A FBI expert’s profile matches Thompson.

[Richard Patterson]

Modern criminal profiling has evolved dramatically since 1888, yet it is remarkable how precisely the most authoritative modern analysis of Jack the Ripper’s psychology and habits aligns with the known life and character of Francis Thompson.

In 1988, former FBI Special Agent John Douglas—co-founder of the Behavioural Science Unit and one of the world’s leading criminal profilers—presented his conclusions in the documentary The Secret Identity of Jack the Ripper. A panel of experts examined several suspects, though notably Francis Thompson was not among them, his candidacy having only just been proposed that same year. Douglas’s independent behavioural profile, however, reads as though written with Thompson in mind.

Douglas predicted that the Ripper would:

• Possess a physical abnormality or frailty. Thompson himself recorded being rejected from military service for his undersized chest and described his arms and legs as thin and wasted from years of morphine addiction.
• Be unmarried and socially isolated. Thompson lived alone, maintaining no steady friendships and avoiding ordinary social contact.
• Have a revulsion toward blood despite anatomical knowledge. Thompson gave “aversion to blood” as his reason for abandoning medicine after six years of surgical training—a combination identical to Douglas’s forecast.
• Have his only intimate contact with a prostitute. Thompson’s single known relationship was with a prostitute who vanished during his time in Whitechapel.
• Be a local resident who blended into the district. Thompson was living rough in Spitalfields, within walking distance of every murder site.
• Have likely been questioned by police yet released. Thompson’s biographer John Walsh later suggested precisely that scenario.
• Exhibit ritualistic behaviour. Douglas defined ritual as “the acting out of fantasy—something he must do.” Thompson’s biographers describe him as obsessed with Catholic ceremony and personal rites, treating ritual itself as sacred theatre. J. C. Reid observed, “Ritual was for him poetry addressed to the eye—an end in itself.”

Douglas also said the killer would be a nocturnal wanderer of dishevelled appearance, in his mid- to late-twenties. Thompson was 28 during the murders, frequently walked the streets until dawn, and was famously unable to keep his clothing neat—“dingy, picturesque, and untidy,” as contemporaries described him.

Finally, Douglas believed the murders ceased not through death or repentance but because the killer was confined. Within days of Mary Kelly’s murder, Thompson was committed first to a private hospital and then to an isolated all-male monastery, where he remained under supervision. He lived another twenty years.

Taken together, Douglas’s forensic profile—formulated without any knowledge of Thompson—matches him point for point. The odds of that occurring by chance are vanishingly small. If the FBI’s leading behavioural model of the Ripper is accurate, Francis Thompson is not merely a plausible suspect—he is its living embodiment.

[Enigma]

Not to be picky, but it is impossible to predict something 100 years after the event.

[Richard Patterson]

Not to be picky, but it is impossible to predict something 100 years after the event.

Douglas didn’t predict anything ‘100 years later’; he applied a behavioural-science framework to a century-old case, the same way forensic anthropology or cold-case profiling re-evaluate past evidence. Modern profiling retrofits patterns to known behaviours—it doesn’t ‘see the future’, it recognises what was already there but unanalysed. If you object to that, you’re objecting to the entire field of retrospective profiling, which is literally what Douglas was hired for.

The relevance isn’t when the profile was written, it’s that Thompson fits it more exactly than anyone from his own century.

[Enigma]

In 1988, former FBI Special Agent John Douglas—co-founder of the Behavioural Science Unit and one of the world’s leading criminal profilers—presented his conclusions in the documentary The Secret Identity of Jack the Ripper. A panel of experts examined several suspects, though notably Francis Thompson was not among them, his candidacy having only just been proposed that same year. Douglas’s independent behavioural profile, however, reads as though written with Thompson in mind.

Douglas predicted that the Ripper would:

• Possess a physical abnormality or frailty. Thompson himself recorded being rejected from military service for his undersized chest and described his arms and legs as thin and wasted from years of morphine addiction.
• Be unmarried and socially isolated. Thompson lived alone, maintaining no steady friendships and avoiding ordinary social contact.
• Have a revulsion toward blood despite anatomical knowledge. Thompson gave “aversion to blood” as his reason for abandoning medicine after six years of surgical training—a combination identical to Douglas’s forecast.
• Have his only intimate contact with a prostitute. Thompson’s single known relationship was with a prostitute who vanished during his time in Whitechapel.
• Be a local resident who blended into the district. Thompson was living rough in Spitalfields, within walking distance of every murder site.
• Have likely been questioned by police yet released. Thompson’s biographer John Walsh later suggested precisely that scenario.
• Exhibit ritualistic behaviour. Douglas defined ritual as “the acting out of fantasy—something he must do.” Thompson’s biographers describe him as obsessed with Catholic ceremony and personal rites, treating ritual itself as sacred theatre. J. C. Reid observed, “Ritual was for him poetry addressed to the eye—an end in itself.”

Douglas also said the killer would be a nocturnal wanderer of dishevelled appearance, in his mid- to late-twenties. Thompson was 28 during the murders, frequently walked the streets until dawn, and was famously unable to keep his clothing neat—“dingy, picturesque, and untidy,” as contemporaries described him.

Umm? See emboldened text.

[Richard Patterson]

Umm? See emboldened text.

Good point. You are correct. Sorry.

[Mike J. G.]

This is what Douglas and Hazelwood actually wrote. It, erm, differs slightly to what Richard typed:

By 1988, the first ever profile of Jack the Ripper was conducted in America by FBI profilers John Douglas and Roy Hazelwood. Taking the original police reports and medical evidence, they compiled a list of 11 character traits jack the Ripper would have had:

1. The Ripper would be a White Male

2. Between 25 and 35 years old

3. Lived locally to the Whitechapel / Spitalfields area

4. A loner, who was more than likely unmarried

5. As a child he would have had an absent father and a dominant mother figure

6. A mental or physical disability or deformity, which made him feel different from others

7. A solitary job, which kept him away from social encounters

8. Seen as quiet and timid to those who knew him, he would be perceived as a little odd

10. Beneath the surface would lie a deep and resentful aggression, which would explode during bouts of low self-esteem

11. He would not feel guilt or remorse for his crimes and in a way, considered them justified

Special Agent Douglas wrote:

“We would look for someone below or above average in height and/or weight. May have problems with speech, a scarred complexion, physical illness, or injury.

We would not expect this type of offender to be married. If he was married in the past, it would have been to someone older than himself and the marriage would have been for a short duration. He is not adept in meeting people socially and the major extent of his heterosexual relationships would be with prostitutes.

This offender does not look out of the ordinary. However, the clothing he wears at the time of the assaults is not his everyday dress. He wants to project to unsuspecting female prostitutes that he has money.

He comes from a family where he was raised by a domineering mother and a weak, passive father. In all likelihood, his mother drank heavily and enjoyed the company of many men. As a result, he failed to receive consistent care and contact with stable adult role models. This could have resulted in the would-be serial killer having an introverted nature, lashing out violently as a result of his frustration.

As well as being an introvert, the killer would likely be regarded as a shy and retiring loner who would also take great care over his appearance.

He drinks in the local pubs and after a few spirits, he becomes more relaxed and finds it easier to engage in conversation. After he leaves the pub, he would stroll throughout the Whitechapel neighbourhood with lowered inhibitions. He lives or works in the Whitechapel area.

After each killing, he would return to a safe area where he could wash the blood from his hands and get rid of soiled clothing.”

Mutilation killers like Jack the Ripper would rarely stop unless they came close to being caught or were perhaps arrested and locked away for another unrelated crime. It’s possible that his identity became known to his close family and, instead of turning him over to the police, they had him committed in one of the many asylums, where he spent the rest of his life.

Most serial killers are distinguished by their outward normality. Dennis Nilsen was a quiet civil servant. Peter Sutcliffe was apparently an industrious lorry driver. John Wayne Gacy was a successful building contractor and one-time Junior Chamber of Commerce “Man of the Year”. Ted Bundy, credited with the murder of as many as 40 young women, was handsome, charming and well educated.

In all probability, Jack the Ripper was like one of these people. Ordinary – but only on the surface.

You can shoehorn a few people from the suspect list into this criteria, if you wish to. I'm not really sure why anyone would believe that this criteria screams "Francis Thompson..."

[Herlock Sholmes]

ABSOLUTE NONSENSE

.Possess a physical abnormality or frailty. Thompson himself recorded being rejected from military service for his undersized chest and described his arms and legs as thin and wasted from years of morphine addiction.

When anyone questions Thompson’s physical capacity to have committed the murders Richard absolutely rejects the suggestion but now, because it’s suits him to do so, he accepts it without question.

Have a revulsion toward blood despite anatomical knowledge. Thompson gave “aversion to blood” as his reason for abandoning medicine after six years of surgical training—a combination identical to Douglas’s forecast

When I asked what kind of post-mortem mutilating serial killer has an aversion to blood as it’s about as ludicrous an idea as you can come up with. Richard rejected it out of hand and yet, here we are, to make this profile fit Richbot is absolutely prepared to accept anything.

Be a local resident who blended into the district. Thompson was living rough in Spitalfields, within walking distance of every murder site.

The only locations that we have for Thompson was the Southampton Row room that McMaster got for him and the ‘Chelsea’ flat where he stayed with his prostitute friend. That’s all. Oh yes, he recalls seeing the Providence Row Refuge so, on that thinking, a couple of months ago I saw The Ritz in London so I must have stayed there (mustn’t I?) Also, Thompson arrived in London in 1885, the article where the Providence Row story was mentioned came out in 1891. So perhaps R2 can tell us why he hadn’t seen the refuge in 1885 or 1886 or 1887 or 1889? Why does he conveniently assume 1888 based on zero evidence?

Have likely been questioned by police yet released. Thompson’s biographer John Walsh later suggested precisely that scenario.

A suggestion from Walsh based on absolutely no evidence. So utterly inapplicable.

. Exhibit ritualistic behaviour. Douglas defined ritual as “the acting out of fantasy—something he must do.” Thompson’s biographers describe him as obsessed with Catholic ceremony and personal rites, treating ritual itself as sacred theatre. J. C. Reid observed, “Ritual was for him poetry addressed to the eye—an end in itself.”

As everyone can see and understand this is more pathetic than I can put into words. He was a Catholic who loved the rituals of Catholicism as millions of catholics do to this day and have done all through history. Thompson didn’t exhibit ritualistic behaviour in his life which is clearly what Douglas is talking about.

…..

How many pointless Thompson-related threads is Richbot going to start? How many excuses for posting another AI generated listed? How long is this man going to keep posting fake propaganda whilst refusing to answer questions and refusing to confront the issues with his theory?

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is what Douglas and Hazelwood actually wrote. It, erm, differs slightly to what Richard typed:

By 1988, the first ever profile of Jack the Ripper was conducted in America by FBI profilers John Douglas and Roy Hazelwood. Taking the original police reports and medical evidence, they compiled a list of 11 character traits jack the Ripper would have had:

1. The Ripper would be a White Male

2. Between 25 and 35 years old

3. Lived locally to the Whitechapel / Spitalfields area

4. A loner, who was more than likely unmarried

5. As a child he would have had an absent father and a dominant mother figure

6. A mental or physical disability or deformity, which made him feel different from others

7. A solitary job, which kept him away from social encounters

8. Seen as quiet and timid to those who knew him, he would be perceived as a little odd

10. Beneath the surface would lie a deep and resentful aggression, which would explode during bouts of low self-esteem

11. He would not feel guilt or remorse for his crimes and in a way, considered them justified

Special Agent Douglas wrote:

“We would look for someone below or above average in height and/or weight. May have problems with speech, a scarred complexion, physical illness, or injury.

We would not expect this type of offender to be married. If he was married in the past, it would have been to someone older than himself and the marriage would have been for a short duration. He is not adept in meeting people socially and the major extent of his heterosexual relationships would be with prostitutes.

This offender does not look out of the ordinary. However, the clothing he wears at the time of the assaults is not his everyday dress. He wants to project to unsuspecting female prostitutes that he has money.

He comes from a family where he was raised by a domineering mother and a weak, passive father. In all likelihood, his mother drank heavily and enjoyed the company of many men. As a result, he failed to receive consistent care and contact with stable adult role models. This could have resulted in the would-be serial killer having an introverted nature, lashing out violently as a result of his frustration.

As well as being an introvert, the killer would likely be regarded as a shy and retiring loner who would also take great care over his appearance.

He drinks in the local pubs and after a few spirits, he becomes more relaxed and finds it easier to engage in conversation. After he leaves the pub, he would stroll throughout the Whitechapel neighbourhood with lowered inhibitions. He lives or works in the Whitechapel area.

After each killing, he would return to a safe area where he could wash the blood from his hands and get rid of soiled clothing.”

Mutilation killers like Jack the Ripper would rarely stop unless they came close to being caught or were perhaps arrested and locked away for another unrelated crime. It’s possible that his identity became known to his close family and, instead of turning him over to the police, they had him committed in one of the many asylums, where he spent the rest of his life.

Most serial killers are distinguished by their outward normality. Dennis Nilsen was a quiet civil servant. Peter Sutcliffe was apparently an industrious lorry driver. John Wayne Gacy was a successful building contractor and one-time Junior Chamber of Commerce “Man of the Year”. Ted Bundy, credited with the murder of as many as 40 young women, was handsome, charming and well educated.

In all probability, Jack the Ripper was like one of these people. Ordinary – but only on the surface.

You can shoehorn a few people from the suspect list into this criteria, if you wish to. I'm not really sure why anyone would believe that this criteria screams "Francis Thompson..."

Probably because Richard is making things up Mike. As he appears to now be unable or unwilling to post without the use of AI we can only assume that he’s doing what he’s already admitted to doing…giving AI a “nudge” to use Richard’s own words.

Garbage in, garbage out.

[Trevor Marriott]

Modern criminal profiling has evolved dramatically since 1888, yet it is remarkable how precisely the most authoritative modern analysis of Jack the Ripper’s psychology and habits aligns with the known life and character of Francis Thompson.

In 1988, former FBI Special Agent John Douglas—co-founder of the Behavioural Science Unit and one of the world’s leading criminal profilers—presented his conclusions in the documentary The Secret Identity of Jack the Ripper. A panel of experts examined several suspects, though notably Francis Thompson was not among them, his candidacy having only just been proposed that same year. Douglas’s independent behavioural profile, however, reads as though written with Thompson in mind.

Douglas predicted that the Ripper would:

• Possess a physical abnormality or frailty. Thompson himself recorded being rejected from military service for his undersized chest and described his arms and legs as thin and wasted from years of morphine addiction.
• Be unmarried and socially isolated. Thompson lived alone, maintaining no steady friendships and avoiding ordinary social contact.
• Have a revulsion toward blood despite anatomical knowledge. Thompson gave “aversion to blood” as his reason for abandoning medicine after six years of surgical training—a combination identical to Douglas’s forecast.
• Have his only intimate contact with a prostitute. Thompson’s single known relationship was with a prostitute who vanished during his time in Whitechapel.
• Be a local resident who blended into the district. Thompson was living rough in Spitalfields, within walking distance of every murder site.
• Have likely been questioned by police yet released. Thompson’s biographer John Walsh later suggested precisely that scenario.
• Exhibit ritualistic behaviour. Douglas defined ritual as “the acting out of fantasy—something he must do.” Thompson’s biographers describe him as obsessed with Catholic ceremony and personal rites, treating ritual itself as sacred theatre. J. C. Reid observed, “Ritual was for him poetry addressed to the eye—an end in itself.”

Douglas also said the killer would be a nocturnal wanderer of dishevelled appearance, in his mid- to late-twenties. Thompson was 28 during the murders, frequently walked the streets until dawn, and was famously unable to keep his clothing neat—“dingy, picturesque, and untidy,” as contemporaries described him.

Finally, Douglas believed the murders ceased not through death or repentance but because the killer was confined. Within days of Mary Kelly’s murder, Thompson was committed first to a private hospital and then to an isolated all-male monastery, where he remained under supervision. He lived another twenty years.

Taken together, Douglas’s forensic profile—formulated without any knowledge of Thompson—matches him point for point. The odds of that occurring by chance are vanishingly small. If the FBI’s leading behavioural model of the Ripper is accurate, Francis Thompson is not merely a plausible suspect—he is its living embodiment.

I would treat the evidence of Douglas with an air of caution for the following reasons !!!!!!!!!

• Subjectivity and bias:
  Profiles are often based on the profiler's subjective opinions and interpretations of behaviours, which can lead to misleading and biased results.

• The Barnum Effect:
  Studies show that people tend to perceive profiles as accurate even when they are ambiguous, applying them to specific individuals due to a psychological phenomenon similar to the Barnum Effect, where people believe general statements apply to them.

• Limited effectiveness:
  Research has shown low effectiveness rates in cases where profiling was used, with some studies finding success rates as low as 46%.

• Lack of scientific basis:
  There is a significant lack of empirical research and scientific evidence to support the reliability and validity of criminal profiling in solving crimes.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk