Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by Herlock Sholmes 50 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by Elamarna 55 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - by Herlock Sholmes 1 hours ago.
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - by Elamarna 2 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Abby Normal 3 hours ago.
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by Fisherman 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - (25 posts)
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - (11 posts)
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (10 posts)
Rippercast: Oh, Dear Boss: The Ripper Had All The Luck - (3 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (2 posts)
General Discussion: Mug Shots from 1908-1911 - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Thompson, Francis

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #201  
Old 04-28-2016, 05:37 PM
Ausgirl Ausgirl is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 556
Default

So passive-aggressive! Okay, I'll play..

If I ever were to settle on a suspect with enough conviction to write a book about it, this is the first place I'd run to - why? because the kind folks here will cheerfully kick holes in the parts which are most thinly-plastered, thereby neatly identifying the weak spots in direst need of demolition or bolstering, is why.

Though I can see why some people might percieve this as mean and nasty --oh, and even offensively. outrageously ignorant! - behaviour, I would find it immensely useful. Even if only to help cement my own convictions.. (there again, I'd likely admit to myself that were they made of such strong stuff, there might not be so many boot-holes in them.)

And this role is all I feel presently "qualified" to play in this discussion, Richard (speaking frankly and directly, just for a moment, sorry) - which may change, after I get my hands on all necessary materials to form a solid enough opinion of the suspect for myself. Until then, I'll do you a kindness and back right off.

Cheers.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 04-28-2016, 05:40 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,324
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ausgirl View Post
So passive-aggressive! Okay, I'll play..

If I ever were to settle on a suspect with enough conviction to write a book about it, this is the first place I'd run to - why? because the kind folks here will cheerfully kick holes in the parts which are most thinly-plastered, thereby neatly identifying the weak spots in direst need of demolition or bolstering, is why.

Though I can see why some people might percieve this as mean and nasty --oh, and even offensively. outrageously ignorant! - behaviour, I would find it immensely useful. Even if only to help cement my own convictions.. (there again, I'd likely admit to myself that were they made of such strong stuff, there might not be so many boot-holes in them.)

And this role is all I feel presently "qualified" to play in this discussion, Richard (speaking frankly and directly, just for a moment, sorry) - which may change, after I get my hands on all necessary materials to form a solid enough opinion of the suspect for myself. Until then, I'll do you a kindness and back right off.

Cheers.

I agree about wanting the holes pointed out.
__________________
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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 04-28-2016, 07:09 PM
Richard Patterson Richard Patterson is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 530
Default

Speaking as someone who has taught for some years, there is a difference between rational and habitual criticism. It seems that the habit at present is to solely find holes in theories advanced, while doing nothing to see where connections can be made. If an untruth is written then any critic worth their salt should expose it, but tearing down ideas by solely focusing on weaknesses frustrates research. Also, and perhaps not on this thread but certainly on the message boards, often it is the case that the line between attacking the arguement and the person presenting it are often blurred. This may have to do with the tendency to not wanting to appear gullible which is just as good as any reason to defend a position, but 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. We should all question what are brought forward as facts, and defend common sense and if Thompson is innocent of the crimes then there is nothing wrong in joining in the queue of those who have defended him. Even if it is a long line stretching back a century. At the front of it are Thompson’s editor who said that Thompson could not harm the proverbial fly and his wife who said he was one of the most innocent of men. In addition, the papers like the Stylus that printed, just months after Thompson’s death, that he had done the world an inestimable good, and that he was a true miracle performed by the Holy Ghost. I see a problem behind this adamant belief in cheerfully kicking holes in the results of research posted here. It may seem to be honourable to those here, but to outsiders, who see him as a strong suspect, and I am happy to argue Thompson’s candidacy against any other suspect ever advanced on this board, it is not simply a defense of proprietary and methodology which is taking place. It is defending a murderer.
__________________
Author of

"Jack the Ripper, The Works of Francis Thompson"

http://www.francisjthompson.com/

Last edited by Richard Patterson : 04-28-2016 at 07:38 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 04-28-2016, 07:41 PM
Roy Corduroy Roy Corduroy is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,579
Default

Hi Richard,

On this thread, Mr. Barnett has argued persuasively and provided historical documentation showing Francis Thompson could have easily stayed at the Providence Row Night Refuge in Spitalfields during any of the three (3) previous winter seasons he was in London. Not exclusively November 1888 and at no other time. I tend to agree.

I can assure you that neither Mr Barnett or myself are trying to denigrate your overall theory. Simply discussing this aspect.

Roy
__________________
Sink the Bismark
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 04-28-2016, 08:26 PM
Richard Patterson Richard Patterson is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 530
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Corduroy View Post
Hi Richard,

On this thread, Mr. Barnett has argued persuasively and provided historical documentation showing Francis Thompson could have easily stayed at the Providence Row Night Refuge in Spitalfields during any of the three (3) previous winter seasons he was in London. Not exclusively November 1888 and at no other time. I tend to agree.

I can assure you that neither Mr Barnett or myself are trying to denigrate your overall theory. Simply discussing this aspect.

Roy
There’s staying and there’s staying. Mr. Barnett showed that Thompson could have stayed the 3 years previous if he had been deceptive. If Thompson had given references that when checked proved to be false, then he would have been booted out of the Providence Row. In my twenty years of studying this man, I have never found evidence that points to him as deceptive, a serial killer maybe, but not a liar. He could have stayed before November 1888, but he I choose to side with what is likely not just what is possible. If Thompson had given false references to get into the Row, do you think he then would have written about his stay there in his article in the ‘Merry England’ a respected Catholic magazine? I doubt that he would have or that his editor would have allowed it. Certainly Mr. Barnett has shown that he could have stayed in the Row with the required references but unless he can prove Thompson a liar, he has simply provided us with further possibilities.

I should add, what I have said before. That if Thompson did stay at the Row before 1888 if only serves to increase the history of his association with Spitalfields and increases the likelihood that he may have formed associations with the murdered prostitutes. This of course does not lesson his strength as a suspect. In fact if it were not for Mr Barnett’s careful research I would not have felt compelled to do some more reading which led me to discover that Providence Row may have been unique as shelter for not locking residents in at night and therefore allowing them to leave at all hours. Something I find to be very interesting.

As to whether Mr Barnett or yourself have tried to denigrate my overall theory, I see no evidence of that and I am sorry if my comment made it seem like I believe this. My comment addresses no particular person. I believe that you and Mr. Barnett have behaved very cordially throughout this thread and I welcome your commentary and questions.
__________________
Author of

"Jack the Ripper, The Works of Francis Thompson"

http://www.francisjthompson.com/
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 11-09-2016, 09:44 AM
Karl Karl is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 186
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Patterson View Post
Speaking as someone who has taught for some years, there is a difference between rational and habitual criticism. It seems that the habit at present is to solely find holes in theories advanced, while doing nothing to see where connections can be made. If an untruth is written then any critic worth their salt should expose it, but tearing down ideas by solely focusing on weaknesses frustrates research.
This is what the scientific method is all about: falsification. Patterns are all too easy to find, and may lead to absolutely false conclusions. It is vital, for any theory to be viable, to withstand barrages of criticism. If it stands upright even after all attempts to tear it down, then there might be something to it. Science is endlessly self-critical. Until an hypothesis has been subjected to a rigorous falsification process, it remains an hypothesis.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 11-10-2016, 05:01 AM
Richard Patterson Richard Patterson is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 530
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl View Post
This is what the scientific method is all about: falsification. Patterns are all too easy to find, and may lead to absolutely false conclusions. It is vital, for any theory to be viable, to withstand barrages of criticism. If it stands upright even after all attempts to tear it down, then there might be something to it. Science is endlessly self-critical. Until an hypothesis has been subjected to a rigorous falsification process, it remains an hypothesis.
Karl. I agree with you 100 % what I have arrived at is a hypothesis. Ok so with Francis Thompson we have a man who in the time of the Ripper murders, was homeless and a highly trained medical student. He had a dissecting scalpel, and a history of mental illness, trouble with the police and a drug habit. He had just broken up with a prostitute and had already written about cutting women’s stomachs open. At the same time, a few yards opposite his refuge, a Mary Kelly was knifed, as part of a spate of prostitute murders, which one coroner said was by someone who had considerable anatomical skill and knowledge. These are not facts which have been plucked out of the air. The have been established long before I came up with the theory and they are all already in published books by authors who have strong credentials. Perhaps the case may never be solved but I believe that the theory that Thompson was the Ripper should be rigorously examined and questioned and not simply tossed aside because he happened to be at one time famous. It seems that Casebook has for a very a very long time ignored Thompson and that could be forgiven if so much effort meanwhile has not been spent examining other suspects that are connected to the crimes on the filmiest evidence.
__________________
Author of

"Jack the Ripper, The Works of Francis Thompson"

http://www.francisjthompson.com/
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 11-10-2016, 07:11 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,904
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Patterson View Post
Karl. I agree with you 100 % what I have arrived at is a hypothesis. Ok so with Francis Thompson we have a man who in the time of the Ripper murders, was homeless and a highly trained medical student. He had a dissecting scalpel, and a history of mental illness, trouble with the police and a drug habit. He had just broken up with a prostitute and had already written about cutting women’s stomachs open. At the same time, a few yards opposite his refuge, a Mary Kelly was knifed, as part of a spate of prostitute murders, which one coroner said was by someone who had considerable anatomical skill and knowledge. These are not facts which have been plucked out of the air. The have been established long before I came up with the theory and they are all already in published books by authors who have strong credentials. Perhaps the case may never be solved but I believe that the theory that Thompson was the Ripper should be rigorously examined and questioned and not simply tossed aside because he happened to be at one time famous. It seems that Casebook has for a very a very long time ignored Thompson and that could be forgiven if so much effort meanwhile has not been spent examining other suspects that are connected to the crimes on the filmiest evidence.
I think you will find that no anatomical knowledge was shown with regards to the Kelly murder.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 11-10-2016, 07:16 AM
Karl Karl is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 186
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Patterson View Post
Karl. I agree with you 100 % what I have arrived at is a hypothesis. Ok so with Francis Thompson we have a man who in the time of the Ripper murders, was homeless and a highly trained medical student. He had a dissecting scalpel, and a history of mental illness, trouble with the police and a drug habit. He had just broken up with a prostitute and had already written about cutting women’s stomachs open. At the same time, a few yards opposite his refuge, a Mary Kelly was knifed, as part of a spate of prostitute murders, which one coroner said was by someone who had considerable anatomical skill and knowledge. These are not facts which have been plucked out of the air. The have been established long before I came up with the theory and they are all already in published books by authors who have strong credentials. Perhaps the case may never be solved but I believe that the theory that Thompson was the Ripper should be rigorously examined and questioned and not simply tossed aside because he happened to be at one time famous. It seems that Casebook has for a very a very long time ignored Thompson and that could be forgiven if so much effort meanwhile has not been spent examining other suspects that are connected to the crimes on the filmiest evidence.
No, Thompson should not be tossed out as a suspect simply because he is somewhat famous. But none of my counterarguments to your hypothesis has had anything to do with his celebrity status.

As for surgical/anatomical knowledge/skill, that remains a point of contention. And it mainly revolves around Catherine Eddowes - I do not recall anyone claiming the butchery of Mary Jane Kelly was particularly skillful.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 11-10-2016, 12:15 PM
Richard Patterson Richard Patterson is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 530
Default

Hi Trevor,
I find that Dr. Bond saw no anatomical knowledge with regards to the Kelly murder, and that was his professional opinion. However, I and others see evidence that there was anatomical knowledge.

Richard
__________________
Author of

"Jack the Ripper, The Works of Francis Thompson"

http://www.francisjthompson.com/
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.