|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1019
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 11:36 am: | 
|
Glenn,
I feel that you may be going round in a circle here unfortunately. Some people are so desperate to believe that Sickert was Jack that they seem to completely ignore the simple fact that none of the letters (except possibly the From Hell one as you say) are considered genuine.
Snooka and Blown Away,
Please, please, read other Jack the Ripper books. Make up your own mind after studying the case after a period of time but please do not take some fictional writer's word for it.
As Glenn says, most of the letters (including the one's PC links to Sickert) are considered as hoaxes.
Sarah
Smile and the world .... will wonder what you've been up to. 
|
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 307
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 1:06 pm: |
|
Snooka and Blown away. At least read the info on this site before passing judgement. Very few REAL researchers believe any of the letters to be real and even fewer believe that Sickert was the Ripper.
Mikey |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1063
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 2:18 pm: |
|
Personally I found ‘Blown Away in wherever’s post well-constructed and pertinent, although entrenched I found the writer had a good and useful grasp of their subject; and such people should be encouraged rather than lambasted and thrown on the barbeque to be fried.
The poster from blown away may be interested to know that Ernest Hemingway never wore underpants because he felt it made his bits look bigger, he was a fraudster first class who had never been in a boxing ring in his life, or to a bull fight and certainly was nowhere near Paris when that city was liberated. He couldn’t even catch a fish for god’s sake. His poetry was crap, but somehow his novels - written at the rate of two hundred words a day - do strike a wonderful chord in humanity.
I would advise the poster to dig themselves out of the trench they are in, let go of the petticoats they desperately cling to, grow up and start to contribute something positive to this debate.
The world is too big a place to be blown off of anywhere.
|
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 704
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 4:21 pm: |
|
But Scott was the better writer AP.! |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 373
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 11:31 am: |
|
I've always thought that it's a little too convenient to toss out all the letters in bulk as irrelevant hoaxes. This seems to be the general, common-sense attitude. I demur. In the case of the Yorkshire Ripper there were at least three criminals at large. There was, of course, Sutcliffe (Ripper #1). But there was also someone else (never identified) who created much of the 'mystique' of the Yorkshire case, an obviously unbalanced chap who sent letters and tapes to the police and was convincing enough to be taken seriously (Ripper #2). Then, of course, there is the strange, entirely imaginary Ripper #3: the 'combination' of Ripper #1 and #Ripper #2 that the police are chasing. We know that in the Sutcliffe case he was actually influenced by the mythical figure, stating that he at one point changed his 'm.o.' to avoid the mystique of the 'Yorkshire Ripper'. In Whitechapel, there could be a similar complex "incestous" (for lack of better metaphor) relationship between the actual murderer and the 'mystique' of the hoaxers/press/public. It's likely also that there were any number of bizarre cranks who kept the kettle boiling, and I might suggest Backert, D'Onston, Bullen, and even Sickert for starters. One theory of the so-called Zodiac case in S.F. is that the actual murders were entirely unconnected and the letter-writer was, in fact, a hoaxer with inside information who single-handly created the 'series.' This isn't the answer in Whitechapel in 1888-89, but it is something to reflect on. I should also be remembered that, as it turned out, Peter Sutcliffe did write to the police on one occasion. It wasn't in the same 'mode' as the more famous letters and it was thus disregarded at the time. A number of genuine Victorian retrobates (Cutbush, Tumblety, Cream, D'Onston, ) were known for writing crank letters to various people. The Spirit of the Age, perhaps.
(Message edited by rjpalmer on April 22, 2004) |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1068
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 4:54 pm: |
|
Very thoughtful RJ, and provoking…
Just like you I see all the correspondence involved in the case as of import, regardless of the fact that a letter may have had a direct connection to the case or been entirely spurious, it still has a social implication to the events we discuss, as you highlight with the Yorkshire Ripper case. Perhaps it is useful to ponder on the fact that the MPF of the LVP took less notice of letters supposedly from the killer than did the modern police force involved in the fractious hunt for the Yorkshire Ripper. But neither had the ‘force’ with them, so it seems, but one must also allow for the negligent fact that the MPF may have known all along that all the letters purporting to be from JtR were spurious because they actually knew who JtR was.
I didn’t know Peter had written to the police.
I would imagine the letter would have run like this:
‘Sirs
It is becoming well nigh impossible to park my lorry these days without running over the body of a murdered prostitute; and every time I go into the red light districts to pick up a bacon buttie from me favourite cafes them police stop me and take away me hammer, knife and screwdriver and want to know why I have false plates on the Ford Capri with its go faster stripes and Colin sat in the passenger side dribbling on my Recaro seat covers.
My wife - Sonia is her name I think - says it is outrageous and it’s about time law-abiding citizens like meself should be left alone to carry on our lawful trade.
Can I have my five pound note back, please?’
Enjoyed your post.
|
jon a.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 12:37 pm: |
|
Dear Snooka and Blown Away,
Congratulations, no one would have been happier about YOUR conclusions to the identity of the Ripper than Sickert. He worked so hard to kind of "spook" people, like the other artists he spoke with, the women he took on the fog-bound tour of Whitechapel, and Osbert Sitwell; I believe (my opinion) was that he wanted to be associated with the crimes. In spite of this bizarre behaviour, he was still a productive artist and serial killers seem to be like addicts, after a while that is all they can think about. It becomes their whole world.
He was, however, in France during most of the murders. The only documentation that is known about points to this. He was not there (and by the way, I don't believe P.C.'s conclusion and all of the stuff I just offered, I got from her book). Her only conclusion is that "maybe he was, maybe he wasn't..." line over and over again.
As Colin Wilson says, he may have been a very spoiled, self-centered man, but he was not a murderer. I enjoyed reading her book, I just don't believe her conclusion.
Jon |
Sarah K
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 4:45 am: |
|
I just finished the book tonight and while I admit to being a relative newbie at JTR I've had some exposure and spent several hours now reading posts on this forum. While I agree that much of Cornwall's book needs to be winnowed (her opinion of Sickert was clear and biased from the start) she had several good points. It seems unlikely to me that ALL the letters from JRT are hoaxes. It appears that since the police dismissed the letters then we're supposed to continue that dismissal (from what I've been reading here). I don't necessarily think JRT wrote all of them either. However, her examination of the paper, handwriting and watermarks are fairly convincing. Whether her conclusions about his personality are correct or not I have no clue. Plenty of artists are dark and eccentric (EAPoe comes to mind). I find it interesting though, that Cornwall is completely dismissed here (and in many of the other topics on this forum). I'm not saying she's right, but she has a great deal of evidence that is not just his art (that may or may not mean anything). Seems like that is worth paying attention to.
Just my 2c |
Dan Norder
Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 34
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 12:20 am: |
|
Hi Sarah,
I always appreciate someone who can word their points well, regardless of whether they fit the mainstream opinion of a group.
I can only speak for myself here, but I don't put much stock into what the police said, so their opinion on the letters by itself doesn't mean much to me. But when I look at the letters, I don't see any good reason to believe that any of them (with the possible exception of the Lusk letter) were from the killer. Most of them say nothing that an average joe off the street reading the papers and a warped sense of humor couldn't come up with.
For example, the Saucy Jack card, sometimes mentioned as if it predicted the double event, was postmarked a day and a half after those killings. The only tricky part was it was written as if the author was writing it beforehand, and I think that confused people.
The Lusk letter... Well, there's the kidney. At least that's something that could have come from the killer, though it's not necessarily so. And it does have in its favor that it was not addressed to the Central News Agency. And it's conceivable that maybe some of the other letters were legit, but there's nothing that stands out to give that indication.
But the problem with Cornwell's approach is that she assumes with little reason that most of them are, and goes to ridiculous lengths to try to come up with scenarios explaining how one person could have written so many. She even bases parts of her research on a letter that not only is widely considered a hoax, but also a modern hoax put into the archives in the late 20th Century, conspicuously lacking the markings of letters received and processed by police in 1888.
As far as the paper, handwriting, and so forth goes, her research sounds very interesting, although not really very conclusive from what I've seen. I'd love to have an independent source go through and try to verify the conclusions. Whenever someone starts an investigation with an answer already in mind, science can be quite easily manipulated to make things sound like they support you (as seen with conflicting scientific studies of the Shroud of Turin, the Vinland map, etc. -- somebody at one point even "authenticated" the infamous Hitler Diaries).
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 168
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 1:25 am: |
|
Hello Guys and Gals,
Sarah,
Welcome to the boards. Regarding Cornwell's book...I agree that the way in which she presents her theories sound real good, but once you start studying the case much more in depth,
you might find that some of what she says is no more than conjecture.
I agree that Sickert may have written some of the letters, but, thats a far cry from him being Jack the Ripper. Please study all the facts of the case before making up your mind about a suspect. There are quite a few that you could say are "good suspects". There are many good books on the Ripper....My personal favorites are
Philip Sugdens, "The Complete History", and
"The Ripper Companion", by Skinner and Evans.
With those two books alone, you can learn just about all you need to know about the case.
Once again, welcome.. and Good Luck.
Paul |
ERey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 1:41 pm: |
|
Dan,
Which of Cornwell's Ripper letters is thought to be the modern-day hoax?
Regarding the handwriting evidence, I read Cornwell's book and didn't find any, although the book is notoriously disorganized and poorly argued so I may have missed it. The only "evidence" I recall Cornwell putting forth was the _a priori_ assertion that because Sickert was a trained artist, he must have had the ability disguised his handwriting in all the many forms seen in the Ripper letter. This was the opinion of Cornwell's only "handwriting expert" -- a lettering artist, not a handwriting analyst. As I recall, Cornwell presents no evidence that Sickert ever did disguise his handwriting except the Ripper letters themselves, using the sort of circular reasoning that has earned the book so much scorn. |
Neil K. MacMillan
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 85
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 3:56 pm: |
|
A point was made that Sickert could not have gotten to and from France in time to committ the murders. I think Mark Starr may have mentioned it if not the author. I may be wrong about that so if I am I apologize in advance. My question is, how long would it take to cross the channel in those days? I don't believe Sickert has a snowball's chance in Hell of being the ripper but this is a point that kind of sticks in my craw.
Snooka and Blown Away in WA: Cornwell is a novelist/ reporter who worked in a foresnics lab as a secretary. You can take that for what it is worth. I found her book enbjoyable diversion for a weekend but as I have stated don't buy her theory and keep in mind also at this stage of the game we will likely only have theory. Her methodology is, in my opinion, flawed because she tries to make the evidence fit the suspect. "Did Sickert write any of the Jack the Ripper letters? If so he must be Jack the Ripper." That reasoning is specious.If Jack the Ripper wrote none of the letters,as is believed by many experts, then Sickert is an artist with a fixation on the case and nothing more. Read several books and anything in fact you can find on Jack the Ripper before you decide. I've been on these boards for three years and reading about Jack the ripper for several years before and I will admit i have my pet theories but am no closer to knowing who he was. Enjoy the hunt but don't expect an easy bag. Neil |
JTR Fanatic
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 10:40 am: |
|
Dear Friends,
Greetings. I recently finished reading Patricia Cornwell's Portrait of a Killer book. Her thought process is intricate, however it is notoriously biased. I am working on a novel as I type, and i must type that it will be proved otherwise that Sickert is not guilty. This novel will look into my book's eyes and reveal the thoughts of people during the Whitechapel murders.
Sincerely,
Anne Jan Donahue |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 411
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 8:33 pm: |
|
Hi,
I wasn't sure quite where to put this, so I figured under PC's book was a good place.
Basically, this is just to give people a bit of information concerning the DNA "match" that plays a role in Patricia's book. Now, remember, the match was between some DNA found on a JtR letter and a Sickert Painting.
There are two kinds of DNA, mtDNA (from mitochondria) and nDNA (from a cell's nucleus). All cells in our body contain both kinds. Now, most people know that we get half our "DNA" from our mother and half from our father. Well, that's not quite true. We get half our "nuclear" DNA from each parent, but we get ALL of our mtDNA from our mother. Dad's mtDNA is not passed on.
Each cell in our body contains mutliple "mitochondria", and each "mitochondria" has a set of mtDNA (it's all the same, just multiple copies). However, each cell only has one set of nDNA. This is why mtDNA matching can be done when the sample is degraded (i.e., over time) because there are so many more copies of mtDNA per cell than there are nDNA. That gives a better chance of recovering some that can be used for testing.
However, because we get our mtDNA only from our mothers, that means that mtDNA is not unique to an individual the way nuclear DNA is. For example, my mtDNA is identical to my mother's (I got mine from her). So is my brother's and my sister's. Which means, that if all we had was a sample of mtDNA, DNA comparison could not differentiate me from my brother, my sister, or my mother.
Now, it gets more interesting. Because my mother got her mtDNA from her mother. And my mother has 4 other sisters, all of whom have had children (my cousins). In total I have 11 cousins and 2 siblings, one mother, and 4 aunts, and one maternal grandmother. All of us would have the same mtDNA. My sister has had two children, and my brother has had 3. My sister's children have the same mtDNA as I do.
My brother's children? Probably not, but they could. Remember, they get their mtDNA from their mother, not my brother. However, if we could track the maternal family lines back far enough until we found a common female direct ansenster (i.e., a common great great great great great gandmother, so something like that; but only going through the mothers) then yes, barring a mutation, the same mtDNA would be found.
mtDNA is the same for any two people who share a common maternal lineage.
So, what does the mtDNA match really mean in terms of Sickert and the letters?
Well, it doesn't even mean that Sickert wrote the letter, or ever even touched it. All it means is that the two samples come from individuals (who may or may not be the same person) who share a common maternal lineage; meaning if you trace their maternal family tree you will come to a common female ansestor at some point.
In otherwords, the mtDNA evidence at best can only fail to exclude Walter Sickert as the writer of a letter but it cannot and does not uniquely identify him as the writer of the letter. This, of course, assuming that the mtDNA samples tested were not contaminated (i.e., the "Walter Sickert" sample was actually mtDNA from Walter Sickert, and the "letter writer" sample was actually mtDNA from the letter writer).
Also, there would be no point in comparing the "Walter Sickert" mtDNA with Joeseph Sicket's DNA because neither a match nor a mismatch would tell us anything. Remember, my children (like my brother's), will get none of my mtDNA, they will only get mtDNA from their mother.
As an aside, paternal family lines can be traced through the Y-Chromosome from the nuclear DNA. Males have an X and Y Chromosome, the X from their mother and the Y from their father. Females have two X's (one from Mum and one from Dad). Just like mtDNA gets passed down through the female lines, the Y chromosome gets passed down through the male line. So, my Y chromosome is just like my brother's, and my father's, and my paternal grand-father's, and my paternal grand-uncles, etc.
- Jeff
|
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 04, 2004 - 7:41 pm: |
|
New Research.
From The Observer,Books, 27 June 2004.
"The Browser hears that a Professor Peach of the University of Gloucestershire believes that one of Virginia Woolf's closest friends was Walter Sickert, the painter alleged to be Jack the Ripper. He has uncovered evidence that they were extremely close at significant points in her life, but admits to being 'baffled' by their relationship. He says: 'Woolf was a feminist and he was a misogynist.' However, Professor Peach believes the friendship would explain some of the incongruities in her early work. 'The references to prostitutes in her early novels may be explained, given her sheltered background, by Sickert's interest in prostitutes.'
So now you know".
Another labelling of a potential suspect as a "misogynist", seems, with further research, to be in doubt. Is anything certain?
Rosey :-) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 710
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 4:11 am: |
|
Hi,
can I ask about where Cornwell got DNA samples from and how all that lot works.
I know I should know the answer but can't think what it is - it's starting to 'do my head in'!
Thanks guys
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
Bart Oosterhoorn
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 6:18 am: |
|
At least one piece of evidence used by Patricia Cornwell to identify Walter Sickert as Jack the Ripper is nonsense. In her study 'Portrait of a Killer' she describes how in the guestbook of the Cornish Lizard House she has found (p.282) "a message in poor German and Italian [...]. Roughly translated, the vandal is saying he is "The Ripper Doctor" and has cooked up a good meat [or flesh] dish in Italy. News! News!"
This message (reproduced in the book) is however written in DUTCH. I'll transcribe what's clear:
"Verkocht de kippen
..... voor één .....
... ..... Bravo
Hoera! Hoera!"
The words that I haven't been able to decypher are not very important since the general meaning is obvious and undeniable. Translated the message reads:
"Sold the chicken [plural]
..... for óne .....
... ..... Bravo
Hurray! Hurray!"
To the left of the messages are one or two Dutch names, Van de(r) Poll and Bakker (or Van de(r) Poll-Bakker) and (partially cropped off) a place "aandijk", presumably Zaandijk (North-Holland). Van der Poll and Bakker are common names in that part of Holland: currently 3 Van der Polls and no less than 31 Bakkers live in the small village of Zaandijk alone. Zaandijk and surrounding towns are famous for international trade (here, for instance Albert Heijn was founded, one of the world's largest grocery chains): this fits the jubilant message about a deal well-made.
The "kk" in "Bakker" have been corrected, which leads me to think the name(s) and address were written by the landlord/lady and corrected by the Dutch guest that made the annotation AND the drawings. The "kk", message and drawings share a similar hand. This deduction proofs only one thing: that the message and drawings were NOT made by Jack the Ripper (unless he was a Dutch chicken merchant).
In her book Miss Cornwell offers an interesting thesis and Walter Sickert makes for a very colourful suspect. But calling this 'case closed', based on 'hard evidence' like this is premature to say the least. |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 4:16 pm: |
|
Dear Ripperologists,
Bart's message should be followed up!
New article on the musings of Patricia Cornwell as follows:
Sunday Herald magazine. 29.08.04.
'Spinetingler', Aaron Hicklin.
Quote: "Right now she and Scarpetta are very excited by genetics, something that will be become apparent in future novels. Although she thinks that violence may have a genetic component, she is not ready to exonerate murderers, though she would love to have a DNA sample from Sir Walter Sickert (sic)."If we had a few drops of blood - gosh. I wish we did - we could do a real analysis of his DNA and find out if he has certain genes in common with other people who are violent psychopaths." she says. ""
[Since I have the only DNA sample inclusive within a Sickert drawing (dated 1888) I welcome an approach from Patricia ...this offer is nothing new!]
"She was disappointed that more experts did'nt embrace her case against Sickert, but not at all chastened. She has donated her entire collection of his paintings ($6 million) to Harvard University, " and what I have said is, 'your're the smartest place in the world, so you prove me wrong, because I know you can't.'""
Emm...Harvard University here I come!
Rosey :-) |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 456
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 12:26 pm: |
|
Mr. Oosterhoorn--An amusing and enlightening post; many thanks.
Rosey--You're scaring me, or rather Patricia is. "We could do a real analysis of his DNA and find out if he has certain genes in common with other people who are violent psychopaths..." Certain genes? Criminality? It all sounds oddly familiar.... Is it possible to discern the shape of Sickert's skull cap in any of his self-portraits? Did he have a drooping brow? All is mutability, but everything stays the same. RP |
Miriam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 06, 2004 - 8:14 pm: |
|
Hi all, new here so please be kind, I am by no means as articulate as most of you are.
I have just finished Patricia Cornwell's book, it was not convincing, full of contridictions, and poorly presented. Of course I am probably somewhat prejudiced since the first JTR book I read was Phillip Sugden. The evidence she presented would not even make it past a grand jury today, much less ever make it to a court of law. She took a single suspect, and picked what clues would fit with him, ignoring anyone and everything else. By the end of the book as she was laying every crime in the U.K. at Sickert's feet, I was almost expecting her to blame him for the assination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, or to go back in time and single handedly being responsible for the sinking of Atlantis. After finishing the book, the only thing I was convinced of, was that Sickert may or may not have written some of the hoax letters.
Anyway, thank you for letting me vent some of my frustrations of this book. I have enjoyed this site for years but never posted. Keep up the fantastic work !
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 278
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 9:35 am: |
|
Hi Miriam, always good to hear from a lurker. Now that you have your first post under your wing, maybe you'll have some others too.
Sugden certainly would be a lot better first Ripper author to start with, especially compared to Cornwell, for the reasons you state.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Michael Thompson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 11:04 pm: |
|
Somewhere among these threads, someone asked for a timeline comparing the timeline of the Ripper slayings with the timeline of the three letters that comprise the entirety of Sickert's alibi of being in France during the time of the killings. As I am entirely disorganized and am having difficulty locating the actual thread where the request, I will post it here in what I consider to be the 'main thread' regarding Cornwell's theory as well as some side commentary about whether these actually constitute an alibi for Sickert during the time period.
For the sake of ease, I am not entering the debate about which of the murders should be considered having been committed by the Ripper.
Aug 4. - Sickert's last sketch in London
Aug. 7. - Tabram Murder
Aug 31. - Nichols Murder
Alibi: Sept. 6 - Sickert's mother's letter indicating indicating that Sickert and brother Bernhard are in France
Commentary: Although other writers on the board have indicated that this letter constitutes an alibi for Sickert, I would observe that there is no indication in it regarding the date of his arrival or the date of his departure.
I would, however, be very interested in seeing the exact wording of the letter. At the present, I have only been able to locate second-hand accounts of what it purportedly 'says.' Oftentimes, you'll discover when reading something firsthand that someone else's interpretation of it is surprisingly helpful to their own point of view.
At any rate, I would rate this particular letter as the most damaging of the lot to Cornwell's theory, especially since it reduces the timeframe for Sickert to return to London in time to commit the Chapman murder to only 2 days, which is certainly conceivable, but stretches the bounds of plausibility.
Sept. 8 - Chapman Murder
Alibi: Sept. 17 - Blanche letter dated indicating that he saw Sickert in France Sept 16.
Commentary: Because it gives a definite date, this latter on the face would appear to be more damaging than the one above. However, I would argue that given the speed with which the first two murders were committed and the seemingly odd delay between the Chapman murder and the Stride/Eddowes double event, this letter is not particularly persuasive to me as an alibi.
It provides Sickert with a full eight days to return to France following Chapman and offers him two full weeks in France of visiting time prior to returning to London to commit the double murder.
Alibi: Sept. 21 - Sickert's wife's letter indicating that Sickert has been in France for 'some weeks.'
Commentary: In Cornwell's book, she observes that Sickert's wife was abroad that entire fall and into the winter. In fact, his wife's absence during the time frame is one of factors upon which she postulates her theory. On that level, I also do not regard this letter as particularly persuasive as an alibi. For one thing, it offers no specific time frame. For another thing, if his wife is absent from London, she has no firsthand knowledge that Sickert is not there.
Sept. 30 - Stride/Eddowes Double Murder
Alibi: October (?) - The painting of "The October Sun"
Commentary: Without more detailed knowledge regarding the actual date of the painting, this painting provides no alibi for any of the crimes whatsoever.
Oct. 2 - Torso discovered under discovered in basement of new Metropolitan police headquarters
Oct 4. - Next Sickert London art
Commentary - This is interesting, because it would seem to conflict in some ways with the painting of "The October Sun." However, in reality, it points out two things. 1.) It is possible for contemporaneous activity for Sickert between London and France to occur. 2.) It places Sickert back into London very close to the time of the double event.
Nov. 9 - Kelly Murder
My conclusions: Of the correspondence that comprises the entirety of Sickert's alibi, the most damaging of them is the letter dated September 6, which occurs in the week between the Nichols murder and the Chapman murder. However as an alibi, it suffers two problems: 1.) It provides no specific date of arrival for Sickert, nor does it give any indication about when he intends to leave. 2.) It leaves (if barely) enough of a window of opportunity, assuming his mother is sitting at her drawing table and watching the boys either swim or pain on that exact date, for Sickert to depart, take the ferry and the train back to London, kill Chapman, then return.
Certainly other theorists (McNaghtan) have attempted to pin the murders on other suspects with far smaller windows of opportunity than two days - and this is the only letter out of all of them that leaves Sickert with such a small window of opportunity. Sickert certainly possessed the means to make trips from London to Dieppe and back again. There is documentation for that in here alone... given the fact that during October he was painting sketches in London and "The October Sun" in France.
In conclusion, I am not terribly supportive of the method or manner Cornwell lays out her case. Yet, I felt I should at least try to respond to those who believe that these letters somehow constitute an ironclad alibi for Walter Sickert during the fall of 1888. Very simply, they do not. If more specific dates were mentioned, perhaps... but the specific dates that are mentioned provide the man with ample opportunity to commit the crimes.
Note in finale that Sickert is not my suspect... nor even my favorite out of those presented. |
Angie
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 10:14 am: |
|
Thank you for that, Michael. It's nice to see someone who can be objective to facts, even though it's not your suspect.
I am also, by the way, really interested in seeing that letter, dated October 6. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 718
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 10:52 pm: |
|
Hi Michael,
No, it's not an iron clad alibi, in the sense that it's theoretically possible that Sickert could have not once but twice made insanely long trips from the south of France to London instead of a more practical destination like Paris, and somehow didn't get his family's attention while doing so, all to do killings that absolutely nothing links him to in any way.
But the overwhelming evidence is that Sickert was a thousand miles away and was not at all the type of person who could have done these crimes. There is no evidence at all to support or suggest the idea that he was anywhere near London at the time, just as there is no reason to suspect he took a boat to go compare notes on how to kill people with Frederick Deeming in South Africa or that he was abducted by aliens and learned how to do cattle mutilations. Just because someone can make up a wild story doesn't mean that there's any reason to believe in it.
Multiple pieces of evidence all pointing to one thing trump wild speculation trying to claim something else any day of the week. That means Sickert was making paintings on his family vacation and not killing whores or writing letters, unless there is something, anything, that would logically make us think otherwise. And that's where it stands right now.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 413
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 6:01 am: |
|
Hi Dan,
Sickert was at the time staying in Dieppe, there was not "an insanely long trip from the south of France", and Sickert was not "a thousand miles away.
Dieppe is on the English Channel, about 70 miles from the port of Newhaven, their being then, regular ferry services taking perhaps 4-6 hours. From there a fifty mile train journey would have had him in London in another hour or so. It would have been quite practical for anyone staying the summer in Dieppe to return to London, if they had urgent business.
Rgds
John |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 720
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 6:32 am: |
|
Hi John,
My apologies, it looks like I was taking old posts about the location of Dieppe at face value. Let's try this again.
It was a substantially long trip from Dieppe. Traveling from there to London, hunting and killing a victim (or two on the night of the Double Event) and going back would still have been an inordinately long amount of time out of this vacation and would not go unnoticed by family, let alone to do it twice (or more, if he wasn't successful on a night he was hunting).
There is no evidence to support the idea that he did such a thing, no good evidence to suggest he wrote any Ripper letters, and absolutely no evidence at all to indicate that he killed anyone. Again, all the evidence we have shows he was a substantial distance away at the time.
And I realize you are not arguing in favor of Sickert having done it, but a practical business trip is quite a different thing entirely than a pick up and go murder trip. If anything, his trying to make such a trip would do far worse damage to him by conspicuously being known by his family for returning to London on only nights of murders than if he'd just stayed in London in the first place.
My poor European geography skills don't change the substance of the argument.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 650
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 5:30 pm: |
|
Hi Michael,
First of all, good post.
I have some comments, though. Of course, as Dan says, it’s not iron clad, but taken together the 3 letters you mention paint the picture that Sickert had indeed been in France the weeks preceding Sickert’s wife’s letter, at the very least from 6 September to 16 September, possibly even from one or two days before the 6th right up to the 21st. And I believe there are more letters that have him in France for a rest during the summer.
So, although there’s no rock-hard proof that Sickert was in France on the dates of any of the murders, the existing evidence does point to him having been there at least during a period that includes the date of Annie Chapman’s murder.
Furthermore, I don’t think it would make any difference whether Sickert’s wife was in London or not. Even if she was in London and Sickert wanted her to believe he wasn’t there while he actually was, I have no doubts that he was capable of keeping that from her (as well as from other people, for that matter).
Also, like Dan suggested, if he so desperately wanted to kill prostitutes outside of the town he was residing in at the time, why specifically London, a city to which he had long standing ties and so, to which he could be tied? Paris would have been closer by, probably easier to travel to and a more logical choice altogether. But still there were other cities nearer by to which he even had no ties at all.
Why travel back and forth anyway? That wouldn’t diminish his chances of getting buckled the least bit, because in those days the most risky moments would have been shortly before, during and shortly after the crime. If a killer could get to his hideout without being noticed, there would actually be a very good chance that he was never caught. So, those trips wouldn't do anything for him, IMHO.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
Clint Eastwood, 'The Rookie'
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 661
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 1:49 am: |
|
Why the obssession with Sickert as a killer?
We know HE himself was obssessed with the murders, liked to talk and write about them, and that he may (in the one achievement of Ms Cornwell) have been a nuisance letter-writer.
But, where is there a shred of contemporary evidence that he was linked to the actual killings?
Given that there is none, why do people continue to try to MAKE things fit by trying to prove he was not where the evidence firmly puts him?
This sort of approach, IMHO, does not take us one step forward, adds nothing to our knowledge or insights into the case and wastes everyone's time.
Joe Gorman's testimony about his putative father has been shot down by the man himself. knight's theory based on it was flawed and is now discredited. Cornwell, despite spending a fortune on research, found no material evidence of Sickert as a killer.
So why does this go on and on and on?
Phil |
Michael Thompson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 4:43 pm: |
|
Hi, Dan,
I did not think that my speculation was all that wild, to be honest.
Looking at a map of northern France/southern England reveals that London lies approximately, as Inspector Savage indicates, 120 miles or so from Dieppe. In the other direction, Paris lies approximately 100 miles from Dieppe. Understand that these figures are not exact because I am simply looking at a map and not using exact calculations.
The primary difference between the two is simply that to traverse the 120 miles between Dieppe and London, one must cross the English Channel and the distance to Paris would be entirely overland and hence much easier.
Now, I fear I must truly enter the realm of speculation about the mindset of a man long dead, which I am loathe to do... however, in this case I must.
I think there would be several factors that would argue for a return day/night trip to London, rather than the seemingly easier trip to Paris if Sickert were the Ripper.
- The first is familiarity with the hunting ground. It has long been established that Sickert was extremely familiar with the music halls and, in general, the East End. It was the stomping ground of his favorite artistic subject. It was also the city in which he'd dwelled in most of his life to that point.
If there is anything that indicates a similar familiarity with any French city, please point me in that direction. However, one of the very same letters that many people use as an alibi argues against that. I did not mention this particular letter because it provides no date at all and therefore fit into no particular timeline.
It is one written to Blanche in which Sickert asks for locations for painting supplies and indicates an unfamiliarity with French measurements, which to me reveals a lack of familiarity with France in general, other than the vacation town of Dieppe.
- The second is timing. Sickert's wife is in Ireland and she believes that he is in France. Realize that Sickert does not have to tell anyone anything about where he is going. He could conceivably disappear one morning, return the next day and tell his family that he stayed in an inn.
You make it sound as though this sort of behavior is so alien to human experience that the entire notion is ludicrous. Remember, we are talking about a man who is twenty-eight years old at this point in his life and had already developed a reputation as sort of a gadabout. I would imagine there were many times when Walter Sickert's family did not hear from him for a lot longer span of time than 2-3 days.
And I sincerely doubt that his mother or his brother, (unlike a spouse, whose business it would actually be) required him to reveal his whereabouts of every hour of every day during what was supposed to be a vacation.
You would argue that there is no mention of Sickert's goings in any of the three pieces of correspondence I cite.
My response would be why would there be? Sickert's mother's letter simply indicates that he is there and mentions his activities in passing. Blanche's letter indicates that he visited him once during the entire time frame. Sickert's wife's letter passed along secondhand knowledge that even she had no way of independently verifying.
The only letter in which you MIGHT make a case for there to be a need for Sickert's intended days of departure would be Sickert's mother's... and from what I gather, again her mention of him appears to be in passing, rather than him being the sole subject of the letter.
- The third and final factor is the very thing that so many have leapt upon on these boards. Being 'out of the country' is a nearly perfect alibi... until one considers that 'out of the country' is revealed to be no farther than from my old house in Greenville, SC to my grandfather's house in Columbia, SC here in the United States... a trip, mind you, that I sometimes made several times in a week when I lived there.
Yes, travel was a bit slower in 1888, but we are not talking about 1588 here, in which 120 miles was a distance that would take several days to accomplish.
However, if I am a serial killer and I have waited my entire life for the 'right moment' to start a spree, what better moment could I choose? My wife is gone... as in truly gone, not only 120 miles from home, but in Ireland. All of my friends and acquaintances believe I am abroad. I can return to the place I know best and reach the targets I want most in the space of 7-8 hours. And I can do it all for the modern day equivalent of 50 bucks... if that.
- Finally, we again reach the point of what Sickert's 'alibi' truly eliminates?
- None of the letters eliminate him for Tabram.
- None of the letters eliminate him for Nichols - it is only board speculation that Sickert left London in 'mid-August to late-August.' If we are going by what can be verified, the only evidence that we have is that Sickert was in Dieppe on or around September 6.
- The mother's letter would seem to eliminate him for Chapman. However, given that Dieppe lies only 7-8 hours from London on a slow Ferry day and he had 2 full days following the mother's letter to get there and 8 full days prior to Blanche's letter to return, it is difficult to believe that it truly does.
- None of the letters eliminate him for either victim in the double event. Sickert could have returned to London at any point after September 16, correct?
Except that he supposedly painted 'The October Sun' in Dieppe in October, right?
Well, yes, except that he drew dated sketches in London on October 4th.
- None of the letters eliminate him for Kelly.
So what do we have? In reality, we have a single letter that rather weakly calls into question the plausibility of him committing the Chapman murder. However, given the fact that he had over 40 hours available to make a 7-8 hour trip, I still think there's no real alibi here.
Basically, when viewed from this aspect, Sickert needed only to make a single trip to London during his visit to Dieppe, rather than the 2 or 3 or 4 or however many you are suggesting - those nights we might assume that none of the 30,000 prostitutes in the East End were around for him to kill.
In closing, again, Sickert is NOT my suspect, but in reality the sum total of the man's alibi appears to be the invention of modern folks who do not want him to be a suspect. However, if not having an alibi made a man guilty, there could have been a million Londoners at the time who were Jack. |
James
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 3:14 am: |
|
I guess it is not fair to single out Ms Cornwell, even though it's fairly obvious Wally wasn't the notorious Whitechapel killer.
Is there any difference between her book and 'Uncle Jack', or a hundred other books claiming to have the 'True Identity of Jack the nasty one'.
It seems that to get a patent for a product to enter the market, it precludes false advetising, and must past strict government guidlines.Obviously anyone can get a patent to write anything they like about JtR and publish it.
Given that, I might try and cash in myself. I'm working on a dark character named DAVID 'RAMBO' CUTTER. A man who was pushed too far and decided to hit back . He chose the whores whose line of work killed his mother, sister and forced his beloved Sarah onto the mean streets of Whitechapel.He was kicked out of medical school when he took up his new job as an abattoir executioner on Dorsett Street. As a child he was persecuted for being a jew and developed an arsenic addiction to heal his war injury he sustained in the Crimean war.He was known to dabble in the black arts and was a personal friend of Prince Albert's.
I may have stretched the truth a bit - 'but what is truth?' If anyone wants to jump on the bandwagon and try and make some cash with me, let me know so we can get the thing published A.S.A.P.
* P.S. If it makes it to the big screen, I'm thinking this.
DAVID CUTTER - William Defoe
DETECTIVE ABBERLINE - Russell Crow
DETECTIVE MCNAUGHTEN - Tommy Lee Jones
MARY KELLY - Nichol Kidman
PRINCE ALBERT - Hugh Grant
SARAH - Jesica Simpson
CUTTER'S MUM - Judy Dench
DIRECTOR - Oliver Stone |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 728
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 5:51 pm: |
|
Hi Michael,
Again, you have absolutely no evidence to show that he did make a trip. It's wild speculation, inconsistent with the facts we do have. One might come up with all sorts of scenarios that can't be ruled out, but that doesn't mean there's any reason to believe them.
And you are very much wrong to assume he could have only had to make one trip, unless you assume that either Chapman or both Stride and Eddowes were not real Ripper victims.
If we are talking about what-ifs, Dr. Robert Anderson might have hopped a boat to travel back to London to kill women on two separate occasions. What evidence is there to suggest that? None there either.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Angie
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 11:50 am: |
|
"Again, you have absolutely no evidence to show that he did make a trip. It's wild speculation, inconsistent with the facts we do have. "
And I don't believe that he was trying to prove that he did make a trip, just that he COULD have made a trip.
And there's absolutely no evidence to show that he didn't make a trip, so I don't think anyone should be so quick to give him an alibi. |
Anthony, aka What to think
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 2:46 am: |
|
Less and less I see Sickert as a suspect. But what I mostly wish to address is that Sickert's case is no stronger than some other solid Ripper suspects, if we compare Sickert to other suspects I think we find that others have just as strong a case as the now infamous artist...and in my opinion other suspects are stronger, but in all fairness he is a stronger case than most suspects who have anyway been dismissed for a long time already.
Sickert's alibi cannot be confirmed or unconfirmed, but the same goes for other strong suspects (although travelling over and over again in short periods of time from one country to another is humanly possible but unlikely, if he was in Dieppe at crucial moments in 1888 when some murders occurred I think this is actually a stronger alibi than some other Ripper suspects). In the JTR case alibis weigh very little anyway, because too many suspects have no alibis...so Sickert doesn't rule in the no-alibi category, far from it.
Comparing Sickert with other strong suspects we can see that the evidence is actually no stronger or weaker for those suspects as they are for Sickert, so no Cornwell does hold the ultimate evidence. Seeing is believing and Cornwell wrote her book with many questions to ponder, but in the end the evidence is actually weaker than it was led to believe. The excitement and the public and television appearances created a kind of sensation, but when the calm returns the rational takes over the emotional just like when we go see a movie we really love the first time, because of the experience of the moment we sometimes feel it was the best film ever made, but with time the rational takes over the emotional and realize it was a good movie, but no better than other good movies we saw, am I clear?
That said, I am in no way a Ripper expert nor an expert on Cornwell's book, other people can elaborate more than me for I have not studied meticulously the evidence (I'm gettin there), but I do evolve in my reading and to claim "cased closed" in the Sickert saga is irritating and arrogant because in the end it offers a possibility, but not the truth. A fistula on the penis, it is now pretty well known that it was not on the penis, so the major motivation by Cornwell falls out the window.
As a possibility sure, Sickert is in my top ten list, possibly somewhere near my top five, I am not one to dismiss him completely, but those who believe he was the ripper so bluntly and without doubt (like Cornwell) is perhaps to ignore other suspects who may be found to be stronger cases : some of them being Cutbush, Druitt (yes he does have a strong case so far in my reading), Kosminski (why deny him so easily?), D'Onston, David Cohen(??? who ever he was exactly), a merchant seaman, Tumblety seems to have just as much circumstantial evidence as Sickert, even Chapman, and on and on, and on you name them. There are many strong supects with strong circumstantial evidence, which is why this fascination keeps going on. What if someone did forensic research on other suspects, what would we find? My main objection to Cornwell is that she did not seem to research other subjects to weigh the facts and possibilities, she seemed to have focused on Sickert and bang go with it.
Point is? Sickert's case is not to be ignored, but it is no stronger than about five or six or seven, or maybe more suspects, or some complete unknown that we'll never hear about. Fact is? Cornwell makes a lot of assumptions (Sickert's fistula for example, his travelling between France and England, his hatred of women, his paintings-that is the ridiculous part of her argument, come on look at hundreds of other artists and you'll find more violent fascinations than Walter's like Cézanne, a mentor, Degas, a mentor, Géricault, Goya, etc. point is artists are often fascinated by the things of life, which includes violence, murder, the macabre, etc., so in his time it would not be a surprise if Sickert, a little on the eccentric side on top on it, was fascinated by the current case of his time: Jack the Ripper). As I am and as any ripperologist is fascinated by the case. I, for example, am fascinated by true crime, the Zodiac killings, the BTK, Homolka, by films by Dario Argento and Lucio Fulci...yet am I a killer? No, I'm told I'm a loving person and have no feelings for murder. Is Thomas Harris the creator of Hannibal Lecter a killer? No, he has a decent life. Is Mo Hayder the writer of the vicious (but great) book Birdman a killer? Come on. Sickert was addicted to the Ripper case, which may have driven him to write a hoax letter or two.
P.S. And where's Cornwell's update on the evidence? I read that was going to come out one time, has Cornwell been able to find new "evidence"? I'm always open.
|
Angie
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 6:11 pm: |
|
The updated edition of Portrait of a Killer will be released next year. PC is searching for new evidence right now:
www.patriciacornwell.com |
Kortnie
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 5:36 pm: |
|
Personally, I don't see how anyone can read Cornwell's book and not agree with her completely that she has indeed unmasked Sickert as Jack. But, I know those "anyones" are out there, because I've read their comments! Well, as an old proverb goes, "There is always opposition." So, if God appeared and said, "Yes, she's right, Sickert's Jack," there would still be those doubting thomases, and far afield. Why is it so hard to believe that Cornwell, through hard work, tenacity, and brain power, discovered who Jack was? I think that a lot of jealousy and even misogyny figures into the doubting of the doubting thomases. She has uncovered an enormous amount of NEW circumstantial evidence that is damning against Sickert. And, this evidence is so clear, so easy-to-understand, that "anyone" with two neurons firing can comprehend it. How can you read the book and not agree? My opinion, fueled by degrees (American) in English and Art History, is that she's correct, 100%, in her findings. Let me repeat that I believe jealousy and misogyny to be fueling the doubting thomases, plus, in some cases, a dearth of firing neurons. Finally, I don't think that dedicated and obscessed Ripperologists want the mystery to end as they'd have to close up shop. And they don't want to. I know I have probably offended some people here, sorry, but the above is what I think. |
Rodney Gillis
Sergeant
Username: Srod
Post Number: 47
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 10:05 am: |
|
Kortnie,
I can "comprehend" the evidence, that's the problem. Her dna evidence is not conclusive, and even if it was, all that would prove is that Sickert wrote letters. Writing letters does not prove Sickert was the killer, only that he was interested in the events.
Cornwell writes in her book that it has not been proven that Sickert was NOT in London during all of the murders. An alarm should go off in your degreed fueled mind that this is not how research is done, let alone proven. I'm sorry to sound so harsh and you, just as everyone else is indeed entitled to your opinion, but your suppositons as to why people disagree with you and Cornwell is way off base. I am a "doubting thomas" not because I am jealous, I just have the ability to look at research and see it for what it is in practice, good or bad. Please always remember that while Miss Cornwell is to be commended for her efforts and she is entitled to her beliefs, her stock in trade is dealing in fiction.
Rod |
Ally
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Ally
Post Number: 1038
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 1:57 pm: |
|
Kortnie,
As Ms. Cornwell knows, it's quite easy to have clear, compelling evidence--when you make it all up. Which is what she did with the vast amount of her theory and evidence.
Now the one thing she has which is compelling and which I do feel she doesn't get sufficient credit, is the watermark paper which may be indicative that Sickert wrote one of the many hoax letters of the time. But even that is not conclusive, though it is compelling and would prove only that Sickert, like hundreds of his contemporaries, wrote a hoax letter to the police.
And really, your degrees don't really mean a whole lot. You are with a rather educated populace here and neither an English degree nor an art history degree qualifies you any more in deciding the case than anyone else here.
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2439
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 4:46 pm: |
|
I just loved the 'doubting thomases'. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 748
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 4:07 am: |
|
Kortnie - I am sorry to be blunt, but please re-read Cornwell's book with your critical faculty switched "ON"!!
Personally, I don't see how anyone can read Cornwell's book and not agree with her completely that she has indeed unmasked Sickert as Jack.
Well, sorry, but many of has have done just that. Can I ask whether you have read anything else about JtR or Sickert? If not you will do so, as Miss Cornwell refers to very little of the other possibilities that exist. If you really do believe her, then I ask you to list the "killer facts" that persuaded you.
But, I know those "anyones" are out there, because I've read their comments! Well, as an old proverb goes, "There is always opposition."
I am not just "anyone" thank you. I am a thinking, reasoning human being. Nor do I - these days - agree with the latest theory. I'll admit I used to, but learned my lesson after Knight was proved to have deliberately misled his readers.
So, if God appeared and said, "Yes, she's right, Sickert's Jack," there would still be those doubting thomases, and far afield.
No. One author (Rumbelow??) hypothesised that on the Day of Judgement Jack will step forward and we'll all say "WHO"??? But you take the argument too far. Or do you question the right to doubt?
Why is it so hard to believe that Cornwell, through hard work, tenacity, and brain power, discovered who Jack was?
Because by any reasonable standard her research was inadequate, her reasoning lacking in credibility and she produces no evidence.
I think that a lot of jealousy and even misogyny figures into the doubting of the doubting thomases.
You are welcome to your view, but it is not true in my case. Why should I be jealous, or dislike the author because she is a woman? I have been interested in Sickert as a suspect for years and would have welcomed any new material. In fact, if anything, Cornwell exonerates Sickert!! I know nothing of the author's fictional work so have no basis to like or dislike her. I judge on her book - which is frankly poor by any sensible standard and rubbish by academic ones.
She has uncovered an enormous amount of NEW circumstantial evidence that is damning against Sickert.
She has uncovered some new evidence suggesting he may have written nuisance letters, but the emphasis on your sentence should be on the word "circumstantial". I don't believe she even produces that viz a viz Sickert as the actual murderer.
And, this evidence is so clear, so easy-to-understand, that "anyone" with two neurons firing can comprehend it.
Not this person, or others. perhaps i have only one neuron firing!! the book is actually badly written, and i don't think Cornwell's ill-reasoning is easy to follow at all.
How can you read the book and not agree?
By reading with a questioning mind, with some knowledge of the case, and an awareness of the basis rules of research and evidence and academic standards.
My opinion, fueled by degrees (American) in English and Art History, is that she's correct, 100%, in her findings.
Doesn't say much for the quality of US degrees then. (Sorry couldn't resist the dig, but I don't mean it!!) If you are so confident, please summarise the logical chain that convinces you so strongly.
Let me repeat that I believe jealousy and misogyny to be fueling the doubting thomases, plus, in some cases, a dearth of firing neurons.
Yeah, you said all that already. Invective is not argument.
Finally, I don't think that dedicated and obscessed Ripperologists want the mystery to end as they'd have to close up shop.
Nonsense!! Knowing who the Ripper was would open up a whole new field of research, into the whys and wherefores.
I know I have probably offended some people here, sorry, but the above is what I think.
I say the same to you. But please come back and argue your points. This Board is all about debate and discussion. And you are welcome.
Phil |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 355
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 4:47 am: |
|
Its a pity Kortnie's degree didn't take into account such things as capitalisation and the correct use of paragraphs.( or indeed any use of paragraphs!)
Also writing in a manner so that people can understand you would be useful! |
Mike the Mauler
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 4:43 pm: |
|
Kortnie,
I had a Sicilian grandfather who made up the most colorful stories one could imagine. He made up stories to back his stories. One was virtually compelled to believe him. He used to buy the cheapest wine available, rebottle it in plain, long brown bottles, and would pass it off as his own wine from his personal vinyard to the unsuspecting hotel manager in old Las Vegas, ultimately receiving a much reduced-in-price, if not free hotel room. He did this several times a year. He created his stories (read:lies) with such conviction, you just had to trust this kindly, charming, thickly-accented immigrant. Cornwell uses the same conviction in her concoctions. She has fooled many people.
My grandfather died about 10 years ago, or did he? Ms. Cornwell does have a similar chin...
Cheers,
Mike (who just sent his paperwork in to become a registered offend... er, member) |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 754
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 1:40 pm: |
|
Well done Mike, I look forward to welcoming you as a fully fledged inmate of this Dorset Street doss-house.
Or should we believe you, perhaps you just made up the fact that you have registered???!!! perhaps you are Ms Cornwell in disguise - there is that family chin to consider after all!!
Phil |
Catherine Ann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 11:36 am: |
|
At a risk of being slated like Kourtnie here I really feel someone else should speak for her. I've never come across such a load of insulting posts in my life, in fact they are positively patronising. The question of degrees should not even arise!
Finally, I don't think that dedicated and obscessed Ripperologists want the mystery to end as they'd have to close up shop.
I actually believe the above an accurate statement. The main attraction about the Ripper is who he was, it's a mystery, a legend even! There's been far more prolific murderers in history and yet everyone I know is intrigued by the ripper, simply because he apparently got away and was never found. Now I'm not saying that P. Cornwell is correct in her thinking that Sickert is right, I haven't read it yet and being a Welsh woman I'm inclined to want to read the Swansea man's book yet.
But surely Sickert isn't any more ludicrous as a suspect than the Duke of Clarence or Lewis Carroll!
For once on forums can't people be civil to each other?
My own theory is that the Ripper was someone probably unheard of (who knows perhaps the Swansea man has the answer!).
You also question Stephen Knight's findings. Well he got murdered for something didn't he? If my memory serves me well, he died shortly after "The Brotherhood."
There's no doubt that someone "the ripper" did the barbaric deed and if history is anything to go by it will be the most unlikely candidate.
As an artist Sickert apparently painted some strange paintings and they do say genuis is close to insanity. He travelled no doubt.
But please can't we all be more pleasant on these boards?
Thanks.
Sorry if I get posted twice, but my messages take a while showing up as I'm unregistered.
|
Ally
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Ally
Post Number: 1040
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 1:43 pm: |
|
Catherine,
The question of degrees should not even arise!"
You are right, Kortnie should never have brought up her degrees as if they somehow conferred better judgement, wisdom or knowledge than the rest of us. It was extremely foolish of her and I agree wholeheartedly with you that it was completely insulting for her to bring that up.
For once on forums can't people be civil to each other?
Why do people think we should be civil to idiots? What's the point? I don't particularly want to encourage idiots to stay, because then they would continue to post and I'd be exposed to more stupidity.
But please can't we all be more pleasant on these boards?
Nope. Nope, we can't. But we really appreciate newbies who come along and chide us and tell us how we ought to be behaving. It makes us feel all warm and tingly.
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 451
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 7:33 pm: |
|
Catherine Ann you are 100% right:
"But surely Sickert isn't any more ludicrous as a suspect than the Duke of Clarence or Lewis Carroll."
He surely ain't !!
Mags
|
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 362
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 2:28 am: |
|
Catherine Ann,
I find your post a bit of a puzzle. You claim that posters here have been less than friendly to Kortnie.
Well if memory serves me correctly, she came on the boards, without apparently bothering to do any serious research on the subject and without any intention of doing any, and proceeded to lambast us all for not agreeing wholeheartedly with her favourite author!
She then goes on to tell us to 'get over it' and points out that as she has some qualifications is some unrelated subjects, we should all bow down to her dictats!
I'm sorry but with such a person I'm not surprised that some posters feel free to reply in kind!
What irritates people universally, not just on these boards, is when a person who has no knowledge, or intention of obtaining any, appears and criticises people who are extremely knowledgeable.
Cornwell may be a very good fiction writer, I don’t know I’ve never read any of her books, but she certainly has made a complete mess of her book on the Ripper. She has refused, and proudly proclaims it, to consult with any of the recognised authorities on the case and rejects completely any suggestion that she could be wrong.
Her arrogance in this matter is breathtaking in the extreme. It is clear she seems powerfully motivated by a hatred of men in general, and Sickert in particular, and sees herself as the avenging White Angel standing up for the victims killed by a nasty man.
In conclusion I would say that if people wish to be taken seriously, not just on these boards but anywhere, then they should make an effort.
For example you posted:
“You also question Stephen Knight's findings. Well he got murdered for something didn't he? If my memory serves me well, he died shortly after "The Brotherhood."
There's no doubt that someone "the ripper" did the barbaric deed and if history is anything to go by it will be the most unlikely candidate”
What on earth does that mean? Are you saying Jack the Ripper killed Stephen Knight?
I would suggest that before having the temerity to lay down rules on how people should or shouldn’t behave, you take a modicum of effort to ensure that at least you can be understood!
Bob Hinton
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2080
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 5:11 am: |
|
Hi Kortnie,
...if God appeared and said, "Yes, she's right, Sickert's Jack,"...
If God proved his existence to the Casebook just to tell us that Cornwell was right, I'd know we were all in the funny farm.
Love,
Caz
X |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4909
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 6:54 am: |
|
I'd ask God to show me his evidence. I mean, her evidence...I mean....
Post closed.
Robert |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 220
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 8:17 am: |
|
Cathrine
Actually your wrong. Who was Jack the Ripper obviously troubles much of the thinking on these boards but there are many mysteries surrounding the case that have people troubled and thinking.
Who was Mary Jane Kelly. Where had Cathrine Eddows been? Were the victims linked? Who were the victims? etc etc
Jack is just one of the mysteries. You dont have to have done much study or be that much of a genius to come up with some fatal flaws in patricia Cornwalls thinking.
For a start she attributes many murders to the case including the torso murders and try's to contect a number of murders after Mary Jane Kelly for which there is very little evidence.
The problem with most of the Ripper suspects is that they require knocking square pegs into round holes.
To think that Jacks identy is the only question that troubles people on these boards is to miss understand casebook. There are many people each with there own interests and agenda's. Each specialise in there own areas and most agree Patricia Cornwall's book is full of holes.
The only thing of interest appears to be that Sickert may have hoaxed one or some of the letters.
Hopefully however we can make our points with courtesy.
Yours Jeff |
Bradski
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 10:31 am: |
|
Your forgetting something else with W.S.
Unless there was multiple rippers, JtR was cunning at changing his disguises. On the double event, the man who killed Sride was identified as the same man who killed Eddows, by Lawende. Except he had changed into a sailor. There are different appearances for Annie Chapman's man, and Hutchinson's suspect.Not just in atire, but in complextion, mustache, hair ect. Like it or not, JtR was a master of disguise and bamboozled the ploice time and time again(no offence).
I think the matter of this Dr Openshaw letter is taken way too lightly. I have studied it, and the From Hell letter closely, and believe that the Openshaw was a follow-up to From Hell.
What in God's good name was Sickert writing these hoaxes for. If he was caught, he would have been pilloried by the public and sent to prison. His career as an artist finished. It looks like he did write the Openshaw letter. I find this a massive oddity not to be taken lightly.
If it matters to anyone out there, I think if W.S was envolved, he was not alone, and probably did not do the cutting. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
