Francis Thompson. The Perfect Suspect.

[Richard Patterson]

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. Also, and perhaps not on this thread but certainly on the message boards, often it is the case that the line between attacking the arguement and the person presenting it are often blurred. This may have to do with the tendency to not wanting to appear gullible which is just as good as any reason to defend a position, but there are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true. We should all question what are brought forward as facts, and defend common sense and if Thompson is innocent of the crimes then there is nothing wrong in joining in the queue of those who have defended him. Even if it is a long line stretching back a century. At the front of it are Thompson’s editor who said that Thompson could not harm the proverbial fly and his wife who said he was one of the most innocent of men. In addition, the papers like the Stylus that printed, just months after Thompson’s death, that he had done the world an inestimable good, and that he was a true miracle performed by the Holy Ghost. I see a problem behind this adamant belief in cheerfully kicking holes in the results of research posted here. It may seem to be honourable to those here, but to outsiders, who see him as a strong suspect, and I am happy to argue Thompson’s candidacy against any other suspect ever advanced on this board, it is not simply a defense of proprietary and methodology which is taking place. It is defending a murderer.

[GUT]

So passive-aggressive! Okay, I'll play..

If I ever were to settle on a suspect with enough conviction to write a book about it, this is the first place I'd run to - why? because the kind folks here will cheerfully kick holes in the parts which are most thinly-plastered, thereby neatly identifying the weak spots in direst need of demolition or bolstering, is why.

Though I can see why some people might percieve this as mean and nasty --oh, and even offensively. outrageously ignorant! - behaviour, I would find it immensely useful. Even if only to help cement my own convictions.. (there again, I'd likely admit to myself that were they made of such strong stuff, there might not be so many boot-holes in them.)

And this role is all I feel presently "qualified" to play in this discussion, Richard (speaking frankly and directly, just for a moment, sorry) - which may change, after I get my hands on all necessary materials to form a solid enough opinion of the suspect for myself. Until then, I'll do you a kindness and back right off.

Cheers.

I agree about wanting the holes pointed out.

[Ausgirl]

So passive-aggressive! Okay, I'll play..

If I ever were to settle on a suspect with enough conviction to write a book about it, this is the first place I'd run to - why? because the kind folks here will cheerfully kick holes in the parts which are most thinly-plastered, thereby neatly identifying the weak spots in direst need of demolition or bolstering, is why.

Though I can see why some people might percieve this as mean and nasty --oh, and even offensively. outrageously ignorant! - behaviour, I would find it immensely useful. Even if only to help cement my own convictions.. (there again, I'd likely admit to myself that were they made of such strong stuff, there might not be so many boot-holes in them.)

And this role is all I feel presently "qualified" to play in this discussion, Richard (speaking frankly and directly, just for a moment, sorry) - which may change, after I get my hands on all necessary materials to form a solid enough opinion of the suspect for myself. Until then, I'll do you a kindness and back right off.

Cheers.

[Richard Patterson]

Personally I think you can do better Richard.

Trying to link a poem that is clearly written by a religious man about Christ and the Virgin Mary is another turn off to me.

Did you seriously never think to look at what well known person rose to prominence in 1888 who also was in Spitalfields?

From my book,

'Of all the famous characters of the Victorian Age, only two, Thompson and the Ripper are so often spoken of remaining unknown. During the time of the murders, when he was homeless, [In Spitalfields] and afterwards, Thompson knew hardly anyone. The daughter of his agent [Viola Meynell] wrote that how, just like the Ripper, ‘Francis Thompson must have been known to fewer people than anyone who has achieved so much fame.’

It's just that the papers always ask me why nobody else in the field suggested Thompson was the Ripper and I'm running out of clever answers. I wonder why so many Ripper related researchers like to talk about how I make leaps of logic, is it to hide the fact that they made none.

[GUT]

Personally I think you can do better Richard.

Trying to link a poem that is clearly written by a religious man about Christ and the Virgin Mary is another turn off to me.

[GUT]

The ripper - the most famous Unknown own person who rose to fame in 1888
Thompson the most famous unknown person who rose to fame in 1888.

A long bow being drawn, but that seems normal in suspect based ripperology.

[Richard Patterson]

One person's opinion so relax.

This post is not directed to anyone, particularly to those who have spent years studying the whys and wherefores of the Whitechapel Murder Investigation.

After over 100 years in which everyone who knew anything of Thompson compared him to saint or a poetic messiah with a legacy of doing inestimable good, I’m happy to over egg it when it comes to pushing his guilt.

Certainly, a trait of all suspect driven people would be to make links where people do not see them. I make links about Thompson everyday. Some turn out to be right but most I find to be fruitless, but I call it research. I see a connection and make a call on it. My book is mostly written by rebuttals and explanations I have had to make about my claims. In fact if I only wrote down those claims that nobody has presented a strong argument against, I would only have a cover.

If I am guilty of seeing connections that nobody sees I could say the same to you and everyone else with an interest in the Ripper who claims to study the case of being guilty of not making connections which are blindingly obvious. It’s not as if Thompson was the invisible man.

The Ripper - the most famous unknown person who rose to fame in 1888
Thompson the most famous unknown person who rose to fame in 1888.

Where were they both? Spitalfields.

Who wouldn’t look at what well known persons rose to prominence who happened to be in London?
Apparently every Ripper expert, apart from me and a pathologist in Texas.

See. There I go again shooting myself in the foot. If I weren’t so busy offending people they might climb on board and be useful, and actually put real effort in solving the case and doing justice to five dead women. It’s my fault not everyone else’s. If only I was a better presenter huh?

[GUT]

Oh don't cry.

I think Thompson is a decent suspect for reasons I would state but Patrick S has just now posted up \a pretty decent summary of I would have said anyway.

I do argue points, where I think you're seriously overstating something, or joining dots in such an obviously forced way that it (as I've said before..) undermines the credibility of the rest of your argument, makes it too easy to poke holes in where there's no real need to include such wispy things at all.

Perhaps I could pat your back for the convincing bits, but I'd rather wait until after I obtain the book.

I so agree that when the over egging starts it reduces the credibility of the whole thing, but is seems many proponents of suspects can't resist. To be frank I was very interested in Thimpson then all the symbolism etc started and I thought oh well if he is that week a suspect I will just pass.

[Ausgirl]

That's ok. It's not you. It's me. I must not have explained myself properly here. Win some lose some. You know I have no idea why you think Thompson is a good suspect. You have never liked/agreed with any point I have made. Perhaps you know something I don't. Anyway we make a good team, only I don't know yet which one of us is the fall guy.

Oh don't cry.

I think Thompson is a decent suspect for reasons I would state but Patrick S has just now posted up \a pretty decent summary of I would have said anyway.

I do argue points, where I think you're seriously overstating something, or joining dots in such an obviously forced way that it (as I've said before..) undermines the credibility of the rest of your argument, makes it too easy to poke holes in where there's no real need to include such wispy things at all.

Perhaps I could pat your back for the convincing bits, but I'd rather wait until after I obtain the book.

[Richard Patterson]

Hello, Richard.

First, congratulations on the book. I've read this thread in its entirety it is obvious that you have done a tremendous amount of research. You've provided - I think - invaluable and interesting information on Thompson and his possible connection to the Whitechapel murders. I find that I'm now required to read Walsh's biography and then, of course, your book before I can speak lucidly about Thompson, and ask the myriad questions I'm certain to have.

I'll can say at this early stage, though, that I find Thompson very interesting, mainly because of what we know of his background, his lifestyle, how he related to others, how others perceived him. Again, I have only a cursory knowledge, at this point. But, in reading the information you've provided here it is obvious that Thompson was not a family man, working man, every man, etc. He was - it seems - a very unusual and disturbed man with the requisite childhood/life preceding 1888 that one might reasonably expect of the Whitechapel murderer. This, obviously, makes us look more closely at Thompson as a possible 'Ripper'.

The last "suspect" I took seriously enough to fully familiarize myself with was "Lechmere". Perhaps even more so than Thompson, the idea of Lechmere as Jack the Ripper was interesting and intriguing. Of course, as many here know, my research into him led me to discount him. And I now view him as an unlikely killer.

I would compare Thompson's poetry to Lechmere's "false" name issue. It's enough make one look more closely, to become intrigued. Scratching the surface, with Lechmere, we find eleven children, a fifty year marriage, a stable, twenty-plus year career with one employer (no mean feat in the Victorian East End), a pensioner who opens a small shop, dies past 70, leaving his family a (for then) tidy estate. Clearly, these things do not make it impossible that he was a serial killer. But the possibility becomes less plausible when one learns that some - shall we say - creative thinking must be applied to the "hows" and "whys" of his actions, not only in Buck's Row and at the inquest, but throughout his life.

As I say, based on what you've presented of Thompson's character and personality, I'm quite anxious to begin my reading.

Thanks.

Hi Patrick,

Thanks for taking an interest in Francis Thompson. I like you see merit in Thompson because unlike other suspects, who were either run of the mill murderers or conmen or simply witnesses on their way to work, Thompson is situated far removed from the normalcy that we would even assign to the common criminal. This removal from the affairs of everyday man is to me the type of person we should be studying when it comes to a series of murders also far removed from anything else that society had encountered. The writer G.K Chesterton said of Thompson that he stood outside from the Victorian age and the same can be said of the Ripper murders.

I am happy to answer any questions of course, though it may help you if I restate the conclusions that I have reached so far. I think that he was the murderer but I am happy to have other people prove or disprove it. If I have simply raised his profile so that others investigate, then I have done my part. I do think that he planned the murders beforehand and justified it afterwards. I think that his luck after each successful murder increased his daring and bolstered his belief that he was acting as some sort of agent to a greater divine plan. I also think that Wilfrid Meynell and perhaps a few others also came to the same realization though I cannot unequivocally state when they did. I believe that some knew certainly by after his death and perhaps even sooner. I believe that their was a concerted attempt to rebrand Thompson as the most innocent of men after his death and a cover up. I do not think that this cover up was orchestrated by agencies who controlled large sections of the police or press, so it was not a vast conspiracy of the likes that theorists like to apply to other mysteries. Finally, I do not think that only Joseph Rupp, in 1988, saw Thompson as the person responsible before I did, but that bringing forward Thompson as a suspect, while his popularity was at its height would have been doomed to failure. These are just my thoughts and these observations could never be fully explained on this forum, much of what I have summarized are dealt with in my book.

I recommend that before you read Walsh’s book, or even mine, that you read Everard Meynell’s ‘The life of Francis Thompson’. It is written for a turn of the century Catholic literary audience so many of the terms within it are obscure now and there is strong bias towards Thompson since it was written by the son of Thompson’s editor, benefactor and literary heir. Also the editor, Wilfrid Meynell, had final say over its contents. Yet despite all this it gives a comprehensive account of Thompson. When you read Walsh’s book, you will be surprised how much of what Walsh writes comes from this single book. Here is a link to the book.

https://archive.org/details/lifeoffrancistho00meyn

Of course my website on my book does cover a lot of ground and also my Facebook Thompson Ripper group has a lot of material too which you are welcome to join if you use that social network.

Good luck with it all,
Richard.

[Patrick S]

Hello, Richard.

First, congratulations on the book. I've read this thread in its entirety it is obvious that you have done a tremendous amount of research. You've provided - I think - invaluable and interesting information on Thompson and his possible connection to the Whitechapel murders. I find that I'm now required to read Walsh's biography and then, of course, your book before I can speak lucidly about Thompson, and ask the myriad questions I'm certain to have.

I'll can say at this early stage, though, that I find Thompson very interesting, mainly because of what we know of his background, his lifestyle, how he related to others, how others perceived him. Again, I have only a cursory knowledge, at this point. But, in reading the information you've provided here it is obvious that Thompson was not a family man, working man, every man, etc. He was - it seems - a very unusual and disturbed man with the requisite childhood/life preceding 1888 that one might reasonably expect of the Whitechapel murderer. This, obviously, makes us look more closely at Thompson as a possible 'Ripper'.

The last "suspect" I took seriously enough to fully familiarize myself with was "Lechmere". Perhaps even more so than Thompson, the idea of Lechmere as Jack the Ripper was interesting and intriguing. Of course, as many here know, my research into him led me to discount him. And I now view him as an unlikely killer.

I would compare Thompson's poetry to Lechmere's "false" name issue. It's enough make one look more closely, to become intrigued. Scratching the surface, with Lechmere, we find eleven children, a fifty year marriage, a stable, twenty-plus year career with one employer (no mean feat in the Victorian East End), a pensioner who opens a small shop, dies past 70, leaving his family a (for then) tidy estate. Clearly, these things do not make it impossible that he was a serial killer. But the possibility becomes less plausible when one learns that some - shall we say - creative thinking must be applied to the "hows" and "whys" of his actions, not only in Buck's Row and at the inquest, but throughout his life.

As I say, based on what you've presented of Thompson's character and personality, I'm quite anxious to begin my reading.

Thanks.

[Richard Patterson]

I just can't see any of that in the poem concerned. Sorry.

That's ok. It's not you. It's me. I must not have explained myself properly here. Win some lose some. You know I have no idea why you think Thompson is a good suspect. You have never liked/agreed with any point I have made. Perhaps you know something I don't. Anyway we make a good team, only I don't know yet which one of us is the fall guy.

[Ausgirl]

What does his mother, Mary's death have to do with the East End dead prostitutes victims, or the death of other females he loved like his sister Helen who died when he was five for that matter?

I just can't see any of that in the poem concerned. Sorry.

[Richard Patterson]

I pondered it might have something to do with his own mother - but then, who in the poem's context is the dead Christ, and who's the (erstwhile) living Mary?

And what's it all to do with a bunch of dead East-end "unfortunates?"

What does his mother, Mary's death have to do with the East End dead prostitutes victims, or the death of other females he loved like his sister Helen who died when he was five for that matter? His editor son says it best in his biography when we explained how Thompson felt about his prostitute friend alerting him to the fact she was going to leave him.

’After his first interview with my father he had taken her his news. "They will not understand our friendship." She said and then, "I always knew you were a genius." And so she strangled the opportunity; she killed again the child, the sister; the mother had come to life within her. She went away. Without warning she went to unknown lodgings and was lost to him '

{LIFE.p.83}

Funny the use of the words killed and strangled, considering the prostitutes were strangled and killed.

[Ausgirl]

I pondered it might have something to do with his own mother - but then, who in the poem's context is the dead Christ, and who's the (erstwhile) living Mary?

And what's it all to do with a bunch of dead East-end "unfortunates?"