Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
About the Casebook

 Search:
 

Join the Chat Room!

Book by John Barber Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Message Boards » Suspects » Sickert, Walter » Book by John Barber « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris

Post Number: 1470
Registered: 4-2003
Posted on Saturday, October 23, 2004 - 3:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hot off the press!
This article was published in the Hertfordshire Mercury yesterday
Chris


Mercury (Hertfordshire UK)
22 October 2004

Writer believes he has unearthed the truth about "final" killing
RIPPER MURDER MYSTERY "SOLVED"

The brutal murder of a Standon woman believed to be Jack the Ripper's last victim could finally have been solved by a Hertford man and his forensic scientist sidekick almost a century after the killing.
Crime writer Patricia Cornwell claimed in her best selling book Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper - Case Closed that the serial killer slaughtered Emily Dimmock after she moved to London from the Bell pub in the village's High Street.
But after a two year investigation, Folly Island resident John Barber has undermined the theory in his book, The Camden Town Murder.
After finding the victim with her throat cut in North London, police arrested designer Robert Wood, who was the last person to see her and had sent her a message to meet him at the local pub.
But he was freed by a court after it accepted his alibi - which Mr Barber now claims has been disproved by Paul Brooks, a consultant in experimental toxicology and histopathology, who has pinned down her time of death.
John said: "I can't tell you exactly what we have done. You'll have to read the book to find out.
"But this new evidence make Patricia Cornwell's theories about the Ripper's last victim totally wrong and I hope she will now accept that after the evidence we have uncovered."
The American author claimed that world famous artist William (sic) Sickert was the Ripper and founded this on her belief that he had killed Emily. (Dimmock)
In 1888, at least seven women were murdered in London's Whitechapel district in one of the world's most notorious crime sprees. In a bid to solve the mystery, the finger has been pointed at the then Prince of Wales, later King Edward VII, a barber, a doctor, a woman and an artist.
Cornwell spent part of her considerable wealth exposing Sickert as the author of the infamous Ripper letters sent to the Metropolitan Police.
But all her money and hard work was in vain, according to Mr Barber, who is convinced that Emily was the victim of an ordinary murder.
He said: "It has taken two years of research into all aspects of the case. It can become a bit of an obsession to be honest.
"we have poured through unpublished letters and correspondence. With the benefit of modern forensic scisnce we believe we have found a solution to this mystery which has baffled detectives and historians for almost a century."
The book will be available through the website www.johnbarber.com
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg

Post Number: 1217
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Saturday, October 23, 2004 - 4:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Oh something wrong with Patricia's theory... whoever would have thought it!

Thanks Chris another interesting find we should all go look at that website, which is what I am about to do!
Jenni
We're off to Button Moon, we'll follow Mr Spoon,
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn

Post Number: 1202
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Saturday, October 23, 2004 - 5:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Must look this up tomorrow Chris.Thanks for the find
Natalie
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder

Post Number: 336
Registered: 4-2004
Posted on Sunday, October 24, 2004 - 12:23 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"But this new evidence make Patricia Cornwell's theories about the Ripper's last victim totally wrong and I hope she will now accept that after the evidence we have uncovered."

He doesn't know her very well, does he?

And it's kind of funny that even though he already thinks she was completely wrong on one major aspect that he just takes her at her word that Sickert actually wrote the Ripper letters.

Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz

Post Number: 1286
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 5:21 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Dan,

But many regular contributors to these message boards also appear to have been swayed by Cornwell's claim about the letters, to the extent that they tend to accept that Sickert did write at least some of the existing ripper missives.

Yet the evidence that Sickert's verified handwriting features in one or more of them is totally lacking, if indeed anyone has seriously looked for such evidence.

While I remain open to persuasion that Sickert may have sent ripper letters, I don't quite understand why people here don't question this aspect far more. After all, everyone howls with derision at Paul Feldman's Maybrick, who apparently needed fewer complete changes of handwriting than Cornwell's Sickert.

Love,

Caz
X

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tommy Nilsson
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 3:52 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hello!

If Patricia Cornwell claimed that she had evidence, "but you have to wait for the book", would you take that as the truth?
Did not think so...but this new (?) facts you believe instantly, without seeing them?
No bias here?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz

Post Number: 1288
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 7:04 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Tommy,

Yes, Cornwell did it the other way round - brought the book out in double-quick time, claimed on the front of it that the case was now closed, and still hasn't produced the evidence that is meant to prove it.

At least there's a chance that a book not yet available will contain new evidence as claimed; with Cornwell (and Feldman et al) it's all too late - unless she is planning another bash at it, this time with evidence where previously there was speculation and assumption.

Love,

Caz
X


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag

Post Number: 112
Registered: 4-2004
Posted on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 12:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I had to laugh at "...the Prince of Wales later King Edward VII"

Journalism has made great strides over the past century,no?
Mags
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder

Post Number: 339
Registered: 4-2004
Posted on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 1:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Tommy,

I don't think anyone here just assumes that this guy is right that the man who was arrested for the Camden Town murder but released all those years ago really did it. It's up to him to provide the evidence for that either way.

But, seriously, someone who was arrested but reluctantly let go because of lack of evidence sounds a hell of a lot more plausible just on the face of it than the idea that it really was committed by a famous painter... especially after the book that claims to prove it was the painter has already been released and fails miserably.

That's not so much "bias" as it is common sense.

Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John Barber
Unregistered guest
Posted on Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 4:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I am the author of this book and the article in the Hertfordshire Mercury was written by one of the reporters who I have known for some time. I have little real interest in the Ripper but I am grateful for the owners of this site for reproducing my original article on the Camden Town Murder here, after publication in the Ripperologist.

The article was written as a follow up to an earlier piece and rather than tell everyone the answer the reporter says 'read the book' - hoping to help me sell a few copies. Much of the article is to get the reader interested.

I have never thought that Sickert committed the Camden Town Murder (by the way I lived close to the scene) but have come to a conclusion that the real murderer has now been uncovered. Why disclose this on my web site, or in the local paper. It has taken a lot of research, a lot of time and charging 3.99 for the book does help give me a small return on that time.

Until Ms Cornwell's arrival on the scene no one had ever put Sickert in the frame for the Camden Town Murder; but some including Miss Fuller had already fingered Sickert as the Ripper. Ms Sickert has been a little backward in coming forward and acknowledging some of the sources for her book.

If you read my book you will find no reference to the Ripper letters and although the author of the article remains a good mate on the local scene I have been misquoted in the cause of selling a good story.

Just for the record, every now and then I ype my name in Google and see what my namesakes are up to. Then found this thread. Doubt if I will return for a while but try the web site, buy the book even - my email address is on site - and I'll leave it to posters here to prove my findings. Or not. Thanks.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Register now! Administration

Use of these message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use. The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping. The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements. You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.