|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 789
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 5:48 am: |       |
Frank,
I didn't confuse "evidence" for "proof". I know that evidence isn't proof of something happening.
Mark,
Neither I on Casebook, nor Cornwell in her book, bother to go over all of the evidence -- on Sickert and on other suspects -- that each of us reviewed and discarded for one reason or another.
The reason this sounds like you left out the "good" evidence is because, to many of us, the evidence that you and Cornwall present is insufficient and does not build a solid case against Sickert so therefore we presume that the evidence you discarded must be the good parts especially since you defend yourself by saying Neither you nor anyone else has any way of knowing all the evidence I reviewed and how I reached my conclusions.
Please, by all means let us have ALL the evidence you found so we can get a better opinion.
Also, how do you know that Cornwall left out some of her evidence? If she did then she should have added it as the bits she left in aren't very convincing.
Just wanted to explain the misunderstanding.
Sarah |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 210
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 4:23 pm: | |
Mark,
My objective was not to support any straw-man arguments of whatever sort, so no face saving mechanism for others here. I only tried to explain how I thought the confusion or misinterpretation could have started. And perhaps I also meant it as friendly advice. But I obviously failed - probably due to the fact that English isn’t my native language - and obviously neither you nor Sarah appreciated the effort. But that’s just too bad then.
Although I haven’t followed all of your posts, I have followed many, some of which made me write a message on this thread, which I posted on February 29 at 6:26 pm. It was quite a long one, about as long as the ones you mostly write. Although you have responded or reacted to the messages posted directly before and after mine, you haven’t reacted to mine yet and some reaction would be appreciated.
Frank
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 228
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 6:27 pm: | |
Hi Mark,
I assume your suggestion that I do more homework on Sickert, coupled with the quote from my post, indicates you disagree on the two points you chose to quote me on.
If this assumption is inaccurate, since you didn't actually say you disagreed with them, forgive me for putting words in your mouth.
Since my points are fairly straight forward, I will assume you believe that if I did my homework, that I would find the following:
1) Sickert did sketch JtR victims
and
2) Either
2a) There is evidence to suggest Sickert was in London
or
2b) There is not evidence to suggest Sickert was in France.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid you are mistaken. I have read Cornwell's book, and I have read the various results of the research conducted by those here on Casebook, including your own.
First, what you will find is that some people believe the women depicted in some of Sickert's paintings show some similarities with aspects of victims of JtR. The example I can think of is the comparison of a necklace with the throat wound shown in Eddowes mortuary photo.
For the sake of argument, let's accept the statement that the line of the necklace is similar to the line of the throat wound in that photo. It has then been argued that this proves Sickert must have seen Eddowes at the crime scene. This, however, is irrational. At most, one could argue Sickert must have seen the mortuary photo based upon this comparison, which is a far cry from linking him to the murder itself.
Anyway, the usual argument is that Sickert put "clues" in his paintings that reference the JtR murders. I don't think I've ever seen anyone claim that "the women depicted in this picture is supposed to be <insert>", only "This women, who doesn't look like any of the JtR victims, is wearing a necklace that is supposed to represent the wound in Eddowes throat because this brush stroke has a similar line to this wound in this photo", or "Because this women, who doesn't look like MJK, and isn't mutilated, and isn't even necessarily dead, is laying on a bed and MJK was killed in bed", etc.
In other words, I've never seen anyone actually claim that Sickert made any sketches that were supposed to look, in their entirety, any of the JtR victims. Cornwell doesn't even make this claim.
As for the 2nd point. Cornwell never presented any evidence that suggested Sickert was in London at the time of the murders (apart from the fact the murders happened, and she therefore needs him there if he's the killer). And, as we've seen posted, there are letters that clearly suggest he was, in fact, in France. If you read my post, I did not say he definitely was in France, only that there is pretty strong indications that he was. To say he definitely was in France based upon the letters, they would have to include a dated reference that indicated he was there on the day of a murder. Unfortunately, we don't have such a specific statement in the letters (which would probably be dismissed via some conspiracy theory anyway). But, there is nothing at all that suggests he was in London, no logs on any boats, or evidence of train rides, or letters indicating he was "mysteriously absent for some stretch of time"; not a thing that even hints that he made secret trips away from France, and back again.
So, as per my point, the bulk of the evidence we have so far, pretty much rules out Sickert. I admit, "pretty much", is not 100%, but unless something currently unavailable were to turn up and change the evidence set, it remains very unlikely that a fellow who was originally introduced to the Ripper case by various hoax theories was, in fact, a lucky guess by the hoaxer.
- Jeff |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 1:47 pm: | |
Hi Rosey Luv,
Could you possibly drop me an email at plelf-spam@yahoo.com? There is a question I would like to ask you off of Casebook, if you don't mind.
Regards,
Mark Starr
NB: plelf-spam@yahoo.com is a disposable emailing address, not a permanent one. I can easily delete it if it ever gets harvested by a spambot and becomes a target for barrages of spam.
|
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 2:07 pm: | |
Jan wrote:
>In Western judicial thinking the burden of proof hardly lays on those who wish to clear a suspect.
And who ever said it did? Not me. My principal reason for focusing on Sickert on Casebook (although I am also very interested in the Port Philip Herald Lodger story) was for me to find out whether anyone else had already come up with hard evidence that eliminates Sickert as a possible suspect in the Whitechapel Murders. In the April 2003 post of Scott Medine, we have an example of exactly such a claim of hard evidence. However, I have not been able to find anything else by Medine or anyone else on Casebook to back up his claim.
Just to be crystal clear, the burden of proof of guilt is on the prosecution. But the burden of proof to establish an alibi is on those who claim an alibi exists -- i.e., the defense.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 4:17 pm: | |
Dan wrote:
>I'll take you at your word.
That's very big of you, Dan. However, in view of the utter disingenuousness of the rest of your response, not to mention once again all your bogus straw-man arguments in past posts, I cannot do the same for you. I have no intention of responding to any more of your posts -- whatever you may write.
Toodle-oo.
Mark Starr
|
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 803
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 9:24 am: | |
Frank,
neither you nor Sarah appreciated the effort. But that’s just too bad then.
I was not aware that English was your first language. Although it seems obvious now considering you thought that me saying that I knew the difference was in some way rude to you. I was not being rude to you and I know you were writing your post in a friendly way. I was just letting you know that I was not confusing the word "evidence" with the word "proof".
How was that rude?
Sarah |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 804
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 9:31 am: | |
Mark,
whether anyone else had already come up with hard evidence that eliminates Sickert as a possible suspect in the Whitechapel Murders.
There is no HARD evidence to show that ANY of the suspects can be discounted, except I suppose Prince Albert as he was in Scotland at the time. The best evidence against Sickert is the fact that he was in France over the period of the murders which I'd have thought was pretty hard evidence but if you don't think so then I have no idea what you mean by hard evidence.
Sarah |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 487
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 10:03 am: | |
Frank
I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for that answer. Mr Starr has demonstrated time and again in the past that if someone makes an actual telling point in one of their posts, he is quite capable of ignoring it.
For example, on another thread on here I gave a full and detailed example of an instance where Patricia Cornwell deliberately falsified evidence in her book. Two days later the following post from Mr Starr appeared:
When people charge Cornwell with making up facts, they had better be prepared to document their charges -- or make themselves look foolish. Making up facts means fabricating evidence, knowingly inventing facts and providing false citations. Fabricating evidence does not include expressing personal opinions or making theories to explain evidence. Every writer must do exactly that in order to place facts into context.
This ignored the fact that I had indeed documented my charge in minute detail. But presumably by making this blanket statement Mr Starr was hoping people would not notice that.
At the end of that post however I did say that as far as I was concerned that was Case Closed as far as Ms Cornwell is concerned and I will stick with that as I am now bored with the subject. I am also bored with Mr Starr who, as he continues to burble on at length claiming that his speculations are "conclusive proof", thus proving nothing other than that he has no idea what the term "conclusive proof" means, is no longer of any interest to me. I suggest you take the same approach. |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 215
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 6:05 pm: | |
Hi Sarah,
You wrote:
“I was not aware that English was your first language (I do hope you intended to write ‘wasn’t’). Although it seems obvious now considering you thought that me saying that I knew the difference was in some way rude to you. I was not being rude to you and I know you were writing your post in a friendly way. I was just letting you know that I was not confusing the word "evidence" with the word "proof".
How was that rude?”
The remark you made about not confusing “evidence” with “proof” came across as a bit venomous, as if you wanted to say: I’m not stupid and I don’t need anybody else to tell me what I meant, I’m perfectly capable of doing that myself. Probably, it seemed venomous because it was short and very to the point.
But I guess that’s just the disadvantage of only seeing text, there’s no sound or tone added to it. Your last post made it all right again (as far as it wasn’t right in the first place) and I take it as a compliment that you weren’t aware that English isn’t my first language.
Take care,
Frank
|
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 818
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 4:52 am: | |
Frank,
Yes I meant wasn't not was sorry. I am often direct and too the point though but that doesn't mean anything other than I have nothing more to add.
Mark,
You wrote to Dan:
I have no intention of responding to any more of your posts -- whatever you may write.
Now, why is this. He has made good points about Sickert and you seem to ignore each and every one of them. Are you now choosing to ignore his posts because you are worried that he may write something that you won't be able to have a come back for?
Sarah |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 2:31 pm: | |
Sorry, Jeff, I cannot do your homework for you. There is additional evidence readily available, some of it on Casebook.org. Seek and you shall find.
But frankly, I think it would be not merely an exercise in futility, but an empty charade -- in view of the sloppy and patently biased manner in which you examined the evidence that you did mention. (Your previous proof of Sickert's alibi was, I had thought, a classic example of loopy logic that no one would ever surpass. Silly me.) I pity anyone who might ever have the misfortune of you judging them one way or another in a jury.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 2:13 pm: | |
Sarah wrote:
>There is no HARD evidence to show that ANY of the suspects can be discounted.
Well, I would not go THAT far -- but I certainly agree with you that there is, as of now, no hard evidence eliminating Walter Sickert as a suspect.
Regarding any claims of an alibi for Sickert, I think I have covered that subject multiple times in excruciating detail. There is no alibi for Sickert for any of the 5 canonical Whitechapel Murders, or for any of the numerous murders that are attributed by various writers to Jack The Ripper. I say categorically that no one who has challenged that statement has yet proven his/her case.
As for my own search whether anyone has come up yet with hard evidence eliminating Walter Sickert as a suspect, may I reiterate that I recently found on Casebook and reposted here a claim by Scott Medine that he had come up with precisely such hard evidence. Medine is a former detective, and I have no reason to question his credibility. However, Medine made his claim almost a year ago. And although I have searched high and low, I have not been able to find any further explanation of his undocumented claim, by Medine or anyone else. If anyone has information about the proof that Medine claims exists, I for one would be very interested in reading about it.
To repeat yet once again, it is to discover whether this sort of hard evidence really exists and I am just unaware of it that motivates my participation in these discussions.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 12:14 am: | |
Mark wrote:
"However, in view of the utter disingenuousness of the rest of your response,"
I think that's pretty much the definition of the pot calling the kettle black there...
"not to mention once again all your bogus straw-man arguments in past posts,"
And those would be... what, exactly? You claimed I was putting words into your mouth but never really did back that up.
"I cannot do the same for you. I have no intention of responding to any more of your posts -- whatever you may write."
Yeah, I guess it sucks to have to keep trying to come up with some sort of defense of your theory when people point out the problems with it. Best to call the critics names and ignore their arguments if you don't have any actual evidence to back up anything you claim. |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 4:15 pm: | |
Frank, I did not respond to your post of Feb. 29 because, despite its length, I thought there was nothing whatsoever new in it which I had not already covered in considerable detail in my earlier posts. Moreover, I could not take seriously all of your self-contradictory statements and flimsy attempts at establishing proof.
For example, you wrote: "most people do accept the five canonical victims as his, that’s why they are called that." Yet in your previous sentence, you wrote: "I don’t include Mary Jane Kelly in this series, because some people doubt that she was killed by the man we call Jack." Aside from the fact that you neglected to mention that a substantial number of writers have also questioned whether Elizabeth Stride was a Ripper victim, and I can point to yet other writers who have even questioned the other victims, I had to ask myself: is Frank contesting my point or making it for me?
But your reasoning is so flimsy, it does not stand up either way. What kind of factual evidence is a statement like this one: "in such a small area it would be too much of a coincidence for them to have been killed by different men." That is a supposition, Frank -- a vague, subjective non sequitur of a supposition. I had thought it was so outlandish that it did not even deserve comment.
OK let's address what you evidently think is a more substantial matter. You wrote: "There is a letter from St Valéry-en-Caux, dated 6th September, from Sickert's mother to a family friend which describes how Sickert and his brother Bernhard were vacationing there and were having such a "happy time" swimming and painting." As I stated in my previous post, the letter by Sickert's mother does not state when Walter and Bernhard were swimming, when Walter arrived in France, how long he had been in St. Valéry-en-Caux, or when he was planning to leave.
Then you state: "There is independent corroboration of this in a letter that Jacques-Emile Blanche sent to his father that stated that he had visited Sickert and his family at St Valéry-en-Caux on the 16th September."
No, there is no independant corroboration in Blanche's letter of any facts in Nelly Sickert's letter. The only thing Blanche stated to his father was that he visited Sickert on Sept. 16. [Incidentally, I am not aware that Blanche also stated he visited with Sickert's family. Where did you get that information? That is a detail on which I would like to see documentation]
From those two letters, you then make a wild leap of logic that is completely unjustified by the documented evidence. You state: "I think it’s fair to say that Sickert was staying with his family or friends in St Valéry-en-Caux at the latest from the 5th of September to at least the 16th of September."
Aside from the fact that you have not a shred of evidence that supports your connection of those dots, you fail to confront the clear evidence in another letter by Sickert's mother, in which she states that she never knew when her son would suddenly go to France or suddenly come back. That is evidence too, Frank.
As for your ramblings about "simply saying that it wasn’t impossible for Sickert to have done it would not even convince a jury": you too do not understand the fundamental difference between the prosecution's burden of proof to establish guilt, and the defense's burden of proof to establish an alibi.
Regards,
Mark Starr
|
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 1:40 pm: | |
Alan wrote:
>I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for that answer. Mr Starr has demonstrated time and again in the past that if someone makes an actual telling point in one of their posts, he is quite capable of ignoring it.
I have written a great many posts on Casebook, addressing numerous points by numerous posters. While it should be obvious to anyone that it is neither possible nor obligatory that I respond to every point by every person, I should note that you tried this stunt once before about me ducking your questions, and as far as I am concerned I responded to you on that occasion and blasted your silly points out of the water.
In the case of your later post, I found the examples that you claim prove Patricia Cornwell fabricated evidence to be so picayune as to be laughable, and you produced no convincing evidence that they were anything more than minor errors. And as I recall, you yourself admitted as you made two of these points that they were of no real significance to Cornwell's case. In the example of the newspaper wrapped around the Whitehall victim, you only succeeded in demonstrating that you had a source that had testified there was no newspaper around the body, not that Cornwell had fabricated evidence. You had absolutely no justification for coming to the shotgun conclusion that you made on the evidence you presented.
What you have demonstrated time and again, Alan, is that you are capable of blowing a minor and inconsequential detail out of proportion to impugn someone's motives for your own personal agenda. You do not have a clue what the term fabrication of evidence entails or what is required to prove such a charge. You hurl accusations at Cornwell and you assume proof is self-evident. Well, it's not.
Regards,
Mark Starr
|
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 489
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 8:48 am: | |
Mark
I said I wouldn't post again, but I think I need to respond to that in just the following way. You are effectively suggesting here is that it is your belief that Patricia Cornwell may have more knowledge about what the body was wrapped in than the man who unwrapped it. And you call me laughable?
And now I really won't post again, as it is obviously so pointless. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 824
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 9:14 am: | |
Mark,
If you believe there is hard evidence against other suspects is it possible for you to share them with me as I don't believe anyone else has come up with any otherwise they wouldn't be debated anymore.
I am also sorry to say that I agree with Alan. I personally havne't read Patsy's book as I don't know if I can bring myself to part with any money over it as yet but other posters have posted some comments out of her book as I can't for certain say she fabricated evidence, although it certainly looks that way in some parts, but she definitely made many mistakes which have been posted on here time and time again. I wonder if she looked at any other suspects at all. I doubt it. What about you. How many suspects have you looked at?
Sarah |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 219
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 8:20 pm: | |
Mark,
This is what I actually wrote: “there’s no doubt that at least Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes were killed by Jack the Ripper. I don’t include Mary Jane Kelly in this series, because some people doubt that she was killed by the man we call Jack. By the way, most people do accept the five canonical victims as his, that’s why they are called that."
First of all, with ‘series’ I obviously meant the series formed by Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes. I was clearly not referring to the canonical 5 here.
Furthermore I said: “most people do accept”, and “some people doubt”. Rather complementary, don't you think? So, I'd say no contradiction here.
It’s funny to see how you’re trying to draw attention away from the point I was actually making, by trying to discredit what I said about the canonical 5. But it wouldn’t have taken a genius to see that my point was that there’s no doubt that at least Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were killed by the Ripper.
I made this point because recently you’ve been implying that Sickert might have killed as many as the combined total of 18 who are listed as victims on the Casebook, or only some, including one or more and perhaps all the canonical ones, and that therefore, even if Sickert were factually eliminated as a possible suspect in one or even several of these murders, that would still not prove Sickert couldn't possibly have been Jack The Ripper.
Well, Jack the Ripper killed the ones he ripped open and Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were certainly among them. If you had focused a little more on forensic psychology and related subjects than you seem to have done, instead of concentrating on stories about lodgers and paintings, you would see this.
You wrote:
“But your reasoning is so flimsy, it does not stand up either way. What kind of factual evidence is a statement like this one: "in such a small area it would be too much of a coincidence for them to have been killed by different men." That is a supposition, Frank -- a vague, subjective non sequitur of a supposition. I had thought it was so outlandish that it did not even deserve comment.”
What would you call your reasoning regarding ‘The Servant of Abraham’? At least mine is backed up by psychology, which is something more solid than what your reasoning is based on, viz. your subjective interpretation.
Just for jollies, there’s this self-portrait of Sickert called “The Raising of Lazarus”. As said, it’s a painting depicting Sickert himself. However, according to one of his friends, Sickert is supposed to represent Jezus in this painting. So, why on earth would we believe Sickert was representing this whore-sacrificing servant of Abraham? For all I care, he could have just been referring to his friend ‘Abraham’ Stoker.
Then, the letters. There is a letter that puts him in St. Valéry-en-Caux on 6 September, one that puts him in St. Valéry-en-Caux on 16 September and one dated 21 September putting him in France for some weeks with his family. This letter is evidence too, Mark.
Opposed to this you offer nothing but a letter saying Sickert’s mother never knew when her son would suddenly go to France or suddenly come back. What does this really tell us? The words “nothing” comes to mind. And that’s why I didn’t need to confront this so-called ‘clear evidence’ of yours.
So, what do we have for a period including the day Chapman was killed? On the one hand there are the 2 letters that put him in St. Valéry-en-Caux and there’s one that corroborates that he had been vacationing in France then. On the other there’s nothing much. Which makes it fair to say that he was probably having a rest in St. Valéry-en-Caux. There’s no ‘wild leap of logic’ involved, a small quiet step of logic does the trick.
What you fail to confront, is logic. Logic that would make you see that he was probably staying in St. Valéry-en-Caux when Chapman was murdered, that going to London would not have diminished his chances of getting caught, and, also considering the many towns closer at hand than London (Rouen, Caen, Le Havre, Alençon, Beauvais, Paris, just to name a few), that he would not have had any reason to go to London to murder.
I have no interest in playing your courtroom game, because it just doesn’t work as there’s no evidence proving much of anything. Although I haven’t proven (and never will) what I presented to you in a decent, fair and logical way, at least I’m not afraid to admit it, and at least I have logic on my side. Your ‘amassed’ and so-called evidence and strong enough arguments consist of one whole Ripper letter, some story about a lodger, a couple of paintings and some alledged lies. Oh yes, and of course your courtroom claim that it wasn’t impossible for Sickert to have done it.
As we’re not in a courtroom here I don’t have any burden of proof whatsoever to establish an alibi. The only thing I can do, or any of us for that matter, is to use the few facts we have, together with logic and common sense to establish his probable whereabouts. Which is exactly what I did.
Now, if you want to keep evading logic and continue your ramblings in your courtroom, that’s fine by me, but I don’t think it will help your ‘case’ much.
Frank
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 234
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 11:05 pm: | |
Hi Mark,
I see that in your last response to me you've presented no counter arguments? Rather, you've simply attempted to dismiss any suggested alternatives. This is the tactic of the defeated I'm afraid. In fact, it occurs to me that this is also the common practice of trolls. Regardless it's clear that you are not open to alternatives explanations for your "evidence" and it does not seem like you are even reading the replies very carefully. As an example, for some reason you seem to think I claimed to have proved Sickert was in France, when I did no such thing. Rather than do my homework for me, I suggest you concentrate on doing your own.
- Jeff |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 4:13 am: | |
Sarah wrote:
> If you believe there is hard evidence against other suspects is it possible for you to share them with me.
By all means. I think the Auldgate Landlady's account, printed in The People, a Conservative London newspaper, in 1890 is among the most important pieces of new hard evidence to surface since the Castle Alley murder. This account was unknown to absolutely every 20th Century writer on JTR until Chris Scott recently discovered it reprinted in 1890 in an Australian newspaper. For whatever reason it was never followed up back in 1890 (this Lodger was not named), it should be followed up now -- because the witness in this case appears to be completely credible. The witness is not Albert Bachert. The witness is the Auldgate Landlady. And the problems that I have identified in her story are not because she was lying or inaccurate; they are because her account is inexplicably incomplete.
Now the essential point about this account, in answer to your question: while I consider this hard evidence indeed against a Ripper suspect, no one can say yet who was her Lodger. She never gave her Lodger's name, apparently out of fear of retaliation. But there is so much factual information in her account, it may indeed be possible to identify this man through further research.
And I have started to do just that by comparing the details in her account with the known facts pertaining to the suspect with whom I am most familiar: Walter Sickert. While it is much too early to draw a conclusion yet, there are several major obvious clues that point directly in Sickert's direction. There is nothing in the account that eliminates him from consideration, although not every detail fits him exactly. But there are other clues that might point to other suspects as well. A lot more study of this lengthy account is needed. And that, in my opinion, should be the first order of business of everyone on Casebook who advocates any suspect at all.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 4:24 am: | |
Alan wrote:
>And now I really won't post again, as it is obviously so pointless.
First you complained that I didn't respond to your post. And now you complain that I did respond to your post. Make up your mind, Alan.
What makes this discussion pointless, Alan, is your misguided belief that just because you have evidence that supports a different conclusion, that proves ipso facto that Cornwell fabricated her evidence in reaching her conclusion. You have clearly revealed that you have no understanding whatsoever what the term 'fabrication of evidence' means, or what you have to demonstrate in order to prove such a charge.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 497
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 8:24 am: | |
Stating that a specific edition of a specific newspaper was in a specific place isn't a conclusion Mark, you really must start learning the definitions of words.
Damn, there I go posting again. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 839
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 9:17 am: | |
Mark,
How is the "Lodger" story hard evidence against any ripper suspect? I meant, do you know of any hard evidence to prove any of the other ripper suspect's innocence, such as Druitt, Barnett, Tumblety, Kosminski, etc.
I don't know whether you misunderstood my post but if so then hopefully you will read it correctly now.
Sarah |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 840
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 9:23 am: | |
Mark,
Alan has a point here. There is a HUGE difference between there being a specific newspaper being wrapped around a body, which is what Cornwall claimed, and there not being one, which is actually what happened.
Sarah |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
