|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Help Needed!
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Help Needed!
Author: paul merryman
Saturday, 23 March 2002 - 08:03 am |        | Hi,
I have read numerous books regarding JTR, I was interested in a theory that I read along time ago that involved walter sickert and another accomplice as the murderers. They used to kill the prostitutes and then put them on a push cart and push them through the streets and dump them where they were found.
The thing is I can't remember the title of this book. If anybody can help me I would be very much appreciated.
Paul.
 |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 23 March 2002 - 10:11 am | | Hi, Paul:
Thanks for your query. I have not read the book but it sounds like this might be the book by Jean Overton Fuller, Sickert and the Ripper Crimes. This book, based on the reminiscences of Sickert acquaintance Florence Pash, was first published a decade ago, so it prefigures the recently much vaunted theory by American mystery writer Patricia Cornwell that Walter Sickert was the Ripper. Simon Owen or someone else familiar with the book would possibly be able to tell you if the Fuller book is the one of which you are thinking.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: paul merryman
Saturday, 23 March 2002 - 12:03 pm | | George,
Thanks for your reply.
Paul
|
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 23 March 2002 - 07:20 pm | | | Hi Chris, Am I correct in believing that in Sickert's case his name was never associated with the killer until 1970 and then only mentioned in passing in a book by Donald McCormack and was just as quickly dismissed.This absurd idea of linking Walter Sickert with the murders only came about because a one-time landlady informed Walter Sickert that the room he was living in had once been used by a young veterinary surgeon who was supected of being the ripper(this story probably inspired Sickert to paint the picture of Jack the Ripper's room ) It was this anecdote told by Sickert that led some ill-informed people to believe that one of his paintings showed a murdered woman depicted in a ripper killing.In fact one painting by Sickert depicted the Camden Town Murder case of 1907 which interested the painter because he was living in the area and he knew the young artist who was put on trial for the murder. Then in 1973 along came con man, and pathalogical liar Joseph Sickert, who pretended to be Walter Sickert's son.Joseph Sickert has since been encouraged by people ( some of whom should have known better )to pursue his fantasies and to instill his waffle onto unsuspecting members of the public. |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 24 March 2002 - 12:01 am | | Hi Ivor:
I believe you are exactly correct that Walter Sickert has only a peripheral connection to the crimes, i.e., that he rented a room that some think may have been used by a Ripper suspect, a young veterinary surgeon, and that he painted his series of paintings based on the 1907 Camden Town murder which was somewhat reminiscent of the Ripper crimes. I do believe that, as you say, Walter's profile in the case was jacked up, as it were, by Joe Sickert's tall stories in the 1970s. More recently, in the last decade, Jean Overton Fuller and, in November, Patricia Cornwell have gone beyond the idea that Walter Sickert had a small or insignificant association with the case and have come up with full-blown theories making the artist the murderer.
All the best
Chris |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 24 March 2002 - 04:41 am | | The linking of Walter Sickert's name with 'Jack the Ripper' is purely anecdotal, but it dates back as far as 1941, not 1970.
The 1941 story appeared in The Life and Opinions of Walter Richard Sickert by Robert Emmons, London, Faber and Faber Limited. Sickert used to frequent the music halls and was in the habit of walking home from Hoxton, Shoreditch, Canning Town or Islington, across Primrose Hill, and so on to Hampstead. "He wore a loud check coat, long to the ankles, and carried a little bag for his drawings. One night in Copenhagen Street a party of young girls fled from him in terror, yelling, 'Jack the Ripper, Jack the Ripper!'"
The story Sickert told of the room he had taken that had been previously occupied by Jack the Ripper, a veterinary student from Bournemouth, and that he knew the Ripper's identity, was recorded by Osbert Sitwell, first in the book A Free House! or the Artist as Craftsman Being the Writings of Walter Richard Sickert, edited by Osbert Sitwell, London, Macmillan & Co. Ltd., 1947 and Noble Essences or Courteous Revelations, Macmillan & Co. Ltd., 1950.
I hope that helps. |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 24 March 2002 - 05:51 am | | Hi, Stewart:
Thanks as usual for that information. As ever, you are a mine of valuable information on the case. We can see then that the earlier mentions of Walter Sickert in the Ripper literature, the earliest of which you date to 1941 are just like a number of reports associated with people of the day, a rather amorphose, soft, and anecdotal linking to the case. In terms of Emmons and Sitwell's books, it was the sort of thing that spiced up their narratives.
All the best
Chris |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 24 March 2002 - 11:58 am | | | Hi Stewart & Chris, Thanks for the information it is a great help. The dates and references were what I needed.Did Florence Pash tell elements of the Sickert/Ripper story prior to 1948.1948 is the date I have.It seems odd to me that the Sickert/Ripper connection can be traced to 1941 yet Pash who it was alleged knew Kelly and elements of a blackmail and murder story only started to tell her tales after 1941. |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Sunday, 24 March 2002 - 12:52 pm | | Hello all.
It seems apropos for me to be able to return to the boards, after an extremely busy period in my working life, with this discussion as I have just finished and e-mailed off my article on Sickert to Christopher Michael at Ripper Notes.
Paul, there is no book that I know of that fills the criteria that you mentioned, i.e., Sickert and an accomplis moving bodies around Whitechapel in a push cart. Stephen Knight's book The Final Solution suggests that Sir William Gull, John Netley and Sickert used a coach or carriage, as did Melvyn Fairclough's The Ripper and the Royals, although Sickert had a reduced role in this book. Jean Overton Fuller's book, Sickert and the Ripper Crimes, makes the suggestion that Sickert alone was the murderer based on conversations her mother had with Florence Pash. There is little in the way of the why's and wherefore's of the Whitechapel murders in this book.
The Book that you are searching for is, instead, I believe, John Wilding's Jack the Ripper Revealed in which Wilding offers J. K. Stephen and Montague John Druitt moving the bodies around Whitechapel in a small cart.
Stewart, as usual, is correct about Emmons' mention of Sickert being called ‘Jack the Ripper' by a group of terrified girls as he walked to his South Hampstead home one evening. Ivor is also correct in observing that it was McCormick in the 1970 revised paperback edition of his book who first mentions Sickert in a work dedicated to the Whitechapel murders. McCormick stated that "Yet another suggestion made is that Walter Sickert, the painter, was Jack the Ripper. The reason for Sickert being suspected is that he was believed to have made sketches and paintings of the Ripper crimes... McCormick lost his notes and was unable to remember where he had heard this.
If Overton Fuller is to be believed, Florence Pash was told the Royal/Conspiracy story by Sickert as early as 1892 but there is no indication that I could find that she told the tale to anyone other than Violet Overton Fuller before this.
One last thing. As my article will show, Overton Fuller and Patricia Cornwell are correct, Sickert had "seen the bodies" and did indeed paint, draw and sketch works based on the Whitechapel victims.
Wolf. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 24 March 2002 - 01:46 pm | | Dear Wolf,
Hence, "Jack the Ripper's Bedroom", 1888. (Manchester City Art Galleries.) |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 24 March 2002 - 06:00 pm | | | Wolf, Thanks for posting that information here. I find it most interesting to say the least to learn that Sickert had indeed seen the bodies.I look forward to reading your article on this matter.Many thanks. |
Author: John Savage
Sunday, 24 March 2002 - 07:40 pm | | It may be worth mentioning here the story of Feda Thompson, who claimed that as early as 1915 she had been told of the involvement of the Duke of Clarence, who had an affair with a
prostitute, whom he married an set up in a house in Fitzroy Square. She claimed to have been told this by her grandfather Sam Lythal who was a Detecive Sergeant in the City of London Police at the time of the murders.
I think that this could indicate that Walter Sickert first heard his tale not from any royal connections but most probably from a policeman.
Full accounts of the above are in "The Mammoth Book of Jack The Ripper" by Maxim Jakibowski and Nathan Brand (page 156) and also "Jack The Ripper: The Final Chapter" by Paul Feldman Pages 342-5) |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 25 March 2002 - 02:38 am | | | There is no evidence that Sickert saw the bodies at all. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 25 March 2002 - 09:12 pm | | | Thanks for that Stewart because my opinion was the same as yours on that point. Such a statement that he did see the bodies upset my apple cart so to speak.This is why I was very interested in reading Wolf's evidence concerning this matter. |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 26 March 2002 - 02:27 am | | My dear Ivor,
nobody said on these boards that Sickert had seen the bodies.
The subtle author of the post four posts above yours said that Sickert had "seen the bodies".
Bye. Graziano (who wants to preserve you from the wol...ves of marketing - Jack the Ripper = Big Business ?).
 |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 26 March 2002 - 04:44 am | | The linking of Walter Richard Sickert with the Ripper crimes is another example of the mythology that dogs this case. It is very clear that Sickert's name was brought into the equation as a participant in the drivel that emerged, and has been expanded upon since, with Donald McCormick and the Joseph Gorman story.
As we know Donald McCormick has a lot to answer for in this accumulating dross. In his 1970 update of The Identity of Jack the Ripper, London, John Long, McCormick introduced Walter Sickert, full-fledged, as a 'Jack the Ripper' candidate, thus:-
"Yet another suggestion made is that Walter Sickert, the painter, was Jack the Ripper."
Expanding on what he calls a "completely wide of the mark" allegation, McCormick states:-
"The reason for Sickert being suspected is that he was believed to have made sketches and paintings of the Ripper crimes. I have not been able to establish whether or not this is true, but the idea may have mistakenly arisen from the fact that one of his paintings, The Camden Town Murder, depicted a nude woman on a bed in a dingy bedroom."
McCormick then goes on to quote the story given by Osbert Sitwell in A Free House: Being the Writings of Walter Richard Sickert in support of the fact that Sickert was actually interested in the murders, and that Sickert knew the identity of the killer as per the veterinary student tale.
McCormick does this for a reason. He later, in the same book, attempts to link the Sickert 'veterinary student' story with Druitt as the Ripper. McCormick states:-
"How then to explain how the idea ever arose that Druitt could have been the Ripper? Curiously the trail leads back to Walter Sickert, for a London doctor [Dr. Dutton no doubt!!!] who knew Sickert and whose father was at Oxford with Druitt gave me his own explanation of the Druitt mystery." [If Dutton didn't know them his dad did!]
McCormick goes on to explain how Sickert's tale of the 'veterinary student' lodger was widely told and as a result there were "various second-hand and even third-hand versions of it." It is at this point that McCormick's wonderful ability to tell a tale gets into full swing. 'The doctor', according to McCormick, knew Sickert and got the tale first hand from the artist. [It's amazing just how many people this good doctor knew!] However, McCormick states that 'the doctor' told of how the name was:-
"...something like Druitt. It may have been Drewett, or even Hewitt. Anyhow Sickert told me he had repeated the yarn to Sir Melville Macnaghten once at the Garrick Club and that Macnaghten was convinced it must have been Druitt because he had a widowed mother living at Bournemouth, the same as Druitt."
McCormick then goes on to tell his 'doctor's tale' of how the idea for Druitt as the Ripper was introduced to Macnaghten in this way but was erroneous as the 'doctor's father' had stated that the idea was mistaken as Druitt was not the 'veterinary student'. Therefore Macnaghten's listing of Druitt as a suspect was based on this false assumption. McCormick's reason for doing this was to provide a story to dismiss Tom Cullen's recent nomination of Druitt as Jack the Ripper in Autumn of Terror Jack the Ripper: His Crimes and Times, London, The Bodley Head, 1965, strongly based, as it was, on the information provided by Macnaghten's notes. So the story from the 'London doctor', is used to dismiss Druitt, but, at the same time, it raises the profile of Sickert's name in connection with the murders. Before McCormick it was merely the two tales told by Emmons and Sitwell of a man, like many others living in London at the time, who was simply interested in the case. After McCormick the seeds were sown for the development, just a few years later, of the Sickert involvement with the murders, especially in the Stephen Knight fantasy.
It should be noted that the seminal work of Cullen had, of course, appeared after McCormick's 1959 edition of The Identity of Jack the Ripper, London, Jarrolds, 1959.
McCormick's wonderful ability to tell a story and to stray into the realms of invention is not confined to the Ripper case alone. An examination of his book The Red Barn Mystery, London, John Long, 1967, reveals the same aptitude. A scholar of the murder in the Red Barn mystery, in Bury St Edmunds, told me many years ago of how he had approached McCormick for details of his sources for some of the 'wonderful new information' on the Red Barn case contained in the book. McCormick had responded in a way well known to those who have requested the same sort of information in relation to the Ripper case; he no longer had his notes showing where the information had come from.
It's amazing how these stories are born and then receive widespread acceptance and assimilation into other theories. The point is, of course, when these theories are developed they often contain duff infomation originating with McCormick. He has contaminated the field of Ripper studies to an immense degree, which is unfortunate. |
Author: ASEGERDAL
Tuesday, 26 March 2002 - 05:37 am | | Hi Stewart: I spoke to Joseph (Hobo) Sickert on the phone in the 1970s, and asked him if he really was the son of painter Walter Sickert. I also tried to interview him in general but he was most evasive. Of course, we now know why! A strange fellow indeed!
All the best, Alastair Segerdal |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 26 March 2002 - 06:31 am | | Stewart P. Evans,
Allow me to explain my opinion in poor and plain words.
I am no intellectual.
Certainly Mc Cormick has contaminated the field of Ripper studies.
If for contamination you mean giving explanation that are not based on "solid" evidences and facts.
But if "solid" evidences are not there and one wants to get to the solution, they have to be searched for.
And to search for them one has to try out whatever way could present some circumstancial reason.
Now, in this case (Jack's) all what could have been considered "solid" evidence (for example the Littlechild letter for the Tumblety suspect) has led nowhere, or when it has it's to the discarding of the theory.
So, to be able to find some new "solid" evidence it is clear to me that new ways have to be open.
Some are realistic, some less but all are worth to be hollowed out.
On these boards there are people (I am not attacking you in any way here) who continually give the impression to be willing to botch the efforts of a lot people who make a lot of interesting remarks only because they are not based on "solid" evidence.
Nevertheless these people, who continually praise the virtues of the experts and bow before them as if slavery had never been abolished take teaching from the "search of purity" of which you are certainly one of the leader.
And I personnally think that this "search for purity", even if it has certainly some merits, is someway the cause of the lack of any progress in the case since it is often used in a negative and destructive way.
"Solid" evidence could come out after the beginning of an investigation.
Sure, it will come out only if the investigation is directed in the right direction.
But if you kill the investigator before he begins.....
I would like to understand why a student for many years like you has spent a lot of time on Tumblety because of what could be considered an evidence against him: the letter "T." in a letter written in 1913 by a guy who was not so close to the case in 1888 (I know that other elements could be considered but this one is the only necessary one), and never took in consideration the guys who were around the murder site of Elizabeth Stride at the right moment or John Richardson who in every serious investigation (and we may say that at the time there wasn't any) would be considered first suspects.
I would be interested in your answer just to try to understand the way of thinking.
Thank you. Graziano. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 26 March 2002 - 08:36 am | | Graziano,
I do not intend to get into a protracted exchange with you.
As regards McCormick, the subject of this question, it is not a case of 'giving explanation that are not based on "solid" evidences and facts', it is a case of downright invention and lies. Now, if you feel that such 'evidence' is good enough 'to get to the solution', then off you go and search for it. I haven't noticed you finding any at all yet.
You have brought Tumblety into your post presumably to make some sort of point to me as my first book was about Tumblety. For it relates in no way to the point in question here. Littlechild was a contemporary source and a man in a position to know what went on at the time. The Littlechild letter is not an invention of mine, nor is it forged. It is a solid basis for further research, unlike McCormick's unsourced inventions.
It is a nonsense to claim that it has 'led nowhere' as it has identified a genuine contemporary suspect who, until then, had been missed, and has also provided the answer as to whom the Scotland Yard officials believed had written the 'Dear Boss' correspondence. Nor has the theory been 'discarded'. But all the arguments in that respect have been made on these boards and if you care to do some research on the archived posts you will find them.
After that pointless and irrelevant digression, back to McCormick. His fictions, it cannot be gainsaid, make an entertaining read, and if you enjoy them I recommend his many other books to you. An erroneous belief that you seem to be labouring under is that any attempt to strive for the truth and the facts is an attempt 'to botch the efforts of a lot of people who make a lot of interesting remarks', which is not the case at all. The fact is that when you base your ideas and 'interesting remarks' on hoaxes and lies then they are pretty meaningless.
Free speech and thinking should be paramount in any forum and no one denies that. But if the 'interesting remarks' are nonsense-based then don't expect everyone to agree with them. And those who do disagree are free to say so and why, which is basically all I did. I too am no great intellect and if people wish to disagree then fine, but don't expect me to swallow the same hogwash. I don't consider myself to be 'one of the leader' of anything, which is obviously what you believe. I am merely another contributor who, once in a while, likes to give his own opinion. Something which you appear to disagree with. Of course, this is one of the reasons for my past absences from the boards, I don't believe in pointless and specious argument.
So, whatever I may say, think or believe, I will not have any great influence on what is said on these boards. That has been shown in the past. So it is a mistake to suggest that those who prefer the facts and honesty over nonsense and invention are doing so 'in a negative and destructive way'. The 'search for the answer' will continue no matter what. Phil Sugden stated that he hoped that his contribution would lead to a more scholarly approach and that many of the myths would be laid to rest. We have all seen what has followed his book. The situation has not really changed too much from what went before.
Your last sentence appears to indicate that you know more about suspects than the Police of 1888 did. I suggest that you research and write your own 'solution' as you clearly know more about evidence and facts than I could ever hope to.
Good luck in your hunt for the final solution, and don't be put off by the likes of me who would try to guide you to the best sources. |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 26 March 2002 - 12:01 pm | | Stewart P. Evans,
Thank you for your answer.
I was not defending Mc Cormick and his theories nor was I attacking you and your work/theory.
Both would be ridiculous.
I said already somewhere that you are probably one of the two or three guys who have done the most for the widespread knowledge of the case.
And since this widespread knowledge will certainly be the main cause of the solving of the case, this same solving will allways someway be indebted with you.
I can hardly pay a major tribute to show how much I think your work is valuable.
But stating that, I do not believe inconditionnally that you are sinless.
For this, please refer to Chris George or Tom Wescott (please, not intended as an insult, these guys know a lot on the case and much more than me, but because of their attitude they won't be able to get nowhere, never).
That Mc Cormick has been in more than one occasion a folkloristic author, it is difficult to argue against.
That Tumblety could have been considered a serious suspect by the police at the time, it is difficult not to agree.
I spoke about Mc Cormick because you were writing about him.
I mentioned Tumblety because I was speaking with you.
Had I been doing it with James Tully, I would have considered Kelly.
These were only details.
The sentence of your post I was addressing to was the first one: "...the mythology that dogs this case.".
"Mythology" to this case, is simply necessary.
If we had to base our reasoning only on "solid evidences" and "established facts" as they are today, we will not go very far.
Because there are not a lot of them.
Because the ones that are there have already been exploited in long and in large.
When I said "led nowhere", I referred to all in general, not particularly to Tumblety.
I only meant that no serious case has been done against anyone, whatever you may consider "solid and genuine facts".
These, as we know them today, are simply not enough.
Others have to be looked for.
Or just considered as such.
Trying to be too "solid" or too "genuine" turns out to be too limitative and to go on ploughing arid fields.
Of course when I say "mythology" I am not referring to plain hoaxes but just to scenarios which, even if not based on solid facts but only on circumstances, could realistically give some answers.
This I think research have allways lacked.
And this is why I genuinely asked you, as an experienced investigator of the case that you are and a newbie that I am, what made you spend a lot of time on Tumblety and not on Israel Schwartz
whose testimony clearly contradicted others, was not corroborated by anyone, whose deposition to the police was different from his declaration to the press, whose capacity of observation defied the physical laws and who transformed himself in 24 hours from a coward little guy afraid by a row to a Superwitness in a murder case and, of course, who could, contrary to Tumblety, be placed on the right spot at the right time.
Because, Stewart P. Evans, I am only and genuinely interested in understanding your way of reasoning.
I am sure that the day I'll understand it, I will know why you did not get to the solution of this case, more precisely, why you refused to get to it.
Because this for me is the real mistery.
Thank you. Graziano. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 26 March 2002 - 02:15 pm | | Graziano,
You certainly have a way with words and I can but thank you for the kind words about myself. However, you do seem to frequently miss the point.
I doubt that anyone in this world is 'sinless' and I for one, certainly, am not. Since writing what I call a 'suspect book', I have concentrated on researching and writing objective books.
I am sure that Chris George and Tom Wescott are perfectly capable of their own thought processes and of reasoning and interpreting things for themselves. In fact I know they are. There are points on which both of them have their own ideas and which do not agree with my own conclusions. This is healthy and as it should be. I think that it is grossly unfair of you to suggest otherwise. For you to say that "...they won't be able to get nowhere, never" [sic] is only your opinion, assuming the double negative is unintended.
Speaking about McCormick to me does not necessitate any mention of Tumblety, unless it is relevant to the discussion. It is not. Indeed, if this was the case it would be all that I ever discussed and would become tedious. Please remember that I was reading of and researching this case for thirty years before I ever heard of Tumblety and only one of my four books has been about him.
Mythology is not 'simply necessary' to this case. Reasoning, speculation and interpretation are. What solid evidence and facts there are should be adhered to when applying this reasoning, speculation and interpretation. Not doing so makes a nonsense of any theory when it clearly conflicts with the known facts. But your later paragraph saying "Of course when I say "mythology" I am not referring to plain hoaxes but just to scenarios which, even if not based on solid facts but only on circumstances, could realistically give some answers" shows that we are talking at cross purposes. For I am talking about McCormick's hoaxes and inventions which pose as facts. This is indeed mythology. What you are speaking about is honest theorising which I have no argument with.
The clear danger with McCormick, and this is what I was pointing out, is the fact that he invents and contrives many of his 'facts' which others then believe, copy and use to build their own fanciful theories. If you agree with what McCormick and his ilk do then that is fine with me, it is your credibility that will suffer. But don't wonder why others won't agree with your reasoning when it is based on such flawed foundations.
I think what you are trying to say is that no solid case has been built against any suspect. Well, you are not wrong there, and why? The reason is because there is no evidence to prove anyone was the killer. They didn't have it in 1888, we don't have it now, and we never will have it. All you can do is consider all you feel relevant, read and absorb all you can, and reach your own conclusions to your own satisfaction. Sorry, but that's all there is.
Your comment "Trying to be too "solid" or too "genuine" turns out to be too limitative and to go on ploughing arid fields." shows only too clearly your own approach. Fine, go write a novel about the murders. You might as well, because you will have to invent the 'facts' you need to solve the case. Plenty of others have done it in the past, I'm sure plenty more will do it in the future. At least if, unlike McCormick, you are honest about what parts you are inventing you will earn more respect for your theory.
Your question "what made you spend a lot of time on Tumblety and not on Israel Schwartz..." is delightfully naive. The simple answer is, of course, the book was about Tumblety and not about Schwartz. I am not sure what the rest of your comments about Schwartz are supposed to mean, but if you are suggesting that he is a credible suspect then why not write a book about him yourself?
The true mystery of your last post, however, is in the last paragraph. Do you really need to know my 'way of reasoning', for you clearly do not agree with it? I was a police officer for 28 years, and this obviously influences some of my thought processes.
But, hey, you appear to have 'got to the solution of the case' and unlike me you are not 'refusing to get to it'. Forget any 'mystery' involving Stewart P Evans (there is none really) and get writing your book.
Yours in bewilderment
Stewart |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Tuesday, 26 March 2002 - 02:50 pm | | Dear Ivor, Steward, and the rest,
There has been a point about the Sickert story
(told in Sir Osbert Sitwell's NOBLE ESSENCES)
about the sickly, and strange, young veterinary
student, that has always intrigued me.
Roughly the story goes like this: Sickert said
he roomed in a rooming house that he was told
was once used by Jack the Ripper. The Ripper
(Sickert was told) was a young veterinary student
who was ill, and only left the house at night.
He only returned late in the early morning.
This young man would pounce on the newspapers
after each murder, reading them avidly. This
young man took a turn for the worse after the
last Ripper murder (presumably Mary Kelly's -
Sitwell does not specify) and is taken off to
Bournemouth, where he dies soon afterwards.
Apparently a name was given to the young man,
which was jotted down by several people who
Sickert told the story to (Sir William Rothenstein
and Max Beerbohm are usually mentioned). But the
name is always lost somehow.
Actually, there is a similar story from the 1880s
that resembles this tale, but it is from 1881, not
1888.
In June 1881, a Mr. Frederick Isaac Gold, a retired merchant, was stabbed, shot, and thrown
from a train on the Brighton line in a robbery
attempt. It was (officially) the second murder
committed on a railroad train in Great Britain.
The chief suspect was a journalist named Percy
Lefroy Mapleton (who insisted on using the name
"Arthur Lefroy"). Mapleton originally claimed he
was assaulted and nearly killed too, by a third
man who was in the apartment of the train with
Gold and himself. Due to very suspicious circumstances, the police decided to hold Mapleton
for further questioning, but he convinced them
to allow him to go home for a change of clothes.
Escorted home by a rather dull railway policeman
(incredibly, the man's name was Holmes!) Percy
managed to escape [the policeman let Percy go into
the house alone, while he stood outside the front
- Percy changed his clothes, and left by the back
door]. For the next three weeks Percy was on
the loose. It became an increasingly embarrassing
problem for Scotland Yard, as Percy was a very
thin and short young man, with a prominent nose
and receeding chin - in short, he should have been
very noticeable. Instead it was like he had been
swallowed up into thin air. Reports of his movements throughtout the British Isles kept
coming in, and nothing was definite.
Finally, a message was traced to a relative of
Percy's, requesting money. At about the same
time the police received other information from
a boarding house owner in London. She mentioned
a strange young man, who claimed he was an artist,
who rarely left his room in the boarding house,
and only ventured out at night. She felt he
looked like the wanted man. She was right, because it was Percy. He was arrested in his room
at the boarding house in mid - July, and would
eventually be tried (and later executed) in November 1881.
Bournmouth played no part in the Lefroy Case,
but Brighton did. It is possible that Sickert
either got his story garbled somehow, or decided
to improve on it as a dinner-table story.
Jeff |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 26 March 2002 - 03:05 pm | | Well, Stewart, a novell is exactly what I thought about.
After all the true stories and the simple or bloody truthes...
The novell would begin between Antwerp (Belgium) around 1884/6 where a young guy (Benjamin Feigenbaum) is waiting in the rain for a local "unfortunate" (Julia Van Tournai) of which he is fond of (and not a little), and Paris at the Sorbonne where some students using a strange language (yiddish) speak about the the Okhrana and what is left of it.
Chapter nine speaks about Israel Schwartz.
He does not kill.
But his testimony, coupled with the one of Joseph Lave, help for his companions not to be suspected about the murder of a woman.
Thanks to him, the police does not even consider the poor Fanny Mortimer who was at the right place at the right time to know that nothing happened.
There is also a chapter about John Richardson.
And two about Miller's Court.
Just two sentences about Hutchinson.
Of course, all that is in this novell is absolutely not the truth.
I was just wondering what an introduction from an expert....well, I have time to ponder about that.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 26 March 2002 - 03:13 pm | | Graziano,
It sounds intriguing, and I am sure will be of great interest to all who study the case. I wish you the best of luck with the project.
With the wide general public interest in the Ripper murders, and mysteries as a genre, you should be guaranteed a good readership.
Stewart |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 26 March 2002 - 03:19 pm | | Jeff,
Sorry, I was not ignoring you. You may well have a point. I am familiar with the Lefroy case, it was a high profile cause celebre of the early 1880's. For many years his effigy was in Madame Tussaud's.
All the best,
Stewart |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 26 March 2002 - 03:28 pm | | Percy Lefroy Mapleton
 |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 26 March 2002 - 07:34 pm | | How did they manage to hang Percy with a neck like that?
Hi Jeff, I am aquainted with the case in question which you quoted. In fact I was looking at two early cases of murders on a train at the same time.The other was of a young girl who was thrown from a train while it was in a tunnel just after leaving Guildford Station.The murder of the girl went unsolved.You could be right about after dinner chit chat with the port and after eights.It is likely that many varying stories in relation to Sickert and JTR could be traced back to the same source.Crowley for example would hear a story and twist it to suit his own ends.By the time it went the rounds it would be several untrue stories . It seems to be the done thing with this case.The truth seems to come a poor second in many varying instances when dealing with this subject.I have never known anything like it where so many dodgy people tell so many dodgy stories. Watches,Abberlines Diary,Jacks Diary,Eddowes Shawl. And that is only the tip of the iceberg. It was more straight forward and far less confusing when I was dealing with criminals at least I knew where I stood. This subject needs purging of all the rubbish once and for all. I remember the con mans dictim, bullsh*t baffles brains and the bigger the lie the more likely you are to be believed.In relation to this case those that con and lie pulled out all the stops and really went to town.They knew that as far as JTR is concerned a killing can still be made at the expense of others. Mind you they never had far to look for the gullible who were only too prepared to except the lies hook, line, and sinker. |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 27 March 2002 - 12:07 pm | | Hi, Stewart, Jeff, and Ivor:
Indeed, I think that it is quite possible that there has been some transmutation of stories in the Ripper case that have some basis of fact or are mere legend in the decades since 1888 as such tales or anecdotes get retold again and again.
In my War of 1812 work here in the Chesapeake Bay, for example, there are legends about two British commanders killed two weeks apart, Major General Robert Ross, killed during the advance on Baltimore, September 12, 1814, and Captain Sir Peter Parker, R.N, killed in a skirmish on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, opposite Baltimore, two weeks earlier in the early hours of August 31. In what is probably the more persistent of the two stories, General Ross breakfasts at the Gorsuch House near the British landing place at North Point before resuming the march toward Baltimore. He is asked by Mr. Gorsuch if he will be back for dinner. Ross supposedly replies, "I will sup in Baltimore or in hell." He then rides off on his white charger and is mortally wounded by two riflemen on the road to Baltimore just prior to the Battle of North Point.
In the other version of the legend, it is Sir Peter Parker, killed at the Battle of Caulk's Field in Kent County, who is riding the white charger and who says he will eat dinner in Chestertown, the nearest big community, or in hell. I think the Parker story, which I have only seen in one printed source, is merely a version of the Ross story and it never happened (if both tales are not 100% fiction, of course!) particularly since with the small force he had Parker could not have attacked Chestertown. By the way, an eyewitness account (though written decades later) states that Ross's horse was black, although it sounds more dramatic in both vignettes if you say the steed was white.
Thus, I think it is quite possible that as Jeff is indicating the tale told by or about Sickert renting a room once used by a Ripper suspect is actually the story of Percy Lefroy Mapleton-as-lodger retold under another guise.
All this clearly indicates the dangers of relying on oral tradition to get anywhere near the truth, and points up once again why testimony given or statements written at the time of or close to the events in question are most reliable. Unfortunately, Ripperology, as with the study of other historical questions, is beset with such stories, a couple of insidious examples being the Stephen White and Robert James Lees stories which keep cropping up.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Wednesday, 27 March 2002 - 04:39 pm | | Dear Ivor, Chris, and Stewart,
Of course, there is always the chance that Sickert
did rent a room that some unknown, sickly,
veterinary student used - that's the problem
with this kind of story: try to disprove it to
everyone's satisfaction. It's similarity to
Lefroy's tale is just too close not to note, and
what bugs me is the lack of comment by anybody
(particularly given all the controversy around
Sickert/and the Ripper) on this.
Ivor, although Percy had a peculiar shaped chin
he was hanged by Mr. William Marwood on November
29, 1881. I actually did considerable research
on the Lefroy case (and still have it) hoping to
write it up. But while it would have been a best
seller in 1881, it is now small potatos. Not like
slaughtering several unfortunate women and never
getting caught. By the way, who is the young
woman who was thrown from the train - Elisabeth
Camp or Mary Money?
Chris, the story about Parker and Ross is one of
those tales that crops up in different guises
in all wars. When Lord Howe (the older brother
of Sir William and Admiral Lord Howe) was killed
at the attack on Fort Ticonderoga, during the
French and Indian War, a legend arose that he
had been warned years earlier to beware of being
at a place called Ticonderoga. I keep thinking
that story goes back to Shakespeare and Plutarch
having Caesar's ghost warn Brutus that they will meet at Phillipi. No doubt such story are part
of the spice of life, but I keep thinking of the
words of a fictional contemporary of the Ripper's:
"Merely corroborative detail, intended to give
artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and
unconvincing narrative." Pooh-bah could have
said the same about Sickert's story.
Stewart - thanks for the "wanted poster" of Percy.
Jeff |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 27 March 2002 - 10:16 pm | | | Hi Jeff, I will have to dig out the name of the girl thrown from the train. It was while I was doing some research into the murder of sweet Fanny Adams that I came across Percy and the girl in question. The murder of sweet Fanny Adams is one of the few murders that shocked me. I saw an old print of the murdered child without her head and my sense of justice was outraged.On the subject of trains I read of a case in the papers several years ago of a policeman on a train with his young baby. The baby was crying, or something along those lines and a lout had a go at the policeman.He then threatened to throw the baby off the train. Something happened I forget exactly what did transpire but the policeman may have got into trouble over it for threatening the lout or having a go at him.That is the British justice system for you. It is a pity that the lout did not get thrown off the train ---- while it was moving at great speed over a very high bridge.Now that is what I call justice. |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Wednesday, 27 March 2002 - 11:19 pm | | It is always a pleasure to see Stewart Evans gracing the boards, and having read his thoughts on McCormick in "Letters From Hell," it is quite nice to have them recapitulated here.
Although the following is blowing our own horn, with regards to Sickert, his paintings and "seeing" the bodies, I can only tease and say you must get the July issue of "Ripper Notes." Wolf Vanderlinden has written an exemplary article, "The Art of Murder," which puts him well in the front row of theorists, and he offers a very reasonable explanation as to how Sickert saw the bodies - and more importantly, how many of them he saw.
And so while this is a bit of puffery for the July issue, it is also a request that anyone who has photos of or web links to Sickert paintings please get in touch with me, as a first-rate article such as this needs first-class illustrations.
CMD
NB - Ivor, always a pleasure to see you here as well. Have I sent you the January RN (you are a subscriber, aren't you)? |
Author: stephen stanley
Thursday, 28 March 2002 - 02:56 pm | | Dear Jeff,
Sorry to be a pedantic poo-poo, but I believe the Ticonderoga story referred to a captain in the 42nd foot(Campbell?)...If you've read a Howe version it shows how stories change.
Steve |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 28 March 2002 - 05:28 pm | | | Hi Christopher, I will subscribe to "Ripper notes" so please send me details.I have been reading them though and you sent me a free copy just for jolly. Many thanks for that as I really do enjoy reading them. I have never seen evidence to show that Sickert saw, or painted any ripper victim.Certainly nothing in the official files about Sickert even being mentioned in any connection with the murders, or that he saw the bodies. I hope Wolf Vanderlinden has more than just a reasonable explanation to show how Sickert saw the bodies and how many.He may find himself on a dodgy wicket if he is batting at the same crease as Cornwall on this issue.I for one am not looking for a reasonable explanation but rather hard evidence to show that Sickert did in fact see the bodies.Nothing less will suffice so can Wolf come up with the goods? A rabbit needs to be produced from the hat on this one. It would be preferable if the rabbit produced were a live kicking specimen rather than a rubber look-alike.I look foward to reading the article and the evidence therein. |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Friday, 29 March 2002 - 01:30 pm | | Hello Ivor, Allow me to state here, that I am more than confident that my article in the July edition of Ripper Notes will possibly enlighten, hopefully entertain and definitely intrigue all who read it. One rabbit out of the hat coming up. And for my next trick.....something that I have stumbled across that has been lost for a very long time.
Happy and peaceful Easter all.
Wolf. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 29 March 2002 - 02:33 pm | | | Hi Wolf, Nothing like a bit of nice fresh rabbit to enlighten the taste buds after what has been on the menu in relation to Sickert. I am looking foward to reading what you have been digging up.Happy Easter to your good self. |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Saturday, 30 March 2002 - 11:21 pm | | Ivor -
Glad you like RN, and I will add you to the subscriber list. Without giving too much away (and putting an end to this discussion until July), Wolf is not at all trying to fit Sickert up as a suspect. Much like Tom Wescott's yet-to-be-published "Sickert, 'Ennui' and the Ripper Letters," he is asking "are there clues to the Ripper murders in Sickert's paintings? Yes or no? And if a tentative 'yes,' then how do we explain them?" I assure you he is not about to join Ms Cornwell in framing (ha ha) our esteemed WS.
BTW, Ivor, when is the new edition of your book coming out?
CMD |
Author: stephen miller
Sunday, 31 March 2002 - 10:16 am | | Hi All I am beginning to research murders that have been committed in and around Scunthorpe North Lincolnshire (my hometown) and I would be grateful if anyone could give some advice as to how I go about obtaining police records and trial transcripts
Thank you in anticipation
steve
 |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 31 March 2002 - 01:02 pm | | | Hi Christopher, Thanks for placing me on the mailing list and I look forward to reading the next issue. Thanks also for explaining the piece written by Wolf. My book will be out in August and will have a new designed cover. All the victim's chapters have been changed and much more information will be added to the book in general.In fact it is a vast improvement on the last copy.I spoke to the publisher about changing the title of the book but he informed me that he would like it to remain the same.As you know Tom is doing some fine research and we want to include his work also. Best wishes, Ivor. |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 31 March 2002 - 11:19 pm | | Hello Stephen Miller:
Nice to see you here. When you say you are researching murders "committed in and around Scunthorpe, North Lincolnshire," which you tell us is your hometown, what period are you talking about? Are these recent murders or ones that took place around the time of the Whitechapel murders (i.e., 1888)? If you can answer this question, it will help whomever may be able to answer your query about how you can go about obtaining police records and trial transcripts.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: stephen miller
Monday, 01 April 2002 - 02:52 am | | Hi Chris Thanks for the response the time period I aim to cover will be the last one hundred years or thereabouts because the area Scunthorpe grew from five villages over this time frame
The murders I know about so far are from the 50's onwards but I will be checking the local newspapers for any more before the 50's
I don't know if the local police will still hold any records but I also don't know how I go about contacting them for these records or indeed if they will allow me to look at them
I want to do something more than rely on newspaper accounts
all the best
steve
|
|
|
|
|
