|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 247
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 10:17 am: |       |
G'day,
Am I right in believing that some of you don't believe that the cry of "MURDER!" could have been common in that part of London at the time, because statistically murder was rare?
This was 1888, women had recently been butchered in the neighbourhood by an unknown man and no one wanted to make the next mornings headline!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 248
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 10:33 am: | |
G'day,
Some time back, a person gave the names of several books that were available in 1888, to anyone who wanted to read about the human body.
To those who think that Walter Sickert could have done it: Why would anyone who was famous or under the publics eyes, risk that fame to become infamous? Why would they throw there life's work away?
'Impressionism' was an art movement that dared to become different in the mid 1800s, by depicting their impression of life around them!
Walter Sickert was a 'Postimpressionist' artist, or one of those who were influenced. I read a Ripper book before Patricia Cornwell's, that told me that Walter Sickert would often have 'Ripper periods', where he'd even dress up to get into the right mood. Why couldn't he have hoaxed a few letters?
And why would he want to contaminate his name after he was dead, by painting little clues into his paintings? I vote that we surgically remove him from the list!
LEANNE |
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 29
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 11:18 am: | |
"This is palpably an attempt to commence lively debate on the extent of surgical skill and anatomical knowledge required for the job...Yet only Marie has had the grace to proffer her opinion in this respect and instead we're talking about the damned letters again... "
Well, it strikes me that the issue of the surgical skill and medical knowledge necessary to commit these crimes is in itself a very controversial issue that has been actively discussed without conclusion. Since the skill issue is undecided, how can we definitively disqualify Sickert based on this?
As far as the "damned letters" go, it's not a case of rehashing old ground. Bower's comments are quite recent, and it is a completely new angle on the case. It seems to me that we would want to see how this plays out before we eliminate Sickert, surgically or otherwise, from the list of viable suspects.
"Ms. Cornwell must be rubbing her hands in delight!!!!! "
The contempt in which we hold Cornwell's efforts in this case comes across rather clearly, methinks. But even a blind squirrel finds nuts occasionally, and I think the paper evidence should be heard out before we vote Sickert off the island.
Sir Robert
"28 November 2002 PAPER HISTORY AND ANALYSIS by Peter Bower
GURNEY IVORY LAID
From discussions with various colleagues:
It is more than likely that the four pieces of GURNEY IVORY LAID paper, that have been identified as coming from the same batch of paper (ie: 2 Sickert letters and 2 Ripper letters) actually come from a much smaller group of sheets than was originally thought.
The practice at many small manufacturing stationers, such as LePard & Smirths, who produced this paper, when they were producing relatively small runs of papers such as personal stationery, was as follows:
The sheets were roughly guillotined to size and then folded and divided into quires of twenty-four sheets.
Each individual quire of paper was then given a final bim in a hand-fed guillotine.
Every guillotining would produce very slightly different bims.
The match between the short edge cuts on the four identified sheets shows they came from the same quire of paper.
The four identified letters came from a group of 24 sheets."
|
Paul Gibson
Sergeant
Username: Rupertbear
Post Number: 18
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 11:59 am: | |
"Hmmm...
Well that's her done for...good job she didn't have a chance to scream, the night watchman at Kearley & Tonge's would have been bound to have heard her...
Right let's rip her open...blimey it's difficult to see in the dark...hang on
[fumbles in pocket]
...right, it says here that the kidneys are hidden behind a fatty membrane - no wonder I couldn't see them...let's have an exploratory poke with my knife...that must be a kidney! Gosh!! I extracted it cleanly...that's a piece of luck...Maybe, I'll post it to that Lusk fellow - be good to make his blood curdle!!
When I get back to my studio, I think I'll paint a picture within which there is another picture that shows a woman about to be murdered...well if you were a painter like me you'd do the same wouldn't you boss? Just for the jolly!!"
|
Bruce Tonnermann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 3:32 pm: | |
The simple answer is that Sickert never was a real suspect, and never will be. He was developed as a fantasy suspect by unscrupulous authors and the myth has been continued, lately by Cornwell.
If the Duke of Clarence myth can't be removed from the picture (and we have seen that it can't), then the prospect is, unfortunately, that those less well informed will continue to ruminate on this nonsense. |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 251
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 5:37 pm: | |
G'day Paul,
No one has said that everyone who has stammered is a potential killer! Bruce Paley just pointed out that stammering can be a symptom of schizophrenia. He only suggested that Joseph Barnett suffered from it!
You say that you stammered as a child, but you grew out of it. Joseph Barnett didn't and you know how he ended his arguments with Mary Kelly?
"He'd go out and leave her to quarrel alone." - (Julia Venturney).
But the week before her murder, he didn't leave quick enough and Kelly smashed a window!
Joseph Barnett did take pride in his appearance. The 'Star' reported that he looked 'Very respectable for one of his class'. He probably could have got a better job than lugging fish, but the money was excellent and it kept Mary off the streets. She could probably afford to drink more than pay the rent....which would start another row!
You know, I might write a book, proving that Elvis Presley was Jack the Ripper, before he was reincarnated! I bet-ya everyone will believe it!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 252
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 5:39 pm: | |
G'day,
'BALLAD OF A KILLER - CASE CLOSED!'
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 59
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 7:42 pm: | |
Hi Paul
As you've asked for views on the Eddowes murder, I'll throw in my two pennyworth - though if modern-day doctors disagree, what can I, a layman, say?
All I can do is go by the opinion of the doctors at the inquest, which was, as far as I understand them, that the location of the kidney required considerable medical knowledge, but its extraction could have been performed by one accostomed to cutting up animals.
Whether said medical knowledge could have been acquired from poring over textbooks and experimenting on dead animals, I can't honestly say. I don't see how that particular question can be answered.....unless some truly dedicated member of these Boards feels like donating their body to Ripperological science......
Robert |
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 32
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 10:39 pm: | |
"The simple answer is that Sickert never was a real suspect, and never will be. He was
developed as a fantasy suspect by unscrupulous authors and the myth has been continued, lately by Cornwell."
It's customary for posters to lay out their case, and then state their conclusion. I see you've cut out the analysis in favor of your opinion.
"If the Duke of Clarence myth can't be removed from the picture (and we have seen that it
can't), then the prospect is, unfortunately, that those less well informed will continue to ruminate on this nonsense."
It's certainly a thrill to have someone so informed deign to post here and set us peasants straight.
I don't think any of us believe Sickert to be the Ripper; the thread was discussing whether we can definitively vote him off the island, which requires a higher standard of proof, IMHO.
Sir Robert |
Paul Gibson
Sergeant
Username: Rupertbear
Post Number: 19
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 02, 2003 - 5:23 am: | |
Blimey - Sir Robert says it like it is...
...and I always thought that you had a tendency to sit on the fence!
Much as I agree with your sentiment, I like to hear people's opinion because it would be a rum old do if we only embarked upon some intellectual banter on the few occasions that new evidence turned up or the latest theory was published.
You are right in as much as there isn't really enough information to totally dismiss him out of hand, but let's face it, your average 150-1 shot at Newmarket or Belmont Park (depending on which side of the pond you are on) has more chance of winning than the probability of the Ripper being Sickert.
Anyway, as far as I'm concerned it's a case of job done (although it's probably no more than coincidence). When I started the last two threads Sickert was top of the pops and now he's descending down towards his rightful place in the pecking order, which is somewhere just above Lewis Carroll!!
Anyway, I intend to devote a few hours to expanding on my previous ironic post and extend the prose into a 2-3,000 word short story entitled "Portrait of a Surreal Killer" or "A night on the prowl with Walter the Ripper" Who knows? A ripperologist with a sense of humour may even agree to publish it.
It has been a pleasure guys...Hope to exchange banter with you on other message boards soon.
Marie,
You've been quiet for ages - now is not a time to be studying...don't give up your evening job - casebook needs you!!
Paul |
Bruce Tonnermann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 02, 2003 - 3:51 am: | |
I did not suggest, nor do I think, that you are peasants. That comment says more about your own thought processes than mine.
Sickert never did achieve the status of being a suspect (other than in invented fantasies), so no proof is required. The onus is upon those who fallaciously claim him to be a suspect to prove that he was. They have failed dismally. Why waste time on a transparent nonsense?
The simple answer I proposed, stands. |
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 33
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 02, 2003 - 10:20 am: | |
"the prospect is, unfortunately, that those less well informed will continue to ruminate on this nonsense."
"I did not suggest, nor do I think, that you are peasants. That comment says more about your own thought processes than mine. "
Fascinating - you can read minds as well.
"Sickert never did achieve the status of being a suspect (other than in invented fantasies), so no proof is required."
Sez you.
I'd ask you your opinion of Bower's comments regarding GURNEY IVORY LAID, except your posts so far indicate you are trolling for reactions rather than having an interest in discussion and debate.
Sir Robert |
Bruce Tonnermann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 02, 2003 - 2:25 pm: | |
The comments made are so patently clear that one does not have to be a mind reader to see the writer's meaning.
Apropos of Sickert as a suspect, I need say no more than take a look at the Harris book Jack the Ripper The Bloody Truth, where the history of his latter-day introduction to the case is meticulously explored and, again, dismissed for the nonsense that it is.
The remark about 'GURNEY IVORY LAID' is totally irrelevant to proving a case for Sickert as a viable suspect. Until Peter Bower's report is published in full it cannot be assessed. However, it relates to hoax Ripper letters and is not conclusive nor even approaching conclusive as presented by Cornwell. Which leads to the question, exactly what does that have to do with any status of Sickert as a suspect?
A reminder needs to be appended here. If anyone is accusing someone of something, be it that he is a murderer or merely a hoax letter writer, then the onus is upon the accuser to prove his case. It is not for others to waste time chasing hares by disproving a mere allegation that carries no evidential weight. |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 176
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 02, 2003 - 3:33 pm: | |
Paul wrote: "You've been quiet for ages - now is not a time to be studying...don't give up your evening job - casebook needs you!!"
Yes, unfortunately college work gets in the way, sometimes!
But I have been reading, and I loved your ironic post regarding Sickert. I fully think you should expand upon it, I'd love to read it!
My eyes are burning from a pollen snowstorm today, but I promise I'll return with some more substantive posts this weekend. |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 204
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 02, 2003 - 5:08 pm: | |
Marie,
Never let actual schoolwork get in the way of Casebook posting! You've got to get those priorities straight.
I honestly spend more time researching my posts on here than I do on my projects for school. Yet I still have a 4.0. Weird. 
B |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 179
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 7:43 am: | |
Brian, you wrote: "I honestly spend more time researching my posts on here than I do on my projects for school. Yet I still have a 4.0. Weird"
That's because you seem to be one of those marvellously capable people.
I, however, have been known to get stressed out if I have to chew gum and walk at the same time. 
But I never let mere college stuff keep me away from Casebook for too long. After all, I have my priorities straight! |
Caroline Anne Morris
Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 40
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 10:47 am: | |
Hi Bruce,
You wrote:
'A reminder needs to be appended here. If anyone is accusing someone of something, be it that he is a murderer or merely a hoax letter writer, then the onus is upon the accuser to prove his case. It is not for others to waste time chasing hares by disproving a mere allegation that carries no evidential weight.'
I'm not sure anyone here needed that reminder. Reminding you that this thread asks:
'Can Sickert be surgically removed from the suspect list?'
I suggest that if your argument for removing him is based on lack of evidential weight, you would also have to argue for the removal of every suspect, or almost every suspect, ever named. Surgical removal of the entire list would, I suppose, have one thing going for it - it would force everyone with a favourite suspect, or favourite pecking order of suspects, to think more objectively. 
Personally, I don't believe Sickert could have been the ripper, but then I can't believe Barnett or Tumblety, D'Onston or Druitt, among many others, were guilty either.
So what's the problem with Sickert lounging around in the pending tray, keeping all the other equally innocent men (apart from one at most) company, unless or until it is known that he wasn't in Whitechapel on one of the days that Nichols, Chapman or Eddowes was murdered?
We can't forget they have been suspected (and for a whole variety of reasons, not all of which may have come down to us), even if the grounds for those suspicions appear to us incredibly weak or frankly downright peculiar.
Love,
Caz
|
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 189
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 5:26 pm: | |
Caz
all well and good, and your sentiments are exactly right.
But I still wake up at three in the morning in a cold sweat vexing myself as to just whom Jack was, then I fall back into a deep and rewarding sleep when I remember - just, amongst all this vexation - that one single man did walk into an English court of law, charged as the Whitechapel Murderer by both prosecution and defence, and was duly handed down a sentence of life imprisonment for his crimes.
This helps me sleep.
Not a final solution, more like a final dissolution. |
Bruce Tonnermann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 3:18 am: | |
Another poster missing the point. We are not talking about proving that someone was the killer. An impossible feat. What we are talking about is whether someone was an actual suspect or not.
There is a clear distinction. For it is historically correct to accept suspects named or looked at by the police, who were in a position to know at the time, as suspects in this case. However, it is not historically correct to look at persons named in modern fairy stories as the Ripper when there is not an iota of contemporary or near-contemporary evidence to suggest that they were ever suspects. And in the case of such well-known and recorded figures such as the Duke of Clarence, Sir William Withey Gull, Walter Richard Sickert and even James Maybrick, this situation is exacerbated.
Here we see an example of the strange state of modern Ripper studies. Those interested in the case seem to be divided into two distinct groups:-
1. Those who are responsible and stick to the historical facts and reject fantasy and invention. They look at actual viable suspects as revealed by the contemporary records and recorders.
2. Those who are willing to accept and look at patent nonsense and modern invention, prime examples being those who waste much time on the two main distractions to students of this case, the so-called 'Royal Conspiracy' and the so-called 'Diary of Jack the Ripper'.
If Inspector this or Chief Constable that were around at the time of the murders and name an historical figure as a possible Ripper, fine. But if some money-making modern teller of tall tales names some, usually well-known, figure in a sensational modern attempt to identify the Ripper, thus making the figure named a 'modern suspect' without the weight of any contemporary source to support such a contention, then I fail to see why any serious researcher or historian should waste any valuable time in attempting the usually futile task of proving that baseless contention wrong.
This, of course, is why the subject of 'Jack the Ripper' is treated with disdain in certain circles of responsible historical research.
So, it has nothing to do with 'evidential weight' as to whether someone was the actual Ripper or not but it has everything to do with whether someone was actually a suspect or not.
|
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 34
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 10:27 am: | |
"1. Those who are responsible and stick to the historical facts and
reject fantasy and invention. They look at actual viable suspects as
revealed by the contemporary records and recorders."
Another fascinating perspective. First off, as I am sure you are well aware, much of the historical records have gone missing, or were destroyed in the Blitz. So we are dealing with an incomplete record....which is why things pop up every once in awhile to raise one's eyebrows.
An example would be the Littlechild letter implying Tumblety as a suspect. Where's the files on Tumblety at Scotland Yard?? An extensive dossier must have existed at one time. He could easily have been missed as a suspect due to the destruction of the historical record.
Who knows what else is missing?
And given that it is an unsolved case, why would anyone insist on narrowing the suspect list to only contemporary suspects???? I believe that police suspects should be given extra weight, but not to the extent of exclusion of others that may come to light.
Sir Robert
|
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 183
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 3:07 pm: | |
Excellent post, Sir Robert.
Regarding the original point of this thread: I thought it was to see if Sickert could be removed from the list of suspects, based on the fact that Drs Brown and Phillips said that Eddowes' and Chapman's killer would have had to possess great anatomical knowledge, and skill with a knife.
Hence, the argument to remove Sickert was based on medical knowledge, and not 'evidential weight'.
As someone who has a favourite suspect, but yet can keep an open mind ( )....I would say that the 'medical knowledge/skill' aspect of those murders goes somewhat against Sickert. |
Paul Gibson
Sergeant
Username: Rupertbear
Post Number: 21
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 4:45 am: | |
Well one big hurrah for Marie for posting a precise message that strictly relates to the title of the thread.
This was all I was actually seeking when I started the thread off and, for those who lack an ironic sense of humour, the exact nature of my ironic post above was that people keep harping on about whether or not Sickert wrote any of the letters and the sinister nature of some of his work...which is exactly what Ms Cornwell wanted us to do.
It does seem to me to be highly unlikely that Sickert had the expertise to murder Eddowes - and, please let's stick to the point here...counter quotes from the Kelly autopsy are not relevant...I'm talking about Eddowes, here.
Would anybody like to dissent?
If not, how can you take Sickert seriously?!!
Marie,
I promise to write a longer version of the ironic post when I have time and thank you earnestly for your support - you really are the voice in the wilderness!
Paul |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 191
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 10:00 am: | |
"I promise to write a longer version of the ironic post when I have time and thank you earnestly for your support"
I'll hold you to that promise, and look forward to reading it.  |
Caroline Anne Morris
Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 47
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 1:43 pm: | |
Hi Paul,
Are there any other suspects who, along with Sickert, should be surgically removed, on account of their lack of sufficient expertise to have killed Eddowes?
Bruce says it's fine to keep contemporary suspects on the list, regardless of how unlikely it may seem to others that they could have - ahem - pulled it off.
Hi Bruce,
I'm curious - do you favour, or have you ever favoured, one contemporary suspect over another? If so, I wonder if Paul would consider him to have been capable enough to remain in the running?
I think the whole bunch are probably only there because no one really had a clue, there was no evidence against anyone, and individual policemen favoured different names that came to their attention according to individual prejudices and perceptions about the kind of man they expected Jack to be.
If I'm anywhere near the mark, perhaps historians and researchers should simply have recorded the facts regarding who were suspected, when and under what circumstances, and left it at that. Has a poor example been set whenever one has gone further and argued for one weak suspect and against another equally weak one?
Love,
Caz |
Bruce Tonnermann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 5:15 pm: | |
Amongst the many hundreds of pages of the official records that have survived is sufficient information to show that there was no hard evidence to identify the killer at the time. Thus it is obvious that no such evidence will come to light this late in the day.
The name of Tumblety has been raised here and it is known that he was a contemporary suspect as Littlechild tells us that he was and the contemporary American press reports clearly corroborate this fact. Littlechild tells us that there was a dossier on Tumblety at Scotland Yard but as it was probably a Special Branch dossier it would never have been released. Therefore he does not really bear comparison with suspects that have emerged as part of modern-day theorising that have no known contemporary evidence to support them as such.
However, if you are going to accept every name put forward as a 'suspect' by modern theorists, and this includes Sickert, then it is very unlikely that they will ever be removed, 'surgically' or otherwise from the list. There are very few, if any, whose movements in 1888 were recorded in such detail as to show exactly where they were on a given day. Even where their known movements are recorded, such as Prince Eddy, it still has not stopped the theorising carrying on unabated. Likewise, in the case of Sickert, his biographers have told us that his known movements indicate that he was probably in France at the time of the murders. Did this stop Ms. Cornwell? - no it did not. For all the proposers of him as a suspect say is that he could easily have travelled back on the cross-Channel ferry, committed the murders, then returned again.
The point I am making is that the game of proposing suspects for Jack the Ripper will never end if you include every new name raised as a 'suspect'. And that is what it is, a game.
Personally I do not wish to participate in such 'games', but there are obviously those on these boards who do. That is up to them but please do not try to suggest that someone like Sickert or Maybrick are serious historical suspects. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
