|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Darren C
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 - 11:03 pm: |       |
Is there any more daming evidence that it is sickert compared to all the other suspects? I just seems so very obvious that it was Sickert..... what does everyone else think?
Also a little tidbit.. didn't the police apparently suspect Sickert so much that they had him followed everywhere, and reduced the number of police on the case, and as a result, no more murders occured?? Just seems like if they did this, they obviously knew it was Sickert, but had no 100% proof back then (ie, caught in the act) to lay an offical charge? |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1400
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 6:36 am: | |
Ah Bless,
He dont understand....hes been reading Cornwall again !
Monty
Don't be shocked by the tone of my voice
Check out my new weapon, weapon of choice- Jack the Ripper
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1045
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 9:41 am: | |
Hi Monty and Darren
It had to have been Sickert because he was constantly seeing the doctor for writer's cramp from writing all those Ripper letters. 
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 345
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 4:59 pm: | |
Hi Darren,
There's no evidence that the police had him followed. In fact, there's absolutely no indication that the police suspected Sickert in any way. And considering that he appears by all evidence to have been out of the country for the majority of the Ripper murders, I don't see how they could have possibly suspected him.
(Well, come to think of it, Ostrog was in France at the same time and that didn't stop Macnaghten from naming him as a suspect, but then they hadn't known where he was. Sickert would have been a lot easier to trace if the thought had ever occurred to them to do so, which I'm sure it didn't.)
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2188
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 11:11 pm: | |
Hi Darren,
I just love that line:
"I just seems so very obvious that it was Sickert..... " 
Frankly, nothing is obvious in the case of Jack the Ripper.
Firstly: Sickert's paintings does not in any way indicate that he was responsible for the murders. Neither does the fact, IF it could be verified that he wrote the letters -- the Ripper probably never wrote any of those letters we know of (if we disregard the doubts concerning the Lusk letter), therefore the DNA tests are useless, although the approach is interesting.
Secondly, you shouldn't believe everything Cornwell tells you... She's just another one of those armchair detectives who claims they have cracked the case. Unfortunately, she's in good company.
All the best
"If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth. Alles klar?"
Herr Wolf Lipp, The League of Gentlemen |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1248
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - 11:19 am: | |
Darren,
I am a little late on the scene here because I foolishly forgot about this excellent resource for people like yourself
http://casebook.org/dissertations/dst-pamandsickert.html
Jenni |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 107
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - 12:00 pm: | |
To all,
Remember, the same thing that you are mocking about Darren ("it seems so obvious that it was Sickert") directly correlates to your opinions - which are mostly that it is so obvious that it could not have been Sickert.
Darren,
It is nowehere close to obvious that it is Walter Sickert. My suggestion is read a few more books on the subject and you will see how a case can be built for numerous suspects. That being said, I believe it was Sickert also, but not because it is obvious, because I have a theory that leads toward Sickert and another committing the murders.
To all again,
Remember, before you know this theory understand that by mocking Darren for his incorrect assumption regarding Sickert, you must also apply that same criteria to your own opinions and statements, that as far as is known it is not obvious that 'JTR' was not Sickert. If it is that obvious then why is he still a suspect, rather than an eliminated suspect such as Prince Albert Victor, John William Smith Sanders, Dr. Thomas Neill Cream, John Pizer, Dr. John Hewitt and Frank Miles.
Although often seen as a game this is an unsolved murder case, and the mocking does not help, especially when most are guilty of the same erroneous assumptions that Darren has stated.
STAN RUSSO |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1250
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - 2:42 pm: | |
Hi Stan,
we never said it was obvious it could not have been Sickert, did we?
Jenni |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1407
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 6:57 am: | |
Stan,
You are right and I apologise to you Darren.
Stan, you state you believe Sickert was the man who committed these crimes.
On what evidence is this based?
Monty
Don't be shocked by the tone of my voice
Check out my new weapon, weapon of choice- Jack the Ripper
|
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 108
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 8:13 pm: | |
Monty,
I could tell you. I could tell you it all, but then who would buy the book? At least I got through to one person about the double standards used.
And Monty, I could be wrong. It is just a theory. I don't have pictures of the murderer at the crime scene over the body with the knife in the conservatory eating kidneys with Colonel Mustard. Just a theory, although the theory answers those questions ignored by most theories and most researchers. And again, I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.
STAN RUSSO |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2222
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 8:24 pm: | |
Stan,
"If it is that obvious then why is he still a suspect, rather than an eliminated suspect such as Prince Albert Victor, John William Smith Sanders, Dr. Thomas Neill Cream, John Pizer, Dr. John Hewitt and Frank Miles."
Easy. He's not!
Except in Cornwell's mind, and her followers.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 109
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 8:43 pm: | |
Glenn,
Maybe you're right. No wait a minute, you are most definately wrong and your biases against Cornwell and her ridiculous theory about Sickert cloud your judgment, if you actually believe Sickert is not a suspect and that he is easily not one.
The age old error - Sickert must be innocent because some researcher devised a shoddy theory that didn't pan out. In case you just started researching this case Sickert has been a suspect since 1970, prior to the Royal Conspiracy theory, and a number of different theorists have named him as 'JTR'. And that still doesn't make a shitload of difference. He is named as a suspect and prove he didn't do it, like PAV, Smith Sanders, Pizer, Miles and Dr. Hewitt. They couldn;t have done it, because they have alibis, whereas Sickert could have done it, because he does not have an alibi.
See that's how it works in an unsolved murder case. You don't eliminate people because you don't like them or don't like an arrogant researcher who failed in her attempts to prove he did it. Or just continue conducting shoddy research - just like Cornwell. And also keep telling yourself that you're better than her and not doing exactly what she did. See it works both ways Glenn.
Come back with a real reason why Sickert was 100% not 'JTR'. Then we can talk.
STAN RUSSO |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1076
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 8:53 pm: | |
Hi Stan
I have not read your book yet and I should not prejudge but I think there is a flaw in your thinking if you believe a person remains a suspect solely because there are no grounds to eliminate them. On that sort of basis, I could name a few million people in England at the time of the murders and for whom we know of no alibi. I guess you would also include Maybrick on such grounds too, huh?
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 354
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 9:51 pm: | |
Actually, the main reason I think Sickert has been eliminated is not because of the Cornwell, Overton and Royal Conspiracy books with horribly bad logic but because he does appear to have an alibi. Being out of the country in the South of France some thousand miles away during most of the murders sounds like a solid alibi to me. If there's some reason to reconsider that information, great, but otherwise...
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2223
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 9:55 pm: | |
Stan,
I know that Sickert has been a suspect for a long time, although maybe in a different context than the one Corny Cornwell suggests; his link to the Royal Conspiracy theory is vague and unsupported, and built on lies and grotesque speculations -- the connection to this conspiracy is in itself no support for the idea of Sickert as a suspect, actually it is even worse than Cornwell's surveys on the subject.
I could give you a long list of reasons why Sickert is not a credible suspect, from an investigative point of view, although I believe that would be like kicking in already open doors, since that debate and relevant arguments have been put forward already.
Truth of the matter is, that there is no reason whatsoever to suspect him of being a serial killer, and certainly not Jack the Ripper.
No evidence at all in the case points to a painting artist with more or less narcissistic traits. First of all, Sickert doesen't fit the psychological bill of people who commit murders like these. Secondly, he was probably out of the country when the murders occurred.
Regardless of Cornwell, the modern supposed link to Sickert so far, unless you have come up with new astonishing material, is the nature and subjects of his paintings, him having a studio in East End (although this apparently was several years after the murders) and the idea that he may have written some of the letters (which I can't dismiss altogether, but in itself means absolutely nothing).
The so called links between a number of serial murders and Sickert are fictional, and the symbolic interpretations of his art as a sign of his guilt is so ridiculous (from my background as an art historian with a degree) that it makes me roll around on the floor with laughter.
His interest in the Camden murders and the Whitechapel killings are a fact, but as a base for suspicions against him, this clue is worthless and purely speculative. You can't nail an eccentric person for his fascination with certain subject.
You see, the difference between me and Cornwell (and other Sickert supporters), is that she distorts facts or discount those facts that do exist. I try not to do that.
There are numerous facts that supports the notion that Sickert as a suspect is nothing but a fruit cake notion, not in any way better than Dr Gull or Lewis Carroll, and not in any way more supported by facts.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2224
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 10:02 pm: | |
Furthermore, Stan,
As Dan here just pointed out, he does seem to have an alibi -- and unless you have managed to come across new startling evidence that proves otherwise, I'd say is alibi is among the better ones of all known suspects to date.
No, he's not a credible suspect.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 110
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 10:28 pm: | |
Glenn,
well congrats. you've just eliminated another suspect. And the amazing thing is you;ve done it without showing your evidence that he was in France and had an alibi for the nights of the murders. Amazing. Let me try.
Druitt. he couldn;t have done it because everyone knows he liked little boys so he wouldn't have gone out at night and missed an opportunity to maybe get a little touch or feel.
Maybrick. Easy. Someone forged a diary claming he was 'JTR', so it must be obvious that he wasn't. Any fool can add those together to arrive at a not guilty verdict.
Kosminski. I heard somewhere from someone that Kosminski was doing something on some night during some year in some place. He's free. This is fun.
Hell, I could just forge a document from James Kelly stating that he was the murderer and murdered the women because he was told to kill by Toonces, the cat that can drive a car. By the Maybrick logic James Kelly would have to be eliminated from the suspect pool.
You could make an argument against every suspect, so why aren't you thoroughly eliminating all the others too? With all due respect, that is shoddy research and an awful practice.
I've always said that if anyone showed proof (PROOF) that Walter Sickert could not have murdered those women I would abandon my theory, despite the fact that it answers every question ignored by researchers, such as why wasn't Stride mutilated (not a time factor or interruption) and why weren't there any October murders?
But then again, Sickert has to be innocent. He just has to be, because people feel it. or in actuality, nobody really knows, until you can show he didn;t do it. That's proper policework.
STAN RUSSO
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2226
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 10:49 pm: | |
No, Mr Russo.
Unlike you, I try to present and rely on FACTS. That is proper policework. So far you have not managed to do that, but -- without having read your finds -- like every other armchair detectives you seem to base your charges on loose ends and speculations, none of which are supported by any facts whatsoever. Now, if you excuse me, that is shoddy research and police work.
I am afraid you've got it the other way around, Stan. It is actually up to you to PROVE Sickert's guilt, not the opposite!
So far none has managed to produced anything more than speculative theories based on fairy-tales, dead end DNA-tests and over-interpretations of his art. Unless you have managed to add completely new facts regarding his guilt, I doubt you will be able to either. But feel free to give it a shot, I won't stop you. I'd just wish that someone would be able to produce evidence for a change until they make charges against someone who would never be considered a suspect anyway.
But I'll hand it to you, old boy, your notions on "proper policework" is indeed in a league of its own.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2227
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 11:02 pm: | |
Stan,
"I've always said that if anyone showed proof (PROOF) that Walter Sickert could not have murdered those women I would abandon my theory, despite the fact that it answers every question ignored by researchers, such as why wasn't Stride mutilated (not a time factor or interruption) and why weren't there any October murders?"
As far as I know, almost every researcher that indulges in the ultimate suicide mission of identifying the Ripper, has their own explanations -- connected to their own suspects -- to those particular questions and others. What makes Sickert and the arguments for his candidacy so different in this respect? It's not like we haven't heard this song before, you know...
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 111
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 11:13 pm: | |
Glenn,
I'm in a league of my own then.
I have the audacity, nay, the nerve, to actually not eliminate a suspect in a 116 year old murder case based on letters and a painting that does not physically prohibit that person from actually committing the murders. What a looney I am. To think, I actually believed my own crap for awhile there.
Ok, so what do I do now? I got the eliminate Sickert because no one can prove he did it, not question or doubt his status as a suspect, but thoroughly eliminate him. But what's next? let's eliminate everyone, until there are no suspects and we all have to start over. That's a much better idea.
Despite the fact that I have a theory that Sickert did it, I have always allowed for the possibility that I could be wrong. From what I'm hearing he couldn't have done it and you couldn't be wrong in that assertion. Not it is highly unlikely that he did it. Not that in all probability he didn't do it. But without a doubt he could not have done it, because he isn't a suspect. Cornwell proved that, right? I mean she was wrong so the way it works is that Sickert therefore has to be innocent, right? Seems like thorough policework to me. I'm convinced.
This is becoming a merry-go-round because while you are unwilling to understand my point I am unwilling to acknowledge that your poitn is right. I could be wrong and Sickert may well be innocent, but that's not what you're saying.
Seems to me you;re the only one making an assertion that needs proof Glenn. I just think Sickert is a suspect, while you absolutley have cleared him. Where's the burden of proof on that one? The burden of proof should be on the person making the absolute assertion, this case or any other serial murder case you feel the necessity to mention aside. To think that the 'JTR' murders are affected by something some nut case did in 1962 or any other serial murderer did is ridicuolous and the major reason why criminology is not a science.
Old boy? I'll take that as non-insulting, even though I'm 87 and sensitive about my age.
STAN RUSSO |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1255
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 3:54 am: | |
Hi Stan,
from the little i know your book on Sickert is definatly one i am looking forward to.
Jenni
(Message edited by jdpegg on November 11, 2004) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2228
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 6:41 am: | |
Stan,
Believe me, your theories (whatever they consist of -- we still don't know that because you haven't said anything) will be incredibly interesting to take part of.
You're wrong. I can't say for sure that Sickert didn't do it. My reason for dismissing him lies in the fact that no one up to date mas managed to produce facts that supports his canidacy. THAT is why he is not a credible suspect.
Any minute anyone does that, I am prepared to reconsider.
Cornwell didn't prove anything, not even that she was wrong -- her theories ended up in a vacuum. What she did prove is that she is a lousy researcher. What Stephen Knight proved was that an author can fabricate facts and hold back those that doesen't fit the author's direction -- in essence: lie.
That is why I meant that, if you are going to produce credible facts saying that Sickert did it, you will have to go further beyond what others have done and come up with new evidence which explains holes in other theories. It's as simple as that. If you can do that, I am happy for you and I will be pleased to hear about it.
So you see, I don't have to prove anything, but you do.
"To think that the 'JTR' murders are affected by something some nut case did in 1962 or any other serial murderer did is ridicuolous and the major reason why criminology is not a science."
This is a matter of debate, but I disagree. I agree on that criminology is not a science -- no one has ever said it is -- but neither is studying paintings and look for strange symbols and indications in a very subjective way, or however you want to go about it. Because as an art historian I can tell you, that is total crap. Art interpretation is a completely subjective thing and is as far from science as you can get.
I strongly believe that it is useful to look at other cases for comparison, since most serial killers -- regardless of different individualistic traits -- actually share some patterns. This is not profiling, but common everyday reality in normal police work. If you think that's ridiculous, fine by me.
Looking forward to your theory, Stan. Honest.
(And you're right: "old boy" wasn't meant to be insulting.)
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2230
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 9:41 am: | |
Another addition, Stan,
To put forward theories in order to support or present a certain suspect is actually not especially griound-breaking. That has been done by numerous authors and researchers, so many that I've lost count.
The real challenge is to write a book about the Ripper without stressing a favourite suspect, which is very seldom done. Few Ripper books are objective.
The fact that most authors actually indulge in meaningless suspect hunts goes beyond me. How anyone can expect to solve the case and tell themselves and others that they have sufficient evidence in order to mail ANYONE for the murder, is a mystery. Anyone who has the slightest knowledge of police work, knows that this is hopeless in a case that is over 100 years old.
After that long a time, there simply don't exist facts enough to prove who did it and who didn't do it. That's why I called it an intellectual suicide mission.
The, the fact that those suspect hunts in turn may give us more over-all information about the period and the case itself, is another matter.
So it's not about eliminating suspects, but to set high demands on those who claim they know who the Ripper is. Which I think is justified, since the case has been thrown into wrong paths so many times already thanks to too many wacko stories.
As far as 87 goes, Stan, if one is lucky enough to stay healthy that is no age at all. My grandmother is 99 -- turning 100 next year -- and she is clearer in her head than I am. It's just amazing.
I am sorry if you took my expression (which I sometimes use with a wink in the eye to lighten things up a bit) the wrong way. A little careless maybe, but with no pun intended.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 670
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 8:50 pm: | |
Stan
You actually make a very good point, which considering I have been very vocal in the past regarding Sickert, I am forced to consider.
When you mention the James Kelly thing, you are forgetting (or possibly not) that someone has already done so. As one who "likes" Kelly for the murderer, I am constantly having to put people right who say "oh but all that stuff about him being in love with Mary Kelly is just preposterous". The point being that that was just one theory put forward in one of the worst written and worst researched books in the history of Ripper writing and if that was the only evidence against him we should be throwing his candidacy out of the window right now.
So I will just say, on the evidence presented so far, I do not believe Sickert was the Ripper, but I am willing to have you convince me.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise." |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 112
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 10:11 pm: | |
Glenn,
It was a simple comment that has been turned into a battle of wills. Under your logic there are no suspects. Show me one suspect that has evidence against them. And if you can't positively say that Sickert didn't do it perhaps you should ease back on saying he's not a suspect, whether you add credible later on or not. Unlike Stephen Knight and Patricia Cornwell I do not hold my theory as the holy grail. It might be wrong. It might be right. To my knowledge it does make sense of the important questions, which you say many researchers mold and fit for their own benefit.
I'm an optimist. I think it can be solved, but a whole new approach must be taken. There was a time when Druitt was considered the guy, because of MacNaghten's memo, yet now we know MacNaghten was basically incompetent and his memorandum was error-filled. That doesn;t mean Druitt didn;t do it, so why isn't he placed in the category of the likes of Sickert? The answer is simple - there is a real bias against the Royal Conspiracy Theory. I know that theory has been disproven. I know that Dr. William Gull didn;t murder these women in his carriage, not because it's a fantastical theory, but because of basic analysis of blood splattering by the crime scene. Under your approach though someone really would have to have a picture of Sickert holding a knife over a dead body to garner any respect. If that's what you're looking for to satiate you it's not gonna happen. Theory is all we have. Develop a theory of why, without altering the facts, yet analyzing them with an open mind, then realize which suspect might fit, then spend hours and hours and hours and hours trying to disprove it. Best theory wins, best theory being the one that makes the most sense out of the case.
I had my theory read, or at least the why the murders were committed part and the main complaint was that it didn't correlate to what the reader envisioned 'JTR' to be. So even if someone actually solves it there will be those people, kooks and prominent researchers, who just have an opinion of who this murderer was and nothing will break that, other than this picture I believe you are looking for or want.
Take for example four prominent researchers, Stewart Evans, Paul Begg, Martin Fido and Donald Rumbelow. I'm sure you have books by all four of these men. I do. Perhaps you know that all four of them favor a different suspect. At the very least, the very least, three of them are worng.
See my point, an open mind is all I was getting at. I can't tell you how many times I've been laughed at for having a theory that proposes Sickert, and another suspect, without that laughing person ever reading a single word of my theory. The bias exists and it doesn't help the case one iota. Whether I was advocating Sickert, Carroll, Gull, Druitt, Kosminski or no one I'd still feel the same way. This narrow-minded approach has forced the case into stagnancy. When was the last time the case took a leap forward? Honestly. I remember it as the 1993 find by Stewart Evans about Tumblety. And still people couldn't believe it was him because of their own perceptions. And with overwhelming information Tumblety has not really moved one step closer to when we found out all the info on him. Perhaps developing newer and better theories is the right way. It's obvious the other way isn't working.
Just my opinion.
And by the way, I was just kidding about being 87
STAN RUSSO |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2235
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 11:00 pm: | |
Stan,
I knew you were kidding about being 87 (it really didn't quite correlate to your style of writing), but I just wanted to point out that age has nothing to do with it. You could be 13 or 93, for all I care, it doesen't matter.
I agree one should keep an open mind, but I'd say there are limits to that also.
I don't mind people throwing in a suspect, as long as there are reasonable signs that could point in that individual's direction (I don't need proof in the legal meaning of the word, because I think it's impossible to find that from 1888).
As far as Sickert is concerned, I haven't seen a single reason to ever include him in the line of suspects. Why should he be a serial killer? I don't get it. What signs point in this direction? His paintings? His morbid views and dislike of women? The possibility of him writing some of the letters? I am not talking about evidence here. Show me one single reason for me to suspect Sickert, and what makes him special in this context, and I'll be glad to do a lot of rethinking.
You see, I don't mind theories, but I think there should be some bias for them, a foundation to build upon. If there isn't, it's just fantasies created by the researcher's own vivid imagination.
I try to go about in the way the police work (from the little experience I have), and they hardly focus on a person if there is no relevant reason to do so.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2237
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 11:25 pm: | |
And although I am quite doubtful about Tumblety, I agree on that the Littlechild letter found by Stewart P Evans, is probably the most important find to date, in the Ripper case.
The fact that it haven't resulted in further breakthroughs in later years, could of course be that it simply just wasn't him! But it also shows how hard it is to nail someone for the Ripper murders, IN SPITE OF information and theories.
In my experience, solving a case from 1888, with no existing witnesses and physical evidence is practically impossible -- you can have theories, but they can never be fully confirmed or proven.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 5:28 am: | |
But the point is, we can assert anyone is a suspect on the basis that we cannot eliminate them. We have no _certain_ evidence to prove anyone alive at the time innocent - it can always be argued around - e.g. Cream enthusiasts and the double theory, Royal conspirators demanding additional evidence that Eddie was actually where the court circulars say he was. Almost any fact we now have about the case can be and has been disputed, even the body count.
Sickert might be guilty. But (barring new disclosures) there is no evidence to suggest he did any more than write a hoax letter or two, and very little even for that. On the other hand, there is some evidence supporting the idea that he was elsewhere at the time (letters referring to his whereabouts from third parties, for example). Of course these might be forged, or he might have travelled back by train / boat etc. to carry out the crimes. There is evidence that he was interested in the murders - but so are all of us! In short, it cannot be said it is inpossible he was JtR, only highly improbable. And, unlike Sherlock, we have not eliminated the other possibilities so that we are forced to resort to the improbable, on the contrary, we have thousands of them.
No-one is ever going to _prove_ who was responsible for the Ripper murders, or even which of the Whitechapel murders were Ripper murders. But equally, it is tremendously difficult to prove anyone innocent beyond _any_ doubt. Just beyond _reasonable_ doubt.
Regards
Pete |
Tommy Nilsson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 3:56 am: | |
Hi everybody!
Glenn wrote:"Firstly: Sickert's paintings does not in any way indicate that he was responsible for the murders."
Again, that is not true. Todays art science discuss Sickerts obsession with Jack the Ripper and violent crimes and calles it Sickerts most important subject matter, read Lisa Tikner.
That does not prove that he was Jack the Ripper, but painting murder scenes and victims does not free him either.
One man in Sweden, who may bee a serial killer, is now under prosecution for two (sex)murders; an eight year old girl and a young adult woman. He paints and painted an oil of a woman with the head of a snake. You can look att Sickerts "La Hollandaise" - what kind of face of a woman is that?
I think that Sickert will continue to be under suspicion for a long time.
After all, he was the one who painted "Jack the Rippers Bedroom" - his own bedroom. |
Darren C
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 10:34 pm: | |
Hi All,
I really appreciate all your help and comments. Sorry if I offended people with my post, I probably could've written it better.
Perhaps most of you are right that the book has clouded my judgement. Based on the evidence that Cornwell has stated, it does put forward a strong case. However, I did not realise Sickert was "out of the country" during the murders..... how is this proven? by his journal or by people stating business with him during that period?
I must confess that this all intrigues me. Out of all the suspects, the royal conspiracy, while making a good plot, seems to be the most outrageous (In my opinion). However, I guess we all must keep our minds open since this will (almost most def) go on forever as for the identity of JTR.
What fascinates me with Sickert is his paintings...and his life upbringing.... both ghastly and truely horrible. And if Sickert was not JTR, it's his fasicnation with JTR that baffles me. Surely a very fragile individual in the mind? |
My Name
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 11:46 pm: | |
Hello People I'm new at this but I was wondering something. You all seem to accept that what Cornwall wrote is crap but you don't even see the points she has made. First off we know that a serial killer does not stop killing. So she did one thing right she followed Sickert around to the places he was at outside of London. And guess what there were deaths with the same MO as the ripper killings where he was supposed to be(look it up in old newspapers from same time). Next you talk about he did not have a studio because there was nothing to say that he did. You are forgeting that this was the 1890's and they did not ask for I.D. You just went in and signed a name and a long as you pay you stay. You say he was in France because he mailed a letter from there. Again you forget the time period. You can put it in any mail box and say its form France and no one will know. Now about the letters, anyone could have written most of them. Also as has been proven one person could have written most of them. A change of style on a letter is simple even for everyone here to do. The way you see if they are the same person is by the loops on certain letters etc. And this is not exact either. Saying some of the letters were written by someone who could not spell is not exactly correct either. Those had simple words mispelled and complex ones correct. Now i'm not saying that Cornwell is right and that Sickert did it but don't bash every idea just because you don't like the person. Also, in this you will never have something that says "here it is, here is the killer" all you can do is try to put together the pieces. |
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - 6:30 pm: | |
Sickert never was a suspect until modern times. He was in France at the time of the murders. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2240
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 10:25 am: | |
Hi Darren,
"What fascinates me with Sickert is his paintings...and his life upbringing.... both ghastly and truely horrible. And if Sickert was not JTR, it's his fasicnation with JTR that baffles me. Surely a very fragile individual in the mind?"
Well, yes maybe, but as has been pointed out before, this is not at all uncommon in the art world. There are numerous of other examples of where artists are fascinated with macabre subjects.
That doesne't make them killers -- on the contrary, their art actually gives them the opportunity to express their fantasies in a more subtle way. Call it an emotional filter or therapy.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2241
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 10:30 am: | |
"My name",
For the last time (I don't know how many times this has been put forward), the letters are useless as a reference or argument regarding Sickert's involvement.
Even if he did write some of the letters, it means nothing (or rather, it would actually point more at his innocence). Most researchers and experts agree on that the letters (maybe with some exception of the Lusk letter) did NOT come from the killer. Therefore the letter and DNA investigations were worthless.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on November 12, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 671
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 2:20 pm: | |
My Name - So she did one thing right she followed Sickert around to the places he was at outside of London. And guess what there were deaths with the same MO as the ripper killings where he was supposed to be(look it up in old newspapers from same time).
You are plainly referring to the murder of Jane Beetmore in Durham, this being the only murder remotely like the Ripper's "outside London" that she accused Sickert of to the best of my knowledge, although in typical Cornwell style she called her Joan Boatmoor.
In fact she did not place Sickert anywhere near this murder, she just said he had told his wife he had gone to Normandy at the time, so he could have been anywhere really including Durham. True, but he could also have been in Tunbridge Wells.
And as Cornwell so helpfully points out, No helpful evidence was found and for some reason, it was decided that the killer probably had committed suicide. Local people made extensive searches of mine shafts, but no body was recovered and the crime went unsolved.
Luckily though, those of us who take this subject seriously took your advice and we did look it up in newspapers. That's how we know that the police actually decided that the killer was probably Beatmore's former boyfriend William Waddell who vanished at the same time as the killing. That's how we know that they issued a wanted notice for him, that he was spotted several times in the Scottish borders, and that he was arrested in Yetholm, Roxburghshire on October 3rd. That's how we know that he confessed to the killing, was sentenced to death and was hanged on December 19th in Durham prison.
So in other words, rather than show us up for the idiots we are for not realising what a great job Cornwell did, what you have done here is merely emphasised how utterly pathetic Cornwell's research was and thus how nothing in her book can be taken at face value without doing what those of us who take this case seriously always do, which is DO THE RESEARCH YOURSELF!
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise." |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 356
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 2:31 am: | |
Hi Tommy,
"Glenn wrote:"Firstly: Sickert's paintings does not in any way indicate that he was responsible for the murders." Again, that is not true."
No, sorry, it is true, unless you assume that any painter who has dark subjects is more likely to be a serial killer. And if you do assume that I'd love to see evidence to back it up.
Some killers create art, but creating art doesn't indicate one is a serial killer any more than saying that some killers eat hamburgers so eating hamburgers indicates one is a serial killer.
"You can look att Sickerts "La Hollandaise" - what kind of face of a woman is that?"
I believe the word you are looking for is "impressionistic." It's a style of art, that's all. Or do you believe Monet was a serial mutilator of water lilies and landscapes? Or maybe that Manet (see the cover of the October issue of Ripper Notes) was a serial killer of coachmen?
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2248
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 5:49 am: | |
Tommy,
"That does not prove that he was Jack the Ripper, but painting murder scenes and victims does not free him either.
One man in Sweden, who may bee a serial killer, is now under prosecution for two (sex)murders; an eight year old girl and a young adult woman. He paints and painted an oil of a woman with the head of a snake. You can look att Sickerts "La Hollandaise" - what kind of face of a woman is that?"
Yes, the Helene and Jannike murders (and it wouldn't surprise me if he have killed others as well). I had no idea that this character painted, though, but it doesen't matter. As I said in a previous post: Art gives the painter an opportunity of releasing his fantasies in another way than expressing them in reality -- so the assesement that an artist who is diving into macabre subject also must be a killer is totally wrong. They could be, that has very little to do with their art as such.
Or do you believe that Edvard Munch -- who had a very disturbing emotional relationship with women and depicted them man-eating vampires -- also was a serial killer? Not to mention very author, both fiction and non-fiction, that indulges in such themes.
Your reasoning just doesen't work.
"After all, he was the one who painted "Jack the Rippers Bedroom" - his own bedroom."
Oh really, was it? Says who?
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 357
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 6:18 am: | |
Hi "My Name"-
I don't mind newbies to the field, as everyone has to start out somewhere. I also know that it's easy to be mislead if your introduction to a topic was a reference that had a lot of bad info. It can take a while to work past that.
But I think what you'll see here is a lot of people who have lost patience with new people showing up claiming to have good knowledge on the subject but not making any sense because they repeat what an author who makes no sense said.
Let me go through some of the things you said here. You wrote:
"You all seem to accept that what Cornwall wrote is crap"
Because we've read more reliable sources and are capable of comparing them to see which makes more sense.
"but you don't even see the points she has made."
No, we see them, we just reject them when they are wrong, which happens to be the vast majority of them.
For example, she makes the point that the killer didn't necessarily have to have medical training. I think she's right on that. Of course she's not the first person to have said that either. But we don't reject everything she says out of hand, we look at it to see if it makes sense.
"First off we know that a serial killer does not stop killing."
We don't know that. Some experts have claimed that, but then they were working with a very small number of captured serial killers when they made that conclusion, which is not the best sample to be making such strong statements. More extensive evidence points to the idea that killers can, in fact, stop on their own. Of course the ones who don't are more likely to eventually get caught, which explains why some profilers seem to think all of them are incapable of stopping. It's more that every serial killer they've gone and interviewed in prison was incapable of stopping, not that it was proven all of them are like that.
"So she did one thing right she followed Sickert around to the places he was at outside of London. And guess what there were deaths with the same MO as the ripper killings where he was supposed to be(look it up in old newspapers from same time)."
Absolutely untrue. All she did was grab a laundry list of unrelated killings and insinuated that Sickert was responsible for them, based upon no evidence.
Her strategy seems to be that if you throw enough accusations against someone, many people will just accept some of them as true.
"You say he was in France because he mailed a letter from there."
No, we say he was in France because he painted a painting while he was there and there were at least two letters from other people nonchalantly mentioning that he was there, and he always took his vacations there at the same time of year, and because nobody has shown anything that would lead anyone to believe he wasn't there.
Nobody is saying he mailed a letter from France. How can you accuse us of not listening to what Cornwell said when it's obvious you haven't bothered to read the evidence against Cornwell's theories? Take some time to better educate yourself on the topic before jumping in and making statements like that.
"You can put it in any mail box and say its form France and no one will know."
You've never heard of postmarks?
"Also as has been proven one person could have written most of them."
That certainly has not been proven, and, in fact, the opposite is true. There were so many letters (hundreds of them!) all coming in around the same time (the biggest batch was in early October, imitating the letters described in the press) that it would be impossible for one person to have written most of them.
"but don't bash every idea just because you don't like the person"
We're bashing the ideas because they're nonsense, not because we don't like Cornwell. Most of us here are perfectly capable of separating whether we think someone's ideas make sense from whether we like someone personally. If some of us don't appear to like Cornwell, it's based upon her actions and not her ideas.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2250
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 7:06 am: | |
Dan,
Really great stuff. My compliments!
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2251
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 7:09 am: | |
Just for the sake of order.
I am really beginning to get sloppy; must be my age.
One of the passages in my longer post above should say:
Or do you believe that Edvard Munch -- who had a very disturbing emotional relationship with women and depicted them as man-eating vampires -- also was a serial killer? Not to mention every author, both fiction and non-fiction, that indulges in such themes.
Your reasoning just doesen't work.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 11:27 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
I am not sure but the ripper letters that may have been written by sickert [For what it is worth I think he wrote letters] were written well after the Kelly murder. Was there a letter that may have been written by Sickert before the Kelly murder?
The Lusk letter was not sighned Jack the ripper. Many people believe this letter to be genuine. The letter was not sighned. The ripper may have been dismissing the name given to him by the press. If this is the case then the letters before Kelly's murder and after her murder that were sighned Jack the ripper are most likely fakes.
I agree with Glenn most detectives working the case believed the letters were not written by the ripper. I believe Robert Anderson claimed to know the name of the reporter who gave Jack the ripper his name. It was thought that they were just trying to sell papers.
I do not dismiss Sickert as a suspect but I feel the fact that he wrote letters and some of his paintings resembled ripper murders is not enough to conclude he was Jack the ripper. I feel he had a fasination with the case. I look forward to reading any new evidence against Sickert and wish Sickert supporters luck.
Your friend,CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 5:01 pm: | |
Hi all,
I think Cornwell tried to connect Sickert to other murders for two reasons. 1. She thought that by placeing sickert near a ripper like murder she could make thae argument that Sickert could have been the ripper. I dont believe that she could place Sickert in Whitechaple at the time of the ripper murders. 2. She knows that serial killers do not just stop killing. She had to prove that Sickert kept on killing or his viability as a ripper suspect becomes weak.
Your friend,CB |
Log Lady
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 11:15 am: | |
I'm sorry... but why should sickert paint his pictures from the perspective of the police camera, if he were at the scene?  |
Darren C
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 7:32 pm: | |
What I'd like to know is, does anyone actually believe it will ever be solved (beyond reasonable doubt). I'd love to see if solved as much as anyone else but the reality is, well sadly I just don't think it is truely ever going to happen. It will just be the people who are mostly opinionated (cornwell, for example) who will think they have figured it all out, only for some more evidence or links to blow their theroy out of the water!
Which I guess is why we have to be careful who we shoot down, because for situations like this, almost anything a person says can hold some real value to the case....being that it is so broadly open for speculation...nothing really is ever "locked tight"
|
Tommy Nilsson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 15, 2004 - 9:00 am: | |
Hello Glenn!
Iīm in a hurry right now, but I will return to the interesting discussion about why painters ainīt killers...
But for now, you wrote:
""After all, he was the one who painted "Jack the Rippers Bedroom" - his own bedroom."
Oh really, was it? Says who?""
Tommy and many others.
Because Sickert painted (t)his bedroom many times. One beautiful painting of that room (the room is easy to recognize; the mirror, the drawer and the Venetian blinds) is "Mornington Crescent Nude", (you can find it in Barons book), it was his home and studio.
All the best, Tommy
PS And everybody can find pictures of "Jack the Rippers Bedroom" in the thread "Venetian Studies", here in the casebook.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2269
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 15, 2004 - 10:21 am: | |
Hello Tommy boy,
Yes, but where is the proof that this really was Jack the Ripper's bedroom?
Heck, it is not even proven who Jack the Ripper was (that's right, Tommy, it's not proven, even if you and others are convinced that it's Sickert), so how can we be sure of his address?
Furthermore, even if this was Jack the Ripper's bedroom (which I can't see any reason whatsoever to even assume), the fact that Sickert stayed on this address could just mean that he lived there because he was fascinated -- a typical conduct from an artist in order to gain inspiration, I would say.
You must learn how to separate wishful thinking and theories from facts and evidence, my fellow countryman.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2270
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 15, 2004 - 10:27 am: | |
Hi CB,
I don't think the Ripper had that type of personality that communicates with the press (although that is of course based on criminal psychology generalizations), but if one letter could be genuine I believe it possibly could be the Lusk "From Hell" letter.
As you say, it's the only one (at least that I know of) that is not signed, and the hand writing also indicates a person disturbed enough to commit the murders.
Still, this is under debate and probably always will, so this is open to speculation. we simply just don't know.
Besides that, all good points, CB.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Tommy Nilsson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 15, 2004 - 9:58 am: | |
Hi Glenn and everybody!
Here is one painting from Sickerts bedroom at Mornington Crescent, dated 1905.
See for yourself.
http://www.artandarchitecture.org.uk/images/gallery/e4f6fbe9.html
To compare;you can find "Jack the Rippers Bedroom" (1906) in the thread "Venetian Studies"
and as I said, there are other paintings from that room.
Tommy |
Tommy Nilsson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 3:54 am: | |
Glenn!
I donīt know if your a young or old man, but spare me the "Tommy Boy"-thing, itīs childish.
If that is to be the level of discussion, I am not going to discuss with you anymore.
The issue here was if Walter Sickert painted his own bedroom when he painted "Jack the Rippers Bedroom" and he did.
Talk about identification!
Regards,Tommy |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2298
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 11:22 am: | |
Oh come on, Tommy, don't take everything so bloody serious, it was not meant in disrespect, but as an attempt to keep things in afriendly tone. It's not like we're debating global starvation here...
Lighten up, for God's sake!
But OK, since you took it as an insult, I'll apologise and will keep things stiff and academic, if that suits you better.
I am not young, but not old either -- somewhere in between. Feel free to look at my profile.
And once again, where is the proof of that bedroom really was Jack the Ripper's? Because Sickert says so?
I mean, I don't know if you have a university degree or not, or if you are familiar with concepts like source evaluation and scientific methodology, but I would urge you to ask yourself these questions, and put aside your personal belief that Sickert was the Ripper. If you do that, you will hopefully also revaluate your idea of the concept of "evidence".
It is NOT Jack the Ripper's bedroom, just because Sickert paints a picture and says this is the case. None -- except for a few crack-pots, knows for sure who the Ripper was (his identity has never been a proven fact and probably never will be!!!), and therefore we can't say where his address were.
So no... I'm sorry, I need more meat on the bone in order to call that an identification.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on November 18, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2299
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 11:28 am: | |
Tommy,
"To compare;you can find "Jack the Rippers Bedroom" (1906) in the thread "Venetian Studies"
and as I said, there are other paintings from that room."
Yes, but what does that really tell us? That Sickert painted this room more than once!
OK... Where is the real link to Jack the Ripper in this, except in the painter's own imagination?
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1101
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 9:12 pm: | |
Hi Glenn and Tommy
The other aspect of Sickert painting a picture called "Jack the Ripper's Bedroom" is this: Would the killer really advertise that he was the Ripper in such a way? Similarly, if we are to believe Patricia Cornwell's contention, 90% of the "Jack the Ripper letters" were written by Sickert, and that is literally hundreds of letters. Would the murderer really have risked detection by doing that? None of those acts fit with the actual scenario of the crimes where the Ripper escaped quickly and left few clues if any. The Ripper more than likely was not a self-advertiser, but was intent on not revealing his identity, and in slipping away into the shadows.
All the best
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2303
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 10:03 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
It's a very good point and I totally agree with what you are implying here. I find this questionable as well. Few murderers would advertise about their activities after the incident in question, and it certainly doesen't fit the Ripper, who were rather careful about not being captured or identified.
I have seen cases where the perpetrator has made fantasy sketches of the crime before it happened, but seldom afterwards -- and certianly not directed to the public in a commercial fashion.
So, I totally agree with what you are saying here -- it seems rather unlikely. Sickert seems to have been an intelligent man, and such a conduct would make the word "stupid" an underestimation.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on November 18, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 6:07 pm: | |
Let me say straight away that I do not for a moment believe that Walter Richard Sickert was JtR.
I have been considering his candidacy on and off since I watched the Barlow/Watt BBC series in 1973 and read Stephen Knight's book. I went to the Royal AcademY to see an exhibition of his paintings to get a feel for the man, and have Overton Fuller's and Emmons' book on my shelves. I have also had the misfortune of reading Patricia (charlatan) Cornwall's offering.
She does demonstrate, I think, that WRS may have written some of the "letters", but nothing more. But what does that prove - simply what we have known for a LONG time, that WRS was obsessed or fixated by the Ripper murders.
He talked about them, told stories about them, and may have painted elements of the obsession into his pictures. But was he himself JtR - not in a million years.
Why is he a candidate? Because he put himself into the frame by his continual myth-making.
WRS was an outsider, something of a showman, a failed actor and a Bohemian with a flambuoyant streak. I suspect he had a VERY dark side, was an unpleasant character with an odd sense of fun and a taste for practical jokes and the macabre. But was he JtR - no way.
Not that I'm not open to persuasion... though maybe I lie!! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2354
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 12:00 pm: | |
Great stuff, Phil.
What can I say; welcome to the world of sanity, logical deduction and reason. A very good post indeed.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Julie Lambert
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 1:21 pm: | |
Tow points for those who think painting a picture entitled "Jack The Ripper's Bedroom" makes Sickert the murderer:
1) To paint a picture about murder and/or murderers does not make one a murderer. After all, Cornwell wrote crime fiction books about murder and murderers - does that make her a serial killer?
2) Sickert painted "Jack The Ripper's Bedroom" after his landlady told him she believed the former occupier of his room was Jack The Ripper.
3) MANY prominent men of the time were interested in the murders, including Bernard Shaw, Barnardo and Conan-Doyle. They all wrote letters to the newspapers and spent social time pondering on the identity of the murderer. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
