|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 12:37 am: |       |
Mark wrote:
"What you consider possible is not what I consider plausible. You might as well claim that Walter Sickert and A. Conan Doyle were possibly switched at birth, like the babies in Wilde's "The Importance of Being Ernest" and G&S' "Pirates of Penzance." "
Wait, so, let me get this straight...
You are claiming that Sickert and only Sickert was capable of telling a lie that could have created a specific story, and to believe that somebody else was just as capable of telling the same lie is like assuming that two famous people were accidentally switched at birth...? (Pause while minds are boggled at the sheer ridiculousness of the comparison...)
It looks like your definition of what's plausible and what's not hinges more on what fits your theory than on how likely it actually is. |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 10:43 pm: | |
John wrote:
When it's possible that 3 different people are lying, and you insist that it has to be 1 specific one... That doesn't really sound like you're looking at it objectively...
When you say, John, that it is possible that three different people are lying, you are hardly being objective.
Walter Sickert could be lying.
His landlady could be lying.
The landlady's husband could be lying.
The veterinary student could be lying.
The student's mother could be lying.
Sir Osbert Sitwell could be lying.
The widow of Sir William Rothstein could be lying.
The unknown person who filled Sitwell's account with mysterious ellipses could be lying.
The researcher for Ripper Notes could be lying.
His editor at Ripper Notes could be lying.
The Registrar at the London College of Veterinary Medicine could be lying.
The Curator of the Manchester Gallery of Art could be lying.
Cicely Hey, the artist to whom Sickert confided Jack The RIpper's Bedroom, could be lying.
Rosey, who saw the title Jack The RIpper's Bedroom written in pencil on the back of the canvas, could be lying.
And I could be lying.
Now who among us had any reasonable motive to lie repeatedly about Jack The Ripper?
Did you ever run a red light and get a ticket? WHen it is a simple question of your word against the word of the traffic cop, why does the judge believe the traffic cop and not you?
Regards,
Mark |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 10:49 pm: | |
Glenn wrote:
>The research for my own book took three years, but it could have taken even longer than that.
Did you announce in public "Case Closed" three years before you finished your book?
Regards,
Mark Starr
|
ERey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 8:00 pm: | |
In support of Jeff Hamm's point: We don't even have to suppose that anybody "lied" to have a plausible explanation for why Sickert's lodger story does not square with the facts that we can examine today. We are 116 years and 4 people way from the putative source of the information. The event described are set in 1888; according to Sitwell’s retelling, Sickert heard the story from his landlady a few months after he started renting rooms in Camden Town, which would be about 1905; Sitwell’s description of Sickert telling him the story seems to take place in the mid-1920s or 1930s; and Sitwell published his telling of Sickert telling him what the landlady told Sickert, based partly on what her supposed 1988 lodger had told her, in 1950. Given that drawn-out game of “telephone,” I’d be more surprised if the details didn’t get altered than if they did.
Of course, all this leaves aside the question of whether anybody in this chain, from the landlady to Sickert to Sitwell, expected this tall-sounding tale to be taken in dead earnest. Personally, I tend to doubt it.
To that point, a poster named Julie Lambert made this comment on one of the Sickert threads on September 4, 2003:
“[…] his landlady told him the previous occupant of his room had been a young man she suspected of being the murderer. This was a tale told by many landladies of the time all over London.”
Unfortunately, Julie hasn’t been posting lately, but maybe she’ll pop in again to elaborate.
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 267
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 9:52 am: | |
Mark,
You haven't established that Sickert had any motivation to lie because you're never come close to establishing he was the Ripper. And of course even if it was established that he did lie, that doesn't make him the Ripper. Plenty of people lied RE: the Ripper. D'Onston, the dozens of letter writers, many of the folks that Farson spoke to, etc.
Regards,
John |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 828
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 11:06 am: | |
Mark,
Did you ever run a red light and get a ticket? WHen it is a simple question of your word against the word of the traffic cop, why does the judge believe the traffic cop and not you?
What on earth does this have to do with Sickert lying? I'm lost.
I agree with John and Jeff. Why should he lie? What was his motivation to lie? What makes you so certain that it was Sickert lying and not anyone else. It is very plausible that someone else could have lied, I don't see why you are so sure it was Sickert.
Sarah |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 650
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 11:21 am: | |
Hi Mark
E. Rey in his/her post of Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 8:00 pm made the very cogent point:
"To that point, a poster named Julie Lambert made this comment on one of the Sickert threads on September 4, 2003:
'[…] his landlady told him the previous occupant of his room had been a young man she suspected of being the murderer. This was a tale told by many landladies of the time all over London.'"
From my perspective, I should think that is probably very true. Just as if you lived in Dodge City in the years after the shooting at the OK Corral and would want to tell visitors that you witnessed the shooting or held Wyatt Earp's coat.
It seems to me that also as E. Rey implies this Sickert lodger story is a "six degrees of separation" type of situation and insufficient to hang a theory on. Just my opinion.
Best regards
Chris George |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 233
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 2:50 pm: | |
Hi ERey,
Good point. We don't even need a "deliberate lie" given the time span between talked about event and the talking. The failure to verify all the details could indeed simply reflect the fact that stories change and morph from one teller to the next. The changes, because they are not deliberate attempts to misdirect, are not really lies even though they are not accurate.
Anyway, I see Mark is getting the hang of it now. He's listed all sorts of people whom he has not ruled out as being the source of the inaccurate information, hence he's conclusively proved my point that he has not conclusively proved Sickert must be the one lieing. 
Sickert telling a bold face totally made up bogus story is one explanation, but not the only one. Even if Sickert is not the Ripper, one can still come up with explanations why Sickert might even do such a thing that are not outside the range of normal human behaviour (meaning, they are plausible). One simple one is that it adds mystique and more "depth" to his "Jack the Ripper's Bedroom" painting (meaning, it's part of his art and he was an artist). Two, the hardest to rule out and one that also applies to the Landlady, is that he's just having fun telling a tall tale (perhaps partially motivated by the above painting).
So, even if we accept the unproven statement that Sickert lied and made up the story, even that does not lead to the conclusion that Sickert had to be the Ripper. Again, we are left where "Sickert is the Ripper" as one of many explanations.
If we then decide that we'll accept only the "Sickert is the Ripper", well, we don't need evidence any more do we? We've ended up setting our conclusion as one of our premises. And this is a fundamental error when examining data in order to draw conclusions. You can not just set the conclusion to true, it must evaluate to true while being at risk to evaluate to false. (Meaning, if the hypothesis under investigation is actually false, one's evaluation process should be able to determine that; If we set our conclusion to true as a premise, one no longer has the ability to correctly identify it as false if it is indeed false).
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1229
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 3:39 pm: | |
Mark wrote:
>Did you announce in public "Case Closed" three years before you finished your book?
I never announce "Case Closed" -- I present the facts and then I let the reader draw hers or his own conclusions.
Regardless of which, you can't demand a book to be published after only one year, even if the author has presented the result in public beforehand; there are a number of reasons why a book takes a certain amount of time to conceive and a lot of factors to consider, mostly connected with the financial stuff (like when fund money is being paid out) and the time schedule at the publishing company, but the most time-consuming factor is the research. These are all well-known conditions of book publishing and writing; only those who are very experienced researchers (or -- on the other hand -- those who wants to make a fast buck) produces a serious non-fiction book in one year.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 12:44 am: | |
Erey wrote:
>Sickert heard the story from his landlady a few months after he started renting rooms in Camden Town, which would be about 1905; Sitwell’s description of Sickert telling him the story seems to take place in the mid-1920s or 1930s.
Sickert painted JTR's Bedroom in 1906. Ooops!
Regard,
Mark Starr |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 6:32 pm: | |
Jeff:
Did you ever bother to count up the total number of Ripper-related links in Sickert's lifetime -- from his writing of the Openshaw letter in 1888 to his feeding of information about the phoney Royal Conspiracy to teenager Joseph Gorman in the 1940s -- that you and others have to make up possible excuses for in order to dismiss them?
Regards,
Mark Starr |
ERey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 7:00 pm: | |
Thanks to Chris George and Jeff Hamm for their kind words.
Chris, I think the (slightly politically incorrect) British term for what we are talking about is “Chinese whispers,” as describe here. When I was I kid, we called this party game “telephone.” I imagine students of the Ripper case are only too familiar with the analogous real-life phenomenon.
Besides the tendency of any story to change when passed from teller to teller, in this particular case we need to consider in what degree of seriousness the story was told and received –- just as with stories about holding Wyatt Earp’s coat, etc.
In Sitwell’s account, the author indicates that he never bothered to try to track down the book in which Sickert had supposedly written Jack the Ripper’s name -- and didn’t even remember this detail of Sickert’s story -- until years later when he was writing his memoir, which would suggest he didn’t take Sickert all that seriously at the time. The tone of Sitwell’s book-hunt anecdote doesn’t convey much urgency, either. Sounds more like an attempt to satisfied mild curiosity than to solve a notorius crime.
Which brings me back to the point I tried to make back on the “Sitwell’s Story” thread, where our resident pro-Sickertist first worked himself into a lather over this: Sometimes a good story is just a good story.
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 652
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 9:23 am: | |
Hi, E. Rey:
Thanks for that. I believe we have to recognize that in the years and decades after the Ripper's murder spree, there was a substantial oral history that grew up both in terms of supposed sightings of the Whitechapel murderer and specific people who could have been Jack.
Just as the Whitechapel murderer of 1888 almost immediately entered the world of journalism and entertainment, so he became part of the lore of London and the era. The lack of follow-up of the story in terms of knowing who the veterinary student was or who the landlady was, or where the book with Sickert's annotations went may be explained not because there is anything sinister in the story but more because it was a jolly good tale, possibly one that Sickert made up or embroidered not because he was the murderer but because it made for a good yarn.
Best regards
Chris George |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 843
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 12:30 pm: | |
Mark,
Sickert painted JTR's Bedroom in 1906. Ooops!
Yes and ERey said that he was told the story in about 1905. He then relayed the story to Sitwell in the 1920's - 1930's. What is the Oooops about?? I see no problem there.
In clearer words, he was told the story in 1905 (or thereabouts), then painted his painting in 1906 and then told Sitwell about it much later in the 1920's or 1930's.
That's all that was meant, I'm sure. Although I'm sure that ERay will correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think I am.
Sarah |
ERey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 1:35 pm: | |
Thanks, Sarah. That is exactly right.
Sickert scholars tell us that Sickert started renting his Camden Town rooms in 1905. Sitwell's account is that Sickert was told the lodger story by his landlady after he had been renting for "some months".
It would make perfect sense for Sickert to be inspired to do the "Jack the Ripper's Bedroom" painting not long after that, whether he believed that landlady's story of was merely intrigued by it.
|
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 12:35 am: | |
ERey,
No, ooops.
Try re-reading your own words on Mar. 3 once more. (And Sarah could well join you.) The point of your first paragraph is that the details of the landlady's story got changed over time, as in a game of telephone.
But you omitted to mention Sickert's 1905 painting JTR's Bedroom in your daisey chain. The 1905 date of this painting means that if the landlady did tell Sickert the story in 1905, he set in down in paint immediately afterwards in 1905. And if Sickert made up the story out of thin air, he fabricated it in 1905 in his 1905 painting JTR's Bedroom. Either way, all the elements in this 1905 painting tell the same story that Sitwell recounted decades later. Nothing got changed in Sickert's account.
In other words, the point you made -- that the details in the landlady's account got changed over time as in a game of telephone -- is wrong. Your point is directly contradicted by the contents and the date of this painting.
Unlike, Alan I do not attribute a simple error based on overlooking hard evidence like JTR's Bedroom to fabricating evidence. So I am not acusing you of a crime. Simply put, your point does not stand up to scrutiny.
In one of his major essays on art, Sickert wrote that every good painting tells a story, and the degree to which that painting is good is the degree to which the artist has communicated his story accurately. Well, maybe in your case, Sickert failed.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 6:33 am: | |
Mark wrote:
"from his writing of the Openshaw letter in 1888"
There is no proof that he wrote the Openshaw letter. Based upon the postmark (London, Oct 29, 1888) and the time period Sickert was in France, there is very strong evidence that he did not write it. And there's no reason to believe that whomever did write that letter was Jack the Ripper or knew anything about the crimes.
"his feeding of information about the phoney Royal Conspiracy to teenager Joseph Gorman in the 1940s"
We already know that he was interested in the case, so if he tells some wild story to someone else it doesn't mean that he was the killer. Hell, if crazy stories about the Ripper made one a Ripper, there'd be thousands of them.
"that you and others have to make up possible excuses for in order to dismiss them?"
We don't even have to dismiss those stories because they are just pointless. Even if they were true they only prove that Sickert liked to tell stories about the Ripper, not that he had any knowledge about the crimes other than what anyone else got from books and the news, and certainly not that he killed anyone.
Using your logic, the legendary boy who cried wolf was not telling people that there was a wolf for attention or to shirk his job responsibilities but because he was really a werewolf and all this talk about there being some wolf after his sheep was just a big coverup for his bloodthirst.
And, in case I need to spell it out, that's ridiculous. Making up stories about wolves does not make you a werewolf and making up stories related to the Ripper does not make you the Ripper. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 848
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 6:33 am: | |
Mark,
Why are you now saying that Sickert painted this painting in 1905 when a few posts earlier you said Sickert painted JTR's Bedroom in 1906?
I also don't see anything wrong with ERey's post at all.
Sarah |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 249
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 11:05 pm: | |
Mark,
I'm sorry I don't follow you. You claim that all the details in Sickert's story as told to Sitwell are contained in his 1905 painting.
Please point out the following details in the painting:
1) the claim that his landlady told him this is JtR's bedroom
2) that JtR is supposed to be a vet student
3) that JtR dies of consumption
4) that JtR is from Bournemouth
I wish to point out, that these are all details from Sickert's story as told to Sitwell and you claim that all the details are contained in this painting. Funny enough, the painting seems to contain all sorts of details not from the story (an image of a bedroom), but very few of those that are relevant to the "theme" of the story itself.
- Jeff |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 5:33 pm: | |
Sarah wrote:
>Why are you now saying that Sickert painted this painting in 1905 when a few posts earlier you said Sickert painted JTR's Bedroom in 1906? I also don't see anything wrong with ERey's post at all.
Of course you don't. Like many of your other posts, this one is governed by your biases. All you can see is a nitpick over the date of the painting JTR's Bedroom -- which is irrevelant to both the point Erey made and my point demolishing his. As far as I have been able to determine, there is no specific date inscribed on the painting. It is known that Sickert moved into the rooming house some time in 1905. Some time after that (I don't know how much after and you don't either) he began to paint JTR's Bedroom. Since this is a fairly large, complex, oil painting, presumably it took Sickert a while to paint it. What is more relevant to the issue under discussion here is not the day that Sickert finished his painting but the date he decided to paint it, planned it out, and began painting it. Whether that occurred in 1905 or 1906y, I can't be sure, and neither can you. WHat is obvious, however, is that you are grasping at straws, and like an ostrich, you will not confront the salient facts about Sickert's lying.
The first salient fact is that the lodger story that Sickert told Sitwell in the 1930s was the same lodger story he told in 1905-6 in his painting JTR's Bedroom. In this story, JTR was a veterinary student who once occupied the same room as Sickert. That fact directly contradicts Erey's point about "Chinese Whispers" and also your many nods in agreement.
The second salient fact is that just a few years after Sickert told his lodger story to Sitwell, he created the Royal Conspiracy Theory and told it to Joseph Gorman. In the RCT, JTR is Sir William Gull -- and not so much as one detail of the RCT matches Sickert's lodger story. So here, four decades after the Whitechapel Murders, he tells one story to Sitwell -- adding that he once knew the name of The Ripper and had written it down. There is not a word in Sitwell's account to show that Sickert doubted the veracity of his landlady. And shortly after, Sickert he tells Joseph Gorman a totally different RIpper story. Sickert created the most convoluted of all RIpper stories, the Royal Conspiracy Theory. He implanted it as the truth in the young, impressionable Joseph Gorman. Sickert can't have it both ways, and neither can you. He is caught lying right here. And no game of telephone can dismiss his two-faced duplicity.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 1:02 pm: | |
Jeff Hamm:
Please point out the following details in the painting:
>1) the claim that his landlady told him this is JtR's bedroom
That is on the back of the canvas. Rosey saw it herself. "Jack The Ripper's Bedroom" is written in pencil on the reverse side of the canvas.
2) that JtR is supposed to be a vet student
The birdcage. Possibly also small birds in the picture.
3) that JtR dies of consumption
4) that JtR is from Bournemouth
Those details are not in the painting. I don't know how they could be. However, Sitwell makes it clear that Sickert had earlier told his story to other friends. I don't know who else Sickert told his lodger story to, or when. Details like these could have been related when he filled the story out in words.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 257
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 11:20 pm: | |
Hi Mark,
The words "Jack the Ripper's Bedroom" does not include any reference to the landlady as the source of the story. It just provides the title of the painting in question.
The birdcage, ok, fine, we've got a reference to an animal and yes, vets work with animals. Sure, with artistic licence, let's count this as the "vet" reference.
Of course, since we're still missing the landlady as teller, the consumption, and Bournemouth, I still find your claim that all the details found in Sickert's story as told to Sitwell to be unfounded. But, since you've agreed that two of the central facts from this story are not included in the painting, we obviously agree.
However, I don't want to put words in your mouth. So, apart from the fact that the title of the painting is JtR's bedroom, and we've got a birdcage in there, what other details of the story are you seeing in this painting?
- Jeff
(Message edited by jeffhamm on March 10, 2004) |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 851
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 4:34 am: | |
Mark,
Where is your proof that Sickert lied?
I do think the date of the painting is relevant. In an earlier post of ERey's you said:-
Sickert painted JTR's Bedroom in 1906. Ooops!
Then later you say:-
But you omitted to mention Sickert's 1905 painting JTR's Bedroom in your daisey chain.
So which is it?
I'm sorry but you can't squirm your way out of it as you do with nearly all questions put to you. You obviously must have a reason for claiming it was in 1906 and then changing it to 1905.
Sarah
(Message edited by sarah on March 11, 2004) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 847
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 1:00 pm: | |
Hi All,
I must be missing something here.
If - and it's a big if - Sickert is meant to have hoaxed even one ripper letter (as many of you are conceding is possible), then he would, by definition, be someone who has chosen to invent stuff about the ripper case, and therefore he would have been very likely to have invented other ripper stuff too, such as tales of knowing who the killer was, even sharing the same bedroom and so on. His fascination with the case would then have allowed him to stick with any such yarns, as he chose, and to tell them at every opportunity to anyone who would listen.
That would, by no stretch of the imagination, make him the ripper.
And I still haven't heard anything remotely approaching proof that Sickert was the author of a single ripper letter.
How can anyone concede he may have written one, when, as far as I am aware, the strongest evidence is based on the paper used, but I've heard not a dickie bird about the results of a formal forensic handwriting comparison (if any has in fact been carried out) that shows Sickert's fair hand at work on the Openshaw letter, or any of the other many ripper missives apparently attributed to him by Cornwell and her band of merry experts.
Peter Bower, at the Tate Symposium last November, told his audience that he had no problem with the idea that Sickert could have successfully disguised his handwriting in order to produce scores of different letters in almost as many different styles.
Yet hardly anyone on these boards will concede the possibility that a professional handwriting analyst would be unable to tell if one person had written two or more given documents, or whether different hands were at work in each example.
So where is the handwriting evidence that allows for Sickert to have written any of the ripper letters, hoaxes or otherwise, let alone scores of the things?
Love,
Caz
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 509
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 1:17 pm: | |
Very good point Caz. And as you would probably be the person to know, how much would hiring an expert for such a handwriting comparison be likely to cost? I'd almost be willing to fund it myself just to put this damned stupid notion to bed once and for all! |
Chris LeQuellec
Sergeant
Username: Chrislq
Post Number: 17
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 1:38 pm: | |
Even if you hire someone to do this job it'll not be THE proof.
Each time a judge ask for 3 experts to analyse we have at the end 3 opinions, yes, no and perhaps...
In the 80-90's in France with the famous "affaire Villemin" we had 10 experts and 5 opinions, it was horrible and very confusing...
chris |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 2:50 pm: | |
Chris:
>Even if you hire someone to do this job it'll not be THE proof.
Each time a judge ask for 3 experts to analyse we have at the end 3 opinions, yes, no and perhaps...
In the 80-90's in France with the famous "affaire Villemin" we had 10 experts and 5 opinions, it was horrible and very confusing...
Exactly. Cornwell mentions handwriting comparison tests. As I recall, they were inconclusive.
However, her tests revealed other facts that considerably increase the grounds for suspicion against Sickert, and no other suspect (since he was the only professional artist in the lot). I am referring to the letters that her experts concluded were painted with a fine artist's brush, and not written with a pen or pencil. That is a skill that I for one could not fake, since I have no experience with a fine paint brush. I am also referring to the letters written with artists' colored pencils, rare and expensive. I am referring to the letters written on artists' paper, the sort used for pencil drawings. I am referring to the smudges on at least one letter that were previously thought to be blood, but which tests revealed to be artist's etching ground. And I am referring to the letters with sketches and doodles, which some experts have opined resemble sketches by Sickert.
So while these tests do not prove that Sickert in fact wrote these letters, they tend to support the liklihood that he did, and that suspects like Joseph Barnett, Tumblety, Ostrog, etc. did not.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 865
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 9:53 am: | |
Mark,
You are aware that most, if not all, of the letters were most likely hoaxes and so even if Sickert did write one or two or them it does not prove in the slightest that he was Jack.
Sarah |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 244
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 10:34 am: | |
Mark
If you think sickert is the ripper (respect to you) but I don't think using cornwell if a good idea. She has not presnted the case against sickert in the best way.
Her research has been proved to be flawed by others on these boards (I think, Durham?)
not that I think he did it!
Jennifer D. Pegg
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 867
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 6:42 am: | |
Hi Alan,
I'm afraid I can't give you any estimates about the average cost of a professional handwriting comparison. I guess it depends on many factors, including charges made by individual examiners according to their experience and reputation; how many samples you wish to be compared and so on.
Cornwell would have had few financial worries over hiring the 'best' known examiners, and commissioning exhaustive comparisons. Yet we hear very little about this, apart from Mark telling us that Cornwell herself 'mentions' inconclusive tests.
'Inconclusive' may, in fact, be the very best result a layman could expect to hear from any expert, when comparing two or more obviously very different writing styles that, if penned by the same person, would necessarily have involved an obsessive desire to write in a hand as far removed from their natural hand as possible.
(This is of course the opposite of analysing two documents written in an obviously similar style, and trying to determine whether they were both written by the same person, or if one is an attempt at copying the other. This appears to me to be more a 'science', if you will, in that the experts seem to be on surer ground when working out how many hands were at work.)
With very different writing styles, that are being examined for the possibility that only one writer was at work, the easiest way out is the 'inconclusive' result, because it allows for other evidence coming to light from other areas of expertise, that might render a more positive or negative conclusion unsafe or plain wrong.
However (as was the case with the Maybrick diary), if other 'evidence' from other areas of expertise is already known about and appears to point in one direction and one direction only, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for even the most experienced document examiner to remain totally objective, and not be pushed beyond an unsexy 'inconclusive' verdict - which may be as far as they really ought to be going, based on their experience with known examples of disguised writing from same and different hands - to produce a much more decisive result that satisfies on several levels.
A decisive result can imply a higher investment of personal effort and professional expertise, and much less likely to be disputed if it is also in line with the expectations (or hopes) of the client, and/or the majority opinion of experts and non-experts alike in related areas. If it feels good and safe for all parties concerned, so much the better - as long as there are no signs on the horizon of anything that could rock the boat.
But the world is a graveyard full of the bones of decisive results claimed by experts outstanding in their fields since time began, which later proved to be wrong.
This is why the wise expert will never claim to know more than he actually does know, despite the short term benefits to himself or others around him. He has learned from his unwise predecessors to beware of relying on even the 'safest bet'.
Of course, one can always rely on a few rather less wise experts who will rush in on occasion to plump for the apparently very unsafe bet - as with the members of Cornwell's scientific entourage at the Tate last November, who were moved to support her opinion that the ripper postbag is positively bulging with glaring examples of Sickert sketches and snatches.
My catalogue is long,
Through evey passion ranging,
And to your humours changing
I tune my supple song!
Was Sickert really as accommodating as the wandering minstrel? Or are certain experts - and their admirers - doing much of the accommodating in his case?
Love,
Caz
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 10:29 pm: | |
Mark wrote:
"So while these tests do not prove that Sickert in fact wrote these letters, they tend to support the liklihood that he did, and that suspects like Joseph Barnett, Tumblety, Ostrog, etc. did not. "
Apples and oranges.
A list of people who possibly wrote letters claiming to be Jack the Ripper would be a completely different list than one with the kinds of people who actually might have been Jack the Ripper.
Pointing out that Sickert was more likely to have written the letters than Barnett, Tumblety, Ostrog, etc. is mostly meaningless. It doesn't compare Sickert's chance of being a letter writer versus other people who might have written letters and says nothing about who might have actually killed anyone. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 911
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 9:48 am: | |
Dan,
What I find interesting here is that, as you spotted, Mark has written:-
So while these tests do not prove that Sickert in fact wrote these letters, they tend to support the liklihood that he did, and that suspects like Joseph Barnett, Tumblety, Ostrog, etc. did not.
And yet on the thread in "Letters and Communications, Sickerts Letters", he is adamant that he and Patsy Cornwall have proved that he did write the Openshaw letter. Very contradictory.
Sarah |
Dark_Intent
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 7:45 pm: | |
Just what is the evidence against Walter Sickert?
Firstly there is no direct evidence against Sickert whatsover. The DNA analysis of the Ripper letters is nothing more than Cornwell clutching at straws and certainly wouldn't stand up in a court of law. Add to this the fact that Sickert was out of the country for much of the summer of 1888 (something that further research will no doubt prove beyond a doubt eventually) and the whole case against him looks pretty shakey.
Secondly we have speculation (or circumstantial evidence if you will) which frankly won't do:
1. 'Sickert painted clues to the murders into his work.' Sickert was certainly interested in the subject of death/murder and naturally reflected it in his art. He also liked to create something of a story around his paintings, hence the somewhat odd subject matter and strange titles he used. Clearly he was also fascinated by the Ripper case and again this subject came through in some of his work, however the vast majority of his work has nothing to do with this subject and as far as I know, 'JTR's bedroom' is the only one that has a Ripper title. 'The Camden Murder' is just that - a painting on the subject of the Dimmock murder.
2. 'Sickert was obsessed with the Ripper murders.' Whilst he clearly was interested and possibly fascinated, obsessed may be too strong and even if he was, that doesn't make him a murderer. Let's face it, many using this site are obsessed with the case (not that I blame them) but they don't go around murdering people. Sickert clearly shared our interest and who can blame him, particularly when it made a good subject for some of his work.
3. 'Sickert was impotent/unable to have sex and there was no evidence of direct sexual activity at the murder scene.' There is no evidence that this is true as regards Sickert. If as Cornwell suggests he had a fistula, how do we know it prevented him having sex (after surgery) or even that it was related to his penis? It is possible that Sickert fathered children (Gorman?) and had a normal sexual life. He certainly liked women in the conventional sense and showed no overt tendancy to misogyny, unlike Tumblety for example.
The fact that there was no evidence of semen at the crime scenes is not unknown in this sort of case (Nicholl's and the clean thighs etc etc) and may related to deferred gratification, later gloating etc rather than inability to asault the victim or masturbate at the crime scene. There are a number of other explanations, which the psychologists can no doubt enlarge upon.
So where does all this speculation about Sickert, for it can be nothing more, come from? I believe that it derives from two related sources.
Sickert was a rogue, lived life to the full, possibly not a particularly nice man, a great artist, something of an actor and a raconteur. Like many people however, he liked to embellish his experiences (improve his stories) and make a better tale to be told. I've no doubt that his initial involvement with the case was no more than a very minor version of 'the Lodger' scenario being told to him by a landlady, but Sickert made this into a full blown story to tell friends (maybe the Bloomsbury set), no doubt to horify and shock etc. Over the years this has led to a suspicion (even just after the murders) that Sickert knew more than he was telling. Certainly the police did not investigate him at the time of the murders as far as we know (if ever) and this indicates that he is a later suspect.
The suspicion around Sickert was reignited by the BBC's 'Barlow and Watt' programme on the subject in the early seventies, followed by Stephen Knights 'Jack the Ripper - The Final Solution' both of which have now been discredited, but which at the time built on the original doubts surrounding Sickert and fuelled the idea that he was involved. This has been followed by things such as the ludicrous Cornwell book and like the rolling stone, here we are.
At the end of the day, some throw-away stories that Sickert used to impress friends more than one hundred years ago have spiralled into a cottage industry. Sickert would probably not have minded. At least he's the centre of attention, which is probably exactly what he wanted then and what he would have liked now.
DI
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 373
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 22, 2004 - 6:30 am: | |
Hi DI,
Very good points. Welcome to the casebook, I don't remember seeing you around before.
I think the reason people didn't reply earlier (and at least in my case I can confirm it) is that unregistered posters often don't show up when we look for new posts here (due to a technical reason and not by choice) so I doubt many people had a chance to see this yet.
I encourage you to register here so you can add more posts and have them seen right away instead of a few days later.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2340
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 22, 2004 - 8:29 am: | |
Hi DI,
I can only agree with Dan and I'm sorry your post has been over-looked. As Dan says, it is sometimes hard to keep track of unregistred posts, since they are not displayed in the same way as the registred ones and sometimes are easy to overlook by accident.
Very good points and well put, I'd say.
Welcome to the Boards and keep posting.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Dark_Intent
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 2:56 pm: | |
Dan/Glenn
Thanks for the welcome chaps. I used to post on the old site, possibly under another name but these are my first posts at the new site. I will register as I may have a few insights to add etc, but beware for my intentions may be dark! :-)
Best regards
D_I
P.S. The League of Gentlemen is hysterical Glenn.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2349
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 11:10 pm: | |
Well, DI,
regardless of how dark your ideas are, very few things seem to scare or provoke us anymore -- it somehow seems to go with the Ripper territory... Nevertheless, I look forward to your future postings, without the annoying delays.
Yes, they are hysterical indeed, DI.
"Alles klar?"
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 678
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 3:59 am: | |
DI
You may be interested to know, regarding your third point, that when I questioned a leading surgeon from St James Hospital Dublin he stated that in all his experience he had never heard of anyone ever having a fistula on their penis and he wasn't at all sure it was possible. Cornwell's information on this was apparently provided by a nephew of Sickert's third wife, who I'm sure was well versed in the history of the Sickert family genitals!
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise." |
James V. Bianco
Police Constable
Username: Jamesvbianco
Post Number: 5
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 11:33 am: | |
I'm coming to the conclusion that Joseph Gorman was just that Joseph GORMAN, and he neither knew Walter Sickert, nor was fathered by him. I think its ridiculous to entertain the thought that Sickert would have given such a detailed account to a 17 year old boy, and that the teenager remembered every last detail, name, and place.
|
Dark_Intent
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 7:04 pm: | |
Alan/James
On the subject of the fistula, I too have spoken to a medical gentleman who informs me that a fistula is usually formed between areas of layered tissue where a corrosive substance gets in between the layers and an opening or passageway is formed, which due to continued invasion by the corrosive agent does not easily heal, if ever and can be exceedingly painful.
There is no evidence to indicate where Sickert had this, although Sickert himself apparently commented on the years of misery it caused him, as we can no doubt imagine. I believe that it is possible on the penis, but more likely in the region of the anus, however neither would preclude normal sexual activity. Sickert had some surgery and again we can only guess at the degree of success that this may have had.
I think ultimately what we have is Cornwell indulging in the age old Ripper author practise of moulding the facts to fit the theory. There is absolutely no evidence to support an impaired sexual function in Sickert beyond perhaps the tenuous fact that he had no legitimate children.
That said I do not believe that Gorman was fathered by Sickert either. As James says, it is rdiculous to imagine Sickert giving such an account to a youth as Gorman describes. I imagine rather that Gorman picked the story up elsewhere or embellished a brief story told to him by Sickert for self-serving reasons.
I have to say that whilst Sickert was an interesting and mysterious character, I find him utterly ridiculous as a Ripper candidate and the evidence indicates that he was in France for most of the murder dates. Ultimately this can be proven beyond doubt.
D_I
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page