|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
M.Mc.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 6:31 pm: | 
|
Someone gave me a video tape copy of the "Prime Time" where Cornwell was going on about Sickert being the Ripper. I ended up rewinding the tape a few times. I cannot believe a couple things that this woman said about Jack the Ripper! First she said that there is an air of romance about JTR. (???) ROMANCE? I do not know what Cornwell's idea of romance is but in my book romance dose not involve a sharp knife of a killer! 
PLEASE! Can someone buy this Cornwell woman a clue? 
The next remark that had me on the floor was the juxtapose of the Ripper victims and Sickert's art work. I heard about it before I saw it. However it's something you have to see to understand what she is really getting at. Sickert would have had to either seem the body in the morgue or in photos to match what she is talking about. The painting he made of the woman reading the paper does kind of look like like either Mary Ann Nichols or Annie Chapman but that's a reach at best. Like I said before it proves nothing. So what if it does look like either one of them in the morgue? It's not what they looked like when the Ripper killed them now does it? Perhaps Sickert saw the morgue photos at some point between 1888 and the earily 1900's. In any case it does not prove he was JTR. Sorry if anyone disagrees with me but I'll need more to believe he was JTR. Cornwell's book is full of assumptions, 2ed hand info at best and her point of view. Very little fact and none of it enough to throw the book at Sickert being JTR. Even if he did write the letters she claims he did. These letters are in the HOAX pile along with other peoples HOAX letters. Show me more Cornwell or anyone who reads this that Sickert was Jack the Ripper. I'm not buying it so far. 
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 12:59 am: |
|
To me the idea that Jack was a famous artist who traveled around wearing disguises and painting pictures of the murders is way more "romantic" (in the dramatic fantasy sense) than even the standard doctor out to kill immoral women or Royal Conspiracy fantasies. |
C. Faustian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 12:44 am: |
|
And yet, I would read and more importantly spend money to read anything Patricia Cornwall wrote as opposed to any of you unimaginative critics. At least she was unafraid to have an opinion even if it wasn't popular and stand up for it against a very prejudiced populace of ripper enthusiasts. I cannot think of many things more compelling than DNA evidence on top of circumstancial. |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 141
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 12:25 am: |
|
Well, if she actually had any real DNA evidence or credible circumstantial evidence that pointed more at Sickert than any of thousands of other people, you might have a point there, Faustian. All she has is misinformation and character assasination.
I can say, however, that the average Ripperologist is far less prejudiced against Cornwell than she was against Sickert. She admits that she was convinced he was the Ripper before she did any investigating at all.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 413
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 2:14 pm: |
|
What DNA evidence? Someone that handled one of the letters may have handled another letter or one of his paintings? He had a wife, he had friends. We have no idea who the DNA belongs to. And who are you to call any of us unimaginative? Have you read anything on these boards? I usually enjoy Ms. Cornwells FICTION novels. I didn't enjoy "Case Closed" because it isn't even close to being one of her best works. It appears to be written too fast jumping to one thing and then another. Please read more of the boards and not just the ones regarding Cornwell. |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 61
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 9:26 am: |
|
C. Faustian, PLEASE!!!!!!!
Just interested to know if Ms Cornwell has ever graced these boards?
Most people who have had any serious interest in the case in the last few years have happened across this site, surely she did.
Of course she could have remained anonymous.
Scotty.
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1197
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 5:39 am: |
|
C Faustian,
If you like wasting your hard earned cash then do so. If you want to trust this charlatan then thats just dandy with me.
But dont come on this site and call me prejudiced. I did not prejudge this book. I read it before I came to the conclusion that its a load of cr@p. A scathing critic aint I? But an honest one, as Im sure the experts would agree.
If Patsy is so unafraid to state an opinion then why doesnt she defend her opinion? Why did she ignore 'difficult' questions at one of her gathering to promote her book. Where is she now ? At least David Radka has the front to appear, no matter the weight of arguement against him. Yeah, she is fearless isnt she ?
And if you are going to defend this tosh please put up something more substantial than DNA evidence that at best proves Sickert can write. Because the evidence she has that he was a killer is fictional..... but then again, fiction is a strength with her.
Scotty,
Im sure she has been here. Her ego wouldnt allow her to keep away.
Monty
Face cream.....now thats just gayness in a jar...
|
Gregg Wigen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - 1:43 pm: |
|
Sickert was undoubtedly creepy, but I can't see him as the killer. The DNA evidence just isn't there despite Cornwell's weaving as plausible a tapestry of partial facts as she can. Admittedly, her arguments are about as good as anybody's because some of Sickert's paintings are just funky. Unfortunately, there just aren't too many good theories out there. |
Ceara Jaen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 6:56 pm: |
|
All I know is that I just finished reading Cornwell's book, and about the only thing that I am certain of is that it made me physically sick to my stomach! |
its just an opinion
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 9:38 am: |
|
of the numerous unnerving factors about ms cornwells work (which at this point i will mention i have never read, i did however see her tv documentory which followed her recearch and contained all the same points and theories) several stand out and continue to bother be. firstly the lack of any notaion in her book, even alan moores 'from hell' (which he always made clear was a work of fiction) contains tens of pages of notes detailing his sources. secondly is the amount of weight she gives to her own interpritaions of is paintings, yes they are desterbing, but so are the paintings that i do, this doesn't make me a suspect for any of the unsolved murders in my local area. and lastly is her abuse of (mt)d.n.a evidance, most people assume (wrongly) that d.n.a is unquestionable as evidance, and she plays on this. i doubt this book will ever have much standing with dedicated ripperlolgists, but the majority of people reading her book are not this, and it seems that many many people belive her (sadly to the extent that you can no longer leave flowers for him at www.findagrave.com, due to misuse and defamation). sadly is seems her book, theories and accusations towards mr sickert will be around for many years yet. |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 660
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 3:13 pm: |
|
Hi All
The DNA evidence mentioned above was anything but conclusive. The DNA results as I understand them indicate a possible match with Sickert as well as thousands of other people at the the the time. At rare times I have used DNA evidence in cases involving paternity and Ms Cornwell's conclusions amount to a great leap of faith.
All The Best
Gary |
Mark Sims
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 1:33 pm: |
|
Ok, and every other book out there is 2nd hand info and the author's point of view, but I'm sure you have several you would suspect more strongly. I've seen about plenty of suspects, and little or none is any better than the Sickert. Everything about Sickert's personality, secret rooms, and disappearing often enough that his family thought nothing of it, makes him suspicious in my book. At least worth looking at. Honestly, if this guy isn't suspicious enought to look deeper into, I don't know who is. If a guy like this were overlooked nowadays in a murder case, people would be up in arms about the ineptitude of the cops, whether he was guilty or not. And here you all are discounting him as asuredly as some are convinced of him. Sheesh. |
tony
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 12:37 am: |
|
the evidence of the guilt of sickert is in his paintings .. the painting , "ennui" , has a penis with a fistula at the base , and can be easily seen if you use a mirror .. this painting is reputed as having the supreme clue to the reason for the ripper murders ..the self portrait on the ripper letter to the police , when traced , and superimposed on the self portrait of walter sickert , is a beautiful match .. the sketch " he killed his father in a fight , when upside down , is a woman with an apron on the bed , not a man ..there is a bag at the end of the bed , which ripper is noted to have carried .. ripper kept on ripping , but never got caught .. sickert was always in the shadows , painting the scenes .. in paris , in venice , and back in town , camden town , painting the scenes , as an innocent artist .. |
Kellie Erin Sharp
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 1:27 pm: |
|
Hi all!
To Mr. Sims: I've read Ms. Cornwell's book, and while I agree he can't be completely discounted as a suspect, he should not be condemned on the basis of this book's argument alone. She ignores any evidence that might call her theory into question, and her analysis of Sickert's personlity through his paintings, etc is subjective at best. Also, she never deals with the fact that he was most likely in France at the time of 4 of the 5 canonical victims' deaths. This is simply shoddy research and an inability to admit she might be wrong. As a historian, her argument enraged me. As an amateur Ripperologist, it frustrated me, because a large number of people are now convinced Sickert was JtR. |
Courtney Karr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 10:40 am: |
|
Hi Kellie,
Im one of those "large number of people who are now convinced Sickert was JtheR." It's unfortunate that a lot of people would need to see the murders on video before admitting that Sickert was the Ripper.
I think PC's book is excellent. I think her research is solid and show's common sense. I think the subject matter of Sickert's paintings, drawings, and doodlings is a good indication of what interested him the most - violence against women and murder of women. He also paints "Jack the Ripper's Bedroom" and it's his OWN ROOM! (Hello?)In addition, he SIGNED one of the Ripper letters: R St. w. Again, Hello?!!!
Sickert's social position went a long way in providing him protection from discovery. In those days it was falsely believed that the upper classes and the educated did not commit crimes. WRONG! Sickert knew himself that his social status would provide him with an invisible shield of protection. Which it did. This is a reason why he could so brazenly sign his (well-known) initials on one of his letters to the cops and the enormously unsophisticated cops of that era would just scratch their heads. Which they did.
It's an interesting coincidence that the word "sick" is contained within his name 'cause that's what he was - one very SICK puppy.
I think that some persons who are "Ripperologists" just don't want the mystery to die. I think others' who disagree with the findings of PC have some gender issues and/or sexual orientation problems with her.
It's my belief that she saw with "fresh eyes" and with modern sophistication concerning both now-dismantled social beliefs regarding class and current technology of which that era had neither.
Case Closed! And thanks for busting Sickert, Patricia! |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2574
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 11:38 am: |
|
Courtney,
in all seriousness, why not take a look at the dissertations section to see some of the problems with Patricia's theory?
Jenni
"be just and fear not"
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1068
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 11:58 am: |
|
Courtney
He also paints "Jack the Ripper's Bedroom" and it's his OWN ROOM! (Hello?)
The explanation for that is quite different. I've never been clear whether Cornwell was just ignorant of it, or deliberately suppressed it to improve her case:
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=73824#POST73824
Chris Phillips
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 676
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 1:47 pm: |
|
I do think you need to look into this more closely Courtney.
I don't, have any issues with Ms Cornwell herself. I have never read any of her novels and have no wish to. But I do value high academic standards, and demand some consistency of logic from a book. I get neither from her in this volume.
On another current thread the issue of her DNA "evidence" is more than adequately shown up to be what it is. Care to comment in detail and refute what is said there, Courtney?
As I have said elsewhere, Cornwell may have shown Sickert to be a writer of nuisance letters in 1888 (though I have seen even that questioned here). But that does not make him a killer - where is the proof of anything other than an unhealthy obsession with the Whitechapel Murders?
Phil
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1708
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 3:44 am: |
|
Courtney,
May I ask what research have you done and which other books have you read about this case?
If none then I can understand your opinion.
Try Beggs, Evans and Sugdens works before you settle fully on Pastys ill researched and misguided theory.
With the evidence she provides I wouldnt dream of taking it to court with the view of obtaining a prosecution for murder. These 'fresh eyes' seem to have missed the basics, made a prejudiced judgement and classic (when it comes to 'closing' this case) error. That is to pick the 'murderer' and fitting the evidence around them.
Go back to your books and learn more.
Regards,
Monty
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1777
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 7:22 am: |
|
G'day,
Why, Why, Why, don't people understand the artistic minds of 'Post-Impressionists', which is what Sickert was!
'Impressionism' was a trend in which artists began depicting moods, feelings, daily life etc using colours and tones. This broke away from the tradition of painting 'cold' scenes like buildings, statues etc. The trend occurred in the mid-1800's, and 'Post-Impressionist's' was the name given to those artists who were influenced by the 'Impressionists'.
Walter Sickert was a 'Post-Impressionist'. I read that he was greatly affected by the Whitechapel crimes, and if he chose to paint 'Jack the Ripper's Bedroom', and 'A Passing Funeral', (I think it was called), then he was painting the mood of his day!!!!! He probably wrote a Ripper letter or two, to help him get in the mood!
He had too much to loose to be a criminal!
Patricia Cornwell spent a lot of money researching her book. It's a pity she didn't spend some time researching art! She didn't even acquire the knowledge that alot of sick-minded people wrote letters to the police and press claiming to be the Ripper!
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on June 17, 2005) |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3600
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 7:54 am: |
|
Hi, Leanne,
Let me just add -- as an art historian with a degree -- that the 'Post-Impressionists' did follow after the original Impressionists, but they are merely to be considered a loose formation of individual artists that do not fit in anywhere in the genres of art history and they are often even taken for early forms of expressionist painters.
They were truly influenced by the impressionists (Sickert had been a pupil of Degas), but they were also in many ways opposed to them and even though they depicted daily life, their main concern was actually the mind and the 'inner reality' and to capture moods, where certain colours contain emotional symbolic meanings (Turner, who in spite of his modern non-figurative style very much belonged to the late Romantics, is another one) -- in his painting style, Sickert was just as much a symbolist as an impressionist. Which is why he was drawn to the mythological stuff, something he had learnt from Whistler (another one of his teachers and friends).
So the roots to his covering of the Whitechapel and Camden murders lay actually just as much in a decadent flair for the macabre -- a heritage from the symbolists -- as in the interests in contemporary subjects as we see in the naturalists and the original impressionists.
So although the post-impressionsts are difficult to uniformly characterise in style, these are generally the conflicting elements that characterise their art. They lived in a artistic vacuum, where they adopted they impressionists' use of brush-work and colour, but they took it further by adding the emotional and symbolic stuff so that the colours and choices of subjects would become an imprint of the artist's state of mind or how the artist perceived his environment and the society from within himself. They were therefore the direct ancestors to the expressionists (some of them even are considered expressionists at times); Gaugin, van Gogh, Munch, Cezanne etc. are all 'post-impressionists' although some of them often are considered as 'proto-expressionists'. So the boundaries of the genres are blurred.
In short, the reasons for Sickert's choice of subject regarding the Whitechapel and Camden murders -- and how he chose to depict them -- lay in a need to create emotional expressions and a symbolic state of mind just as much as the impressionsts' interests for contemporary subjects.
It doesn't - as you say -- make him a serial killer, though. I find James Ensor's pictures, for example, more disturbing, to tell you the truth.
End of the art lesson.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 17, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Courtney Karr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 6:36 pm: |
|
I think it's obvious that Sickert's the one.
I also think that you "Ripperologists" don't want the mystery solved because then you'd have no "raison d'etre."
What's your definition of "high academic standards?" I have both college and graduate degrees so I know what "high academic standards" are, do you? What's your highest level of education? Ms. Cornwell definitely has "high academic standards." Her book is well-researched and erudite.
Hi Johnno - Know you won't post this! |
Courtney Karr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 2:37 pm: |
|
What are you looking for, Phil? A smoking gun?
I think there's plenty of circumstantial evidence. There was no "smoking gun" in the Scott Peterson case, either, and he's in prison, rightfully so, due to plenty of circumstantial evidence.
I don't feel like writing anything of length here because if you're not registered (which you have to mail in) it takes a long time for your posts to show up if they show up at all. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2590
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 5:04 pm: |
|
Courtney,
its very easy to say we don't want the mystery solved, then again there are many who say theyve solved it, they cant all be right!
Jenni
"be just and fear not"
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3610
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 5:21 pm: |
|
Courtney,
Cornwell's book is extremely badly researched. I am not the correct one to comment on the elements of natural science in the book, but I do know historical research -- which Cornwell has very little experience of -- and if she only had picked up any reliable book on the subject she would have known that the letters are not believed to be from the killer. Therefore it is pointless to try and nail Sickert for sending some of the letters. He might very well have written some of these communications, but since they can not be linked to the actual Ripper -- but supposedly are considered hoaxes by numerous experts (maybe apart from the Lusk letter) -- they are worthless as proof of Sickert's guilt as Jack the Ripper.
Even a person with the logic and research skills of a five year old understands this.
Her belief in that the so called Ripper letters that she examined and focused on in her investigation, are genuine, just shows how badly she researched the subject before she started. All she has managed to prove is, that Sickert might have been one of those attention-seekers that had a bit of fun with sending fake Ripper letters to the police and the press -- one among hundreds crankers.
Her book doesn't even contain circumstancial evidence and it also contains numerous factual errors. A book littered with errors regarding well known facts is not well researched -- it is a joke.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 701
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 2:08 am: |
|
Courtney - my academic qualifications are my own affair, this is not about competition. Neither would I judge you on your level of education. I can think of few things more juvenile.
When I referred to academic standards, I referred to both approach and established method.
I would fully endorse all Glenn's points. But i would add this.
A genuine historian works on the sources, both primary (ie original documents written at the time, near it or by those involved; and then considers the secondary sources - effectively comment over time on the subject by those who have written about it.
I see no evidence that Ms Cornwell has mastered either the contemporary (1888) material or the later writings (of which there is still not a huge volume compared to many historical subjects).
The evidence then needs to be weighed and assessed and put in context, and logical arguments (ie a reasoned case built around it). I don't see this as having been done by Ms Cornwell.
Finally, the writer has to expose his/her work to the judgement of their peers. This is called criticism (and despite the negative connotation given that word in modern times, is not all negative). But that exposure is only of value if the author can gain the acceptance of others who have similar levels of knowledge - it isn't about numbers of books sold, or the cleverness of the arguments, or the money spent, or the hype. The question is, does the case argued stand up to detailed examination by others in a position to judge and in possession of the facts.
I would put it to you, Courtney, that in this Ms Cornwell has signally failed.
Glenn has picked up on her almost laughable misunderstanding of the letters - over the last 30 years or so, the debate has come down to focus on a couple of items received at the time. That is all. If someone now wishes to reverse that position, they should give their reasons - I don't recall her doing so.
You ask whether I require a "smoking gun"? I think a "bloody knife" might have been a better analogy in this case.
Courtney, after 40 years of reading about Jack, I don't expect what probably does not exist. However, i would expect some evidence that showed Sickert to have been able to commit the murders of which he is accsed - or, if his own story provides an alibi (ie he was abroad) some evidence that he actually lied. Ms Cornwell adduces none.
I am not entirely against your heroine, Courtney. I believe she probably has shown that Sickert was a nuisance letter writer (though even that is questioned by some). That is useful to know, but IT DOES NOT MAKE HIM THE KILLER.
So, if you disagree so strongly with me, please list what you believe is the circumstantial evidence that points to Sickert - we can then have a proper debate. And an unregistered post takes less than 24 hrs to show up uisually, so i am sure we can cope with that.
Regards
Phil |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1431
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 1:34 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
Although I rate Sickert in my top three suspects, i can not make a case against him of any merit, however if he did write a letter or two to the police or press, than Cornwall has achieved a fair bit in her researches[ or others on her behalf i should add] for lets be honest if Barnett, Tumblety, Druitt, kosminsky, cutbush, etc etc, was suspected with some evidence of writing a letter or two we would all be shouting 'We have found Jack'
So we cannot discount Sickert out of hand.
RegardS Richard. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 703
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 5:20 pm: |
|
But Richard, Tumblety, Kosminsky (probably illiterate at least in English anyway), Cutbush and Druitt had the added virtue of at least being contemporary suspects. Sickert was not.
I hope that some of us at least would have had the wisdom to raise a hand and say - "this is circumstantial, letters don't equate to killing".
It is this willingness for students of the jtR case to jump to conclusions that are ill-founded, that I am seeking to warn against in Inaki's current thread on the graffito. I hope I would have been consistent in the scenarios you raise.
We can discount Sickert out of hand given his whereabouts and the complete absence of any evidence to link him to the crimes and of any suspcion in 1888. he was clearly obsessed with the killings, but that is something wholly different.
Phil
Edited to add emphasis.
(Message edited by Phil on June 20, 2005) |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3615
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 5:37 pm: |
|
And as usual, I agree with Phil.
As for Sickert's whereabouts: actually, "circumstancial evidence" against his candidacy are stronger than the opposite, since we have at least three unrelated communications from Sickert's friends and family, stating him being in Dieppe in France at the time of the murders (unless one believes that he went back and forth like a boomerang across the channel -- without any of his relatives or friends knowing about it!!!!!!!). If there only was one source stating this, I would have given it a second thought, but we have THREE, at least.
And very little indicate that he should possibly pull it off multiple times and his circuit of friends not mentioning it.
Common sense and available facts dictate that Sickert was in France painting and spending time with friends and family at the time of the murders.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 20, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1778
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 3:52 am: |
|
G'day,
In his book: 'Jack the Ripper, The Final Solution' (published in 1976), Stephen Knight makes it clear that Walter Sickert was fascinated with the Ripper mystery and would in fact have 'Ripper periods', playing the killer in word and mood. The only thing he was guilty of was being an artist!!!!
In Chapter 15 of her book, Cornwell accuses Sickert of making the deliberate decision to have his dead body cremated so as to leave no hint of his DNA behind for forensic scientists after he died. That was his 'knockout punch!' If he was so intent on not leaving any clues behind, why on earth would he leave clues in his paintings, and why would he use paint in the Ripper letters? The average man in 1888 couldn't afford to buy paint!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1779
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 4:00 am: |
|
G'day,
Scattered throughout Cornwell's book are comments that remind a reader that her accusations are based on her own ASSUMPTIONS:
*'He might not have been in London this night, although there is nothing on record to prove he wasn't'
* 'Although I cannot prove...'
* 'Sickert may have been in the habit of watching prostitutes...'
* 'While I have no evidence...'
* 'Sickert was likely to have had an interest in anatomy...'
LEANNE |
PF arm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 8:42 am: |
|
Sickert was 'Cremated so as to leave no hint of his DNA behind'
Did Cornwell know he was psychic or something, he died in 1942 and the structure of DNA wasn't sorted until 1953, let alone any practical crime solving uses
|
Courtney Karr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 8:27 pm: |
|
Well, thanks for all the comments.
I admit that I am not as knowledgeable as you folks on the Ripper. In fact, I only became interested in JtheR due to Cornwell's book and also because I minored in art history in college and so am intrigued by the idea of Sickert as the Ripper. I have looked at a lot of art. I know that artists only draw or paint the subjects that interest them. And it appears that Sickert was VERY interested in violence against women. That tells me a lot. No, it doesn't prove anything, but there is such a thing as "gut instinct" that often eludes the fact-finders. It's not much of a stretch for me to look at Sickert's art and see how he could kill.
Well, cheerio! Back to Cornwell's apparently quite controversial book... |
James McNeill Whistler
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 10:12 am: |
|
I admit that I have not read Ms. Cornwell's book, but regarding Chapter 15, the claim that he had his body cremated so that no trace of his DNA would be left for forensic scientists to use in proving his guilt, I have two questions...
1. What year did Walter Sickert die?
2. And given that year, how advanced would Sickert's knowledge of the existence of DNA and its forensic applications have been?
I am not attempting to be facetious or ironic, only curious. |
Angie
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 5:21 pm: |
|
"and if she only had picked up any reliable book on the subject she would have known that the letters are not believed to be from the killer."
And if only you would have read her book more carefully, you would have know that Cornwell thought that most letters were hoaxes from the beginning. She changed her opinion after a more careful examination. I agree with her. I believe it to be likely that he wrote many of the letters, which doesn't say little. Cornwell gives some very interesting points which supports that.
I'm not a native english speaker, so please ignore grammar errors.
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1780
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 5:17 pm: |
|
G'day,
I wrote a review of 'Portrait Of A Killer' for 'Ripperoo' about four years ago, and that's what I am copying comments from.
Cornwell wrote: 'Generations have been misled to think that Ripper letters are pranks, or the work of a journalist bent on creating a sensational story, or the drivel of lunatics, because that was what the press and police thought at the time.' Here Ms Cornwell fails to mention that the 1888 police deemed at least two of the letters authentic enough to reporoduce in newspapers and handbills in the hope that someone would recognize the handwritting. There are many enthusiasts who are today still convinced that some (atleast 3) are more likely than not to have been genuine. Did Ms Cornwell do DNA tests on those three communications?...No!
It shows a reader how much research she did when she spells 2 of the victims names wrong!
LEANNE |
Brad McGinnis
Inspector
Username: Brad
Post Number: 254
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 12:36 am: |
|
James, Sickert died in the 40's. Hell they just discovered antibiotics. The concept of DNA as far as criminolgy was 50 years into the future.
|
James McNeill Whistler
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 5:29 pm: |
|
Brad,
Thank you. I had my suspicions as to the answer, but it is nice to have them confirmed. I would think that such fanciful claims would not help the credibility of the entire manuscript.
-Whistler |
What to think
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 4:14 am: |
|
I'm hoping someone who has actually read the bio by Matthew Sturgis which came out only very recently can write about it more. Apparently, Sickert was in Dieppe while some of the murders occured as I have read in reviews and articles on the Sturgis book. Sorry, in North America in least in my area this book seems to be a rare find in fact non-existent except to order online.
Anyhow, if proven then Cornwell's theory goes right out the window and goodbye for good. If Sturgis is also lacking in information then more to ponder on the Sickert case as his alibi will remain otherwise forever unknown.
Cornwell though does make astounding assumptions on Sickert's misogyny. This seems to be pure specualtion and by the way the majority of his paintings were not about murder and violence against women, those are few and far between. I had a complete class on Sickert when I studied art history at university a few years ago, but I admit I remember little, I'll check his work again and come to you later if time permits and give you my point of view as a former art student. I seem to remember he was quite appreciated by my teacher at the time. I don't think he was the big bad sicko woman hater Cornwell makes him out to be, but that's my assumption so there you go.
Oh and Sickert apparently was quite capable with women, being the ladies' man he seemingly was from an article I read. Right?
The biggest case against Sickert however is the DNA, although Cornwell found a weaker type of DNA if I remember correctly it was a more general and less substantial form to put it into words...what does it mean? That is where Cornwell's theory stands the most, if Sickert wrote letters that were genuine Ripper letters then case closed he was the Ripper since his letters were the killer's, ha ha to you, but if he's linked to hoaxes then also case closed and farewell Cornwell. An impossible task? What do current investigators think of the Ripper letters or have they really been studied extensively? I'm asking. I'm fairly new to this case even though I've been reading your posts for months now. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3624
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 7:42 pm: |
|
"Waht to think"
The letters have been studied by a lot of forensics as well as experts on the Ripper case, and as has been stated in several posts above, the hundreds of letters that were delivered to the news agencies, the police and the press are NOT considered genuine, but nothing but sinister hoaxes. Which is not strange at all, considering how vast attention the Ripper murders received in the press. As we know today, hoax letters are a common element in notorius serial murders.
We also know that some individuals went to trial for sending fake Ripper letters; two of those were women (the most well known case being that of the young Maria Coroner).
Not one serious scholar today consider any of the letters (maybe with a possible exception of the Lusk "From Hell" letter) to come from the killer.
The letters do NOT contain any other information that couldn't have been picked up from the papers. Recent research indicate, that the Dear Boss letter and Saucy Jack postcard -- sent to the Central News Agency -- was an invention by a press man in order to boost the story. Very few people but a journalist would know that the news agencies even existed, not to mention the address.
For further reading I can recommend Stewart & Skinner's Letters From Hell -- a book Cornwell herself refers to but obviously haven't understood a word of, since she idsregard many of its most conclusive facts and arguments.
Hi Courtney,
I am myself a major in art history, and art interpretation is a completely subjective form of "reading". It is all based on your own personal preferences what you see in a picture.
I must admit that I have tried to see the hints in Cornwell's paintings that is meant to allude to the Ripper victims, but I fail to do so. There is nothing in there, and you can pretty much make it what you want it to be.
Sure, he deliberately painted a couple of subjects that referred to the Ripper and Camden murders, but so what? This was done years later. He is certainly not the only one. And if people should be incriminated for having an obsession then all crime historians too would be locked up.That kind of argument just doesn't hold up.
And as we know, many artists are eccentric. But that doesn't make them killers. As I said, there are artists that in my opinion makes far more disturbing pieces of art -- does that make them serial killers too? Just look at today's artists indulging in sometimes very sick and twisted installations and video art -- they certainly do not reveal sane minds to me. But I can't see any reason for them to be serial killers. Really, Sickert is nothing compared to many of his contemporaries as far as creating disturbing art is concerned -- this was the period in art history that referred to decadence and the macabre -- it was fashion a la mode.
Art interpretation is one of the worst methods ever produced in crime history and it is certainly not a strong indication of anything.
Angie,
I have read the bloody thing twice, and Cornwell's problem is, that although she thinks that some of the letters may be hoaxes, the ones that have been declared as the most established cranks -- like the Openshaw and Dear Boss letters -- are the ones she relies on as evidence.
If she'd only taken her research further, she would have realised that those letters are especially ruled out.
Besides, if she thought the letters were hoaxes, why does she makes the letters as one of her most important arguments against Sickert as the killer? I mean, this is one of her main targets in the investigation. If she thought the letters were hoaxes, it would be a waste of time trying to link them to the killer and then Sickert, wouldn't it?
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 23, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 630
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 8:55 pm: |
|
Glenn,my friend....
You stated..."Not one serious scholar today consider any of the letters (maybe with a possible exception of the Lusk "From Hell" letter) to come from the killer.
The letters do NOT contain any other information that couldn't have been picked up from the papers. Recent research indicate, that the Dear Boss letter and Saucy Jack postcard -- sent to the Central News Agency -- was an invention by a press man in order to boost the story. Very few people but a journalist would know that the news agencies even existed*, not to mention the address.
*Stephenson would know that. He was,on occasion,a journalist.
Certainly,most astute minds and Ripperweary researchers have opined on the side of a non-suspect sending the "Dear Boss" letter. Proving Bulling did it,as you appear to be inferring,is another matter. I stand ready to be corrected if wrong,sor...
Where Mrs.Cornwell fails is her relentless subjectivity in insisting a suspect,her Sickert,is guilty by his possible associativeness with some of these letters.
There's no reason for or against the concept that the Ripper had to include any specific information in his letters that were unique. This is a criteria we look for verification. Thats our burden.
HowBrown
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3625
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 10:09 pm: |
|
Howie,
It is considered unanimously beyond doubt by practically every Ripperologist that the Ripper letters are not genuine.
As for the Dear Boss letter and Saucy Jack postcards, common sense dictates that they were made by the representatives of the papers to give the murderer a voice and to sell copies. No prominent Ripper researcher that I know of disputes this -- as far as I know, there are no diverging opinions today about this.
"There's no reason for or against the concept that the Ripper had to include any specific information in his letters that were unique. This is a criteria we look for verification. Thats our burden."
True, but fact remain, that they do not contain anything that even indicates that they would be genuine. Many of them -- especially the Dear Boss and Saucy jack communications but also several others -- appear very carefully practised and thought out, and they do not contain anything that couldn't be copied from the press. It is no proof of anything, just a fact.
As for Stephenson, I do not consider him a good suspect and he is uninteresting for this particular discussion.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 23, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Judith A. Stock
Sergeant
Username: Needler
Post Number: 35
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 4:16 pm: |
|
OK, at the risk of making a fool of myself......AGAIN....I'm gonna dive in here, but only in the shallow end. Most serious researchers will agree that to get to Z, one must begin at A and travel the lines that present themselves; the destination must be the one the proof requires. Ms Cornwell started her "research" at Z and then tried to fit the "evidence" to that destination. Her methods are flawed: deciding on a suspect and shaping evidence to suit is NOT good research; she has no background as a non-fiction writer, and although she claims to have observed autopsies ( I have, too, for that matter!), this doesn't make her a writer of valid non-fiction.
That's it, and that's all; I'm not gonna bore you guys with any more. I just find it sad that every "new" theory has its' fire- breathing proponents who cry to the skies that the mystery is solved, for once and all. These same fire-breathers are the ones who can't say for certain exactly why they KNOW this to be the truth, but by Gawd, they will defend the "truth" to the death. At the same time, some of the less iconoclastic fire-breathers might just become interested enough in finding the truth that they go on to do serious, valid research and make welcome contributions to the field....I guess there IS hope, huh?
Anyway, my two cents and another $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee, so rage on.............better yet, come to Baltimore in April 2006, and you can meet some REAL researchers!!
Thanks for listening, and cheers to all,
Judy
http://www.casebook.org/2006 |
Angie
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 1:19 pm: |
|
"It is considered unanimously beyond doubt by practically every Ripperologist that the Ripper letters are not genuine. "
Yes, it is considered but where is the evidence? And yes, I agree. Most ripperologists believe that they are hoaxes, but their opinion is not a synonym for truth.
"she has no background as a non-fiction writer, and although she claims to have observed autopsies ( I have, too, for that matter!), this doesn't make her a writer of valid non-fiction. "
You are very wrong there. Cornwell do have a background as a non-fiction writer, to the highest possible degree. She is an award-winning journalist, a police reporter, worked in the morgue for six years, and also as a volunteer police officer. And before writing her Scarpetta Series, she wrote a biography.
Just wanted to make that clear!
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 10:03 am: |
|
Hi M.M.C
There is a certain romance to the ripper murders. Not with the killings themselves, but with victorian England. Alot of people who study the case find the victorian period romantic. The horse drawn carriage. London's foggy streets. We all have a picture in our mind of what it may have looked like. The Jack the ripper murders is the ultimate who dun it. There is a certain romance in the unknown. He was the first boogey man. Before Freddie, and Jason, we had Jack.
The interesting thing to me is that Cornwell claimed that Walter Sickert could not have children. What about Joeseph Sickert? If Cornwell is right then the modern day Royal conspiracy may be wrong.
Your friend,Brad |
Judith A. Stock
Sergeant
Username: Needler
Post Number: 36
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 12:03 am: |
|
Angie....I stand corrected, even though it might be possible to argue that working as a journalist, calling onesself a journalist, working in a morgue, or writing a biography (see Kitty Kelly), doesn't necessarily supply the credentials for researching and writing a book such as this one. Ms Cornwell simply decided that Sickert was on the hook, and proceeded to try and prove it. That's a wrong-way-round approach to any riddle. Most respectable Ripper authors will admit that, even though they have their favourite suspect/s, and believe strongly in his/their candidacy, there really is no solid, tangible proof for any of the proposed suspects so far. I really don't believe that serious students of the case would prefer it NEVER be solved; rather, I think they would like it solved in a logical way. This precludes making the evidence fit a certain framework by adjusting or reshaping; it implies the evidence creates the framework, and all the puzzle pieces fit nicely, with no open spaces or doubtful conclusions.
I did say I wasn't going to do this, and now I've done it, so shame on me. 'Nuf said....ignore me, please and have fun!
Cheers to all,
Judy |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 747
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 7:03 pm: |
|
Hi Angie,
Working as a secretary in a morgue, directing traffic or writing parking tickets as a volunteer police officer and reporting an other people's crime investigations for a newspaper in no way, shape or form can qualify as "the highest possible degree" of experience for claiming to be an expert in forensic science or historical research.
I'm sorry, but Cornwell has misled you, along with many other of her readers, into thinking she has professional experience when she does not.
She's a professional fiction writer. She makes up personalities for characters and writes plot lines for their lives, completely separate from the real world. That's where she has experience, and that's exactly what she did in her book on Sickert.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Judith A. Stock
Sergeant
Username: Needler
Post Number: 37
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 9:42 pm: |
|
Thanks, Dan...you said it better, and in a lot fewer words, than I did.......you certainly got the point across, though!
May I repeat my congratulations to you, Sir, on RN; it's a beautifully done publication, and I'm thrilled with all your efforts.
Hope to see you in Baltimore.......
Cheers,
Judy |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 756
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 02, 2005 - 3:30 am: |
|
Hi Judy,
Thanks for the compliments on the magazine. The editors, writers and artists of Ripper Notes work hard trying to outdo ourselves each issue.
I do plan on being in Baltimore. You've got quite a line up of speakers scheduled, so I wouldn't want to miss out.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Angie
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 6:14 pm: |
|
Dan,
I know very well that Cornwell isn't an educated medical examiner, but she did, as I pointed out, work in a morgue for six year and witnessed hundreds of autopsies. That gives experience, don't try to state otherwise. Cornwell did start out reporting other people's crime investigations, yes, but then advanced to writing about crime herself. She did many reports, whence one she was awarded for. And I believe we talked about PC's non-fiction writing here and she does have experience in that field to the highest possible degree, and that's that! |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
