|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Paul Gibson
Police Constable
Username: Rupertbear
Post Number: 1
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 12, 2003 - 6:41 am: |       |
The voting pattern of site users is troubling me. I have read many books about Saucy Jacky and have even had a somewhat spooky experience at the site of Liz Stride's murder, but I just canot take Mr. Sickert seriously as a suspect and wonder how other long-term enthusiasts view his candidature. Given that I found Ms. Cornwell's book very difficult to finish, I would welcome a short objective viewpoint from someone out there that does think it was Sickert...Or have the votes just been cast by a load of Cornwellites who have not read another theory (and yet are satisfied that it is indeed case closed) and have now moved on to take an interest in the sinking of the Lusitania?!!! |
Mystery Buff
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 12, 2003 - 11:10 am: | |
I must introduce myself as a Cornwell fan, probably not a "Cornwellite" and I just finished her book "Case Closed"(I got an autographed copy for Christmas). The book held my interest so that I finished it in 2 sittings. Part of that was trying to get to the BIG proof that must be at the end. It wasn't. I thought it ended rather abruptly, in fact, with no real closure. And here I am online reading other theories because my curiosity was not sated. Yes, she writes a compelling story of Sickert as a serial killer but her facts are purely circumstantial and nothing that could possibly hold up in, oh, say a court of law. Her theory may be the correct theory, but it's still only a theory. What she has attempted with forensics is admirable, however after 100 plus years, there is not enough evidence left to examine forensically. Seeing as hers is the largest work I've read on the subject, I'm not about to vote before getting more info. Hopefully the "load of Cornwellites" also found the debunking articles on this website before voting and realized that there is more to study. But no doubt Sickert's rise in popularity is due to the Cornwell book. I just wanted you to have a little faith in one of the readers. |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Detective Sergeant
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 114
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 12, 2003 - 4:29 pm: | |
Paul,
From what I've seen, we were getting a backlash of Cornwell fans here, who came to the site, saw the debunking of the book, and decided to vote for Sickert as their #1 suspect, and her book as #1.
The voting there is most definitely not indicative of the opinion on here. Many of us would rather spend time in a locked room with John Ormlor and I then read her book. 
She deserves credit for attempting to bring Ripperology into the 21st century, but her conclusions weren't supported by what little circumstantial evidence she did have.
For those Sickert fans (the artist, not as a Ripper suspect) the book is great, because she provides a great deal of biographical info that wasn't readily available before.
So she's got that going for her...which is nice.
B |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 107
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 12, 2003 - 6:05 pm: | |
Paul
The voting patterns of the site users can not really be quibbled with.
'Lush' rules our age and I think most voters liked the cover and the long title.
I left the whole affair in a bin at Heathrow airport.
If Cornwell really did bring Ripperology into the 21st century then I'm off, for nothing has changed, because Knight did that in the last century, and I was off then for ten years.
Came back, not a lot changed.
Somehow I don't think I'm going to make the next ticking of the centurion's clock. |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Detective Sergeant
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 116
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 12, 2003 - 6:07 pm: | |
AP,
Let me explain the 21st century comment: she used forensic science techniques.
That's all.
B |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 96
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 13, 2003 - 8:24 am: | |
Hi Everyone,
Of course Jack The Ripper could have been simply anyone.
However it does not surprise me that Sickert, is a major suspect.
I believe that events at Leytonstone cemetary, at Kellys funeral, can well lead us to the identification of our killer.
I will not repeat what happened as it has been well documented on these boards, but Sickert and Barnett can be accused by the following points.
Sickert..
It is an accepted fact that the vast majority of artists paint from recollections during their lifetime, if Sickert was present at the service of Kelly, and disrespected her in the way , that was reported to have happened, and then became aware of two young women close by , the work that he created nearly twenty years later entitled A Passing Funeral might have conjured up his thoughts of that day.
Also the D.N.A samples, even if they are not conclusive, is a further pointer.
Regarding Barnett.
He is a strong suspect , for he was actually present at the grave during the service, the only man apart from the priest.
Lets be realistic and say , would any body else apart from the obvious mourner, have stopped behind at the site, and risked drawing attention to himself?.
Although the above thoughts are all based on one letter from an elderly lady in 1959, , in my opinion , these two people especially the latter, have to be taking seriously, although hearsay evidence is hardly proof , we must analyze every possibility in our search for Jack.
Regards Richard. |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 108
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 13, 2003 - 1:44 pm: | |
Brian
Sorry.
It was that damned Spanish Brandy again.
Sends me off to war when all I want is peace.
|
Brian W. Schoeneman
Detective Sergeant
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 119
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 13, 2003 - 9:48 pm: | |
Rich,
No offense here - but the chances of Sickert having been the Ripper are about equal to the chances that you were the Ripper.
B |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 99
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 3:48 am: | |
Hi Brian,
No offence taken, however I was not born until 1947 so that proves my innocence, but Sickert was very much alive .
I realize that he seems a unlikely suspect, although a better candidate then a host of others.
P Cornwells book may be frowned upon by many Ripper folk , but at least she made a valid attempt to unravell this mystery at a considerable cost in dollar bills.
I was just mentioning two serious suspects, that could fit albeit circumstancial evidence.
Regards Richard. |
Paul Gibson
Police Constable
Username: Rupertbear
Post Number: 2
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 4:37 am: | |
Hi everyone,
Thanks for restoring my faith.
I must say that "Mystery Buff" sounds like a really nice guy and it is most laudable that he wants to read other accounts before casting his vote. However, I would have been far more inclined to devour Ms. Cornwell's theory if I had an autographed copy of the book - "Please, please, please let this become the universally recognised solition" 
Anyway, as he is going off to read other theories, I'm sure he'll soon be converted.
I accept that Ms. Cornwell has tried to bring Ripperology into the 21st century, but she sadly neglects the 19th century altogether. Nobody that has ever walked from Bishopsgate Police Station down Houndstitch would ever make a crass comment to the effect of "What made Eddowes completely change direction and head back towards the city?" Its as if she doesn't even know of the existence of Church Passage.
Richard, she might have sunk dollars into this, but let's face it - she's not short of a bob or two!! Ivor Edwards spent nine years putting his book together and I find it much easier to relate to a guy who has clearly invested shoe leather in getting to know the district backwards then somebody who spent thousands of dollars but, in my view, not nearly enough time in researching and publishing her theory.
The only thing that Sickert has going for him as a suspect is that he was a raconteur...
I know by putting forward the idea that Jack was a charming and verbose individual is very much at odds with the profile of a sexually motivated murderer, but he must have been able to very quickly inspire trust. This either makes him extremely weedy and inoffensive or the ultimate deliverer of chat-up lines.
More coments soon, please - great discussion so far!
Paul |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Detective Sergeant
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 120
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 8:06 am: | |
Paul,
He didn't really need to quickly inspire trust. All he needed was sixpence - or, actually, more like tuppence - and any of the victims would have willingly followed him.
When faced with the prospect of sleeping on the street, starvation, or not getting that needed glass of ale, these women would follow the money anywhere.
B |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 74
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 9:07 am: | |
Hi Brian,
I do think that Jack needed to 'inspire trust' enough not to spook his victims. Yes, they were desperate prostitutes, and alcoholics to boot- but I do think they must have been on the lookout for behaviour that was bizarre, or unusual for a punter.
After all, people were at the point of near-hysteria with press coverage of the case, and rumours/gossip flying around the area. I think we should give these women just a little bit of credit. Yes, they were desperate- but nobody wants to die. If one punter looked really dodgy, I think they could have passed up the offer, because another one would be along soon enough.
Mrs Kennedy's statement about how she and her sister were alarmed by the odd behaviour of a bag- carrying man who wanted to get one of them alone, is an example of how people were on the alert for anyone who might be the killer.
I can also think of a couple other instances where oddly-behaved people were almost lynched, because someone thought they might be Jack.
Now, I'm not implying that Jack had to be a charmer, by any means. My point is that I think Jacky looked, or acted like a regular punter. My impression is that he looked like the type of man these women were used to going with. |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 76
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 9:29 am: | |
PS>
I don't even consider Sickert a suspect at all. Especially seeing as he was actually in France, when he was 'supposed' to be murdering in England.
Though I did start reading it with an open mind, I didn't enjoy Cornwell's book, at all. |
JPR
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 13, 2003 - 2:21 pm: | |
Just read a what I sort of thought was a really convincing (and very funny) debunking of Cornwell on another site. It mentioned that you all had decided Sickert was the leading suspect, so I had to rush over to see if it was true. I guess your comments here are more temperate than what I was expecting, glad to see it. But you are still mentioning the DNA. That surprises me, since the DNA evidence in the book is seriously meaningless. What do you think is the explanation for so many folks voting Sickert in as #1 suspect??? |
Paul Gibson
Police Constable
Username: Rupertbear
Post Number: 4
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 11:03 am: | |
Aah Marie,
A kindred spirit...I didn't even like the tone of the Cornwell book - evidently written by a person who has got high self-esteem bulging from every orifice!!
Going back to the Jack as a raconteur idea...I still think he must have had a bit more about him than just appearing like an average punter. Either that or Eddowes had no idea just how dark it would be in Mitre Square and was very much taken by surprise. One of Peter Sutcliffe's victims who survived described him as having "come to bed eyes" and there are various accounts of sightings of a man or men who might or might not have been Jack making the prostitutes who were with him laugh. If he was more able to put his victims at ease than an average punter it would have been a considerable advantage.
Anyway, whether there is anything in this angle or not, it has helped convince me that the likes of George Chapman (evidently a raconteur later in life but dubious as to how good his English was in 1888) and Aaron Kosminsky are not prime suspects. Given the media frenzy regarding "Leather Apron" that followed the Dark Annie murder, I think any working class Jewish person of Eastern European appearance would find it very difficult to lure Eddowes into Mitre Square in broad daylight let alone in the wee small hours.
Paul |
JPR
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 10:18 am: | |
After reading the send-up I read before getting here, I don't think Cornwell even deserves credit for spending money on this. It was all deductible, and she expected to be fully compensated by the time the whole thing was fully exploited. As far as I can see she is a lady with a pretty severe ego-massaging problem, and decided to get her jollies off of this. Her obsession with Sickert is not too healthy, and the picture she gives the reader of what you are calling "21st century" forensic techniques turn them all into a big joke. She has discredited it more than introduced it. Not much of a service, all told. |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Detective Sergeant
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 121
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 2:36 pm: | |
Marie,
Whether or not the prostitutes of the area were on the lookout for Jack, they really didn't have a choice.
The Star from October 3, 1888 has a interesting passage:
A woman who was out in the small hours of the morning was asked, "Aren't you afraid to be out at this time?" She replied, "No; the murders are shocking, but we have no place to go, so we're compelled to be out looking for our lodgings." Another woman in reply to a similar question said, "Afraid? No. I'm armed. Look here," and she drew a knife from her pocket. She further declared, "I'm not the only one armed. There's plenty more carry knives now."
The Pall Mall Gazette from the same day tells an equally sad story of the plight of the women in the district:
While the visible excitement over the murders actually perpetrated is dying down somewhat, the dread of the mysterious murderer is deepening. Upon the unhappy class of women from whom the victims have thus far been taken the effect has been profound, as was to have been expected. Pathetic in the extreme, says the Daily News reporter, are some of the stories that one heard from those whose benevolent efforts are directed to the reclamation of these unhappy women, especially of those who try to reform when they have got on a little beyond their young womanhood. Said a young missionary woman last evening:--
The terrible difficulty we have to encounter is that of trying to find them work. We had last year a very touching case of a woman who seemed sincerely desirous of amending, but who was over the age at which they are usually admitted to homes. After a great deal of difficulty, we found an opening for her, and she went to the home; but some of these places, I am afraid, are managed too rigorously, and the matrons of them are sometimes wanting in sympathy with their inmates, who find it extremely difficult to submit to the discipline. It was the case with this woman. She found the discipline of this place more than she could endure, and she left, but she came to use again, and still seemed sick and weary of the wretched life she led. If she could only find something to do she really would try, but of the "Home" she seemed to have a positive horror. We could find her no work, and she tried charring and washing, and I believe did her earnest best to maintain herself that way. But it was gradual starvation; often we found she was whole days without a bit of food; and those she lived with say that only at the last extremity did she allow herself to be driven again to her old courses. I am afraid, however, she drifted back, but still she would come to our meetings, and would borrow from our library books that you would never imagine she would care to read. She came to a meeting one Tuesday night ill, and scarcely able to stand, and on Thursday she died. The woman who looks after these mission rooms (continued the speaker), was another of the same class, and she used to be an associate of the poor creature murdered in Berner-street. She saw her only last Thursday, and she--that is, the murdered woman--said then that she felt she was coming to some bad end.
They didn't really have a choice. So long as the Ripper didn't have his knife out and a homicidal look in his eye, they'd have followed him anywhere for those few pennies that equalled a bed, a breakfast or a beer for them.
JPR and the rest,
Obviously you haven't read some of the posts that were made regarding Sickert and Cornwell on the old message boards.
Needless to say the bashing of Cornwell got so bad at one point that some people actually defended her because they felt we had gone too far (me being one of the primary offenders).
I give her only the credit that she is due: she spent a lot of money, found a lot of a good biographical material on Sickert, and next to no evidence that he had anything to do with the Ripper killings.
She did "bring Ripperology into the 21st century" as I stated before, but her conclusions were based on non-conclusive evidence.
Despite Richard's belief that anyone living in Europe in 1888 could have been the Ripper, most people here agree that Sickert is an extremely unlikely candidate, akin to Prince Albert or the Queen herself.
B
|
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 77
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 3:36 pm: | |
Hi Brian,
I'm not suggesting that these poor women had a choice.
The point I'm trying to make, is that they would have been more than happy to take a regular-looking punter to a quiet spot. But not someone who was behaving in a bizarre manner, or someone who was obviously violent/aggressive.
It is my own theory, but I'm standing by it. I'm personally convinced that our Jack must have seemed like a 'regular' customer. Mind, this doesn't make him prince charming. Shabby looking, and drunk was fine, I'm sure. But not crazy/ aggressive.
Paul, always nice to meet a kindred spirit. I do tend to agree with you.
I personally don't favour Kosminski, or characters of that ilk. My reason being:
1) It doesn't match the Lawende sighting of Eddowes talking quietly with her killer.
2) I don't think Mary would have taken someone like that back to her room. Drunk carrotty man, yes. Raving lunatic, no.
These women were most likely drunk themselves, and desperate. But I don't think we can discount the survival instinct here. And that's why I quoted Mrs Kennedy's statements. |
Robert Charles Linford
Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 25
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 5:03 pm: | |
Hallo everyone
I'm not sure the Ripper had to seem all that charming. Nichols was dead drunk, so her judgement was impaired. Chapman might have thought that anyone who wasn't obviously Leather Apron was OK. Stride may not have been a Ripper victim. And Kelly may have been killed by an intruder. That just leaves Eddowes.
Brian, I agree with you about the women being desperate and everything - I seem to remember some quote "It's either him, or the river" - but I've always wondered why Eddowes was so eager to leave her police cell - probably a lot warmer than the street. Did they end up in court if they weren't out by a certain time?
Robert
|
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 79
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 5:49 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
I don't think Kelly could have been killed by an intruder. How does this work with her door being locked? Unless the killer knew you had to reach in through the window.
After much consideration, I don't think Stride was a Ripper victim, at all.
But just to clarify again: I'm not saying Jack had to be charming. He could have been, but it certainly wasn't a requirement.
As I stated, a drunken and shabby punter was fine, I've no doubt. But I don't think Jack could have been obviously aggressive, crazy, or have a threatening manner.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 27
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 6:33 pm: | |
Hi Marie
Yes, I agree Jack couldn't have looked like a Jawa (I've learnt a new word now!)
My reasons for thinking Kelly may have been killed by an intruder (I'm not sure about it - I'm not sure about anything) are, the clothes folded on the chair and the stab marks in the sheet.
I'm terminally confused about Kelly's door. Maybe someone else had the key, or a duplicate. Maybe Kelly found the key but didn't lock the door. Maybe someone knew about the business with the window. I just can't visualise how the door worked. I'd have more chance of solving Rubik's cube than understanding Kelly's door.
Robert |
Paul Gibson
Police Constable
Username: Rupertbear
Post Number: 5
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 4:31 am: | |
Hi again all,
I think we must credit Ms Cornwell for inspiring some decent meaningful debate!
From a very narrow starting base of trying to determine what the overall feeling about her book was, we are now on to questioning whether or not Stride was a victim and why Eddowes was so keen to get out of jail.
The only reason I brought Eddowes into the conversation was to refute Ms. Cornwell's assertion that Eddowes must have abruptly and for no apparent reason changed direction to have ended up in Mitre Square. I don't personally subscribe to the rather fanciful notion that she had a rendezvous arranged with Jack but I can assure everybody that if you wanted to get from Bishopsgate police station to Mitre Square, you would go down Houndstitch and head into Church (Now St. James's) passage. However, I think it more likely that she encountered Jack at the west end of Aldgate High Street and he suggested Mitre Square.
Interesting to hear people dismissing Stride as a victim...I have no particular leaning either way, but I would like to lay to rest the ridiculous suggestion that I've read in some accounts that Jack couldn't possibly have done both. I've paced this out a couple of times and made allowances for the fact that I had to allow extra time to cross busy roads. The question is more a case of, if he did do both, what did he do in between killing Stride and Eddowes? As Ivor Edwards suggests, it is perfectly possible that he popped back to a lair to change his appearance - he would have had a good 15 or 20 minutes to spare. |
Paul Gibson
Police Constable
Username: Rupertbear
Post Number: 6
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 7:38 am: | |
Brian,
I forgot to add my thanks for posting those extracts, they do make interesting reading.
However, I would like to weigh-in with my new kindred spirit (Marie) on this one. The nub of the articles is "Ladies, are you really willing to work the streets knowing that there is a homicidal maniac out there?" It would be an entirely different proposition to say "Ladies, we believe that Jack The Ripper is aged between 30 and 40 is of above average height and conceals his knife in the inside pocket of a trench coat -Are you really willing to risk your lives by going into a dark corner with a man fitting this description?"
"Oh, yes guvnor, I'm so desperate that I have no choice. Its either going to be Jack or the river for me!!"
It's similar for me risking my neck crossing the road at the junction of Cannon Street and Queen Victoria Street. If I heard that there was a particularly high pedestrian mortality rate at this junction, I would continue to cross there. But if I was told that a substantial proportion of the fatalities were hit by taxis, I would think twice about runing out in front of a black cab.
Robert,
Sorry to make a harsh judgment on your first couple of assertions, but I doubt whether Polly Nichols would have thought twice if she were sobre, there was no murderous epidemic for her to worry about. By all accounts, Dark Annie was so unwell, she would have done anything to get her doss money.
Eddowes is the real interesting victim in all this and I stick by my rather simplistic assertion that she would not have rushed into Mitre Square with a Jewish man of Eastern European appearance. I am therefore happy to discount Chapman and Kosminski.
Paul
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 105
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 1:30 pm: | |
Hi Paul.
I think we can safely assume that Eddowes would not have gone into Mitre Square with anyone.
The fact is she was not known as a prostitute,she was very happy with her partner Kelly.
The only reason that she may have entered the square, was if she believed the man that had accosted her was being observed by a police officer, and would move in if her life was in any danger, unfortunetly the rest is history....
Richard. |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 82
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 3:36 pm: | |
Hi Robert, you posted: "I'd have more chance of solving Rubik's cube than understanding Kelly's door."
I hated my Rubiks cube. If I remember correctly, I threw the dastardly thing out in frustration.
My guess (I could easily be wrong)- is that Kelly's door locked automatically, when it was shut. So she wouldn't need a key to lock it when she left, but would need a key to get in. So it worked out well that the window was broken, enabling her to unlock it from the outside, without a key.
But this means that an intruder couldn't gain access to her room while she was asleep, or out. Unless they knew to reach in through the window, or had a key.
The clothes folded on the chair don't present much of a mystery for me, wasn't she supposed to be very tidy by nature?
The stab marks on the sheet have always interested me. My pet theory is that her killer had pulled the sheets over her face, either in play, or to momentarily blind her- before he killed her. He may have kept his coat on, while she undressed, and lay down in bed. Perhaps he asked her to undress for him. This way he could conceal his knife until the last minute.
Hi Richard, I'm not so sure that Eddowes would have gone into Mitre Square with anyone. Lawende stated that he saw her talking quietly with a man (most likely her killer), and he stated that he felt he had to reason to be afraid of them. This tells me that *she* wasn't afraid of the man she was with, and that he must have therefore seemed non-threatening. Otherwise she would have screamed, or tried to get away.
Also, Lawende's description of the man is that he was fair skinned.
I'm not sure what you mean by this statement: "if she believed the man that had accosted her was being observed by a police officer". I would have to argue against Eddowes being part of any set-up to capture Jack.
Paul Gibson (kindred spirit): regarding Stride, having read 'Jack The Myth', I've begun to think that perhaps she was the victim of a domestic dispute murder.
After all, I don't believe Jack was the only 'killer' around. Women had to deal with abusive partners, assaults from strangers on the street, and roving gangs who liked to rob and beat prostitutes. Isn't it true that most women are killed by men that they know? I'm sure that held as true in Victorian times, as it does now.
But I do agree with you that Jack certainly *could* have killed Stride and Eddowes, in the time that he had. And I'm sure that he would have wanted to change his clothes, and get cleaned up in between.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
