|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 7:10 am: |       |
I mentioned on another thread about people who should probably not be suspects on the grounds they weren't actually there. I named the following:
Eddie,
Cream,
Deeming,
Druitt,
Sickert.
Perhaps this is a line we could pursue - who has an alibi? Ostrog in Paris? Stephen in South Wales? These are the sort of thing that research in local papers, archives etc might turn up some unexpected proof. Did Sickert have a passport? It might have some interesting stamps on it!
Regards
Pete |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 625
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 9:29 am: | |
Druitt? Why do you include him on the list? He had opportunity to commit a murder and still make his cricket appointment.
Andy S.
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 359
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 5:13 pm: | |
Hi Peter,
According to Philip Sugden, Ostrog was arrested by the French police in Paris on July 26 1888 for stealing a microscope and convicted for this offence on 14 November 1888 and therefore could not have been Jack the Ripper.
Frank
|
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 9:55 am: | |
Possibly, possibly. He was in Dorset the day after Nichol's murder, however. He'd have had to have been there by 11.00 or earlier - Bradshaw, anyone? I haven't got one that old.
He'd have had to get home to Blackheath by walking or cab (because the first train wasn't until 5 something), get tidied up, and across to Waterloo or Paddington sharpish. It can't have taken less than three hours or so to get to Dorset at that time, even if there was an early train. Plus he'd have to get from the nearest station to the ground. I assume he wasn't carrying his cricket kit with him during the murder (unless that is what the Ripper had in has bag!)
And that's not the only murder that he would have needed to time pretty well. Would be a pretty good, albeit not cast-iron, defence in court.
Anyway, the point in starting this thread was to have this sort of discussion :-) - who can we _reasonably_ satisfy ourselves was not available to do the murders? Or, in other words, lets play defence rather than prosecution for a bit and see who has a plausible alibi. Why? Because it might get us thinking in new directions, that's all.
Another topic might be 'who is innocent on the grounds they didn't exist' - there are even a few candidates for that!
Regards
Pete |
Dustin Gould
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 11:23 pm: | |
Last I read, Sickert's family have letters he wrote, during his stay in the south of France, at the time of the murders. If validated, that would make it pretty hard for him to be in two places at once. Not to mention, Cornwell's "evidence" against Sickert, gives new meaning to the term "weak". |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1371
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 4:39 am: | |
That's great news if true, Dustin. Wonder what kept the family from producing the letters with a smug flourish at the first hint of Cornwell's 'case closed'? I think I would have done in similar circumstances.
Love,
Caz
X |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 394
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 5:58 pm: | |
Hi Dustin,
As far as I know, I’m afraid Sickert was in or near St. Valéry-en-Caux, which is situated between Le Havre and Dieppe on the north west coast of France, quite close to the Belgian border and, more importantly, perhaps not more than 60 miles from London. Not that I believe Sickert was the Ripper, by the way.
All the best,
Frank |
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 8:01 am: | |
I think most people accept that Sickert was in the south of France during the general period. I don't know of any letters from Sickert that prove that he was there on any specific date of a murder.
However, the family might have such letters and be retaining them because there has been talk of taking legal action to clear Sickert's name.
Nevertheless, the point of this thread was to act as defence. Sickert does not have to prove he was in the South of France, someone has to prove (or at least provide reasonable evidence to the effect that) he wasn't. You cannot totally dismiss someone's alibi that they were in London on the same afternoon that a murder was carried out in New York by merely pointing out that they could have flown on Concorde. Some evidence that they actually did so is required.
Regards
Pete
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 2:53 pm: | |
Did Sickert have a passport? It might have some interesting stamps on it!
If I recall correctly, passports in the 1880s (not that you needed them if you were a member of the establishment)took the fiorm of an official letter - a single sheet of paper - requesting in the Sovereigns name (Her Britannic Majesty requests and requires - sort of thing) all assistance to be given to the traveller/bearer.
I don't think there were stamps and formalities at borders as today.
Can anyone provide more information?
Phil |
Dustin Gould
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 9:06 pm: | |
Caroline,
As Peter has pointed out, they might have retained the letters for litigation purposes. Essentially, letting Cornwell run her mouth, and essentially "dig her own grave" at the same time. Which is a common tactic used in a court of law. Springing something on the opposition, at the last, available minute.
To play "Devil's advocate", even IF Sickert was in London at the time of the killings, that circumstantial "evidence", is tantamount to a pile of nothing. People quicky forget the severity of the phrase, "Beyond a reasonable doubt", and get suckered into basing their decision of guilt, on the bridging of circumstantial points of interest. Which is a scary way rendure a verdict, and balance issues of life and death.
All the best,
Dustin Gould
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1382
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 1:06 pm: | |
Hi Dustin,
Well let's hope that is the case. If so, Cornwell will get what's coming to her in due course, without any of us lifting another typing digit against her.
I agree that even being able to place Sickert in London at the time of the accepted ripper murders wouldn't mean he was involved. And it wouldn't mean he sent a single ripper letter either.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 7:10 am: | |
Hi Dustin
Exactly.
As we can see on other threads, the approach that suspects somehow have to be proved not to have been JTR continues, when we don't even know which murders JtR actually was responsible for.
The purpose I had hoped to achieve here is to raise the objections that the _defence_ would have raised if any of these folk had been brought to trial. And one of the obvious lines of defence is that the suspect was not available at the time.
And, to clarify - while it is not a perfect defence in the face of other evidence, the fact that a suspect was a long way away either just before or just after a murder is still a good line, even if the defence cannot absolutely prove that it was physically impossible for the distance to be covered in the time.
This must be coupled with lack of physical evidence and lack of witness reports that point to _any_ particular suspect.
If on the other hand some evidence could be found that proved , for example, that Sickert did travel back then it would raise his priority as a suspect - no more.
I am particularly interested in this approach because of the possibility of getting at least some information, e.g. train times re Druitt, that might actually help us progress.
Regards
Pete
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
