|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Neil K. MacMillan
Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 41
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 4:50 pm: |       |
Jackie and Ashley; I don't belittle her findings for her belief in them. I believe she got tunnel vision with Sickert. I would love to read her views and a statement on how she conducted her research bu as researching Jack the Ripper only for purient reasons she classifies ripperoogists. That is a very good example of rude if you ask me.
I have read Cornwell's book (Along with many others on the subject of Jack the Ripper) Kindly go back and Read Stephen Knight's treatment of the case. He makes much the same argument that Ms. Cornwell does except that his research was bogus and he admitted such before he died. His suspect? Walter Sickert. Ms Cornwell never mentions Joseph Sickert who was supposedly Walters son. (By his own admission)
I will concede that it is possible that Sickert wrote some of the Jack the Ripper letters. However, that does not prove that the letters Sickert wrote were genuine. there is considerable debate if any of the letters were written by Jack the Ripper. And to be honest Ashley, while your language is a bit inelegent, I agree with you.Jack the Ripper was certainly not mentally deficient or stupid. That, of course, is my opinion. yes, there are areas that Ms Cornwell mentioned that bear investigation. But let's have it be unbiased and properly conducted. When you form your theory before gathering the evidence you taint both the theory and the evidence. It's like pounding a square peg into a round hole. And Jackie, you're right. Save finding an irrefuteable document back by solid evidence that conclusively proves wo Jack is, we will never know. Such hasn't appeared yet. Montigue Druitt was never a serious contender in my opinion. there are other who do fit a profile and by the way, several people have done a "Modern" psychological profile on Jack the Ripper. Sickert fits Corwell's profile but The truth is, we will never know how many others could fit her profile because she limited her focus to just him. Kindest regards, Neil |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 946
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 5:43 pm: | |
Ashley,
"I find that she uses similarities between Sickerts writings and the writing in the Ripper letters to prove her point that Sickert was quite likely to have written some of them more often than she refers to any DNA evidence."
Yes, but that doesen't necessarily mean that he is the Ripper. If she's right right in her analysis, it only shows that he wrote a couple of letters, like several others. Cornwell is doing the mistake to claim that since he wrote the letters, he must also be Jack the Ripper. That is amateurish to say the least.
"No average dumb-f*ck with occassional bouts of cleverness nor any schitzophrenic or mentally deficient person could have committed the Ripper killings or written any of the Ripper letters...such things take motive, decivness. (yes alot of the letters were probably hoaxes...but there were likely at least a few that were authentic..someone sick enough to murder five prostitutes would surely get a sick kick out of taunting the authorities). The fact that a suspect is intelligent or not has nothing to do with wether he is capable or incapable of the Ripper murders."
Well, that is your opinion. I don't agree with you, and not all serial killers function the way that you describe. But this is a matter of debate.
"I should think three traumatic childhood surgeries to the nether regions of your body would send anyone into a psychotic fit..particularly if you could never satisfy any physical desires for another person that one might have. I don't think its at all absurd to think the Ripper may have killed out of a psychotic hatred of women and possibly of his own deformity."
I see that Cornwell has totally manipulated you. She has NOT proved that Sickert was subject to those operations. She just ASSUMES it because it fits her theories. Stick to the facts, Ashley. And no, probably none of the letters are authentic. The only one who MAYBE -- but only maybe -- has been considered so, is the Lusk letter, but to clearly establish that, we must have access to the kidney that came with it. That is of course impossible. But apart from that, a number of experts on the field have considered them to be hoaxes and unsignificant. And by the way, not all mutilating serial killers writes letters or delivers messages -- or does it for attention.
"As for Sickerts art and how Cornwell points out similarities between some of Sickerts artwork and murder victims/crime scenes, she's not asking anyone to believe her she's just saying hey, this is worth taking a look at. You can't deny, there are some eery similarities and morbidness in alot of his drawings and paintings."
Now, I am a trained art historian and I am used to looking at paintings, and am also quite familiar with Sickert's art. And believe you me, there is NOTHING in the paintings that could suggest any deeper meanings or references to the murders,apart from some occasional similarities with the morgue photos. But once again, this doesen't make him Jack the Ripper either. To be inspired by horrible events and gruesome subjects is quite common among artists, Ashley.
I am not challenged by Cornwell's ideas. I for my part don't have a favorite suspect. The problem with Cornwell is -- and that you seem to disregard -- is that she has claimed that she has SOLVED the case. She doesen't ask us to be open to her suggestions -- she claims that she has proof -- which she has not. That is indeed serious and the criticism against her is indeed justified.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 947
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 5:52 pm: | |
Dan,
"Well, you are welcome. I think it's all too easy on these boards to lose track of the concept that the opposing side in a particular argument could be in agreement with you on a great many things."
Indeed, indeed. I'll drink to that.
"That was simply the point I was trying to get across, that we disagree on that. Well, the first part anyway. I think he was a clever psychopath"
Yes, I am aware of that and that is OK. I interpret the murders differently, though, but I have revised my earlier views a bit. I believe he was a schizofrenic, though. I have seen too many cases similar in violence and circumstances that includes a perpetrator with a mental, schizofrenic disorder. But this is, as always, a matter of debate. At least we know where we stand on this matter. 
"while most of the posters here disagree on a great many things, we are seemingly overwhelmingly in agreement that Cornwell is totally off base in all but perhaps a few areas (such as the concept that Sickert might have written a few hoax ripper letters, maybe)."
I absolutely agree.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
John Savage
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 134
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 9:27 am: | |
Hi Neil
I was interested in your statement that Stephen Knight's research was bogus and that he admitted such before he died.
Could you provide me with more details about this admission please, I would be very interested to hear.
Regards,
John Savage
|
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 336
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 10:12 am: | |
Ashley
-Concerning Sickerts 'fistula' she got most of her information about it from Sickerts family as most of his biographies don't say much about it. I should think his own family would know these things about him.
...
I should think three traumatic childhood surgeries to the nether regions of your body would send anyone into a psychotic fit..particularly if you could never satisfy any physical desires for another person that one might have. I don't think its at all absurd to think the Ripper may have killed out of a psychotic hatred of women and possibly of his own deformity.
These are just examples of exactly what is wrong with Cornwell's book. It is filled with exactly this kind of misinformation and inaccuracy.
Walter Sickert had at least one operation to correct a fistula. It was performed by Dr Alfred Duff Cooper at St Marks Hospital. This much we know.
Cooper was an expert in deformities of the rectum, so it is highly unlikely that he would have operated on Sickert's penis. There is no evidence whatsoever that the fistula was on his penis.
Cornwell did not get her information from family members, she got it from one family member, John Lessore, a nephew of his third wife, who would hardly be the greatest family authority even if he had told her that this was a fact, which he didn't, he merely told her that he had heard rumours within the family of a penile deformity. Cornwell in her book somehow transforms this vague information by someone with a vague family connection into conclusively proven fact.
Furthermore I personally checked out the information with a surgeon from St James Hospital in Dublin who specialises in reproductive disorders. He told me that he had never heard of a case of anyone having a fistula on their penis and he wasn't totally sure that it was medically possible.
This is just one of a whole catalogue of errors and erroneous assumptions contained within this book. If you would care for it I can list you many more, with references which would allow you to research them for yourself.
Don't assume that we haven't read the book. Don't assume that we haven't given it careful consideration. I would never criticise a book in this manner without first checking that my facts were correct and I have enough respect for my fellow board members not to expect any of them to behave in any less a manner. |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 397
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 10:27 am: | |
I just wanted to say, with regards to a point brought up by Robert (I think) earlier that some people try to say that because they believe he may have been the Ripper that he was very intelligent. I think he is a very likely suspect and yet I think he was acting on instincts and very basic ones at that, not intelligence. I don't think he planned any of those murders except for possibly Kate's, but then that fits into my theory comfortably and may not be the case, we cannot prove however that he didn't.
Anyway, I would also like to say that I haven't personally read Patricia Cornwall's book and so I can't really comment on what it says but I've read enough extracts, due to people posting them on here, to know that she was just trying to squeeze Sickert into Jack's shoes. I also read that dissertation entitled "Patricia Cornwell Delivers a Lecture at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville" which I found very interesting. I couldn't believe how obnoxious she was and how she ACTUALLY believes her book has solved the case with her very feeble evidence. Those who back up her theories need to read into the case in more detail before taking another look at the book.
Sarah |
Neil K. MacMillan
Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 42
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 3:10 pm: | |
John:
I believe it was stated in Colin Wilson's book "True Crime 2" and definately in Peter Underwood's "Jack the Ripper: One Hundred Years of Mystery" on pages 60-70. I must apologise however, Knight did not admit the story was a hoax, Joseph Sickert did. In fact, Knight's theory was that three people were responsible for the killings Gull, Netley and possibly Walter Sickert. His is basically the Royal theory. Hope that helps and of course, if I misspoke please let me know so I can correct my notes. Thanks, Neil |
John Savage
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 135
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 7:17 pm: | |
Hi Neil
No problems, I know about Joseph's retraction, but thought that I might have missed something that Knight had said.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Regards
John Savage |
Sharon Grant
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 4:31 am: | |
Hello
One thing I have noticed about this site is the reasonable general consensus that...no one knows for sure the identity of JTR, theories abound galore, which is natural and healthy. My curiousness lies in the opinion of some, of the plausibilty aimed at Cornwells book, is it that she had the effrontery to say CASE CLOSED that ruffled so many egos, or the finacial freedom to step it out first hand? How many of you have witnessed the documents she has had tested first hand, all the information?. Any way the fact remains that it could just as easily be Sickert as it could be any of the other theorists choices. So why is she met with such negativity? not enough in your face proof to satisfy the most critical of skeptics? big call after all this time. The mitochondrial DNA sequence she refers to Re Sickerts saliva, Ripper letters, Dr Openshaw, swabed from stamps and envelopes must raise the eye brows of the most die hard of non believers, no? The painting JTR bedroom 1908 Sickert, has any one noticed what appears to be the letters and word, W BLOODY S, in it?, as its visable in the copy I have, is it a prank? or in all of them? would love feed back on this please. Now before any of you come out guns blazeing at me, I would like to say.......Instead of picking and pulling down peoples ideas and theories ,wouldn`t it be conducive to the over all cause to keep open minded, after all wouldn`t you all love it if some one any one completed the incredible task of naming JTR........But I surpose that this site and others like it would then be obsolete......CASE CLOSED. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 10:32 pm: | |
Ashley wrote:
"Also, I should think that Cornwell has worked in Forensics long enough to know what she's talking about."
Then you'd think wrong.
First off, she hasn't worked forensics, except as a secretary and gopher to other people who actually did all the work. She has no training in the field. She likes to be vague about her job responsibilities and background so people assume she's way more experienced and educated than she actually is. She's like a janitor at Microsoft trying to claim to be a computer programmer.
Second, we know she doesn't know what she's talking about because we have had a steady stream of criminologists, doctors, private detectives and so forth come through these boards and in magazine articles write about how Cornwell is wrong. The people who say she knows what she's talking about fall into two camps: People she is paying to support her conclusions and people who lack even basic knowledge about the topics.
"I should think three traumatic childhood surgeries to the nether regions of your body would send anyone into a psychotic fit."
Then, again, you would think wrong, because lots of people go through many more painful surgeries without becoming psychotic in any way.
"particularly if you could never satisfy any physical desires for another person that one might have. "
Except we know that Sickert was very active sexually and presumably enjoyed it very much or else wouldn't have done it so often.
"You can't deny, there are some eery similarities and morbidness in alot of his drawings and paintings."
I can deny it, not that it has anything to do with whether Sickert was a killer anyway.
"I'm just asking that Cornwells book be given a little more consideration and thought before you all go and criticize her."
We criticize her because we gave her theory a lot more thought than she obviously did, not because we haven't thought about it. Before you lecture us, you might want to give us more consideration than you do. |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 7:18 pm: | |
Dear Mr Sharp,
I am impressed with your reply, re,the 'notorious penile fistula, re, Mr Walter Sickert. You have a remarkable grasp of the intra-textual dynamics of Our Lady Patricia Cornwall's book on "Jack the Ripper". I look forward to more of your most penetrating reviews...
Rosey :-) |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 10:27 pm: | |
I know it's pointless to argue with sadly misinformed Cornwell true believers, especially since they probably aren't even still on the boards, but...
Sharon wrote:
"How many of you have witnessed the documents she has had tested first hand, all the information?"
Nobody has access to all the information for the simple reason that she refuses to let other people test them. But the people who did have access to some of it (the various hoaxed ripper letters, for example) don't think she has a clue what she's talking about.
"Any way the fact remains that it could just as easily be Sickert as it could be any of the other theorists choices."
If by "fact" you mean "pure nonsense ego-driven drivel."
"So why is she met with such negativity? not enough in your face proof to satisfy the most critical of skeptics?"
More like lack of any proof that would link him to being a killer, the existence of proof making it near impossible for him to have been the Ripper (not even in the country at the time, hello), and the fact that Cornwell feels the need to use character assasination instead of evidence.
"The mitochondrial DNA sequence she refers to Re Sickerts saliva, Ripper letters, Dr Openshaw, swabed from stamps and envelopes must raise the eye brows of the most die hard of non believers, no?"
No. It's completely irrelevant. Mitochondrial DNA doesn't match people, and we don't know whose mDNA she tested, and even if we had an exact match to a hoaxed ripper letter directly to Sickert (which she doesn;t by a long shot) that wouldn't make him be Jack the Ripper.
"The painting JTR bedroom 1908 Sickert, has any one noticed what appears to be the letters and word, W BLOODY S, in it?, as its visable in the copy I have, is it a prank? or in all of them?"
Whether it is or is not there is completely irrelevant to finding out who Jack the Ripper was.
"would love feed back on this please."
Feedback? How about you desperately need to go read a book by a competent writer on the topic.
"Now before any of you come out guns blazeing at me, I would like to say.......Instead of picking and pulling down peoples ideas and theories ,wouldn`t it be conducive to the over all cause to keep open minded,"
Cornwell is the perfect example of someone who was totally closed-minded about who she thought the killer was, and her investigation shows that. She picked her suspect before she did any investigation whatsoever, for crying out loud, and then twisted every stupid little rumor and piece of trivia about Sickert she found into some pathetic witchhunt.
"after all wouldn`t you all love it if some one any one completed the incredible task of naming JTR........"
Actually, I would love it.
"But I surpose that this site and others like it would then be obsolete......CASE CLOSED."
And that's the dumbest thing I've heard in awhile. People still talk about lots of serial killer cases after the culprit is identified, I don't know why you arrogantly assume the Jack the Ripper case would be any different. |
Sharon Grant
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 18, 2004 - 4:37 pm: | |
Dan Wrote
I know it is POINTLESS to argue with sadly misinformed Cornwell true believers.. blah blah blah but.....
POINTLESS = WITHOUT SENSE OR PURPOSE !!!
Dan seems to carry a heavy burdon not being able to help himself and feels the compulsion to convert condemn confute anyway, albeit a POINTLESS argument.
Dan how about you enlighten me uninformed self as to who you think JTR is, I hear alot from you as to who you think it is not!!!! or you have no clue, but atleast you know who it is not....that really narrows it down!!.
You mentioned competant writers ? you didnt impart your opinion on that one!!
The old saying......Those that can...do... Those that cannot......teach.
I dont think you do either very well.
And I just bet that you were that naughty little boy at the party that had the pin and poped all the other kids balloons. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 590
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 3:31 pm: | |
Hi Sharon.
You may or may not be aware that Leanne, and myself, are co writing a book on the whitechapel murders, in which, we name Joseph Barnett as the perpretrator,
I will state however,although I obviously believe in our efforts, Walter Sickert , is my personal second choice.
His paintings , such as the one you refered to, are strange to say the least.
My personal feelings to his possible guilt, as I have said before on these boards is his'A Passing funeral' painting, which depicts two women looking through a window, observing so it would appear a funeral.
As it was reported in 1959, that two teenage girls , witnessed Kellys funeral, It may well suggest, that he may have been refering to that event, something he could not have possibly have known , when he painted the picture in the 1900s, unless he was present at the scene.
A longshot mayby, but that picture amongst, all the other strange indications, plus the D .A samples that cornwell was able to slightly prove, would certainly not rule this man out of the fray.
Regards Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1027
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 8:59 am: | |
Sharon,
Although Dan and I certainly don't agree on everything regarding the Ripper case, I really think that was unnecessary. I believe Dan gave you an excellent account of why Cornwell must be dismissed. Why didn't you comment these points instead?
The notion, that we who criticise here, must deliever a credible suspect ourselves is just ludicrous and irrelevant. The factual base doesen't give enough information in order to name a suspect and prove it -- we can only say who is more or less likely. That is why Mrs Cormwell's efforts are questionable to say the least. Unless new revealing evidence is put forward, it is a mistake to call a book "Case Closed". And her "evidence" do not belong to that category.
"The mitochondrial DNA sequence she refers to Re Sickerts saliva, Ripper letters, Dr Openshaw, swabed from stamps and envelopes must raise the eye brows of the most die hard of non believers, no?"
No, not the slightest. As have been stated here several times already, these tests only make it a possible option that Sickert could have written some of the letters (which I can't argue against), but what you don't seem to grasp, is that this doesen't make him Jack the Ripper. There were numerous people that wrote false letter for different twisted reasons, and there always are in most serial murder cases. Most experts I know of have excluded the possibility that the letters originate from the killer. So the testing of the letters and the water marks are worthless in finding out who the Ripper was, since we can't prove that the letters came from the murderer.
Regarding the paintings, as originally an art historian myself, I know that interpretation of art is a subjective and unscientific activity. You see what you want to see in them. I am quite familiar with Sickert's work and I can't really see those things in them as Cornwell claims she does. But I must credit her for her vivid imagination.
It is indeed a common trait among artists to become inspired ny gruesome events, especially under the expressionistic period but also in modern art. This was clearly the case as far as Sickert is concerned, bit neither that makes him Jack the Ripper.
What we are discrediting her for, is that she claims that she has solved her case, when she really just is distorting the few facts she actually uses in order to make them fit her speculations. Suspect-oriented Ripper investigations are problematic; instead you should let the facts speak for them themselves and lead you to a suspect, not do it the other way around.
There are numerous of recommendable authors in the field:
-- Philip Sugden
-- Martin Fido
-- Evans/Skinner
-- Donald Rumbelow
To mention a few. Check out the "media" page on this website. And believe you me; they know more about the Ripper case than Cornwell will ever do; some of them have studied the subject 30 years -- Cornwell hadn't read a single line about the case before she started her project. Of course there are a lot of prestige involved in this case, but that doesen't mean that Cornwell's flaws should go unnoticed. You will find prestige everywhere, but that doesen't mean that people are wrong in their criticism.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 362
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 10:06 am: | |
The mitochondrial DNA sequence she refers to Re Sickerts saliva, Ripper letters, Dr Openshaw, swabed from stamps and envelopes must raise the eye brows of the most die hard of non believers, no?
Indeed, without wishing to labour a point well made, even Cornwell herself admits that the MtDNA sequence in question exists within one percent of the population. I beleive the population of London in 1888 was approximately 6 million, meaning that around 60,000 of them would have this MtDNA sequence.
So, assuming that neither stamp had been contaminated with the DNA of any of the hundreds of people who had handled them over the years, then there is a 60,000 to one chance (I don't think you need Richard's tipster expertise to tell you how poor those odds are) that the person who licked the stamp on a letter from Sickert, was the same person who licked the stamp on a letter from a person for whom there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that they were the Ripper.
My eyebrows stayed level. |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 748
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 1:47 pm: | |
Regarding 'mitochondrial DNA' and its application to this case and others.
I cannot be now 100% sure for as ever I am seriously out of date, but I distinctly remember this manipulated DNA sampling technique being thrown out of court on several famous occasions simply because it was regarded as 'manipulated' and therefore liable to speculation and enhancement.
I also seem to remember a judge comparing mitochondrial DNA to the translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, if you read a Jesuit priest's translation of a document it would be radically different than the translation of a Jewish Rabbi's. Obviously, and equally as obviously the mitochondrial DNA sequence would be differently translated by defence and prosecution expert witness.
In the final result, a prosecution that uses mitochondrial DNA is diluting its own prosecution case beyond the pale of scientific seriousness, and as such is putting its faith and legal argument in happenstance and coincidence. It is bound to fail.
As did Cornball. |
Samantha
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 2:14 pm: | |
Can one of you tell me the town, city where Jack the Ripper made most of his kills? Can you tell me why he sent letters, any information that might be usable or useful in a class presentation that will be presented?
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1056
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 10:40 pm: | |
Hi Samantha,
"Can one of you tell me the town, city where Jack the Ripper made most of his kills?"
London in 1888
(those we know is attributed to him).
"Can you tell me why he sent letters"
He probably didn't. Most of the letters, more likely all of them, are considered hoaxes and frauds by people who liked to become a part of the investigation -- simply, for kicks.
"...any information that might be usable or useful in a class presentation that will be presented?"
Check out this excellent website, Samantha. You'll find a lot of useful info here.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 532
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 5:46 am: | |
Sharon,
I find it very interesting when people who believe Cornwall's nonsense state their opinions here. It is quite entertaining really, that is not to say that you aren't all entitled to you own opinions because you are but at least have the dignity to do some of your own reading into the case first.
I just wanted to add to Glenn's point that Cornwell hadn't read a single line about the case before she started her project. Even then she only read up on things she could link to Sickert. I can see her now, flicking through some Ripper books and ignoring most of it and only taking note of some things which she can twist to make Sickert look guilty.
Sarah |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1058
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 11:16 am: | |
Hi Sarah,
"Even then she only read up on things she could link to Sickert."
Exactly. Another good point, I forgot about that. It is of course an obvious trait throughout the book and her so called research.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Courtney Lionudakis
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 8:32 pm: | |
Mr. Glenn Andersson,
I have a question for you regarding somthing you said in a previous post:
"And believe you me, there is NOTHING in the paintings that could suggest any deeper meanings or references to the murders,apart from some occasional similarities with the morgue photos. But once again, this doesen't make him Jack the Ripper either."
I am currently reading Cornwell's book "Portrait of a Killer", and I find it hard to believe that Sickert could have drawn "Venetian Studies" or "Two Studies of a Venetian Woman's Head" unless he really was Jack the Ripper.
As Ms. Cornwell says on page 115: "...The only way a person could know what Mary Ann Nichols's dead body looked like was to have viewed it at the mortuary or at the scene or somehow convince a police investigator to show him or her the photograph (the mortuary photographs)..."
But even if Sickert had convinced someone to show him the photographs, according to Cornwell her eyes would have been shut, and her wounds would have been covered. So how would he know how Mary Ann Nichols's eyes and wounds appeared?
Sincerely,
Courtney Lionudakis
|
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 734
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 12:40 pm: | |
Mr Andersson,
And remember, Bobby Darin sang Mac the Knife and therefore he is the one who did for Jenny Towler the dastardly swine.
Cant you see the evidence you fool ?
Monty
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1123
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 1:01 pm: | |
Hi Monty,
Hehehe...
Courtney,
As an art historian, I must say I fail to see any proven resemblance in the paintings you describe to any of the murder victims. It is there if you want to see it.
I know what Cornwell said and I think she was wrong. She based her "interpretations" on the opinions from a couple of "art experts" she had contracted. If this was their interpretations as well initially, I cannot say, but if it was, they were incompetent. And her own knowledge in art seems to be rather selective and haltering.
Anyone who has studied art seriously, knows that everything lays in the eye of the beholder. I have tried in those paintings to see with certainty any kind of link to the Ripper events, but those element that do exists, and that possibly could be taken for a likeness of the victims (like the painting that is supposed to show a similarity with Eddowes from her mortuary picture) is unfortunately so vague and circumstancial that it just as well could have been a coincidence. The similarities are not that strong. In my view, a painting is a worst possible piece of "evidence" in contexts like these.
No, Cornwell doesen't convince me the slightest. Actually I found her "art interpretations" so sloppy and insulting to the whole scientific art community, that I nearly burnt the book in sheer frustration.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1125
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 1:22 pm: | |
Courtney,
In addition:
I didn't really grasp your point about Nichols' eyes, but it is quite evident from the mortuary picture that her eyes are open, not closed.
Forgive me if I have misunderstood your point here, but I just wanted to clarify that.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
