|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jim Page
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 7:48 pm: | 
|
Does anyone know if there has been new research that has come to light recently purportedly linking Sickert as the Ripper? For instance, has more research been made into Bowers' paper evidence--like what Ripper letters he is actually referring to? Has any research material recently been published concerning Sickert's connection with the Ripper murders--by Bowers, Cromwell or anyone? Are there any new links posted on the web recently about this? I haven't read Cromwell's book, but have read many posts on this board and it is interesting to read new research on this old case. |
Jim Page
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 8:03 pm: |
|
Just a thought: isn't it a bit coincidental that the suspect that Cromwell picks out of all the suspects just so happens to likely (there is a good chance) have written some of the Ripper letters? It would be helpful to know if any of the other subjects (through DNA analysis) might have also hoaxed some Ripper letters. I mean maybe there is more to Sickert than meets the eye. Wasn't he an established artist or at least on the way to being so and about thirty years old at the time of the murders? Of course, people are capable of anything, but why would he risk getting blamed for the Ripper murders (and being hanged) by having hoaxed some of the letters? Also, maybe all of the independent letters that have Sickert in France at the time of the murders were because Sickert wanted everybody to think that is where he was. He did happen to go away at about the time of the murders. If he was of the attitude that it was jolly fun (or something along those lines) to write and taunt the public with hoaxed Ripper letters, maybe he would have also thought it fun to perpetrate some of the Ripper crimes? I did read a posting on here where someone looked up an old book they had with a quote from Sickert on something completely unrelated in which he evoked imagery of cutting a mother and grandmother's throat. It is likely he had some fantasies in his mind about brutally killing women. I think I also read somewhere that he didn't paint much if anything of significance at about the time of the Ripper killings--maybe his creative energy was busy employed elsewhere? Just because he turned out to be a celebrated artist doesn't mean he wasn't capable of murder. One can never know what a person is exactly like unless one knows them on a fairly close basis.
Maybe it would have been helpful if someone else, other than arrogant Cromwell had written and investigated Sickert's DNA and his connection? with the Ripper murders. Maybe a more unbiased opinion would have let everyone take a closer look at Sickert. Now I think, because of Cromwell's treatment that Ripperologists might forever discount Sickert as a valid suspect.
Just some thoughts above............. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 9:24 am: |
|
Jim wrote:
"Just a thought: isn't it a bit coincidental that the suspect that Cromwell picks out of all the suspects just so happens to likely (there is a good chance) have written some of the Ripper letters?"
From my reading of the evidence, I'm not sure I'd call it a good chance. Whether it's a low chance or a good chance (or even no chance at all) would require independent testing and verification of the results. That's what science is all about. Until people (other than ones Cornwell pays lots of money to) get a chance to look through things I am not going to trust anything she claims, especially since she's been caught saying things that turned out to be untrue or highly exaggerated before.
"Also, maybe all of the independent letters that have Sickert in France at the time of the murders were because Sickert wanted everybody to think that is where he was."
Evidence against a hypothesis is not evidence in favor of a coverup of proof of a hypothesis. Sure, maybe Sickert faked that he was in France. Maybe fossils of dinosaurs are planted by Satan to confuse people. Maybe samples of "Bigfoot" fur turn out to be bear or moose fur because Bigfoot broke into the DNA testing lab and switched samples. In order to take any of these theories seriously there'd have to evidence pointing in that direction, not just a weak maybe.
"If he was of the attitude that it was jolly fun (or something along those lines) to write and taunt the public with hoaxed Ripper letters, maybe he would have also thought it fun to perpetrate some of the Ripper crimes?"
That's another huge leap in logic. Sure, "maybe" works, in the sense that since you've watched basketball maybe you could make a ball go through a hoop at 100 yards. To calculate the actual odds we'd have to know a lot more -- have actual evidence. Maybe you are a star basketball player and would have no problem sinking that basketball. Until there is evidence that, say, you tour with the Harlem Globetrotters specifically for shooting hoops from far away, I am not going to believe you are likely to be that unique of an individual based merely upon some indication that you are interested in the topic.
A string of unprovable, unsupported and unlikely maybes thrown together is not a reason to believe anything.
"Now I think, because of Cromwell's treatment that Ripperologists might forever discount Sickert as a valid suspect. "
You make a valid point, but I think ripperologists as a whole (not individually, but on average) are pretty good at weighing evidence, regardless of who presents it. And he was discounted as a serious suspect long before Cornwell came along. |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 406
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 6:45 am: |
|
I just want to ask something. These letters placing Sickert in France at the time of the murders, well are these letters that he sent home or letters people have sent to him in France or what? If they were letters sent from France then surely they would have had some sort of post mark similar to those we have today to prove that he was indeed in France when he sent them.
Sarah |
Brad McGinnis
Detective Sergeant
Username: Brad
Post Number: 79
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 7:24 am: |
|
Sarah, The letters placing Sickert in France were written by his mother to a number of her friends. They went to France as a family for vacation on a fairly regular basis. Ms Cornwell and her fans seem to forget that Sickert's life has been very well researched by a number of biographers. She didnt discover him, but as an owner of nearly 30 of his paintings she has made herself another fortune by slandering him. Cheers...Brad |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 340
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 7:28 am: |
|
Sarah
From Stephen's essay on Sickert on this site:
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. A letter sent by a French painter, Jacques-Emile Blanche, to his father described a visit with Sickert on September 16th. Walter's wife Ellen wrote to her brother-in-law on September 21st, stating that her husband was in France for some weeks now.
These are all letters from independent persons, so unless they were all in on it then it is fairly conclusive that Sickert was in France for most of September at least. |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 212
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 9:49 am: |
|
Hi, Sarah, Brad, and Alan
If I remember correctly, Cornwell's rebuttal to the letter is that the original has never been produced. Does anybody know if that's an accurate statement? Having read her book, I'm also dubious about her claims, but would like to know if anyone ever responded regarding the letter's provenance.
Cheers,
Dave |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 410
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 12:11 pm: |
|
Alan,
I was just about to ask how many people did she accuse of being in on it??
Sarah |
angel_eyes
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 4:21 pm: |
|
Sickert was the Artist people thought might be the Ripper? Why did people think that? Was it just his art? I mean because if that's the case then all throught history there have been really morbid artists who's art is similar to Sickert. Any evidence to support or reject this theory. |
MIchelle David
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 12:28 am: |
|
Oh Dear... I have been reading various Sickert threads for two hours or so now and I should have gone to bed ages ago... But I feel compelled to add my two cents. Cornwell impressed me by placing the JTR scenes in a historical context and I admit that I am a fan of her fiction. I am no expert on JTR; only a recently interested person. However, I can comment on some of the misconceptions I have read regarding mental illness. A person with VERY serious mental illness can function in daily society. They do it all the time, both with and without medication. And, having grown up around artists and art historians, I have witnessed some behavior that would have been considered shocking in a room full of lawyers or accountants, but was simply accepted by others as "artistic and eccentric" in the art world. In addition, sociopathy does not necessarily present the way other mental illness does. A schizophrenic acts differently from the way a person with Borderline Personality Disorder does and from the way a person with with Major Depression does. Not all mental illness is the same. One of the threads in Cornwell's book that I found convincing was her link between the potential trauma experienced by a child undergoing a series of difficult medical procedures (potentially without any type of anesthesia)and later issues. You may find it interesting to do some reading on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; try Judy Herman's book Trauma and Recovery.
I'm very tired and fear that my ability to be clear is waning quickly. At any rate, I wouldn't say that I would convict or execute Sickert. But I am very willing to consider him a suspect. Thanks for allowing me to sound off. Good night!! |
Deborah
Police Constable
Username: Elgyfu
Post Number: 3
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 1:52 am: |
|
I must say that I found the evidence regarding Sickert's writing of the Ripper letters quite significant. Does anyone know if there has been any follow up on this? Has any other researcher gone over this, hand writing analysis, the dna etc?
Not that this would make him guilty of the crimes though..... |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 56
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 5:20 am: |
|
Hi Deborah,
As far as I know, no other researchers have been allowed to verify Cornwell's data to see if they come to the same results.
Aspects that don't require special access that only she has, such as handwriting analysis of the letters, have been fairly strongly against most of Cornwell's conclusions (for example, that one person could have written so many different letters). I don't know that anyone else has done a direct comparison of Sickert's handwriting to the Ripper letters Cornwell finds most significant. Of course, the strong evidence that Sickert wasn't in the country when they were mailed (postmarked in London) would tend to exclude them as his handiwork, unless he trusted someone else to act as a go between or made yet another hypothetical trek across Europe and back just to mail them.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
angel_eyes
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 6:47 pm: |
|
ANYONE WHO THINKS SICKERT IS THE RIPPER:
Why is it that one might think to leave out quite possibly a key question as the one I will ask? What was his motive to kill these women? Because, I mean besides him being a really disgusting man, there is also the idea that he could very well have done his paintings after the Ripper muders simply becasue he was intrigued by the concept of kiling a person in such a fashion! NOT because he actually did it. Also, what evidence and I mean FACTUAL evidence as in DNA, descriptions, comments, and others are there to support or even reject the theory? The only thing that anyone has linking anyone else to the Ripper muders is circumastantial evidence which, I'm sorry to say, is simply not enough. Granted, I know that in my rejection of the idea, I am not abiding by the reasons I just put to reject them, but I do believe that if there is no real evidence, then there is no possible way of actually linking Sickert OR ANYONE ELSE to the murders. |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 184
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 11:24 am: |
|
Dear Angel eyes,
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you about the value of circumstantial evidence. A famous judge in a murder trial once said that even though the evidence is only circumstantial the individual threads weave a net from which it is impossible to escape.
Look at it this way. A goes into a room with B. B ends up dead. Now there may not be any forensic evidence, no eyewitness etc , but if they were the only two people in the room and nobody else was present at the time, although there is no factual evidence the circumstantial evidence would be enough to convict.
I cannot agree with those people who say 'Ah well of course we will never know' Just recently the murders of three girls in the early seventies has been conclusively closed, with the murderer finally identified.
Never say never.
Bob |
Lua
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 7:33 pm: |
|
I am reading Cromwell´s book now and I decided to stop by to see the other point of view, because I think, until now (and I´m in the middle of the book) that most of the things I read already are merely her especulations.I've read a few other points of view in the case as well, all of them falling on those lunatic characters as Aaron Kosminski. I always found very unlikely that one of those mentally ill men could be the ripper, because many people saw at the time the victims TALKING in a good conversation with the suspect. I always thought that the real killer would know at least how to have a nice conversation, which would eliminate most of the lunatics, depressed, or whatever, suspects... as for the fact that Sickert wasn't in london at the time of the murders, Cromwell says that he would dissapear fow weeks sometimes, and, well, London isn't very far from France and I don't think he was obligated to be all the time with his family. I read that many people think Cromwell exagerates in her affirmations, so I would like to know what you all think about that. I'm not saying Sickert did it, I'm just saying that, appart his famous personality, his paintings, etc, he seems more reliable than some lunatic that wouldn't be cautious enough to run and hide while the bodies were being found (in some cases). The path, I think, is not who the killer was, but who he wasn´t.
|
angel_eyes
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 7:43 pm: |
|
Bob,
And what did the atopsy report say about B? Was he strangled? Or was it cardiac arrest?
Angel |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 211
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 8:54 am: |
|
For the sake of argument let us say his death was not natural. There would still be no direct evidence linking A to the murder, just circumstantial. |
Chad Gatlin
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 11:33 am: |
|
I feel like possibly people have not gone through enough of the records of the inquests of the victims. I think it is quite likely that Jack the Ripper attended all of them. After all, this is the pattern of serial criminals, Just like an arsonist is almost always on the scene when the fire dept. arrives, and stands in the crowd watching. If Sickert attended the inquests, or is noted as a witness at a few of the crime scenes, then i think we have enough circumstantial evidence to consider him the strongest suspect. If no links such as that are found, then i think we may be jumping to some conclusions by accusing him. |
Ceara Jaen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 7:08 pm: |
|
I am just curious as to why so many people on these message boards seem to have a real problem with Cornwell... I have a feeling that she could say "The flowers of the magnolia tree are white" and there would be an arguement...
...and, for the sake of arguement just pretend that Cornwell was completely on the mark in everything she wrote, doesn't anyone else see the horrible irony in a WOMAN exposing this guy as a killer? (And, please, note that I said "for the sake of arguement" - NOT "this is true.") |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 181
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 9:58 pm: |
|
Hi Ceara,
Actually, there are a number of things that Cornwell says that many people don't have a problem with. As one example, she claims that the killer didn't need to have had medical training. That's been the opinion of several people before she ever said it, and as far as I know none of them changed their mind just to disagree with her. (Of course there are people who do think Jack had some medical background, but Cornwell's opinion had nothing to do with their conclusion.)
If it looks like Ripperologists attack almost everything she argues, it's largely because of just how unsupported so many of her conclusions are compared to how forcefully she makes them.
And, personally, I wouldn't see anything ironic about a woman exposing the killer. I don't see how gender, nationality, sexual orientation or anything like that makes any difference.
I do consider it rather ironic, however, that a person who gave so much money to a criminal forensics school would show up there and try to present her shoddy conclusions as something that would stand up in a court of law. It seems like she is actively working against the goal of the school just to try to get people to buy her book.
When, say, Bill Cosby gives money to black colleges for libraries, he expects that the students will go read books and make the most of their education. He doesn't show up telling them to ignore all that edumacashun stuff and to use the books as footrests while watching reruns of the Cosby show and eating Jello pudding pops.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 134
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 2:32 am: |
|
Hi all,
Nice reply Dan, I agree entirely.
Ceara,
I am a strident critic of Cornwell's book about JtR, but I don't dislike her personally or her other work. My wife and I own and have both read every book she has written. Unfortunately as Dan points out her evidence is sadly lacking. Many people on this site have dedicated a lot of their time to researching the crimes of JtR and as such they are fairly cynical when someone claims "Case Closed" and bases it on such loose evidence, and in some instances fails to relay important facts to their reader such a those governing the various guises of DNA evidence.
At best Cornwell makes the arguement that Sickert MIGHT have written some of the JtR letters. She is way off proving the case closed on Jack.
Scotty.
|
Lauren Ogden
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 5:20 pm: |
|
I think sickert is the killer, becasue of three reasons 1)he had to have most of his penis amputad after he got a rare deformaty of the penis, so he hasd to squat like a woman to urinate. 2) he painted a picture of a woman in a funny position reading a paper with a bead necklace, jacks tradematk was his cut around the neck and the beads could represent beads of blood.3)he always went to paint the people that had been killed, people say that crimanals always return to the scene of the crime. |
Angie
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 1:13 pm: |
|
Patricia Cornwell will release an updated edition of Potrait of a Killer in October this year, containing more evidence. I'm personally looking forward to it as I found Potrait of a Killer to be a well-written book and quite interesting. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
