|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
mark plamer
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 8:44 am: |       |
does anyone know the exact location of any of walter sickerts studios , especially at the time of annie chapmans murder?
|
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 225
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 11:57 am: | |
Hello Mark:
According to the article by Wolf Vanderlinden that you can read on this site about Walter Sickert, "The Art of Murder," Sickert's studio at the time of the crimes was at 54 Broadhurst Gardens, South Hampstead where Sickert lived with his wife Ellen and used the top floor as his studio. Vanderlinden maintains that it is a myth that Sickert had other studios in London in this period.
Best regards
Chris George |
Martin Fido
Detective Sergeant
Username: Fido
Post Number: 63
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 7:36 am: | |
I'm not sure about studios. The lodgings where he believed the Ripper had once lived in the same house were in Mornington Crescent. And when Jean Overton Fuller popped up with her nonsense, serious Sickert scholars remarked that it was not until the 20th century that he had a studio in Fitzrovia.
All the best,
Martin F |
Edward Freeman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 3:41 pm: | |
I am currently reading Pat Cornwall's book. She mentions DNA evidence from ripper letters that support the Sickert theory. Does anyone know if valid authentic DNA evidence has been recovered and if it points to Sickert? I find her whole approach spurious and conceited. She seems to start with the intent of proving Sickert to be JTR and simply fits the facts accordingly. Her arrogant claims for her case are annoying. |
Stan Russo
Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 14
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 4:54 pm: | |
Edward,
That is why Cornwell's work is considered pseudo fiction rather than non-fiction. There is mitochondrial DNA on a Ripper letter that narrows the suspect, or letter writer, to a group of about 1000, of which Walter Sickert is said to belong inside that group.
Cornwell's conceit is extremely irritating and she does manipulate facts to suit her case. She also stated she would stake her reputation on her work, and mysteriously we all haven't heard much from her lately and perhaps that is a good thing.
STAN RUSSO |
Neil K. MacMillan
Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 35
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 4:38 pm: | |
Edward and Stan; I just finished reading Ms. Cornwall's book. My impression was that the DNA on the letters was not positively narrowed down adn that the work was on going. I may be wrong on that. She raises some interesting point but has not convinced me that her boy is Jack. Kindest regards, Neil |
Edward Freeman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 10:17 am: | |
Thanks, Stan.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Kind regards,
Edward |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 5:29 am: | |
Interim Report:
Re, "Mon Dieu!" by Walter Sickert.
This finished drawing is dated 1888 and depicts a full-length nude female figure lying in a slighly contorted position with an almost featureless face
pressed up against what appears to be the headboard of a bed. But on closer inspection the 'post' of this headboard appears to be carved with what look like a figure and toward the top of the 'post' a face of a man with a 'crown'.
Unfortunately, I have encountered difficulty in capturing the image of "Mon Dieu!" for the Casebook...it is a strange drawing, indeed. When it has been placed on a wall toward the south the image 'melts away', and it becomes more defined when placed on the same wall adjacent to the north light. The fugitive nature of the tonal form of the drawing force the viewer to squint against the 'interiorised' light which bathes the room and the female figure...the modelling of the body -seen from a distance of two/three metres - gives the impression of lumps of flesh floating about the surface of the drawing. Merely a trick of the light or a deliberate objective?
This drawing is in contrast to the painting in Manchester Art Gallery, "Jack the Ripper's Bedroom", which is a very dark picture...where the viewer must steer their own way through the darkness toward the spectral figure at the opposite side of the room...bumping against the headboard of what must be a bed...AND SOMETHING ELSE!
I am still working on a decent(!) image of this drawing for future publication on the Casebook.
Recently it was loaned to a local art group who hung it at their yearly exhibition... until somebody pointed out that the small coffee-stains, or "foxings", which can be seen in the lower left corner of the picture (right through the title "Mon Dieu!") are splashes of BLOOD.
Rosey :-((
|
Stan Russo
Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 15
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 2:21 pm: | |
Rosey,
Excellent find.
Problem 1- If the stains really were blood there is no way to link that to the 'JTR' murders.
Problem 2- Even in a theoretical hypothesis regarding the blood, there would be more opposition within the community than the amount of good that it may serve. Unfortunately, Sickert will never be considered a viable suspect, unless there are photos of him actually committing the murders, and maybe not even then.
STAN |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 3:20 am: | |
Hi Stan,
Yes, I can agree with what you say regarding the 'blood splashes' on the drawing. But lets not forget Sickert's peculiar sense of humour in all matters JTR. And, while I also agree that there is no meaningful evidence that Sickert was JTR, I am certain that he KNEW who JTR was.
Rosey :-) |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 6:25 am: | |
Hi All,
I have been researching Sickert's studio in Dieppe and I wonder if anyone has information.
Since the Sickert drawing "Mon Dieu!" was 'found' in a cupboard drawer which was either in the possesion of Sebastian Ziani de Ferranti, or his father, Cesar de Ferranti, during that fateful year of 1888. The fact remains that this cupboard,
Armoire of The Black Moriah...or if you will, "Jack the Ripper's" cupboard may have been viewed by Sickert during 1888 or prior to 1888.I have established that Sebastian was in France during early 1888. For the rest of that year he lived across the river from Whitechapel at Deptford planning the construction of the first London power grid...even designing the architecture, generating apparatus...and the power supply cables! Here then is a genius who plans to measure London that light may be brought to shine upon the darkest souls. Unfortunately, like Sickert, Sebastian Ziani de Ferranti was also a 'secretive' individual and left little in the way of diaries for 1888.
Rosey :-)
|
JASON S YELLOWKNEE
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 10:40 pm: | |
cORNWALL'S BOOK HAS BEEN UNFAIRLY CRITICIZED.
AT THE VERY LEAST SHE BRINGS FORTH MODERN PSHYCOLOGICAL PROFILING. JTR HAD TO OF BEEN OF SUPERIOR INTELLECT TO HAVE COMMITTED THOSE SEEMINLY UNSOLVABLE CRIMES. "MONTY" DRUIT CLEARLY LACKS THE COLD CALCULATING NATURE TO HAVE COMMITED SUCH DASTARDLY DEEDS. A CLEAR LOVE OF LANGUAGE, CULTURE AND ARTISTIC PENMANSHIP PERMEATE JTR'S LETTERS. I HAVE LOOKED AT ALL THE SUSPECTS FROM AN UNBIASED VIEW POINT AN AM CONVINCED THAT WALTER SICKERT SHOULD BE LOOKED MORE CLOSELY. HE SEEEMS TO FIT THE PSHCOLOGICAL PROFILE PERFECTLY. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 914
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 8:10 am: | |
And that psychological profile is wrong. The Ripper may have had his moments but there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that he possessed a "superior intellect". That is sheer fantasies.
And there is nothing in Cornwall's book that proves her case against Sickert, apart from facts constructed to fit her own personal suspect hunt -- and it certainly doesen't include anything that can be regarded as profiling -- far from it. Several profilers have (for what it's worth) done a job on the Ripper and most of them has agreed on a completely different type of character. Cornwell doesen't know the meaning of the word profiling.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on January 03, 2004)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 672
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 10:02 am: | |
My great uncle Stalin always said the best cure for yellowknees was to chop them off at the leg.
Seriously though, Glenn is absolutely right.
It might well suit us writers to indulge our fantasies by firstly imagining that Jack was possessed of some kind of 'art' requiring 'superior intellect' for that is so much more imaginative than Jack as a fish porter or waterside labourer; and secondly of course when we claim that Jack was so it does sell a lot more books... the higher the profile of the suspect then the higher the sales of the book.
It is after all what this game is all about, and I for one congratulate the gang of two in their efforts to popularise Joe the fish porter as Jack, for they must be doing it out of the kindness of their hearts as people quite honestly will not be keen on a Jack who comes across like Billy from East Enders. They want Jack to be of a 'superior intellect', and I'm afraid the people always get what they want.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1752
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 11:03 am: | |
Full praise to them for plumping for a fish porter, agreed. But I sometimes feel they give Cunning Joe the intellect of Professor Moriarty!
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 916
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 10:01 pm: | |
Indeed, Robert. Indeed! And if Jack was Professor Moriarty, he would have hired people for the killings, not performing them himself. 
----------------------------
AP,
You are absolutely right. The need to give ol' Jacky an intellect of somewhat supernatural character seen to be far more compatible with the popular myth of Jack the Ripper. We see it some books, and we indeed see it in films.
"the gang of two ..."
Hehehe
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1757
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 8:47 am: | |
Yes, Glenn, and as Holmes would have said when examining the spot where Druitt was found : "These are deep waters, Watson."
Robert |
Stan Russo
Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 22
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 6:49 pm: | |
Glenn,
I'm not sure about sheer intellect, but remember, he never got caught. To me that doesn't sound too dumb. One is luck, two is luck, maybe even three, but five and two in one night. He might be the smartest dumb guy I've ever heard of.
STAN
|
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 6:28 pm: | |
Dear Jason,
We can only look so close, Jason,and I pledge that, in time, we will look even closer. But in the meantime, try to avoid the use of capitals and stick to lower case unless and until it be a nessecity to emphasizise a PARTICULAR point!
Ms. Patricia Cornwall has been invited to contribute to this wealth of knowledge on 19th Century culture and language pertaining to the dimension of space and time known as, "Jack the Ripper", but she has voiced an opinion that she despises "Ripperologists" for their 'disgusting' interest in this subject. She chose not to contribute to the Casebook...but without those authors, and contributors, to the Casebook she would not be in any position to write about Jack the Ripper.
Watch this space sweety, you might even learn something too.
Rosey :-) |
benny vb
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 3:48 pm: | |
I would just like to say that nobody will ever know exactly who Jack the Ripper was because there are too many other possibilities and suspects to investigate. Cornwell simply focuses on on aspect of the case, rather then taking into account the full spectrum of possible suspects into account. Although she does put to rest a few of the other suspects, but the list is still far too broad to narrow it to just one person.}} |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 9:28 am: | |
While I don't think Jack the Ripper was as mentally deficient as Glenn thinks (from other threads, not reading anything into this one) I agree with him that a superior intellect is not required. I'd say roughly normal to possibly above average somewhere. Clever and collected would be all that is needed, moreso than genius, but then there is room for disagreement.
Of course if you look at the letters, several of them were obviously written by some rather intelligent people. Cornwell believes that all of them were written by the same man (which is bizarre enough, but not the oddest thing she claims), and anyone who could write every single last one of them and forge handwriting and handedness that well would have to be a genius the likes of which mankind has never known.
Of course, as the vast majority of the letters are obviously hoaxes and there's no compelling evidence to believe ANY of them were written by the actual killer, profiling someone based upon all of the letters as a collective work of presumed authorship by the killer is pure idiocy.
And I for the life of me can't figure out how Jason can say with any authority that Druitt couldn't have written the letters.
On top of that, Cornwell was not the first to use modern psychological profiling, not by a long shot. And, frankly, Glenn is 100% right when he says that what Cornwell wrote couldn't possibly be considered profiling by anyone with any experience in the subject. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 929
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 11:56 am: | |
Getting praise from you, Dan, is more appreciated than you think, although we don't see eye to eye on many things. So thank you.
It is true that I believe Jack to be a schizofrenic of some sort but I would hardly today describe him as a lunatic or a deficient (I had to look that one up) character, as I have learnt that such individuals actually can have their cunning moments. I have revised my earlier points of view a bit. But I will never buy that he was a clever psychopath and a planning genius.
I certainly agree on that basing a profile upon the letters (which probably are hoaxes anyway) is to dig ones own grave. I can buy that Sickert could have written some of the letters -- but once again, that doesen't make him (or any of the other more or less twisted men and women who wrote them) Jack the Ripper. Another thing is the telegrams. She claims that "Sickert loved sending telegrams" and therefore he had to be Jack, in spite of the fact that this was one of the more common services and forms of communication during the 19th century. To call such an approach grasping at straws would be an incredible understatement. The examples of this kind of analytical flaws are numerous, and I don't think it stands in proportion to the book's popularity.
That she despises Ripperologists is obvious, since she totally disregard them in her book and don't bother to discuss their views and findings in relation to her own.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 2:02 am: | |
Glenn wrote:
"Getting praise from you, Dan, is more appreciated than you think, although we don't see eye to eye on many things. So thank you."
Well, you are welcome. I think it's all too easy on these boards to lose track of the concept that the opposing side in a particular argument could be in agreement with you on a great many things.
"I would hardly today describe him as a lunatic or a deficient (I had to look that one up) character"
Well, didn't mean to put words into your mouth. It's possible the reference made the word sound harsher than the way I intended it.
"But I will never buy that he was a clever psychopath and a planning genius. "
That was simply the point I was trying to get across, that we disagree on that. Well, the first part anyway. I think he was a clever psychopath. I don't think it's impossible that he was a genius, but I don't think he had to be quite that bright either.
Well, at any rate, one thing that should hopefully be obvious to any outside observer who comes along is that, while most of the posters here disagree on a great many things, we are seemingly overwhelmingly in agreement that Cornwell is totally off base in all but perhaps a few areas (such as the concept that Sickert might have written a few hoax ripper letters, maybe). |
Ashley Fisher
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 4:41 pm: | |
It is my opinion that you all need to read Patricia Cornwells book again, if you have already at all(and read it all the way through this time too) and give it some careful and cautious consideration. If anything else she at least puts forth an interesting if not good case against Sickert...Cornwell didn't just make up a bunch of information about Sickert. I will give you a couple 'for-instance'es.
-Concerning Sickerts 'fistula' she got most of her information about it from Sickerts family as most of his biographies don't say much about it. I should think his own family would know these things about him.
-I read the book all the way through and I didn't find anywhere where Cornwell ever said her DNA evidence was 'conclusive'...if I recall correctly her book states 'At best we have a "cautious indicator" that Sickert and Ripper mitochondrial DNA sequences could've come from the same person'.
I find that she uses similarities between Sickerts writings and the writing in the Ripper letters to prove her point that Sickert was quite likely to have written some of them more often than she refers to any DNA evidence.
Also, I should think that Cornwell has worked in Forensics long enough to know what she's talking about. She would certainly know, by looking at a wound, what a killers intentions of the killing may likely be and she would have a good idea what kind of a person would kill in a certain way.
No average dumb-f*ck with occassional bouts of cleverness nor any schitzophrenic or mentally deficient person could have committed the Ripper killings or written any of the Ripper letters...such things take motive, decivness. (yes alot of the letters were probably hoaxes...but there were likely at least a few that were authentic..someone sick enough to murder five prostitutes would surely get a sick kick out of taunting the authorities). The fact that a suspect is intelligent or not has nothing to do with wether he is capable or incapable of the Ripper murders.
Also, alot of you seem to think 'psychopath' means absulutely crazy or something...it doesn't..it just means Sickert was likely a psychotic person or had psychotic episodes.
I should think three traumatic childhood surgeries to the nether regions of your body would send anyone into a psychotic fit..particularly if you could never satisfy any physical desires for another person that one might have. I don't think its at all absurd to think the Ripper may have killed out of a psychotic hatred of women and possibly of his own deformity.
As for Sickerts art and how Cornwell points out similarities between some of Sickerts artwork and murder victims/crime scenes, she's not asking anyone to believe her she's just saying hey, this is worth taking a look at. You can't deny, there are some eery similarities and morbidness in alot of his drawings and paintings. Yes he could have based the paintings and drawings on morgue photos, and likely did(if he was the Ripper he would not have had time to stop and draw the body of his victims after he killed them). As for why there Mary Kelly and Cathrine Eddowes seem to be the only two seemingly represented in his art..perhaps the other morgue photos weren't to his liking enough to use. Though his work 'Venetian Studies' brings to mind Mary Ann Nichols.
I'm not asking anyone to accept Sickert as the Ripper...I'm just asking that Cornwells book be given a little more consideration and thought before you all go and criticize her. It could be that you don't like your own ideas being challenged..it could be that you're just angry that Cornwell isn't particularly fond of Ripperologists..I don't know, I just think that quite a few of you are judging Cornwell harshly and unfairly.
~Ashley~
|
jackie oozageer
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 1:03 pm: | |
how can you all belittle what Ms Cornwell says the findings she has come up with are what she belives if any of you can do better put pen to paper and publish something yourselves how dare you be so rude i know you all want to find the truth behind the ripper but lets be honest we will never know |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
