Francis Thompson. The Perfect Suspect.

[Richard Patterson]

Thanks for posting this review Harry D. Perhaps it should be a criminal offense to make such allegations, but that does not make Thompson any less a suspect for the Ripper crimes. I am heartened that you couldn't agree more that Thompson lived in Spitalfields, at the time of the murders. There is hope for you yet.

[Harry D]

Great review of Richard's book on Amazon:

One more tome to add to the already crammed shelf of Ripper books where the author basically picks a suspect then works tirelessly to bend all the facts to fit the theory.
There are hundreds of better Ripper books, this one will just confuse newcomers to the subject and annoy the old hands who will spot all the mistakes and false assumptions being made.
Also, it's written in an artificially flowery way that becomes annoying very quickly. If you want a well-written and concise presentation this is not for you!
On another note, I personally am thoroughly jaded by seeing people's names dragged through the mud just to create another pointless Ripper book. This author desecrates the memory of poet Francis Thomson in the same way that Walter Sickert and Lewis Carroll have had their names and reputations impugned on next to no evidence at all.
In this particular case the evidence amounts to Thomson being in the district at the time (along with thousands of others) and a strange, biased reading of his poetry. It should really be a criminal offense to make such allegations without any worthwhile reason.

Couldn't agree more!

[Richard Patterson]

I know I'm rather late to this discussion by a couple of years but Thompson's prostitute love was named Ann. That seems like a big coincidence to me.

Thanks SuspectZero,

You are never too late to contribute to discussion.

It is an interesting point that you make, that Thompson's prostitute love was named Ann. However her name is a matter of convention rather than literal truth. Nobody has so far been able to determine this prostitute's actual name. Thompson kept that detail to himself, and her existence and past remains as mysterious as Mary Kelly's, the Ripper's November 9th 1888, victim.

The assigning of the name of Ann for Thompson's prostitute is derived from Thomas De' Quincey's prostitute. De'Quincey was a writer who died in 1859, the year of Thompson's birth. Thompson much admired De'Quincey and many circumstances of Thompson's life mirror his. (Both lived poor in London, were dependent on opium, wrote to the same genre and both had a brief relationship with a prostitute.)

Many authors have dubbed Thompson's prostitute Ann, because they have seen the parallels between Thompson and De'Quincey's life and since we know that De'Quincey fell for a prostitute named Ann, biographers on Thompson have applied the name, Ann, for Thompson's unknown prostitute.

Who knows SuspectZero. Thompson's prostitute may have also been called Ann, since Thompson was so keen to replicate De'Quincey's life, though I only speculate that this might be the case.

Thank you for your interest.

PS. Don't neglect examining my official website for my book, which holds a great deal of information on Thompson, my book, and the theory.

http://www.francisjthompson.com/

[SuspectZero]

Hello John.

Interesting question and on the face of it I saw a strong possibility. Thompson had a thing for names. Thompson’s sister was named Mary and so was his mother. The root of Thompson’s conflict with his doctor father was over his remarrying. After the death of Mary, the mother, Dr. Charles Thompson, became engaged to a woman named Anne. What I think is more than a coincidence is that almost all the victims shared the same names as with members of Thompson’s family. As you know two of the Ripper’s victims were named Mary, and another was called Ann. In the 1901 murder, the victim does too with, her name being Mary Ann Austin. Thompson’s sister, Mary, changed her name to Mother Austin, when she became, before this murder. Thompson, who had spent most of his post 1888 life in country monasteries, was living in London in 1901. Details of the 1901 murder are reminiscent of the Ripper, with the focus on mutilation of the reproductive organs. In addition, Thompson’s relationship with his prostitute lover ended when she fled him at the start of June, and the murder of Mary Ann Austin occurred on June 1st.

Despite these things, I am not convinced Thompson killed Mary Ann Austin. The perpetrator slept with the victim. I know that Thompson had a sexual relationship with a prostitute in before 1888, but I think it would have been out of character for Thompson to sleep with an unknown. Also Thompson was living in London, but in Elgin Avenue, on the other side of the city. It still is interesting, that this 1901 murder might have been done by the Ripper, or Thompson, or both, if they are one and the same. I will look into it and find the exact circumstance of Thompson’s movements and mental state during the Austin murder, see if there are any correlations worth presenting.

Thanks for the interest.

I know I'm rather late to this discussion by a couple of years but Thompson's prostitute love was named Ann. That seems like a big coincidence to me.

[Karl]

Yes, I suppose we may add a horse to the list of Ripper victims. We'll never set this matter to rest, no matter how firmly we believe one way or the other.

[Richard Patterson]

The thing is, apart from the Eddowes kidney, nothing points to anatomical knowledge at all. And even in the Eddowes case, there is clear evidence of lack of surgical skill. Not everyone agrees that the "canonical five" were all committed by the same person, either. I personally don't - Elizabeth Stride, in particular, doesn't seem very Ripperish. But even if we stipulate that they were all victims of the same killer: anatomical knowledge/surgical skill is still hotly debated, and by no means established - so it can hardly be described as fact. And because it is still debated, you cannot use someone's surgical skill to boost their status as suspects any more than you can use someone's lack of surgical skill to boost their status as suspects.

Karl,

You are right that whether the murderer had anatomical knowledge or not is still hotly debated. The debate began with the first murder and still continues. When I wrote that people see that the murderer had anatomical knowledge, I should have qualified my statement by adding that not all people see this and that people also believe that the murderer had no medical skill. I do not think either of us will end the debate on if he did or did not in this thread. All I can say is that my suspect Francis Thompson did have considerable anatomical knowledge having studied for several years at a college that emphasized practical learning in dissection and what were then new techniques in organ removal. Did the Ripper have medical knowledge? I could provide a list as long as your arm from professionals and experts stretching back to 1888 that state that he did, as I am sure you could do the same showing that he did not.

Richard

[Karl]

Karl,

The fact remains that many people back then and today see that the Whitechapel murders were committed by someone who necessarily had anatomical knowledge. That Thompson possessed several years in medical training, surely could not hurt the chances of him being a suspect, like everything else about Thompson.

Richard

The thing is, apart from the Eddowes kidney, nothing points to anatomical knowledge at all. And even in the Eddowes case, there is clear evidence of lack of surgical skill. Not everyone agrees that the "canonical five" were all committed by the same person, either. I personally don't - Elizabeth Stride, in particular, doesn't seem very Ripperish. But even if we stipulate that they were all victims of the same killer: anatomical knowledge/surgical skill is still hotly debated, and by no means established - so it can hardly be described as fact. And because it is still debated, you cannot use someone's surgical skill to boost their status as suspects any more than you can use someone's lack of surgical skill to boost their status as suspects.

[Richard Patterson]

Karl,

The fact remains that many people back then and today see that the Whitechapel murders were committed by someone who necessarily had anatomical knowledge. That Thompson possessed several years in medical training, surely could not hurt the chances of him being a suspect, like everything else about Thompson.

Richard

[Richard Patterson]

Hi Trevor,
I find that Dr. Bond saw no anatomical knowledge with regards to the Kelly murder, and that was his professional opinion. However, I and others see evidence that there was anatomical knowledge.

Richard

[Karl]

Karl. I agree with you 100 % what I have arrived at is a hypothesis. Ok so with Francis Thompson we have a man who in the time of the Ripper murders, was homeless and a highly trained medical student. He had a dissecting scalpel, and a history of mental illness, trouble with the police and a drug habit. He had just broken up with a prostitute and had already written about cutting women’s stomachs open. At the same time, a few yards opposite his refuge, a Mary Kelly was knifed, as part of a spate of prostitute murders, which one coroner said was by someone who had considerable anatomical skill and knowledge. These are not facts which have been plucked out of the air. The have been established long before I came up with the theory and they are all already in published books by authors who have strong credentials. Perhaps the case may never be solved but I believe that the theory that Thompson was the Ripper should be rigorously examined and questioned and not simply tossed aside because he happened to be at one time famous. It seems that Casebook has for a very a very long time ignored Thompson and that could be forgiven if so much effort meanwhile has not been spent examining other suspects that are connected to the crimes on the filmiest evidence.

No, Thompson should not be tossed out as a suspect simply because he is somewhat famous. But none of my counterarguments to your hypothesis has had anything to do with his celebrity status.

As for surgical/anatomical knowledge/skill, that remains a point of contention. And it mainly revolves around Catherine Eddowes - I do not recall anyone claiming the butchery of Mary Jane Kelly was particularly skillful.

[Trevor Marriott]

Karl. I agree with you 100 % what I have arrived at is a hypothesis. Ok so with Francis Thompson we have a man who in the time of the Ripper murders, was homeless and a highly trained medical student. He had a dissecting scalpel, and a history of mental illness, trouble with the police and a drug habit. He had just broken up with a prostitute and had already written about cutting women’s stomachs open. At the same time, a few yards opposite his refuge, a Mary Kelly was knifed, as part of a spate of prostitute murders, which one coroner said was by someone who had considerable anatomical skill and knowledge. These are not facts which have been plucked out of the air. The have been established long before I came up with the theory and they are all already in published books by authors who have strong credentials. Perhaps the case may never be solved but I believe that the theory that Thompson was the Ripper should be rigorously examined and questioned and not simply tossed aside because he happened to be at one time famous. It seems that Casebook has for a very a very long time ignored Thompson and that could be forgiven if so much effort meanwhile has not been spent examining other suspects that are connected to the crimes on the filmiest evidence.

I think you will find that no anatomical knowledge was shown with regards to the Kelly murder.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Richard Patterson]

This is what the scientific method is all about: falsification. Patterns are all too easy to find, and may lead to absolutely false conclusions. It is vital, for any theory to be viable, to withstand barrages of criticism. If it stands upright even after all attempts to tear it down, then there might be something to it. Science is endlessly self-critical. Until an hypothesis has been subjected to a rigorous falsification process, it remains an hypothesis.

Karl. I agree with you 100 % what I have arrived at is a hypothesis. Ok so with Francis Thompson we have a man who in the time of the Ripper murders, was homeless and a highly trained medical student. He had a dissecting scalpel, and a history of mental illness, trouble with the police and a drug habit. He had just broken up with a prostitute and had already written about cutting women’s stomachs open. At the same time, a few yards opposite his refuge, a Mary Kelly was knifed, as part of a spate of prostitute murders, which one coroner said was by someone who had considerable anatomical skill and knowledge. These are not facts which have been plucked out of the air. The have been established long before I came up with the theory and they are all already in published books by authors who have strong credentials. Perhaps the case may never be solved but I believe that the theory that Thompson was the Ripper should be rigorously examined and questioned and not simply tossed aside because he happened to be at one time famous. It seems that Casebook has for a very a very long time ignored Thompson and that could be forgiven if so much effort meanwhile has not been spent examining other suspects that are connected to the crimes on the filmiest evidence.

[Karl]

Speaking as someone who has taught for some years, there is a difference between rational and habitual criticism. It seems that the habit at present is to solely find holes in theories advanced, while doing nothing to see where connections can be made. If an untruth is written then any critic worth their salt should expose it, but tearing down ideas by solely focusing on weaknesses frustrates research.

This is what the scientific method is all about: falsification. Patterns are all too easy to find, and may lead to absolutely false conclusions. It is vital, for any theory to be viable, to withstand barrages of criticism. If it stands upright even after all attempts to tear it down, then there might be something to it. Science is endlessly self-critical. Until an hypothesis has been subjected to a rigorous falsification process, it remains an hypothesis.

[Richard Patterson]

Hi Richard,

On this thread, Mr. Barnett has argued persuasively and provided historical documentation showing Francis Thompson could have easily stayed at the Providence Row Night Refuge in Spitalfields during any of the three (3) previous winter seasons he was in London. Not exclusively November 1888 and at no other time. I tend to agree.

I can assure you that neither Mr Barnett or myself are trying to denigrate your overall theory. Simply discussing this aspect.

Roy

There’s staying and there’s staying. Mr. Barnett showed that Thompson could have stayed the 3 years previous if he had been deceptive. If Thompson had given references that when checked proved to be false, then he would have been booted out of the Providence Row. In my twenty years of studying this man, I have never found evidence that points to him as deceptive, a serial killer maybe, but not a liar. He could have stayed before November 1888, but he I choose to side with what is likely not just what is possible. If Thompson had given false references to get into the Row, do you think he then would have written about his stay there in his article in the ‘Merry England’ a respected Catholic magazine? I doubt that he would have or that his editor would have allowed it. Certainly Mr. Barnett has shown that he could have stayed in the Row with the required references but unless he can prove Thompson a liar, he has simply provided us with further possibilities.

I should add, what I have said before. That if Thompson did stay at the Row before 1888 if only serves to increase the history of his association with Spitalfields and increases the likelihood that he may have formed associations with the murdered prostitutes. This of course does not lesson his strength as a suspect. In fact if it were not for Mr Barnett’s careful research I would not have felt compelled to do some more reading which led me to discover that Providence Row may have been unique as shelter for not locking residents in at night and therefore allowing them to leave at all hours. Something I find to be very interesting.

As to whether Mr Barnett or yourself have tried to denigrate my overall theory, I see no evidence of that and I am sorry if my comment made it seem like I believe this. My comment addresses no particular person. I believe that you and Mr. Barnett have behaved very cordially throughout this thread and I welcome your commentary and questions.

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Richard,

On this thread, Mr. Barnett has argued persuasively and provided historical documentation showing Francis Thompson could have easily stayed at the Providence Row Night Refuge in Spitalfields during any of the three (3) previous winter seasons he was in London. Not exclusively November 1888 and at no other time. I tend to agree.

I can assure you that neither Mr Barnett or myself are trying to denigrate your overall theory. Simply discussing this aspect.

Roy