty; it’s a bureaucratic sneer written decades later by someone who disagreed with his memoir’s tone. Every senior officer who published recollections—Anderson, Macnaghten, Littlechild, Dew—was annotated or contradicted by rivals. Police infighting didn’t start with internet forums. Smith, notably, was the only senior officer who admitted he didn’t solve the case. That honesty alone makes his memoirs more credible than Anderson’s “definitely Kosminski” or Macnaghten’s “it was Druitt” pronouncements, neither of which had firsthand evidential basis.

          3. The “Five Minutes Away” Claim

          Even if we strip away rhetoric, his statement reflects something important: that he personally patrolled the East End in plain clothes, close enough to scenes of attempted or completed attacks to believe he nearly intercepted the killer. That level of involvement is rare among senior officers and speaks to his immersion in the field, not his unreliability.

          4. The Coin Trickery Myth

          The coin-trick confusion came from early press speculation—but Smith’s identification of a Rupert Street suspect wasn’t drawn from newspapers. He had the man investigated, and that description—medical background, Catholic connection, middle-class, lodging in West End slums—matches Thompson almost perfectly. The coincidence is remarkable, not dismissible.

          5. Slippery Slopes and Convenient Amnesia

          Once we start discrediting the competence of men like Smith to make the facts fit whichever suspect we prefer, the entire historical investigation collapses. If Smith can’t be trusted because he wasn’t a “career detective,” then neither can Anderson (a lawyer), Macnaghten (a civil servant), or Bond (a surgeon). The Ripper field then devolves into cherry-picked character assassinations instead of sober analysis.

          Smith remains one of the few who didn’t claim to have unmasked the killer, who didn’t inflate his own role, and who did leave verifiable documentation of his movements, procedures, and suspicions. His candour, restraint, and professionalism make him one of the most reliable voices of 1888, not the least.

          If the Ripper debate requires burning down the reputations of the investigating officers simply to keep Thompson’s name out of the frame, then the slope isn’t just slippery—it’s circular. You end up dismantling the very authority whose reports form the foundation of every suspect theory, including your own.

          Smith deserves respect not because he was infallible, but because he was accountable, articulate, and there. And when a man of that calibre described a suspect in Rupert Street whose traits mirror Thompson’s to an uncanny degree, the proper scholarly response isn’t “so caution.” It’s: so, investigate.
          Author of

          "Jack the Ripper, The Works of Francis Thompson"

          http://www.francisjthompson.com/

          Comment

          • Doctored Whatsit
            Sergeant
            • May 2021
            • 842

            #35
            Originally posted by Richard Patterson View Post

            You’re taking a dangerous shortcut here, Doctor. Dismissing Major Sir Henry Smith’s credibility because he wasn’t a career detective isn’t the same as disproving what he observed. It’s a rhetorical trick—one that has haunted the Ripper field for decades: when the evidence threatens a pet theory, the goalposts shift from data to ad hominem.

            Let’s unpack it properly.

            1. “From Constable to Commissioner” and the Myth of Inexperience

            Smith wasn’t pretending to have risen through the beat ranks. His title was part of a long Victorian tradition of stylised autobiography. But by the time of the murders, he had nine years of senior policing behind him—as Assistant Commissioner and later Acting Commissioner of the City of London Police. That force, though smaller than the Met, was famously rigorous and legalistic. Smith was a barrister by training, versed in evidentiary standards most of his contemporaries lacked. He led an elite, courtroom-savvy force in one of the most densely patrolled areas of Europe.

            Calling him “not an experienced detective” misses the point. He commanded detectives, directed the City’s entire investigative arm, and oversaw one of the five canonical Ripper murder scenes. The Mitre Square investigation—the most thoroughly documented of them all—was under his authority. That case file remains the cleanest and most professionally handled in the series.

            2. “Veracity not always to be trusted”

            That marginal note in the Yard’s library isn’t evidence of dishonesty; it’s a bureaucratic sneer written decades later by someone who disagreed with his memoir’s tone. Every senior officer who published recollections—Anderson, Macnaghten, Littlechild, Dew—was annotated or contradicted by rivals. Police infighting didn’t start with internet forums. Smith, notably, was the only senior officer who admitted he didn’t solve the case. That honesty alone makes his memoirs more credible than Anderson’s “definitely Kosminski” or Macnaghten’s “it was Druitt” pronouncements, neither of which had firsthand evidential basis.

            3. The “Five Minutes Away” Claim

            Even if we strip away rhetoric, his statement reflects something important: that he personally patrolled the East End in plain clothes, close enough to scenes of attempted or completed attacks to believe he nearly intercepted the killer. That level of involvement is rare among senior officers and speaks to his immersion in the field, not his unreliability.

            4. The Coin Trickery Myth

            The coin-trick confusion came from early press speculation—but Smith’s identification of a Rupert Street suspect wasn’t drawn from newspapers. He had the man investigated, and that description—medical background, Catholic connection, middle-class, lodging in West End slums—matches Thompson almost perfectly. The coincidence is remarkable, not dismissible.

            5. Slippery Slopes and Convenient Amnesia

            Once we start discrediting the competence of men like Smith to make the facts fit whichever suspect we prefer, the entire historical investigation collapses. If Smith can’t be trusted because he wasn’t a “career detective,” then neither can Anderson (a lawyer), Macnaghten (a civil servant), or Bond (a surgeon). The Ripper field then devolves into cherry-picked character assassinations instead of sober analysis.

            Smith remains one of the few who didn’t claim to have unmasked the killer, who didn’t inflate his own role, and who did leave verifiable documentation of his movements, procedures, and suspicions. His candour, restraint, and professionalism make him one of the most reliable voices of 1888, not the least.

            If the Ripper debate requires burning down the reputations of the investigating officers simply to keep Thompson’s name out of the frame, then the slope isn’t just slippery—it’s circular. You end up dismantling the very authority whose reports form the foundation of every suspect theory, including your own.

            Smith deserves respect not because he was infallible, but because he was accountable, articulate, and there. And when a man of that calibre described a suspect in Rupert Street whose traits mirror Thompson’s to an uncanny degree, the proper scholarly response isn’t “so caution.” It’s: so, investigate.


            I didn't dismiss Smith's views, I wrote "caution". The five minutes from the Ripper claim demonstrates the need for such caution. It wasn't true.

            I have Smith joining the City Police in 1885 as per the A - Z, and therefore three years in a senior post with no detective in the ranks experience by 1888. You have nine years senior policing, what is your information about his experience that differs from mine?

            I don't regard Anderson, MacNaghten or Bond as particularly useful sources of information either.

            When are you going to accept that other people don't believe that describing "a suspect in Rupert Street whose traits mirror Thompson's to an uncanny degree" doesn't mean that those traits were those of The Ripper? There is no evidence to suggest that they were.

            Comment

            • Fiver
              Assistant Commissioner
              • Oct 2019
              • 3494

              #36
              Originally posted by Richard Patterson View Post
              You’re taking a dangerous shortcut here, Doctor. Dismissing Major Sir Henry Smith’s credibility because he wasn’t a career detective isn’t the same as disproving what he observed..
              Ironic, since you are dismissing Henry Smith's credibility more than anyone else.

              * Smith concluded that the Rupert Street suspect "proved an alibi without the shadow of doubt." You believe Smith was wrong and the alibi was fake.
              * Smith "visited every butcher's shop in the city". You believe Smith was wrong and that only someone with medical training could have been the Ripper.
              * Smith met a man in Hoxton, believing "that at last I was on the right scent". You believe Smith was wrong and that he had already been fooled by the actual Ripper.

              And in your repeated dismissals of Henry Smith, you have not disproved what he observed.

              "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

              "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

              Comment

              • Fiver
                Assistant Commissioner
                • Oct 2019
                • 3494

                #37
                Originally posted by Richard Patterson View Post
                Smith, notably, was the only senior officer who admitted he didn’t solve the case.
                "Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago."" Frederick Abberline

                "We had some of the very finest men from all parts of London, but all their efforts were useless." - Thomas Arnold

                "Who was Jack the Ripper? I was closely associated with most of the murders. Yet I hesitate to express a definite opinion as to who or what the man may have been. He may have been a doctor. He may have been a medical student. He may have been a foreigner. He may even have been a slaughterman, and so on. Such speculation is little more than childish, for there is no evidence to support one view any more than another." - Walter Dew

                "We have no relics; he never leaves so much as a rag- behind him. There is no more of a clue to that chaps identity than there is to the identity of some murderer who will kill some one a hundred years from now." - Henry Moore​

                "I have been asked to tell the story of the "Ripper" series many times, but to do so would necessitate the devotion of weeks of labour to the matter. But this I will say at once. I challenge anyone to produce a tittle of evidence of any kind against anyone.​" - Edmund Reid
                "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                Comment

                • Newbie
                  Detective
                  • Jun 2021
                  • 429

                  #38
                  Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                  So you can ask questions but you avoid answering question like the plague.
                  This would be par for the course here.

                  Comment

                  • Newbie
                    Detective
                    • Jun 2021
                    • 429

                    #39
                    Okay, i'll take the bait: lets analyze a poem of his.

                    And let's say the writer here was the ripper ... but he also would be a poet of renown and great skill.
                    Using the poetic format for shits and giggles, just to opaquely describe his murders?
                    I don't think so; he'd want to convert something greater, something urgent within him that completely describes his sick urges.

                    “An Arab Love-Song

                    The hunchèd camels of the night
                    Trouble the bright
                    And silver waters of the moon.
                    The Maiden of the Morn will soon
                    Through Heaven stray and sing,
                    Star gathering.

                    Now while the dark about our loves is strewn,
                    Light of my dark, blood of my heart, O come!
                    And night will catch her breath up, and be dumb.

                    Leave thy father, leave thy mother
                    And thy brother;
                    Leave the black tents of thy tribe apart!
                    Am I not thy father and thy brother,
                    And thy mother?
                    And thou—what needest with thy tribe's black tents
                    Who hast the red pavilion of my heart?”


                    Hunched camels? Troubling the bright and silver waters?
                    Well, something surely is amiss here: it describes a one-sided love affair, where the maiden does not wish to commit to him.

                    Mixing blood is the lover's desire to achieve orgiastic and complete union with his love,
                    who after all has the red pavilion of his heart.

                    The darkness creates a sense of separation, physically and spiritually;
                    that is its purpose here.

                    These are all fairly standard poetic metaphors used in the trade of romantic poetry.

                    If describing a victim here, the ripper would be in love with her .... sounds right to you?
                    Would this describe Polly Nichols? Annie Chapman? Catherine Eddowes?

                    If you wish to use his poetry, you need to analyze it as poetry, first and foremost.
                    You can't just pick out lines, or words, as if there is simply a murder confession hidden in part of the poem.

                    Which poet could you not nail of murderous intent by doing this?
                    Last edited by Newbie; Today, 06:03 PM.

                    Comment

                    • Herlock Sholmes
                      Commissioner
                      • May 2017
                      • 23382

                      #40
                      Not from me; or most others.
                      Herlock Sholmes

                      ”I don’t know who Jack the Ripper was…and neither do you.”

                      Comment

                      • Newbie
                        Detective
                        • Jun 2021
                        • 429

                        #41
                        Okay, i'll take the bait: lets analyze a poem of his .... and I wanted to delete the previous reply, reading more of what you actually wrote.

                        So again, let's say the writer here was the ripper ... but he also would be a poet of renown and great skill.
                        Using the poetic format for shits and giggles, just to opaquely describe his murders?
                        I don't think so; he'd want to convey something greater, something urgent within him that completely describes his sick urges.

                        “An Arab Love-Song

                        The hunchèd camels of the night
                        Trouble the bright
                        And silver waters of the moon.
                        The Maiden of the Morn will soon
                        Through Heaven stray and sing,
                        Star gathering.

                        Now while the dark about our loves is strewn,
                        Light of my dark, blood of my heart, O come!
                        And night will catch her breath up, and be dumb.

                        Leave thy father, leave thy mother
                        And thy brother;
                        Leave the black tents of thy tribe apart!
                        Am I not thy father and thy brother,
                        And thy mother?
                        And thou—what needest with thy tribe's black tents
                        Who hast the red pavilion of my heart?”


                        “An Arab Love-Song” entwines darkness, silencing, possession, and blood. These texts don’t convict; they show a longstanding inner fusion of eros, dominance, blood, and sanctity that mirrors the crimes’ psychological grammar.

                        Hunched camels? Troubling the bright and silver waters?
                        Well, something surely is amiss here: it describes a one-sided love affair, where the maiden does not wish to commit to him.

                        Mixing blood is the lover's desire to achieve orgiastic and complete union with his love,
                        who after all has the red pavilion of his heart.

                        It is not unique .... although outside the pale for a proper English, victorian poet - sure!
                        Poe and Baudelaire seem more his influences, fused with the English romantic poets.

                        The darkness creates a sense of separation, physically and spiritually;
                        that is its purpose here .... it would be silly and trite otherwise.

                        These are all fairly standard poetic metaphors used in the trade of romantic poetry.
                        Thompson was a poet of the night, while Wordsworth was a poet of the day time.

                        If he were describing a victim here, the ripper would be in love with her .... sounds right to you?
                        Would this describe Polly Nichols? Annie Chapman? Catherine Eddowes?

                        So, you can say that there are deeply troubled and erotic images in his poetry, and that the theme of sexual dominance
                        over females prevails, as it does in most male erotic poetry from the 19th or 20th century,

                        but hidden messages between lines and in words type stuff, that is going a bit too far.

                        Comment

                        • Newbie
                          Detective
                          • Jun 2021
                          • 429

                          #42
                          Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                          Not from me; or most others.
                          Yes, you are a peach.

                          Comment

                          • Herlock Sholmes
                            Commissioner
                            • May 2017
                            • 23382

                            #43
                            Originally posted by Newbie View Post

                            Yes, you are a peach.
                            No. I just don’t duck questions. If I don’t know the answer I’ll say that I don’t know.
                            Herlock Sholmes

                            ”I don’t know who Jack the Ripper was…and neither do you.”

                            Comment

                            • Newbie
                              Detective
                              • Jun 2021
                              • 429

                              #44
                              Hi Richard,

                              I don't want to have appeared smug or indifferent to your favorite candidate .... you put a lot of effort into it, which I admire.
                              He's better than most candidates - certainly Bury or Chapman.

                              People are going to pick at it .... some have already buried his candidacy, and for some reason they still come here.
                              My inclination is also to pick, but not out of a sense of completing abandoning the idea - so understand this.

                              In reading your thread starter completely, which i didn't do at first, three things pop out:

                              1. I really despise the use of AI in all this: if it leads someone somewhere, then they need to go check up on it, but AI by itself is prone to error, bad judgement, and quite often irrelevant statements or conclusions. That is my consistent experience with it.

                              2. Within this authoritative biography, Walsh included a brief but highly significant footnote describing an eerie overlap: during the weeks of August–September 1888—coinciding exactly with the Jack the Ripper murders—Thompson was desperately searching for a prostitute friend in London’s East End. Walsh wrote:

                              “At this time (August-September, 1888) occurred the most bizarre coincidence in Thompson’s life. During the very weeks he was searching for his prostitute friend, London was in uproar over the ghastly deaths of five such women at the hands of Jack the Ripper. The police threw a wide net over the city, investigating thousands of drifters and known consorts with the city’s lower elements, and it is not beyond possibility that Thompson himself may have been questioned. He was, after all, a drug addict, acquainted with prostitutes and, most alarming, a former medical student!”


                              Far from being suspicious, wouldn't that be the actions of an innocent guy, concerned with the safety of a prostitute friend, in wake of the fiendish killing of prostitutes?

                              3. Anatomical knowledge (medical training) = 0.0005 (1 in 2,000) 7. Opium addiction = 0.002 (1 in 500) 8. Violent or sacrificial poetry = 0.0005 (1 in 2,000) 9. Disappeared after final Ripper murder = 0.001 (1 in 1,000) 10. Lived in East London at time of murders = 0.001 (1 in 1,000)

                              Multiply these:

                              0.0005 × 0.002 × 0.0005 × 0.001 × 0.001 = 0.0000000000000005

                              Which equals:

                              0.0000000000000005 = 1 in 2,000,000,000,000,000 (2 quadrillion, 15 zeros)


                              Is this not the statistical odds of someone being Francis Thompson? In decreasing order of acceptance, the categories of living in the East end, disappeared after the ripper murders, medical training, violent poetry and opium addiction (or any addiction) are not settled categories of confirmation .... and some would be extraordinarily low as a requirement.

                              In addition, he didn't disappear - he was still very much around - and I find it hard to believe that his catholic benefactors suspected that he was JtR. He was an active poet before these people, and an active poet afterwards ... other than clean sheets and food, what had emotionally changed in his life? It was not that he was incapable beforehand of making female friends, nor did they line up for him afterwards ... still just a lonely mostly celibate guy, still with all his lusts ....

                              Cheers!
                              Last edited by Newbie; Today, 07:39 PM.

                              Comment

                              • Herlock Sholmes
                                Commissioner
                                • May 2017
                                • 23382

                                #45
                                How can he be a better candidate than Bury?

                                A completely non-violent, feeble, troubled, drug-addicted poet with a prostitute girlfriend who lived until 1907.

                                A drunken, violent, prostitute consorting, murderer and post mortem mutilator who left London just after the murder of Mary Kelly.

                                It’s not even close.
                                Herlock Sholmes

                                ”I don’t know who Jack the Ripper was…and neither do you.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X