|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 31
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 1:24 pm: |       |
Hi Everyone,
I expect to get hammered here on mentioning Walter Sickert, however there is one point of intrest which should be mentioned.
In 1959, it came to light on Farsons Guide to the British, that at Mary Kellys funeral, two young women saw someone spit on the grave , after the service , this was not reported at the time , for fear of reprisals.
Walter Sickert painted a picture At the turn of the century called ; A passing Funeral; in which is depicted two women looking through a window , the title of the picture was the only clue to what the women were watching.
It is well reconized that Sickert was fascinated with these crimes, and painted several pictures that resembled victims, some feel that their were clues in the content.
My point is did his work ;A passing Funeral depict the events at Leytonstone cemetary, if so how come he would have had knowledge of such an event when It did not become known until 17 years after his death.
Food for thought...
Regards Richard. |
John Savage
Police Constable
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 3
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 2:56 pm: | |
Richard,
A very interesting story, which I do not recall hearing before. What we really need to know is Farson's source for this tale, because no doubt were ever he got it from, it must have been around since 1888 and Sickert could have heard it.
Regards,
John |
Chris Phillips
Police Constable
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 4
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 3:10 pm: | |
The story is recounted thus in Farson's "Jack the Ripper" (p. 53 in the 1973 paperback edition):
I heard of a curious incident which took place in the cemetery that afternoon. The mother of the person who wrote to me was visiting another grave. After the mourners for Kelly had gone, she and her friend noticed that one man stayed behind and after some time, believing himself to be alone, he parted the boards above the grave and spat down on it while the terrified women hid behind their tombstone.
Having said that, two women cowering behind a gravestone watching a man standing by a grave after a funeral sounds nothing at all like two women looking through a window at a passing funeral.
Another red herring, I'm afraid.
|
John Savage
Police Constable
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 4
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 6:33 pm: | |
Chris,
Thanks for clearing that up, I'm afraid it is a long time since I read Farson's book. So this looks like oral tradition, but never the less the sort of thing that makes these boards so worthwhile.
Regards,
John |
Chris Scott
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 6:25 pm: | |
After all the comments about Sickert and what can be read into his paintings etc. it might be of interest that I found this short extract in recent research though US newpaper arhives. It is from the Atlanta Constitution dated December 1 1888, i.e. within three weeks of the Kelly murder
Artist Whistler, the eccentric American who is one of London's celebrities, is painting a horrible picture of one of the Whitechapel victims as her mutilated body appeared when it was discovered.
Sickert was a pupil of Whistler - food for thought.....
Chris Scott |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 32
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 01, 2003 - 7:02 am: | |
Hi John,And Chris,
Dan Farson actually got the imfomation, from an appeal to the public, after his two half hour specials on the whitechapel murders.
He obviously received a lot of junk mail , but the letter mentioning events at Leytonstone cemetary came from an elderly woman, who stated that when her mother was a young woman , her and a friend were tending a grave near to where the service for Kelly was taking place, and she saw the mentioned incident
Oral History mayby...But as I have always maintained, would that be the kind of discussion a mother would tell her daughter, over a cup of tea..and would farsons correspondent tell lies on a very sordid subject on behalf of her dead mother.
I think not.
If the events at Leytonstone cemetary actually happened, I always believed Barnett would be a prime candidate for the action of spitting on her grave simply because the letter stated ; One man stayed behind after the service , and when he thought he was alone, spat down several times on the grave.
Of course it could be one of many well wishes that would have been present nearby.
So my thoughts were mayby Sickert was present as a mourner , and after he disrespected Kelly noticed the two women nearby , and depicted the scene of two women observing in The passing Funeral; After all if well wishers filed by the grave, after the main mourners had left, they would be passing.
Walter Sickert may not be the most popular suspect , but he was a strange enough character, to put on some kind of short list..
Regards Richard |
ellimae4444
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 08, 2003 - 8:31 am: | |
in view of the new evidence recently documented in the book.."jack the ripper, case closed"..i believe the dna off envelopes sent to police as jack ripper letters matching the dna off envelopes sent by walter sickert...I think the disicussion is over}}}} |
Chris Scott
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 09, 2003 - 8:13 am: | |
Hi Ellimae
I really don't want to reopen the whole DNA can of worms again and the mytochodrial versus nucleic DNA debate. However, one point which I think is important which I haven't seen stressed enough. I think we need to think through the process whereby a letter writer's DNA would get onto the fabric of a letter and still be detectable circa 115 years later. I saw the documentary on Patricia Cornwell's book which included footage of the samples being taken at the Public Record Office. two things worried me about this:
1) the letter they were sampling had been laminated for protection and the "delamination" was shown before they took their swab sample. Howvere, lamination is a comparatively recent process which means by definition all the letters in the files were the subject for many years to handling and examination. Considering the amount of interest there has been in these files over the years, the amount of handling (and consequent contamination) over the years must be much higher than normal.
2) The documentary showed a sample being taken from an area which was an alledged blood stain. Whilst I can see the logic that this may contain organic matter, I fail to see the logic in assuming that the blood in question (if it is blood) is that of the killer! IF this stain is blood, and IF this letter has some true physical connection with one of the murders, then the inescapable conclusion to me seems to be that what we have is an aged sample of DNA from one of the victims, not from the killer
Hope these thoughts are of interest
Regards
Chris S |
David O'Flaherty
Police Constable
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 10
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 09, 2003 - 11:48 am: | |
Hi, Ellimae,
Stephen Ryder wrote a very good article about the Case Closed book. You can read it here http://casebook.org/dissertations/dst-pamandsickert.html.
Cheers,
Dave |
David Johnson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 15, 2003 - 6:03 pm: | |
The case against Sickert belies reasoning. If he were guilty, he stopped, a highly improbable thing regarding Serial Killers. The crime is contigent upon compulsive behavior that increases as the criminal experiences it. The typical end of the spree occurs with the imprisionment of the culprit for the crime, or another crime, or his death. A cursory look at other killers bears this out. |
SirRobertAnderson
Police Constable
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 8
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 15, 2003 - 7:45 pm: | |
"If he were guilty, he stopped, a highly improbable thing regarding Serial Killers."
The problem I always have with this statement is that it is based on the study of IDENTIFIED serial killers. By definition, those that stop may very well not be caught and so I think the database is skewed by negative selection.
Sir Robert |
Marie Finlay
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 6:59 am: | |
Walter Sickert is probably one of my least favourite suspects. In the same league as Lewis Carroll.
I think Stephens article articulately, and thoroughly refutes the points Patricia makes in her book.
And I honestly can't see how the painting 'A passing funeral' could relate to the story about Mary Kelly's funeral. The connection is extremely tenuous, at best.
I do tend to believe the story, however. I think the man in the story most likely is someone with whom Mary was involved, someone who she had angered. Perhaps Barnett. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 51
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2003 - 1:38 pm: | |
Hi Marie,
Regarding A Passing Funeral, I was just making a observation, about events said to have occured at the funeral of Kelly.
I have it on good authority that the vast amount of painters rely on past experience to create a painting, and Sickert may have painted that picture , with reference to the two women who witnessed that episode at Leytonstone cemetary.
However I do believe that Sickert although an eccentric character was proberly not Jack, but I like to explore every avenue.
Regards Richard |
dannos girl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2003 - 12:38 pm: | |
I agree w/ ellimae. I not only saw the Patricia Cornwell documentary, but also read her book. I think it naive, after all the evidence that she and her panel of forensic specialists presented, including DNA evidence, for you to discount the Walter Sickert theory. I believe she is 100% correct: Sickert was a murderous psychopath who had ample opportunity (living near the scene of the murders and hiding out in numerous "ratholes" that he called studios and disappearing from the watchful eyes of friends and family many times). He murdered others, including children, that are not on the ever-popular listing of Whitechapel prostitutes. The "highly improbable stopping" of his murders can be attributed to the fact that some later murders did not seem to have the same MO as previously considered "Ripper" murders and the fact that as he got older, his health failed and that, coupled w/ his paranoia over being caught, prevented him from leaving his home to commit further murders. |
Marie Finlay
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2003 - 3:02 pm: | |
Dannos girl,
I read Patricia Cornwells book, too- and quite frankly I found it to be very unconvincing.
Some of the more unbelieveable points include:
1)Walter Sickert wrote most of the supposed 'Ripper' letters.
2)Walter was a master of disguise who often dressed up to commit all types of murders up and down the UK.
I believe she even points the finger at him for (correct me if i'm wrong): the torso murders of 1888, the murder of a child, and the murder of a young man. One would have to believe there was *no* other murderer alive in the UK at the time.
I would also recommend that you read the article written by Stephen Ryder, which deals with the DNA evidence, and the fact that Sickert was most likely in France during the time of the Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes murders
Richard, you posted: "I have it on good authority that the vast amount of painters rely on past experience to create a painting"
Oh yes, I don't dispute this at all! After all, I went to art college, and I still paint in my spare time.
I'm just not personally convinced that 'A Passing Funeral' particularly relates to the episode at Leytonstone cemetary.
However, I do tend to believe the story, and I do agree that it's important to explore many avenues.
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 53
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2003 - 1:57 pm: | |
Marie.
It was always my opinion that the most logical choice for the grave spitting was Barnet.
We know from graveyard sketchings that 8 people were actually present at the site during the service , this comprised of six women, and two men , one being the extemely large priest, the other Barnet..
I am fully aware that there were a number of onlookers near by , but the source of the imformation regarding the observation of the two women clearly states ; one man stayed behind after the service and when he believed he was alone , spat down several times on the grave after first parting the boards.
This imformation was not known untill 1959, and I am sure if it were to have been available in 1888, Barnet would have been questioned once again.
I have always believed Barnet to be the most likely killer of Mary Jane, jealously and maybe religious mania can be a very strong motive.
Regards Richard. |
David Johnson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2003 - 2:46 pm: | |
Again with the evidence regarding PCs Book:
1, people can't "easily change their writing". I don't care how gifted an artist they may be forensic science will demonstrate similar patterns. Most of the Ripper letters she quotes are obviously from different authors..
2, the DNA evidence supplied would never convict in court, it is only partial. Please research evidence with regards to criminal cases. allowance of evidence, and the degradation of exemplar evidence over time.
3, PC weakens her arguements with sensless evidence, instead of sticking to fact.
4, Serial killers dont just stop......thats the problem, they almost always become more brazen, more hideous, and require more stimulation to meet the compulsion's force. Any decent study of past cases will bear this out. Bundy started biting his victims towards the end, something he rarely did in the beginning (he's a typical lust killer). Some of her links are interesting, but are more suited to a creative, writer's mind, then an evidence gathering expert. |
Gibby Vendettuoli
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2003 - 9:53 pm: | |
The case against painter Walter Sickert is quite unfair. Patricia Cornwell has used selective leads and a victim not even officially accepted as a Jack the Ripper victim to apply the correct modus operandi to the wrong man.
My investigation has proven that Walter Sickert was involved in the Ripper murders, but to a small extent. |
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 81
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 23, 2003 - 12:44 am: | |
G'day Gibby,
In what way was he involved? Can you give us a hint? Now that I have read Patricia Cornwell's book I believe that he was obsessed with this case, (which was all over the newspapers and on everyone's lips), and may have hoaxed some of the letters and dressed up as the 'Ripper' to 'get into' the mind of the real killer.!
'Impressionist' artists, painted 'life' around them and the effects of light on subjects. They tried to capture the impression that the subject left on their mind or the mood it put them in!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 82
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 23, 2003 - 12:59 am: | |
G'day,
So, if he painted two women looking through a window and called it: 'A Passing Funeral', with no other indication as to what the women were gawking at, I think that was very artistic example of 'Impressionism'!
LEANNE! |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 51
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 23, 2003 - 1:16 pm: | |
Regarding the statement that 'serial killers just don't stop'.
It is now over ten years since I wrote the 'Myth' and in that volume I did point out that there were in fact a whole host of serial killers who either gave up murder totally, reduced their activities to a lesser offence or had taken time off from their crimes for some still unknown reason - in several cases as much as between six and twelve years.
In the revised work - presently being posted on this site - I have added to this list and it now forms a solid base of evidence available to posters on this site showing that serial killers do indeed vary their behaviour in a manner that does not yet appear to be generally accepted.
If I must, I can list them all again for you.
It seems parlous to say the least to ignore such a compelling body of evidence, and hardly adds credibility to these boards.
It is my contention that naming Sickert as a suspect in this case - just because he may have painted a few sketches possibly relevant to the case but probably not - is akin to claiming that a writer who pens an account of the sinking of the Titanic must have sunk it. |
Marie Finlay
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 23, 2003 - 5:19 am: | |
Richard, you posted: "We know from graveyard sketchings that 8 people were actually present at the site during the service , this comprised of six women, and two men , one being the extemely large priest, the other Barnet"
I must admit, the graveyard sketches hadn't occured to me!
Thank you, Richard, for bringing that to my attention. I'm definitely leaning towards Barnett as my prime suspect for having killed Mary, now.
I think jealousy could be quite a powerful motive (for an already unbalanced mind), but it's interesting what you say about religious motivation. Is there any information as to Barnetts religious feelings?
I don't know as much about him as I'd like. I did order 'The Simple Truth' by Paley, but it *still* hasn't arrived yet- to my immense frustration! |
David Johnson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 23, 2003 - 9:53 pm: | |
AP Wolf, regardless of your "publications", having worked the field for a dozen years, and been involved in all aspects of investigative work, I must say your assertions are not born out in my experience, nor does the vast (and ever growing work) on the subject bear out your remarks. Serial Murder is defined in very rigid terms, most continue until they are caught, die or are imprisioned for another offense. Just as a drug addict continues to use, an abuser continues to abuse the o/c personality continues to rework whatever satisfies the drive. Most crimes of this sort involve an escalation of violence, serving as a kind of catharsis. Especially lust killers, who seek to contol the scene. The latter victims are generally "worked over", the most. The criminal has become more self assured and brazen, and more expert in evading capture. Prostitutes are the usual victims of choice due to the obvious ease that they can be placed into situations. What makes the ripper murders so intriguing is they escalted quickly, then basically ended. Thats not to say there were not prior victims, but it makes it unlikely that additional crimes were carried out without the same amount of violence. Most Serial Killers are just born different. Bundy remains the classic example. |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 52
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 24, 2003 - 1:55 pm: | |
All well and good.
But the fact of the matter is that there is an entire body of actual evidence - perhaps outside your personal experience and knowledge - showing that serial killers do indeed do exactly what you claim they don't.
Now, in my venture for the truth I am of course not prepared to ignore your personal experience and knowledge in this subject, it would of course be silly of me to do so.
What say you then to the evidence that I am offering you?
To ignore such a massive slice of truth and enlightenment in a venture for the truth and enlightenment is much like switching the lights off to see in the dark.
I would refer you the activities of the Boston Strangler, who gave up killing and took up rape.
I would refer you to Colin Pitchfork who allowed a gap of two and a half years to pass between his killings - and in the meantime returned to his less harmful offence of exposing himself - and only committed those killings when his victims acted in an unusual fashion. In other words if they had acted like his hundreds of other victims they would not have been murdered.
So there was no 'escalation of violence' here, only a subtle change in victim behaviour.
You should really study the Pitchfork case.
I would refer you to Arnold Sodeman who allowed five years to slip by before he killed again.
I would refer you to Timothy Spencer who allowed a gap of three years between his first killing and his later spree of four.
I would refer you to the 'Monster of Florence' - whose crimes are very similar to the ones we discuss here - who has allowed as much as twelve years to slip by before he has struck yet again.
Ludwig Tessnow. Richard Francis Cottingham.
Want some more?
Peter Kurten. Women only died when they refused to have sex with him. So if every woman he met had sex with him he wouldn't have killed them.
Personally I don't view Bundy as either classic or clever, but I do view the police forces that hunted him with some humour, as he did too.
I don't know what you mean by a 'lust' killer, please explain.
Are you really seriously trying to tell me that someone like Richard Chase was 'self assured and brazen' and 'expert at evading capture'?
He was basically too frightened to leave his apartment, had no contact with humanity whatsoever except when he killed them, and wandered about the busy suburbs with a gun in one hand, knife in other, covered in blood with a bright orange jacket on.
Finally, nobody is born different.
We just grow up in different ways.
|
Bob Hinton
Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 34
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 24, 2003 - 7:37 pm: | |
Two points. First of all let us dispense with the DNA/Walter Sickert/letters nonsense once and for all.
Even if it was proved conclusively - and it certainly hasn't been, that Walter Sickert wrote every single one of the Jack the Ripper letters it is still irrelevant
Why? Because there is absolutely nothing to link the letters to the killer. Evidence must comprise of links that are joined together - thats why we talk of a chain of evidence. You can't just assemble a hodge-podge of assorted facts dump them on the table, stir once and then say 'Ah yes it was 'im Guvnor!'
Next serial killers. I have always maintained that what we know about serial killers come from the failures - the ones who have been caught. Just stop for a minute and think how many ex concentration camp guards have turned up since the war, living quiet, secluded lives, bothering no-one. And yet these people (?) perpetrated some of the most hideous crimes we have ever seen, yet when cirumstances dictated it - they stopped!
They didn't carry on machine gunning, starving or gassing helpless victims - they stopped. Now if they can do that why not your common or garden serial killer.
The serial killers who are caught (mostly by accident by the way) are those who cannot control their addiction to killing - its like a drug. Yet thousands of drug users do manage to kick the habit. Why not serial killers?
Bob Hinton |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
