Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
About the Casebook

 Search:
 

Join the Chat Room!

Archive through February 03, 2004 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Message Boards » Suspects » Sickert, Walter » A New Sickert Clue » Archive through February 03, 2004 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko

Post Number: 175
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 2:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Mark,

Itís not that I canít get past the biblical servant, itís just that I havenít seen or heard any fact or even a direct indication from you (or anybody else) that Sickert actually meant the servant you came up with. You based this servant on what youíve read, heard and seen about Sickert and it's your claim that Sickert meant this non-biblical servant.

Perhaps he did, however, what Iím saying Ė and you donít seem to get past that Ė is that thereís not even the tiniest shred of evidence that the servant you came up with is the one Sickert referred to when he brushed the title on his painting. The closest thing to a direct indication you offer is saying that he was an arrogant, self-centered, life long atheist, but thatís really about it and thatís far from convincing, as you might have noticed. You forgot to mention that Sickert liked to be the focus of attention, also if it meant shocking people with his black sense of humor.

Now, letís assume for a moment that Sickert exactly meant what you have suggested. Does this mean that he was the Ripper then? I donít think so. It might just as well have been one of his Ďblackí jokes, like the sending of a Ripper letter, although I doubt that because I think to most people the joke wouldnít have been clear, even though they probably were more involved in religion than we are today. And it might also have been like Jeff Hamm suggested earlier, that Sickert wanted people to start thinking when they looked at this painting and give it some extra dimension.

This whole thing reminds me of the so-called gravespitting incident that allegedly took place at Mary Kellyís grave. It has been argued on these boards that it was Joseph Barnett who spat on Maryís coffin when she was buried and that this points directly to him as the Ripper. But first of all, it hasnít been established that the incident really took place and secondly itís far from a fact that the man who allegedly spat on her coffin was in fact Joseph Barnett. But even if the incident took place and it was Barnett, would this prove or even indicate he was Jack the Ripper?

I wonder if an impartial person would have come up with the clue you have put forward.

And if I may say something on Wolf's behalf: we aren't in a court room here.

All the best,
Frank
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally

Post Number: 258
Registered: 4-2003
Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 2:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Stan,

Blah blah blah blah blah.

Answer the simple question. If Sickert was possessed of a homicidal impulse, WHY would he go all the way to England to satisfy it with so many closer alternatives at hand? When Ted Bundy was in Colorado, he killed Colorado girls, when he was in Washington, Washington girls, he didn't find himself in Colorado then travel back to Washington just to kill and then make several round trips. He killed as opportunity presented itself, wherever he happened to be. Serial killers do not hold their homicidal desires in check for two days so they can cross a country, get on a boat, cross a channel, take a taxi and place themselves conveniently in line with someone's theory of what had to have happened.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stan Russo
Sergeant
Username: Stan

Post Number: 34
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 4:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ally,

I'm not trying to say Sickert did it. But here is a suspect who everyone wants to eliminate based on some handwritten letters that do not place him out of England on the specific dates of the murders.

And if you want to bring up other criminals I will do so too. Frederick Bailey Deeming, another suspect, is said to have been incarcerated in a South African jail during 1888, and yet nobody conclusively without a doubt eliminates Deeming because there is no definitive proof he was not in London during the commission of the murders. The same applies to Mikhael Ostrog, who most likely, but not definitively, was inside of a French prison under one of his known aliases.

Let's be truthful about why Sickert is treated as nothing more than a proverbial saint on these boards, because the Royal Conspiracy has been proven false, Which I know, and because a certain fiction writer chose to delve into this case recently and made herself look like a fool. Again I must state that simply because a theory is flawed and disproved that alone does not eliminate a suspect from candidacy. Why if the Maybrick Diary is fake does that necessarily have to mean that James Maybrick is completely cleared of any connection with the murders? If it were truly that simple then give me some time and I'll eliminate every suspect with fake documents stating they were the murderer.

And to answer your question, if Walter Sickert was 'JTR' then the murders were not done specifically to feed a homicidal impulse. They were planned, for whatever purpose he felt necessary, and while anyone who murders in any fashion is homicidal, planned pre-meditated murderers are calculating. In this scenario why would a pre-meditated murderer murder in a location where he could count on his friends claiming he was vacationing? The answer is he wouldn't. And if you think that during that period Sickert would not be able to slip away from France to commit a murder in London then that is just not realistic thinking. I'll guarantee you that no one will ever be able to place Walter Sickert in France with less than enough time to return to London to commit any of the murders, yet I'll also guarantee you that no one will ever find documentation of Walter Sickert in London on the night of any of the murders. Perhaps that was the intention, if he really was 'JTR. And I'm not saying he was "JTR", but I am saying that he should not be eliminated simply based of previously flawed theories and suppositions.

The blah blah blah blah blah was a nice touch though.

STAN
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally

Post Number: 259
Registered: 4-2003
Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 5:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

If I am not mistaken, and I might be, the Deeming incareration is NOT confirmed. Deemings whereabouts for a good year are not specifically confirmed. It is known that Sickert was in France during the months of the some of the Ripper crimes.

If Sickert was the murderer and the murderers were pre-planned, and he specifically traveled from France to kill those particular women, then how did he know he would find them on those particular nights? Just a stroke of good fortune and luck that he happened to stumble across his intended victims where they happened to be? Especially since one of them had just been incarcerated. Right.

And if he needed an alibi, there were a lot easier ways to go about doing it than a vacation in France, where someone would have noticed him missing during those days. And yes, they would have. And considering there was nothing to tie him to these women, he wouldn't have needed an alibi anyway, considering that alibis are generally needed AFTER one is in someway tied to the victims...there would have been no reason for anyone to have suspected him, therefore, establishing an alibi as farfetched as going to France would have been ludicrous. It's not like anyone would have gone, BLAME SICKERT! At which case he has that convenient trip to France..minus those days he was missing which just happened to coincide with the killings.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker

Post Number: 192
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 5:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Stan,

The overwhelming state of the evidence is that Sickert was in France at the time of the murders. Sure, you can pretend he was hopping ships to catch a quick kill and then popping back to France. But REAL killers don't behave like that. Particularly ones who are famous and have expressed an interest in the case. People would tend to notice. It's inevitable.

"Again I must state that simply because a theory is flawed and disproved that alone does not eliminate a suspect from candidacy. Why if the Maybrick Diary is fake does that necessarily have to mean that James Maybrick is completely cleared of any connection with the murders?"

Ummm. Stan, the suspect list is pretty much every male who could have been physically fit and in London. There's virtually no one who can be eliminated "definatively" at this late date. Thus the burden of proof rests with those who would show he was the killer. If the state of the evidence shows him to be in France, then you, or Mark, or Cornewell has the burden not to show that he COULD have been in London, but that he WAS in London. Elimination is a fools game that will get us nowhere.

And yes, if the Maybrick diary is fake, then of course Maybrick is innocent. At least until proven guilty. Just like Sickert. And he won't be. Just like Sickert. Common sense. It's the investigators friend.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm

Post Number: 217
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 6:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Wolf,
Thanks for the information. I had a vauge impression that Sickert being in France at the time was less "ambiguous" than PC suggests, but I've not seen the details as nicely listed as you've done. Thanks again.

- Jeff
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah

Post Number: 578
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 10:04 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Mark,

I am not twisting things you have said. You just said that you link the painting to Sickert sacrificing God's Lamb, which I don't understand in itself, but also it was Abraham who killed the lamb NOT the servant as the title suggests. You cannot link this painting to ANYTHING Abraham did or didn't do as it has NOTHING to do with him. The title is The Servant of Abraham so I really don't understand how you are linking Sickert to anything that Abraham did.

When I said that you have no factual evidence, I meant that you have none with regards to proving this painting is a confession.

Glenn,

Glad it wasn't just me who didn't understand that post. Is it just me or is this whole thing very infuriating??

Stan,

I don't think that Sickert's mother sat there and thought to herself "Hmmmm, I better send letters home on certain days so it can guarantee my son an alibi for the murders that I can predict are going to happen".

Come off it. For Sickert to be the culprit it would mean that not only did he cover it up but so did his mother, his brother and his friend. I don't think so some how.

I realise you didn't say he was guilty, that last bit was sort of a rant to all the Sickert believers who won't look at the actual facts and are quite happy to look soley at the ones they want to look at.

Sarah
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz

Post Number: 691
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 11:39 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bloody hell, Stan, thatís brilliant!

Now we know exactly why the Maybrick Diary was written.

The author is a relative who feared James might have been Jack, and figured that if they could only produce a handwritten Ďconfessioní that would be found one day, and which the experts would dismiss out of hand as a fake, dear Jimís name would ultimately be safe no matter what else might come to light - like a confessional gold watch for instance.

Well, if nothing else, it neatly explains why no attempt was made to copy Maybrickís handwriting.

Hi Mark,

I donít have a problem with anyone speculating about the reasons for Sickertís chosen title for this self-portrait. I would have a problem if I thought you hadnít explored all possible reasons with a view to eliminating them, before finally arriving at the most incriminating of all Ė a true confession to being Jack.

Benefit of the doubt time Ė when you saw what you thought was Sickert saying in effect, for posterity: ďYes, I did kill those women, but my excuse is that I was only carrying on Abrahamís sacrificial lamb dutyĒ, can I ask what allowed you to eliminate the possibility that an innocent Sickertís reasoning and memory had been adversely affected by his stroke?

Could such an illness not have caused Sickert to confuse an intense interest in certain murders in his much earlier pre-stroke days with a more personal involvement than was really the case? I donít find the evidence particularly compelling that he wrote letters claiming to be the ripper, but if he did write even one, it would be easy to see how a stroke in later life might have blurred the edges of reality between making up a sick claim and basing a claim on the sick truth.

I do find it hard to see Sickert, the intelligent atheist, needing to leave a message of the type you describe, harder still that he would expect others to Ďgetí the message, much less expect anyone to fall for such an Ďartfulí and biblical blame-shifting exercise, in the event that proof were ever to emerge identifying him as Jack.

Firstly, it depends on a belief by Sickert that proof could exist to condemn him, independent of anything of a confessional and inconclusive nature. What Ďproofí could he possibly have envisaged?

Secondly, it depends on a perceived need to explain himself, in case he is buckled when it would be too late to do so in person, which would tend to argue against a lack of remorse. If he felt none for what he did, and didnít believe in divine retribution either, why would he care enough to anticipate the reaction to his guilt of God or his fellow man? What would be in it for Sickert to try to claim such a lame excuse, posthumous or otherwise, especially one with a religious flavour that would hardly convince anyone who knew him to have been an atheist?

Since the whole idea appears to depend on Sickert being seriously deluded at the time of the message, how can you be sure this delusion was part and parcel of a self-righteous murdererís make-up, and not simply the result of a stroke suffered by an over-enthusiastic observer?

I am also curious to know if Pat Cornwell did a strict chronology of all the known dates, posting times and locations of letters she suspected were written by Sickert, so she could compare them with all his documented whereabouts for elimination purposes.

Love,

Caz




(Message edited by Caz on February 02, 2004)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stan Russo
Sergeant
Username: Stan

Post Number: 35
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 12:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

If we are so sure about these suspects why haven't we narrowed down the suspect pool?

I don't enjoy murder cases, especially this one, but I am working toward achieveing a solution, whether or not there can ever be one. Either way I'm gonna try and that means keeping options open until the case advances in some way.

With regards to Sickert, with whom I am merely trying to sate that it is still possible he may be the murderer, Ally has just proven my entire point. The Royal Conspiracy, disproved as it has been, has so tarnished the viability of any suspect mentioned in connection with that theory, that public opinion has determined that in no possible way could any of these suspects, independant of this or any other disproved theory, could have committed the murders. All that is necessary to eliminate any suspect, whether guilty or not, is to formulate a disprovable theory against them.

How Ally proves this point is stating how would Sickert know those particular women were where he found them on those particular night? This is directly out of the Royal Conspiracy theory, that these particular women were specifically chosen. I never said that these specific women were the intended targets, but the stigma of the Royal Conspiracy theory infects the suspect pool to this day. A disproved theory should not eliminate a suspect. That is my point.

STAN

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stan Russo
Sergeant
Username: Stan

Post Number: 36
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 1:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Let's all agree to disagree regarding these ideas.

But, perhaps it would also be helpful to open our minds to new ideas and theories. So far the old ones haven't worked too well.

STAN

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally

Post Number: 260
Registered: 4-2003
Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 1:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Uh..how do you get a premeditated murder that doesn't have specific victims in mind? Then for what purpose were these women killed? You say if Sickert was the murderer, then it was premeditated..go on then, establish what would the gain have been for a man to plan to kill perfect strangers and go to such absolutely fantastic lengths to do so? Premeditation requires a rational forethought and consideration of benefit. What was it?

Keeping an open mind doesn't require you to empty out your brains to make room, which is what these scenarios require to be plausible.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stan Russo
Sergeant
Username: Stan

Post Number: 37
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 2:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ally,

'I'm going to plan to kill someone'. Pre-meditated murder.

'There's a victim for me to kill'. Non-specific suspect.

With all the women walking around Whitechapel couldn't it be possible that someone, anyone, set out to commit a murder, then found someone, then murdered them? If this is not possible, I'll admit I'm wrong and lead the charge to eliminate Sickert and any other suspects that people don't like.

STAN
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Wolf Vanderlinden
Sergeant
Username: Wolf

Post Number: 50
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 3:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Mark.

Well you certainly believe in an over the top objective view of things. "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."

So, let me get this straight. In a trial the defence brings forth evidence that when the murder was committed the accused was in another location, say in another part of town or in another city or country even, and presents corroborative witnesses who support this. The prosecution then rises and says to the jury "Yes, we know he was in another part of town, another city/country, but he could have traveled, by car; train; plane; boat etc, to the murder scene." He, or she, then sits down. And you think that this constitutes the demolishing of the original alibi? Especially when the prosecution offers absolutely no scrap of evidence that the accused actually did travel by car, boat, train etc? I am afraid that it doesn't work like that in the real world and it falls under the heading of hyperbolic wishful thinking.

" 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."

Well, no actually, I don't. Allow me to stay with your legal bent here. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, in this case you, to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the cornerstone of Western jurisprudence. The burden of proof does not lie with the defence to prove anything. Sickert is innocent until proven guilty and as you have so far failed to offer even the slightest piece of creditable evidence that proves his guilt he remains innocent.

In other words Sickert's alibi does not have to be airtight, as you erroneously, and dramatically, claim, but merely fall within the bounds of reasonable doubt. And here is the interesting thing: neither you nor Ms Cornwell dispute the fact that Sickert was in France during four of the Whitechapel murders. However, you attempt to mitigate this fact by stating that he could have traveled back to London in order to murder three or four women.

Sure. He could have. He could have flown a hot air balloon over the Channel. He could have used a primitive submarine to slip across and up the Thames unseen, both are not anachronistic. But did he? You state that he did but without offering any proof of the truth of your assertion. This is crux of the argument. Attempting to convincing people that Walter Sickert traveled from a small seaside town in France to London in order to commit murder while offering absolutely no proof that he actually did.

Now, having said all that, I am still waiting for you to supply the "factual ammunition" which proves Ms Cornwell's point that Sickert did travel across to London. While you are at it could you also supply your sources that prove that Sickert was indeed "an arrogant, self-centered, self-indulgent egotist; an original artist completely convinced of his important place in the history of British art." Remember, Cornwell is not a credible source for this claim. Thank you in advance.

Jeff.

You're welcome.

Wolf.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally

Post Number: 261
Registered: 4-2003
Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 3:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Stan,

One word: Motive. If one plans to kill someone premeditatively, then there is motive. If I kill this woman, then I get her jewelry. If I kill this woman, I don't have to give her half my stuff in a divorce.

If one goes out to kill a perfect stranger and anyone will do and there is no gain in it for the killer, then that killer has a homicidal impulse.

A homicidal impulse can as easily be satisfied in France as in England if that was where the killer happened to be.

So what was the motive for Sickert to travel to England and kill prostitutes there?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe

Post Number: 132
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 3:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Wolf,

"an arrogant, self-centered, self-indulgent egotist; an original artist completely convinced of his important place in the history of [insert name of artists country] art."

I always thought those traits were prequisites for any artist achieving even a modicum of success. Okay, I jest, but I can't think of a single shrinking violet among the artists I've known.

Otherwise, however, I agree completely with your post.

And Stan, I can't speak for anyone else, but I have carefully weighed Cornwell's thesis and the recently advanced "clue" and still find the case against Sickert deficient and often implausible. That doesn't mean I am close-minded. I am simply unpersuaded so far. If further evidence against Sickert is produced I will look at it, but as things stand now Sickert is a better artist than Ripper candidate . . . which may not say all that much.

Don.

(Message edited by supe on February 02, 2004)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stan Russo
Sergeant
Username: Stan

Post Number: 38
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 3:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Donald,

I did not advance this new clue. I believe that was Mark Starr. All I am trying to state, with mounds and mounds of opposition, is that all the evidence showing Sickert was in France on days prior to the murders does not eliminate him from remaining as a suspect. Also, previously disproved theories and shoddy theorizing by Cornwell also does not eliminate Sickert simply because they failed to make a strong case. To date no one has made a strong case for Sickert being 'JTR'. That doesn't mean he wasn't. It also doesn't mean he was.

ALLY,

I don't know everything. I don't know who 'JTR' was. I don't know why the murders were committed. What I do know is it is shoddy investigative work to clear a suspect when it remains possible for that suspect to have committed the murders. If it makes you feel better I'll tell you I don't think Sickert was 'JTR'. Then again what makes me right about that?

STAN
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash

Post Number: 409
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 3:00 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Stan

The crux of the matter here is grounds for suspicion. I personally am all for keeping an open mind, but surely there must be some grounds to suspect the person in the first place.

We suspect Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog because they were named as suspects by a policeman involved in the case. We suspect Hutchinson and Barnett because of their involvement in the case. We suspect Chapman and Tumblety and Deeming because they had known homicidal tendencies, we suspect Kelly and Cutbush because we know they had on at least one occasion stuck a knife into a woman.

What exactly are the grounds for suspicion for Walter Sickert? He wasn't involved in the case, he wasn't suspected by any of the policemen involved in the case and he is not known to have committed any form of violent act against anyone, woman or man, ever in his entire life. He painted some dark and disturbing paintings. So what? Bram Stoker wrote some dark and disturbing books, and he was around London at the time, why aren't we suspecting him? There is not one single shred of evidence which points the finger in Sickert's direction, that's why we eliminate him, not because of the Royal Conspiracy theory and not because we don't like Cornwell, just because there are too many far more credible suspects to bother with one on whom we cannot so much as pin the theft of a penny let alone the brutal murder of five women.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 5:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Stan:

I hope you would not mind if, in the future when I receive similar posts "eliminating Walter Sickert as a suspect", I respond simply: See Stan's post on Feb. 2. There is really nothing more I can add, and there is nothing in your post that anyone can possibly refute.

Regards,
Mark Starr
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 3:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Sarah wrote:
>I am not twisting things you have said. You just said that you link the painting to Sickert sacrificing God's Lamb, which I don't understand in itself, but also it was Abraham who killed the lamb NOT the servant as the title suggests. You cannot link this painting to ANYTHING Abraham did or didn't do as it has NOTHING to do with him. The title is The Servant of Abraham so I really don't understand how you are linking Sickert to anything that Abraham did.

Absolutely you have twisted what I have repeatedly written. And what you state about my views is wrong, wrong, wrong. And I will now prove it to you in excruciatingly minute detail, because everything I have written in the past has never gotten through to you.


You state: "You cannot link this painting to ANYTHING Abraham did." Wrong. I have linked this painting to Abraham's slaughter of a sacrificial lamb to follow God's second order communicated by the angel. I have linked this painting to Abraham's willingness to slaughter his son Isaac to follow God's first order. I have linked this painting to God's reward to Abraham -- protection for his descendants -- for demonstrating his willingness to slaughter Isaac and for his slaughter of a sacrificial lamb. Your statement above is patently false. If you want to understand exactly how I linked Sickert's painting to "ANYTHING Abraham did," please re-read the perhaps 25,000 words of explanation I have expended in all of my previous posts. That you may not be convinced by my interpretation of this painting does not both me a whit. One can't please everybody. And in the case of Jack The Ripper, with hundred of self-proclaimed experts chasing more than 25 named suspects, not all those experts can possibly be right. You have not produced one fact that disproves my contentions.


You also wrote:
>..or didn't do as it has NOTHING to do with him. The title is The Servant of Abraham so I really don't understand how you are linking Sickert to anything that Abraham did.

I have never proven that Sickert was not referring to Abraham's servant in Genesis 14 -- nor could anyone possibly prove this. I am saying, and have said many times, that in the light of everything that is known about Sickert and these 3 paintings with religious titles, this contention, as put forward by Jean Overton Fuller and others, is, IN MY OPINION, not merely absurd but it irrelevant to Sickert consistent purpose in this obviously significant trilogy of highly unusual paintings that Sickert painted after barely surviving a near-fatal stroke. Sickert's clear purpose in all three of these paintings is to compare himself, Walter Sickert, with figures in the bible, to tell the viewer things about Walter Sickert. That this was Sickert's purpose, I state categorically, is irrefutable by you, Jean Fuller, Wolf or anyone else. There may be disagreement about how he comparing himself to biblical figures, about what Sickert is saying about himself -- but to deny that Sickert is making statements about himself in these three paintings is sticking your head in the sand.

There is no doubt that in "Lazarus Breaks His Fast", Sickert is comparing himself to Lazarus. There is no doubt that in "The Raising of Lasarus", Sickert is comparing himself to Jesus.

In "The Servant of Abraham," two possibilities exist. (1) Jean Overton Fuller & CO. says Sickert is comparing himself to the anonymous servant mentioned briefly in Genesis 14. (2) I say that Sickert is stating that he, Walter Sickert, is the servant of Abraham, following God's order to sacrific innocent lambs to demonstrate his faith in God, and thus prolong and ensure God's protection for Abraham's descendants (the followers of 3 religions, including Christianity.)

As P. T. Barnum reputedly first said: "You pays your money, and you takes your choice." Although I do not have a written document signed by Walter Sickert stating he really meant Possibility No. 1, I utterly reject Possibility No. 1 as absurd and irrelevant to Sickert's clear purpose in this trilogy. I think it is pointless and unsupported by everything else about Sickert to argue that he compared himself to Lazarus, Jesus, and an anonymous servant who appears briefly in Genesis 14 and has no significance by himself and no importance to the philsophical meaning attributed to Abraham by three religions. I don't think there was any reason to believe Sickert was even aware of the existance of this anonymous servant in Genesis 14. As a life-long atheist, he may never have read that far into Genesis. He used only that part of the story of Abraham and Isaac that served his purpose: demonstrating to posterity that Walter Sickert has equal significance to world history as Lazarus, Jesus and Abraham. And, as I have repeated pointed out, I do not think that Walter Sickert believed this himself for an instant. It was a pretext, a cover story for posterity to protect his reputation as an artist in the event his guilt as Jack The Ripper was ever discovered after his death. It would be lovely if Sickert had painted himself in a deerstalker cap slashing the throat of Mary Kelley and entitled it "The Servant of Abraham" -- but he didn't. Probably not even that evidence would convince most of responders in this thread. As a subtle, learned, important painter who was absolutely convinced of his own historical significance, Walter Sickert was not addressing in these paintings the closed small minds of those who can only accept an independently-made photograph of Sickert gleefully eviscerating each of the five canonical victims with eye-witnesses looking on and taking down notes.


If you want to discover the direct link that joins him inextricably to Jack The Ripper, you have to start not with these three paintings but with "Jack The Ripper's Bedroom." Let me state here that the link that I have discovered in this painting has not been mentioned by any writer that I have seen thus far. Nor have I described it here, and I don't intend to. I have additional digging to do -- even though I recently came across what I consider to be major supporting evidence of unquestionable authenticity documenting this new link. I have no idea yet how and where I will describe this link one day.

And if that doesn't clear up your confusion over my theory, then I am resigned to the inevitably fate that you will not agree with my conclusions.

Regards,
Mark Starr
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

CB
Unregistered guest
Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 7:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi,

Stan, I believe that the motive put forth by some Sickert supporters is that he was Impotent and because of this condition he was sexually frustrated. Sickert took out his frustrations on the poor unfortunates of WC.

I am not sure what the condition is called but it has been suggested that sickert was born with a hole in an important body part and he under went several operations whitch left him impotent.

It was stated on a popular tv show by someone working the case that Sickert was unable to have children.

I am sure you have heard all this before but if any of this can be proven false then there really is no motive. Opurtunity is weak as sickert may well have been in France.

I am new to sickert but I think it is important that we examine the thories supporting sickert before we try to interpret his paintings. If the theories have know sand then what reason is there to implicate Sickert. For example without the false Maybrick diary would Maybrick be a suspect today? I can make a compelling story that Popeye the Sailor was in port and in fact the ripper but if my story holds no sand then should Popeye still be considerd a suspect?

ALL THE BEST,CB
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 11:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

In 1913, Ambrose Bierce wrote his "Devil's Dictionary." His definition of the word 'positive' fits Dan perfectly:

Positive: mistaken at the top of one's voice.

Regards,
Mark Starr
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 4:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

>MS: " 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."
>Wolf: Well, no actually, I don't. Allow me to stay with your legal bent here. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, in this case you, to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Wolf, what you are saying is absurd on its face and would be contradicted immediately by any criminal lawyer in the world. An alibi is a DEFENSE AGAINST CHARGES BROUGHT BY THE PROSECUTION. In this case I am charging Sickert with The Whitechapel Murders, so I am the prosecution. You are defending Sickert by claiming he has an alibi (and therefore could not have committed these crimes), so you are the defense.

When you claim that it is the prosecution's responsibility to prove the defense's claim of an alibi, you simply do not know what you are talking about. You are making up law that does not exist anywhere. It is never the prosecution's responsibility to prove that the defense's claims are true. It is the prosecution's responsibility to try to disprove any claim by the defense of an alibi. And in any trial, in order for the prosecution to demolish any claim of an alibi by the defense, it is sufficient for the prosecution to show that it was indeed possible that the defendant could have been at the scene of a crime, not necessarily that he definitely was at the scene. You cannot prove that Sickert was not in England at the exact moments when the crimes were committed. Cornwell has documented that even if he was in France, he still could have traveled to London to commit the crimes and no one might have ever noticed his brief absence. There is really nothing more to say. The burden-of-proof to prove the defense's claim of an alibi is always solely on the defense, never the prosecution. You cannot twist the prosecution's burden to disprove the defense's claim of an alibi into a non-existant burden on the prosecution to prove the defense's claim of an alibi for them. If the prosecution discovers in the course of its own investigation exculpatory information, it has a responsibility to disclose that information to the defnse. In this case, neither I nor anyone else has discovered any exculpatory evidence -- such as new documents that prove Sickert was elsewhere at the exact moment the Whitechapel Murders were committed. Sickert has no alibi, you have not given him one, and I do not have to prove that he was not in France. Until you come up with proof -- for example, if Sickert had been imprisioned during the period, and his continued imprisonment was verified by the guard's daily bedcheck records -- you have no point whatsoever.

I try never to point to some expert and say he agrees with me, in this case I feel compelled to add that my neighbor, a criminal lawyer in practice for 30 years, just told me (when he wasn't laughing), "yours is not a point subject to dispute."

Regards,
Mark Starr
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 12:20 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Caroline wrote:
>Benefit of the doubt time Ė when you saw what you thought was Sickert saying in effect, for posterity: ďYes, I did kill those women, but my excuse is that I was only carrying on Abrahamís sacrificial lamb dutyĒ, can I ask what allowed you to eliminate the possibility that an innocent Sickertís reasoning and memory had been adversely affected by his stroke?

If Sickert's reasoning and memory had been adversely affected, I do not think he could have produced these three major and perhaps even great paintings or some of the paintings after them. (I've come to regret my initial negative reaction to "Lazarus Breaks His Fast" -- which was the result of a garish print on the Web.) Sickert continued to write articles and letters. No indication of mental impairment there. I've read the memoirs of two of his close friends. Neither mentions mental impairment. He was the same crusty egotistical bastard he always was right to the end. The problems presented by the three paintings with religious titles that Sickert, a life-long atheist, painted after his stroke are: (a) do these 3 paintings indicate a sudden but very brief expression of genuine religious confession and repentence (NO!); (b) do these 3 paintings indicate Sickert lost his mental faculties and didn't know anymore what he was doing (NO!); or (c) are these 3 paintings, and "The Servant of Abraham" in particular, a confession of his crimes as The Ripper couched in phoney religious cover story to protect his reputation as an artist from beyond the grave (I'M SURE OF IT.)

But to answer your broader question. Of course, I considered lots of other possibilities that I do not mention in this forum. Why mention them? I rejected them as implausible or unsustainable. My theory is based on what I believe the facts support. I will never say a different interpretation of the facts is impossible. But I will say, and have said, that a specific interpretation of the facts that I consider implausible or unsustainable by the facts is absurd. I have a right to judge others' opinions for myself, just as everyone here has a right to judge mine for themselves.

Regards,
Mark Starr
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 3:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Frank:
I will try one more time, because you seem to be sincerely looking for an answer rather than just trying to score points for your team.


>Itís not that I canít get past the biblical servant,

well, I won't dispute the obvious any more

>itís just that I havenít seen or heard any fact or even a direct indication from you (or anybody else) that Sickert actually meant the servant you came up with. You based this servant on what youíve read, heard and seen about Sickert and it's your claim that Sickert meant this non-biblical servant.

First of all, I base it on the image in the painting, what Sickert himself actually painted on the canvas. You may think that evidence is only what one reads, one hears, and one sees ABOUT Sickert. This painting is both (a) visual communication (for the image it displays and for its visual meaning -- that the artist decided to put into the image); and (b) written communication with words painted on canvas by the artist, inextricably linking these words to the message the artist wanted to impart in the image. The painting does not show a biblical servant. It shows Walter Sickert's face, and only his face -- with no suggestion whatsoever that the artist depicted anyone in biblical times, and no reference to Rebecca at the Well or anyone else in Genesis 14. You are looking at an artistic document that is authentic Sickert and every bit a piece of legal evidence as a half-filled bottle of poison with a set of fingerprints. Even that half-filled bottle of poison has no incriminating significance in a murder case until it is put into a context. In the case of Sickert, we have three paintings with biblical titles, all three painted by a life-long atheist who never painted a biblical scene before or after these three. Moreover, Sickert painted the three biblical paintings immediately after he barely survived a near fatal stroke at the age of 67. You make the point that because he lived to the age of 82. he had no reason to think he might die soon after his stroke. That is absurd, comically absurd. How could Sickert have known when he would die or that he would live until 82? There is no doubt the stroke nearly killed him and it did debilitate him (just look at the post-stroke photos; I can clearly see some paralyzed facial nerves in a few of them.)

>Perhaps he did, however, what Iím saying Ė and you donít seem to get past that Ė is that thereís not even the tiniest shred of evidence that the servant you came up with is the one Sickert referred to when he brushed the title on his painting.

Here is your evidence: the context. Three paintings with religious titles painted by an athiest after he narrowly escapes death at the age of 67. Even though he lives for another decade or more, he never paints another oil painting with a biblical title (I don't know about his sketches or drawings.) The FIRST painting, Lazarus Breaks His Fast, does not show the biblical Lazarus; it shows a frail Walter Sickert, sitting at his kitchen table, eating grapes with a metal spoon, with a napkin tied around his neck and a Martini glass on the table. The THIRD painting, The Raising of Lazarus, does not show Lazarus either. It shows Walter Sickert as Jesus, lifting a body (whose body we do not know) and being helped by someone (who we do not know.) There is written corroboration from one of Sickert's friends that Sickert portrayed himself as Jesus in this painting.

That leaves the SECOND painting, The Servant of Abraham. You are telling me that an atheist with illusions (and maybe delusions) of grandeur, an artist who has compared himself with Lazarus and Jesus, here compares himself in this painting with a minor biblical non-entity of no importance, no symbolic sugnificance, and no relevance to Abraham's religious significance as the patriarch of 3 religions? Do you think Sickert gave a damn about finding just the right bride for Isaac? It is irrelevant.

Sickert is not talking about the anonymous servant in Genesis 14. He is talking about Walter Sickert slaughtering sacrificial victims, just like his now dead master Abraham had to do at God's command -- and then, according to the bible, did. Remember, Abraham is venerated all over the world for what he did. Just read Sickert's voluminous writings. He desperately wanted to be venerated as an artist of historical significance. Moreover, from "The Raising of Lazarus," it is evident he even wanted to be venerated as Jesus. Sickert is saying to all those who believe that Jesus was a savior that he, Walter Sickert, was also a savior because of his actions following God's order to Walter Sickert. It doesn't take a talk-show psychologist to figure out that Walter Sickert had a serious ego problem. In all three of these paintings, Sickert is telling posterity, in the event that his identity as Jack the Ripper is discovered: I did it but don't blame me. I saved the world! But as I have said numerous times, it is an obvious ploy, a pretext. The cynical old codger was as slick as they come. The three paintings are Sickert's cover story. He is trying to dupe history by invoking the bible. You are telling me this could not possibly be true because Sickert did not paint a man in a deerstalker cap slashing the face of Mary Kelly. To which I would add the proverb (is it biblical?): None are so blind as those who will not see.

I should add you got wrong the significance I noted in Sickert's eyes in The Servant of Abraham. The significance was not Sickert's appearance with the look of a demented killer, or with Cornwell's "glint of evil." The significance of the eyes is very specific. One of Sickert's eyes points directly at the viewer. The other eye points directly upward (I speculated toward God.) If you look at photos of Sickert after his stroke, his eyes are OK. Can you point one eye straight upward and the other eye straight forward? I tried and it hurts, and I couldn't. Have you ever seen anyone perform this stunt as a party trick? You don't think the artist intended to convey something with this unusual detail? I am not saying that my interpretation is the only one possible -- about the eyes or about the painting for that matter. I think in the case of the eyes, this interpretation is the most plausible. But Sickert certainly meant to convey something in them there eyes.

>The closest thing to a direct indication you offer is saying that he was an arrogant, self-centered, life long atheist, but thatís really about it and thatís far from convincing, as you might have noticed. You forgot to mention that Sickert liked to be the focus of attention, also if it meant shocking people with his black sense of humor.

Oh, so now the three biblical paintings were merely Sickert's practical joke. Surprise!!!!

Regards,
Mark Starr
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

M.Mc.
Unregistered guest
Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 6:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Common sense is not very common now is it?

The guestbook Patricia Cornwell found should be looked at by other people. Please? I'm mad I read her book and all she did was give her point of view over and and over again. She reeks of it in most of the book. I wish she had just put the facts down and not given her two cents every two minutes. I was rolling my eyes on the part about Sickert's hole in his penis. Which is a 2ed hand piece of info anyway. She admits it but than rolls with the idea to the point of no return.

I think that out of all that Patricia Cornwell "ASSUMES" Sickert did. The Jack the Ripper case is FAR from being closed.

She may or may not have nailed him on being a writer of some of the HOAX letters. I found the water marks on Sickert's letters and the hoax Ripper letter to raise my eyebrow. But the DNA test was not the coffin nail she was wanting that's for sure. The DNA test she ended up with was not 100% at best it's no better than a blood type test.

The canvas and drawing of Sickert do seem to have some Ripper gore in them. So what? Being an artist and a writer myself that does NOT mean very much. I've painted and writen some rather gory things. I have never killed anyone, God help me if I get someone pointing a finger at my stuff. LOL!

Sorry to nail Sickert as Jack the Ripper. It will take more than his paintings, writing paper and a guestbook full of drawings. What else do you have to put the bloody knife in his hand? Hum?

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Register now! Administration

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.