|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 105
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 4:47 am: | 
|
But of course, Sir Robert, my argument would be that the bulkier the file that appears to have once existed on any one 'viable police suspect', the less 'viable' that suspect perhaps ought to be judged, seeing as it still could not have amounted to anything resembling a decent case for him being the ripper, otherwise this would surely have been reflected in the theorising of more than just one or two of the senior policemen's surviving public or private memoirs, and considering all the effort put in over the years to find the culprit, or at least to claim that he had been identified and was safely out of harm's way.
Love,
Caz |
Paul Gibson
Sergeant
Username: Rupertbear
Post Number: 27
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 7:36 am: |
|
Oooh Caz,
It's all in the interpretation isn't it?!!!
"The ridiculous Barnett theory" had never been considered by this harmless bear with a black and yellow checked scarf until last month...but, it works for me!
I couldn't put Barnett in the frame for the others because he reminds me too much of my pal, Edward Trunk - he wouldn't h-harm a fly ordinarily but you should hear how loud he trumpets when his spiteful girlfriend is giving him a h-hard time.
I am a bear of very weak intellect and complicated things scare me, but I just don't see what is so ridiculous about the notion that Barnett killed Kelly.
Being of proven open-mindedness - due to dull brain - perhaps you would care to convince me?!!
Paul |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 111
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 7:11 am: |
|
Hi Paul,
Well, my gentle bear with the checked scarf, my quip about the 'ridiculous' Barnett theory being wheeled in as and when necessary was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, hence the quote marks.
I've already bored everyone rigid elsewhere with my reasons for not being persuaded by any of the arguments for Barnett being a killer. And, to be fair, I don't have to try and convince you or anyone else that he wasn't.
But, of course, it's not the notion by itself that is 'ridiculous'. It wasn't 'ridiculous' for Barnett to be treated as prime suspect when Kelly's body was discovered. It would have been ridiculous in the extreme for the police not to have examined him and the account he gave for the slightest sign that all was not right - and keep on examining it in case any cracks should appear at a later date, when they were no nearer solving any of the Whitechapel murders, and were well aware that more than one killer had almost certainly contributed to the grim total.
And this is why I do actually think it's slightly ridiculous for anyone to argue that the police were completely taken in, in a matter of hours, by a man who had not only committed murder for the first time in his life, but had upstaged the ripper in the process of bumping off 'er indoors.
I don't need convincing that someone in Barnett's situation could kill someone in Kelly's. I need convincing that he could have got away with murdering her under these particular circumstances. And there's nothing I'd like more than to be convinced of this by someone whose preferred solution to the ripper crimes may depend on their suspect never darkening Kelly's doorstep.
Love,
Caz |
Paul Gibson
Sergeant
Username: Rupertbear
Post Number: 28
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 10:12 am: |
|
Oooh Caz,
I'm really a very inoffensive little bear...I know that you don't HAVE to try and convince me of anything, I just wanted to hear your views as I have so much respect for them.
Apologies for not spotting your tongue-in-cheekedness but like irony and sarcasm it is beyond the comprehension of my sincerely simple soul.
Very good point over Barnett and the police. That does put a bit of a dampener on the theory but it remains a lot more feasible than many others. I mean, was it really lack of the right opportunity that stopped Jack ripping for forty days or did he give it up for Lent and think that the Lord Mayor's Show marked Good Friday?!!
I'm still no nearer but I love hearing other peoples' views.
Paul |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 112
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 12:03 pm: |
|
Hi my little furry bear,
I'm still no nearer either and I too love hearing other people's views. But I find it incredibly hard to judge the comparative feasibility of the various theories, as I tend to see each one as pretty unfeasible when presented in all its circumstantial glory, especially when the best cuts are put in the shop window and the offal is kept under the counter, and I'm still not tempted in to buy.
Of course, with some theories, the stakes are high, but so are the steaks - they smell to high heaven. 
Love,
Caz
|
Paul Gibson
Sergeant
Username: Rupertbear
Post Number: 29
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 02, 2003 - 8:03 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
I bet it was hell for your parents at Christmas trying to make you believe in the rotund man dressed in the fur-lined red suit with white hair and beard!!
I have always been very gullible and tend to believe most things that people tell me unless it's so obviously rubbish e.g. Sickert. So, over the last few years, I have adopted a number of "pet theories" before growing out of them...
I remain a happy-go-lucky bear, but I could do with adopting a more cynical streak, so it has been great corresponding with you.
Paul |
BrigidSmallwood
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 7:26 pm: |
|
Hello all,
I am not yet an official registered user so please excuse this interjection. I am a frequent reader of the boards and just felt I had to in good conscience add my .02 to this conversation.
Forward:
I read Cornwell's book. I strongly dislike Sickert as a suspect. As a successful artist I take tremendous exception to Ms. Cornwall's idea that she could *just tell he was a murderer from his nasty little paintings*. What a tragic misunderstanding of the very nature of art. I think the only thing she proved with her book is that Sickert was probably a bit of a jerk and she is perhaps rather unstable. That said I must begrudgingly admit that very small parts of the information she has offered are a tad interesting. (I.E. If he hoaxed Ripper letters then that is a fascinating tidbit about a famous artist, and a nice addition to future biographies.)
/Forward
On to the point of this post... I hesitatingly offer that perhaps Sickert (and again I don't like Sickert as a suspect) could perhaps have had the knowledge to take out a kidney. At least to know where it was. Being an artist, even an impressionist, he probably studied anatomy (ever seen DaVinci's anatomical sketches?...wait maybe he was the Ripper...). The artistic study of anatomy is not limited to muscle and skeletal structure. I remember learning the internal organs, parts of the eye etc. In a nutshell the idea behind artistic learning being that you must first learn technique and realism, this based on reality and drawing what you see, and then you can move on to expression and away from rigid realism. Most likely, Sickert (again even though he was an Impressionist) did learn and practice realism before moving on to Impressionism.
For what it is worth here is a great link to DaVinci's anatomical drawings: http://leonardodavinci.stanford.edu/projects/anatomy/
Internal Organs specifically:
http://leonardodavinci.stanford.edu/projects/anatomy/reproductive.html
Thanks for listening,
Brigid Smallwood |
Paul Gibson
Sergeant
Username: Rupertbear
Post Number: 30
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 04, 2003 - 8:10 am: |
|
Hi Brigid,
Thanks very much for a great contribution - it never occurred to me that an artist could gain anatomical knowledge through his vocation.
In the opinion of this humble little bear, you have made a greater contribution to the Sickert discussion in two paragraphs than Cornwell made in a couple of hundred pages!!
Having imparted this gem, I am relieved to hear that you are still not taking his candidature seriously!!
I'm not really interested in the "ripper" letters, so I'm not really bothered if Sickert wrote any or not. However, I think the Goulston Street graffito is really interesting, especially as it is far more likely to have been penned by the murderer.
What is the significance of the spelling of Juwes?
Was his intention that the message heralded the end of the killings?
If so, did he change his mind and murder Kelly or did he simply not do it?
If he did it, why did he wait so long after Eddowes?
Was he being hounded by the police?
Did they really have a much better idea than the remaining archives suggest?
Fun isn't it!!
Paul |
Saucy Dave
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 11:16 pm: |
|
Hello all,
I am just passing by, trying to find a site to contact Patricia Cornwell directly and suggest "increasing the dosage". I tried(I really, really did!) to finish her book, but just couldn't take it any more. A discussion on the development of coroners just doesn't hold up against my AADD. That and I'm still confused about the title of her book. Is it "Patricia Cornwell"? Usually, humble authors print their names with the smaller fonts. Maybe, she's the "Ripper"!
I approach this topic from a "purely artistic" point of view. I have been an artist my whole life and Ms. Cornwell's interpretations of some of Sickert's works kill me(no pun intended).
1.) Do you remember looking hard and long at old magazine ads(especially, alcohol) to find the skull hidden in the ice? Can you say "Ennui"? The menacing man about to pounce on the Diva in the painting on the wall is...well...crap! If you look even harder at this painting you could suggest that the shadow behind the old man has the shape of a human heart(maybe, one of the victims?). There's that throbbing in my head, again!
2.) "Persuasion". What a menacing piece of work. A man, obviously, holding a naked woman in bed as she leans against her left hand, arm folded to the left of her head. A typical reaction to being/about to be stangled or being/about to be "cut to pieces". Menacing? Uhhhhh...
3.) "Venetian Studies". The model's eyes are wide open...NOOOOOO!!! Patricia, you're pushing it! It's getting hard for me to walk in here!
4.) And now, ladies and gentlemen, another interpretation of the sketches of "a man stabbing a woman to death" and "a brute lunging for a woman". Where's the knife? Could it possibly be that the man with his mouth open to the left side of the sketch is being pulled away from the woman he just accosted(look closely at his hands...could those be pieces of her clothing he has just ripped away?)? Could it be the man "stabbing the woman" is actually tending to her wound(what wound?)? Wait, we're talking about Walter Sickert or "Jack The Ripper". My fault. Sorry, Patricia. And the "lunging brute"? A man picking up something the "older" woman has dropped on the ground(notice his hand extended downward towards the ground, fingers spread). What a nice chap!
Well, that's all I'm gonna say right now. The throbbing in my head is killing me(no pun intended). For the record I would say that Patricia Cornwell's case is a sad excuse to sell a book or two and add another million to the millions she already has. This case is not closed and, probably, never will be. I just can't take the throbbing any more...
SD. R. St. W |
Alan Sharp
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 12:24 pm: |
|
I have to say that while I found Cornwell's book.... I'm not sure whether to say repulsive or downright hilarious.... that does not mean that I would discount Sickert as a suspect. Most of her reasons can be discounted quickly:
1. Sickert painted dark disturbing pictures. Heck, I wonder how many Francesco Goya and Hieronymous Bosch polished off between them?
2. He was in London at the time of the crimes even though he wasn't because he probably told everybody he was going away but really ran round the country sending letters and killing somebody in Durham.
3. He wrote all of the Ripper letters, disguising his handwriting and going on fascinating train journeys just so that he could confuse everyone by sending the letters from all sorts of locations, because of course it is logical that you should keep sending taunting letters to the police telling them how clever you are and at the same time try desperately to make as sure as possible that nobody would ever take those letters seriously.
4. Somebody doodled in a guest book in Cornwall and added the name Jack the Ripper and lots of well known people went there so Sickert might have possibly even though nobody ever mentioned it if he did
5. Somebody who affixed a stamp to some of Sickert's letters can be narrowed down to being one of, if we take only the population of London, 10,000 people who possibly could have affixed the stamps to some of the Ripper letters which nobody who has done any serious investigation of the case believes were genuine anyway.
6. He had a fistula on his penis which made him impotent, even though he was a serial womaniser who fathered at least one child to a woman in France.
However..... here we come to the crux. Sickert did have a fistula and it was operated on when he was a child. It probably wasn't on his penis and certainly didn't make him impotent, the only evidence Cornwell produces for this is the say-so of a minor relative of his third wife, and most doctors I have spoken to say they have never even heard of anyone having a fistula on their penis, but he did have one, probably rectal, and it was operated on, probably without anaesthetic.
In countless serial murder cases of the twentieth century it has been observed that the offender suffered some form of severe trauma during their formative years, particularly around the ages of 5 or 6 when Sickert's operation took place. And having an operation on your jacksy without anaesthetic qualifies as severe trauma in my book!
So, for this reason, and for this one reason alone, I don't think Sickert can be discounted as a suspect, even though he is a very very poor one. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 327
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 5:33 am: |
|
Poor young Sickert,
With his jacksy all sore,
As if this weren't enough,
Cornwell kicks it some more.
Talk about suffering for one's art.... 
Love,
Caz
|
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 230
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 8:14 am: |
|
But Carrotty Caz!
You're a poet! 
Actually, that was quite a good one; got any more?
All the best, Caz
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Alan Sharp
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 18, 2003 - 11:54 am: |
|
Something which occurs to me, on the original subject of this thread.
Stephen Knight was told the Royal Conspiracy story by Joseph Sickert. He claimed to be the son of Walter Sickert and Alice Crook.
Patricia Cornwell bases a large part of her theory on the idea that Walter Sickert hated women because he was impotent after an operation on his penis as a child.
Is there any evidence that Joseph Sickert was in fact Walter Sickert's son? I know he is supposed to have had a son by the woman in France but that cannot be proved. If it could be proved that Joseph Sickert is Walter's son then surely it's Goodnight Vienna to Miss Cornwell. Also if it was proved that he wasn't then Mr Knight's theory goes in the same direction. Surely it's worth looking into if only to get one of these baloney theories out of the way once and for all. |
Jeanette Black
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 3:43 pm: |
|
Having just read Cornwell's book one question stood out in my mind. The man married three times; the first time his WIFE asked for a divorce. What were the grounds for the divorce? They must have been considerable if a Ellan was willing to risk the social blackening of being a divorced woman.
Why did Cornwell not publish ANY letter, diary extract conversation of Sickert's wives? Surely if there was anything strange in his life, they should be used as primary witnesses. |
Chloe
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 7:03 pm: |
|
Hi ; just joining briefly to say I am half way through the Cornwell book, wading through her desperate obsessions with corporeal forensic evidence , (and with forensic blunders -which we are all supposed to make except her); she has just spent a chapter telling me how 1888 policemen carry lanterns, as if I wanted to waste my evening. How on earth is it relevant, how they carried their lanterns?
I decided to read the book because I wondered what her idea was. I think she saw that Walter Sickert must have known something about the case, or he'd never have been able to inform his son, Joseph, of a partially accurate story that misled Steven Knight . On perceiving this, Patricia saw an opening to accuse Walter Sickert of knowing enough about the case to have actually been guilty himself- but that's a poor excuse for an arrest, let alone a book.
Knowing about the case doesn't make Sickert guilty surely. Either her analytical ability is well below average, or she's putting forward a deliberate con.
Writing letters doesn't make Walter Sickert guilty either, ( he may well have done.) Hundreds of people were 'capering' the police in 1888, and sending them on bogs' errands.
Whats truly fascinating is her obsession with us in England, and the case. Maybe she felt it was a true murder mystery containing real hidden truths, and beauty ( the duke and the fallen women etc.) as well as mysterious, total devastation. This, to her, a writer of junky commercial garbage, was a huge challenge, and she was terrified of failing at it- so she felt she had to make out she'd found the Jack the Ripper suspect once and for all. She would have been more honest to have simply put forward the evidence she'd found for what it is. (and she has found some.)
As for her security fears, I can't say I'd blame Keith Skinner for wanting to poke her eye; :-) he must have just read the chapter on how Walter Sickert may or may not have gone to see the elephant man and become obsessed with his face. How is it relevant?
I had to really struggle to get through the three chapters on Walter Sickerts penis operations. How is it relevant ? A little boy's operations? Poor little kid, that's all I thought all the way through. After he was operated on, he was probably far too frightened of the likes of Patricia to become a vengeful psychopath .
The talk she emits is purile, and seems to suggest she has a perverted and opportunistic mind.
She also seemed to want to brush the royals up the right way , by inferring that the duke had nothing to do with the 'autumn of terror', yet she says has been buying endless letters and post-cards belonging to the Duke. I wonder why she's collecting his memorabilia, if she's not atall interested in the role he inadvertently played in the story.
It seems an awful travesty for her to posess evidence relevant to his secret love-life. How tragic!
She is obsessed with English romances, and we won't get rid of her.
best wishes, everyone. Chloe. |
Martin Greenwell
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 2:22 pm: |
|
With all due respect ladies and gentlemen, if one considers the cumulative weight of Cornwell's evidence, she does indeed have a compelling argument. This thread reeks of that droll yet utterly predictable Anglo-Saxon disdain for any Yank with the temerity to attempt to solve Britain's most famous murder mystery. That she may have succeeded in her effort is just unthinkable. |
Ally
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ally
Post Number: 109
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 9:58 am: |
|
Hi Martin,
Would you mind listing the indivdual components of the evidence that you believe add up to a compelling case? Not the speculation, the suppositions, the fantasies or the outright inventions, but the actual evidence you believe P.C supplies?
(Message edited by ally on November 17, 2003) |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 10:13 am: |
|
Martin,
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Patricia Cornwell is an insult to all those who have studied this case. She has never read anything about JTR until she decided one day "hmm, I'm running out of ideas. I know I'll pick someone at random and scrap together some vague evidence and make it look as though he was Jack the Ripper". She should stick to fiction, oh wait a minute this is fiction!! |
Martin Greenwell
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 7:14 pm: |
|
Ally and Sarah:
Well, you are right. I retract my statement. I am very new to Ripperology and had just completed Cornwell's book. I had no earthly idea that there have been numerous criminologists, historians and other serious scholars out there who have dedicated their lives to studying this case. After combing through this site and others, it seems that Patricia is pretty much an army of one regarding Sickert as a credible suspect. And, if he was in Dieppe in the fall of 1888, a position for which there appears to be credible evidence, then it is very unlikely that he could have committed these murders. I just picked up a copy of Sugden's book. I see that I have some homework to do...
Apologies to all. |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 188
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 7:59 pm: |
|
Well, there's a good use for Patricia Cornwell's book--she has moved someone to read Sugden.
Martin, I think you'll find him very rewarding.
Still doing my homework too,
Dave |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 2:57 am: |
|
And the idea that people oppose Cornwell's theory becasue she's a Yank is another bit of nonsense she cooked up to try to ignore criticism of her highly flawed methods. Nationality has nothing to do with the near universal disdain she suffers among serious scholars, especially since many of these self-same people hail from the U.S. of A. and could be expected to be cheering her on if nationalistic pride had anything to do with it. |
Daryl Laverty
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 6:34 pm: |
|
I think P Cornwell should look closer to home, as Tumblty, the American/Canadian quack seems a more likely suspect. did she even look into any other suspects? |
Gib McKay
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 6:17 pm: |
|
After having just finished the Patricia Cornwell "theory" and as a yank that never really studied the Ripper case, I found myself chuckling at the inane speculations of PC's hypothisis (I use hypothesis in its loosest editorial sense). With that said, I must ask this austere group where my study on jtr should begin. Sugden? If nothing else, she stirred an interest in this very interesting crime spree and period in history. |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 611
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 12:28 pm: |
|
Gib,
Sugden is a really good place to start, even though he pushes for a dodgy suspect...not his fault though..
Any work by Begg, Evans, Skinner, Fido is worth a look at.
I personally like Edwards work (on the killers mechanics, timings & maps) & Eddlestones (site maps)
But if I had recommend just one place to begin studying Jack The Ripper then I suggest you read this site.
Quite simply...its the best.
Monty
 |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 422
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 11:26 am: |
|
Monty,
Cough..suck up...cough.
Whoa, strange cough I've got there.
Sarah 
P.S. When I started out Gib I started looking at the Sourcebook. It is a very good place to start as it doesn't push any suspect in particular. |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 618
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 11:36 am: |
|
Long,
Nasty cough you got there....let me pat you on the back...come here !!!
What ?? am I wrong ? Is this not the best place for begginers ?
I think the scourebook is a bit too heavy for first timers.
Monty
 |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 424
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 11:49 am: |
|
Maybe I'm good at the heavy stuff as I found it very good as my first book.
Of course this place is best for beginners, I didn't say you were wrong, you just made me laugh that's all. That must be what started my coughing fit!!  |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 619
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 11:54 am: |
|
Good at the heavy stuff but cannot find your way back to your desk from the loo !!
Goose grease....that'll cure it !
Montgomery
|
Neil K. MacMillan
Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 43
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 4:32 pm: |
|
Martin;
I oppose Cornwell's theory because her evidence is sketchy at best and by the way, I'm a Yank. I favour Tumblety myself but I'm open to where the evidence goes. I'm currently writing a novel about Jack the Ripper and I create my own suspect.
Read all you can get your hands on and then re-read it and you'll see what I mean about Ms. Cornwell's evidence.
Did Walter Sickert have a fistula? Don't know and it is not germaine to the case. That this supposed fistula made him impotent hasn't been proven and evidence to the contrary suggests that indeed he was anything but. Remember that Joseph Sickert, who claimed to be Walter's son provided Stephen Knight with the evidence he used to form his theory. Ms Cornwell doesn't mention Joseph Sickert. If she interviewed family members as she claimed, surely she would want to verify any claims of children and interview them before anyone else.
Her claims for the letters have very little bearing on the case unless all you want to prove is that Sickert wrote some of the letters. That is a possibility in my mind but not proof that Sickert was Jack the Ripper (or rather the person or persons who murdered the victims in Whitechapel) Note that I don't give numbers because that is in dispute as are the names of the victims meaning those that actually are victims.
If his art is proof he's Jack the ripper then all artists are in trouble! That is a ludicrous assertation. Sorry about ranting. Kindest regards. Neil |
Catherine Gabel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 5:21 pm: |
|
I recently saw two of Sickerts' paintings on display at the National Gallery in Ottawa, Ontario. I had previously read PCs book on JTR and today found this site where I have read many of the exchanges on the message board. I am curious about one thing. PC claims that Sickert did not have any children, postulating that he was physically incapable of having sex due to complications of a fistula on his penis. I am in agreement though with her that to undergo several surgeries in a time where surgery was performed only in extreme cases due to risk of death from the surgery or post operative infection that the condition he suffered must have been considered extreme by both his parents and medical practitioners at the time. Is there any information available on Joseph Sickert who claims to be the son of Walter? I felt after reading PCs book that the reason she was able to publish her theory was due in fact to there being no living blood relatives and therefore little risk of any descendents launching any sort of civil action against her. She says that Walter had a sister and a brother, neither of whom had any children. The nephew of his third wife was not a blood relative of Sickerts, rather he was related to Sickerts' wife. My other observation after reading some of the exchanges posted is in response to some people questioning why Sickerts' mother never reported him to be missing. PC claims he (Walter) had a penchant for wandering and or disappearing without warning for periods of time. She claims that Sickerts' father also shared this same penchant. What, if any, information about Sickert senior exists to support this theory? If, as PC says, Sickert senior was an artist in the Danish court would there not be any research or information provided about him from his own contemporaries which would support or discredit this theory? If the father and son did have a habit of wandering for periods of time then perhaps Sickerts' mother and even some of his wives may not have felt the need to ever have reported him as missing since they would have assumed he was just wandering and would reappear when he felt like it. I think PC presents some provocative circumstantial evidence to support Sickert as being a significant suspect if her facts about what is known about his life and habits are well supported by information documented to have been gathered from his contemporaries. The information about the stationary analysis and comparisons is also fairly thought provoking but it may well be that Sicert too was engaging in sending out hoax letters to police. My impression of Sickert from only reading PCs book was one of a man who was odd, eccentric, somewhat immature and very attention seeking. Perhaps he felt a need for people to talk about him even if it was going to be disparaging in order to keep some attention or publicity on his art. |
Melissa Turcios
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 11:27 pm: |
|
If you're (seriously) looking for information (that is of the factual variety) to support Patricia Cornwall's suppositions, you're not going to find it. The only thing she proved is that Walter Sickert was interested in Jack the Ripper and authored the more incredible of the Jack the Ripper letters. Which, of course, doesn't prove that he was Jack the Ripper.
I love her explaination for multiple letter mailed on the same date in different locations all authored by Walter Sickert. Why, he caught the trains to all of these disparate locations sent a letter and went on the next one! What's so hard to believe about that?
Or, why wasn't Sickert present in Whitechapel during all of the murders? Well, there's evidence he left, but he could have gone back the minute he arrived and been in time for the cannonical Ripper murders!
Also, before you wonder at the murder-oriented paintings he painted, keep in mind that Sickert frequently changed his paintings titles, thus changing an innocuous sleeping scene to a violent murder scene.
Ai ya yay. I'm sorry I can't forgive the woman for buying his paintings and destroying some of them. Sacrelidge. |
Inspector 1st Class F. Abberline
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 3:48 pm: |
|
Walter Sickert was eccentric.
Walter Sickert was complex to say the least.
Walter Sickert was NOT Jack the Ripper.
There are those who will not agree with me on the last statement. That's fine. All they have to do is prove that he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I say he wasn't for a myriad of reasons and reason one being: He was deathly afraid of germs and disease. A phobia like that, gloves are not enough. Two: There is no proof that directly links him with the murders. No weapon, no motive for the killings,nothing that puts him in Whitechapel when the murders took place. The man seen with the girls did not look like Sickert at all. A disguise? I don't think so. Sickert, like ourselves, was a case enthusiast. So much that he tried to take credit for the Ripper murders because he always wanted to be famous. Well, Walt, ya got yer fame. Ha,ha,ha. |
Bob Wigdorski
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 7:47 pm: |
|
A question for the experts from someone relatively new to this. I have read in several areas that most of the letters but one are considered hoaxes. It appears that this view is taken from the police who were investigating the murders. Why? I realize that with 600 letters a good many of them are probably going to be hoaxes but why is everyone so quick to discount all of them save a few? |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 894
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 3:53 pm: |
|
Hi Melissa,
She actually did not prove that Sickert authored any letters. She only demonstrated that forensics evidence alone can't rule him out as having written a few insignificant (not the more incredible ones) letters. But what she fails to note is that forensics evidence alone also doesn't rule out millions of other people either.
Otherwise I think your post is spot on.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 74
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 8:42 pm: |
|
All,
I am proposing that Belgian impressionist James Ensor was the Ripper.
Here's why:
He painted macabre pictures of skeletons that mocked humanity
He was 28 years old in 1888
His father was English. He could have visited dad and committed the murders when he did.
He didn't have a fistula, but he had two fists (which equals one fistula any day)
There is no real evidence against him
Did I mention his paintings?
Okay, that's my case. The book should be out soon.
Cheers,
Mike the Mauler
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 316
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 10:19 pm: |
|
"Meet James Ensor,
Belgium’s famous painter.
Dig him up and shake his hand,
Appreciate the man."
- They Might be Giants |
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 75
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 11:37 pm: |
|
John,
Exactly! Did I mention he was born in Ostend, Belgium? Translated to East End
Mike the Mauler
|
Eddie Derrico
Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 11
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 9:05 pm: |
|
I don't think Sickert was the Ripper, but I believe he was kind of obsessed with him. Some of his paintings do have hints of murder in there. And I think he would send telegrams to taunt the Police.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 7:34 am: |
|
I don't think Sickert was the Ripper, but I believe he was kind of obsessed with him.
HOW many people on this site are 'obsessed' with JTR? Oh my GOD! Dan Norder was Jack the Ripper!!!
Seriously though, artists are creators not destroyers, no matter how marcabre their work is. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 927
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 4:58 am: |
|
"Before there were junk stores, before there was junk..."
Classic They Might Be Giants song... of course most of them were instant classics. But anyway.
Hey now, I'm not obsessed... I prefer to call myself professionally obligated to be interested in the case. Yeah, that's it.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page