Francis Thompson. The Perfect Suspect.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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.

[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