|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Wolf Vanderlinden
Sergeant
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 47
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 3:35 pm: |       |
Jeff.
There is nothing ambiguous about Sickert's vacation in France. Ambiguity was created, as a necessity, by Patricia Cornwell who had to try and discredit the known facts.
Between 4 August, when Sickert did a drawing of the Hammersmith Music Hall with that date, to 4 October, when he arrived back in London, no works have been found which depict London, or any British scenes, covering this interval. On the contrary there are works based on French themes done during this time period.
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.
There is an undated letter, art historian Richard Shone believes it was probably written sometime in August soon after he first arrived in France, from Sickert to his very good friend, Jacques-Emile Blanche, in which Sickert states that he was in St Valéry-en-Caux for a rest.
There is a letter from St Valéry-en-Caux, dated 6th September, from Sickert's mother to a family friend which describes how Sickert and his brother were vacationing there with her. This is right between the murders of Nichols and Chapman.
There is independent corroboration of this in a letter that Jacques-Emile Blanche sent to his father that stated that he had visited Sickert and his family at St Valéry-en-Caux on the 16th September.
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.
In 1888 Sickert painted The October Sun. This painting was done in St Valéry-en-Caux presumably in very early October before he arrived back in London on the 4th. If he's still painting in France in the first couple of days of October then he wasn't likely in London murdering women on the 30th of September.
Of course Cornwell disputes all this and makes the rather silly suggestion that Sickert merely slipped away from his family and friends, took ship back to London, found a suitable victim under suitable conditions, murdered said victim then sailed back to France arriving back home before breakfast with none the wiser. Why a psychosexual serial killer wouldn't just murder women closer to hand is not explained.
Wolf.
|
Stan Russo
Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 29
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 7:04 pm: | |
Mark,
I believe it is written in numerous biographies of Walter Sickert that in matters of religion he was an avid atheist. Check out Marjorie Lilly's 1973 book and Robert Emmons 1941 book which may have these apparent unknown revelations.
STAN |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1077
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 8:24 pm: | |
Rosemary,
I must admit that the meaning in your strange post is elusive to me. I have no idea what you are trying to say.
I am deliberately being harsh to Mr. Starr, because he claims to have produced incriminating evidence from a painting and its title. You know as well as I do that there is no reference to Jack the Ripper in there of any kind. You are of course right that in spite of my "so-called 'criminological' theorizing and so-called 'offender profiling'we are no nearer to understanding the events of 1888" -- that is absolutely correct -- but then again, I have never claimed to possess evidence of anything. I have never tried to pin down a suspect on loose grounds and ludicrous speculations.
I don't care if Sickert in his grave pisses on my "theorizing" (which by the way is an incorrect statement, since I hate theorizing, I only use common sense) -- we are dealing with a murder case here and therefore I find it natural to use police investigation approaches and criminology in order to study the case (read "study", not "solve"). I am sorry if you find that disturbing, but I think that is a more obvious approach rather than indulging in far-fetched art interpretations that leads nowhere and proves nothing.
And I am still waiting for Mark Starr's so-called evidence that links Sickert's self-portrait to the Ripper. And believe me, I am not only harsh but also patient.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 7:11 pm: | |
Wolf wrote:
>Of course Cornwell disputes all this and makes the rather silly suggestion that Sickert merely slipped away from his family and friends, took ship back to London, found a suitable victim under suitable conditions, murdered said victim then sailed back to France arriving back home before breakfast with none the wiser.
Sorry, Wolf, it just wont wash. Cornwell's documentation of the fast, regular, frequent transportation between London and Dieppe cannot be called a silly suggestion by you or anyone. It is irrefutable, and your obvious ploy to dismiss it by merely ridiculing it shows you have no factual ammunition whatsoever to dispute her point. There is no question that Sickert, if he was indeed in Dieppe in those periods, could have commuted to London in less than a day, murdered someone during the evening and been on the ferry back to Dieppe by morning. We are talking about transportation by ferry and rail or coach between England and France in 1888, not transportation by sailboat in Shakespeare's day. Sickert has no alibi, none at all, and your Cornwell-bashing doesn't give him one. None of your laundry list of sightings puts him indisputably in France at the same time on the same day as any of the murders. When you can prove he was somewhere else exactly when one or all of the murders were being committed, then you can ridicule Cornwell's point and get away with it.
>Why a psychosexual serial killer wouldn't just murder women closer to hand is not explained.
Duh, like maybe he just might get caught in tiny Dieppe?
Regards,
Mark Starr
|
mark starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 3:00 pm: | |
To Rosemary Baby -- a lass after me own hart:
I loved your post "coming to terms with the complete absence of materials of an evidentiary nature that connect Mr Sickert with the events of Whitechapel, 1888." You may speak in tongues, but you also have X-ray vision.
Yes, I did track down a copy of "The Rasising of Lazarus" -- but of poor visual quality, so I really don't know yet what to make of it, if anything.
I was aware of correspondance between Sickert and Bram Stoker -- but it was not until your revelatory post that I realized Bram was short for Abraham. Nevertheless, I don't think Sickert drank anyone's blood. He may have eaten a kidney or two, but not drank their blood. I believe the connection between Sickert and Stoker was their common friend and mentor, the great Shakespearian actor Sir Henry Irving. Come to think of it, did you know that the Wilkinson Sword Co. makes and has sold since the 1880s a "Shakespeare Knife"? Now there's a Ripper clue, if there ever was one.
Regards,
Mark Starr
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 9:09 pm: | |
Hi all, I think Jeff asked the right question. I have always read on the boards that Sickert was not in England at the time of the murders. I dont know but if he was in France he could not have been Jack.
Your post are always interesting Glenn and I enjoy reading them. Mark, I find your theory interesting as well and look forward to reading more of your post.
I think we should establish if Sickert was in England at the time of the murders before we debate if he was Jack or not.
All the best, CB |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 7:39 pm: | |
Stan,
Many thanks for the citations about Sickert being an avid atheist. I will certainly check them out. If the documentation is as you describe, that would be, in my opinion, extremely powerful evidence in support of my theory about "The Servant of Abraham" and a rejection of Jean Fuller's contention that the painting is a depiction of the Biblical servant in Genesis 14. Anyone who contends that Sickert, an avid atheist, at the age of 67, suddenly got religion for three paintings with enigmatic Biblical titles, and then lost it again for more than a decade before he died, would have to supply a lot of proof emanating directly from Sickert in order to convince me or, I would hope, anyone else. Sickert was a cynical, self-centered bastard, and the argument that he briefly became devoutly religious (like Matisse and his nun's chapel) carries no weight with me.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
mark starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 1:47 pm: | |
Sarah wrote:
>However, I would just like to say Rosemary that Mark hasn't produced any FACTUAL evidence as to why this painting is Sickert's confession, he has only produced theories and quite frankly that isn't good enough.
The factual evidence is the picture itself and Sickert's title.
>As Natalie points out above, the painting was a reference to Abraham's servant who went and found Abraham's son a wife. This was quite obvious to me anyway and probably to most people...
That is your interpretation, not a fact. I have tried to carefully separate the facts on which I based my theory and my interpretation. You, among others, blur the lines. In my opinion. your interpretation, above, is directly contradicted by the picture itself -- which does not portray a biblical servant, it portrays Walter Sickert's face.
>...but somehow Mark has linked this painting, not to the servant as the title suggests, but to Abraham who was to sacrifice his son to God.
Sarah, please don't put words in my mouth. I linked it to Walter Sickert's life. The picture is autobiographical. My link is not, as you wrote, to "Abraham who was to sacrifice his son to God." My link, and I believe Sickert's link, is to the slaughter of a sacrificial lamb to replace Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac. If you want to attack my theory, don't twist it to something I never said.
Regards,
Mark Starr
PS I noticed that not all of the responses I posted to this forum have appeared. Am I being censored? Are the Masons or the Royal Family jamming my posts?
|
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 2:05 pm: | |
Can anyone here point me to a good, clear, color reproduction of Sickert's "Jack The Ripper's Bedroom." Hopefully, on the web. All I have now is the sepiatone photo in Cornwell's boook, and it is like mud.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1078
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 10:47 pm: | |
Sarah,
Thank you. (And no, unfortunately I didn't understand much of Rosemary's post either, but then again, it's Friday night...)
---------------------------------------
Mark Starr,
"The factual evidence is the picture itself and Sickert's title."
Swell... And evidence enough to convict Sickert in court as well...
I would really like to hear your definition of "facts" -- now, that would be interesting...
-----------------------------------------
The problem with using art as a clue in murder cases, is that art interpretation lies in the eye of the beholder, unless we have written statements from the artist himself concerning his artistic intentions. Here we have a title on a self-portrait that for undefined reasons are referring to Abraham. We don't know why Sickert did this, but it is beyond me why it should be read as a confession of the Ripper murders. There is no link, unless you want to create one.
As far as Sickert credibility as a suspect is concerned, we must remember that the interest in the occult and in macabre events was vast and wide-spread in the late 19th and early 20th century. These were the days of spiritualism and dark romantic novels and plays like Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. In the art world -- alongside more traditional romantic and naturalistic genres -- the "decadent" and symbolistic period, with the female character interpreted as a vampire and a demon, had a prominent position. Artists were frequently obsessed with themes of darkness, mythology and mystery, and so were authors like Arthur Conan Doyle.
So why should we be surprised over the fact that Sickert (as an artist and former actor) became obsessed or at least interested in -- and maybe even slightly identified himself with -- Jack the Ripper, and later in life made paintings referring to these crimes or the Camden murders? Or choosing titles with biblical references, titles which meanings can be interpreted almost in any way possible?
Starr -- who, according to his own statements, seems to be the only one here who has made the only correct interpretation of Sickert's self-portrait -- has earlier on this thread complained about him being compared with or defending Patricia Cornwell. But still he does the same mistakes she did; namely picking up "clues" in order to manipulate them into something that suits ones personal theory and then states speculations and questionable links as facts or evidence to prove ones case. That won't do!
But those who can find anything incriminating in Sickert's art, that really connects him with Jack the Ripper, must indeed be congratulated for possessing a splendid and vivid imagination.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Stan Russo
Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 30
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 11:54 pm: | |
TO ALL,
Regarding Walter Sickert being in France during the time of the murders; prove this, please. I will happily welcome any proof that a suspect, Walter Sickert or any other, was definitively out of the country during the time of the murders. As Mark states, it was not impossible to reach London from Dieppe in a relatively short period of time.
Our major goal should be eliminating suspects from the ever-growing suspect pool. However, I am not eliminating a lessor known suspect such as George Gissing, who is said to have been out of London for 8 months covering the murders, yet no proof of this has ever been produced. Based on a letter from Sickert's mother, two days prior to Annie Chapman's murder, and letters from his wife, whom Sickert was cheating on and eventually became estranged from, please don't eliminate Walter Sickert. He was a well known artist, running in the same circles as Whistler and Degas, if he was in France on the night of any murder, where he could not reasonably make it back to London, then find that documentation and I'll be happy to join the party in eliminating Sickert. Until then focus on the facts. Supposition and theorizing can only help the case so much.
STAN |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 191
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 12:01 am: | |
Mark,
"The factual evidence is the picture itself and Sickert's title."
That's evidence that he made a painting called the "Servant of Abraham" and nothing more. Everything else you have posted has been wild speculation without anything whatsoever to support your interpretation.
If you want to claim that in your opinion this painting supports Sickert as the Ripper, go for it. We'll file it next to Fuller's interpretation and move on. But your definative statements and assertions that this represents some kind of confession have no support whatsoever. As a detective, you make a great art critic.
Regards,
John |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 4:22 am: | |
Glenn wrote:
>The problem with using art as a clue in murder cases, is that art interpretation lies in the eye of the beholder.
The interpretation of any evidence lies in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes the interpretation of evidence is obvious and not vulnerable to dispute--but opposing lawyers will dispute it anyway. Sometimes, it takes experts to interpret evidence -- and their are countless examples in criminal trials of two qualified experts on opposite sides in total disagreement on the significance of the same set of facts. Sometimes the factual significance of incriminating evidence is not obviously apparent, but that does not mean the evidence is not incriminating or that the significance cannot be determined by careful study of many factors surrounding the evidence. That is the situation we have with Sickert's "The Servant of Abraham" and some of his other paintings. Just because you, Glenn, can't handle any kind of clue beyond a perfect match on a ballistics test, that does not mean that anybody else cannot possibly determine Sickert's intended meaning in his paintings and his title by careful study of Sickert's life, his art, his character, his writings, and directly related writings such as Genesis.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 6:25 am: | |
Stan wrote:
" it was not impossible to reach London from Dieppe in a relatively short period of time. "
The "not impossible" game is one of the silliest games to play, especialy when dealing with an alibi. There wouldn't be an alibi in the history of mankind that could survive someone playing the "not impossible" game.
He was in jail at the time? It's not impossible that the person is jail was just someone who looked exactly like him and allowed himself to be incarcerated as a favor to the real one. Both his legs were broken? It's not impossible someone carried him. Thirty of his closest friends, a police officer, and a videotape say he was somewhere else at the time? It's not impossible that they are all lying and taped the video some other day.
The concept that any sane person would think that Sickert could go from France to London, kill one or more people September 30, come back, start and finish a painting and return to London Nov. 4 is pretty odd to begin with, but then you throw in the concept that he made other trips too and nobody thought, hrm, odd, we travel to France and he makes the mysterious trips for long lengths of time in the middle on days people are killed in London.
Come on, let's get serious. Sickert's alibi is as strong as they come. Pretending that it's at all conceivable that he did it anyway isn't any more helpful than arguing that it's not impossible that trained monkeys did it. |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 3:12 am: | |
This is a post I wrote and posted several days ago, but which, for some unexplained reason, never appeared in this thread. At least I didn't see it.
Wolf V. wrote:
>Actually there are several oil works by Sickert that do have the title, or other inscriptions, painted on them. Lazarus Breaks His Fast, (1927), is one. This title is hand painted by Sickert across the top of the painting and thus connects it with The Servant of Abraham, (1929).
Well, that is interesting and very useful news, clearly establishing the link between the two painting that I had already deduced in an earlier post, and I thank you for the info. My copy of 'Lazarus Breaks His Fast', taken off a website, has no title across the bottom or top; evidently, the website owner of the website cropped it off.
>These were two of three works with a Biblical title, the third being The Raising of Lazarus (1929) which has no inscription, that Sickert painted at around the same time. Since Sickert went out of his way to connect Lazarus Breaks His Fast and The Servant of Abraham, both with a Biblical title, both with their title hand lettered on the painting and both self portraits, what, do you believe, is their combined significance to any Ripper "confession" if any?
I'll lay it out once again. But before I do, I think it is interesting to note that I made this connection between the two paintings not on any knowledge of the titles across the bottom, but rather on what appeared to me as the striking autobiographical link and the biblical associations in the two paintings. In terms of painting styles, they are quite different, and do not really form an aesthetic pair. Since your last post, I was able to track down a copy of "The Raising of Lazarus" on the web (of poor quality.) In terms of painting style, "The Raising of Lazarus" seems more closely related to "Lazarus Breaking His Fast" than it does to "The Servant of Abraham."
The primary event in Sickert's life that triggered all three religious paintings was Stickert's stroke in 1926. Obviously, it was a massive stroke that almost killed him. I could list many details that indicate that the stroke was severe -- but really all one need do is look at Sickert in any of the before and after photos of him that are easily available. There can be no doubt that after barely surviving such a stroke, Sickert must have contemplated his own mortality. The obvious conclusion might be that in the face of perhaps imminent death, he suddenly got religion. My interpretation of these three paintings and of Sickert's life from this point on is the exact opposite. To me, it is clear these are not religious expressions; they are about Sickert and only Sickert. He is trying to say things about himself by drawing analogies between himself and biblical figures, who are common currency in general culture. And in the case of "The Servant of Abraham," we have a grotesque example of Sickert cynically creating a religious cover story to protect his reputation as an artist for posterity in the event that evidence of his crimes should emerge one day after his death. At the age of 69, after having eluded the police for 41 years, and now staring death in the face, Sickert had no fear of himself being caught during his lifetime, and having to face justice. But what about being caught after his death? How could he preserve his reputation as an artist of historical significance from beyond the grave. With this painting, Sickert is saying to posterity: "Yes, I did it. I slit the throats of these expendable substitute sacrificial lambs. But don't blame me. I didn't do anything wrong. As the servant of Abraham, I was only following God's order -- the one about slaughtering a sacrificial lamb to secure God's protection for mankind. Don't forget, Abraham was on the point of doing the same thing to Isaac his son, without questioning God's order, and three religions made him a patriarch. No one calls Abraham a homicidal maniac. Even though you may think I was a religious fanatic, you still have to rank me as the most important painter in Britain around the turn of the century." That, I believe, is the import inherent in his title. That is what Sickert wanted to convey to posterity with these two paintings. I don't think they contain even a suggestion of remorse, contrition or religious repentance.
I hasten to add, I hope no one starts ascribing any of Sickert's religious views to me. I already found quite offensive comments elsewhere about my "religious ramblings." As I have stated several times previously, religion really has nothing to do with this matter. Sickert used it as a pretext.
>Other examples? Sickert's painting Miss Gwen Ffrangçon-Davies as Isabella of France in Marlowe's Edward II: La Louve has the title LA LOUVE painted across the bottom. His painting King George V and his Racing Manager: A Conversation Piece at Aintree (Circa 1929-30) has the words "By Courtesy of Topical Press Agency / 11 and 12, Red Lion / Court E.C.4 / Aintree - 25.3.27" painted in the top right hand corner.
His painting Gwen Again, (1935 or 36) has the inscription "L'oltragio che scende sull capo d'un re / Imobil mi rende tremolo mi fe" hand written across the top.
I will lump all of these titles together. They are all really different in kind, compared to the 2 (or 3) religious titles. They are merely identifications of the subjects in portraits, not titles with ideas. They are not indications of meaning like the 3 religion paintings-- with one possible exception. Although I speak Italian fluently, I can't place the vaguely familiar quotation -- unless maybe it comes from Petrarch's Sonnets. I have no idea what it means in terms of Sickert's life. I am surprised that Jean Overton Fuller did not seize on this quote to prove The Royal Conspiracy Theory.
>Secondly: "When you write "there seems to be absolutely no connection to the Whitechapel murders in the art of Walter Richard Sickert", my response is that is your blind spot.... The idea that this remarkable and unique painting has no connection to the Ripper case is, in my opinion, absurd on its face in the light of everything that is factually known about Sickert's life and art." I'm sorry Mark but "what is factually known about Sickert's life..." is that he was in France, (either in Dieppe, for a short period of time, or in St Valéry-en-Caux, for longer), during the murders of Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes.
Well, Wolf, you and I part company on this point. If there is one thing that Cornwell documented convincingly, it is that Sickert or anyone else could have commuted from Dieppe to London within a day, slit a few throats after midnight, and taken the ferry back to Dieppe the next morning. He has no alibi. And what a great place to avoid detection by the police: in another country. Your reasoning here does not stand up to simple scrutiny.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1080
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 11:03 am: | |
Mark Starr,
"The interpretation of any evidence lies in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes the interpretation of evidence is obvious and not vulnerable to dispute [...] Just because you, Glenn, can't handle any kind of clue beyond a perfect match on a ballistics test, that does not mean that anybody else cannot possibly determine Sickert's intended meaning in his paintings and his title by careful study of Sickert's life, his art, his character, his writings, and directly related writings such as Genesis."
But what you present is neither "evidence", nor something similar to a "clue". Merely fairly-tales and constructed connections without any factual or reasonable grounds. If it had, I would be pleased to discuss it.
Once again, there is nothing in either the title or the painting itself (or other paintings by Sickert) that turns Sickert into Jack the Ripper. I have tried to explain to you that it was common for artists at the time to be influenced by themes of this kind, and you can't on those loose and speculative grounds draw such wild conclusions from a a painting, interpretations that not even can be considered as proven from an art historian's point of view. Now you want us to believe that it also has criminological bearing. Rubbish! You have a strange and sloppy definition of evidence and facts in police matters, and I find your art interpretations even more speculative. Let me give you an advice: please feel free to put forward your "suggestions" as speculations -- that is OK by me -- but don't claim this to be "obvious evidence", because it isn't, apart from maybe in your own head.
You can't know what Sickert really meant with his symbolic and biblical references in his titles or the meanings behind his artistic renderings of events connected with Camden or the Ripper murders. Therefore it is only your personal interpretations we're dealing with here -- although they are incredibly far-fetched -- and not facts or evidence.
And since you refuse to answer ny initial question (how a title referring to Abraham becomes incriminating evidence as a confession to the Ripper murders) -- or maybe for some reason is just avoiding it -- I interpret that as a sign on that you deep within yourself really are aware of weak your case really is.
Cornwell hasn't produced anything incriminating against Sickert (apart from maybe being an author of some of the Ripper letters), and so far the only thing you have managed to do is, to determine that Sickert possibly in some stage in his life was influenced by biblical themes and contemporary or historical crimes. Since when did that become crucial evidence of an artist being a notorious serial killer?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Stan Russo
Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 32
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 5:55 pm: | |
Dan,
I'm still confused. WHAT ALIBI? Two letters that place Sickert in France NOT on the days of the murders? Very strong alibi.
Sickert travelling back and forth from France to London is a bit insane to believe. Nobody had ever travelled from London to France more than once during the Victorian era. But lets be real.
I'm not saying Sickert was 'JTR', I am saying don't eliminate him on hearsay and letters that do not prohibit a return to England. Just cause you believe he is innocent does not make it so Dan. If it is so then who did it?
I do like the line about monkeys though. Monkeys are always fun.
STAN |
Wolf Vanderlinden
Sergeant
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 49
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 6:50 pm: | |
Mark.
"Sorry, Wolf, it just wont wash. Cornwell's documentation of the fast, regular, frequent transportation between London and Dieppe cannot be called a silly suggestion by you or anyone. It is irrefutable, and your obvious ploy to dismiss it by merely ridiculing it shows you have no factual ammunition whatsoever to dispute her point. There is no question that Sickert, if he was indeed in Dieppe in those periods, could have commuted to London in less than a day, murdered someone during the evening and been on the ferry back to Dieppe by morning." (Actually, Sickert was down the coast in St Valéry-en-Caux at the time. A point that Cornwell refuses to acknowledge probably because it adds extra traveling time to his journey.)
This is, of course, is Cornwell's illogic. What she, or you for that matter, don't explain is why Sickert would make this kind of journey? Why not simply travel to Dieppe or La Havre? Port towns filled with sailors, prostitutes, and in the case of Dieppe, holiday makers who poured into the French seaside town every summer. While were at it, why not Paris? Paris was closer and much easier to get to by rail than London. If the question is a major metropolis into which Sickert could easily hide then Paris makes much more logical sense.
Unfortunately I don't think were talking about logic or sense here. What you fail to realize is that Sickert does indeed have an alibi for four of the Whitechapel murders. He was vacationing in St Valéry-en-Caux, France. There is some proof for this assertion. You and Patricia Cornwell dispute this and that's fine. That is your right, but, and here's where you fall down completely, what proof do you have that he wasn't in France? Anything? Any small scrap of evidence that proves he was actually in London? Merely stating that he could have taken the train to Dieppe, then taken a ship to England and then taken another train to London where he then caught a cab into Whitechapel is not enough. It is not evidence that proves that he did do this.
In other words when you write that I "have no factual ammunition whatsoever to dispute her point." can you please supply the "factual ammunition" which proves her point? Anything? Anything at all?
The burden of proof falls on you since you dispute the historical record. So far you have offered absolutely no proof of anything. I am afraid that if your aim here is to merely hear yourself talk than that's fine by me. It's your dime. If, however, your aim is to offer some new evidence that you wish to convince others is important and actually adds something to the whole Sickert as Ripper debate then you will only accomplish this by offering factual evidence submitted in a logical manner. So far you have completely failed to do so. I am sorry but merely telling us that your theory is right because you say so doesn't cut it.
Wolf. |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 173
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 7:32 pm: | |
Hi Mark,
In short, you have been saying the following:
· The painting “The Servant of Abraham”, the title of which he painted across the bottom of this self portrait, holds an important new clue that points directly to Walter Sickert as Jack the Ripper.
· According to the bible Abraham eventually ended up killing and eviscerating a sacrificial lamb instead of originally his own son to show his faith in God.
· According to you, the painting’s title says Sickert saw himself as ‘a’ servant of Abraham, who, like his master, also killed substitute victims in the form of dispensable prostitutes.
· In the painting Sickert’s eyes give him the demented look of a frenzied killer in a fanatical trance.
· Sickert painted this painting 2 or 3 years after he had suffered from a severe illness and while his health was failing, so he must have painted it as a confession now that he was at the end of his life.
First of all, I still wonder what it is that points directly at Sickert as Jack the Ripper. Abraham was the one who did the killing in the bible. His servant was known for seeing to it that Abraham’s son married a suitable bride, not for doing any sacrificial killing. The title is clearly “The Servant of Abraham”, not “A Servant of Abraham” or “Servant of Abraham”.
To me it would seem logical to think of the known servant of Abraham when trying to interpret the painting and it’s meaning. Yet you quite readily discard this option because to you it doesn't make much sense as the painting is Sickert's self-portrait, not a biblical scene. Instead you present the non-biblical and not known servant to explain the painting’s meaning. You say you didn’t invent this servant, but that it was Sickert who did that, for he was the one writing the words on his painting, not you. Since you were the one who came up with the idea of a non-biblical servant of whom nothing is known, I think it’s fair to say that you did in fact ‘invent’ this servant him for Sickert, as he himself didn’t say anything anywhere about what or which servant he meant. I’m not saying that the non-biblical could not have been what Sickert meant, all I’m saying is that there’s nothing to suggest that Sickert did in fact mean this non-biblical servant, when looking at it objectively.
According to you some people on these boards twisted facts by saying you did invent the servant and you wonder why these people wont try examining them. Now that’s odd, since you didn’t seem to have really tried to examine the title of the painting based on the biblical servant, which would be the logical thing to do.
In your original post you mentioned that you hadn’t seen titles in any other Sickert painting, with which you seemed to be suggesting that Sickert painted the title on the painting because he attached some specific importance to it’s title. As has been put forward by Wolf Vanderlinden, there are more Sickert paintings with a title painted on them, which would decrease the value of your point quite a bit, to say the least - if this indeed was your point.
You claim Sickert was a 69 year old when he made his painted confession and that he made it because of his bad health, because he feared he was to die soon. Yet, this - in your own words - ‘very frail wreck of a man, who looked emaciated, shrivelled and weak’ lived for another 13 years before he died. If Sickert would have died in the early 1930's I would say you had a point, but knowing he died in 1942 I would say there isn't much of a point left.
Somewhere in the process you said Sickert’s eyes give him the demented look of a frenzied killer in a fanatical trance. If you believe him to have been the Ripper, I guess it would look like that, yes, but it’s not a very objective assessment, in fact it’s very subjective one.
All in all, I would say that nothing even remotely conclusive can be drawn from the clue you have put forward.
All the best,
Frank
|
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 12:26 pm: | |
Dan wrote:
>Sickert's alibi is as strong as they come.
Dan, your assertion of an iron-clad alibi would not stand up to 30-seconds of cross-examination by a novice attorny in any court in the world. You can tapdance as fast as you can, but anyone can still see the rubbish piled up behind you.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 3:51 am: | |
Wolf,
>No one has to prove that Sickert wasn't in France. No one has to prove a negative. To demolish your claim of an alibi in any trial, it would be sufficient to demonstrate that Sickert could have traveled back and forth quickly. And in Sickert's case, he could have commuted very easily. I've read there are, and were, no records for travelers between England and France back then. Ironically, in the 1980s, I once made the exact same trip myself -- by bicycle! When you come up with proof that Sickert was in France at the exact same moment each of the 5 crimes were committed, be sure to let me know. That is how to establish an alibi. If you want to claim an alibi, the burden of proof is entirely on you to establish it -- and you have to make it air-tight. That's why they call it an air-tight alibi. There is no such thing as a likely alibi. He's got an alibi or he doesn't. Your claim is like a girl who is only slightly pregnant.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
mark starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 4:29 am: | |
Hello Frank:
You got closer than many, and I thank you for making the effort. But you too can't get past that anonymous servant in Genesis 14.
Maybe if I put it in cinematic terms. The servant in Genesis 14 is a bit player, of no importance to Abraham's significance in the bible. Why would Sickert -- a life-long atheist; an arrogant, self-centered, self-indulgent egotist; an original artist completely convinced of his important place in the history of British art -- compare himself to a biblical non-entity of no symbolic meaning? This servant has nothing to do with Abraham's significance in the bible, or with Abraham's role as a patriarch in three religions. He is like an extra in a movie. I think this particular servant in Genesis 14 never even crossed Sickert's mind for an instant.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 6:45 am: | |
Stan wrote:
"I'm still confused. WHAT ALIBI? Two letters that place Sickert in France NOT on the days of the murders? Very strong alibi."
Yeah, you are confused. There are several letters that place Sickert in France for a vacation that overlaps most of the canonical Ripper killings.
"Nobody had ever travelled from London to France more than once during the Victorian era. But lets be real. "
From France to London. Hang around kill someone. And back. And back to London. Kill one or two people. And back. We aren't talking about an hour or two one way on a private jet here, this would be a long, tedious procedure, not to mention rather conspicuous. It's also extremely inefficient for a serial killer when there are any number of other closer cities to find victims in that are far enough from where he was to safely remove him from consideration.
"I'm not saying Sickert was 'JTR', I am saying don't eliminate him on hearsay and letters that do not prohibit a return to England. "
They prohibit a return to England by any reasonable measure. But then if you play the "not impossible" game you can't rule out anything, no matter how ludicrous it is.
"Just cause you believe he is innocent does not make it so Dan. If it is so then who did it?"
This is highly obnoxious Cornwell flavored anti-logic. The reason I believe he is innocent is because he was in France at the time. Prior to learning that fact I was comfortable with not knowing if he killed anyone or not, but knowing that Cornwell's case was laughable. It's not like my wanting to think he was innocent suddenly placed him in France. |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 403
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 10:42 am: | |
I'm starting to like you Mark. I'm particularly liking all the talk of attorney's and courts and cross-examination. Thing is, before you get anywhere near a court of law in the UK (where these murders took place remember) you would first have to persuade that Crown Prosecution Service that Sickert had a case to answer.
I can just see it now. "You see, he painted a scary picture with an obscure title. And it was only a two day round trip from where he was to where the murders took place. Clearly he was the culprit." It would be great. Those guys need a good laugh every now and then. |
Stan Russo
Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 33
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 1:49 pm: | |
Dan wrote:
"Stan Wrote:"
""I'm still confused. WHAT ALIBI? Two letters that place Sickert in France NOT on the days of the murders. Very Strong alibi.""
Then Dan insulted.
Then Dan explained how multiple letters place Sickert in France for a vacation that spanned most of the canonical murders.
Then Dan neglected to include these letters that prohibit Sickert returning to London beyond any reasonable doubt. Dan also neglected to include any dates of any letters, which he states are in the multiple amount.
Dan that writes more of what Stan writes only to counter a possibility with a direct statement that trips back and forth between England and France are not reasonably possible in the case of Sickert.
Dan then makes the biggest insult by comparing my opinion that Sickert can not be eliminated based on these multiple letters to the logic used, or not used by Patricia Cornwell.
Despite the insult I forgot for a moment that since Cornwell failed to prove Sickert's guilt this must mean that he is innocent. Now I know.
Stan is writing right now that Dan is an opinionated narrow-minded man with no vision or ability to think for himself. Whatever is said and is majority opinion is true. No room for discussion. No room for possibility. No room for theories contrary to majority opinion. Sickert is innocent, as is everyone else. Nobody did it because a case can be made against every suspect committing the murders. Maybe the murders never happened? Can't have that because then Dan wouldn't be able to disagree with everyone who states his/her opinion. And we all know that Dan is a very disagreeable person.
People who KNOW everything about this case should solve it. Where's your solution Dan?
Stan writes
STAN |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
