| Author |
Message |
    
C.A.Waldron
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 3:43 pm: |       |
I would like to set a challenge to any so called “Ripperologist” out there who doubts that Patricia Cornwell was correct in her opinion that Walter Richard Sickert was in fact Jack the Ripper. Why else would so many of the victims, murder scenes and Jack the Ripper himself appear in several of the artist’s most famous portraits. To give an example of this, let’s take a look at Ennui. Before doing so please arm yourself with a magnifying glass and a copy of Cornwell’s book- “Jack The Ripper- Portrait Of A Killer- Case Closed”.
Step 1- Turn to the page which presents a photographic picture of the painting 'Ennui'.
Step 2- Turn the book upside down.
Step 3- With your magnifying glass concentrate on the area within the man’s left sleeve/cuff. (Hide/mask the man’s fingers if you can). Behold! Jack the Ripper- complete with top hat. An arm is outstretched upwards from the hat and has what appears to be a knife in it’s hand. Immediately look to the right and a female face appears on the bed with pillows.
If you can’t obtain a copy of the book, I have attached a lesser detailed image.
If you have managed to identify the above image and that of Jack the Ripper, then why not try to see this scene:
Step 1- Turn the book back to it’s original position.
Step 2- Mask off/hide the top half of the picture if possible.
Step 3- Look to the left and upwards of the glass. There is what appears to be the outline of a severed breast on a table (The corner of the table and it’s leg are parallel to the glass). The breast itself is seeping blood downwards. Could this image be connected to the death of Mary Kelly?
The breast itself forms part of a bigger image which is hidden within the shading close-by and is without doubt related to the death of Catherine Eddows.
In conclusion, can I ask why so many murder scenes are incoporated within another portrait, by Sickert: “Putana a Casa” which is owned by the acclaimed author, Patricia Cornwell? Additionally, in loose Latin terms ‘Ennui’ not only means ‘boredom’ but it also means: ‘I hate, I dislike’. Sickert himself, hated and disliked women and his secrets have remained hidden within in his paintings for well over a century. Isn’t about time his darkest secret was revealed to the world and the case was finally closed? |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1108
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 2:46 am: | |
So this is called 'new evidence' ?
I call this work quisquiliae.
Monty
Viper...forgive them for they..... |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 1:19 am: | |
Hi CA,
Be prepared. If you post it they will come. I will try and do what you suggest. I did buy Cornwells book.
All the best,CB |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 88
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 9:39 am: | |
I don't know whether this person is pulling our legs or if he flunked his Rorschach inkblot test.
I haven't seen anything in any Sickert painting that looks like anything more than an accidental similarity to anything involving the Ripper case. If you squint really hard and try to convince yourself there's something there you can convince yourself of any similarities you want. The graphics above could just as easily (and as incorrectly) be interpreted as various flavors of ice cream, this predicting the success of Baskin and Robbins 32 flavors.
Mmmm, ice cream.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1133
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 10:49 am: | |
Dan,
The thing that gets me is that these people still continue to insist that Sickert drew Ripper victims, but none of his paintings actually show a mutilated victim of Jack's at all.
Also, even when someone suggests that a painting resembles that of a Ripper victim, it is always in the state they were in once the Ripper had finished and shows us nothing new.
I'm sorry C.A, but please try to understand that even if he did paint portraits of the victims, that shows that that he may have had an obsession with Jack, but does not prove anything. I still don't see any victims in his paintings at all anyway. Patricia Cornwall is just trying hardest to see things that aren't there.
Besides, Sickert was in France at the time.
Also, the thing above that you say looks like a breast, looks like a lamp shade to me. It's up to how the individual interprets it.
Sarah
(Message edited by sarah on May 13, 2004)
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess  |
jrients
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 10:43 am: | |
I call this work quisquiliae.
Well, if nothing else, this thread has expanded my vocabulary.
Looking at vague blobs in paintings does not seem like any sort of rational evidence to me. For an encore you might as well demonstrated that coded messages appear in Hamlet "proving" that Bacon wrote the play. Or you could identify vague blobs on the Zapruder film as clones of Lee Harvey Oswald, obviously grown in a vat by the CIA.
This sort of "evidence" is so obviously open to interpretation that it falls right into the same dustbin as Stephen Knight's claims that "Juwes" refers to Freemasonry.
Finally, what's this business about a top hat? I'm fairly new to the Ripper scene and am not familiar with every eyewitness description of possible suspects. For some reason I was under the impression that JtR possibly wore a bowler or a deerstalker or a peaked sailor's hat, but I don't recall a tophat coming up. Are there credible witnesses that saw a man in a top hat? |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 594
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 12:30 pm: | |
The words "barrel", "bottom" and "scraping the" come to mind. |
Kelly Robinson
Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 26
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 12:30 pm: | |
I was confused myself about tophat= Jack. Where'd that come from?
Kelly
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2432
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 12:51 pm: | |
If you stare really hard at CA's post, behold! Arfa Kidney!
Robert |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 289
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 2:23 pm: | |
You know I can't really be bothered to go and fetch my copy of that book and go thru that elaborate procedure in order to discredit cornwell. reading that book took too much time and effort simply to come to that conclusion!
You know your probably alright and everything but this is a point for you to consider even if Walt or anyone else painted a picture of the victims of JTR does that make them the killer?
Jennifer |
The Answer at Last
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 2:36 pm: | |
I have proof that says that Sickert wasn't the killer.... because Maybrick was.
In his own words: "I left it there for all to see"
 |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3095
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 2:47 pm: | |
LOL... I had to let that one through...
Good one, Arfa. ;-)
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Kelly Robinson
Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 27
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 3:52 pm: | |
I now have arfa kidney myself, because I just burst it! Hilarity!
Kelly
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 224
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 11:13 pm: | |
Ya know, its kinda sad that people dont have anything better to do than sit around flipping books upside down and trying to find Jack the Ripper in a painting. Think about it.
Paul |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1119
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 4:33 am: | |
Mick,
Go seek help........go now !
We have been Kid'n'eyed
Son of a.....
Monty
|
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 185
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 7:07 am: | |
Dear Mr Waldron,
What exactly is your challenge?
Why did Sickert paint so many of the victims - he didn't.
Next challenge please!
Bob |
Lisa Turner
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 7:23 am: | |
I studied this image in depth... I swear I saw a human likeness...I see Elvis... |
Maria Giordano
Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 24
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 2:56 pm: | |
The breasts weren't on the table.
Mags |
TomSlemen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 4:03 pm: | |
Cornwell was wrong and arrogantly wrong. Period. |
Poppy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 6:32 pm: | |
Did you know that Mrs. Cornwell bought several paintings of Sickert's? Maybe she is trying to inflate the value of her collection. Just imagine how much someone would pay for Ripper- art. |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 741
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 6:50 pm: | |
Mr Waldron.....peeeeeerrrrrrrleasssse!!A must see 'eh!!!??Well if someone has to 'see' these wondrous visions I'm so glad it's you...personally I take more water with it!Where do you get the remotest idea that WS knew let alone painted any of these unfortunates...Evidence please!! Theres not even Arfa grain of anything seriously worth looking at here....have you considered the tealeaves??
No offence.......but if you 'look' hard enough at anything you'll see something,ref the faces of Christ in the sky etc.
Best
Suzi |
C.A.Waldron
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 6:11 pm: | |
Dear so called Ripperologists. Let us rewind shall we. I myself am just passing through. However I have seen what I have seen, despite your cynical remarks.
e.g. You wanted a deerstalker hat. Please check out:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=49987&page=1#pid0
I myself have risen to the challenge of the deerstalker, can any of you with such high intelligence explain to me this enigma? No, it's not an inkblot.
Hypothetically, I am an artistic psychopath living in the City of London in the 1900's. I venture out and butcher so called prostitutes.
The City of London is a vast area and my surname happens to be Sickert. Strange isn't it the surnames happen to be the following:
Stride
I(Unfound...as yet)
Chapman
Kelly
Eddowes
R(Unfound...as yet)
Tabram
Can anybody out there find me the missing I and R victims? It would complete a life's masterpiece by way of signature.
P.S. Did Sickert have a problem with his manhood? Who knows, however, Mary Ann Nichols. Does this spell man? I'll let you clever monkeys work it out. You can lead a ***** to water but you cannot make it drink. |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 188
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 2:18 am: | |
Does anyone have the remotest idea what this man is burbling about?
He invites us to look at a website where he has posted exactly the same post!
So if you invent half a dozen more victims you can spell Sickerts name! Crass fools that we are - why didn't we spot that! You would have thought that anyone clever enough to have worked all that out would have at least made sure we found all the bodies, and killed them in the right order. As it is the initials of the victims names only spell NCSEK, or TNCSEK if you include Tabram. Wasn't that chap in 'My favourite Martian' called that? Case solved. No wonder we couldn't find him.
Does m-a-n spell man. Yes very good. And next week you can try and spell cat.
Mr Waldron I suggest before you attempt to ridicule the people posting on these boards you take down a dictionary ( even the 'Kiddies First Picture Dictionary' that you probably use will do) and look up the word 'fact'.
I'll give you a start. 'The City of London is a vast area'. No it isn't - in fact its one of the smallest geographical cities in the world being only one square mile. And here's another fact to add to your collection only one victim was murdered in the City of London.
I wonder if we are seeing a Freudian slip in the fact that the last word of your posting is 'drink'?
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 12:53 am: | |
Hi C.A.,
I warned you they would come. I gave you the benefit of a doubt about the pictures because I thought you might be serious but you have to be joking about the last name signature theory.
Just in case you are not I applied the signature theory to my preferd suspect.
T- Tabram
u- Unknown as yet
m- Mackenzie
b- Brown
l- Unknown as yet
e- Eddowes
t- Unknown as yet
y- Unknown as yet
A few murderd women were never identified and some believe they may have been killed by the ripper. Perhapes they can fill in are blanks.
One note, I dont consider myself a Ripperologist. I believe the term Ripperologist should be reserved for the men and women who have worked very hard on the case.
All the best, CB |
TomSlemen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 11:54 pm: | |
Talk about miles-off guesswork. Light years off, and oh so laughable. Well, I'll be publishing my findings later this year, and there will never be another book written about the Whitechapel Murders. Just wait and see. |
