Francis Thompson. The Perfect Suspect.

[GUT]

Thanks Richard

We have enough sources to pretty much state it was a fact that FT stayed at Providence Row night refuge, but we have not been able to get exact dates. We contacted Providence Row and there was response was,

And that is such a shame. It is one thing that think you need to give lot of attention to, in effect be able to show just where he was during the killings.

We have tried to find any details of the supposed hospital he is said to have stayed in, but we have not found his name in any records. Our best bet was The Hospital for Consumption and Diseases of the Chest (the Brompton hospital) but his name is not listed in the records that go as far back as the 1840's.

But why couldn't it have been some other hospital? Why do you favour The Hospital for Consumption and Diseases of the Chest.

[Richard Patterson]

This hospital was the nearest and largest hospital to Linden Gardens Bayswater where Wilfrid Meynell, his editor, was living temporarily from Mid 1888 onwards. Some biographers suspect he may have been admitted there on the pretext of a chest infection. John Walsh's 1967 biography on FT has this to say in the appendix.
‘It has never been made quite clear whether he was also being treated for tuberculosis at this time. It would appear, however, that he was not. Brompton Hospital was the only institution in South Kensington, and for quite a large portion of the surrounding area, that cared for tuberculosis patients at that time, and the hospital records, complete as far back as 1841, do not include Thompson’s name. Many hospitals, on the other hand, could have been found to admit a drug addict. Information courtesy of K. Miles Governor of Brompton Hospital.’

[John G]

But surely the main issue is that we don't know precisely where any suspect was, at the time any of the murders were committed, with the possible exception of Cross/Lechmere. If we did, presumably the case would be solved by now.

For me, the evidence points to Thompson staying at Providence Row at the time of Kelly's murder, which is surely at least as relevant as the fact that, say, William Bury, a strong suspect, was living in the East End of London and may possibly have visited Whitechapel on occasion.

[Richard Patterson]

It’s probably because Jack the Ripper was Francis Thompson that the Ripper killed his last victim 100 meters from where Thompson lived in the Providence Row night refuge. The Ripper killed using specialized techniques of dissection that Thompson had been taught. The Ripper killed with very much the same knife as the one Thompson was carrying. Jack the Ripper killed prostitutes like the one Thompson had recently broken up with and who had fled him. Right after the murders, the Ripper disappeared, as did Thompson who left the refuge when he was placed in sanatorium and then in a monastery. The Ripper wrote letters to the press about killing prostitutes with his knife whilst Thompson, a pressman, wrote about ritual knife murders and the killing of prostitutes. [Thompson's Life Mask]

[Michael W Richards]

Im very leery of suspect pronouncements that are built upon the suspects life and assumed parallels with actions taken, or emotions felt, by the "Ripper". It would be refreshing if someone was only called a "suspect" if we knew he had the access, the means and the motives to do these things, and a viable connection to at least 1 Canonical victim or murder scene. Like the Isenschmidt presence very near the Hanbury Street murder.

Someone who could kill, use knives effectively and lived in London at that time isn't strong enough evidence to call that person anything more than a dangerous presence in the area...the "Suspect" tag should be reserved for people with all the requisite components but also including some connection to a Canonical victim, the murder scene on the night of the murder, or a witness sighting on the night of the respective murder, or after the fact....without evidence of something you have only speculation, and we can all get our fill of that on the boards....I don't believe anyone needs speculative Suspect based books anymore.

Cheers

[Richard Patterson]

Im very leery of suspect pronouncements that are built upon the suspects life and assumed parallels with actions taken, or emotions felt, by the "Ripper". It would be refreshing if someone was only called a "suspect" if we knew he had the access, the means and the motives to do these things, and a viable connection to at least 1 Canonical victim or murder scene. Like the Isenschmidt presence very near the Hanbury Street murder.

Someone who could kill, use knives effectively and lived in London at that time isn't strong enough evidence to call that person anything more than a dangerous presence in the area...the "Suspect" tag should be reserved for people with all the requisite components but also including some connection to a Canonical victim, the murder scene on the night of the murder, or a witness sighting on the night of the respective murder, or after the fact....without evidence of something you have only speculation, and we can all get our fill of that on the boards....I don't believe anyone needs speculative Suspect based books anymore.

Cheers

My speculation that Thompson might have been the ripper is a reasonable conclusion since he was near the crime scenes, had a knife, and surgical skill. He also wrote about killing prostitutes whom he associated with and he also matches witness descriptions. I do not believe anyone needs speculation that the Ripper must have a connection to the Canonical victims when we know serial killers murder strangers.

[John Wheat]

the "Suspect" tag should be reserved for people with all the requisite components but also including some connection to a Canonical victim....without evidence of something you have only speculation, and we can all get our fill of that on the boards....I don't believe anyone needs speculative Suspect based books anymore.

To Michael

Why does a suspect need a connection to a Canonical victim? Having said that I agree with your point about speculative suspect books and I don't believe Francis Thompson is much of a suspect.

Cheers John

[Richard Patterson]

The Dear Boss Letter and Thompson.

People are probably wrong to think that the ‘Dear Boss’ letter was a forgery and written by Bulling at the Central News Agency. Some people think the Ripper letters were faked. Simon Wood’s book, ‘Deconstructing Jack: The Secret History of the Whitechapel Murder’ is a typical example of this, when he writes, ‘…Somehow it did not seem strange to the English public that an ignorant Whitechapel murderer should write his communication a s news agency which he could not possibly know anything about…’ Obviously, Wood did not know Francis Thompson lived in Whitechapel. Thompson was a writer and journalist was born in Manchester in 1859. He moved to London where he gained some fame for his poems. He died in 1907 and is now largely unknown. He spent the years 1885 to 1888 living homeless in London. Today he is largely unknown. Some people think the Ripper letters are fakes because in 1888, the journalist George Sims wrote in the “Referee” on Sunday October 7th about, The 'Dear Boss' Letter.

‘Jack The Ripper is the hero of the hour. A gruesome wag, a grim practical joker, has succeeded in getting an enormous amount of fun out of a postcard which he sent to the Central News. The fun is all his own, and nobody shares in it, but he must be gloating demonically at the present moment at the state of perturbation in which he has flung the public mind. Grave journals have reproduced the sorry jest, and have attempted to seriously argue that the awful Whitechapel fiend is the idle and mischievous idiot who sends blood-stained postcards to the news agency. Of course the whole business is a farce.'

The journalist Wilfrid Meynell, who rescued Francis Thompson from homelessness at the end of 1888, was a close friend of George Sims. They correspondent with each other, and Sims collaborated on a book with Meynell's son.

Dr Robert Anderson, who was placed in charge of the murder investigation. It is primarily Anderson’s remarks that are used by Ripperologists to discount the letter as a forgery. The Assistant Commissioner wrote

'The "Jack the Ripper" letter is the creation of an enterprising London journalist...I am almost tempted to disclose the identity of the murderer and the pressman who wrote the letter.'

He is interpreted as indicating that the author of the Dear Boss letter. Was Thomas Bulling, a journalist employed by the Central News Agency, but read Anderson’s remarks as the verbatim he says ‘the murderer’ and ‘the pressman. He is talking about not one but two people - a ‘murderer’ and a ‘pressman’.

Probably Jack the Ripper was Francis Thompson because the Ripper killed his last victim 100 meters from where Thompson lived in the Providence Row night refuge. Thompson was a writer who was born in Manchester in 1859. He moved to London where he gained some fame for his poems. He died in 1907 and most people nowadays do not know him. From witness reports the Ripper looked, dressed, sounded, walked and spoke like Thompson. The Ripper killed using specialized techniques of dissection that Thompson had been taught. The Ripper killed with very much the same knife as the one Thompson was carrying. Jack the Ripper killed prostitutes like the one Thompson had recently broken up with and who had fled him. Right after the murders, the Ripper disappeared, as did Thompson who left the refuge when he was placed in sanatorium and then in a monastery. The 1888 uncaught Whitechapel murderer of perhaps more than 5 women got his name from the ‘Dear Boss’ letter in which the writer claimed to be the killer and signed it ‘Jack the Ripper.’ The police put up hundreds of poster showing copies of this letter asking for anyone who knew the handwriting to come forwards. The Ripper wrote letters to the press about killing prostitutes with his knife whilst Thompson, a pressman, wrote about ritual knife murders and the killing of prostitutes. The Ripper’s Dear Boss letter and Thompson used the same style of handwriting, themes and phrases, probably because this English writer was Jack the Ripper.

John Evangelist Walsh, an historian and writer, was the first person, to connect Thompson to the Ripper crimes. In his 1967 book “Strange Harp, Strange Symphony the Life of Francis Thompson.” In his book on this English poet, Walsh included this footnote in the appendix,

'At this time occurred the most bizarre coincidence in Thompson's life. During the very weeks he was searching for his prostitute friend, London was in an uproar over the ghastly deaths of five such women at the hands of Jack the Ripper. In these circumstances, his concern for his friend’s welfare would naturally have been heightened. 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! A young man with a similar background and living only a block away from McMaster’s shop was one who early came under suspicion,’

Wilfrid Meynell, who took Thompson off the streets, was fascinated in Jack the Ripper. Katharine Tynan, the Irish writer, and friend of the Meynell’s in her biography ‘Twenty-five Years: Reminiscences, “ wrote about it.

Her biography was published in 1913. The same year Meynell published that Thompson’s “Complete Works”. The same year the first successful novelization of the Ripper murders, ‘The Lodger” written by Marie Belloc Lowndes was published. Her publisher was a firm Meynell worked for. It was situated two doors down from his office. The brother of the author of the Lodger, Hilair Belloc, was a close friend of Meynell, and like Thompson had first been published in Meynell’s magazine. In 1888, Tynan was living with the Meynell’s. In her book, she describes Meynell’s interest in the Whitechapel murderer.

“I paid my last visit to the Cardinal just before I left for home at the end of September. The visit was made in the early forenoon, and as we walked along from Victoria Station, the newsboys were shouting the latest Jack-the-Ripper murder. We were the first to carry the intelligence to the Cardinal, who received us in the little inner room off his big room, where he sat by the fire wearing his warm quilted overcoat. I suppose there was an autumnal nip in the air, though I did not feel it. He looked very old and frail as he sat there; and now and again, he hummed to himself in a way, which spoke painfully of old age. I dare say the business of the dock strike had wearied him, for he looked a very tired old saint that day. When Wilfred Meynell told him of the murder, he closed his eyes and the strangest look came into his face, " careful for a whole world of sin and pain.” … I was quite angry when Wilfred set out to demonstrate to me that the Jack-the-Ripper murders were the work of an Irishman.”’

Anderson said the Dear Boss letter was written by a pressman who knew the murderer. Sims, one of the most vocal advocates for the letter being a hoax, was a friend of the pressman, Wilfrid Meynell. Francis Thompson, who has been long connected to the murders, was a friend and collaborator of Meynell. I know I’m speculating but Francis Thompson might have been the Ripper and Wilfrid Meynell might have had something to do with the ‘Dear Boss’ letter.

[Richard Patterson]

Hand writing samples.

Side by side photos of parts of the Dear Boss letter (left) and a letter by Francis Thompson (right)

[Richard Patterson]

More samples of handwriting,

[Richard Patterson]

One more of handwriting comparison. The Dear Boss letter is center and Thompson's handwriting is on each corner.

[Pcdunn]

I noticed at once that the capital "I" in Thompson's samples does not greatly resemble that in the purported Ripper letter. The crossbar is longer in the former, and shorter in the latter.
Look also at the slant of the letters, and how Thompson's writing seems to reflect a certain wobblieness, perhaps suggesting infirmity or age, while the "Dear Boss" letter seems much firmer and stronger. Even if this indicates Thompson's addiction or poor health as a cosumptive, it is clear that the writer of the Ripper letter did not share these conditions.
Remember that most 19th century handwriting by educated people resembles the standard pattern they were taught, so it is necessary to look beyond superficial similarities.

[Richard Patterson]

I noticed at once that the capital "I" in Thompson's samples does not greatly resemble that in the purported Ripper letter. The crossbar is longer in the former, and shorter in the latter.
Look also at the slant of the letters, and how Thompson's writing seems to reflect a certain wobblieness, perhaps suggesting infirmity or age, while the "Dear Boss" letter seems much firmer and stronger. Even if this indicates Thompson's addiction or poor health as a cosumptive, it is clear that the writer of the Ripper letter did not share these conditions.
Remember that most 19th century handwriting by educated people resembles the standard pattern they were taught, so it is necessary to look beyond superficial similarities.

Thanks for looking. The Dear Boss letter was sent when Thompson had temporarily withdrawn from his drug laudanum. The samples of Thompson's writing are all after 1888 when he returned to using. I see some differences in the handwriting, but I don't think you will, just from searching the internet ,find a closer match. I appreciate your observations.

[Pcdunn]

Thanks for looking. The Dear Boss letter was sent when Thompson had temporarily withdrawn from his drug laudanum. The samples of Thompson's writing are all after 1888 when he returned to using. I see some differences in the handwriting, but I don't think you will, just from searching the internet ,find a closer match. I appreciate your observations.

You're welcome, Richard.
At the time I wrote my previous post, I had not seen your samples of individual words between Thompson and the Ripper on the previous page. I see differences in several example words. Thompson's "and" is connected at the "n" and "d", while "Jack the Ripper" wrote the word "and" with the "d" distinctly set apart from the "an" portion of the word.
Slight differences matter in handwriting analysis, so they should not be dismissed. I am no more than an observant amatuer, however, and would recommend that you find a professional document examiner to look these over and give you an opinion.

[Richard Patterson]

Thank you. You are right there are small differences. I have had one expert look at the the handwriting and they also noted the same dissimilarities.