Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Francis Thompson was not the Ripper. From the Devilís Advocate

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why Francis Thompson was not the Ripper. From the Devilís Advocate

    Why Francis Thompson was not the Ripper. From the Devil’s Advocate

    Francis Thompson could not have been the Ripper. He was a long-term opium addict and everybody knows that the drug would have made him too weak to carry out the murders. It was reported that he only had one lung, so he could hardly have been a strong man. He probably was suffering from tuberculosis too. Even if poor Thompson was a medical student, he was a daydreamer and probably did not even pay attention to his studies. He hated the sight of blood. He failed all of his medical exams after all. He did say he shaved with a dissecting scalpel, while he was homeless, but that might have been just one time, besides the wounds made on the Ripper victims would have been really hard to do with a scalpel.

    There is no proof that this harmless man was even in Whitechapel and he is not named in any of the police files that we know. He was homeless when the murders happened, so he would have been too poor and dirty to have convinced any prostitute to go anywhere near him.

    Sure he might have written about killing, but that’s what writers do, just like Poe and Dickens and Shakespeare. He wrote beautiful poetry about God and love. As a Catholic he must have followed the commandments, which say very clearly that thou shalt not kill. Lots of people, who knew him, said he was the most innocent of men. They say he was polite and gentle and wouldn’t even hurt a fly. All the excellent scholars and eminent historians, who have studied Thompson and written about his life, have not told us of a shred of evidence that suggests he was a killer. Heaps of people love his amazing poetry and he has made millions of people happy. Nobody even thought of the idea of him being the Ripper until at least a hundred years after the murders.

    This funny little man was great with children too. Thompson was always hanging around kids, tickling them with feathers, taking them off alone ice-skating, or to feed ducks in the park. If he were not to be trusted, all those Catholic priests he knew would have said something. Plus, he liked cricket too. A cricket fan who frolicked with little kids could not have been the Ripper.

    This sweet man did not learn anything at medical school. He was too weak to commit any crimes. Most people see him as nothing but an innocent and gentle poet who is wrongly accused of a bunch of murders that were probably done by some crazy uneducated, unskilled butcher. Francis Thompson is innocent!
    Last edited by Richard Patterson; 02-14-2015, 11:38 PM.
    Author of

    "Jack the Ripper, The Works of Francis Thompson"

    http://www.francisjthompson.com/

  • #2
    All good points Richard and they are some of the things that need reconciling, for me anyway. before I'd be anywhere near convinced.
    G U T

    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.

    Comment


    • #3
      I get the self mocking

      But I would make the point that some of his traits would make him less likely to be seriously looked at as a viable ripper candidate if these traits were known to the police at the time. Such as the dislike of blood. I also wonder if his relationship with a prostitute in the past again if known to the police was viewed as something which prejudiced his candidacy. Having been discounted might perversely made his task easier.
      That still leaves enough in his favour to make him viable though. IMHO of course.

      Snapper

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by The Snapper View Post
        But I would make the point that some of his traits would make him less likely to be seriously looked at as a viable ripper candidate if these traits were known to the police at the time. Such as the dislike of blood. I also wonder if his relationship with a prostitute in the past again if known to the police was viewed as something which prejudiced his candidacy. Having been discounted might perversely made his task easier.
        That still leaves enough in his favour to make him viable though. IMHO of course.

        Snapper
        John Douglas, the famed ex-FBI special agent, showed by the methods the Ripper used, the nature of the wounding, the laying down of the bodies etc., that the killer, hated blood. So what if the ripper hated flowing blood but he put up with on at least 5 occasions. That Thompson hated the sight of flowing blood too is just a silly coincidence. So what that he was homeless but he did that every day for three years, and so what that he hated medical school but attended for six years. That the only relationship Thompson ever had was a year-long one with a prostitute and right before the murder she rejected him and disappeared, never to be seen alive again, means nothing. Heaps of people visited prostitutes. It is true that the historian and biographer John Walsh wrote in his 1967 book on Thompson, that he might have been taken in for questioning on suspicion of being Jack the Ripper. It is true also that Douglas also said the Ripper may have been taken in for questioning and was probably discounted, but lots of people where questioned at the time. (I am self mocking of course but that is the point of this thread.)
        Author of

        "Jack the Ripper, The Works of Francis Thompson"

        http://www.francisjthompson.com/

        Comment

        Working...
        X