|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Medical Tests Today
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Medical / Forensic Discussions:
Medical Tests Today
Author: Mark List
Tuesday, 10 July 2001 - 06:25 pm |        | Would it be possible today to test the dried blood on the "lusk letter" and test for Catherine Eddowes DNA to see if there's a match?
I think if it is possible with today's technology, and we DID find a match then we'd be one step closer to knowing who Jack was.
Mark |
Author: Jason Jones
Tuesday, 10 July 2001 - 08:20 pm | | Hello Mark,
I read somewhere that the original Lusk letter was lost and that all the books now reprint a copy of a photograph of it. So DNA analysis would be of no use here.
I think Chris George wrote recently that the "Saucy Jack" postcard was also temporarily mislaid. So the only place to use this analysis would be for the "Dear Boss" letter for the smudged marks of red ink, from which fingerprints might be taken, and some residual DNA might be present. I don't hold out much hope here due to the difficulty of obtaining permission to mark or disfigure this document, the small quantity of likely sample, it's contamination over 100+ years and lack of DNA from a suspect with which to compare the sample.
J |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 09:14 am | | Hi Mark and Jason:
Jason is correct. Both the Lusk letter and the Saucy Jacky postcard are missing from the files. The Dear Boss letter is in red ink and crayon (for the postscript). There is no blood on that letter. My understanding is that the original Dear Boss letter is in poor shape, so Jason is right in thinking the Public Record Office probably would not allow it to be submitted to testing. Incidentally, often the image you see of the Dear Boss letter is of the facsimile that was made for the police poster asking for people to come forward if they recognize the handwriting, and it is not the original letter you are looking at.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Mark List
Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 01:21 am | | Jason and Chris,
I was thinking more along the lines of:
Testing the blood on the letter (lusk letter) and testing Eddowes DNA. if a match then, we would know for sure that the letter was sent from the killer and we would have a genuine letter.
Where that might lead us, I'm not sure. However I think that it would help with "what we believe to be true" and "what we know to be true" since there's always speculation on either theory, evidence, suspects, etc.
Mark |
Author: julie
Saturday, 23 November 2002 - 10:37 am | | Peter Wood,
Why wouldn't Sickert's family, should there be,
any decendents around now, not be able to sue??
It is true that Sickert is dead, but if there are
surviving Sickert decendents then this book, since
it has not concrete evidence of his guilt, is in
my opinion deflamation of the family name. If Joseph Sickert was truly the son of Walter, then
I would think it possible that he may have had
offspring.Ilegitamate or otherwise. Whose to say?
I personally would take a very hostile approach to
any author & book that were to deflame my family
name in any way, especially under the circumstances, No Proof.
Any litagation lawyer worth his fee, would take a
case like this. As long as I were able to prove
that the person being defamed in the book was
indeed a blood relative of mine, It would be up
to the lawyers of the author to prove their facts
are indeed that facts.
No doubt you will correct me if I am wrong!!
julie |
Author: judith stock
Saturday, 23 November 2002 - 10:55 am | | julie, I agree totally that there is, indeed, a cause of action here.....but I think Joseph would not mind if it were true, and I'm not certain there are any descendants of Sickert around....with all this Cornwell rubbish going on right now, I have forgotten a whole lot about everything; I'm sure someone knows if Sickert has any direct descendants.
Cheers,
J |
Author: Stan Russo
Saturday, 23 November 2002 - 11:38 am | | Julie,
In your opinion then, since there is no actual proof against any suspect, the research community should stop hypothesizing about the identity of 'Jack the Ripper'.
Walter Sickert was fascinated with the 'Jack the Ripper' case. He is known for advocating a theory about the murderer, while also titling one of his paintings 'Jack the Ripper's bedroom'. There is also Joseph Sickert coming forward in 1973 to state that his father, Walter Sickert, told him the real truth of why the murders took place. Yes yes yes, the Royal Conspiracy outlined by Joseph Gorman (not Sickert) and Stephen Knight has been proven untrue, yet this theory is traced back to originating from Walter Sickert.
When do we as researchers and theorists have the right to hypothesize about someone who consistently spoke about, and offered opinions about 'Jack the Ripper'? Walter Sickert was not picked out of thin air. His relationship to the case is basically what got him here. Enough with the "POOR OLD SICKERT", and the "POOR OLD" rest of suspects. Or let's all just pack our brains away in a suitcase and never theorize about the case again.
STAN |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Saturday, 23 November 2002 - 01:32 pm | | Stan,
The FBI went on record as claiming that Richard Jewell was the Centenial Olympic Park bomber. When further research proved he didn't do it, he sued them, and won.
Cornwell has gone on record as claiming that Walter Sickert was the Whitechapel Murderer. Further research has proven that he didn't do it. Who is going to defend him? Who is going to sue Cornwell on his behalf?
No one. So we as researchers owe it to the dead to not claim that someone "definitely did it" unless there is credible evidence.
Calling people like Sickert and Price Edward "suspects" when it's not possible for them to have done it is irresponsible.
Calling people like Tumblety, Kosminski, and others where it is not as clear if they are innocent and guilty is more legitimate.
Theorizing about the case is great - we all do it. But claiming to have proven your case against an innocent man with no direct evidence or in the face of evidence proving his innocence is just plain wrong.
B |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 23 November 2002 - 01:37 pm | | Julie
You don't know the law, do you?
You can't defame somebody who is dead.
Ergo, by extension, you can't defame living relatives of that person simply by saying they are related to that person.
Why is society in a rush to litigious, all of a sudden?
As David Brent would say - sue me.
Don't worry, you'll soon find out who David Brent is if you live on the other side of the pond.
Regards
Peter |
Author: Stan Russo
Saturday, 23 November 2002 - 02:42 pm | | Brian,
I am unaware of the proof that Walter Sickert could not have committed the murders.
I understand that Cornwell's assertion that Sickert definitely did it is not backed up by her research. That does not mean he did not do it. Please present this research that clears the name of Walter Sickert as a suspect. Then we can add his name to the short list of suspects (Dr. Cream, Dr. John Hewitt, Frank Miles and John William Smith Sanders) who have been officially exonerated.
If you can not offer definitive proof that Sickert was not 'Jack the Ripper' do not state your opinion as fact. That is what your post is implying.
STAN |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Saturday, 23 November 2002 - 05:22 pm | | Stan,
Sickert was not in London during two of the Ripper murders. Here's the article that discusses it.
Sickert's alibi
Sickert could not have killed Nichols and Chapman. It is unlikely that he could have killed Stride and Eddowes or Kelly.
Before you can name an individual as a suspect, you need to show (at least provide an argument based on facts) that the individual in question had means, motive and opportunity to commit the crimes. Sickert could have gotten the means, may have had the motive, but did NOT have the opportunity. Therefore, he is not a viable suspect.
Arguing that Sickert is still a viable suspect because no one can prove 100% that he didn't do it is foolish. Under those reasonings no one can be removed from being a suspect.
It's about time that we all let Cornwell's false claims go and keep looking for evidence that sheds some light on the real killer.
B |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Saturday, 23 November 2002 - 09:29 pm | | Actually Peter, it would depend on where you standing in the world as to whether or not the dead can be defamed. In U.S. State of Georgia, the name and standing of a dead person can be defamed and the family can sue.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Stan Russo
Sunday, 24 November 2002 - 09:48 am | | Brian,
I just read the Richard Shone article you were nice enough to provide the link to.
Richard Shone is one of the many Walter Sickert biographers. For a number of years, since 1970 when Sickert was 1st suggested as a suspect, not 1976 as Shone states, Sickert biographers such as Shone and Wendy Baron have made numerous statements that Walter Sickert could not have been 'Jack the Ripper'. Not one of them has shown verifiable proof.
Shone quotes from a SEPTEMBER 6TH letter, written by Sickert's mother. The letter states that Sickert and his brother Bernhard were swimming and painting away from London, ON SEPTEMBER 6TH.
Shone uses this letter to state that Sickert could not have murdered Nichols or Chapman. I DO NOT SEE IT.
Shone, and you Brian, take a letter from Sickert's mother and apply it as fact that Sickert was out of the country during the Nichols and Chapman murders. Are you, Brian, trying to state that it is impossible for Walter Sickert to have murdered Nichols, visited his mother and brother, UP UNTIL SEPTEMBER 6TH, then returned to London to murder Chapman? I am not stating Sickert did this, but you are stating that HE COULD NOT HAVE. Where is your proof?
"AT SOME POINT ..." Sickert wrote a letter to Blanche. That is not very definitive. AT WHAT POINT Mr. Shone? AT WHAT POINT Brian?
"Believed to be", and "rumored to be" are two phrases consistently used by Sickert biographers as actual proof he could not have committed the murders. They want to believe this, as do you Brian, but THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT IS TRUE.
Show me proof other than a letter stating Sickert was out of the country on September 6th. Show me something better than that, before you want to so casually eliminate a suspect because you do not endorse the theory that he may have been 'Jack the Ripper'.
Tell me IT IS NOT POSSIBLE, for Sickert to have travelled back to London to murder Nichols and Chapman, because you believe it, but then show me the proof where IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE. Even Shone addresses the possibility that Sickert could have travelled back to London, but he does not want that to be a real possibility.
You say Sickert may have had the means and the motive, but your statement that Sickert DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY fails. You show no proof, just like Richard Shone and those before him.
Do not eliminate a suspect because you do not endorse a particular theory. Do not eliminate a suspect because an arrogant pompous theorist claims to have solved the case. That is not progressive thinking.
Sickert could not have been the third man within the Royal Conspiracy. That has been proven. That does not mean that Sickert could not have been 'Jack the Ripper'. |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Sunday, 24 November 2002 - 10:37 am | | Stuart,
Calm down, buddy. Let's have a discussion, not a red-faced shouting match. Reread the article again.
"It has long been known that Sickert was abroad that summer, following his annual custom of being in or near Dieppe, a town that the Sickert family knew well and where they had many friends. The second murder (31 August, Mary Ann Nichols) and the third (8 September, Annie Chapman) took place when Sickert, his mother and his brother Bernhard were at St Valéry-en-Caux along the coast west of Dieppe. On 6 September Mrs Sickert wrote to a friend in England from St Valéry saying that her sons Walter and Bernhard were there swimming and painting (a letter unknown to Cornwell). At some point (probably August) Sickert wrote from St Valéry to the French painter Jacques-Emile Blanche telling him he had come to ‘this nice little place’ for a rest.
According to Cornwell this is the only evidence she could find that Sickert was abroad during these two months. But on 17 September Blanche wrote to his father that he had visited Walter and his family at St Valéry on the day before (16 September). In support of Sickert’s being in England rather than France, Cornwell quotes a letter signed by the Ripper, also dated 17 September; this is a highly suspect document which came to light only in the 1980s and should not be used as evidence for anything until its authenticity as a document of 1888 has been tested. On 21 September Sickert’s wife Ellen, in London, wrote to her brother-in-law that Sickert was in France for some weeks with ‘his people’. Cornwell quotes this letter, doubts the truth of it and interprets the phrase ‘his people’ as Sickert’s artist and writer cronies in Dieppe who came and went through the summer season, rather than giving it its common contemporary meaning, i.e. his family. From this misreading, she believes Sickert had a carefully planned alibi, allowing him to be free of his own family circle (the opposite of the truth) and enabling him to be at his murderous business in London, his comings and goings unchecked by the shifting seasonal visitors to Dieppe.
On 30 September the Ripper caused a terrible sensation when the bodies of Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were found, murdered within hours of each other. A day or two later Sickert painted (or finished) ‘The October Sun’ showing a shop-front in St Valéry. "
1.) You've got the fact that his going to Dieppe was an annual custom.
2.) You've got the fact that Sickert's mother wrote a letter saying they were in Dieppe on September 6.
3.) You've got a letter from Sickert that - granted, it can't be dated - says he was in Dieppe.
4.) You've got the fact that Sickert's wife (who was in London) on 21 September saying he was still in Dieppe.
5.) Then you've got the painting he did of the shopfront, completed in early October and called "The October Sun".
What more do you want? A photograph of him holding a newspaper and a clock in front of the Hotel Dieppe at 3:30 AM on August 31?
Be realistic. There is no way you can 100% elimnate anyone from the suspects list, so don't expect that kind of proof. The evidence that Shone points out is more compelling than anything Cornwell has claiming that he did it. When viewed as a whole, the evidence is overwhelming that Sickert wasn't in London during Nichol's and Chapman's murders.
I eliminate Sickert because he wasn't in London at the time of two of the canonical murders, not because I disagree with Cornwell's theory. I think Cornwell has done an excellent job in proving that Sickert faked a Ripper letter or two.
But if you can't put the suspect in Whitechapel for at least the three undisputed canonical murders (Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes) then you must cross him off the list.
Why don't we throw Grover Cleveland on your suspects lists, under your logic? I mean - it's theoretical that all of his biographers, family and other witnesses lied about seeing him in Washington, DC during the Ripper killings, right? Can you prove 100% that he wasn't?
What about Queen Victoria? She lived less than 6 miles away from Whitechapel. She was definitely in London when they were killed. Can you prove to me she didn't do it?
C'mon. All kidding aside, Sickert is simply not a viable suspect, and continuing to argue that he is is merely detracting from the investigations of other more viable suspects.
Now can we agree to disagree on this subject? Or are you going to question my intelligence again?
B |
Author: Stan Russo
Sunday, 24 November 2002 - 10:45 am | | Brian,
I agree to agree to disagree.
STAN |
Author: judith stock
Sunday, 24 November 2002 - 11:04 am | | Dear Stan, and all,
We are beginning to sound like Cornwell when she says that is not up to her to prove Sickert guilty....it is up to us to prove him INNOCENT! While that approach appealed to the Cheka, KGB, and Gestapo (along with multitudes of other secret police groups, and generally stupid people), the principle of law in this country, and the UK, is still that Sickert is innocent until someone PROVES him guilty. SO FAR, all we have from Cornwell and her supporters are "maybe", "must be", "obviously", and "we can infer". I believe Scott Medine, a qualified, seasoned homicide detective, was the one who told Cornwell there was NOT enough evidence to arrest, let alone, indict. Until Cornwell can prove to me that Sickert was the Ripper, I will not believe it. Her research is shoddy, her methodology questionable, and her conclusions are made from allegation, inference and guesswork. NONE of which is proof.
Cheers,
J |
Author: Stan Russo
Sunday, 24 November 2002 - 01:17 pm | | Judith, and all,
You are right. Sickert is innocent until proven guilty, as are Stephenson, Druitt, Tumblety, Kosminski, Cohen, Ostrog, George Chapman, William Gull, Maybrick, John Arnold, Buchan, La Bruckman, Lewis Carroll, Bury, James Kelly, Frederick Charrington, and 50 to 100 other suspects.
Frank Miles, Dr. Cream, John William Smith Sanders, and Dr. John Hewitt have all been proven innocent. No further research is conducted on these suspects. The case has progressed past them.
There is no proof that will be found. The Maybrick Diary, the Littlechild Letter, the Swanson Marginalia, have all been offered up as proof and the debate still continues. Perhaps the wave of the future in this case is to prove someone innocent and clear them, rather than prove them guilty. No researcher can prove any suspect guilty with the science we have today. Perhaps one day, but not today. That does not mean researchers should stop theorizing.
Until the Royal Conspiracy was proved impossible due to the victims having been killed on the spot, rather than in Gull's carriage, the theory seemed like a real possibility. Because of someone like Stephen Knight forming and postulating that theory, we now know that the murders could not have been the way Knight theorizes.
No one is trying to hang any suspect. They are all dead. Some researchers are attempting to suggest possibilities. These researchers are enduring way too much flack over doing nothing more than providing new thoughts and ideas on the murders.
There are no societies dedicated to Francis Tumblety. No buildings have been dedicated in the name of Robert Donston Stephenson. Montague John Druitt does not have a fan club. No large groups get together to celebrate the birthdays of George Chapman or Aaron Kosminski. Researchers should be allowed to theorize without being punsihed or verbally abused for their thoughts.
The alternative is to close up shop.
STAN |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 24 November 2002 - 01:22 pm | | Thanks Scott
That's a really strange law they've got over there. Just going off at a tangent ...
In England journalists used to be able to say what they liked about convicted murderers because those people no longer had a reputation for anyone to impugn, these days you only have to serve their eggs, bacon and black pudding 1 degree too cold and they've got their legal aid lawyer on to the case.
Peter |
Author: judith stock
Sunday, 24 November 2002 - 03:14 pm | | You're right, Stan; to theorise is great fun, and a worthwhile undertaking, just as long as everyone understands that is THEORISING. Ms Cornwell is NOT theorising when she says Sickert is 100% guilty, or that she is 100% certain he is the killer. She also is NOT theorising when she says she knows she is right, and that it is up to us to prove him innocent. She has well and truly put her butt on the line over this, and has placed herself in a position that makes her a target for ALL the messages on this board. If she had only said, "I believe", "I think", "I theorise" or even, "I am almost certain." NOPE, she says that after LESS than a year and a half, she KNOWS everything there is to know about this case, that we are all ghouls, and pretty stupid ones at that. This is the same damn approach that Mark Fuhrman made when he said "NEVER"....what dopes; every good lawyer will tell you to NEVER say NEVER or ALWAYS. Both have left themselves open for impeachment. And considering her methodology, I would guess that she is EMINENTLY impeachable.
J |
Author: Stan Russo
Sunday, 24 November 2002 - 03:52 pm | | Judith,
I totally agree with your opinion on Ms. Cornwell. I believe my opinion of her and her theory is well documented on the boards.
Her basic theory isw that Sickert was a bad man and committed the murders because of this, adding his infantile penile operation among other factors. This "BAD MAN KILLER" theory has gotten the public no closer to the identity of 'JTR' when it was offered up to theorize the guilt of Druitt, Kosminski, and others.
Cornwell believes the murders were committed because 'JTR' was nothing more than a bad man, and she plugged Sickert in to her theory. Of course there's no proof that Sickert was 'Jack the Ripper', and her arrogance does warrant a degree of verbal abuse. That does not mean the theorizing should stop.
Her theory fails, because there is simply more to the murders than 'JTR' was a "BAD MAN". But because her theory fails, as a result of weak research, this does not mean that Walter Sickert was not 'Jack the Ripper'.
To believe that Sickert could not have been 'JTR' because of Cornwell's failed theory and weak research, should also mean that Francis Tumblety was 'JTR' because of Stewart Evans' excellent research, as well as David Cohen was 'JTR' because of Martin Fido's detailed research. In my opinion it just does not work that way.
STAN |
Author: judith stock
Sunday, 24 November 2002 - 04:06 pm | | You're right, Stan. What we really need is a Polaroid of the Ripper standing over Kelly, bloody knife in hand. Until then, we keep on guessing. So far, NO ONE has any offer of proof.
By the way, I really liked your paper that you brought to the Conference!
Cheers,
J |
Author: Jack Traisson
Sunday, 24 November 2002 - 05:15 pm | | I am sorry, Judy, I could no longer resist. You have asked for the photo several times and you shall receive :-)
Cheers
 |
Author: Stan Russo
Sunday, 24 November 2002 - 05:40 pm | | Jack,
So he did it.
STAN |
Author: judith stock
Sunday, 24 November 2002 - 09:59 pm | | JACK!!!! YOU HAVE PROVIDED THE SOLUTION WE ALL HAVE HOPED FOR!!!
Good grief, where have you been all this time....wait! I KNOW, you're gonna write a book about it!
Good work, Jack!! Well done!
J |
Author: Jack Traisson
Sunday, 24 November 2002 - 10:46 pm | | I have also dispelled the myth that the Ripper could not have been a dwarf or a giant. Our Jack was clearly a giant!!!
Of course I am going to write a book about it. Just look at his eyes, he's evil...
Cheers! |
|
|
|
|
