Francis Thompson. The Perfect Suspect.

[Richard Patterson]

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

Hello Ausgirl.

It’s probably a good thing that you don't have the spare cash to buy my hardcopy, because that has a few thousand words extra and only the hard copy contains the chapter that discusses the saint days which you feel do nothing to raise his candidacy. I admit that the saint day argument does not currently do much to increase Thompson’s credentials as a suspect. However I do not regret taking that path early on. Whatever we learn about him we cannot escape the fact that he studied as a priest for several years and religion was paramount feature of Thompson’s life. People are bound to ask questions about how he assimilated his beliefs into the murders if they increasingly decide he is worth examining as a candidate. If they come to me for answers, I now already have my answer wrapped conveniently into a single chapter. Thankfully for you and most readers though, the cheap kindle edition does not take that route and instead focuses on the more ordinary arguments such as where was he living, and what personal or unique circumstances point to him being capable of these crimes. I leave most of the imaginative speculation for the hardback

Now to the window peeking. Let me explain that when I say that from his room Thompson could look out from his window down Dorset Street I do not claim to be able to prove this is something he did. I feel I can safely state that he used Providence Row because he told us he did. In addition, several books and those who command his archives in Boston College say so. Also the nuns at Providence Row say that he did. Was he in Providence Row during the times of the murder? My book states that this was the most likely time that he stayed there and experts, like Paul Begg agree that my book’s explanation to the timings is a plausible one. The image I give of Thompson being able to peer out his window down to the entrance of Miller’s court is imaginative only but does not lesson the possibility that he could. I have given it and will continue to give it even though taken literally if we was indeed looking out the window of the window at the time of Kelly’s murder then he could not have killed her. (Even several years as student surgeon could not have enabled him to kill her regardless of how sharp his dissecting scalpel was.) I use the image of him at the window to contrast with other heralded suspects. Unlike MOST others Thompson did not have to take a train from another part of London or England or a boat across the English Channel to commit these crimes. He lived in the heart of Spitalfields.

I know I have not said it before Ausgirl but I am glad you find my suspect to one of the better ones, even if I, who promotes him, does not always do it in the fashion you would see as sensible. Thank you for your interest. If you reading my book looks to be a thing you will be doing later than sooner I do suggest you check out the reviews of the book and news articles on it which my website contains. I am particularly happy with the following review on it. It may answer other questions you have about him. Or better still lead you to ask ones neither of us have thought about yet.

http://www.crimebookshelf.com/francis-thompson-ripper-suspect/

Thanks,
Richard.

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Richard, on another thread you linked to your Ripperologist article

http://www.francisjthompson.com/article-ripperologist-october.html

On page 39 of your article you wrote the John Walsh biography stated that Francis Thompson stayed at the Providence Row Night Refuge in November 1888. Maybe we have different editions of Walsh. Mine didn't say November 1888. Do you have a page number where Walsh wrote November 1888 please?

Also you wrote the custodians of the archives at Boston College confirmed that he lived at the Night Refuge in November 1888. Really? Because Walsh wrote that Francis Thompson kept no diary of this time in London. Was that a document held at BC or did the custodians tell you that? How did they know please?

Roy

[Richard Patterson]

Hi Richard, on another thread you linked to your Ripperologist article

http://www.francisjthompson.com/article-ripperologist-october.html

On page 39 of your article you wrote the John Walsh biography stated that Francis Thompson stayed at the Providence Row Night Refuge in November 1888. Maybe we have different editions of Walsh. Mine didn't say November 1888. Do you have a page number where Walsh wrote November 1888 please?

Also you wrote the custodians of the archives at Boston College confirmed that he lived at the Night Refuge in November 1888. Really? Because Walsh wrote that Francis Thompson kept no diary of this time in London. Was that a document held at BC or did the custodians tell you that? How did they know please?

Roy

Thank you for raising this. It is true that my article says that Walsh confirms that Thompson was at Providence Row in November 1888, but he does not state this directly in any edition of his book that I have read. Thompson never kept a diary as we would think of it but he did carry small notebooks in 1888, which I have read when I researched at Burns Library. They were written in pencil and many of the pages have very much faded. Although in some of the notes he seems to hint that he stayed at the Row, he does not give dates. In regard to Boston College, when I have approached the curators to ask to verify where Thompson stayed, Christian Dupont, who is Burns Library Associate University Librarian for Special Collections, directed me back to Walsh’s book.
What Walsh does say is that Thompson stayed at Providence Row without specifying a timeframe. How I can say Walsh concludes that Thompson was there in November comes from constructing a timeline as Walsh gives it. From sourcing Walsh’s book and the Biographer Bridget M Boardman’s book, 1888 ‘Between Heaven and Charring Cross. The Life of Francis Thompson’ the only conclusion we can make, unless we receive further information, is that it was in the first weeks of November that Thompson was at the refuge. Paul Begg, in his review of my book, agrees that my conclusion is the plausible one. I spend some time in my book in explaining why should place Thompson in the Row at the time of Kelly’s murder. Here is part of my explanation from my book,

‘When he attended the Row can be traced by the fact that he was shipped off to Storrington Priory, before the year’s end, after having spent the Christmas of 1888 in London. We also know that after his editor lost contact with him in August, Thompson returned ‘many days later’ suffering from exhaustion. From what he was exhausted from doing has never been fully explained. From July onwards both Meynell and Cannon Carroll had helped Thompson with money, clothes and food. He no longer needed to beg and surely if he needed extra money, now that he had become a published poet, he could have turned to either men for further assistance. Thompson was not pressured to write further, his earlier submission to Meynell, with its essay and poems, had freed his time. The only thing that was taking Thompson’s energy was that he was searching the streets for the prostitute who had abandoned him, during the time that the Ripper was seeking out prostitutes. Thompson, however, did return to Meynell severely fatigued. In response Meynell had him placed in the private hospital. The name of the hospital is still unknown, as well as the dates that he was admitted. When he was put into the hospital though can be deduced from the penciled note Wilfrid Meynell wrote into the margins of the manuscript of his son’s Everard Meynell’s 1913 biography on the poet. His father wrote of ‘Six weeks my son!’ We know from his editor that about four days after being released from the hospital, Thompson again tried to return to a life on the streets and by New Years day of 1889, he was in the country monastery, just outside the town of Storrington in Sussex.

The Row opened for the cold seasons, on the first Monday of the November, which would have been the fifth. He would have been allowed initially to stay for six weeks. This would have been reduced to only two weeks. This is because we must allow for his six-week stay at the private hospital and the four days between his release and being sent to Storrington before the year’s end. Using the 1888 calendar as our guide he would have entered the Row on the 5th and left by the Thursday the 15th.’

Walsh does not state explicitly that Thompson was at the Row on November 9 1888 but it can be implicitly inferred from what he wrote. I believe that Walsh, but not Boardman, state that Thompson was hospitalized in October but this cannot possibly fit into any logical timeline. The nuns of Providence Row to this day say that Thompson was a resident, and Thompson himself said he was in his 1891 article, ‘Catholics in Darkest England’, but neither the nuns or Thompson’s article says when he was there. To be honest with you almost every fact we have on Thompson, under scrutiny, is weakened into a probable. This is primarily because almost everything comes from Thompson. The same man who claims to have stayed at Providence Row is also the same man who claims to have been rescued by a ghost.

[MrBarnett]

Richard,

You say:

It is true that my article says that Walsh confirms that Thompson was at Providence Row in November 1888, but he does not state this directly in any edition of his book that I have read.

What Walsh does state directly is that Thompson was hospitalised for six weeks from October, 1888.

What evidence do you have to contradict Walsh on this matter?

Gary

[MrBarnett]

The address of the Refuge was Crispin Street and Raven Row. It is true that some of the windows overlooking Crispin Street would have afforded a view along Dorset Street, but those overlooking Raven Row would not have.

The male and female sections of the Refuge were kept separate. The entrance to the female section was in Crispin Street, the entrance to the male section was in Raven Row. The Goad map would seem to confirm this division. So unless Richard has some evidence otherwise, my best guess would be that the dormitories overlooking Crispin Street, and thereby affording a view along Dorset Street, would have been off limits to the male residents.

[Pcdunn]

I was surprised at how little I could find on Thompson when I tried to research him using the 'Net. His two 20th century biographies are getting elderly (the newest is copyrighted 1988), and while the Catholic Encyclopedia has an article about Thompson which can be read online, not a great deal more turned up.

One thing I am questioning: the idea that Thompson carried a sharp knife under his long coat. This is generally sourced to the letter he wrote his editor, requesting a razor to shave with. Thompson doesn't (as I understand it), state he currently has a "dissecting knife" with which he shaves, but is half-jokingly saying that the quality of the razor doesn't matter, as he has in the past shaved with a dissecting knife. This is an example of Thompson's wit which I think is misunderstood by some interpreters.

[MrBarnett]

[ATTACH]17542[/ATTACH]

[Richard Patterson]

Richard,

You say:

It is true that my article says that Walsh confirms that Thompson was at Providence Row in November 1888, but he does not state this directly in any edition of his book that I have read.

What Walsh does state directly is that Thompson was hospitalised for six weeks from October, 1888.

What evidence do you have to contradict Walsh on this matter?

Gary

Hi Gary,

It seems that Walsh’ himself is uncertain about when Thompson was hospitalised. Let’s assume that Thompson was hospitalised in October. Wilfrid Meynell, who would have known, wrote that Thompson was in hospital for six weeks. Walsh does not say when in October Thompson was put into the hospital. Assuming we stick to October then depending when in the month he was admitted, he may have been out from between mid-November to mid-December.

On Page 78 of my first edition of Walsh’s book, he writes, ‘By December Thompson was out of hospital and living in lodgings, probably in Paddington.’ If this is true then it means that Thompson was admitted in the middle of October. The problem lies in the fact that at sometime Thompson stayed at the Row and given this refuge’s strict entry requirements Thompson could not have been able to before November 1888. But from this quote there is hardly any time for Thompson to lodge there given that by the year’s end he was bound for the Storrington monastery.

In Footnote 35 on page 257. Walsh writes, ‘three months or so intervened between his leaving hospital and his going to Storrington.’ If this is true then with the start of 1889 and Thompson heading for Storrington then his admittance would have to be not October but the middle of August. Because Thompson himself wrote of his experiences of the being at Providence Row but nothing of being in hospital, and with the added peculiarity that of the alleged hospital stay the, name of the institution, its location or whether it allowed out on their own cognizance nothing at all has been recorded. I wonder if we can even rely the truth of his stay at all.

The added conflicting detail comes from Walsh, who in his footnote tells us that during the very weeks that London was in an uproar over the Jack the Ripper murders Thompson was on the streets seeking his friend. The uproar spanned September 1 and November 9. If Thompson were in hospital in October it seems odd to state, as Walsh does, that Thompson was on the streets during the very weeks of the murder if he spent most of them in hospital. To agree with this statement then Thompson would more likely have been hospitalised after the murders, if at all.

In truth it would be easier to show innocence to Thompson if we were to say he did not spend six weeks in hospital, because the window of him then staying at the Row would not be the first weeks of November but from anytime onwards until the end of December. As it is to fit the six-week hospital stay in the timeline as well as him leaving for Storrington by 1889 and his being at the Row, the only choice to state that he was there in the first weeks of November.

Richard.

[MrBarnett]

Richard,

My understanding of the Refuge's entry requirements obviously differs from yours. From what I have read, space allowing, no-one was refused admission who was prepared to fill out a questionnaire and convince the refuge authorities they were deserving of help. I doubt an educated and deeply religious man like Thompson would have had a problem with that.

This is from The Tablet in 1883:


From this institution, which is no longer a refuge in the ordinary sense, all vagrants and tramps are excluded, but all apparently bonafide cases are at once admitted, and are supplied with food and shelter whilst their references are being verified. Each case is examined by a committee of ladies and gentlemen, who, with the manager, receive no remuneration whatever. The accuracy of the statement is ascertained by letter, or by personal inquiry, and upon the result depends how long the applicant is allowed to a fresh ticket is given to the applicant with "Admit Bearer," the number of nights being inserted accordingly.

[MrBarnett]

According to The Tablet of Dec., 1888, in the depths of winter the Refuge employed night workers to range far and wide across the city seeking out the truly desperate.

Those located as far away as Stratford or Hyde Park were provided with the bus fare to Liverpool Street, but they were often so 'ragged and dirty that the conductors refused to admit them' and they were forced to walk to the refuge. 'Among them were the most wretched objects that could be seen and the ordinary people in the refuge refused to associate with them'. Occasionally the number of such people was an added 150 on top of the regular 250 beds.

The idea that Thompson would have been too down-at-heel to have experienced the refuge before November, 1888 is not supported by the evidence.

[Richard Patterson]

I was surprised at how little I could find on Thompson when I tried to research him using the 'Net. His two 20th century biographies are getting elderly (the newest is copyrighted 1988), and while the Catholic Encyclopedia has an article about Thompson which can be read online, not a great deal more turned up.

One thing I am questioning: the idea that Thompson carried a sharp knife under his long coat. This is generally sourced to the letter he wrote his editor, requesting a razor to shave with. Thompson doesn't (as I understand it), state he currently has a "dissecting knife" with which he shaves, but is half-jokingly saying that the quality of the razor doesn't matter, as he has in the past shaved with a dissecting knife. This is an example of Thompson's wit which I think is misunderstood by some interpreters.

Thompson does certainly demonstrate with with his letter in which he devotes the start to asking for a razor to shave with. I wonder who else shows liked to joke about blades. ‘My knife's so nice and sharp’. So when did Thompson utilise his razor sharp dissecting scalpel?
Here is the pertinent part of his letter written from the monastery soon after leaving London.

‘‘And I want to make a request which looks rather a Luxury, but which I believe to be a necessity in my present position. Can you send me a razor? I shall to shave myself here, I think; & it would of course be saving of expense in the long run. Any kind of razor would do for me, I have shaved with a dissecting scalpel before now. I would solve the difficulty by not shaving at all, if it were possible for me to grow a beard, but repeated experiment has convinced me that the only result of such action is to make me look like an escaped convict…I know this is a very perfunctory letter…there is no cause for uneasiness on that account.’

{Letters of Francis Thompson. John Walsh. page 25}

Thompson uses the words, ‘before now’ Although we could assign the ‘before now’ as being anytime from before the monastery or before 1889, to when he first grew stubble. The most likely however when he would have to improvise would have been when he had no alternative which would have been his homeless years. I believe it is also telling that his main concern as shown in the letter is that he might be mistaken for a wanted criminal, which once again would have been more of a worry while he was homeless on the streets than any other time.

[Richard Patterson]

The idea that Thompson would have been too down-at-heel to have experienced the refuge before November, 1888 is not supported by the evidence.

The Ripper Casebook in its dissertation on Providence Row states.

'The rules provided that "no vagrants, tramps or professional beggars should be admitted even for one night", although the difficulty of off-hand identification of such was obvious. All persons seeking accommodation were supposed to give the names of referees to whom inquiries could be made, and if the replies were unsatisfactory the applicant was told to leave.'

I can assure you and so will any biographer on Thompson that he was too down-at-heel to have experienced the refuge before November 1888. The only time he could have ever gained referees was when he was working for John McMaster, at the Panton Street Shoe-shop, in 1886, but this miles away in Haymarket and during that time McMaster provided lodgings for him. We could assume and speculate that somehow the warden may have taken pity on Thompson but it would be just speculation.

[MrBarnett]

The Ripper Casebook in its dissertation on Providence Row states.

'The rules provided that "no vagrants, tramps or professional beggars should be admitted even for one night", although the difficulty of off-hand identification of such was obvious. All persons seeking accommodation were supposed to give the names of referees to whom inquiries could be made, and if the replies were unsatisfactory the applicant was told to leave.'

I can assure you and so will any biographer on Thompson that he was too down-at-heel to have experienced the refuge before November 1888. The only time he could have ever gained referees was when he was working for John McMaster, at the Panton Street Shoe-shop, in 1886, but this miles away in Haymarket and during that time McMaster provided lodgings for him. We could assume and speculate that somehow the warden may have taken pity on Thompson but it would be just speculation.

Richard,

The Refuge actively sent people out to find homeless people on the streets, some of whom were so 'ragged and dirty' that bus conductors threw them off buses. These were a distinct group from the ordinary occupants of the refuge. This was not an individual warden taking pity on a particular applicant, it was clearly the policy of the Refuge to seek out the 'most wretched objects' that could be found - hundreds of them - and provide them with overnight accommodation.

Elsewhere you have stated that the refuge only accepted those in employment. That was not the case. They very often helped people find employment, and one of the ways in which they did that was to provided them with respectable-looking clothing. So appearances alone would not have been a barrier to entry.

The Catholic publication The Tablet printed numerous first hand reports of how the Refuge functioned. The Casebook dissertation is an excellent overview, but the reality seems to have been more complicated than it suggests.

Gary

[MrBarnett]

Richard,

Have you looked at the Goad Map of the Refuge? It appears to me to show two distinct sections, one overlooking Raven Row and containing the men's entrance, and one overlooking Crispin Street and containing the women's entrance.

Later photos of the women's dormitory are clearly on the Crispin Street side of the building.

Gary

[Richard Patterson]

Richard,

The Refuge actively sent people out to find homeless people on the streets, some of whom were so 'ragged and dirty' that bus conductors threw them off buses. These were a distinct group from the ordinary occupants of the refuge. This was not an individual warden taking pity on a particular applicant, it was clearly the policy of the Refuge to seek out the 'most wretched objects' that could be found - hundreds of them - and provide them with overnight accommodation.

Elsewhere you have stated that the refuge only accepted those in employment. That was not the case. They very often helped people find employment, and one of the ways in which they did that was to provided them with respectable-looking clothing. So appearances alone would not have been a barrier to entry.

The Catholic publication The Tablet printed numerous first hand reports of how the Refuge functioned. The Casebook dissertation is an excellent overview, but the reality seems to have been more complicated than it suggests.

Gary

It looks I will ho revise what I said about the refuge only allowing employed into its premises. Thank you educating me. There is still no means for Thompson to have gained a reference though before November 1888. Also the rules were that "no vagrants, tramps or professional beggars should be admitted even for one night" which is what Thompson was until the November of 1888.

I am aware that at the worst I might be left only able to state that Thompson stayed in the heart of Spitalfields and had an association with that area. I will be happy just for that. Thompson was homeless from late 1885 until late 1888. If he was in Providence Row at anytime during those years then I am left with a suspect that knew the East End regardless. The earlier in that 3 year span that Thompson can be shown to have been in the Row then the longer he knew Spitalfields.

The further back from November 1888 we can pinpoint Thompson to having used the row than the greater the chance that he may have known Mary Kelly, who is believed to have arrived in London in 1884 and used Providence Row early on. I agree that there is certainly a discrepancy between the way the papers describe admittance to the Row compared to what the Row said were their consideration. I also agree that the reality may be very much different to what even the best dissertations may suggest. Personally i would not be surprised that even if the row officially opened its doors in November 1888, it may have made exceptions and allowed desperate but worthy clients in at other times of the year.

I also feel that Thompson as an ex-priest and strong Catholic religious experience may have been exempted from needing references, but I have to go on what I know. I will update my book removing any claim that an entrant to the row needed to show that they held a paid occupation. Thanks for pointing this out to me.

Richard.