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

 Search:
 

Join the Chat Room!

Archive through April 21, 2004 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Message Boards » Suspects » Sickert, Walter » Patricia Cornwell's book » Archive through April 21, 2004 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

M.Mc.
Unregistered guest
Posted on Sunday, April 04, 2004 - 7:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I was given my copy of Cornwell's book for a X-mas gift. The irony for me that while I was reading it the book spilt apart between 2 hoax JTR letters she had photos of. I don't usually believe in omens but OH MAN!

The only thing I am still wondering about is that GUESTBOOK she came across. Fake or real, she made me mad in her book. She just gave her two cents about it and what she believes about Sickert. There were a couple of fuzzy images of the pages she added but I could not read much on the book and I have 20/20 eye sight. Most of the book I found too much of Cornwell's opinion that she beat into the ground. She took 2ed and sometime 3ed hand "hearsay" and "rumors" then tried to make them facts. I mean did she have to go on and on about Sickert's PENIS? AGH!

I have to agree that the only thing Cornwell may have proven, is that Sickert wrote some of the HOAX JTR letters. So did many other people, so what?

Don't you find it kind of funny that in all the Sickert paintings there is not one that looks like a victim the way JTR would have seen her? Like when he was cutting into her body or the way he left her dead for the police to find. Hello? Yes some DO look like the morgue photos and post death photos taken of the victims. I believe Sickert may have paid someone off to see these very same photos we have all looked at. It's still weak as water to say any of this points to Sickert as being JTR.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

ERey
Unregistered guest
Posted on Monday, April 05, 2004 - 10:57 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

M.Mc.,

Sickert would not have had to pay anyone off to see the morgue photos of the Ripper victim, unless you count paying the cashier at a book store. These photos were published in France in 1899, in what we would now call a true-crime book. Sickert lived in France at the time and was interested true crime. As far as I know, all his alleged "Ripper victim" paintings are dated later than 1899. This is all in Wolf Valderlinden's essay.

Beyond that, it has been pointed out elsewhere that newspaper illustrations based on these some of these photos and depicting them fairly faithfully were published within days or weeks of the murders. Sickert could have scarcely avoided seeing these.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tommy Nilsson
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, April 06, 2004 - 5:51 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hello!

Sickert writes Jack the Ripper letters, one with a self portrait ("This is my photo of Jack the Ripper"), a sketch drawn in the same way as in an etching. All sketches should be made like etchings, he says. He talks about Jack the Ripper, year after year, spreading rumours. He paints "Jack Ashore" (yes, there was a Jack the Ripper message in a bottle), "Jack & Jill" (portrait of Edward G. Robinson, no 1 gangster in the movies and Joan Blondel) and "Jack the Rippers bedroom" - his own room. He “dresses” like Jack the Ripper.
He paints the victims, at least two of them in several paintings; "Le Journal", "Puttana in Casa", "Siesta", to name only a few. He says he made them in Venice. He paints his friend and model Mrs. Swinton; “The lady in a gondola”. Mrs. Swinton tells Wendy Baron that these and other portraits of her were painted in Sickerts studio, “from life, drawings and photographs”.
He paints dead, mutilated and frightened women, over and over again. He paints "Maple" and the etching "Pimlico", from places related to murder. He creates a whole series of paintings "The Camden Town Murder" and exhibits them in France. He sketches "Death and the Maiden", a self portrait with Cicely Hey, full of violent faces and a murder scene.
In 1935 he paints "Patrol", a portrait of a policewoman. You can see a small figure in a black suit laughing, while running from the police (look just over the painted title "Patrol"). The policewoman´s head is not attached to her body.
There are plenty of paintings that look like images of murder victims, especially from the period 1903-1908. Buy Wendy Barons book "Sickert" and you will find them! What about "Reclining Nude", "Fille Včnitienne Allongče", "Conversation", "Nude", "Le lit de Cuivre", "Nude behind flowers", "Mornington Crescent Nude", "Summer Afternoon..."
He is a suspect, all right!

Regards, Tommy

PS Cornwell is right, there is a funny sketch of Whistler in the guestbook. All the sketches look like Sickerts. Could be a forgery, but I doubt it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
Posted on Monday, April 05, 2004 - 7:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

M.Mc. wrote:
"Don't you find it kind of funny that in all the Sickert paintings there is not one that looks like a victim the way JTR would have seen her? "

I find it even funnier that none of the paintings seem to look like a Ripper victim at all to me. Necklace = neck wounds? Really now.

"I believe Sickert may have paid someone off to see these very same photos we have all looked at."

Somewhere on this site is mention that the photos in question were released in a book in France (where we all know he vacationed quite frequently) shortly after the murders and long before the paintings in question. So even if the paintings were meant to look like the victims, the most trouble he would have to go to was to buy a book.

"It's still weak as water to say any of this points to Sickert as being JTR."

No doubt about it. If she weren't already famous nobody would have even paid any attention at all to this embarassing book. It would have been filed away with the accusations against Lewis Carroll, the ninja secret agent (what happened to that book? did it ever really come out?), and so forth.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chris Michetti
Detective Sergeant
Username: Pl4tinum

Post Number: 109
Registered: 2-2004
Posted on Tuesday, April 06, 2004 - 12:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I've started reading her book now and I am a few chapters in. I really can barely stand to read it because having read this site first, I almost completely dismiss everything she writes as soon as I read it. Most of what's in her book seems to be guesswork or her ideas and there really doesn't seem to me to be anything concrete that would link him to the murders. She assumes that because he had a problem with his penis and had an operation done by a 'female' nurse in the hospital, that his supposed hatred for females was even stronger. Talk about making stuff up...


Chris
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn

Post Number: 617
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 06, 2004 - 2:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

No Tommy,you are both way out as far as Sickert goes.I have pointed out before that Sickert"s paintings are so similar to those of the German Expressionists that sometimes you can"t tell one
artist from the other.
For example:

Take two paintings done in 1906 one by Sickert and the other by the German Expressionist Georges Rouault.Both paintings are of prostitutes sitting naked.In both cases their features are distorted
and Rouaults in particular are horribly distorted and exaggeratedly hideous.
The one by Sickert is called la Hollandaise and is part of his Camden Town series the one by Rouault is part of the German Expressionists movement which often dwelt on the dark sinister side of life and represented the savage and brutalising effects of poverty on humanity.
It really is necessary to have knowledge of art history and its movements through the centuries
instead of trying to "make things up as you go along".It takes a long time to be able to "read" a painting successfully.
A good beginning is Sister Wendy Beckett"s Story of Painting which is ideal for "beginners" like Mark and Tommy.But if you want more on Sickert I have three books of my own which are quite a bit more specialised.But by starting with Sister Wendy you can graduate to the sophisticated analysis a step at a time which prevents "misinterpretation of a painters intent"
Best Natalie
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

M.Mc.
Unregistered guest
Posted on Sunday, April 11, 2004 - 2:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I want you to read all of this because I have another point to make about a radio program called "War of the Worlds." There was something that went on with this that I think proves something about jumping the gun. Back when people would sit down with their radios on, there where radio programs kind of like TV shows today. One was "War of the Worlds." Orson Welles came on and read this but it came off as a real news broadcast. Many people went into panic mode over what they heard. They really believed that Earth was at war with Mars. It's one of the best known that Orson Welles ever did. Here is a URL to a site to see for yourself...

http://www.greatnorthernaudio.com/sf_radio/wow.html

Now Tommy boy let's play "Suspects and Clues" I won't name off but just two good suspects that beat Sickert by a bloody mile. Pun meant by all means. There are others who fit Jack the Ripper a heck of a lot better than Sickert or Lewis Carroll put together.

Francis Tumblety - A dozen or more jars containing female uteri and hated all women to the point of madness. Very good Ripper suspect.

Michael Ostrog - Released, March 10 1888, as "cured." Mentioned in Police Gazette, October 1888, as a "dangerous man" who failed to report. Sentenced to two years imprisonment in Paris for theft, November 18th, 1888. Pretty good suspect.

W.R. Sickert - Some muddy paintings with names that point to Jack the Ripper. Paper found that might point to Sickert writing a HOAX JTR letter. Someone told Cornwell that Sickert had his penis worked on by doctors. Cornwell's "if and's and but's" exaggerated claims that are NOT facts.

I'm sorry but I'm not a sheep, I don't jump on a bandwagon. I need more that PROVES Sickert's guilt and all Cornwell did in her book was give her point of view pretty much. It's like "War of the Worlds." Right is not proven by a show of hands but cold hard facts. Cornwell has not showed me enough facts to make me believe Sickert was Jack the Ripper. No matter how interested he was in the JTR case that does not mean very much. Steven King likes writing very gory stories that seem as if were a killer himself. Is he? Perhaps Sickert strange sarcastic wit is over Cornwell's head. Heck I know mine is, some people don't get sarcasm but it's nothing more than an off the wall type of humor. Sickert had this type of humor as he would make remarks about being Jack the Ripper or knew who he was. So what? It does not mean anything without the FACTS to back it up. That's what I feel Cornwell is missing in her book any real facts. She goes on and an about what she believes backed up with what? 2ed had info about his penis that she beats into the ground. No real facts just her point of view. She assumes alot but again, no real facts to back it up. I'm just not buying it. If Sickert was Jack the Ripper I would need to see more in the way of facts to believe it. Not paintings, hoax JTR letters and not a so called penis problem. That's not enough to prove Sickert was Jack the Ripper. Right now on a scale to one to ten I'd put Sickert at a three. Others I have at a eight or nine but nobody at a ten yet. Thank you.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj

Post Number: 114
Registered: 2-2004
Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 9:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Whats up MC?

Good post. I do however disagree on a few points.....

Tumblety- decent suspect....TOO TALL...TOO OLD.
Tumblety was almost 6 ft. WAY taller than any witness' descriptions. Tumblety was born in 1833....he was almost 60 yrs. old.

Ostrog- TOO Tall..5'11...Too Old. Same age as Tumblety. Most seriously killers dont wait till that age before they start. His whereabouts were not known in 1888.

I do agree that a lot of Cornwells "ifs" and "buts" were unsubstantiated. I thought the book was a good read though. Best Regards.

Paul
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna

Post Number: 1532
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 9:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

As far as Ostrog is concerned, his label as a homicidal maniac is completely unsupported and probably one of those factual errors we find in the police documents written several years afterwards. Ostrog was a con man, with no substancial record of violence that could turn into murder.

Regarding Tumblety... his glass jars of uteruses is not a verified piece of fact; that information came from hearsay and was never really verified or corroborated by actual evidence.

All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj

Post Number: 117
Registered: 2-2004
Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 11:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

In my above post...under Ostrog....I meant Serial killers not Seriously killers. What the hell was I thinking?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna

Post Number: 1534
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 2:27 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Well... maybe serial killers are serious, I don't know...
At one occasion I nearly wrote cereal killers instead of serial killers. :o)

All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

CB
Unregistered guest
Posted on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 9:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi all,

Just one more thought on Tumblety. I tend too believe stories more if they give a specific name such as in the Tumblety wombs in glass jars story as well as his hatred of women and even more so of prostitutes. The story gives a clear name a Colonel Dunham and it states his LT. Colonel was at the party as well. I tend to put stock in the story.

All the best,CB
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

CB
Unregistered guest
Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 10:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi all,

I liked Cornwells book too. she convinced me that Sickert wrote ripper letters. So I guess you cant rule him out completley.

I dont think you can rule Tumblety out. The police knew how tall how old and they still arrested him. Then they chased him to newyork. They obviously thought he was a prime suspect.

How tall was Tumbltey really does anyone know for sure? I have heard anyware from 6'4 to 5'11.

In the back of my mind I always thought if Tumblety was connected with the ripper crimes he may of had an acomplise. He was known for haveing male friends involved in his dubias actions.

One more thought. The timeline fits Tunblety arrived in London at the perfect time for the murders to start and he fled at the proper time for the murders to stop.

Tumblety was a man who was arrested for everything from abortions to manslaughter and he never fled he always stayed to fight the charge and protest his innocence. However, when he was picked up for susoicion of complicity in the WC murders he flees not only from london but also newyork on hearing of scotland yards arrival. I always thought that Tumbletys silence and running was out of charactor for this flamboyant strange bird.

When he was arrested in washington in 1890 for suspicious behavior. He was still carring with him 2 years after the murders avidavids from people stateing his good charactor and deniales that he was Jack the ripper. I find that very paranoid. He also was waring rubber boots when arrested

All the best,CB

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Blown Away in WA
Unregistered guest
Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 8:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I think that you are all absolutely absurd (almost all). P.C.'s book is the first to be published that can connect key elements and facts to one particular person. No other suspect in the Ripper murders could be tied to them as much as Sickert is. First, if you have ANY knowledge about modern day forensics you would see the striking evidences that become facts. Not only is their scientific ties to Sickert- there is multitudes of other ties and evidence proving that Sickert is Jack the Ripper. In considering not just factors that about the actual murders you must consider factors like London's East End in the late 19th century; Victorian beliefs on sexuality, prostitution and women's place in society. The Ripper's most famous victims (the Unfortunates) were not only shunned and persecuted from their lifestyle, but also for just being women. Other factors to consider would be Sickert's state of mind- in modern day times he would most definitely be classified as having some sort of mental disorder, most likely Bipolar Stage I. When Bipolar is not treated the outcome is usually a person that is so out of touch with reality that they lose control- they suffer from extreme delusions, are erratic, have extreme grandiosity and can lead to someone who can commit the type of murders such as Jack the Ripper did. Another factor with BP is that while the person can suffer from the above they are also usually close to genius, as Walter Sickert was, and as Jack the Ripper was. Ernest Hemmingway suffered from Bipolar Stage II and is renowned as the best poet of his time, and also as a Master writer. Bipolar II is the opposite from I in that the person suffers from long periods of depression and short spurts of mania, but still have the like genius capability.
There are mountains of evidence against Walter Sickert- and contrary to what P.C. says about if he would have committed the murders in modern day he would be caught easily- I don't believe this is true- as she says in her book, the killer was up to date with forensics (if you can call it that then) he would have still be cunning enough to stay out of the way in modern times like he did over a 100 years ago.
Sickert was cunning and very smart- there is no way he would claim to Jack the Ripper if he wasn't. He knew he could get away with it and knew how far he could go. He used the police to work with him, as well as the media.
I believe that before you discount P.C.'s book, and theories, you must know quite a bit more about the outside factors influencing the murders.
How about the letters- and the forensic science and the handwriting expert? Are you discounting something that is not only a theory but real physical proof? The handwriting expert, as well as the paper expert are used in millions of cases, not only in the U.S., but in Europe as well. Are you as your own Jack the Ripper expert saying that they are full of sh*t? I would hope so not, because if the are then I would believe that thousands of people are incarcerated because of fall evidence. This information is allowed in a court of law! How can you deny physical evidence?
Possibly you should read the book again, not analyzing what she did that was wrong and the tangents she goes off on giving her own opinions, and take away the obvious biases you have with your own opinions, and look at the physical evidence if you can't believe in her theories. How can you deny physical evidence?
I have nothing more to say. I was blown away by the comments made on this message board- (except for the one from the Swedish historian). What do you have? A paragraph of evidence and theory? If you can give me a 350 pg. book (which was in VERY small print) about your suspect and a theory, plus some real physical evidence (as P.C. did)- I would have no problem looking at another suspect and a different theory.
I would guess that either most of you didn’t read the whole book, only heard about the theory that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper, or maybe cannot read at all.
Sorry for being so upfront- but this theory is cut and dry- I’m not sure how you all missed it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally

Post Number: 521
Registered: 4-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 8:37 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I am sorry you are just too cute. What proof is there that Sickert was mentally ill? Other than PC's wild speculations without a shred of evidence, where is there a single solitary piece of evidence that shows that Sickert had a mental disease?

Patricia Cornwell claims that Sickert wrote nearly ALL of the JtR letters. Letters that were posted on the same day from different parts of Britain and different countries ...how did he do this exactly? Had he mastered warp travel? I am not saying that Sickert didn't write a couple of letters. He may very well have. But hundreds or people wrote "JtR" letters. That doesn't come close to proving any one of them JtR.

Patricia doesn't have any evidence that ties Sickert to the murders. Not one. It's desperate wishful dreaming to think that she does.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn

Post Number: 686
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 10:02 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

As Ally is saying there is no evidence that walter Sickert suffered from any mental disease.
In fact because of his long life[82],passionate committment to his painting,success in his painting and the respect of other artists at the time [Degas and other French Impressionists]-its likely that Walter Sickert enjoyed good physical and mental health for most of his life.
Natalie
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna

Post Number: 1577
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 11:47 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"Blown Away in WA" is apparently confusing "factors" with "facts". Again, another one who's of the completely wrong opinion that the possible writer of some of the Ripper letters also must have been the Ripper himself. Why is it that the general view upon the letter as not being written by the killer, seems to be totally lost on some individuals?

Once again, even if we could prove that Sickert wrote only one of the letters (which is not proven beyond doubt anyway), it doesen't at all indicate that he was Jack the Ripper, since the letters are considered hoaxes anyway. How many times do we have to state this?

The simple fact that Cornwell didn't grasp this herself, just shows what lousy research she did, and I am afraid the same thing can be said about her loyal and totally uncritical followers as well.

Jesus Christ...!

All the best


Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty

Post Number: 1010
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 12:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Blown Away,

So am I....so am I...

The case Patsy puts up against Sickert as being a murderer wouldnt stand a chance in a court of law. Maybe a case for letter writing but not murder.

So take your $6m book and re-read it. Then read through all the factual evidence gathered at the time and since. Because its so obvious that you havent even bothered checking the facts against the tripe Cornwall has put in her book.

Until you have done that dont foul my reading space again with such utter bollox as you have posted above.

And if this post cuts then good.....I have to be cruel to be kind.

Monty

Our little group has always been and always will until the end...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris

Post Number: 1176
Registered: 4-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 5:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Off topic I know!
Natalie - would you please mail me as I have lost your mail from the other day and also a lot of my e-mail address contacts
many thanks and I will reply asap when I get your message
All the best
Chris

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dan Norder
Sergeant
Username: Dannorder

Post Number: 23
Registered: 4-2004
Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 8:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hey, uh, "Blown Away"? You might actually try reading things with an open mind instead of assuming that Cornwell is right and that we must all be idiots for not believing her.

For instance, you say, "First, if you have ANY knowledge about modern day forensics you would see the striking evidences that become facts."

If you knew anything about forensic evidence you'd know that what she presents is highly inconclusive at best. Even if they did prove the things she is claiming (that Sicker wrote a letter or two) that that's got nothing to do with whether he was a killer or not.

There are real, honest to goodness professionals here on these boards who work directly in forensic evidence saying that Cornwell hasn't proven anything. What are your credentials to be telling anyone here that you know more than them? Not to mention, Cornwell has no credentials either. She's not a forensics expert. She's a secretary who became a fiction author who picked the first suspect anyone ever mentioned to her and set out to try to get dirt on him, paying off experts to try to come up with the best data they could to link him to the crimes. With the millions she's tossed around she has come up with absolutely nothing that would help in an actual criminal investigation.

And if you knew anything about forensic science, you'd know that too.

Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj

Post Number: 149
Registered: 2-2004
Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 10:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Just to throw my two cents in on it. I have read Cornwell's book...twice. First of all,
all her so called evidence is basically ..."there is no proof that Sickert did this or that, but there is no proof that he didnt."

Second...So what if he wrote a few ripper letter.
What does that prove? That he can write. Good for him. The chance that Jack the ripper actually wrote any letters to anyone is slim at best.

Third...she cant even spell Tabram correctly!
CASE CLOSED!

Paul
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna

Post Number: 1588
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 11:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Paul,

What!!?
First "Steward" [sic!] Evans.
Did she flunk on Tabram as well...????
Who on earth did her proof-reading, for God's sake?

All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

jon a.
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 9:21 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

First of all, someone who was as mentally ill as you believe Sickert was could continue to exist in society. If one was that out of touch with reality, one could not deal with reality.

Also, Hemingway was not a poet.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Snooka
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 11:35 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

All I have to say is JTR IS Walter Sickert. You guys keep talking about the paintings. Who cares, dismiss them. DNA linked him to JTR letters. Forgery, not a chance. How about the stationary? Funny how JTR & Sickert used the same stationary at same time. Not all Ripper letter's are forgery's. Even Johnny Cochran cant save Walter SICKert. CASE CLOSED.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna

Post Number: 1593
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 11:09 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Snooka,

For heaven's sake; for the last time: Read my lips! None of the Ripper letters -- maybe except for the "From Hell" letter - is considered genuine! The police dimissed them, and so does the grand majority of modern researchers.

Sickert may very well have been one of those who wrote one or several of the letters, but so what. They are no link to the killer!

quote:

Not all Ripper letter's are forgery's.


Yeah, right - and you have proof of that, of course?

Holy Moses ...

All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Register now! Administration

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.