|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Wolf Vanderlinden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 70
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 12:49 pm: |       |
"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]"
According to Richard Shone, unlike you Mark an internationally recognized expert on the life and works of Walter Richard Sickert, "Blanche wrote to his father that he had visited Walter and his family at St Valéry on the day before."
I have noticed other errors in your statements regarding Sickert, his life and his work. It is apparent to me that further research into this subject might be helpful in your case. Of course you may not feel the need as using harangue and bluster seems to be easier than combining research and an educated opinion in getting your point across. I guess it all depends on who you are attempting to convince, merely yourself or the posters on this website that are actually knowledgeable on the subject.
As for me I have already tuned out your theories and only note your mistakes, made all the more glaring by the categorical way you seem to state your opinions.
Wolf. |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 7:56 pm: | |
Dear Wolf,
If only we could get one of these "internationally recognised experts" to commune with us mortals, here, on the Casebook... but I fear not.
Both major players have committed a sin in their past lives that would surely come to haunt them if they were prepared to provide the Casebook with their authoritative presentations vis., Mr Walter Richard Sickert & Jack the Ripper. My motto: If you look like an ostrich, if you act like an ostrich, you are an ostrich.
I think we need to give young Mark a bit more slack...he could easily get himself tangled into a knot of his own making.
Dear Mark,
When you have finished in the bedroom please lock the door behind you...(pst! the key is hanging behind the door.)
Rosey :-)
|
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 845
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 5:02 am: | |
Rosey,
How can we give Mark more slack when he completely ignores all the logic on this thread and dismisses very good and valid points.
Sarah |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 1:06 am: | |
Sarah wrote:
> 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.
If you mean exculpatory evidence, yes. For example, the fact that Dr. Cream was serving a continuous prison sentence from 1881 to 1891 in Joliet, Illinois, and all the crimes occurred in London in 1888, proves Dr. Cream's innocence. The idea that he may have had a double is an unsupported hypothesis -- and unsupported hypotheses are not evidence.
An documented alibi like Dr. Cream's is a perfect defense -- unless as in the case of Charles Manson, one can prove that you got someone to do your dirty work for you. (In that case, Manson was convicted of murder even though he himself did not kill his victims directly.)
Because an alibi has such exculpatory power, the standard of proof for an alibi is set so high for the defense in any criminal trial.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 6:01 am: | |
Sarah wrote:
"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 and Alan are both correct. Throw in that the specific newspaper in question is trying to be used to support her theory and that's a very strong implication that Cornwell completely fabricated it. You don't just accidentally get something that specific so completely wrong and have it "accidentally" support your theory. |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 1:25 am: | |
Wolf:
If you have any factual errors in my posts to point out, I welcome them. And concerning your information that Blanche visited with Sickert's family as well as with Sickert, I welcome that too -- especially since I specifically requested to see documentation on that detail.
But what I find odd is that in your post, you seem to think you corrected an error of mine concerning Blanche's letter. I never claimed to have seen this letter, and I never claimed that the letter stated that Blanche had visited only with Sickert, and not with his family. I don't know how much plainer my words could have possibly been on this point. I wrote: "Incidentally, I am not aware that Blanche also stated he visited with Sickert's family. Where did you get that information?"
I can tell you precisely where I got my information on which I based what I wrote. I got it from Stephen P. Ryder's article "Patricia Cornwell and Walter Sickert: A Primer" in which Ryder wrote: "A letter sent by a French painter, Jacques-Emile Blanche, to his father described a visit with Sickert on September 16th." Just in case you missed it, Wolf, Ryder did not indicate that Blanche stayed with Sickert's family. And that is precisely why I inquired in my post whether there was any factual information to document this detail -- to square the statement in Ryder's article with the statement in the post.
So you not correcting any error of mine here. And nothing you mentioned in your post contradicts my statement that "there is no independant corroboration in Blanche's letter of any facts in Nelly Sickert's letter." Nelly Sickert wrote about Walter and his brother swimming some time on or before Sept. 6. Blanche's letter talks about visiting the Sickert's on the 16th (or maybe the 15th -- your date was not clear.)
So let's play straight, Wolf. I don't care what you think about my theory. As far as I am concerned, your article on Sickert's paintings missed the boat on the really significant links. You won't lose any sleep over my opinion, and I won't over yours. If you want to correct factual errors in my posts, fine, I welcome it. But when you attribute errors to me that I never made, I don't appreciate it.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 5:07 pm: | |
Hello Rosey:
Many thanks for your copy of Jack The Ripper's Bedroom -- which arrived today. It is quite different than the copy I have been using. In some ways it is even more muddied and less clear than the one previously posted on Casebook. But in several very important respects, it has revealed new objects to me which I had never been able to make out before. Evidently, there is a bright red scarf or kerchief lying dissheveled on top of the black satchel. And most important, there appear to be two knives lying on the carpet in front of the desk. If this bears up under closer inspection, it is indeed an astounding find.
What is even more amazing, I think, is that all of the contents that I have identified thus far in this room appears to be virgin territory. I have not come across anyone in print who has mentioned all of the objects that I -- and you -- have detected, -- that specifically includes Wolf Vanderlinden in his essay. Nor does it include any posts I have seen by Alan Sharp -- who is looking less and less sharp. As my mother used to tell me often, "all you have to do is put your eyeballs in your hands and look." Of course, what relevance to this case could a 1905 painting entitled Jack The Ripper's Bedroom by one of the main suspects in several different theories possibly have?
Regards,
Mark Starr
|
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 847
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 6:28 am: | |
Mark,
I said that there were some exceptions. I don't happen to think of Cream as a decent suspect at all for the exact reasons that you say. I'm talking about actual credited suspects as I mentioned above.
Sarah |
Tom Ackerman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 9:56 pm: | |
I do not think the alibi of Sickert being in France for September is completely sound. Although I don't doubt the letter his mother wrote regarding his presence in France on September 6th, Sickert could easily have misled his wife as to his whereabouts, and hers is the only letter suggesting he was there later in the month.. I'm not writing it off completely, but I don't think Sickert is covered for as much of September as some people would like. |
Wolf Vanderlinden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 73
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 7:57 pm: | |
Mark.
Correct your errors? Why? All you will do is to claim that you made no errors in the first place. When you are questioned about your theories you just complain that people are putting words into your mouth. That or make another legal metaphor. As for my missing the boat with my article that may be true. I claim no expertise in being a mind reader able to divine what Walter Sickert really thought or meant when he titled his paintings. Or when he told his after dinner stories. I, after all, am not the great art/Sickert/law/Ripper expert that you are.
Wolf. |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 5:49 pm: | |
Tom wrote:
> I do not think the alibi of Sickert being in France for September is completely sound.
Neither do I. And neither would any jury.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 11:18 pm: | |
Hi Rosey:
Here is the essential question posed by Walter Sickert's Jack The Ripper's Bedroom:
The painting shows Jack's bedroom -- and the bed in which both Jack and Sickert slept.
Inside the bedroom, the painting shows Jack's tailcoat mounted on a clothes-tree, drying out in front of a partly opened window. Drying out from what: water (having been washed)? sweat? alcohol? blood?
The painting shows Jack's Gladstone leather bag in which he possibly carried his knives and disguises.
The painting shows Jack's blood-red kerchief -- on which he cleaned his bloody knives.
The painting shows a birdcage, possibly covered for the night. The birdcage indicates Jack was a student of veterinary medicine. There may also be some small birds outside the cage, but the shapes are too vague in my copies of the painting to be sure.
The painting shows a metal headboard -- similar to the metal headboards that appear later in many of Sickert's paintings of prostitutes (some of whom seem to be mutilated or dead.)
The painting shows two shiny knives on the patterned rug on the floor. The blades appear to be in metal sheathes, one of which has partly come off when the knives fell to the ground off the desk.
The painting shows a large cross hanging in the window, partly obscured by the sheer curtain. It indicates that Jack was religious, possibly a fanatic.
The morning sun coming through the Venetian blinds, together with the items on the desk and the floor, indicate that the time is morning after one of his night-time rampages. And Jack has returned to his room. The door is open.
But the single most important fact in the landlady's story is missing from Sickert's painting -- a fact that Sickert bragged about to his friends for at least four decades, that he had possessed at the time he painted JTR's Bedroom: the Ripper's name. Yet this name appears nowhere in the painting, despite the fact that Sickert said he wrote the RIpper's name into his copy of Casanova's Memoirs, and he held on to that book for years until he finally gave it away to a painter friend.
So evidently, Sickert could scribble Jack The Ripper's identity into the margin of a book, but he couldn't include the Ripper's name into his painting entitled JTR's Bedroom? There is no letter on the desk with the Ripper's name. There is no veterinary textbook with the Ripper's name. There is no rent receipt with the Ripper's name. There is no high school diploma on the wall with the Ripper's name. Why? Because Sickert never had anybody's name.
There never was in 1888 a veterinary student from Bournemouth who died of tuberculosis after the last murder. Or anything remotely similar. Ripper Notes documented that fact.
No landlady ever told Sickert such a detailed tale of the Ripper's identity. If she had, Sickert would have told the Ripper's name to everyone -- in his painting. Just as he later tried to pin the Whitechapel Murders on Sir William Gull in the patently phony Royal Conspiracy Theory that he told to Joseph Gorman.
Sickert made up everything himself in his phony Lodger story depicted in JTR's Bedroom. Just as he later made up the byzantine Royal Conspiracy Theory. Sickert tried to implant his phony Lodger story into Sitwell, just as he later tried to implant his phony Royal Conspiracy Theory into Joseph Gorman.
Everything in this painting is a lie.
Why did Sickert lie? For the same reason Sickert wrote at least one and probably three of the Ripper letters: to throw everyone off his track.
For the same reason he painted three phony religious paintings after his stroke: to protect his reputation as an artist in the event that incriminating facts about him came out after his death.
For the same reason he painted the features of some of Whitechapel victims -- but only those victims whose pictures had been previously published in France. So he could deny his guilt if he ever got caught.
Regards,
Mark Starr
|
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 7:08 pm: | |
Sarah wrote:
>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.
I find it amazing that neither you nor Alan have yet understood that I am not arguing whether or not the body was wrapped in newspaper. My point is only concerned with whether or not Alan (and you) are justified in charging Corwell with fabricating evidence, based solely upon the fact that he found a source that stated as a fact that the body was not wrapped with newspapers, and Cornwell claimed (I believe in a Q&A session in talk at a university, and not in her book) that it was.
I have no idea of all the details of Cornwell's claim or on what evidence -- if any -- she based it, and neither do you and neither does Alan. There are countless possible explanations why it could be something other than fabricating evidence -- and I am not going to go down that road by speculating on them. But until Cornwell does make that claim in a book or some other document and she presents all her evidence and her reasons for her claim, I think it is nothing less than outrageous for you or Alan to accuse her of anything except being wrong.
To charge Cornwell with fabrication of evidence when there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that she fabricated anything is tantamount to accusing someone of murder because you find them in the vicinity of a dead person. Even in the case of Walter Sickert, I don't claim he was a murderer because he was in the vicinity of the bodies; I claim he was a murderer because of what he said, did and painted over a half century. If you want to charge Cornwell with fabrication of evidence, which is an intellectual as well as a legal crime, then prove it. And the fact that someone in 1888 said there was no newspaper around the body does not prove that Cornwell fabricated any evidence in 2003.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 5:55 pm: | |
Sarah wrote:
>I said that there were some exceptions. I don't happen to think of Cream as a decent suspect at all for the exact reasons that you say. I'm talking about actual credited suspects as I mentioned above.
Which suspect you may have meant is irrelevant to the points I made. I can't help it if my points didn't get through to you. I answered your question. Several times.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 503
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 8:21 am: | |
Well Mark, plainly you, like Miss Cornwell, have been so wrapped up in trying to show what a bad man Walter Sickert was that you have neglected to follow what should be the first course of any serious investigator, studying the case itself. Otherwise you would be aware that I did not "find a source", rather I only bothered to quote one of the many many newspapers which reported on the Whitehall Torso inquest, each of which carried George Buddon's testimony. I could also have quoted the many many newspaper reports previously which described the wrapping on the body to be an old black petticoat. However I didn't think that was necessary as I figured that for any sensible person, inquest testimony given under oath was enough (and also that the majority of people on this board would already be well versed in these facts).
You also have plainly not bothered to read Cornwell's book in which she does indeed make this claim. However you are correct, this does not prove Cornwell lied. It is possible that she found an obscure reference somewhere claiming that this body was wrapped in this newspaper, although I have yet to find anyone who has seen this reference, and chose to report this rather than any of the vast number of contradictory ones, because it supported her case and they did not. In which case she is guilty of no more than either disingenuousness or gross incompetence.
Either way, your continued support of Cornwell is a puzzle to me. Whether she deliberately lied or she is simply a moron, which given the collosal number of mistakes made in her book are really the only two possible choices, does not weaken your case in any way as you are not relying on her "facts" to be true. Your fervent attempts to make her appear a saint, on the other hand, vastly weaken your own credibility. |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 504
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 8:26 am: | |
Which suspect you may have meant is irrelevant to the points I made. I can't help it if my points didn't get through to you. I answered your question. Several times.
Incorrect. Sarah asked you a direct question regarding a list of particular suspects. You, possibly not having an answer for her, took the politician's route out and answered a different question of your own choosing. She asked you how you ruled out a list of credible suspects, and you replied by telling her how you ruled out a suspect which nobody considers credible. This did not in any way answer the question Sarah asked and her point is entirely reasonable. |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 251
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 3:07 pm: | |
Mark,
Why is it that when the details of Sickert's story are shown to be false you are able to conclude that Sickert must be lieing, but when the details of Cornwell's story are similarly shown to be false, you won't concede the same point?
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1255
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 6:08 pm: | |
Ouch! Good one, Jeff. 
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 7:17 pm: | |
Dear Mark Starr,
Have you thought about being a motor-mechanic, perhaps painting and decorating is your forte? I can only weep!
Come back David Radka!
Rosey :-)
|
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 4:22 pm: | |
Jeff wrote:
>Why is it that when the details of Sickert's story are shown to be false you are able to conclude that Sickert must be lieing, but when the details of Cornwell's story are similarly shown to be false, you won't concede the same point?
To point out the obvious: first, my point -- about Sickert's conflict in testimony with his lodger story and then his ROyal Conspiracy Theory -- is not based on the fact that both stories have been shown to be false (as indeed they have been). It is based on the undeniable fact that Sickert told two totally different stories, both involving himself, to two different people at more-or-less the same period in his life. He is, by definition, a liar. Sickert could not have believed that both stories were true. We are not dealing with a momentary slip here. These are intricate, detailed, convoluted stories that required planning, cunning and even some research. Sickert lied. No matter how obvious this may be, I know there will quickly be some attempts on this thread to manufacture farfetched explanations to dismiss Sickert's prima facie conflict in testimony.
Secondly, Jeff, I don't know, and you don't know, that details of Cornwell's story are in fact false. You have heard a charge from Allen. You have no response or explanation from Cornwell to this charge. Do you usually decide something is false before you hear any response from the accused? Moreover, as I understand Alan's charge (and I say clearly here and now, this is not an issue I know much about), the dispute is not over the 5 Whitechapel Murders or the evidence presented in Cornwell's book, but rather over a claim she supposedly made in a recent talk when she reportedly said she can place Sickert at the scene of one murder, even if it is not one of the canonical five. In any event, I have no idea on what evidence, if any, she based her claim. Possibly she has other evidence that contradicts Alan's evidence. To assume that Cornwell lied instead of making a mistake, or perhaps she was ignorant of Alan's fact, is presumptuous in the extreme. I cannot concede that for Cornwell, and I won't try. She can fight her own battles.
So your question has no premise. But nice try, anyway.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 5:09 pm: | |
Alan wrote:
>Whether she deliberately lied or she is simply a moron, which given the collosal number of mistakes made in her book are really the only two possible choices, does not weaken your case in any way as you are not relying on her "facts" to be true. Your fervent attempts to make her appear a saint, on the other hand, vastly weaken your own credibility.
Well, at last, Alan, you wrote something vaguely reasonable to which I can respond directly. I am glad you recognize that I am not relying on Cornwell's facts to make my case against Sickert. I have found my own facts, facts which Cornwell either ignored or never came up with. And, as far as I have been able to determine, no one else in print has ever before come up with these facts either. I believe, I have gone way beyond anything Cornwell documents in her book -- but that does not mean I repudiate her book.
I have said many times that I do not think that Cornwell established in her book that Walter Sickert was Jack The Ripper. I think she established convincingly (and has subsequently found more evidence to confirm) that Sickert wrote some of the Ripper letters. I am among the first to concede that this fact does not prove Sickert was The Ripper. Nevertheless, this fact is very important to my case for reasons Cornwell never mentioned and possibly never imagined. It establishes a life-long track record of Walter Sickert lying about, and being obsessed with Jack The RIpper, from 1888 to his death in 1942.
To be even more specific, Cornwell has absolutely nothing to say about the connection between Walter Sickert and Joseph Gorman. She does not even mention the phony Royal Conspiracy Theory that Sickert created and planted in the young and impressionable Joseph Gorman.
Cornwell lists Sitwell's book in an appendix, but she has absolutely nothing to say about his testimony.
Cornwell reprints JTR's Bedroom in a muddy, totally indecipherable sepia print -- but other than its existance -- she has nothing to say about the picture's contents. She never considers whether or not Sickert's lodger story was a deliberate lie. She never refers to the investigation of Sickert's lodger in Ripper Notes.
Cornwell similarly misses any significance to the three paintings with religious titles that Sickert painted after his stroke.
So I hardly think Cornwell is a saint. But I don't think she is a liar either. I don't assume that because she may have gotten something wrong, therefore she fabricated her evidence -- which in a court of law would be a crime, and in an evidentiary casebook like hers would be an intellectual crime.
You can call her a moron, be my guest. I have never said a word about your pet issue --whether there were newspapers or not -- because I really don't know much about it. Let her fight her own battles, and after all the facts are in, I'll form an opinion.
As for my weakened credibility, I can live with any number of people who denigrate my theory of Sickert's guilt. I say what I think, and I do not care whether the people on this thread agree with me. I only care whether I make my case to my standards. My personal interest in these discussions is to find whether any facts that I do not know about invalidate my theory. And despite all the attacks, I have yet to see the necessity of modifying any of my points, or conceding that the facts disprove them. If I don't convince you all, that is my cross to bear.
Of course, it would be an easy matter for anyone to prove that Sickert was not Jack The Ripper. All anyone has to do is prove that one of the 69 other suspects was indeed Jack The Ripper.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 849
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 4:22 am: | |
Alan,
Thank you. I know I must have been making a reasonable point in there somewhere. 
Mark,
You have still not answered my question at all. You said before that there was hard evidence against other suspects bring innocent but I am still to hear any, apart from what we already knew about Cream. The theory with him is that he had a double, which is not likely so you cannot say that the evidence for him being innocent is the fact he was in prison because we already know that. If anything, you should have been presenting evidence for the "double theory" as that is what the very few Cream believers think (if there any out there at all).
Sarah |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 507
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 5:20 am: | |
Rosey!
Come back David Radka!
Thankyou for putting into words exactly what I was thinking. Where are you Dave? You have ripped people a new a****** in the past for way less!!
Mark
These are intricate, detailed, convoluted stories that required planning, cunning and even some research. Sickert lied.
And yet when Patsy Cornball presents an intricate, detailed, convoluted story which must have required a great deal of research to come up with a reference that apparently nobody else has ever seen and which contradicts all of the readily available references to the contrary, you are not prepared to conclude that she lied. Have you ever heard the expression "double standard".
The truth is that just as with the bedroom story you have not in any way proved that Sickert lied. Firstly the two stories do not contradict each other. It is entirely possible for the landlady to have told Sickert a story which he knew to be untrue, and yet he could still in all honesty pass that story on to someone else. He did not say that Jack the Ripper actually lived in that bedroom, only that he had been told so. This would be disingenuous, but not a lie.
Secondly, you say that Sickert told the Royal Conspiracy story to the young impressionable Joseph Gorman. How do you know this? Because Joseph Gorman said so. Joseph Gorman who told this story to Stephen Knight, and then told it again with totally different details to Melvin Fairclough. As these two stories are different, we must by your own logic state that on at least one of these occasions Joseph Gorman was lying. And yet you conclude that he was telling the truth when he stated that he was told the story by Walter Sickert, a man who there is absolutely no evidence that he ever met. Once again, you really do need to get yourself a good dictionary and look up terms like "conclusive proof" and "undeniable fact" and learn what they mean. |
Chris LeQuellec
Sergeant
Username: Chrislq
Post Number: 14
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 5:21 am: | |
Mark,
I don't read all this thread but only last posts.
In your last post you're talking about his obsession about JtR, we can find some clues about it in his painting.
Sorry but i don't understand how we can link an obsession to a murder...
I explain myself. If you move JtR murders 100 years after i can find 100 links between JtR and Nick Cave (songs, books, interviews etc.)? It doesn't mean Nick Cave could the ripper, but only a man obsessed by murder and religion...
regards
chris |
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 5:27 am: | |
Surely the point is that no-one can prove who is JtR unless new information is found, and despite the claim new information closing the case is not to be found in Cornwell's book.
Equally, it is quite difficult to prove anyone wasn't JtR unless there is unequivocal evidence that the suspect was elsewhere on all the respective dates, although even that doesn't seem to get Cream, Deeming or Albert Victor off in some peoples eyes. That's why when we had a thread about who we could exclude I don't think we ended up excluding anyone...
I grant therefore that we can't prove Walter absolutely is innocent either, though I find it highly unlikely that he is guilty of any more than being a proto-Ripperologist. If you want paintings suggesting violence on behalf of the painter you can look at the expressionist painting of the early 20th century - some of those are highly disturbing and appear to show details overlapping with crimes of folk like Haarman and Kurten - but I don't think any of the artists have been accused of participating in the crimes.
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.
|
|
|
|
