Author: Lorraine
Thursday, 31 October 2002 - 09:31 am |        |
Hello,
After watching the documentry here in England last night about Walter Sickert,whomn i had never even heard of until then,it really sounds to me anyway,that he could well be the "Ripper",unless it was all made up,the clues were just so amazing!
I am defintiley going to purchase the book,what does everyone else think about this? |
Author: Stephen Hills
Thursday, 31 October 2002 - 04:37 pm | |
lorraine
Look on the Patricia Cornwell / walter sickert thread for your answer. It seems, unless you are being sarcastic, that you are alone in your view.
Cromo |
Author: Lorraine
Thursday, 31 October 2002 - 05:09 pm | |
Cromo,and unless you are being sarcastic,i am allowed to have a view.....thankyou very much!
lorraine |
Author: Lorraine
Thursday, 31 October 2002 - 05:10 pm | |
and now i will VIEW the thread you mentioned  ) |
Author: Jim Jenkinson
Thursday, 31 October 2002 - 06:24 pm | |
 |
Author: kevin sharpe
Thursday, 31 October 2002 - 07:51 pm | |
| Re Walter Sickert- seems very plausible as JTR, especially as he appears to have links with not only other suspects but also Mary Kelly. What I am not sure of, is how these links have been proved. The one thought that struck me with regard to the subject matter of some of his paintings was,he painted following publicity, if it can be shown he produced a painting prior to press reports then..... |
Author: Garry Wroe
Thursday, 31 October 2002 - 10:23 pm | |
Hi Lorraine.
Before buying the Cornwell book, why not read the sample chapter placed by Stephen in Ripper/Media? You should find it with ease if you go to the Home Page. Chris George has, I believe, just completed a review of the book, so you might gain an insight into his thinking on the subject by reading his most recent posts. And if you'd like to download a Ripper book for free, simply click here.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Monty
Friday, 01 November 2002 - 05:46 am | |
All,
My views after watching the documentary twice...
...Patsy (as I call her) was seemingly trying to prove that Wally wrote a couple of letters.
Does that mean that he did the deeds ??
What unknown painting was that ? oh yeah, JtRs bedroom, the one that half of Manchester knew about and I heard about 2 years ago !
Poor, Poor old walter !
Monty
 |
Author: Lorraine
Friday, 01 November 2002 - 07:05 am | |
Hello everyone,
Thankyou for all your response's to my first post,i was afraid i was been abit rude after the first comment i had recievd from Cromo!
Really though,i guess non of us REALLY can say who the real JTR was,we all have our thought's on who it may have been,i just wanted to say that after watching this programme,i had thoughts of maybe it been Walter Sickert (what a surname!)
The sketch he left in a guestbook whilst staying at a lodge which resembled the sketch in one of the so called Ripper letter's/the artist's painting's/the operation he had when he was a young boy, which could have triggered alarm's off to make him repent against the victim's....and quite alot more,and i found the film footage of Walter at the end of the programme really,really errie.......especially his eyes,oh myyyyyy!!!!!
Thankyou Garry for that link!
Have a great weekend everyone,
Love,
Lorraine |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 01 November 2002 - 09:19 am | |
Hi, Lorraine:
Yes the point is that, as you mention, there is not enough evidence to prove that any of the suspects was Jack the Ripper, Ms. Cornwell's multi-million dollar investigation notwithstanding. Moreover, since there is no clear evidence that Jack the Ripper wrote any letters, and her evidence largely rests on the letters, her conclusions about Sickert simply place him among a number of suspects some of whom may have been among the numerous people who appear to have written crank letters.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Friday, 01 November 2002 - 06:56 pm | |
I think that with the Cornwell book about to come out, we will be seeing lots of new visitors to the boards. This is a good thing, but they aren't all JTR scholars, so let's try to welcome them. Once we have them in our clutches, THEN we can attempt to convert them to our favorite suspect/theory!
The good thing about Cornwell's book is that a lot of new people will be getting into the JTR for the first time. |
Author: Garry Wroe
Friday, 01 November 2002 - 07:42 pm | |
Hi Brenda.
So-o-o devious! Have you noticed that, whereas the new posters have without exception been convinced by the Cornwell documentary, the regulars have been unanimous in their condemnation? Such a clearcut dichotomy is very, very unusual. I feel a psychology paper coming on.
Bye,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Ashleah Skinner
Friday, 01 November 2002 - 07:57 pm | |
I taped the Cornwell programme and whilst reading the UK press i came across two articles on the Cornwell/Sickert theory.
I was surprised to see Cornwell uncover information about the letters but i believe Sickert may have written some of the "Ripper" letters but i don't think it shows JTRs true identity.
But Cornwell came under a lot of public scrunity although she was trying to be an investigator and i think she was right to do what she did.
I did agree with Don Rumbelow on certains things when he talked about it even though there were times where he often was too negative when Cornwell undercovered certains links to the letters which was very disappointing because if people will always be negative you often lose vital information which could prove a case....But in Cornwell's case i was convinced on the aspect that Sickert may have sent fake letters but not enough prove that he was JTR so i was unconvinced. |
Author: Stephen Hills
Saturday, 02 November 2002 - 05:29 am | |
Lorraine
Sorry if I upset you, I didn't mean to be rude. I truly believed you may have been joking when you described the documentary as Great in the thread title. Whether Sickert is or is not the Ripper is beyond my knowledge. But the documentary put out on the BBC was poor to say the least. It had much more to do with Patricia Cornwell promoting herself and her work than any serious investigation into the Ripper events. It may be that in her book she has better evidence but on the strength of the documentary I shall not be buying it.
Of course you are entitled to your opinion, and if you enjoyed the documentary you are entitled to say so. And it may be that some of what PC found (which wasn't much actually) is useful. But as for having her friends come on the documentary and claim that she has a water tight case against Sickert - I can only imagine they attach different meanings to those words than I do.
Regards
Cromo |
Author: judith stock
Sunday, 03 November 2002 - 02:01 pm | |
I find it sad to watch someone become lost in her own publicity; it appears that Cornwell thinks she IS her main character. Her theory is not new; Sickert was proposed as either the Ripper, or part of a trio of Rippers, as early as the 70's (NOT the 1870's!!!) The Ripper letters are usually regarded as hoaxes, and as the products of newsmen anxious to keep the story alive, or loonies who confess to everything. So what if Sickert used writing paper that resembled the paper a "Ripper letter" was written on? So did hundreds of others who bought the same writing paper. So what if he painted macabre crime scenes? Artists do the same thing today, and authors write books about terrible crimes, as well. Does either of these mean the artist/author IS the criminal? I submit that Cornwell's theory is based on one fact: she spent a great deal of money to destroy paintings and conduct tests. Just because she spent a lot of money means only one thing....she spent a lot of money. Hell, I can spend a lot of money, too...just stand back and watch!!
Because I am a dopey Ripper book collector (I'm dopey, NOT the collection), I will buy her book. but it will stand on the shelf alongside the Corey, de Locksley and the Knight.
Cheers,
J |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Sunday, 03 November 2002 - 03:40 pm | |
Hi Garry, I think the Pro-Sickerts are just suffering from the same illness I seem to have...the gullibility disease. As I make my way through all the books and articles and dissertations, they ALL make sense while I am reading them. I hardly ever think of Dr. Cream as a viable suspect, but I just finished reading the synopsis on him in "Jack the Ripper - Letters from Hell" and now he's my favorite suspect of the moment. I can't think of a more important moment in one's life than standing on the scaffold waiting for life to end, and he's going to use his last moments to proclaim himself "Jack The..." There isn't a shred of evidence against the man, yet he stood on the scaffold and....well, I guess you can't say he proclaimed himself the Ripper, because he didn't get to finish his sentence. So now I am thinking heavily on Dr. Cream, just until I get to the synopsis on Deeming...by the way, I think Deeming looks very much like the drawing of the suspect from the Illustrated Police News copy on Mary Jane Kelly's murder. Its the nose, I guess.
I am getting ready to head over to "Ripper Media" and ask some questions regarding Leonard Matters' book now..... |
Author: David Radka
Sunday, 03 November 2002 - 05:38 pm | |
Judy,
Keep a space on that shelf for "A.R."
David |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 03 November 2002 - 06:16 pm | |
Hi Judy,
And don't forget a space for my "R.A"...too!
Rosey :-) |
Author: Monty
Monday, 04 November 2002 - 11:24 am | |
Rosey,
'R.A' ??
Is that the scouse version ??
You know, as in R.A dere soft lad !!!!
Monty
|
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 04 November 2002 - 04:22 pm | |
Dear Monty,
As in...Alles Threw Die Loki Glasse.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Esther Wilson
Monday, 04 November 2002 - 05:48 pm | |
Speaking of documentaries--there was a new one on my History channel last night called "Jack The Ripper: The Mystery Continues". Most of it was the same info just recreated with slightly different twists to certain theories. But, what I found interesting was that they seemed to point their finger toward Aaron Kosminski as the Ripper. They even had a retired FBI profiler on talking about the profile that they did on JTR a few years back and he himself said that Kosminski fit the profile to a "T". What are your thoughts on this?
Esther |
Author: Maryam Moniri
Monday, 04 November 2002 - 05:55 pm | |
There has been plenty of speculation regarding Aaron Kosminski. Some say that the same Kosminski that entered an insane assylum shortly after the Kelly murder was not the same man implicated in the Macnaghten Memoranda. For most Ripperologists, Aaron Kosminski is not a likely candidate for JTR. First off, he apparently was not only insane but also and imbicile. He would only eat human feces and waste from the sewers and bugs, and was under the impression that he was told to do so. Also, many reports have Aaron Kosminski as a harmless imbicle without any violent tendencies, which by knowing that could discount him as a Ripper suspect all together. It just seems that most people would like to pin the horrible ripper crimes on a maniac, delusional, imbicile that would feast on human feces and sewage rather than a member of the middle or upper classes. But then again, who knows??
What do you think? |
Author: David Radka
Monday, 04 November 2002 - 06:35 pm | |
Kinky Kosminski feasted on feces? 'Fraid not.
David |
Author: Richard Lewis
Tuesday, 05 November 2002 - 12:32 pm | |
| As a painter myself, I was fascinated by the suggestion that Walter Sickert might be the Ripper.However, I found Patricia Cornwell's argument totally unconvincing. I don't know if the book is any different, buy at no point did in the documentary did Cornwell suggest why Sickert stopped killing after the alledged Camden Town murders, which she also linked to him. Surely serial killers go on killing until they're caught or killed themselves? For someone who's meant to be responsible for the Ripper murders to suddenly decide he's going to stop killing and opt for a quiet life being one of Britain's leading painters instead makes no logical sense whatsoever! |
Author: Kieran Brakes
Tuesday, 05 November 2002 - 03:13 pm | |
| Just to go back to what was said earlier, I watched the docu and although I disagreed with PC's conclusions, some good came out of the programme from a personal point of view as it has rekindled my interest in JTR and I'm now re-reading all my books again!! |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 05 November 2002 - 03:52 pm | |
Hi, Richard:
In her book, Patricia Cornwell does not say Sickert stopped after the Camden Town murder, in fact, she says that serial killers keep right on killing. Then she states, "Sickert kept killing. His body count could have been fifteen, twenty, forty before he died peacefully in his bed in Bathampton, January 22, 1942, at the age of 81." (p. 351) The fact that she does not have the facts to back up this statement is another deficit of the book, combined with the partly self-acknowledged weakness of her "evidence" attempting to link Sickert to the Whitechapel murders.
All the best
Chris George |
Author: Spryder
Tuesday, 05 November 2002 - 03:59 pm | |
| For me, the biggest deficit for Portrait of a Killer (and possibly the most telling) was the lack of sourcing/footnotes. If you're going to accuse a man or murder, at least source your evidence properly so that others can verify it... otherwise we just have to take Cornwell at her word that she's providing the full story. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 05 November 2002 - 04:36 pm | |
Yes but just look at the guy's eyes, Spry... er then look at her eyes.  |
Author: Vila
Tuesday, 05 November 2002 - 05:46 pm | |
OK,
I took another look at the photo of her in the Atlanta Journal from two weeks ago- Just before it used it to light my trash fire. Sorry, I dont see an insane killer in her eyes.
Just those pesky dollar signs.
Vila |
Author: Jack Traisson
Tuesday, 05 November 2002 - 06:09 pm | |
Chris, and Spry,
Question: Does Cornwell attempt to link the Camden Town murder with that of Kitty Ronan at 20 Miller's Court, Duval Street, July 02, 1909? I have always held the position that it is a possibility that these two crimes were committed by the same hand. I thought it would also be a natural area of exploration for Cornwell (if she's done her homework) to discuss the fact that 21 years after Mary Kelly was murdered in her bed another prostitute was murdered in the room above (Prater's former room). This murder has remained unsolved. Although I do not believe that Jack returned to the scene of the crime, it would certainly be useful for Cornwell to have Sickert returning to Miller's Court.
Cheers,
John |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 09:25 am | |
Hi, John:
I agree that it is plausible to think that there may have been a link between the 1907 Camden Town murder and the murder of Kitty Ronan in Miller's Court in 1909. Spry can also answer on this point but I don't believe Patricia Cornwell makes any mention of the Ronan murder, though you are correct that it could have been a useful murder to use in her theory if Walter Sickert was, as she would wish us to believe, a serial killer. This might be one of the downsides of the, as I see it, rushed nature of her investigation, that an incomplete search of Ripper and Ripper-related literature was made in the rush to judge Walter Sickert guilty before the facts were in.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Stuart
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 10:56 am | |
I watched the documentary too.
Very interesting, and yet another suspect.
My question is...what is mitachondrial DNA (excuse spelling)? and is it like "normal" DNA?
Is it not conclusive? The documentary mentioned Mito DNA but didn't really explain it.
cheers |
Author: Caroline Morris
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 03:31 am | |
No, Stuart, it's not conclusive. As I understand it, if you find a mitochondrial 'match' it only narrows the field down to all those descended from an individual female going back possibly many generations, ie there are potentially huge numbers of people sharing the same mitochondrial DNA that was found by Cornwell's team.
If I have that wrong, or haven't given sufficient detail, no doubt someone will leap to the rescue. My brother was trying to explain it all to me the other day.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Stuart
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 04:26 am | |
Cheers Caz.
Seems like this was conveniently overlooked then.
I'm ploughing through Sugdens "History of Jack the Ripper" at the moment, and my own particular fave suspect is Chapman. I need to read more about him. |
Author: Susan K. Topa
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 10:39 am | |
Hi all. It's that time of the year again. I'm glad to see nobody has changed much, it's super elastic ripper suspects! My opinion hasn't changed, we'll never find out who he was and if DNA evidence was conclusive then the killer of OJ Simpson's ex-wife and lover would be behind bars.
Sue (Edana) |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 02:12 pm | |
Dear Sue,
Actually the DNA evidence against O.J. Simpson was conclusive. The reason the DNA became a non-issue was two fold. It was the skillful questioning of defense attorney Barry Schreck that enabled him to create the illusion of the police mishandling the evidence, leading the jury to believe that the blood et al was placed in strategic places by LAPD.This combined with the inability of the lab tech handling the DNA to put into lay terms, the findings, collection procedure and testing procedures, left the jury in a state of confusion.
Johnny Cochrane admitted that the DNA was O.J's. He stated he could not argue against that so the basis of the arguement became "How did the evidence get there." The turning point of the case came when defense attorney F. Lee Bailey tore into Det. Mark Furman's credibility thus dismantling him on the stand making him a non-issue and giving the illusion of possible LAPD impropriety.
Peace,
scott |
Author: Lisa Jane Turner
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 06:41 pm | |
I'll try asking here (nobody replied in the last posting) but how did Ms Cornwell qualify her 'team' to take swabs from the PRO documents? Surely such credentials as "I have money and big project going here" should not pave way for open interference with primary sources. Surely not just anyone can go physically interfering with these fragile documents?
I felt let down that the documentary did not focus more intimately upon the actual forensic process. |
Author: Susan K. Topa
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 08:46 am | |
| Thank you Scott for the summary of the OJ travesty. What happened was sad but true and I should count myself amongst the numbers of people who do not understand the entire DNA encoding thing. Lisa, I felt the same way you did about the lack of focus on the forensic evidence, but I suspect it was held back so that we all buy the book to find out the particular details, which I most probably will. |
Author: judith stock
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 11:42 pm | |
Dear Lisa, and everyone else!
I believe Cornwell's team was qualified by her alone, and consisted (most probably) of people from her Institute in Virginia, people who most likely owed her something...either a favor or the existence of a job. She really spends little time with the qualifications of her team mates, at least not enough for me. I would think if she were pursuing a killer from 114 years ago she would hire the very best in each field....at least, one would hope that were the case. It does appear that her team didn't really come up with anything, and when not supported by real evidence, she wanders into speculations, and those old curse words come out yet again: "PROBABLY", "MOST LIKELY", and my personal favorite "OBVIOUSLY." It really is a damned shame that there are no provable Sickert heirs around..they would have one hell of a libel case against her!
And Scott, I wish you had been on the DA's team at the OJ trial! A good friend of mine teaches biology and human A & P and she was bored blind by the prosecution's miserable case...she even went so far as to say, "once they were done, I had NO CLUE what DNA was all about!" You're right about Shreck's cross, and you're also right that Fuhrman became the knife on which the entire prosecution case was shredded, the theory being "if one witness is a liar, then the whole case can be called a lie." It worked, too, didn't it?
Susan, I'm not certain ANYONE, except perhaps Watson and Crick, truly understands how DNA works; suffice it to say, it is a unique code and is an accurate means of identifying a person. So to come around to the thread of this board again, so what if Cornwell found Sickert's DNA on any of his stuff? I would faint from surprise if she didn't!
And yes, David and Rosemary, there is room on my book shelves for BOTH the AR and the RA.
Cheers, and I hope all have a lovely weekend,
J |
