Francis Thompson. The Perfect Suspect.

[John G]

Hello Pierre,

There is some evidence that JtR may have had surgical skill, not just anatomical knowledge. The only way that you could demonstrate that a suspect was on the crime scene at the time of the murders would be CCTV images. However, as this was 1888 I think that somewhat unlikely! Well, of course, unless you convert a witness into a suspect, like Lechmere, for example!

[Richard Patterson]

Hi Pierre

Apart from being able to place Thompson within 100 meters of Mary Kelly, and in areas in Whitechapel, I have no evidence, apart from circumstantial, to place him at a crime scene. That is not to say there is no evidence. One could be the strands of hair that were found with his childhood toy puppet theater. As the chapter on my website tells, Thompson had taken the hair from his editor's daughters to use instead of string to work the puppets. The penchant of serial killers collecting trophies, means that if Thompson is the Ripper, he may have also collected the hair from his victims. I would want to track down where this theater is now being housed. DNA analysis of the hair fixed the all the cardboard puppets, may show DNA of the victims. If there turned out to be victim DNA in his possession, it would be very interesting. If he had kept hair from more than one victim, I would consider it proof that he had known them, and likely killed them. If anything such a pursuit is worthy of any great murder mystery. There are several more ways to possibly place him at the scene, but all of them are tentative. I reserve these leads for the end chapters of manuscript.

As to reasons Thompson may have had to carry out the crimes. Apart from the base motive, of avenging the loss of his beloved prostitute just before he murders I do believe he had a more profound motive, but that is reserved to the later part of my manuscript also. I have already been accused of revealing to much already in just chapter one. Even though I feel the entire manuscript does that anyway.

Regards Richard.

[John Wheat]

How is Francis Thompson the perfect Ripper Suspect?

[Richard Patterson]

How is Francis Thompson the perfect Ripper Suspect?

It's hyperbole. I'm not a big believer on perfection on Earth. In a way it is pun on Thompson who wrote essays on Perfection and held strong opinions about its meaning. In this instance I more means that, compared to all the other suspects out there, he beats them hands down. Nobody, it seems but Thompson, was as close to the murders, and as well equipped to perform them. Nobody else has an identifiable motive so soon beforehand and cause to stop so soon after. No other suspect, or anyone else we can name, fits the profile better. I don't think we could find a suspect with better skill to cut into humans. Nor or a closer proximity to a murder. Excepting Lechmere who was found with the body, but that is all. With Thompson we have location, opportunity, motive and means. All the combined traits, while other suspects are lucky to have just been living there or shown a hatred to females. None so clearly, by own admission, were carrying a knife at the time. That Thompson resented prostitutes is not a conjecture. That he wrote about killing woman using the same method as the ripper before the murders as well as after even peripheral to the fact with him we have a man who was mentally unstable, felt the police were against him, was looking for a prostitute who fled him just before, had a dissecting knife under his long coat, wrote about killing women, had medical training, and was living less than two minutes away from Kelly's home. I don't think I could have made up a better suspect. Some might think the perfect suspect would come with a photo of him with a knife, standing over one of the victims, but conspiracy theorists would claim it a forgery within moments. No DNA or single piece of evidence would suffice, but with Thompson it an aggregate of a slew of circumstances that all point to his ultimate guilt. This is of course opinion, the proof of which is what my book is all about. Cheers.

[John G]

Hello Richard,

Just out of interest, do you think Thompson could be a candidate for the Mary Ann Austin murder? She was brutally attacked in Dorset Street in 1901, and it has been suggested that this was a Ripper-style murder.

[Richard Patterson]

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.

[John G]

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.

Hello Richard,

Thanks, it would certainly be interesting to see what Thompson was doing in 1901, and what his mental state may have been. I find it curious, to say the least, that he was in London at the relevant time and the connection with his sister, i.e. the fact that she changed her name to Austin.

[miss marple]

Richard, your research is impressive. The devil is in the detail. Whether one agrees or disagrees with your conclusion, it is one of the most thorough investigations into a suspect. Thompson was fascinating in his own right. I have an open mind about him but he scores much higher than many so called suspects.
With regards to Providence Row, have you searched The London Metropolitan Archive online. A quick look reveals they have Correspondence and papers pertaining to the night shelter.A/FWA/C/D/049/001

Regards Miss Marple

[Richard Patterson]

Richard, your research is impressive. The devil is in the detail. Whether one agrees or disagrees with your conclusion, it is one of the most thorough investigations into a suspect. Thompson was fascinating in his own right. I have an open mind about him but he scores much higher than many so called suspects.
With regards to Providence Row, have you searched The London Metropolitan Archive online. A quick look reveals they have Correspondence and papers pertaining to the night shelter.A/FWA/C/D/049/001

Regards Miss Marple

Hi Miss Marple,

You are very kind to speak well of my book. I also appreciate the tip with searching Providence Row at the London metropolitan archives. I live in Australia but I hope to visit London in November and while there I should pay a visit to the archives to access the documents they have on the refuge. I am certain these documents will provide some fascinating insights into the workings of the institution and what Thompson may have experienced wile sleeping there. My book may not have convinced you that Thompson is Jack the Ripper but I am glad to have introduced you to a 19th century figure who lived a fascinating life imbued with experiences that so much relate to the very best and worst of the revolution and the Victorian age. I hope my book shows up these murders in a different light and also returns to the essentials of what we should be looking for regarding finding the murderer.

All the very best,
Richard

[Azarna]

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

Mary was the commonest first name for women of the era. Plus many families name offspring after parents and grandparents so names are often in family "clusters".

I honestly don't think any thing can be read into victims having this particular name in common with his family when so many other women around were also called Mary.

[Richard Patterson]

Mary was the commonest first name for women of the era. Plus many families name offspring after parents and grandparents so names are often in family "clusters".

I honestly don't think any thing can be read into victims having this particular name in common with his family when so many other women around were also called Mary.

This is from my book. Should you ever want to read it.

‘The animosity between Francis Thompson and his stepmother only increased. In 1891, Ann Richardson convinced her new husband to cut Thompson out of the family will. In 1896, when Thompson’s father died, and he returned to Manchester for his funeral, she would not allow him into the home. Ann Richardson’s loathing of Thompson meant that he was forced to find paid lodgings. It is probably pertinent to remember 'Mrs A. Richardson' was written on the front the Hanbury Street building where the second Jack the Ripper victim, Ann Chapman was cut open. In this instance the victim, Ann, and place of execution, Richardson, shared the same name as Thompson’s stepmother. Of the sixteen residents, at this address, were a Francis and a Thompson. Another correlation is that the night Thompson ran away from home, [over his father’s plan to marry Ann Richardson after the death of his mother Mary] November 9th was the same date that three years later, the Ripper embarked on his most bloody murder of fifth victim Mary Kelly, less than a hundred yards from where he was staying, at the Providence Row refuge.’ [with his blade and several years of medical training]

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi again Richard and best wishes on your trip to London to speak.

I think we touched on this before but with no resolution. So I was wondering if you have given it further thought or researched the matter.

Providence Row being a Night Refuge, I assume those staying were locked in overnight just as the public was locked out. Would you think this is a correct assumption? If not, what do you know about it, or propose otherwise?

Roy

[Richard Patterson]

Hi again Richard and best wishes on your trip to London to speak.

I think we touched on this before but with no resolution. So I was wondering if you have given it further thought or researched the matter.

Providence Row being a Night Refuge, I assume those staying were locked in overnight just as the public was locked out. Would you think this is a correct assumption? If not, what do you know about it, or propose otherwise?

Roy

I appreciate the well wishes for the conference in November. I don’t recall being asked this exact question before although I am sure we did discuss something of the same nature. Because providence Row was run differently to most refuges, I don’t think it is the correct assumption. Unlike other refuges Providence Row, had strict entry requirements. They only allowed those who could show that they had paid work. They had residents that were commercial travellers, mechanics, surgeons and the like. No doubt some of those who worked would have had jobs that were outside the usual 9 to 5 hours. I doubt that they would have been locked in and not allowed to leave for work.

Thompson for example, as well as becoming a newly employed journalist, also sold matchboxes. He said that this required him to be outside till late at night to sell his matches to theatregoers as they left evening performances. It’s plausible that with Thompson being used to living on the street and with the staff of the row probably being partly aware of his history, it would not have been considered unusual if occasionally Thompson stayed out all night.

Thanks for the interesting question,

Richard.

[Ausgirl]

Hello Richard!

To continue things on here: Did you end up finding some more supportive evidence of Thompson's alleged peeping from windows onto Dorset Street? Or .. not?

Oh why don't I just purchase your book and see for myself!? Well, aside from being rather tremulous at the very thought of there being in it chapters on saint's days and occultish join-the-dot geometries and the like, I'm actually a bit skint at the present, so needs be it must wait.

You know I've never disapproved of your theory, surely. I have, though, disapproved if some of your methods of arguing it.. Anyways I am glad your theory is gaining momentum and look forward to wading through your book for the convincing bits. =P

[Roy Corduroy]

Thanks for the interesting question,

My pleasure Richard,

Thompson for example, as well as becoming a newly employed journalist, also sold matchboxes. He said that this required him to be outside till late at night to sell his matches to theatregoers as they left evening performances. It’s plausible that with Thompson being used to living on the street and with the staff of the row probably being partly aware of his history, it would not have been considered unusual if occasionally Thompson stayed out all night.

it would not have been considered unusual if occasionally Thompson stayed out all night

If I were warden of the Night Refuge I would be alarmed he stayed out all night selling matches THAT night.

Roy