|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 925
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 10:46 am: |       |
Hi Shelly
I would recommend you to start off with books that are relatively objective in their approach, and that's concentrating on the facts rather than chasing suspects. (After that I think it is more suitable to dig into those books, but I believe it is better to get the facts first).
I would first hand recommend Philip Sugden's book The Complete History of Jack the Ripper. Possibly also Donald Rumbelow's The Complete Jack the Ripper, although it would need some up-dates on certain points. Another good one is Paul Begg's Jack the Ripper -- The Uncensored Facts.
When you want to dig deeper into the facts of the case and turn to the original material, I can highly recommend Evans' & Skinner's The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion/Sourcebook.
(Note the similar titles between Sugden's and Rumbelow's books!)
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 926
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 10:49 am: | |
Well said, Alan. And an interesting and quite suitable metaphor.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 542
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 2:47 pm: | |
Hi, Alan:
Thank you for the very interesting anecdote about Irish playwright Thomas Kilroy's fabrication in his "The Secret Life of Constance Wilde" about Oscar Wilde's wife having been sexually abused by her father when she was a child. I entirely agree with you that when someone writes something about a real-life person there is expectation among the readers or the audience, that what has been written will be based on fact.
To answer your question, no, the holidays intervened and I did not get the CD off to you, I will do so in the next day or so.
All the best
Chris |
Angie
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 2:44 pm: | |
OK, so I'm in my senior year of high school, taking an independent study in forensic sciences. Recently, my mother picked up Cornwells book, and I thought it may be an interesting read. I was planning on writing an argument paper as to whether or not I believed Sickert was the Ripper. But then I happened upon this thread, and I feel incredibly frustrated.
While reading the book, I was quite skeptical of her claim to finding DNA, but I did think that she made some decent observations. Like Sickert's paintings. Was Sickert a violent man? And what about "Mr. Nemo?" I would say something about the similar watermarks, but that would go along with the claim that Sickert forged some of the Ripper letters.
So before you all slam me for my naivete, please understand that I'm only after information, and Cornwell's book is my first Ripper read.
So someone please set me straight. |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 586
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 12:17 pm: | |
Angie,
Lets get to basics.
Cornwell at best may have proved that Walter Sicket wrote a few of the thousands of letters claiming to be from the murderer, an accomplice or someone who suggests how to catch the perp.
She has not proven that this man was the or any murderer and has not come up with enough (if any) evidence to take him to court on that charge...despite what is stated.
She has come up with evidence that could be used in court to prove Walters guilt as a letter hoaxer.
Nothing more.
...and I wouldnt slam anyone for their naivety. Its just not a good book to start with.
Monty
|
Neil K. MacMillan
Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 40
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 4:25 pm: | |
Angie:
It's refreshing to hear (read) someone admit to being niave on this subject. Obviously Jack the Ripper will not be brought to justice. Ms. Cornwell in my opinion, formed her theory and tried to make her evidence fit. I believe if you re-read her book after reading some of the other literature available on our boy, you'll see what I mean.
Your paper will have to be your gut belief. Just know that when you try to look for suspect to tag as Jack the Ripper, you can quickly find yourself in a minefield. Ask questions and ask them again to other people. I've been researching JtR for three years now pursuiant to writing a novel about him and find that I'm sure about nothing except that at least five women were murdered between August and November of 1888 in Whitechapel. Good luck in your research and welcome to the boards. Neil |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 120
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 9:35 pm: | |
Angie,
No worries about being new to the subject. We all were once. :-)
The problems that most of us have with Cornwell's work stem from two major areas IMO.
1) Her attitude.
If you have seen any interviews with her, I think you'll understand what I am talking about. She comes off as extremely arrogant, and dismissive towards the work anyone else has done on the subject. (She even had the gall to suggest that it was up to Sickert's family to prove him INNOCENT, obviously forgetting that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.)
2) Her Assumptions.
Her indictment of Sickert really lies on 2 main pillers. The idea that he wrote the letters, and that his art is indicitive of a violent personality.
Most knowledgable ripperologists do not believe that Jack wrote any of the letters, with the possible exception of the Lusk letter. (Read "Letters From Hell" for an excellent overview of the many letters written by many "Jacks") In any case, there is no solid evidence to suggest that any of the authors of the letters was in fact the killer.
As far as his art goes, that's just silly in my opinion. The art of various people has been used to indict them as the Ripper, which really tells more about the accuser than the accused. My opinion after seeing Cornwell's interviews and reading her book suggest to me that her primary initial reason to focus on Sickert as a suspect was her dislike of his artwork. There were plenty of other artists whose work is equally, if not more disturbing. To put it into perspective, amoung those accused based on their art is Lewis Carroll! who was in his 70s (I believe) at the time of the killings. (Read "Jack the Ripper: Lighthearted Friend for more info on that one.)
The DNA is interesting, but the letters have been handled by so many people that a mitochondrial DNA match isn't very meaningful.
I would suggest that you read a good historically based (as opposed to suspect based) book on the subject before writing your paper to give you a good grounding in the facts of the case. I would suggest Phillip Sugden's Complete History of Jack the Ripper, which is huge, but excellent and still in print.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Brian Scholl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 1:50 pm: | |
Angie,
I am currently reading Cornwell's book, and have found it to be quite interesting. Monty is wrong in saying that she has found no evidence. She has found quite a bit of evidence, however, much of it is circumstantial. The letters from the original Ripper during the 1880's have been matched to other letters sent from Sickert. The language is the same, he tried not to seem educated by spelling small words wrong while at the same time used large words such as "coroberate". The partial DNA that was matched from a Ripper letter to one of Sickerts letters is a huge piece of evidence. His paintings of the scenes as no one would know them unless they were there during the murder is yet another chilling piece of evidence. Monty stating that Sickert is only guilty of writing hoax letters is a ridiculous accusation. That would go against Sickert's intelligence, he would never waste any time on something he was not involved in. Apparently he was not paying attention when he read the book. Good luck with your paper.
Brian |
Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 5:11 pm: | |
Hi Neil
must agree with your posting, as someone who is a novice to this minefeild. Purhaps Miss Cronwell would have done better if she'd listened to Rumblows advice of attaching 'possibly' instead of 'Case Proved' which was perhaps the prefix of her publisher rather than her own sence of good judgement.
Anyone working with the media industry will appriciate the presures of people paying for the damn thing to come up with answers, when there are none.
Things have changed since the Maybrick Diary. Everyone wants answers instead of speculation so the money goes to those with conclusions. If you want to write a book or produce a program then presure is on to this effect.
Perhaps, dispite of the flaws, Miss Cornwell had some interesting ideas with her investigation. It was just the result that was so unpalitable. My first introduction to the Ripper case was the Barlow and Watts investigation of the 70's, but even then they had to come up with a dodgy BBC conclusion. Thats the nature of the media mechinism.
Sometimes books like Cornwells will throw up money to further research and perhaps that research will turn up something useful. God knows decent reaseach into the letters would be good.
Personally i'd like to see a step back to the Investigation style of Ripper case program instead of the 'I've got a susspect and I'm gonna prove it' approach. But will the guys who have the say... finance it?
Good luck if you feel they will, but dispite good intensions about accurate Ripper theories what they want is suspects and answers and what most people on this site have concluded is that we will probably never know for sure. So you need to talk possibility, which doesn't sell.
That does not however make the mysteries surroundijng the case any less facinating. The depth of questions on this site about various accounts etc, is testomy to that.
You dont have to forgive Miss Cornwell to understand the presures she was under. I dont by Sickert any more than you do, but some of her investigation was interesting. Don't through the baby out with the cheque signer.
Jeff |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 8:16 am: | |
Hi Angie,
Kudos on asking the questions. If you haven't see it yet, start with Stephen's essay:
http://casebook.org/dissertations/dst-pamandsickert.html
(I have a few minor issues with that essay, like I wouldn't assume that the kidney with the Lusk letter was actually from a human just because some doctor at the time said so, as the doctors said a lot of things that contradicted each other, let alone how we'd do things today. But on the whole the essay is very good.)
I'll try to tackle some of your questions right away though.
DNA: Completely inconclusive. She tries to spin it into a match, but the best she has said is that someone who touched a letter sometime can't be ruled out as being from similar ethnic stock as someone who did something with something of Sickert's (I forget what she tested on that end). That's like saying that someone who wrote, touched or examined one letter out of a thousand was a white male with brown hair and a large nose who had ancestors from Germany. I'd be surprised if a white male with brown hair and a big nose with ancestors from Germany DIDN'T touch any of the letters at some point.
Sickert's paintings: People see what they want to see. Even if we assume he did base them upon Ripper themes, so what? He easily could have had access to the victim photos (a book was released in France while he was there with them). Being interested in the murders doesn't mean you killed anyone.
Was Sickert a violent man? How many men living at the time do you suppose weren't violent?
"Mr. Nemo" on letters that are almost certainly hoaxes means nothing. Besides, Nemo was a common nickname well known by lots of people. Nemo was the name used in Jules Verne's works (also from France) and was the name Odysseus gave to the Cyclops in the ancient myth. It's the same as signing a letter "Anonymous." Just about everyone at the time who was literate would have been familiar with the term. So we know the writer of some of the letters claiming to be from the Ripper could read and write... big shock there.
To sum it up, Cornwell makes a somewhat reasonable argument that Sickert was interested in the crimes. Lots of people were. She is too. That interest doesn't make someone a killer. There is no no credible evidence to link Sickert to any killings, and, in fact, the evidence shows he was living in France at the time of the murders. |
Ally
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ally
Post Number: 141
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 8:19 pm: | |
Hi Angie,
Contrary to Brian's claim, Cornwell has not provided any evidence, circumstantial or otherwise. Brian makes the same error of conceit that Cornwell is guilty of-saying he can predict what man would do--a man long dead that he never met and has no idea what he would do or wouldn't. Sickert may very well have written a couple of the hoax letters. Hundreds of people wrote "Ripper" letters during that time. None of them were the Ripper, therefore, proving Sickert wrote a hoax letter does not prove he was the Ripper.
There is nothing in his paintings to show that Sickert ever viewed the murder scenes. If disturbing works of art are indicative of murderous capabilities and acts, then Cornwell has condemned herself. She frequently writes scenes of gore and horror, the obvious conclusion is that she must have first carried out each murder herself in order to write about it in such convincing detail...right?
Cornwell does not provide one piece of evidence for any of her theories. The idea that Sickert was married three times, considered a ladies man and all the while was totally impotent and malformed is ludicrous. First of all, he was divorced--if he had been unable to perform his marital duties, his divorced wife would have been sure to spread that information. Why wouldn't she have? She divorced him for infidelity so she clearly thought he was capable of doing it. An annulment if he was impotent would have been a hell of a lot easier to obtain. |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 598
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 6:28 am: | |
Brian,
Sorry, what did you say? I wasn’t paying attention.
How well you know me…..and Walter (who would never waste any time on something he was not involved in)….yes, that’s how I remember him also.
Letters from the original Ripper ?? You mean Jack the Ripper….or the real murderer of 5, maybe more women in that area ? As far as I remember links between the letter writer, ANY letter writer, and the murderer have not been proven. Have I missed some new development ?
‘Walters painting of scenes is yet another chilling piece of evidence’.
And Im the ridiculous one ? Just for pointers, there are NO paintings by Walter Sickert of a Jack the Ripper crime scene. If there is then I truly apologise and would like you to show me it, because this new concrete evidence would prove once and for all this man was Jack and we all can go home…but until then.
‘The partial (Monty notes the word ‘partial’) DNA match between a letter and a painting is a huge piece of evidence.’
Evidence of what ? Evidence of Sickert as a murderer or writing hoax letters ?? Give me evidence that matches Walter to a crime scene. Not a letter.
‘Monty stating that Sickert is only guilty of writing hoax letters is a ridiculous accusation’.
And accusing a man of being a killer (not a hoax letter writer) on NO evidence is a commendable piece of investigating and something which should be applauded.
Finally, I never accused Walter Sickert as a hoax letter writer in my earlier post. I stated that Cornwell MAY have proved that Walter Sickert wrote a few letters, not that he did.
Maybe you missed that, I guess we both have a short attention span.
Monty
|
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 138
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 5:48 pm: | |
Hi Dan,
"(I have a few minor issues with that essay, like I wouldn't assume that the kidney with the Lusk letter was actually from a human just because some doctor at the time said so, as the doctors said a lot of things that contradicted each other, let alone how we'd do things today."
A minor point perhaps, but still, the two doctors who had examined the portion of kidney (independently I believe) did not contradict each other in this case, both Dr Bond and Dr Openshaw were of the opinion that it was human.
All the best,
Frank |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 9:57 pm: | |
Frank wrote:
"the two doctors who had examined the portion of kidney (independently I believe) did not contradict each other in this case, both Dr Bond and Dr Openshaw were of the opinion that it was human. "
Hi Frank, sorry I missed your response until now.
As I'm sure you are aware, if you go through and look at what the various doctors said about different victims they disagree on a great many details. This suggests to me more ego than actual knowledge, which could be the case in the Lusk kidney as well.
I'm not saying it wasn't from a human, just saying I don't think we can assume that it must have been just because some doctors back then said so.
That's all I meant by that. I could have worded it more clearly, I guess. |
Edward Freeman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 3:58 pm: | |
To Peter Birchwood:
Sorry for this delayed response.
Thank you for that info on Sickert's surviving relatives. It's a shame there are no direct descendents still living as Cornwell will not have to answer to them. She shows considerable disrespect by not trying to consult his relations before publishing her theories.
I'm sorry I didn't manage to see your programme.
Best wishes,
Edward. |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 462
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 9:16 am: | |
Dan,
There is a huge difference in the doctors contradicting each other on the victims injuries and whether a kidney came out of a human or not.
I believe the kidney was human as I'm sure the doctors must have known basic human anatomy. Some, most I should hope, victorian doctors were clever and I doubt that two independent doctors would be wrong in being able to tell if a kidney was human or not.
Sarah |
pcp101
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 5:48 am: | |
Hi Peeps!
As for all JTR books, theories, finger pointing, etc,after coming to this site and going through it (for about a week!) it's so frustrating that Cornwell's book seems to be a dud, the diary was forged (?), and there seems to be no real clue as to who JTR actually was. What i would like to know, is who is the finger, in majority, pointing to? From what I can gather, there seems to no one. Maybe all suspects are just plain wrong and Jackie was hit by a horse (or something)crossing a Whitechapel street when he was fetching the paper one sunday morning and it all died with him. Just because theres these suspects we know about, is there any truth to it all. But i think the bottom line, if Cornwell spent how many millions on her case, we'll never know. |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 166
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 1:42 pm: | |
That's pretty much it PCP...we will never know. In all liklihood, the Ripper was some anonymous nobody or nobodies and it will never be solved. Look at what precedent shows as far as serial killers, the Green River Killer, Dahmer..even Bundy. More or less nobodies who, if they hadn't made a mistake and gotten caught, they never would be known about or suspected 100 years from now. That's just the way it is.
Welcome to the boards and I forgive you for calling me a "peep".
Ally |
thebluefox
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 3:51 pm: | |
my impressions of alot of your feelings towards cornwell here so far are:
underlying misogyny (mixed with maybe a little uneasiness about her sexuality in regards to it having a personal effect on her accusation), ripperologist elitism, prejudice because she is not a ripperologist, fear and misunderstanding because someone has deviated from the status quo of ripper writing and is actually writing with some guts to stir things up so we may solve this damn case finally once and for all.
and overall, disdain and denial that this all is over because she is right.
she's not a ripperologist; she's an arrogant, assuming, whipsmart lesbian and she got it right on the first go.
your ripperology is stagnant my friends.
it's akin to art historians. some of the most bloody boring people on earth who are rarely artistic, but think they are. they are too trapped in the box of judgement, familiarity and influence to create any original art of their own.
the true artist doesn't identify what she/he does with definitions, or comparison or critique. she/he just expresses her/his soul.
patricia cornwell is your artist in the plethora of 'art historian' ripper writers. she isn't (even) the artiste, she is the art.
walter sickert is the ripper. hard evidence on any ripper suspect is not possible now and barely ever was. it's now based on (way) too many coincidences, personality profiling (which she has painstakingly done with graphic grace), intuition and magic.
that's the truth. |
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 6:03 pm: | |
Peeps and Ally,
I can call his spirit from the vasty deep!
I call the shrouded phantom of the whitened waters, and when I call him, he comes for me!
For I am the ball of lightning that holds his name together and apart, I am the juggler of the four fires.
Bullwinkle
|
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 172
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 6:02 pm: | |
Blueballs,
I'll just take it one by one..
First, half of the people who study the Ripper are gay or into kink so really...your first argument about sexuality is totally off base. Second, any straight guy would be more likely to be turned on than off by lesbianism, so there goes bias from the ones who are straight too. (Yes, I know I am being stereotypical and shallow but somehow, I don't think depth will cut it here). Then there is the supposed misogyny. First of all, I am probably the most arrogant woman you will ever come across. I love arrogant women; they make me purr. My problem with her isn't that she's arrogant, it's that she is wrong. She made-up facts--she lied. That's not having an honest opinion and being wrong--that's being deceitful. I don't like liars. She is a liar. She therefore loses her purr-worthiness.
Your logic is stagnant my friend. Walter Sickert is not the Ripper. And yes the idea is magic ..a cheap illusion to dazzle the gullible.
|
Michael Blayne Raney
Sergeant
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 19
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 6:41 pm: | |
Ally,
You go GIRL! Very well said...you may not be appreciated by everyone, but you always have my vote! Sickert is not and can not be the Ripper. He was not in London for at least one of the Murders. End of story.
Mikey |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 173
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 6:52 pm: | |
Uh oh..did Michael get one of those emails about me? You know, the one that says I hate black people, gay people, fat people....how wrong they are! Truth is I just hate people.
|
Michael Blayne Raney
Sergeant
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 21
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 6:57 pm: | |
Ally dear,
Let's not stray off topic.  This is the thread where we are supposed to bash, oops, I mean discuss Cornwells book. You know, like how she NEVER proved anything more than that Sickert MIGHT have written a letter or two.
Later,
Mikey |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 175
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 7:10 pm: | |
Oh right...but where's the fun in that? Truth be told, I do kind of feel sorry for Patsy. I get this image of her in her fortress, surrounded by bodyguards, slowly deteriorating under the strain of constant paranoia. If you look at her main character in her other fictious works, it is so obvious that her main character is modeled after her in almost every detail. I do believe that she wants to be a grand detective so much, that she has deluded herself into thinking she can actually solve a crime. She doesn't realize that crimes in which every scrap of evidence has been manufactured by her works well in fiction but you can't do the same in real life. Didn't stop her from trying. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
