Francis Thompson. The Perfect Suspect.

[Richard Patterson]

Thank you for clarifying. At least he can be proved to have been in the East End area during the relevant period, which some proposed suspects cannot be.

Playing devil's advocate a moment, and thinking on the poet's propensity to draw inspiration from pretty much anything they percieve as important to them, I have to wonder this, re the more gory of his poems:

Is it possible that he was not the Ripper himself, but merely inspired by the case? The witch babies (awesome concept... wish I'd thought of it..) is actually a thought I've had several times - was a delusional JtR looking for something, inside these women?

The poems could have been the result of a creative process sparked not just by JtR being plastered all over the papers and being talked about so much, but also by Thompson having an intimate knowledge of street life and the kind of women Jack targetted. He would have been right there in the thick of the fear, if he was on the streets in 1888..

Perhaps he simply felt an affinity with JtR, I know I have sublimated some of my own less attractive emotions that way in several of my own works, it's a fairly common thing for poets to do.

Of course, I understand that it's not just the poems that have led you to this theory.

This is a very interesting and thoughtful premise and also one I have entertained on a number of occasions. There are reasons for this. For example, Everard Meynell, in his biography of Thompson, told of the poet’s association with criminals while homeless.

‘…He now began to learn something of his companions, of their slang, of their ways and means…The murderer to whom he makes several allusions, he disguises under the initials D. I…'

I have been curious who this D.I might have been and have wondered if he may have been the ripper instead of my suspect. This D.I, living on the streets, would certainly also have had the opportunity to kill these women. Unfortunately, despite its attractiveness, this other murderer, would have to have had the required weapon, skills in cutting into corpses and organ removal and a clear motive. These are traits which, hard as a l look, always have me return to Francis Thompson – The Perfect Suspect.

[Ausgirl]

I can’t place Thompson firmly in Whitechapel. So I cannot give you anything in point form. I can say that during his vagrancy years;

• He frequented the Guildhall Library – In the East End.
• He lived in the West India Docks District -In the East End.
• He walked nights along Mile End Road –In the East End.
• He slept in homeless shelters, most likely the Salvation Army’s Limehouse shelter – In the East End.

Descriptions of Thompson, on his dressing and living habits come from Thompson’s close associates, and long time friends - people who knew him for many years.

Thank you for clarifying. At least he can be proved to have been in the East End area during the relevant period, which some proposed suspects cannot be.

Playing devil's advocate a moment, and thinking on the poet's propensity to draw inspiration from pretty much anything they percieve as important to them, I have to wonder this, re the more gory of his poems:

Is it possible that he was not the Ripper himself, but merely inspired by the case? The witch babies (awesome concept... wish I'd thought of it..) is actually a thought I've had several times - was a delusional JtR looking for something, inside these women?

The poems could have been the result of a creative process sparked not just by JtR being plastered all over the papers and being talked about so much, but also by Thompson having an intimate knowledge of street life and the kind of women Jack targetted. He would have been right there in the thick of the fear, if he was on the streets in 1888..

Perhaps he simply felt an affinity with JtR, I know I have sublimated some of my own less attractive emotions that way in several of my own works, it's a fairly common thing for poets to do.

Of course, I understand that it's not just the poems that have led you to this theory.

[Richard Patterson]

Hi,

I am not saying that he borrowed a person. I am saying that he borrowed a scene, in fact a very poetic and moving scene that in reality belonged to De Qunicey.

To be a credible suspect there needs to be the link to Whitechapel.

Can you please detail it.

Best wishes.

Thompson claimed to have had a year long affair with this prostitute, it must be the longest borrowed scene in history. As I have said, Thompson admits to spending nights on Mile End Road. In 1888 this road ended where it met Whitechapel Road. This is about 100 meters from Bucks Row, where the body of Nichols was found. Looks like a link to me.

[Hatchett]

Hi,

I am not saying that he borrowed a person. I am saying that he borrowed a scene, in fact a very poetic and moving scene that in reality belonged to De Qunicey.

To be a credible suspect there needs to be the link to Whitechapel.

Can you please detail it.

Best wishes.

[Richard Patterson]

Poets DO "borrow" things from other writers - styles, ideas, themes, images, even sometimes phrases. This is a fact. I am a poet, friend of many poets, and I can testify to this: even those poets who occasionally take the path of eschewing the work of other poets (and do not at the same time suck, for the paucity of knowledge) will admit to being influenced by something or other. The creative mind struggles to sustain its work in a vacuum.

Just noting, poets do "borrow" (and this IS the term we use, it ought to be noted) ideas from other writers, it's almost de rigueur, and not only that, it's quite acceptable for them to do so. Sometimes quite blatantly, though there's also that invisible line one doesn't cross, into plagiarism territory. But even that is forgivable, at times, if done well enough.

Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal
--T.S. Eliot

Why is it necessary, in order to promote one suspect, to tear another down? Not that I haven't done it.. but it gets a bit annoying when protracted as an argument, bickering is tiresome to wade through.

In another thread, you quoted a text which claimed Mary Kelly had an addicted poet for a friend. If Thompson, as a poet and just such an addict, can be *firmly* placed in Whitechapel, I think that's a valuable area of exploration -- even if he's not the Ripper, perhaps he figures in the life of a victim, and thus add to the general canon of knowledge. It'd be something *new* and even that is quite an achievement.

So what exactly, in point form if possible, places Thompson firmly in Whitechapel during the period of the murders?

How reliable are the sources of the information on his dressing and living habits?

If there's some concrete - really, concrete - stuff putting Thompson in Whitechapel, and evidence that his love for a lady of the night was real and not "borrowing", and so on, then he is a very good suspect.

Along with several other very good suspects.

In my first post on this thread, I told that Thompson was the perfect suspect. This was because he fulfilled all the necessary conditions needed to for a credible suspect. These being.

1. Ability- Trained surgeon.
2. Opportunity – Was walking the streets of London at all hours of night.
3. Weapon – Had a dissecting scalpel.
4. Motive – His being spurned by a prostitute.

I merely. I asked if anyone had a suspect that could do the same with these same necessary conditions. I was in fact inviting anyone to promote their suspect against mine.
Hatchett, apparently unable or unwilling to do so, chooses to instead to write, post #10 of this thread, that it is,

‘highly likely that Thompson's story about the prostitute girl friend was "borrowed" from De Quincey.’

In essence Hatchett is saying that Thompson’s Chelsea prostitute did not exist. Making one of my four claims, on Thompson’s motive, no longer valid. Since all biographers have conceded that this prostitute was real, and so to did his associates and life-long friends. I asked Hatchett on what basis was he making his claim. I asked did he, for example; think Thompson was being dishonest in declaring his love for this prostitute and sadness and anger of losing her.

You have told me that poets often borrow. Is it still semantics to enquire what the term ‘borrow’ means here? Certainly poets ‘borrow’. Thompson himself, in a review he wrote on the writer Henley, agreed, noting,

‘Spartan law holds good in literature, where to steal is honourable, provided it be done with skill and dexterity: wherefore Mercury was the patron both of thieves and poets.;’

Poet’s are known, from time to time, pilfer and plagiarize from another poet. I noticed you quote T.S Eliot. He happened to draw upon Thompson. Eliot, whom had read Thompson while at Harvard, found Thompson’s poems to be very influential and made a footnote attributing part of his poem “The Rock”, to Thompson’s poem “The Kingdom of God”. Here are experts from both poems showing Eliot’s reliance on Thompson.

Thompson’s “Kingdom of God”,

‘O world invisible, we view thee
O world intangible, we touch thee,
O world unknowable, we know thee,
Inapprehensible, we clutch thee!’

Excerpt of Eliot’s, “The Rock”,

‘The light that slants over stagnant pools at batlight
Moon light and star light, owl and moth light,
Glow-worm glowlight on a grassblade.
O Light Invisible, we worship Thee!’

(As chance would have it, both Eliot and Thompson were 29 when they first became published poets with Eliot’s “Prufrock” and Thompson’s “Hound of Heaven” They were both 34 when their most famous poems were published with Eliot’s “The Wasteland” and Thompson’s “Sister Songs”.)

Yes poets do ‘borrow,’ but Hatchett is not just suggesting that the poet Thompson was borrowing a word, line or verse. He suggests that Thompson borrowed a person. That the very prostitute that Thompson wrote had a devastating impact on him all his life, was borrowed simply to fulfill some romantic notion. Such a suggestion seems unnecessary, and formulated simply, rather than promote another suspect, to tear mine down.

I can’t place Thompson firmly in Whitechapel. So I cannot give you anything in point form. I can say that during his vagrancy years;

• He frequented the Guildhall Library – In the East End.
• He lived in the West India Docks District -In the East End.
• He walked nights along Mile End Road –In the East End.
• He slept in homeless shelters, most likely the Salvation Army’s Limehouse shelter – In the East End.

Descriptions of Thompson, on his dressing and living habits come from Thompson’s close associates, and long time friends - people who knew him for many years.

[Hatchett]

Hi,

I think that really sums it up Ausgirl.

Best wishes.

[Ausgirl]

Poets DO "borrow" things from other writers - styles, ideas, themes, images, even sometimes phrases. This is a fact. I am a poet, friend of many poets, and I can testify to this: even those poets who occasionally take the path of eschewing the work of other poets (and do not at the same time suck, for the paucity of knowledge) will admit to being influenced by something or other. The creative mind struggles to sustain its work in a vacuum.

Just noting, poets do "borrow" (and this IS the term we use, it ought to be noted) ideas from other writers, it's almost de rigueur, and not only that, it's quite acceptable for them to do so. Sometimes quite blatantly, though there's also that invisible line one doesn't cross, into plagiarism territory. But even that is forgivable, at times, if done well enough.

Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal
--T.S. Eliot

Why is it necessary, in order to promote one suspect, to tear another down? Not that I haven't done it.. but it gets a bit annoying when protracted as an argument, bickering is tiresome to wade through.

In another thread, you quoted a text which claimed Mary Kelly had an addicted poet for a friend. If Thompson, as a poet and just such an addict, can be *firmly* placed in Whitechapel, I think that's a valuable area of exploration -- even if he's not the Ripper, perhaps he figures in the life of a victim, and thus add to the general canon of knowledge. It'd be something *new* and even that is quite an achievement.

So what exactly, in point form if possible, places Thompson firmly in Whitechapel during the period of the murders?

How reliable are the sources of the information on his dressing and living habits?

If there's some concrete - really, concrete - stuff putting Thompson in Whitechapel, and evidence that his love for a lady of the night was real and not "borrowing", and so on, then he is a very good suspect.

Along with several other very good suspects.

[Hatchett]

Hi,

I think we are dealing with semantics here.

Let me make it plain, I think it very unlikely that the two people had the same experiance that they spoke about.

[Richard Patterson]

Hi,

I am not saying that Thompson was a liar. But he was a writer and poet, and it is well know that writers "borrow" things. The actual story of the prositute in De Quincys "Confessions ...." is a very haunting, lost romance, story. Just such a story that Thompson could have borrowed for himself, as a way of living it.

When someone borrows something, they plan to return it. When do you think Thompson will be returning this story and to whom? But you are not saying his liar? Are you hinting that he was a thief?

[Hatchett]

Hi,

I am not saying that Thompson was a liar. But he was a writer and poet, and it is well know that writers "borrow" things. The actual story of the prositute in De Quincys "Confessions ...." is a very haunting, lost romance, story. Just such a story that Thompson could have borrowed for himself, as a way of living it.

[Richard Patterson]

Levy was given as an example to the four criteria that you presented.

Now it's you questioning Levy as viable because it's purely speculative?

I addressed your "4 points" in a respectful manner and the reply was to join a facebook page to learn more. Do you have a twitter and youtube account we should follow/like too?

Hi gnote.
I appreciate you efforts and for going as far as saying that he was, not a ‘ridiculous suspect’, which was mighty noble of you. Levy is certainly a viable suspect, if by viable you mean capable of succeeding, but perhaps I should have been more exact in regard to the four criteria and asked for people not to submit suspects with so many maybes attached to them. Levy maybe had a motive, if we make assumptions and speculate on his syphilis. Also maybe when the East End was in hysteria and on the lookout for a butcher, Levy was wandering about with his butcher’s knife belt, which was designed to be worn over an apron. This would have during a time when people had grown to fear the press’s ‘Leather Apron’ with word on the street and in the papers, that the murderer was a Jewish butcher. Maybe 5 women simply ignored these warnings, of the press, police and mobs and walked off alone and into the darkness with Levy, but that’s a lot of maybes.

With respect, since Thompson seems barely discussed on Casebook. I speculated that it was simply because others here were ignorant of him rather than bizarrely purposely ignoring him, as if the murder of 5 women is a trivial thing. You yourself wrote, ‘I don't know enough about Thompson to dismiss him,’ I am sure I am not wrong in my speculation on your ignorance rather than any malfeasance on your part, and that was why I gave my Facebook group’s link. It was so you and others could, as I told, be able to read one of the first biographies on FT, written by Everard Meynell, someone who him well, that I gave the link.

I don’t Twitter but I do have a YouTube account. Once again, so people can know more about Thompson, who even if you may never agree is the most likely suspect, is certainly the most interesting, here is the link:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9mPJ7u01ZlDLJm8O-9mPRw

[gnote]

Let me end by saying how surprised I am that you would continue with Levy as having an ability, motive, opportunity and weapon equal to Thompson. Is it because out of them all Levy is the only suspect that can be brought to me to argue against Thompson. If this is true then how pitiful must be the other existing suspects?

Levy was given as an example to the four criteria that you presented.

Now it's you questioning Levy as viable because it's purely speculative?

I addressed your "4 points" in a respectful manner and the reply was to join a facebook page to learn more. Do you have a twitter and youtube account we should follow/like too?

[Richard Patterson]

Hi. Hatchett. So are you saying that Thompson was a liar?

[Richard Patterson]

Thanks Harry D for your questions and points. You have shown that you have put much consideration into your post. You also show that you have been looking at Thompson’s life, which I respect.

You ask can I account for Thompson’s poor physical state. It is true that Thompson is often depicted as desperately weak, yet he was strong enough to work in a medical infirmary for 6 years. In 1885 he was fit enough to pass recruitment tests and be accepted into the army. When he ran away from his Manchester’s home on Nov 9th, 1885, he was strong enough to walk the 262 kilometers (163 miles) to London. FT also survived 3 winters on the streets. Autopsies do require strength and dexterity but things are made a little easier if one can boast, as one might with a dissecting scalpel, ‘My knife's so nice and sharp.’

You ask about Thompson’s left-handiness. I know that many people have concluded that the Ripper was right handed, although it strikes me as strange that many lists over many decades on famous left handers not only include Thompson but also Jack the Ripper. Perhaps this originated from the testimony of Police surgeon, Dr. Rees Ralph Llewellyn, a witness to the inquest of Ripper victim, Mary Ann Nichols who thought that her throat was cut by a left handed person.

It is true that whether the Ripper had the skills of a doctor is the subject of much debate. I should remind you that I am not saying that the Ripper had to be a doctor only that he needs to have ability, this could be include professions such as soldiers with experience with a bayonet or knife and butchers. I wonder if we have any butchers or soldiers on Casebook who could let us know how easily their professions trains them to cut into a female bodies? I know that doctors can and so could Thompson.

This is what in 1988, Doctor Joseph C. Rupp, a Texan Medical Examiner for Nueces County said about Thompson in the “Criminologist”,
'Francis Thompson spent six years in medical school, in effect, he went through medical school three times. It is unlikely, no matter how disinterested he was or how few lectures he attended, that he did not absorb a significant amount of medical knowledge.’

I suppose only I see the irony of Thompson who trained for so long to be a doctor only to miss final examinations and turn his attention to writing poetry. He submitted little gems to a magazine, on the eve of the murders, such as his “Nightmare of the Witch Babies”. Considered to gruesome to be published, this was about a “knight” who wanders the foggy nightime streets slicing women’s stomachs open to look for “witch babies” inside them,

Two witch babies, Ho! Ho! Ho!
And its paunch [stomach] was rent
Like a brasted [bursting] drum;
And the blubbered fat
From its belly doth come
It was a stream ran bloodily
Under the wall
O Stream, you cannot run too red
To tell a maid her widowhead!
It was a stream ran bloodily
Under the wall.
With a sickening ooze-Hell made it so!
Two witch babies, Ho! Ho! Ho!'

This poem conveys a sickening sense of humour with the narrator laughing all the time,

A lusty knight,
Ha! Ha!…
A rotten mist,
Ha! Ha!…
No one life there,
Ha! Ha!…
'Swiftly he followed her
Ha! Ha!…
Into the fogginess
Ha! Ha!…

Here is Thompson, a failed doctor, turned into a poet, echoing the words within the “Dear Boss” letter who goads the police and their frantic efforts to catch the killer, ‘No luck yet. They say I'm a doctor now. ha ha' Remember, ha ha was underlined in the letter.

Probably the reason so many think we should be looking for a doctor is because some of the doctors that appeared at the murder inquests thought so too. Dr Frederick Gordon Brown, the doctor who gave evidence at the inquest for Ripper victim, Catherine Eddowes, replied when asked if the killer possessed great anatomical skill, ‘A good deal of knowledge as to the positions of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them.’ Then there is Doctor Thomas Bond who, who performed Mary Kelly’s Autopsy. He described how the killer had removed her heat via the pericardium. This is the same technique as taught using the then rare and new Virchow method. From 1878 to 1883 Thompson studied as a surgeon at Owens Medical College, in Manchester and also trained at Manchester’s Royal Infirmary. Francis Thompson’s lecturer of pathology at Medical College was Julius Dreschfeld, a pupil of Virchow. Dreschfeld had just returned from Germany having learned his methods, and is known to be instrumental in introducing it to England.

You ask why is it relevant that is said that Jacob Levy was living in Aldgate while Thompson was living in Limehouse. I wrote this because the fact that Levy lived in the East End makes many people see he had an opportunity to carry out these crimes. I wanted to show that this is also true for Thompson. Others have told me here on Casebook that they do not see anything that connects Thompson to Whitechapel but here is something. In 1896 planned to write a book on London describing the streets he walked while homeless. Thompson’s told that he desired to wanted to include a description of the petrol fuelled naphtha lamps that lit Mile End Road in Tower Hamlets, because as he said, ‘I have seen it most peculiarly under those aspects.'

As to Levy’s syphilis being a motive to kill these prostitutes. As you rightly say, this is purely speculative. There is nothing to say that Levy caught this disease from a prostitute. Also, if it is so common for these “fallen women” to have this disease then isn’t it remarkable that none of the 5 Ripper victims carried it! You say that Thompson saw his prostitute “friend as his savior. I’m sure she was, until she left him. Here’s what Thompson said about the prostitutes,
‘These girls whose Practice is a putrid ulceration of love, venting foul and purulent discharge- for their very utterance is a hideous blasphemy against the sacrosanctity [sacred ways] of lover's language!... , the girls harlots in the mother's womb’

Unlike Levy simply having a sexual disease, Thompson demonstrated a clear hatred of this profession without any need for speculation.

You say that for the Ripper’s weapon that butcher’s knife could have worked just as well, I am sure there is a many reason why surgeons prefer using a dissecting scalpel to cut into a corpses.

Speaking of speculation the “link” between Levy to one of the witnesses just that.

Let me end by saying how surprised I am that you would continue with Levy as having an ability, motive, opportunity and weapon equal to Thompson. Is it because out of them all Levy is the only suspect that can be brought to me to argue against Thompson. If this is true then how pitiful must be the other existing suspects?

[Hatchett]

Hi,

As I hinted at before, it is highly likely that Thompson's story about the prosititute girl friend was "borrowed" from De Quincey.