|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| |
Thread |
Last Poster |
Posts |
Pages |
Last Post |
  | Archive through May 07, 2003 | Scott Medine | 25 | 1 | 5-07-03 8:42 pm |
| |
 Closed: New threads not accepted on this page |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 295
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 11:35 pm: | 
|
G'day Scott,
A person with a disability in the Victorian era who was treated with 'little dignity' and seen as a 'freak', may have had a grudge against society!
LEANNE
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 151
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 3:19 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
Regarding Barnett being the number 1 suspect, I cannot understand why there is so much disagreement on this.
We have a sighting at 10am that morning By Maurice lewis of Kelly with Barnett, so if that statement is true, one of two possibilities arise.
a] she was stiil alive at that point, in which case Barnett was the last person to have been seen with her.
b] she was not the victim in Millers court.
And lets not forget the statements of Mrs Maxwell, and the woman called Goode.
So as we have three people who claimed to have seen Kelly on the morning of the 9th, Lewis said he had known Kelly for about 4 years, We must take some credence to the witnesses.
Regarding the abortion idea, it may sound far fetched , but entirely possible , if you put together reports from that evening, also my point Caz, as you are assuming that the victim cannot have been pregnant , as Doctor Bond did not mention it, I put it to you one of two options are possible.
a]He noticed traces of pregnancy , but did not make it public,
b] because of the extensive mutalation, that fact was overlooked.
To answer point A.
The whitechapel murders were a shock to victorian society, the name put a chill in every citizen, the revulsion of these murders were shocking enough, therefore to make puplic every sordid detail[ an expression widely used at that time] would have been utterly distastful.
To answer point b.
If Millers court was the result of a bungled abortionist, and he deliberately mutulated the corpse in order to protect himself and Kelly , then surely all the tell tell signs of the victims pregnancy would have been distroyed.
And finally to sum up, reports at the time were that the millers court victim . who everybody assumed was poor Mary Kelly. was up to 3 months pregnant, and this belief was still circulating until recent years,
Question,
Why was that widely assumed ?.
I realize that rumours circulate fast,but I feel that people believed at the time , that the victim was pregnant, therfore the abortion theory is entirely plausible.
Name any suspect that was reported talking with a victim close to her death, I cannot Except BARNETT.
Regards Richard
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 55
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 4:48 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
You wrote:
There would have been hundreds, maybe thousands of men who hated prostitution and their 'wives' resorting to it. Many accepted it, because they needed the money.
Absolutely - couldn't agree more. Men who are unhappy about their partners' lifestyles are two a penny.
There must have been thousands of potential Jack the Rippers!
I couldn't agree less. Men who could even consider the systematic murder and mutilation of women as a way of dealing with their unhappiness are as rare as rare can be.
Where do we start?
Where the police started - with Joe Barnett. They had him there and they let him go. Maybe they got it horribly wrong, but maybe they didn't.
Hi Richard,
You say I am assuming that the victim cannot have been pregnant, as Doctor Bond did not mention it.
Wrong on both counts, I'm afraid. I dislike 'assuming' anything, which is why I was careful to write 'no signs' that Mary was pregnant, as opposed to 'cannot' have been. From Dr. Bond's report (details on page 46 of the A-Z) it is clear that her uterus had been removed but was not 'stolen' from the scene, 'nor apparently gravid', which translates as 'nor did it show any signs of a pregnancy'.
So no, Bond didn't notice 'traces of pregnancy' which he chose not to make public, nor were any 'overlooked' due to the extensive mutilation. He examined the uterus, found no sign of a pregnancy and put this in a report that was not for public consumption anyway.
Love,
Caz
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 152
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 4:08 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
Why would Dr Bond, look for signs of pregnancy, he would have simply observed the body, and observed that she was beyond help[ a obvious observation]. and noted the cause of death as massive blood loss, caused by multiple injuries.
Why would he examine the uterus?.
Richard. |
Scott Medine
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 86
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 8:23 pm: |
|
Yes, Leanne he may have. But it is highly unlikely he would have held a decent job where he had some standing and he would.
Peace,
Scott |
Alexander Chisholm
Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 16
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 9:59 pm: |
|
Hi Richard
You’ve stated a couple of times that Maurice Lewis claimed to have seen Barnett with Kelly around 10 o’clock on the morning of Nov. 9, and I was wondering if you could provide the source of this claim.
As far as I’m aware, while Lewis was ‘positive’ that he had seen Kelly ‘with some other people’ around this time in ‘Ringer’s,’ he was “not certain whether there was a man amongst them.” (IPN 17 Nov. 1888)
Best wishes
alex
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 58
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 2:24 am: |
|
Hi Richard,
You asked me: 'Why would he examine the uterus?'
I don't know - perhaps he didn't. Perhaps he lied in a private report about what he did or didn't examine and what he did or didn't find. Perhaps his report has been fabricated by modern hoaxers. Perhaps Dr. Bond was really Dr. No, who didn't know his gravid uteri from his vas deferens. The
permutations are endless when you have enough imagination. Go for it. 
Be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater though.
Have a great weekend everyone.
Love,
Caz
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 154
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 5:53 am: |
|
Hi Alex,
The reference came from the times 10th Nov 88, top right hand paragraph page 7.
quote; A tailor named Lewis, said he saw Kelly come out about 8am [her room] and go back,
Another statement is to the effect, that kelly was seen in a public house known as the Ringers, at the corner of Dorset street and commercial street about 10am yesterday morning,and that she there met her lover Barnett, and had a glass of beer with him. This statement is not substanciated.
The statement above does not actually name Lewis as the witness, but other reports as you have said mention him seeing her in the pub at 10am, the reports proberly came from the same source.
Richard.
|
Alexander Chisholm
Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 17
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 8:34 am: |
|
Hi Richard
Thanks for the reference. You saved me from spending hours looking for it.
I have copies of the Times, but didn’t recall this report. I suppose I must have discounted it as, at best, a hopeless confusion of Lewis’ actual claims.
Best Wishes
alex
|
Monty
Sergeant
Username: Monty
Post Number: 37
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 11:31 am: |
|
Scott,
Sorry, but my E-mail has gone to pot !!!
Trigger....have you a trigger ? Some catastrophic event in this persons life that sparks these murders ?
Pre crime stressor ??....is that what Im on about ??
Or have I been reading to much Joel Norris ??
I can think of one....a recent contemporary event.....if there is such a thing !!
Monty
 |
Monty
Sergeant
Username: Monty
Post Number: 39
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 11:52 am: |
|
Scott,
I feel Jack knows the sites. There is a connection (even with Strides). A reason to be there. Im sure you have taken this on board but it all boils down to if Jack was lead by his victims or he took control.
I shall mail you my views (which may be of no use) when my bleedin E-mail $h*t is sorted.
Parlez vous my francais 
Monty
|
Scott Medine
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 88
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 10:10 am: |
|
Monty,
I feel that Stride is a victim, I just don't have anything actually pointing to her being one other than mere conjecture and gut feeling. In this case, the absence of post mortem mutilations or the attempted mutilations are the problem. Just because they are not there does not mean that she is not a victim.
It is possible that the killer was disturbed before he could apply his signature. The killer was disturbed in the Tabram and Nichols killings. It's just that he may have been disturbed much sooner in Stride's killing. If Dimshul...Dimshult....alphabet... would have been a minute later we would have more evidence. However, it is evident that if Stride is concluisvely a Ripper victim, then the killer could have been under a lot of stress that day, as this is the only time a double murder took place. Apparently, Eddowes caught his full fury that night.
Of the five canonical, Stride is the hardest to make the case for.
Peace,
Scott |
Monty
Sergeant
Username: Monty
Post Number: 40
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 11:39 am: |
|
Scott,
Quite.
Have you taken in Schwartz's incident?
Does it work for or against ??
A witness statement is dodgy ground I know.
Also its a hell of a busy place to commit a murder. A quiet row when all are asleep, Yard of a house when, again, most are slumbering, then BANG..........in a yard next to one of the busiest boozers in that area.
I cant figure that.
Monty
|
Scott Medine
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 92
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 1:12 pm: |
|
I'm going to look at Stride again this weekend. I am going to lay out everything on a table and look at everything. Schwarts's statement is confusing as hell. It is the most confusing of the bunch. The Long vs. Cadoche statements are nothing compared to Schwartz.
As I have told you through e-mail, it is Packer that interests me and for the reasons that we spoke of and this has caused me to fall into a trap. Because I cannot get Packer and a certain suspect out of my mind when I look at the Stride incident. I find myself trying to plug the holes in the evidence with conjecture formulated around this suspect. And, when I do that, I find myself saying that Packer saw the killer and the killer is such and such.
Peace,
Scott |
Alan Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 8:52 am: |
|
The question at the start of this thread is "Who were the main suspects?"
Well at the time there was only ONE person named in official Home Office memoranda as being a suspect.
This same person's family home was raided by police on the very day of the discovery at Millers Court.
This same person had been incarcerated for murdering his wife by stabbing her in the throat.
Despite this students of the case almost completely ignore James Kelly as a modern day suspect.
A collective blind eye is turned towards this man whose official H.O. files are STILL closed to the public.
James Kelly WAS a main, if not the main suspect whether he is in vogue with posters on these boards or not.
Alan |
Monty
Sergeant
Username: Monty
Post Number: 46
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 11:56 am: |
|
Scott,
Ive mailed you.
Alan,
Hey he is up there for me. Far higher than Barnett and Sickert.
There is none so blind as them wont dont listen !......Del Boy
Monty
 |
Alan Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 12:06 pm: |
|
Monty,
Sorry I've been out of the country for a week or so (Just like Sickert at the time of the murders I suppose). Does any one know of any reason why Kelly's files would be such a secret? Ive asked this question before and I'm not looking for some sinister or all revealing answer. Just that I dont know what criteria officialdom uses in deciding what the public are better off not knowing.
Alan |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 366
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 03, 2003 - 9:51 am: |
|
G'day,
And I too, have been out of the country for 10 nights/11 days!
RICHARD: 'The Illustrated Police News', 17 November, said of Maurice Lewis: 'He saw her on the previous night, (the night of the 7th), between ten and eleven at the Horn Of Plenty in Dorset Street. She was drinking with some woman and also with "Dan", a man selling oranges in Billingsgate and Spitalfields Markets, with whom she lived up till as recently as a fortnight ago.' I'd say Lewis was confusing Joseph Barnett with his brother Daniel Barnett, who also had fair hair and blue eyes, and worked at Billingsgate.
When Lewis spoke to the 'Times' reporter on the 10th, he said that he saw 'Kelly come out about 8 o'clock yesterday morning'. I'd say that he meant 8am on Thursday the 8th, not Friday the 9th.
If Mary Kelly was pregnant and the victim of an abortionist who wanted to destroy all signs of her pregnancy, why didn't he take away her uterus or at least throw it onto the fire?
Then he would have to hope that she hadn't told anybody!
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 372
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 04, 2003 - 8:44 pm: |
|
G'day,
Thomas Bowyer told Mary Kelly's inquest: 'I last saw deceased alive on Wednesday afternoon in the court.'
It was reported on the 10th of November, the day after her body was found, that John McCarthy had seen Kelly: 'At eleven o'clock last night, (the 8th), she was seen in the Britania public house...'
John McCarthy made no reference to this reported sighting to the police nor to the jury at her inquest, so should we be trusting all the statements that appeared in the newspapers?
LEANNE |
Stan Russo
Police Constable
Username: Stan
Post Number: 1
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 11:50 am: |
|
Hello all,
Long time since I have posted.
This thread is in my opinion extremely negative toward the case. "MAIN SUSPECTS"?????????
That is a riddle that only opinions regarding the case can answer.
If you believe that 'JTR' was a psychopathic madman loner then Kosminski/Cohen/Kaminsky could be the main suspect.
If you favor a doctor theory then Westcott, Gull, or 'DR. Stanley' is the main suspect.
If you believe in a conspiracy within the Royal family then Sickert, Stephen, Gull, Netley, etc. are the main suspects.
If you believe that 'JTR' was simply a devious criminal then James Kelly, Bury, Klosowski, Ostrog are your main suspects.
And if the Ripper was a nobody then Buchan or Druitt are you main suspects.
The major problem that is missed is that there is a lack of evidence for and or against any of these suspects as being 'JTR'. I see too many posts regarding how bad Sickert is as a suspect because of Cornwell's book, which obviously does not further the case against Sickert. By that standard Druitt should be cleared because MacNaghten botched his case against Druitt, committing way more factual erros about Druitt than Cornwell provided regarding Sickert.
The Royal Conspiracy outlined by Stephen Knight has been disproved as a theory, yet far too many researchers tend to dismiss the individuals mentioned as "cleared" of being a suspect, based upon one disproved theory. Please show me the documentation that John Netley is completely innocent of committing the murders on his own. Then I will wholeheartedly clear his name as a suspect.
M. J. Trow showed that almost anyone in the area may be considered a suspect, while attempting to prove a point. I believe he proved a valuable point, that until direct evidence is shown that irrefutably shows a suspect could not have committed the murders, then they shall remain a suspect.
This above does not suggest that flimsy cases should be made against everyone who was in London at the time of the murders, but merely that if someone has been named as a suspect, they should not be thoroughly dismissed because someone does not like the theory regarding their inclusion as a suspect.
"MAIN SUSPECTS" is a state of mind. There is only one "MAIN SUSPECT", 'Jack the Ripper'. But there are a number of people who could possibly have been 'JTR', most of which have not even been named yet.
STAN |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 6:58 am: |
|
Stan wrote:
>That is a riddle that only opinions regarding the case can answer.
Stan, a very reasonable response to an unanswerable question. But then, do you mean that all the Ripper books and articles, and all the discussions on Casebook are just an exercise in futility, and in all liklihood will always remain an exercise in futility?
After 116 years, everyone has to admit that no hard evidence conclusively linking any one of the murders to any one of the suspects either turned up in 1888, or has ever turned up since. If we in 2004 are going to demand in the Jack The Ripper Case the same standards of hard evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt that we apply today in contemporary cases of serial murderers, then any continued pursuit of the killer is indeed a waste of time.
In the absence of quantifiable scientific results that unequivocably prove X was the killer of A, B, C, D, & E, I have asked myself what kind of proof would convince me that X was the killer. No one today can reasonably expect proof beyond a shadow of a doubt.
The arguments I've read for nearly every suspect include numerous instances of "And so, it is very likely that..." Comparing this crime with one's expectations is demonstrably silly; and the silliest manifestation of this kind of mentality is the criminal profile. Does anyone recall the profile of the Ohklahoma City Bomber that law enforcement was circulating immediately after the explosion before Timothy McVeight accidentally landed in the lap of law enforcement? Does anyone recall the cable news experts' profiles of the DC sniper before Muhammed and Malvo were found sleeping at a truckstop? Profiles of Jack based on Son of Sam, OJ, or Jeffrey Dahmer are just as foolish. No one today will ever be convinced by such profiles.
So what is a realistic hope in the case of Jack The Ripper? In my opinion, what is still possible to demonstrate today, based on the known available evidence, is that at least one suspect had a documented interest in the Whitechapel murders that lasted from 1888 until his death in 1942 and in my opinion it bordered on obsession. Moreover, that suspect deliberately and repeatedly lied about his involvement in the Jack The Ripper Case. He had a credible motive, although not a definite motive. He had opportunity, despite specious claims by some today that he had an alibi. And after he had escaped justice for decades, he suddenly faced death from a stroke. Then, he fashioned an enigmatic confession, leaving a phoney religious cover story for posterity to protect his well-deserved reputation as a serious artist (justifying his actions by claiming he was only a religious nut following God's orders.) His name was Walter Sickert. I can't say exactly whom he murdered -- out of all the potential victims among the canonical 5, plus possibly some before and some after. But now I'm sure he was indeed a murderer, a ripper.
Regards,
Mark Starr
|
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 12:22 pm: |
|
Stan wrote:
>That is a riddle that only opinions regarding the case can answer.
Stan, a very reasonable response to an unanswerable question. But then, do you mean that all the Ripper books and articles, and all the discussions on Casebook are just an exercise in futility, and in all liklihood will always remain an exercise in futility?
After 116 years, everyone has to admit that no hard evidence conclusively linking any one of the murders to any one of the suspects either turned up in 1888, or has ever turned up since. If we in 2004 are going to demand in the Jack The Ripper Case the same standards of hard evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt that we apply today in contemporary cases of serial murderers, then any continued pursuit of the killer is indeed a waste of time.
In the absence of quantifiable scientific results that unequivocably prove X was the killer of A, B, C, D, & E, I have asked myself what kind of proof would convince me that X was the killer. No one today can reasonably expect proof beyond a shadow of a doubt.
The arguments I've read for nearly every suspect include numerous instances of "And so, it is very likely that..." Comparing this crime with one's expectations is demonstrably silly; and the silliest manifestation of this kind of mentality is the criminal profile. Does anyone recall the profile of the Ohklahoma City Bomber that law enforcement was circulating immediately after the explosion before Timothy McVeight accidentally landed in the lap of law enforcement? Does anyone recall the cable news experts' profiles of the DC sniper before Muhammed and Malvo were found sleeping at a truckstop? Profiles of Jack based on Son of Sam, OJ, or Jeffrey Dahmer are just as foolish. No one today will ever be convinced by such profiles.
So what is a realistic hope in the case of Jack The Ripper? In my opinion, what is still possible to demonstrate today, based on the known available evidence, is that at least one suspect had a documented interest in the Whitechapel murders that lasted from 1888 until his death in 1942 and in my opinion it bordered on obsession. Moreover, that suspect deliberately and repeatedly lied about his involvement in the Jack The Ripper Case. He had a credible motive, although not a definite motive. He had opportunity, despite specious claims by some today that he had an alibi. And after he had escaped justice for decades, he suddenly faced death from a stroke. Then, he fashioned an enigmatic confession, leaving a phoney religious cover story for posterity to protect his well-deserved reputation as a serious artist (justifying his actions by claiming he was only a religious nut following God's orders.) His name was Walter Sickert. I can't say exactly whom he murdered -- out of all the potential victims among the canonical 5, plus possibly some before and some after. But now I'm sure he was indeed a murderer, a ripper.
Regards,
Mark Starr
|
Michael Raney
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 104
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 5:17 pm: |
|
Mark,
What do you consider his credible motive? No one says that he has an alibi necessarily, we just say he was even in the country. Do you believe the canonical 5 were murdered by different hands? Just curious, not arguing at all with any of your conclusions.
Mikey |
Cameron Anetsky
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 6:10 pm: |
|
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=69073#POST69073
I'm going to jump in here and toss out a couple of theories.
1. Physicians of the time period would have known a pregnancy from approximately 12-14 weeks, as until that time, the uterus shows little outward signs of gravidity. It is entirely likely that Dr. Bond merely examined the outside of the organ, and noticing no expansion, noted she was not pregnant.
2. There was a witness who said she saw Jack the Ripper named Elizabeth Long. I've often wondered if Liz Stride was killed differently because Jack mistook her nickname as "Long Liz" for that of Elizabeth Long, the one witness to see him clearly.
Just my 2 pence... |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 12:41 am: |
|
Hello Mikey,
In my opinion, Walter Sickert had two motives to committ the Whitechapel. The first I find credible. The second was a ruse.
The first is the trauma Sickert endured in the three childhood operations for his fistula. Whether the fistula was on his penis, as Cornwell states, or on his anus, as some in Casebook argue, is not the point. A trauma of that severity, at that young age is a credible reason for a trigger to set off psychotic conditions to which a person might be psychologically or geneticly predisposed. If Corwell was right in her additional claims about the fistula being placed on his penis and his subsequent sexual dysfunction, this reason becomes even stronger. But even if Sickert's fistula was on his rectum; and he could have an erection; and he could perform normal sex; and he was a womanizer; and he fathered some illegitimate children -- that still does not negate the trauma of the three childhood operations.
Coincidentally, just two days ago, I saw a TV documentary on the Green River serial killer in the Seattle area. The program contains many filmed interviews with the killer by police, psychologists and psychiatrists. What I found most revealing was the banality and pettiness of the killer's reasons each time he was asked why he killed a particular woman. Things that would never bother you or me were enough to set him off in a homicidal rage against all women in general and against prostitutes in particular. And, as his defense attorney said convincingly, this killer -- despite all his violent murders -- was a human being with many sides. He was also a loving family man, a hard worker, and an intelligent and articulate individual. He might as well have been talking about Sickert.
The second motive, which I have written about extensively in Casebook, was a ruse that Sickert cooked up after he suffered a near fatal stroke at the age of 67. The ruse was a justification or excuse for his murders in the form of a religious cover story to protect his reputation as an artist of historical significance for posterity -- in the event that evidence linking him to the Whitechapel Murders was ever discovered after his death. Sickert perpetrated this ruse in three paintings with religious titles painted consecutively after he survived his stroke. The meaning of these three paintings is: "Yes, I did it -- but I was only following God's orders, in order to save mankind." Every aspect of these three paintings is a lie.
Regards,
Mark Starr
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 181
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 6:38 pm: |
|
Hi Mark,
You wrote:
“…and the silliest manifestation of this kind of mentality is the criminal profile. Does anyone recall the profile of the Ohklahoma City Bomber that law enforcement was circulating immediately after the explosion before Timothy McVeight accidentally landed in the lap of law enforcement? Does anyone recall the cable news experts' profiles of the DC sniper before Muhammed and Malvo were found sleeping at a truckstop? Profiles of Jack based on Son of Sam, OJ, or Jeffrey Dahmer are just as foolish. No one today will ever be convinced by such profiles.”
“The first is the trauma Sickert endured in the three childhood operations for his fistula. Whether the fistula was on his penis, as Cornwell states, or on his anus, as some in Casebook argue, is not the point. A trauma of that severity, at that young age is a credible reason for a trigger to set off psychotic conditions to which a person might be psychologically or geneticly predisposed. If Corwell was right in her additional claims about the fistula being placed on his penis and his subsequent sexual dysfunction, this reason becomes even stronger.
Coincidentally, just two days ago, I saw a TV documentary on the Green River serial killer in the Seattle area. The program contains many filmed interviews with the killer by police, psychologists and psychiatrists. What I found most revealing was the banality and pettiness of the killer's reasons each time he was asked why he killed a particular woman. Things that would never bother you or me were enough to set him off in a homicidal rage against all women in general and against prostitutes in particular. And, as his defense attorney said convincingly, this killer -- despite all his violent murders -- was a human being with many sides. He was also a loving family man, a hard worker, and an intelligent and articulate individual. He might as well have been talking about Sickert.”
It looks like you’re first trying to establish Sickert could have suffered from psychotic conditions, for which the seeds were sown during the three childhood operations, and then you’re comparing characteristics of the Green River killer with the person you believe to have been the Ripper. Isn’t that a bit like criminal profiling?
“Moreover, that suspect deliberately and repeatedly lied about his involvement in the Jack The Ripper Case.”
How do you know he was lying?
All the best,
Frank
|
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 4:47 am: |
|
Michael Raney wrote:
"No one says that he has an alibi necessarily, we just say he was even in the country."
On the contrary, lots of posters on Casebook claim Sickert has an alibi because he wasn't even in the country. However, there is no factual case whatsoever for a claim of alibi in France for Walter Sickert.
First of all, we are not dealing here with a closed universe of crimes. There is no proof, only speculation, that all five of the Whitechapel Murders were committed by one man, Jack The Ripper. On the contrary, many serious investigators claim that Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were not slain by Jack in the Double Event. Others claim that Mary Kelley was not slain by Jack. And there is no proof, only speculation, that Jack The Ripper killed only the five canonical victims in Whitechapel. On the contrary, Jack is a serious suspect in the eyes of many in at least six murders and perhaps as many as the combined total of 18 who are listed as victims on Casebook.
Consequently, even if Sickert were factually eliminated as a possible suspect in one or even several of these murders, that would still not prove Sickert couldn't possibly have been Jack The Ripper. So even before I examine the separate claims of alibi, it is obvious that the premise for any claim of alibi for Walter Sickert is fundamentally flawed -- unless it can document that Sickert was in France at the exact moment each and every one of these crimes was committed in London.
If you claim that Walter Sickert could not have been Jack The Ripper, and it is not known today exactly which women Jack The Ripper killed, then you cannot pick and choose your victims to fit your alibi theory. Walter Sickert may well have killed some of the canonical Whitechapel victims and some of the other victims, and have been Jack The Ripper. Or Walter Sickert may well have killed some of the Whitechapel victims, and some of the other victims, and someone else was Jack The Ripper.
Matthew Sturgis, a biographer of Sickert, started the alibi ball rolling with an article in the Sunday Times in Nov. 2003. However, his evidence is either full of holes or inadmissably vague. For reasons of conciseness and convenience, I will use Stephen Ryder's resumé of Sturgis' evidence in the article "Patricia Cornwell and Walter Sickert: A Primer" on Casebook; and also a post by Wolf Vanderline on Jan 30.
Exhibit 1:
"According to Sturgis, although the exact date Sickert left for France can not be determined, he apparently departed sometime in mid-August. His last London sketch is dated August 4th, and there are no sources to indicate that he was in London after that date."
This is a perfect example of the specious logic on which Sturgis built his alibi house of cards. He says that Sickert's last sketch is dated Aug. 4, and there are no sources documenting that he was in London after that date. Sturgis then claims that the lack of sources documenting that Sickert was in London means that Sickert departed London in mid-August. A non sequitur, if there ever was one! What if Sickert had been working on an oil painting (which usually took him several months to paint)? There would be no entry dates on the painting if he had not finished it. Because Sturgis could not find any sources documenting that Sickert was in London after that date, therefore Sturgis maintains that Sickert was not in London after that date. This is patent nonsense. No one, not Sturgis nor any of the alibi claimants, can prove that Walter Sickert left London for France in August, 1888.
Sturgis' claim that no documents show Sickert was in London after August 4 is also factually false. Cornwell repudiates Sturgis' claim with her own research. In her book, she states: "Dates in Sickert's handwriting on music hall sketches prove that in 1888, [Sickert] was in London from February 4 through March "and after", in his words, and including in the spring, on May 25, and at some point during June, July, August, September and October." The fact that Sickert was definitely in London at times during August, September and October is suffient evidence to totally demolish any claims that Sickert could not have traveled back and forth to France.
Exhibit 2:
There is a letter by Sickert, written in France some time in the autumn of 1888. It is undated. No envelope with a postmark survivies. So while I will concede that this letter does document that Sickert was indeed in France during the autumn of 1888, the letter does not say when he was France; the letter does not say for how long he was in France; the letter does not say where he was in France; the letter does not say if he traveled back to England, even briefly, during his stay in France. So by itself, this letter only serves to document that Sickert traveled to France in the autumn of 1888 at least once, but no one knows when he returned to London..
Exhibit 3:
On September 6th, Sickert's mother wrote from St. Valéry-en-Caux, describing how Walter and his brother Bernhard were having such a "happy time" swimming and painting there.
Accepting this letter on its face value, Sickert must have been in St. Valery-en-Caux on or before Sept. 6. (Of course, Sickert's mom could have gotten the date wrong, but I will let that slide.) Sickert's mother did not say in her letter when Walter arrived in St. Valery-en-Caux. She did not say on what day (or days) he and his brother were swimming and painting. She did not mention how long he had been staying there. So, this letter does not eliminate Walter Sickert as a suspect in the murder of Polly Nichols in London on August 31. Moreover, Sickert's mother did not say on Sept. 6 if Walter would be leaving St. Valery-en-Caux soon, possibly for Dieppe -- where he often stayed. He could have left on the 7th, been in London on the 8th, killed Annie Chapman during the night, and have returned on the ferry to Dieppe by the 9th. Such a trip was not only easy, quick and cheap, it would provide a perfect cover for anyone so clever as Jack The Ripper or Walter Sickert.
What neither Stephen Ryder nor Wolf Vanderline point out is another letter, mentioned in Cornwell, in which Sickert's mother claimed she never knew when her son would suddenly go to France or suddenly come back. Cornwell also states "Crossing the English Channel could take as little as four hours in good weather. One could travel by express train and "fast" steamer seven days a week, twice daily, with the trains leaving Victoria Station at 10:30 in the morning or London Bridge at 10:45. The steamer sailed out of Newhaven at 12:45 pm and arrived in Dieppe around dinner. A single, one-way first-class ticket to Dieppe was 24 shillings, second class was 17 shillings." Cornwell also documents that "In the late 19th Century, passports, visas, and other forms of identification were not required to travel on the Continent."
Exhibit 4
"A letter sent by a French painter, Jacques-Emile Blanche, to his father described a visit with Sickert on September 16th."
It was not until Sept 30 that the next murders took place in Whitechapel: the Double Event. So Sickert's visit to Blanche on the 16th does not remotely conflict with the Double Event. A time-gap of two weeks in an alibi is rubbish.
Exhibit 5
"There is a letter dated 21 September from Sickert's wife, who stayed in London, to her brother-in-law in which she states that Sickert was in France and had been "for some weeks with his people," i.e. his family."
On vagueness alone, this letter has no factual significance. Moreover, Sickert's wife Ellen knew only what she was told by Walter -- whom Ellen would eventually divorce because of his infidelities, lying and absenteeism. She had no way of verifying his whereabouts. And this was at a time when she herself was frequently traveling to and from Ireland and various English cities as part of her activities in behalf of women's sufferage. If Sickert returned to England from France to committ murders in Whitechapel, he certainly would not have stayed overnight with his wife. There is no way in the world she could have known whether or not he was in London.
Exhibit 6
"Sickert friend, Daniel Halévy, wrote in his diary that "This summer Sickert came to see Mama" presumably in Paris but possibly in the French countryside or seaside."
So what! Sometime in the summer? When was that? June? July? August? If anything, this letter indicates that Sickert made more than one trip to France that year.
Exhibit 6
"There is evidence to suggest that Sickert stayed in the Dieppe area at least until early October, 1888. He painted a local butcher's shop, "flooded with sunlight" in a piece he titled The October Sun."
There were no murders in Whitechapel in OCtober of 1888. The Double Event took place on September 30. Mary Kelly was murdered on Nov. 9. Who knows when or where Sickert painted this butcher shop. This is the sort of flimsy speculation that tries to pass as proof of an alibi in a serial murder case.
In sum, there is no substance whatsoever to any claim of alibi. What does an alibi mean? It means proof that someone was in another place, not the scene of the crime, at the exact moment a crime was committed. There is no alibi for Walter Sickert for any of the five canonical Whitechapel Murders. There is no alibi for Walter Sickert for any of the other potential RIpper-victims listed on Casebook. It is about time that this canard was laid to rest.
Regards,
Mark Starr
|
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 4:58 am: |
|
Frank wrote:
"It looks like you’re first trying to establish Sickert could have suffered from psychotic conditions, for which the seeds were sown during the three childhood operations, and then you’re comparing characteristics of the Green River killer with the person you believe to have been the Ripper. Isn’t that a bit like criminal profiling?"
OK, a little. But the point of comparison I was making was not really a profile, but rather the comment of the Green River Killer's defense attorney: that this man was not only a monstrous killer, he was also a human being with many positive traits apparent to his friends and family.
>How do you know he [Sickert] was lying?
For the answer to that question, I will have to direct you to the numerous voluminous posts I have written in the Sickert section. And now also the Lodger section, regarding Chris Scott's amazing discovery of material found in the Port Philip Herald.
Regards,
Mark Starr
|
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 479
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 10:18 am: |
|
Mark
Regarding your post of February 26th 4.47am. I have criticised your posts in the past for presenting theory as fact. I think it only fair therefore to say that this was an excellent post. Factual, logical and well thought out. I like to think of myself as a fair minded person and if you present your evidence to me the way you have in this post, I may not necessarily agree with all your conclusions but I will at least be forced to take your arguments seriously.
Regards
Alan |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 192
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 3:13 pm: |
|
Hi Mark,
You wrote: “>How do you know he [Sickert] was lying?
For the answer to that question, I will have to direct you to the numerous voluminous posts I have written in the Sickert section. And now also the Lodger section, regarding Chris Scott's amazing discovery of material found in the Port Philip Herald.”
My point, when posing this question, was that you can only say ‘that suspect deliberately and repeatedly lied about his involvement in the Jack The Ripper Case’ if you assume he is involved in this case, i.e. if he is the killer. Since we don’t know that for a fact, such a remark doesn’t say a thing.
All the best,
Frank
|
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 7:15 pm: |
|
Frank wrote:
>My point, when posing this question, was that you can only say ‘that suspect deliberately and repeatedly lied about his involvement in the Jack The Ripper Case’ if you assume he is involved in this case, i.e. if he is the killer. Since we don’t know that for a fact, such a remark doesn’t say a thing.
None of my posts say he lied because he was the killer. I am saying, he was a killer because he lied. And I show in minute detail how he lied, what he lied about, and why he lied. Sickert wove an elaborate web of lies that began with the Openshaw letter in 1888 and continued through his paintings after his stroke in 1929.
A coverup of a murder is not merely perjury.
Regards,
Mark Starr
|
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 7:23 pm: |
|
Alan:
>Regarding your post of February 26th 4.47am. I have criticised your posts in the past for presenting theory as fact. I think it only fair therefore to say that this was an excellent post. Factual, logical and well thought out. I like to think of myself as a fair minded person and if you present your evidence to me the way you have in this post, I may not necessarily agree with all your conclusions but I will at least be forced to take your arguments seriously.
I appreciate the kind words from a severe critic. Perhaps in the future I will take my own suggestion and make use of the Color box in the Post window -- writing all facts in green and all theories in red.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Busybeaver
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 5:21 am: |
|
Everyone has so far managed to give the names of Ripper Suspects. From the Double murder of Sept 30 1888, It has now been thought that two people may have committed the murders due to the time that it would have taken one person to get from the Stride murder to the Eddowes murder. Of course the Stride murder has been questioned as being a Ripper murder. Going back to Eddowes she was in the local jail to sober up. Whilst being asked for her name she replied "Nothing" I am certain this is linked to the Goulston Street message and this was rapidly removed by the police. The only people who saw Eddowes leave the cells were policemen. For some reason she took the long way home, only to meet her killer. At 1.30am a passing policeman saw nothing as he entered Mitre Square, but just minutes after another policamen found her body that's suspicious in it's self. And what's more a policeman and his family lived in the square. I suspect that the Ripper was a policeman- the girls would have known them- how many times had they all benn picked up for drunk & disoderly/ fighting etc? And of course a policeman can be trusted. Does anyone have some thoughts on this? |
Archie Bunker
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 10:58 pm: |
|
So Barnett was so determined to get his girlfriend out of whoring that he killed and mutilated these women, avoided detection, went on to butcher his love, completely fooled police during interviews, and went on to lead a normal life. Sounds like he was the one.
Oh, but Sickert had a problemed penis, married three times, butchered women in London (magically from France), wrote taunting letters to police, and hinted at his "work" in his paintings. Cornwall proved it. No, it couldn't have been Barnett.
But wait, Dr. Cream had a double in the underworld who volunteered to spend ten years in an American prison so his buddy could mutilate women in England. We know because he confessed before his execution. So Sickert couldn't have done it after all.
And the prince's doctor left a diary implicating his patient.
Of course Dr. Gull and the masons needed to protect the royal family.
And Druitt was a pedophile so he must have been going mad too.
And there was this guy who heard voices and ate bread from the gutter.
A better question would be, Are there any good suspects? |
Amanda Turner
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 8:40 am: |
|
Just a thought...were any of the suspects sons/daughter of a prostitute? Could there be some resentment issues there? |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
