Israel Schwartz, Pipeman - Francis Thompson

[jerryd]

Hi JerryD,

Interesting info!

What continually confuses me is that surely Smith was telling us about interesting traits that he recognised in his suspect. He was not saying that he had proof or even good evidence that these traits were possessed by JtR. He didn't have proof, or even strong evidence that JtR was an ex-medical student and not a fully trained doctor, surgeon or slaughterman. He didn't have proof or even strong evidence that JtR lived in a particular street or area, or was personally involved in coin trickery, or had been in an asylum etc. The traits are only those of his suspect. So trying to identify a suspect using these traits as a guide is not positively going to lead us to the Ripper, and case closed.

Hi DW.

Major Henry Smith's search for this suspect all began in a report by Sir Charles Warren to the Home Office dated 19, September 1888:

"A man called Puckeridge was released from an asylum on 4 August. He was educated as a Surgeon - has threatened to rip people up with a long knife. He is being looked for but cannot be found as yet."
[Evans and Skinner, Ultimate Sourcebook, p. 132] Thank you Chris for this.

Warren was searching for this suspect but had not found him. We know it was after the second murder (19th September, 1888 dated report from Warren), we know his name was Puckeridge, we know he was released from an Asylum on 4, August and we know he was educated as a surgeon (or so Warren states anyway).

From here Smith follows up on Warren's suspect and finds Puckeridge living on Rupert Street, so he sent two men to shadow him. This is all documented in the reports Chris found stating how they followed Puckeridge through Haymarket and ended at a coffee house in Rupert Street. Puckeridge proves an alibi beyond a shadow of doubt.

Now compare those actual facts to the memoir of Sir Henry Smith in 1910.

"After the second crime I sent word to Sir Charles Warren that I had discovered a man very likely to be the man wanted. He certainly had all the qualifications requisite. He had been a medical student; he had been in a lunatic asylum; he spent all his time with women of loose character, whom he bilked by giving them polished farthings instead of sovereigns, two of these farthings having been found in the pocket of the murdered woman. Sir Charles failed to find him. I thought he was likely to be in Rupert Street, Haymarket. I sent up two men, and there he was; but, polished farthings and all, he proved an alibi without the shadow of doubt."

So, to state once again, this is not Smith's blueprint description of whom he thinks Jack the Ripper is. This is a description of his follow up of Sir Charles Warrens search for Puckeridge. Which ended in a failure to find him. Just as Smith states in his memoir, "Sir Charles failed to find him" cross referenced in Warren's report " he is being looked for but cannot be found as of yet."

"He certainly had all the qualifications requisite."- All the qualifications of Warren's suspect, who was Oswald Puckeridge.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi DW.

Major Henry Smith's search for this suspect all began in a report by Sir Charles Warren to the Home Office dated 19, September 1888:

"A man called Puckeridge was released from an asylum on 4 August. He was educated as a Surgeon - has threatened to rip people up with a long knife. He is being looked for but cannot be found as yet."
[Evans and Skinner, Ultimate Sourcebook, p. 132] Thank you Chris for this.

Warren was searching for this suspect but had not found him. We know it was after the second murder (19th September, 1888 dated report from Warren), we know his name was Puckeridge, we know he was released from an Asylum on 4, August and we know he was educated as a surgeon (or so Warren states anyway).

From here Smith follows up on Warren's suspect and finds Puckeridge living on Rupert Street, so he sent two men to shadow him. This is all documented in the reports Chris found stating how they followed Puckeridge through Haymarket and ended at a coffee house in Rupert Street. Puckeridge proves an alibi beyond a shadow of doubt.

Now compare those actual facts to the memoir of Sir Henry Smith in 1910.

"After the second crime I sent word to Sir Charles Warren that I had discovered a man very likely to be the man wanted. He certainly had all the qualifications requisite. He had been a medical student; he had been in a lunatic asylum; he spent all his time with women of loose character, whom he bilked by giving them polished farthings instead of sovereigns, two of these farthings having been found in the pocket of the murdered woman. Sir Charles failed to find him. I thought he was likely to be in Rupert Street, Haymarket. I sent up two men, and there he was; but, polished farthings and all, he proved an alibi without the shadow of doubt."

So, to state once again, this is not Smith's blueprint description of whom he thinks Jack the Ripper is. This is a description of his follow up of Sir Charles Warrens search for Puckeridge. Which ended in a failure to find him. Just as Smith states in his memoir, "Sir Charles failed to find him" cross referenced in Warren's report " he is being looked for but cannot be found as of yet."

"He certainly had all the qualifications requisite."- All the qualifications of Warren's suspect, who was Oswald Puckeridge.

Thank you JerryD, that makes the position much clearer.

I believe the polished farthings in the pocket story was not reported in the evidence of Chandler or Phillips at the time, and may therefore be a legend and not a fact. Phillips reported the finding of a small piece of muslin, a pocket comb in a paper case, along with some tablets in an envelope, which appeared to be the contents of her pocket. So it seems there was no official report of polished farthings at the time. But even if it were true, there is no convincing evidence that the killer gave them to her immediately before killing her, took her rings, but left his polished coins. The alleged coin trickery clue cannot therefore be shown to be relevant.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I hadn’t paid enough attention to this thread but it an important one because it really does illustrate the problem that we have in discussing Francis Thompson with Richard. There is only one person in the world who would compare Thompson and Puckridge and come down on the side of Thompson as being Smiths man. Again…

“After the second crime I sent word to Sir Charles Warren (a) that I had discovered a man very likely to be the man wanted. He certainly had all the qualifications requisite. He had been a medical student;(b) he had been in a lunatic asylum; he spent all his time with women of loose character, (c) whom he bilked by giving them polished farthings instead of sovereigns,(d) two of these farthings have been found in the pocket of the murdered woman. Sir Charles failed to find him. I thought he was likely to be in Rupert Street, Haymarket. (e) I sent up two men, and there he was; but, polished farthings and all, he proved an alibi without a shadow of doubt.”


(a) We see Smith saying “After the second crime…” so after September 8th. This means that his suspect had been in an asylum prior to September 8th. Couldn’t be clearer?

Puckridge - Released from an asylum around a month prior to Smith contacting Warren - Fits perfectly.
Thompson - Was never in an asylum in his entire life. Not once. He was in a hospital though but this wasn’t until October, and his stay at Storrington (which wasn’t an institution as Richard deceptively describes it…it was a monastery) wasn’t until 1889 - Absolutely no fit whatsoever.

1-0 Puckridge

(b) Smith’s suspect had been a medical student.

Puckridge - Yes.
Thompson - Yes.

2-1 Puckridge

(c) Smith’s suspect spent all of his time with women of loose character.

Puckridge - We have no evidence of this - No
Thompson - He lived with a prostitute but we have no reason to suspect that he spent all of his time with women of loose character. Still, Thompson has to score over Puckridge on this point - Yes

2-2

(d) Smith’s suspect had bilked (cheated) prostitutes with polished farthings

Puckridge - We have no evidence of him doing this - No
Thompson - We have no evidence of him doing this. (Richard’s bizarre attempt to match up ‘cheating with polished farthings’ and Thompson’s once finding two sovereigns in the street is frankly beneath contempt and a brazen attempt to cheat the evidence) - No

No match for either

2-2

(e) Smith sent his men specifically to Rupert Street to arrest his suspect.

Puckridge - Lived in Rupert Street - Yes
Thompson - No connection to Rupert Street whatsoever - No

Final score 3-2 Puckridge


Of course the reality is that this is much more one-sided in favour of Puckridge because of the EXACT accuracy of two of the points. That, around September 8th, Smith mentioned the suspect being in an asylum when Puckridge had been released from one no more than a month previously (which also explains why this fact was fresh in Smith’s mind) Then…the absolute killer, final, GAME ABSOLUTELY OVER point…of all of the streets in London, Smith names the EXACT one that Puckridge lived in.

100% game over. Smith’s suspect was undoubtedly Oswald Puckridge. Whatever waffle might ensue, I’m just not interested. It was Puckridge.

[C. F. Leon]

...

But even if it were true, there is no convincing evidence that the killer gave them to her immediately before killing her, took her rings, but left his polished coins. The alleged coin trickery clue cannot therefore be shown to be relevant.

Or Someone Else gave her the coins earlier and therefore they are completely irrelevant. Like the fire in Kelly's room, this possibility (/probability) is NEVER mentioned by the suspect theorists.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I hadn’t paid enough attention to this thread but it an important one because it really does illustrate the problem that we have in discussing Francis Thompson with Richard. There is only one person in the world who would compare Thompson and Puckridge and come down on the side of Thompson as being Smiths man. Again…

“After the second crime I sent word to Sir Charles Warren (a) that I had discovered a man very likely to be the man wanted. He certainly had all the qualifications requisite. He had been a medical student;(b) he had been in a lunatic asylum; he spent all his time with women of loose character, (c) whom he bilked by giving them polished farthings instead of sovereigns,(d) two of these farthings have been found in the pocket of the murdered woman. Sir Charles failed to find him. I thought he was likely to be in Rupert Street, Haymarket. (e) I sent up two men, and there he was; but, polished farthings and all, he proved an alibi without a shadow of doubt.”


(a) We see Smith saying “After the second crime…” so after September 8th. This means that his suspect had been in an asylum prior to September 8th. Couldn’t be clearer?

Puckridge - Released from an asylum around a month prior to Smith contacting Warren - Fits perfectly.
Thompson - Was never in an asylum in his entire life. Not once. He was in a hospital though but this wasn’t until October, and his stay at Storrington (which wasn’t an institution as Richard deceptively describes it…it was a monastery) wasn’t until 1889 - Absolutely no fit whatsoever.

1-0 Puckridge

(b) Smith’s suspect had been a medical student.

Puckridge - Yes.
Thompson - Yes.

2-1 Puckridge

(c) Smith’s suspect spent all of his time with women of loose character.

Puckridge - We have no evidence of this - No
Thompson - He lived with a prostitute but we have no reason to suspect that he spent all of his time with women of loose character. Still, Thompson has to score over Puckridge on this point - Yes

2-2

(d) Smith’s suspect had bilked (cheated) prostitutes with polished farthings

Puckridge - We have no evidence of him doing this - No
Thompson - We have no evidence of him doing this. (Richard’s bizarre attempt to match up ‘cheating with polished farthings’ and Thompson’s once finding two sovereigns in the street is frankly beneath contempt and a brazen attempt to cheat the evidence) - No

No match for either

2-2

(e) Smith sent his men specifically to Rupert Street to arrest his suspect.

Puckridge - Lived in Rupert Street - Yes
Thompson - No connection to Rupert Street whatsoever - No

Final score 3-2 Puckridge


Of course the reality is that this is much more one-sided in favour of Puckridge because of the EXACT accuracy of two of the points. That, around September 8th, Smith mentioned the suspect being in an asylum when Puckridge had been released from one no more than a month previously (which also explains why this fact was fresh in Smith’s mind) Then…the absolute killer, final, GAME ABSOLUTELY OVER point…of all of the streets in London, Smith names the EXACT one that Puckridge lived in.

100% game over. Smith’s suspect was undoubtedly Oswald Puckridge. Whatever waffle might ensue, I’m just not interested. It was Puckridge.

On the basis of this we really should award a point for a connection to prostitutes. I have just added this point on the ‘Rating the Suspects’ thread. I’ve also added a point to Thompson because for some strange reason I hadn’t done so in the ‘drug use’ section.

[Scott Nelson]

And I've given you a thumbs up for tenacity.