Francis Thompson. The Perfect Suspect.

[GUT]

Or probably Cross even, most Carmen appear to have.

[Abby Normal]

No contemporary suspects had any connection to the murders. Which is why none were charged. The Ripper was not caught because nobody was found to have any real connection to the murders.

Thompson, unlike most suspects, was said to be in the area. His editor, who rescued him from the streets days after the murder of Mary Kelly, held a keen interest in the Ripper murders, and discussed them with dignitaries. Thompson's biographer John Walsh believed Thompson may have been questioned by the police on suspicion that he was the Ripper.

These things, as well as him resembling several eye-witness descriptions of the Ripper makes him more connected to the murders than most of the other 100 suspects.

Having a connection to the case and being caught are two very obviously different things. FT has zero connection to the case except for one of the seemingly infinite of after the fact pet theories.

[Harry D]

It says something about how we go about trying to solve the case when it becomes a core issue whether somebody had access to a knife or not. 99 per cent of the grown population did. .

The fact you even had to point this out is a damning indictment of Ripper suspectology.

[SuspectZero]

Or Richardson sitting on hi# back step

Or Kelly

Or ......

Probably any number of other possibles.

ah, yes! You're correct. I forgot him.

[SuspectZero]

The fact you even had to point this out is a damning indictment of Ripper suspectology.

Valid point. Although to be fair, I think if you can make a case of circumstantial evidence (more than just being in possession of a knife) + being on the radar of police of the time, that should qualify someone to be considered a valid suspect.

[Richard Patterson]

Facts leading to a reasonable conclusion.

Facts on Francis Thompson as a Jack the Ripper suspect. He was a poet who had trained as a surgeon for 6-years at a prestigious medical school before one coroner of the murders concluded that Jack the Ripper must have had considerable anatomical skill and knowledge.

Right before the murders of these prostitutes, Thompson broke up with one and wrote about killing women of that profession. He was carrying a razor sharp knife, showed signs of severe mental illness and he was known to police.

Just with these facts, there is no other suspect, or anyone living or dead, anywhere in the world, pointing so strongly to being the Ripper.

Fact. After 3 years as a vagrant in London, Thompson had only been living four nights in a refuge when, a minute walk away, the Ripper killed his last victim. It was reported that London’s City Police might have interviewed him, but his ex-boss vouched for him and he was let go.

Within a few days of the slaying, Thompson was put in isolation at a distant monastery. He spent the rest of his life under observation or at secluded country retreats where he succumbed to drug addiction and wrote.

After his death in 1907, his editors, portraying him as an innocent victim of the streets, made a fortune from his books. Although members of Thompson’s own family felt he was the Ripper.

In 1988, a century after the murders, a Texan forensic pathologist, who made the discovery accidentally, published an article in the Criminologist named, 'Was Francis Thompson Jack the Ripper?’

In courts of law dealing in major crimes circumstantial evidence is much more powerful than direct when the coincidences points clearly toward guilt.

After decades of global research, no fact yet found does not point to the reasonable conclusion that he was the Ripper.

[GUT]

Facts on Francis Thompson as a Jack the Ripper suspect. He was a poet who had trained as a surgeon for 6-years at a prestigious medical school before one coroner of the murders concluded that Jack the Ripper must have had considerable anatomical skill and knowledge.

Right before the murders of these prostitutes, Thompson broke up with one and wrote about killing women of that profession. He was carrying a razor sharp knife, showed signs of severe mental illness and he was known to police.

Looking at these facts, there is no other suspect, or anyone living or dead, anywhere in the world, pointing so strongly to being Jack the Jack the Ripper.

Fact. After 3 years as a vagrant in London, Thompson had only been living four nights in a refuge when, a minute walk away, the Ripper killed his last victim. It was reported that London’s City Police might have interviewed him, but his ex-boss vouched for him and he was let go.

Within a few days of the slaying, Thompson was put in isolation at a distant monastery. He spent the rest of his life under observation or at secluded country retreats where he succumbed to drug addiction and wrote.

After his death in 1907, his editors, portraying him as an innocent victim of the streets, made a fortune from his books. Although members of Thompson’s own family felt he was Jack the Ripper.

In 1988, a century after the murders, a Texan forensic pathologist, who made the discovery accidentally, published an article in the Criminologist named, 'Was Francis Thompson Jack the Ripper?’ In courts of law dealing in major crimes circumstantial evidence is much more powerful than direct when the coincidences points clearly toward guilt.

After decades of global research, no fact yet found does not point to the reasonable conclusion that he was Jack the Ripper.

Richard I can’t let the sentence about circumstantial evidence being more powerful than direct evidence, go unchallenged, perhaps you worded it wrong, I’m unsure, but it just isn’t true. And prosecutor would prefer direct evidence about any aspect of a case to circumstantial evidence on the same issue.

[Richard Patterson]

Hi Gut. Circumstantial evidence has led to many successful prosecutions, including that of American bomber Timothy McVeigh. Speaking on the strength of this sort of evidence, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht who, was a defence attorney in the World Trade Center bombing, has said,

‘Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence.’ This is because a long sequence of coincidences can reasonably infer a person’s guilt. When the chain of circumstances, pointing away from innocence, is long enough the implication towards guilt becomes clear.’

[Richard Patterson]

Richard I can’t let the sentence about circumstantial evidence being more powerful than direct evidence, go unchallenged, perhaps you worded it wrong, I’m unsure, but it just isn’t true. And prosecutor would prefer direct evidence about any aspect of a case to circumstantial evidence on the same issue.

I think this is because direct evidence is often challenged. The 'smoking gun', could be undermined if its provenience, integrity, or authenticity, is reasonably under question.

[GUT]

But circumstantial can also be challenged by innocent alternate explanations.

[Richard Patterson]

But circumstantial can also be challenged by innocent alternate explanations.

That is true but, it is much easier to weaken circumstantial evidence than it is to have it struck off as evidence. Even if each piece of circumstantial evidence were challenged it is on the ponderousness of this sort of evidence whose combined weight can lead a jury to make a reasonable determination of guilt.

[MrBarnett]

Richard,

You say Thompson was carrying a razor sharp knife (presumably at the time of the murders). I think people may be interested to know the evidence you have for that.

Gary

[Richard Patterson]

Richard,

You say Thompson was carrying a razor sharp knife (presumably at the time of the murders). I think people may be interested to know the evidence you have for that.

Gary

That he carried a knife just before the murders can easily be concluded because Francis Thompson told us so.

In his first letter in 1899, being in February, from the monastery to his editor in London, Thompson requested a razor to shave with.

He explained that before now he had been used to shaving with a dissecting scalpel. This would have most likely been his general-purpose scalpel procured from his many years at medical school.

When Thompson wrote ‘before now’ we can assume that he meant the years of homelessness, immediately before his being taken off the streets, by November 15th 1888. It has credence in the fact that in the same letter he relates his request for a razor to his time on the streets. Thompson wrote that shaving was necessary in case he otherwise, with an unkempt beard, be mistaken for an escaped convict.

This was a concern clearly related to his actual fears of arrest when he lived as a vagrant. That Thompson also wrote that he used his scalpel to shave demonstrates that, by necessity, the knife was razor sharp.

The evidence that Thompson carried a razor sharp knife is clearly circumstantial. However, even if it is possible to try refute the claim it can not be made inadmissible. Some people might not see any importance in a suspect being shown to have carried a knife, which is why we must establish a chain of coincidences of sufficient strength.

[MrBarnett]

That he carried a knife just before the murders can easily be concluded because Francis Thompson told us so.

In his first letter in 1899, being in February, from the monastery to his editor in London, Thompson requested a razor to shave with.

He explained that before now he had been used to shaving with a dissecting scalpel. This would have most likely been his general-purpose scalpel procured from his many years at medical school.

When Thompson wrote ‘before now’ we can assume that he meant the years of homelessness, immediately before his being taken off the streets, by November 15th 1888. It has credence in the fact that in the same letter he relates his request for a razor to his time on the streets. Thompson wrote that shaving was necessary in case he otherwise, with an unkempt beard, be mistaken for an escaped convict.

This was a concern clearly related to his actual fears of arrest when he lived as a vagrant. That Thompson also wrote that he used his scalpel to shave demonstrates that, by necessity, the knife was razor sharp.

The evidence that Thompson carried a razor sharp knife is clearly circumstantial. However, even if it is possible to try refute the claim it can not be made inadmissible. Some people might not see any importance in a suspect being shown to have carried a knife, which is why we must establish a chain of coincidences of sufficient strength.

This is what he actually said in early 1889:

Can you send me a razor? I shall have to shave myself here, I think, and it would be a saving of expense in the long run. Any kind of razor would do for me; I have shaved with a dissecting scalpel before now.

From that you conclude that he carried a sharpened knife during his homeless period?

And, no, he did not say or imply that shaving was necessary to avoid arrest. He said that he was unable to grow a satisfactory beard and when he had tried to do so in the past the result had been that he ended up looking good like an escaped convict.

[MrBarnett]

To me, ‘I have shaved with a dissecting scalpel before now’ suggests that at some unspecified point in the past, in the absence of a razor, he had shaved with a dissecting knife. Possibly while at college.

To Richard it suggests he was ‘used’ to shaving with a knife and therefore must have been carrying a ‘razor sharp’ one during his homeless period.