|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1259
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 10:03 am: |       |
Good point, Chris.
And why not suggest that all crime historians or people interested in horror movies or true crimes, for example, are serial killers as well? And what about all of us here?
One can't draw such conclusions from someone's obsessions in a subject. It is just ridiculous. The Norwegian painter Edvard Munch did a number of paintings, which openly displays a love-hate relationship to the female sex and where he describes women as vampires. So... he was a sexual deranged serial killer as well, huh?
Swell... 
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 11, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Chris LeQuellec
Sergeant
Username: Chrislq
Post Number: 15
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 11:34 am: | |
The confusion between the production of an artist and the artist is very common in fact.
I'm thinking now about Bret Easton Ellis and his famous book "American psycho"...
regards
chris |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 261
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 3:44 pm: | |
Mark,
Ok, maybe I should spell this right out for you.
You claim that because research has failed to support the details in Sickert's story that conclusively proves Sickert was lieing.
So, failure of research to support the details is what you claim conclusively proves a liar in the case of Sickert.
We now have the same situation in relation to Cornwell. Research has failed to support the details in Cornwell's story.
We have the same evidence set. Research has failed to support the details of the story told by Cornwell.
If you believe your first line of reasoning leads to the "conclusive proof of a lie", then when given the same logical situation with different individuals, you must reach the same conclusion. That is the nature of a "conclusive proof".
Now, if you want to claim that the 2nd situation does not lead to the conclusion that Cornwell is telling fibs, that's fine. But by doing so, you demonstrate by example that you're first evidence set does not lead to the conclusive proof of Sickert telling fibs.
If you maintain that the first instance is of a conclusive proof, but the second does not lead to the same conclusion, you are left with a logically irrational arguement.
This isn't really that difficult, and is one of the most basic principles of logic.
- Jeff |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 226
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 5:11 pm: | |
Mark wrote (on the thread ‘Who are the WORST Top 5 Suspects?’):
”… much of the evidence against Sickert is in a form that these very same people cannot deal with: art. Rather than try to crack it, they prefer to dismiss it altogether -- unexamined. Various self-proclaimed art experts seem to have missed the really significant links in favor of minor details of little or no importance.”
And:
“But some of these people are so intellectually lazy, they do not even try.”
And:
“And yet, these armchair naysayers expect everything to be presented to them 116 years later in a nice neat package, with no work on their part...”
On this thread Mark wrote:
“I say what I think, and I do not care whether the people on this thread agree with me.”
Hmmm, well perhaps Mark doesn’t care whether the people on this thread agree with him, but it sure doesn’t seem that way on the thread about the top 5 of worst suspects, which BTW is visited by many of the same people that visit this thread.
Another thing he wrote on the ‘Top 5 worst suspects’:
“… -- and no credit for Sickert having worked out a cunning plan. After all, why would Sickert have bothered to go to-and-from France, when it would have been so much easier for him to have slit the throat of some French whore.”
According to Mark there is an important letter that Sickert’s mother wrote, in which she states that she never knew when her son would suddenly go to France or suddenly come back, which supposedly would be ‘evidence’ that - during the 'Ripper scare' - at times Sickert slipped in and out of France or England. For this letter to have any significance to the case, it has to be beyond doubt that the comings and goings referred to in the letter took place during the last half of 1888 or so.
So, in case this is true, apparently Sickert’s mother knew her son would at times suddenly travel to or from France. Now, if Sickert was a murderer who had really worked out a cunning plan, he would have made sure his mother, or anybody else for that matter, would not have known about any of his comings and goings to and from France, sudden or not.
But I guess that’s just another one of those inconsequential mistakes…
Frank |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 421
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 5:50 pm: | |
He was quite a comical old boy Walter.He apparently loved dressing up from when he was a little lad and pretending to be on stage.He used to get dressed up for the paintings to "get in the mood" he"d have a rehearsal of each of the varied and widely differing roles before getting stuck into a painting.
By the way Mark while your looking into the lives of various artists around at the time of the ripper take a look at some of the preraphaelites and their predilections for and use of prostitutes
[oh and their treatment of their wives -one or two of whom committed suicide in despair] or have a peek at Toulouse Lautrec and his antics or 0h now theres one for Mr Sickert to eat his heart out over---Gaugin you name them and I bet I can tell you a horror story about them all.Sorry but they were just like lots of other famous and/or rich Victorian gentlemen.
Best Wishes Natalie |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 182
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 6:06 pm: | |
I agree Natalie, as you well know, most artists "march to a different drummer". That's what makes them good at what they do, they see things in a way most people cannot until these artist point them out to us. That doesn't make any artist a murderer. Just different...looking for different ways to be inspired. Sickert might have been more weird than most based on todays standards, but not much different than many of his contemporaries.
Mikey
P.S. I am not saying anything negative about our talented artists on this site..... |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 423
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 6:12 pm: | |
Now Mikey I sincerely hope not!But its quite true-most are a bit way out and few belong to the "straight" world whether they like that or not!
Natalie |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 184
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 6:15 pm: | |
Natalie Hon,
Be careful, I do NOT belong to the "straight" world either!
Mikey |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 424
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 6:24 pm: | |
Well you maybe put it better-its the beat of a different drum! Right on!Vivre la Difference-whatever the difference is!
Natalie |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 5:55 pm: | |
Chris LeQuellec wrote:
>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...
But you cannot move the murders 100 years later.
Patricia Cornwell established that Sickert wrote the Openshaw letter, postmarked Oct. 29. The Openshaw inserts Walter Sickert into the case as an active participant while the Whitechapel murders were actually being committed. Dr. Openshaw performed the medical examination on the portion of kidney received by George Lusk in conjunction with the From Hell letter. The phony accent and the disguised writing in the Openshaw letter were clearly an attempt by Sickert to throw the authorities off-track.
Moreover, in more recent evidence, Cornwell has also convincingly shown that all of the letters signed Mr. Nemo, and the telegram first signed Mr. Nemo and then crossed out and replaced with Jack The Ripper, were written by Sickert. Mr. Nemo was Sickert's first stage name a decade earlier in his futile attempt at a theatrical career in minor roles. Cornwell's evidence goes far beyond the use of this name. While Sarah and her cronies will undoubtedly not be convinced by Cornwell's new evidence, as it is presented in the paperback edition, I am. That, as far as I am concerned, places Sickert's direct involvement in the case as early as October 6. That was little more than a week after the police received the Dear Boss letter, the first known instance of Jack The Ripper.
As for the Dear Boss letter itself, while there is no forensic link yet established to Sickert from this letter, there are numerous internal indications within the letter itself that Sickert could well have been the author of that one too. That is another thread in itself. A forensic link of this letter to any suspect, of course, would be a bombshell. The Dear Boss letter contains prior knowledge of one of the crimes.
Those who want to debate that obvious fact, should take it to the Letters section.
My point is that Sickert was hardly someone who watched from the Whitechapel Murders from a distance. He was actively engaged in deceptive letter-writing, posing in these letters as other individuals, with the specific intention to create confusion amongst the police and other authorities to cover his trail. He was deliberately trying to throw the police off-track by making them search for a non-existant suspect with characteristics totally unlike himself.
Nick Cave never did that.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 3:43 am: | |
Rosey wrote:
>Have you thought about being a motor-mechanic, perhaps painting and decorating is your forte?
I value the skill of a good motor-mechanic too highly ever to try to fix a motor myself. But I did once repaint my living room ceiling. Does that count?
Regards,
Mark Starr
PS, There must be a clue hidden in your post somewhere? |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 6:16 pm: | |
Frank wrote:
>So, in case this is true, apparently Sickert’s mother knew her son would at times suddenly travel to or from France. Now, if Sickert was a murderer who had really worked out a cunning plan, he would have made sure his mother, or anybody else for that matter, would not have known about any of his comings and goings to and from France, sudden or not.
Frank, that is the most far-fetched conjecture I have ever come across on Casebook. If Guiness had a record book for fatuous posts, that would be on page 1.
Thanks for the laugh,
Mark Starr |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 866
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 10:05 am: | |
Mark,
I find it interesting that on another thread you said:-
So while these tests do not prove that Sickert in fact wrote these letters, they tend to support the liklihood that he did
And yet above in this thread you state:-
Patricia Cornwell established that Sickert wrote the Openshaw letter
So which is it? Do you believe Cornwall proved he wrote these letters or not, because you seem a little confused about it to me.
This still makes no difference if he did though as most of the letters sent were very likely hoaxes.
Also, you can't just push Chris' very good point away by saying But you cannot move the murders 100 years later.
His point was that, just because someone showed an interest in the murders, it doesn't make him the murderer. I'm sure there were many people who showed an interest in the murders (just look at how many hoax letters were sent) but that doesn't make them all Jack the Ripper.
Also, Frank made a very good point which I notice you have also pushed to one side. It's funny how you do that when you can't answer any logical points put to you.
Please take a moment and think how many people on here agree with you. At the last count, none, with the exception of Rosey possibly, I'm not too sure where she seems to stand. Doesn't that tell you something? You push so many good and logical points to one side just because you can't answer them and in so doing are basically insulting all these very intelligent and knowledgeable people by saying their views and points are laughable or are not worth answering.
That is all I have to say for now.
Sarah |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 512
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 10:25 am: | |
I'm afraid, Sarah, that "established" is another of those words Mark needs to look up in the dictionary when he gets it.
Not even Patricia Cornwell herself has claimed to have "established" that that the Openshaw letter was sent by Sickert. Quoting her own words she said, "At best, we have a 'cautious indicator' that Sickert and Ripper mitochondrial DNA sequences may have come from the same person"
In fact, and I have provided the full reasoning for this elsewhere and don't intend to do so again, what she proved was that Walter Sickert was one of approximately 60,000 people who could have licked the stamp on the Openshaw letter, assuming that the DNA on that stamp has not been contaminated by handling over the 115 years since it was written.
What she has also established is that one letter sent from Manchester of all places was written on paper from the same batch as paper used by Sickert. I don't really know enough about how big paper batches were, but we can be sure that Sickert was not the only person who owned paper from that batch.
She has not convincingly shown that all the letters signed Mr Nemo were sent by Sickert, nor has she ever claimed to. I am no fan of Miss Cornwell, as I think has been well established, but that doesn't mean that I am going to accept it when other people put words into her mouth that she has never said. |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 227
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 11:04 am: | |
Sure Mark, whatever…
By the way, any fool would get what Rosey is hinting at…
Bye now
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 657
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 11:35 am: | |
Hi all
Is Mark Starr a wind-up? It is, after all, coming up to April 1.
According to Mark, the Sickert art experts are not experts, and the Ripper authorities are not authorities either. Hmmmm.
And then there's this beauty: "The phony accent and the disguised writing in the Openshaw letter were clearly an attempt by Sickert to throw the authorities off-track."
Really? Then why did he leave all those clues in his paintings that you and Ms. Cornwell can so readily see? Why did he use the name "Nemo" openly both in Ripper letters (supposedly) when it would be easy to check that it was his stage name? Why did he draw doodles in Ripper letters and in the Lizard registration book to tell us he was the Ripper?
The authorities really were clueless weren't they? They couldn't find Nemo.
It's funny that, in a letter that Patricia Cornwell says was written by Sickert (the Openshaw letter), the artist used different handwriting to his normal hand. Why was that? Could it be that the handwriting is different because it was not written by him?
If Sickert really wrote all those Ripper missives, from all over the United Kingdom and abroad, all in different handwriting and on various styles of stationery, postcards, telegrams, scraps of paper, as much as 90% of the correspondence Ms. Cornwell said when she was here in Washington D.C. (!!!) , when did he have time to do any paintings?
Mark's wind-up takes the cake. Happy April Fool's Day, everyone. 
Chris
(Message edited by ChrisG on March 12, 2004) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1272
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 3:04 pm: | |
Mark wrote:
>Frank, that is the most far-fetched conjecture I have ever come across on Casebook. If Guiness had a record book for fatuous posts, that would be on page 1.
Thanks for the laugh...
Well, Mark, you know what they say about glass houses...
Mark also wrote:
>My point is that Sickert was hardly someone who watched from the Whitechapel Murders from a distance. He was actively engaged in deceptive letter-writing, posing in these letters as other individuals, with the specific intention to create confusion amongst the police and other authorities to cover his trail. He was deliberately trying to throw the police off-track by making them search for a non-existant suspect with characteristics totally unlike himself.
Or maybe he was just another hoaxer who was so obsessed with the case that he wanted to be a part of it -- after all, there were and are people who does it for that reason. And people were charged for it as well. Or do you mean that all these hoaxers were Jack the Ripper as well, co-operating in the murders?
Your reasoning dosen't add up. Furthermore, not all serial killers belong to the category that wants to inject themselves in the investigation. That is a misconception.
Regarding Nick Cave, you missed (or rather, avoided) the point Chris was trying to make. The time period isn't the issue here. The point was that just because you are obsessed with an event or certain subjects, doesen't mean that you have to act them out. And if you want an example more suitable for the time period in question, I could mention a number of artists indulging in such themes, and who I am convinced didn't act out their fantasies either. This was the period of fin-de-siecle, with an obsession of macabre subjects. I tried to give you Edvard Munch as an example, whose paintings clearly reveals a problematic, confused and destructive attitude towards women and the female sex. Naturally, we have no records or indications showing that Munch murdered women or acted out his hate or sexual fantasies. I am not at all surprised that point eluded you either...
All the best
P.S. Chris George, that cake sure looks nice. I'll bring the coffee!
(Message edited by Glenna on March 12, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 231
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 8:34 am: | |
Sarah and Glenn,
Thanks for sticking up for me!
Frank
(Hey, don't need 25 words anymore?!) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1275
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 10:47 am: | |
Anytime, Frankie boy. Anytime.
Yeah, I know. It is just five words now that is required. Sounds more reasonable to me.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 8:19 pm: | |
Mark wrote:
"Frank, that is the most far-fetched conjecture I have ever come across on Casebook."
How is simply pointing out that someone you claim would go to insane lengths to provide himself an alibi wouldn't then just destroy that alibi by letting his mother watch his comings and goings "far-fetched"?
(Message edited by admin on March 17, 2004) |
Chris Michetti
Detective Sergeant
Username: Pl4tinum
Post Number: 74
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 12:30 am: | |
I just bought the book today, and plan on reading it in the near future, just so I can see/know what all of you are discussing, first hand.
Her book has convinced people, apparently; the clerk at the store made a comment to me as I handed it to him at the cash:
Clerk: Ohh, this is a good book.
Me: I don't think Sickert was the Ripper, but I'll read it anyway.
Clerk: Oh, haha, read the book... Let me tell you, I'm pretty convinced it was him.
He gave me a look like "You're nuts kid, this book proves he was Jack."
Chris 
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1323
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 12:48 pm: | |
Well, Chris.
One wonders if it may have been the first book about the Ripper he have ever read...?
(Or maybe it's just the power of advertising.)
In order to swallow Cornwell's fantasies, one has to be quite ignorant of some of the more crucial facts about the case.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 1:19 am: | |
Glenn wrote:
"One wonders if it may have been the first book about the Ripper he have ever read...? "
I think some of us in Ripperology need to take a step back and understand that the average person doesn't even read nonfiction books normally, let alone books about the Ripper.
I'd be willing to bet the clerk in question hasn't even read that book, other than perhaps the text under the pictures. I might lose that bet, but I think it's all but certain he hasn't read any other books on the Ripper.
"In order to swallow Cornwell's fantasies, one has to be quite ignorant of some of the more crucial facts about the case. "
And I'd bet that all but a tiny fraction of the world is very ignorant of nearly all the facts of the case.
Up until I started researching the case a few years back, my knowledge was limited to the idea that it was in the 1880s in London somewhere with 5 or so victims sliced up with frighteningly precise surgical cuts (uh, not really) and that he made a smiley face out of Mary Kelly's intestines (uh, no, and I don't know where I even ever got that idea in the first place) and hung pieces from the ceiling and spread everywhere (also no). And this coming from someone who had read an article here or there (obviously bad ones) and who likes nonfiction books.
Of course I'd have never fallen for Cornwell's theory since I'm pretty good at dismissing B.S. when I see it. I'm all about evidence, and if it's not there you won't ever convince me, especially if it just sounds kooky in the first place. Famous artists, royalty, anagrams and so forth are high on the kook quotient by my reckoning. |
Naomi
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 10:07 pm: | |
PC's book is the first I have read about this and I tend to belive that Walter Sickert is a good suspect, although I do wonder about the wives - surely there would be some evidence found that they would have seen or known. Or am I being naive? |
Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 103
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 04, 2004 - 3:28 pm: | |
Hi Naomi,
Naive? I wouldnt say that, but, I would suggest reading some books that are generally objective and do not try to sell the reader a certain suspect or theory.
Really the only serious point that Cornwell presented was that Sickert may have written a few ripper letters. This is a long from him being the ripper. I enjoyed the book, yes, because I love her fiction novels, but most of the book was mainly conjecture and building the
"facts" around her theory. I hope this answers
your question.
Paul |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
