The True Face of Francis Thompson.

[Richard Patterson]

In one of Thompson's essays he outlines the development of humanity as, man, woman, child and doll, with doll the most perfect.

And he confesses to an infatuation with one of his sister's dolls when he was a boy. He describes her as his puppet love and says that even now he has only to hear her name and 'the Past touches me with a rigid agglomeration of small china fingers.'

He is a very interesting character, and I am grateful to Richard for bringing him to my attention. I'd heard of him before and had read The Hound of Heaven, but I had no idea how strange a character he was.

However, as a candidate for JTR, I'm not convinced. To me he comes across as a rather effete individual with a paedo streak whose physical strength had been wrecked by years of opium addiction and living on the streets. I just don't see him as having the desire or the physical strength to overpower and disembowel grown women.

These are entirely my own words but I think you're not convinced that Thompson is even a candidate. It's not because he has a history of arson and mutilation, was rejected by a prostitute who vanished from the streets, carried a knife, was likely living in Providence row, had surgical skill, and wrote dreadful things about the very class of women who were killed. It was because he was a girly poet and a pedophile whose arms and legs were thin.

[MrBarnett]

Of course it could have been taken as art, and that's almost certainly what it was.

But if a serial killer were also a poet, I think the chances are that his poems would contain at least obscure references to his crimes. And if the urge to confess was strong enough, he might go further.

Thompson wrote a story about a poet who sacrifices his lover to the gods in exchange for an increase in his poetic abilities.

It's a rather strange tale that a third of the way through switches to a first person confession of the murder of a woman in a dimly lit chamber. The killing takes place at midnight and the victim cries out 'Oh, my god ' at the point of death and opens her eyes. For me it has strong echoes of Millers Court, although some of the detail doesn't quite fit.

Given Thompson's presence in the East End in 1888, I think it's likely this tale was at least influenced by the murder of Mary Kelly.

[Ausgirl]

And you can't love someone without having SEX?

Dear gods, and if not a paedo, it must be remembered that the man was a poet. They can crap on for verses about the perfection of a flower, without wanting to stick their willy in it.

I think Thompson was completely disillusioned and disgusted with the world around him, and for all we know this "love" of an innocent child might very well have been expressed in the tradition of chivalry, idealised romance unsullied by notions of sex. Something pure, in a world of filth, which includes the poet himself.

Personally, I think he sounds a bit creepy with it, though. But does it show him to be a killer? Do ANY of his creative works?

Nope. They do not. Because poets write about things they do not have, things they will never really do, things have never seen and will never actually see. It's called "imagery", and all poets, even the ones who try very hard not to, employ it.

[Ausgirl]

Nobody would have accepted that these literary folk were so naive as to take it all as art.

This is absolute nonsense.

[MrBarnett]

In one of Thompson's essays he outlines the development of humanity as, man, woman, child and doll, with doll the most perfect.

And he confesses to an infatuation with one of his sister's dolls when he was a boy. He describes her as his puppet love and says that even now he has only to hear her name and 'the Past touches me with a rigid agglomeration of small china fingers.'

He is a very interesting character, and I am grateful to Richard for bringing him to my attention. I'd heard of him before and had read The Hound of Heaven, but I had no idea how strange a character he was.

However, as a candidate for JTR, I'm not convinced. To me he comes across as a rather effete individual with a paedo streak whose physical strength had been wrecked by years of opium addiction and living on the streets. I just don't see him as having the desire or the physical strength to overpower and disembowel grown women.

[GUT]

I would not say I loved a 13-year-old female I had only just encountered in a tickling game, just because I chanced to feel her hair. You're right though maybe it was just an innocent comment.

As I've said a few times he's not a bad suspect in some ways, but some of the things you are trying to use to show that actually weaken your case, in my opinion.

But please keep digging.

[Richard Patterson]

And you can't love someone without having SEX?

Come back when he says "I so badly wanted to have sex with her" and you might have a point, as I said previously trying to turn relativaly innocent comments into him being JtR hurts your case.

Have you ever said I love a good wine, or whatever your drink of choice might be, did it mean you hoped to marry it.

Have you ever said I live my mates kids especially when they pull faces at me [or whatever].

I would not say I loved a 13-year-old female I had only just encountered in a tickling game, just because I chanced to feel her hair. You're right though maybe it was just an innocent comment.

[GUT]

In 1885 the age of consent was raised to 16. When, in 1900, Thompson wrote about this girl, it was not only uncommon for her to marry, it was a felony. If I were to fall in love with a child, it were a criminal offense to marry, simply because I had felt her hair, then I hope I would see something bad in it.

And you can't love someone without having SEX?

Come back when he says "I so badly wanted to have sex with her" and you might have a point, as I said previously trying to turn relativaly innocent comments into him being JtR hurts your case.

Have you ever said I love a good wine, or whatever your drink of choice might be, did it mean you hoped to marry it.

Have you ever said I live my mates kids especially when they pull faces at me [or whatever].

[Richard Patterson]

If she was 15 it was really not uncommon you know for her to even marry.

And in all honesty I see nothing BAD about what you just quoted, it seems he was happy that he retained his attraction for children, I too am glad that I retain my attraction for children, does that make me JtR.

You have a suspect that holds some attraction, but keep wanting to over egg the pudding which does little for your case.

In 1885 the age of consent was raised to 16. When, in 1900, Thompson wrote about this girl, it was not only uncommon for her to marry, it was a felony. If I were to fall in love with a child, it were a criminal offense to marry, simply because I had felt her hair, then I hope I would see something bad in it.

[GUT]

Thank you, then you may have seen one letter Thompson wrote to Wilfrid Meynell, July 19th 1900. In which he gets to feel a child's hair and falls in love with her. I would say a very concerning age gap, considering he was 40 and she maybe 13,

‘We had a Carnival hereabouts…The sold sport…was for girls to dab you in the face with a peacock’s feather…Only the children made amends for their elders…I cheerfully submitted my neck to be tickled on my cheek, by the feathery weapons of the kids…One charming child of 13 or 15 had a veritable impromptu game of ‘tick’ with me…at last she allowed me to ‘tick’ here; and then, feeling my hand among her bright tresses…I fell in love with her at first sight for she was delightful: of antelope-lightness, fair complexion and long glittering hair…I retained my old attraction for children…Any way, not even the chicks tempted me forth among the crowd on Friday.’

If she was 15 it was really not uncommon you know for her to even marry.

And in all honesty I see nothing BAD about what you just quoted, it seems he was happy that he retained his attraction for children, I too am glad that I retain my attraction for children, does that make me JtR.

You have a suspect that holds some attraction, but keep wanting to over egg the pudding which does little for your case.

[Richard Patterson]

Richard a reference to a child doesn't necessarily mean a child n the sense we use the term today, I have seen many letters [late 1800s early 1900s] referring to the dear child who was indeed the writer's fiancee, often I grant when there was a largish age gap.

Thank you, then you may have seen one letter Thompson wrote to Wilfrid Meynell, July 19th 1900. In which he gets to feel a child's hair and falls in love with her. I would say a very concerning age gap, considering he was 40 and she maybe 13,

‘We had a Carnival hereabouts…The sold sport…was for girls to dab you in the face with a peacock’s feather…Only the children made amends for their elders…I cheerfully submitted my neck to be tickled on my cheek, by the feathery weapons of the kids…One charming child of 13 or 15 had a veritable impromptu game of ‘tick’ with me…at last she allowed me to ‘tick’ here; and then, feeling my hand among her bright tresses…I fell in love with her at first sight for she was delightful: of antelope-lightness, fair complexion and long glittering hair…I retained my old attraction for children…Any way, not even the chicks tempted me forth among the crowd on Friday.’

[Richard Patterson]

He had friends, too, and they did assist him to recover from his destitution. If he was such a vile person, why would they care or bother?

The reasons why his ‘friends’ assisted him in recovering from his destitution was probably because they had no choice. Those who devoted so much time to Thompson, the homeless bum did so because probably by the time they had come to suspect him as being capable of more than writing poems, it may have been too late. In June of 1888, before the murders began the Meynells had already published Thompson’s poems. He had sent his submission to their magazine, almost a year before. The Meynell’s not being able to contact Thompson published one of his poems anyway. Thompson found out his, ‘The Passion of Mary’, poem had been accepted after he read it in their magazine. He contacted the Meynells and they paid him the money to spruce himself up. Amongst the poems he had first sent them was ‘the Nightmare of the Witch Babies’ which was very explicate in its talk of cutting women up with a knife. The Meynell’s son, Everard, then just a child wrote of his mother's Alice Meynell's opinion,

'Told by A.M at 21 Philimore Place, Mother read in bed the dirty ms of Paganism and along with it some witch-opium poems which she detested.'

Here are sections of this poem which features a lusty knight hunting down woman and ripping their stomachs open with a knife, to look for their ‘witch’ babies in their womb, (This is a short version of the poem, I am happy to supply the full version)

'Two witch-babies,
Ha! Ha!...
A lusty knight,
Ha! Ha!
Rode upon the land…
What is it sees he?
There he saw a maiden
Fairest fair,…
'Swiftly he followed her
Ha! Ha!
Eagerly he followed her
Ho! Ho!
Lo, she corrupted
Ho! Ho!
Comes there a Death
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…
It was a stream ran bloodily
Under the wall.
With a sickening ooze-Hell made it so!
Two witch babies, Ho! Ho! Ho!'

Nobody would have accepted that these literary folk were so naive as to take it all as art. These were the early days of the Ripper crimes, and the pardon for accomplices had not been issued. When the Meynells published Thompson’s poem, the new very little about him including his ill fated relationship with a prostitute, one that would end with her rejection of him, once she discovered the very publication of Thompson’s poem by the Meynells. His publishers probably simply dismissed these macabre verses from their minds. Once the murders had begun the Meynells were possibly already beyond extricating themselves from Thompson and his verses. If they had spoken up, they could have been implicated by outraged public and press. They might have also faced the gallows. This could by why they took him in and confined him in the Storrington Priory in the countryside.

That the Meynell’s were compelled to assist Thompson, in case he were caught, exposing him as the Ripper and them as his unwitting accomplices is all conjecture, but what seems more plausible? The Meynell’s helping a homeless man, all their life solely from the goodness of their heart or the husband and wife caught up in events beyond their control. To me it’s more likely they were two writers duped by a desperate man in extreme events. To avoid the scandal that would ensure, they were forced to help a man who would boast in a poem, ‘Sister Songs’ that he dedicated to their daughters:

‘You are mine through the times!
I have caught you fast for ever in a tangle of sweet rhymes.’

[GUT]

Richard a reference to a child doesn't necessarily mean a child n the sense we use the term today, I have seen many letters [late 1800s early 1900s] referring to the dear child who was indeed the writer's fiancee, often I grant when there was a largish age gap.

[Richard Patterson]

Richard, I do happen to think you've got a fairly decent suspect there, if not the Ripper then someone at least possible -and- interesting to read about.

I don't think, though, that it's helpful to offer up dissections of his creative works as proof of him being a murderer. God knows, anyone reading some of my poems and particularly short fiction and thinking this presented an accurate picture of me, as a person, in my daily life, would probably wonder why I haven't been locked up years ago. Yet, the poems are not all fictions, far from it. Just extremely condensed and symbolic representations of truths, some that nice people don't generally speak about aloud. Many poets are far different people that their poems may indicate, is my point. Poetic license and all.

Letters might be more telling of where his head was actually at, however, and it's interesting that he might have held such abiding hatred for the streets he lived on, the people he saw every day. One has to wonder why he chose to remain there.

What I have quoted here are not dissections of his creative works. Apart from the one quote on the downtrodden, they are all from his private letters, written in confidence to people like his publishers, the Meynells. These quotes are not creative license on his part, they are his actual opinions and him being a poet does not come into this.

[Ausgirl]

Richard, I do happen to think you've got a fairly decent suspect there, if not the Ripper then someone at least possible -and- interesting to read about.

I don't think, though, that it's helpful to offer up dissections of his creative works as proof of him being a murderer. God knows, anyone reading some of my poems and particularly short fiction and thinking this presented an accurate picture of me, as a person, in my daily life, would probably wonder why I haven't been locked up years ago. Yet, the poems are not all fictions, far from it. Just extremely condensed and symbolic representations of truths, some that nice people don't generally speak about aloud. Many poets are far different people that their poems may indicate, is my point. Poetic license and all.

Letters might be more telling of where his head was actually at, however, and it's interesting that he might have held such abiding hatred for the streets he lived on, the people he saw every day. One has to wonder why he chose to remain there.