Francis Thompson. The Perfect Suspect.

[Abby Normal]

Out of the more than 100 Ripper suspects ever named, only one can be shown to have had a knife at the time of the murders, where they occurred - Francis Thompson. In 1888, he was a mentally ill, drug addicted man who carried a razor- sharp dissecting knife, kept from his years of studying medicine. He had already been in trouble with the police and had a history of arson, theft, and mutilating. His sole purpose for living in the Providence Row refuge, less than 100 yards from where Jack the Ripper victim, Mary Kelly, was killed was to find a prostitute who had humiliated him. He had already written about ripping their stomachs open.

But don't worry about any of that because it all comes down to interpreting his poetry.

hi Richard

and mutilating

he had a history of mutilation? of what? can you please expound on this.

[MrBarnett]

When Thompson wrote that he had shaved with a dissecting scalpel before now it would have meant at a time prior to February 1889, when the letter was written. It's possible that he may have been referring to a practice he engaged in at some time before his homelessness such as when he attended medical school. However it is far more likely that he would have used his dissecting scalpel to have shaved when he was without a razor blade. There is only one time that we know that occurred and this was right before 1889, during the murders. If this were not true then there would have been no reason for him to have requested a razor in his letter in the first place.

In February, 1889 he was without a razor and presumably also without a dissecting knife or he could have continued his practice of shaving with one.

The truth is we do not know whether he carried any kind of shaving implement in 1888 or whether he spent any time at all in the East End during the murders.

As for resentment towards his Chelsea prostitute, we have only Thompson’s own words to go on, and he invariably spoke of her in terms of affection and gratitude. She left him because, she said, ‘they [the Meynell’s etc] will not understand our relationship’. She had rescued him from utter degradation, then when she felt her presence might hinder his career, she left. What had he to be resentful of?

[MrBarnett]

You are right, when I wrote these words my research showed to me that he spent the bulk of his homeless years in the East End. Now I would refine this claim. Instead it is more truer to say that Thompson spent much of his homeless years in the West End of London, only residing in the East End area during the months of the murders. I think this to be more accurate and it also happens to be a stronger case for Thompson being suspected since his moving to the East End coincides with the Ripper murders.

Is there any hard evidence at all that he was in the East End during August-November, 1888?

[Richard Patterson]

This just isn’t true is it, Richard?

Opportunity:
Thompson was able to walk the streets at all hours. Being homeless for 3 years in the East End, he was part of the landscape and could come and go without rousing suspicion.


Why say he was homeless in the East End for 3 years when you know that he wasn’t?

You are right, when I wrote these words my research showed to me that he spent the bulk of his homeless years in the East End. Now I would refine this claim. Instead it is more truer to say that Thompson spent much of his homeless years in the West End of London, only residing in the East End area during the months of the murders. I think this to be more accurate and it also happens to be a stronger case for Thompson being suspected since his moving to the East End coincides with the Ripper murders.

[Richard Patterson]

What happened to ‘well put’?

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how you conclude Thompson was carrying a razor sharp knife in 1888 on the basis of the anecdotal ‘I have shaved with a dissecting scalpel before now’.

Do you think that seemingly throw-away remark would have weighed heavily against him in a court of law?

When Thompson wrote that he had shaved with a dissecting scalpel before now it would have meant at a time prior to February 1889, when the letter was written. It's possible that he may have been referring to a practice he engaged in at some time before his homelessness such as when he attended medical school. However it is far more likely that he would have used his dissecting scalpel to have shaved when he was without a razor blade. There is only one time that we know that occurred and this was right before 1889, during the murders. If this were not true then there would have been no reason for him to have requested a razor in his letter in the first place.

[MrBarnett]

This just isn’t true is it, Richard?

Opportunity:
Thompson was able to walk the streets at all hours. Being homeless for 3 years in the East End, he was part of the landscape and could come and go without rousing suspicion.


Why say he was homeless in the East End for 3 years when you know that he wasn’t?

[MrBarnett]

Not quite a correct summary but nice try.

What happened to ‘well put’?

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how you conclude Thompson was carrying a razor sharp knife in 1888 on the basis of the anecdotal ‘I have shaved with a dissecting scalpel before now’.

Do you think that seemingly throw-away remark would have weighed heavily against him in a court of law?

[Richard Patterson]

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.

Not quite a correct summary but nice try.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[GUT]

But circumstantial can also be challenged by innocent alternate explanations.

[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.