Only a 0.000003 chance the Ripper murderer was not a religious fanatic

[Richard Patterson]

There is only a 0.000003 chance that the Whitechapel murderer was not a religious fanatic. In Catholicism, occupations are protected by patron saints that are venerated in different days of the year. The days for the patron saints for butchers, soldiers, midwives, and doctors, fell upon dates of the Ripper's murders. Because these occupations used knives and needed anatomical skill the police suspected, questioned and detained them. A religious fanatic could have chosen to kill on these dates in the belief that he was fulfilling some kind of divine mission. Here the dates of each murder and their patron saints.

August 31st.
Saint Raymund the patron of midwives.

September 8th.
Saint Adrian the patron saint of Butchers and Soldiers.

September 30th.
Saint Jerome the patron saint of Doctors.

November 9th.
Saint Theodor the patron saint of Butchers and Soldiers.

Here is a list of occupations, their patron saints and their dates, other than on the dates of the murders.

Doctors. 3.
Comas, September 27. Luke the Evangelist, October 18. Pantaleon, July 27.

Butchers. 2
George, April 23 & May 6. Peter the Apostle, June 29.

Midwives 1
Pantaleon (again) July 27.

Soldiers 5
Elgius, December 1. George, April 23 (again). Ignatius of Loyola, July 31. Joan of Arc, May 30. Martin of Tours, November 11.

In a year with 15 patron days matching these occupations, there is a 1 in 24 chance that any date would fall on these patron saint days. The chance that four dates in a row would fall on one of these saint days is 1 in 344,861*. If it were a one in a hundred chance it would be significant, let alone in the hundreds of thousands. This is the only real lead we have had in the past 127 years. Until they can be discounted, all suspects that showed signs of religious fervor should be investigated. Of the 500 known suspects, the only one that is credible and fits this description is the one I have brought forwards. This is the failed priest, with surgical skill, Francis Thompson.

*This is a rough figure. (365/15)*(364/15)*(363/15)*(362/15) It does not take into account other compounding factors, such as the events occurring either on a weekends or bank holidays or that some dates have the same saint.

[Ausgirl]

Isn't there a current thread on this?

And sorry, but the premise in my opinion is weak, and faulty. For reasons that are obvious. Spinning statistics to support a theory, based on another, not yet convincingly proven theory, isn't doing anything to help this.

[GUT]

Only if we accept that he chose those days, what are the odds that he could have killed on a day that wasn't a saints day, or a Sunday or some other day of religious significance, about 1 in 100 or maybe less.


"This is the only real lead we have had in the past 127 years." come on get real. What about Swanson and MM and even the discovery that Cross was in all probability Lechmere, and about 5,000 other bits of information.

Now I think you have a somewhat investigable suspect but when you over egg the pudding you loose credibility.

Also that is based on the C5, if you add any other victims, where does that leave the theory?

Now lets just look at those on Case book

Fairy Fay 26 Dec, Nope but Boxing day so maybe close
Annie Millwood 25 February No
Ada Wilson 28 March Sorry
Emma Smith 3 April another miss
Martha Tabram 7 August
Whitehall Mystery 3 October Well I'll leave this one out as we don't even know when she died.
Annie Farmer 20 November another miss I'm afraid
Rose Mylett 20 December no luck here
Elizabeth Jackson June 1889 Well we don't know her date so I'll pay 6 May, just to be generous
Alice Mackenzie 17 July Bugger
Pinchin St. Murder 10 Sept Again we don't know when she dies so I might give you half a chance
Frances Coles 13 February Not looking good
Carrie Brown 24 April Well the day after George and the day before ANZAC day almost a Holy day in Aus, but few years too early



If you insist on the C5, where did it originate? As far as I can tell Macnaghten, [after all the police file contained something like 14 victims] now if he was right about that why wasn't he also right about his suspects?

[Richard Patterson]

Isn't there a current thread on this?

And sorry, but the premise in my opinion is weak, and faulty. For reasons that are obvious. Spinning statistics to support a theory, based on another, not yet convincingly proven theory, isn't doing anything to help this.

I have adjusted the figures based on feedback, and since such a claim would be of interest specifically to Thompson, it makes sense to have a thread on it here. You say the premise is weak, but are unable to explain how. You say that it is faulty, but don't say why. You say the reasons are obvious. Pray tell, what are they?

Spinning statistics? It's not rocket science. It's not drawing numbers from a hat. I've deliberately sided on numbers. Someone reading your response could think you are trying to make it out that I'm a liar. 1 + 1 =2.

[Pcdunn]

As a cradle Catholic who has read many lives of the saints, my thought is that just about any day is a Saint's day. The difference, apparently, is limiting your selected saints by the occupations they are patrons of, which is limited further by association with sharp blades and death.
It is a bit contrived, rather like the man who tried to assert that people's astrological signs predicted what careers they would excel at, athletes and so forth.

[GUT]

Just notices I missed commenting on Martha, probably the most widely accepted of the Non C5, but sorry no cigar.

In fact I think that a cursory look at this site and JtR shows that more accept her as a ripper victim than some of the C5.

[Richard Patterson]

Only if we accept that he chose those days, what are the odds that he could have killed on a day that wasn't a saints day, or a Sunday or some other day of religious significance, about 1 in 100 or maybe less.


"This is the only real lead we have had in the past 127 years." come on get real. What about Swanson and MM and even the discovery that Cross was in all probability Lechmere, and about 5,000 other bits of information.

Now I think you have a somewhat investigable suspect but when you over egg the pudding you loose credibility.

Also that is based on the C5, if you add any other victims, where does that leave the theory?

Now lets just look at those on Case book

Fairy Fay 26 Dec, Nope but Boxing day so maybe close
Annie Millwood 25 February No
Ada Wilson 28 March Sorry
Emma Smith 3 April another miss
Martha Tabram 7 August
Whitehall Mystery 3 October Well I'll leave this one out as we don't even know when she died.
Annie Farmer 20 November another miss I'm afraid
Rose Mylett 20 December no luck here
Elizabeth Jackson June 1889 Well we don't know her date so I'll pay 6 May, just to be generous
Alice Mackenzie 17 July Bugger
Pinchin St. Murder 10 Sept Again we don't know when she dies so I might give you half a chance
Frances Coles 13 February Not looking good
Carrie Brown 24 April Well the day after George and the day before ANZAC day almost a Holy day in Aus, but few years too early



If you insist on the C5, where did it originate? As far as I can tell Macnaghten, [after all the police file contained something like 14 victims] now if he was right about that why wasn't he also right about his suspects?

In the face of these odds, of hundreds of thousands to one, it is incredible that you could try to dispute its importance to the case. Your list of other victims and your crude remarks besides their names, apart from being tawdry, can not show that any were killed inside the dates of August 31 to November 9. All five of the C5 were and all fell on saint days with occupations matching what the police were seeking. You dismiss this only real lead by giving me Lechmere, a man found with one of the bodies who may have lied to police. A cart-driver, who by all accounts was harmless and led an ordinary life before and after the murders. The police did nothing about Lechmere, for good reason. You provide the Swanson Marginalia. As well as a document examiner Dr Christopher Davies, MA, D. Phil (Oxford) expressing doubt that they were written by Swanson, it is full of historical inaccuracies. Please.

[GUT]

In the face of these odds, of hundreds of thousands to one, it is incredible that you could try to dispute its importance to the case. Your list of other victims and your crude remarks besides their names, apart from being a tawdry, can not show that any were killed inside the dates of August 31 to November 9. All five of the C5 were and all fell on saint days with occupations matching what the police were seeking. You dismiss this only real lead by giving me Lechmere, a man found with one of the bodies who may have lied to police. A cart-driver, who by all accounts was harmless and led an ordinary life before and after the murders. The police did nothing about Lechmere, for good reason. You provide the Swanson Marginalia. As well as a document examiner Dr Christopher Davies, MA, D. Phil (Oxford) expressing doubt that they were written by Swanson, it is full of historical inaccuracies. Please.

What about Martha, who most appear to accept.

Why limit it to 31 Aug to 9 Nov.

You still haven't explained why you limit it to the C5. Nor how it is possible to stick strictly to the C5 but dismiss out of hand the same man's suspects. Either Macnaghten knew what he was talking about so the C5 it is, or he was delusional so kck everything he says.

I put up Cross might equal Lechmere because you said this was the only lead in 127 and Swanson for the exact same reason, not because I support either suspect, in fact if you look at the Lech threads you will see some rather heated exchanges between me and Fisherman [who by the way have a great deal of respect for] but think he too is over egging his pudding.

One lead that I will mention that I left out earlier was the discovery in the 60s I think that Mac's suspect was Druitt.

So while I repeat you have a suspect worth looking into, you need to fill or explain these gaps in your theory.

[Richard Patterson]

Just notices I missed commenting on Martha, probably the most widely accepted of the Non C5, but sorry no cigar.

In fact I think that a cursory look at this site and JtR shows that more accept her as a ripper victim than some of the C5.

A cursory look at this site shows most people believe it was Maybrick a cotton merchant, whose only real connection to the crimes is a diary that most people think is a forgery. Oh dear. It sounds like you are trying to counter-argue by popular opinion.

[GUT]

A cursory look at this site shows most people believe it was Maybrick a cotton merchant, whose only real connection to the crimes is a diary that most people think is a forgery. Oh dear. It sounds like you are trying to counter-argue by popular opinion.

What??

Most people believe that JtR was Maybrick, on what Planet? I think that I can count on one hand the number of posters here who accept that he was.

But as for leads, of which you have the only one in 127 years the diary was most certainly a lead, just it turned out to not be a very good one. In my opinion anyway.

But please answer the question why accept Macnaghten's C5 but reject his three suspects.

[GUT]

Oh another lead that comes to mind might be the discovery that Littlechild's Dr T was in all probability Tumblety, but of course this is the only lead in the last 127 years.

And no I'm not a Tumblety fan either, but it was a pretty major lead.

[Richard Patterson]

What about Martha, who most appear to accept.

Why limit it to 31 Aug to 9 Nov.

You still haven't explained why you limit it to the C5. Nor how it is possible to stick strictly to the C5 but dismiss out of hand the same man's suspects. Either Macnaghten knew what he was talking about so the C5 it is, or he was delusional so kck everything he says.

I put up Cross might equal Lechmere because you said this was the only lead in 127 and Swanson for the exact same reason, not because I support either suspect, in fact if you look at the Lech threads you will see some rather heated exchanges between me and Fisherman [who by the way have a great deal of respect for] but think he too is over egging his pudding.

One lead that I will mention that I left out earlier was the discovery in the 60s I think that Mac's suspect was Druitt.

So while I repeat you have a suspect worth looking into, you need to fill or explain these gaps in your theory.

C5, not see C5? .... You could give me 5 murders before the C5 and 5 afterwards. Even if none of them presented dates, that covered patron saints for the occupations the police were seeking, that within them is 4 in a row that do is a remarkable statistical anomaly. One that only a simpleton would dismiss as unimportant.

[Ausgirl]

Stretching supporting evidence incredibly thin, over-reaching, or using straw man statistics do not necessarily make a person a liar.

Which police genuinely thought midwives a viable suspect pool, and for which murders?

Aha! and the name calling has begun....

[GUT]

So is your theory that he was disguising himself as these types of people, or how else do you make the connection between the police looking for this type of person and the dates, I am honestly puzzled.

Also where and when were the police looking for a mid-wife?

[GUT]

Oh and when was a soldier the suspect, that's right Martha, but no saints day there. Not even in the magical 31 Aug to 9 Nov.