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!

Archive through March 28, 2004 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Message Boards » Letters and Communications » Sickert's Letters » Archive through March 28, 2004 « Previous Next »

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

Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
Posted on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 2:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

A letter post-marked Oct. 29 - London E. (for East) was received by Dr. Thomas Openshaw. It was Dr. Openshaw who performed the medical examination on the portion of kidney received by George Lusk on Oct. 16 in conjunction with the From Hell letter. Dr. Openshaw found the kidney to be very similar to the one removed from Catherine Eddowes. On Oct. 19, Dr. Openshaw's results were published in the press. In article in The Star, the medical examiner was identified as "Dr. Openshaw, the pathological curator of the London Hospital." The envelope for the Oct. 29 Openshaw Letter was addressed to: "Dr. Openshaw, Pathological curator, London Hospital, White chapel."

The text of the letter:
======================
Old boss you was rite it was the left kidny i was goin to hoperate agin close to you ospitle just as i was going to dror mi nife along of er bloomin throte them cusses of coppers spoilt the game but i guess i wil be on the jobn soon and will send you another bit of innerds

Jack the Ripper

O have you seen the devle
with his mikerscope and scalpul
a-lookin at a kidney
with a slide c*cked up.

(I am obligated to remove the o in the previous line because Casebook's software will not accept a post with the full word.)
=======================

This letter was written and sent by Walter Sickert.

The Openshaw Letter is one of 3 surviving Ripper letters written on high-quality personal
stationary bearing the A. Pirie & Sons watermark. Eight letters written by Walter Sickert have now been identified as having been written on similar stationary with the same A. Pirie watermark. All three of the Ripper letters are half-sheets of letter paper, torn in half at the fold. Comparing the Ripper letters to the Sickert letters, it is clear that the missing half of each Ripper letter was the half of the sheet on which, in the Sickert letters, Walter Sickert's name and address had been embossed. In terms of size, borders, color, texture, weight, etc, the papers are the same.

The watermark in the Openshaw letter bore the numbers 18, 18, 87. According to paper experts, the 87 indicates 1887.

Patricia Cornwell's experts have also determined that the paper batch of the Openshaw letter is an
exact match with a Ripper letter mailed from London on Nov. 22, also bearing the A. Pirie
watermark. The paper batch of the Openshaw letter does not match another Ripper letter mailed on Nov. 22 from Manchester. The paper expert added that in his experience, it was sometimes the case that customers purchased a box of stationary filled with two batches of the same stationary. Therefore, while an exact batch match is very powerful evidence indeed that two letters were written on stationary from the same box, a batch mismatch does not exclude the possibility that the Manchester letter was also written on paper from the same box. With paper of this high quality and elegant design, batches were small. The small number of sheets in a batch has great significance in determining the random probability of any two letters with the Pirie watermark having been written by the same person. I am not going to get into actual numbers of statistical probability, which
would be the province of paper experts and statisticians anyway. What is important to understand here, however, is that in determining the odds, the multiple layers of evidence indicating that Walter Sickert wrote the Openshaw Letter would not added together, they would be multiplied -- thus greatly increasing the odds against anyone else possibly having written the Openshaw letter. The random chances of any two letters being written on stationary with the A. Pirie watermark, such as the Openshaw Letter and the Dear Jimmy letter that Sickert wrote to James MacNeil Whistler, are small to begin with. The chances that these two letter papers then have the same color, size, borders, texture and weight are infinitessimal. Pirie watermarked stationary was sold in a range of colors, sizes, borders, textures and weights. Consider the chance that the paper comes from the same small batch, and we are fast approaching zero. Thus, the probability in favor that the paper for these two letters having come from the same small batch and they were written by the same person, Walter Sickert, is already astronomical in size.

Moreover, on top of that we have the mDNA evidence -- which by itself might be inconclusive, but which is strongly consistent with the statistical probability that Walter Sickert wrote the Openshaw letter, thus increasing the probability that he did even higher. First is the Single Donor mDNA. A sample of Single Donor mDNA was isolated on the reverse of the postage stamp on the
envelope. This Single Donor mDNA is similar to the mDNA on the envelopes of three other Ripper
letters. It was also found on the flap of an envelope sent by Walter Sickert. It was also found on the back of a stamp on an envelope written by Ellen Sickert, Walter's wife. There is no sample of Walter Sickert's DNA, at least yet, to make a comparison. However, according to one DNA expert, a Single Donor DNA sample exludes 99% of the population. So while these Single Donor DNA samples cannot yet be directly linked to Walter Sickert, they can be linked to each other.

Now to the mixture donor mDNA which display components of the mDNA in the Openshaw Letter. Two envelopes from letters written by Walter Sickert have been identified with the Openshaw component in its Mixture Donor mDNA. Two envelopes from Ripper letters, other than the Openshaw Letter, have been identified with the same Openshaw Mixture Donor mDNA. Two envelopes for letters written by Ellen Sickert were also identified as containing the Openshaw component in their mDNA.

Then on top of the watermark evidence, the paper batch evidence, the Single Donor mDNA evidence and the Mixture Donor mDNA evidence, there is internal evidence that is consistent with what is known about Walter Sickert. The poem at the end was identified by Evans & Skinner in Letters From Hell as a literary parody of a little-known Cornish folk ballad. The original words are:

Here's to the devil,
With his wooden pick and shovel,
Digging tin by the bushel,
With his tail c*ck'd up!

People likely to know the original would be Cornish or visitors to Cornwall. Sickert visited
Cornwall on several occasions prior to the fall of 1888, and some of his paintings are depictions
of sights in Cornwall. Sickert's interest in a broad range of literature is well documented -- so much so, Virginia Woolf described Sickert as "a literary painter." The idea that a sophisticated literary parody like this one could be executed by the crass, virtually illiterate lout who ostensibly wrote the text is a total contradiction. The parody contains references and vocabularly outside the experience of an uneducated man -- such as scapel, microscope, and above all 'slide' (used here as the rectangular strip of glass used to analyze samples of blood and bacteria under a microscope.)

The imitation of a lower-class accent in the text of the Openshaw letter is also patently phony.

The combination of this low-class accent and the high-class, expensive, elegant stationary is
absurd. One indication of the deliberate fraud is the perfect spelling in the address on the
envelope with the ridiculous, inconsistent spellings in the letter. The idea that the same man could spell "Hospital" correctly in the envelope, but he would spell the exact same word "ospitle" in the text of the letter is absurd on its face. If he copied it once correctly out of The Star, then why didn't he copy it twice correctly. Kidney is spelled wrong in the text but right in the poem. Implausible. Sickert was not only interested in literary matters all his life, he also already had experienced a minor but professional career as an actor in the London theatre in the years around 1880. There are numerous descriptions about his ability to mimic people and his mastery of English accents -- an absolute must for every British actor. Of course, the very idea
of writing out an accent is phony. Lots of lower-class Brits who speak dialects, then as now, know
perfectly well how to spell the words they mispronounce.

Then there is the handwriting in the Openshaw letter, which is also patently phony, obviously
disguised. The author had to be sure the post office delivered it, so he wrote the name and
address on the envelope in a careful if shaky, awkward and unnatural hand. However, the word Dr. is written with an ornate looped D and a lower-case r in superscript that is completely out of character for someone who spells right as rite or who spells throat as throte. The rest of the lettering on the envelope is written in the simplest, plainest script and block letters. Obviously, someone got his fonts mixed up here. That Sickert was well aware of different writing
styles is evident from a letter Sickert wrote later to artist William Eden, in which he mentions writing to a woman in copperplate (the name of a style of lettering.) There are examples of Sickert writing backwards in his etchings, including his signature. The police in 1888 had no professional handwriting comparison analysts to detect disguised writing. They never seriously investigated the possibility that the authors of the various Ripper letters disguised their handwriting. But that does not stop lay people like myself from comparing the handwriting in the Openshaw letter, both with other Ripper letters and with letters by Walter Sickert. There are numerous similarities, too numerous to go into now. But some of the most interesting similarities in the Ripper letters can be found in the signature 'Jack The Ripper'.

The scientific evidence that Walter Sickert wrote the Openshaw letter is irrefutable. All the
peripheral evidence, such as the internal evidence in the text, is consistent with Sickert's authorship. As I will describe in another post, the Openshaw Letter was not Sickert's only Ripper letter, or his only letter directly linked to the Whitechapel Murders. (I will go into the significance of that distinction later also.) There were other letters written by Sickert. I will go into the significance of Sickert's authorship of the Openshaw Letter and his other Ripper letters in a later post.

But right now, one fact should be crystal clear. Walter Sickert wrote the Openshaw letter, and on
Oct. 29 he sent it from the East End of London. Therefore, Walter Sickert was in London on Oct.
29, and not in France.

Regards,
Mark Starr
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

M.Mc.
Unregistered guest
Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 5:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Even if Sickert did write these JTR letters. They have been placed in the HOAX box along with other people's hoax JTR letters. Even if that "GUESTBOOK" was drawn on by Sickert and he put "Jack the Ripper" down on every page. It's just like his paintings... Not enough to place JTR's bloody knife in his hand. Sorry until there is more than this weak stuff I won't believe it. Cornwell just does not have enough on Sickert. I will say that I do believe Sickert may have known who JTR was. He did say he knew who JTR was but he could have said that as a joke. The man had a very odd since of sarcastic humor. However, that is even weak as putting him down as a suspect. You might as well put "Van Gogh" down as a suspect. He cut his ear off and sent it to a lady. The "Dear Boss" letter and "Saucy Jacky" post card say he's going to cut the ears off the lady. The killer cut the ears of some of the victims. If you ask me maybe we should have Van Gogh as a suspect. Maybe Lewis Carroll along with Sickert and Van Gogh did it together. (Laughs)Nah! Too many other good suspects than any artist you can name. Sorry I just don't buy it... I may change my mind but I doubt it. Thanks, M.Mc.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 6:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I have tried several times to post the photo of the carved symbol on the side of Mary Kelly's bed. Even though it is only a small GIF file, and I have tried to post it as both a clipart image and an uploaded file, Casebook's software seems to refuse to post any photos. I might be doing something wrong here, but if so, I can't figure out what.

Regards,
Mark Starr
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 6:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Now that I have established -- with evidence gathered by Patricia Cornwell's experts (recently documented in the revised paperback edition of her book), plus some new links of my own -- that Walter Sickert indeed wrote the Openshaw Ripper letter and he sent it from the East End of London on Oct.29, 1888, what are the ramifications of this fact?

First, as I noted at the end of my previous post, it means that on Oct. 29, Walter Sickert was in London -- and not in France. I will explore the significance of that fact to the case later in conjunction with other dates indicating Sickert was in London.

However, I will note now that for virtually the entire month of October, Sickert's wife Ellen was in Ireland as part of a Liberal delegation in support of home rule and free trade. No letters or telegrams survive today to indicate they had any contact whatsoever in the month of October. So in October 1888, Sickert was on his own.

Also, lest anyone forget, none of the five canonical victims was killed in the month of October. However, one should also note the Torso Murder -- which is a possible Ripper murder -- occurred on Oct. 3. The next canonical Whitechapel victim was Mary Kelly on November 9.

As many people have noted (and I have too, numerous times), just because it is now established that Walter Sickert wrote the Openshaw Ripper Letter, that does not prove he murdered anyone. I want to make it clear: I am not claiming here that Sickert's authorship of the Openshaw Letter directly and conclusively proves that he murdered anyone. Nevertheless, once it is convincingly established that Walter Sickert wrote even one Ripper letter, that fact can then be used to prove or corroborate other related facts. A daisy-chain of links has been started by the establishment of a nexus between the Openshaw Ripper Letter and Sickert's Dear Jimmy Letter to Whistler. As Socrates once said: If A = B, and B = C, then A = C.

Second, as I noted earlier, the Openshaw letter is one of three surviving Ripper letters that were written on identical or almost identical stationary watermarked A. Pirie. The Openshaw Letter is directly linked scientifically and textually to eight letters Walter Sickert wrote on stationary watermarked A. Pirie.

The Openshaw Letter is also linked by paper evidence (both by watermarks and in one case batches) and supported by additional mDNA evidence, textual evidence and handwriting similarities to two other Ripper letters on stationary watermarked A. Pirie. These two letters were both postmarked Nov. 22 -- one from London and the other from Manchester.

The London Nov. 22 letter is an exact paper match and an exact batch match with the Openshaw Letter.

The Manchester Nov. 22 is an exact paper match with the Openshaw letter, but it is not an exact batch match with the Openshaw letter. While there might be an extremely remote chance that the Manchester letter was written by someone else because of the batch mismatch, Patricia Cornwell's paper expert noted a caveat that sometimes stationary customers received a box containing the same paper from two batches, or it was also possible they purchased two boxes of the same paper and each box contained different batches.

Batches of this elegant, expensive papers contained only a small number of sheets. In other words, while a batch match is extremely powerful evidence indicating that two randomly selected letters were written on paper taken from the same box or the same order of boxes, a batch mismatch of similar papers does not eliminate the possibility that they were also taken from the same box or the same order of boxes. Because of the small numbers of papers in a batch of high-quality stationary, a batch match is extremely significant corroborative matching evidence.

I will discuss these two Nov. 22 RIpper letters at a later date. For the moment, I would like to move to a postcard that police received on Oct. 10 signed Jack the Ripper.

In addition to the two other letters written on similar stationary watermarked A. Pirie, the Openshaw Letter has links to other Ripper letters and postcards. For example, on Oct. 10, police received a postcard signed Jack The Ripper, stating:
Have you seen the "Devil"
If not pay one penny and walk inside.

The first line is almost exactly the same text as the poem (i.e. the parody of the Cornish folk ballad) that ends the Openshaw Ripper Letter:
O have you seen the devle
with his mikerscope and scalpul
a-lookin at a kidney
with a slide c*cked up.

The second line refers to the rooming houses that charged one penny to see the crime scene at 21 Hanbury Street where Annie Chapman was slain. In other RIpper letters which I will later attempt to link to Sickert, the author describes how he observed the police carrying on their crime scene investigations from nearby, and the crowds of onlookers. The Oct. 10 postcard goes on: "I am
waiting every evening for the coppers at Hamstead heath." Sickert's home in South Hamstead was within walking distance of Hamstead Heath.

All of these references suggest the Oct. 10 postcard may have been written and sent by Walter Sickert. But when taken into consideration in conjunction with the Openshaw letter (that we know was written and sent by Walter Sickert), there appears a possible link to a crime that was yet to happen: Mary Kelly's murder on Nov. 9. When one examines an enlargement of the famous picture of Mary Kelly slain in her bed, a strange symbol of some sort appears to be carved into the lower left-hand corner of her bed, carved roughly, as if with the tip of a knife blade. From the color of fresh wood, in contrast to the old, exposed wood surface around it, it appears to be recently carved -- although one cannot exclude the possibility that it might be painted. The carved appearance is reinforced by at least 5 marks in the symbol that seem to indicate shadows or depth in grooves. I have enclosed a photograph of the carving.

At first glance, the symbol might seem to be an ornate number 2. When I first noticed it in the photograph, I thought it might be the number 2 written by the photographer in white ink on his print. However, on closer examination, several problems with that explanation become apparent.

The symbol fits perfectly on the piece of wood into which it is carved. The upper part of the symbol is a complete oval, and not the hook of the number 2. Moreover, it is completely detached from the lower portion. No matter how one writes the number 2, everyone writes it in one continuous symbol -- unlike let's say the numbers 1, 4, 5 and 9, which some people make in two stages and two fragments. Moreover, there are two dots carved into the oval, positioned exactly as if they were two eyes in an oval face. These two dots and other details I will point out could not have been made by a pen writing the number 2.

On top of the oval, there are unquestionably two short diagonal lines, sprouting just like two horns on a head, suggesting traditional graffiti of the Devil. Below this devil's face, one can see a deep horizontal line that curves downward on the left. This could be a number of things,
but one possibility that comes to me is that this is an arm holding a knife, roughly rendered with the point of a knife into soft wood.

If this is indeed a carved picture of the Devil brandishing a knife, the first questions that come to mind are: who put it there and when? The color of the grooves indicates that it is freshly carved just before the photograph was taken. A simple symbol like this one could have been carved in a matter of minutes -- easily within the time frame the murderer is usually assumed to have been alone in the room with Mary Kelly. The carvings fragments could have been collected by the Ripper off the floor and placed in his pocket. The symbol is rudimentary, so it is possible that anyone could have carved it. Including Walter Sickert. However, the downward flourish of the possible arm with a knife at the bottom might indicate the touch of an artist like Sickert. If the arm was held high to stab someone, it would curve down at one end.

If this face was indeed intended by the murderer to be that of the Devil, an even more interesting interpretation arises of the lower portion of the symbol. It could just as easily be the Devil's tail. In which case, we might have a vivid illustration of the original Cornish folk ballad in the Openshaw letter on which Walter Sickert based his literary parody in the Openshaw letter.

Here's to the devil,
With his wooden pick and shovel,
Digging tin by the bushel,
With his tail c*ck'd up!

Even if the symbol were painted and not carved, that would not eliminate Sickert. On the contrary, Sickert certinly could have carried a tube of paint and a small brush with him in his pocket. Or the symbol might also be in chalk, and not paint -- just like the "Juwes" graffito. However, it does not look like either chalk or paint to me.

The position of the symbol, on the front face of the wooden bed frame means that it was easily accessible and left to be seen. And yet, I have not come across anything that indicates the police ever took official note of this symbol -- or that anyone else did either.

What does the Oct. 10 postcard and the Oct. 29 Openshaw Ripper Letter ask the police to look for?

Have you seen the "Devil" [October 10]
O have you seen the Devle [October 29]

This symbol is not the only symbol possibly left at the scene of the Mary Kelly murder by the murderer. We also have the FM on the wall. The FM is not clearly visible in many copies of copies of the Mary Kelly photograph. However, for those who want to examine it easily, the letters F M on the wall behind Mary Kelly are, both the F and the M, clear as day in the copy of the photograph published in Donald Rumbelow's Jack The Ripper - The Complete Casebook.

And now the most important question to consider: why would the murderer leave cryptic symbols at the scene of a crime? The most obviously explanation would be to taunt and tease the police. Just as Jack The Ripper did in all of his letters, telegrams and postcards.

If anyone ever thought he was smarter than the police, it was Walter Sickert. I just recently came across amazing evidence in Rumbelow's book that, according to Donald McCormick, Walter Sickert actually met with Sir Melville Mcnaughten, the policeman handling the Ripper investigation and the author of the famous or infamous Mcnaughten Memorandum. According to McCormick's informant, Walter Sickert gave McNaughten 'evidence' in the Whitechapel Murders -- 'evidence" that Mcnaughten foolishly (according to Rumbelow) dismissed as pointing to Druitt. Moreover, according to Rumbelow, Sickert's 'evidence' never led Mcnaughten to question Sickert's own veracity or his motives in telling this tale to Mcnaughten.

Sickert's 'evidence' to Mcnaughten was his patently phony lodger tale.

We have here a truly shocking example of Sickert taunting, teasing and deliberately misleading the
police -- in person!. Neither Rumbelow nor McCormack gives a date when this meeting between
Sickert and Mcnaughten took place. McCormick attributed his information to a source that he never identified. However, this meeting had to have taken place in 1905 or later, because that is when Sickert moved into the Camden Town rooming house with the landlady who, Sickert claimed, first told him about the lodger tale and sleeping in JTR's bedroom.

Rumbelow then asks the central question that discredits Sickert's 'evidence'. Why didn't Sickert give Mcnaughten the name of the veterinary student from Bournemouth to Sir Melville Mcnaughten.

For at least three decades, Sickert boasted to many friends that he had the name of the veterinary student -- that he wrote it down in his copy of Casanova's Memoirs. This is the book that was destroyed in the London Blitz during WWII. But Sickert had to have met with Sir Melville Mcnaughten some time between 1905 and 1921, when Sir Melville died. As Rumbelow states: "Had Mcnaughten been given the name [of the veterinary student from Bournemouth], he would not have been forced to speculate on the identity." Rumbelow calls Mcnaughten's identification of Sickert's student as Druitt "nonsense."

Evidently, Walter Sickert was right in counting on the stupidity of the police -- especially in the case of Sir Melville. How could such a meeting ever have taken place, unless Sickert sought out Mcnaughten? By 1905, Mcnaughten had been off the case for much more than a decade, and he believed

JTW was dead. It must have been Sickert who sought Mcnaughten out, at least 17 years after the murders -- and not vice versa. Even though Sickert came to him with a patently phony lodger tale and he never revealed to Mcnaughten the lodger's name (which he later claimed he had then,) Mcnaughten never suspected Sickert.

There is yet another possible factor to explain the presence of the mysterious symbol carved into

Mary Kelly's bed. As has been the case is numerous other serial murders, the murderer may have wanted to leave a cryptic calling card at the scene of the crime that he could use for his own ID purposes whenever the occasion suited him. The possible links of this symbol to both the Oct. 10 postcard and the Oct 29 Openshaw letter would not only establish the authemticity of those two missives as being written by the murderer of Mary Kelly, they would also place the unknown author at the scene of Mary Kelly's murder.

If in fact the symbolic link that I have described is true, it would indicate that the murderer of Mary Kelly had pre-knowledge of these two missives (neither one of which was published at the time, as far as I know.) SO you may ask, well is it true? And I ask: has anyone ever even considered the significance of this symbol before now and examined it as possible evidence?

That this link is both possible and plausible is, to me, self-evident. However, it also raises once more the perennial question: was Mary Kelly's murder different from the others? Was she murdered by someone other than the person or persons who murdered the other Whitechapel victims?

Regards,
Mark Starr
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 10:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I'm sure many people see the big long chunk of text talking about it and just take it at face value because even if it is true it's irrelevant to proving whether he was Jack the Ripper or not, but anyone who bothers to look at it can see several glaring problems.

First up, the major issue I have with the supposed information about the paper and the mDNA is that we don't have independent verification of the most important parts of it. A responsible researcher would allow outside experts to investigate the same material and come to their own conclusions. Relying on the conclusions as presented by people hand-picked and paid for by someone with a financial interest in guaranteeing only certain kinds of answers is not only unscientific but foolhardy.

Then we start looking at the details and they are highly suspect.

OK, so the missing part of the paper would be where Sickert's address would be if it were Sickert's paper... So what? That'd be where the address of anyone using that paper would be. That's like saying that a car with a missing license plate must be Cornwell's because the space where the license plate would be is where Cornwell's license would go if it were her car.

Assuming that a match in paper weight, color, size, etc. would be an astronomical coincidence isn't held up by the evidence we've seen so far. Pointing out that different batches can have different weights and colors doesn't tell us much, because it doesn't give any sort of indication of how common each were.

Pointing out that the paper in a letter postmarked 1888 probably came from an 1887 batch in no way links the paper to Sickert any more than anyone else. Heck, if Sickert wrote as many letters as Cornwell assumes he did (not to mention all his normal correspondence with friends and family) and if batches were as small as she claims you'd think he'd have run out of 1887 paper long before the end part of 1888.

A mDNA match not only does not link the DNA to Sickert, but it doesn't link the letters to each other. It just shows that someone who touched one letter (and who may not be the author) is in the same general ethnic background as someone else who may not even be the same person who touched another letter. Without verifying the full range of mDNA on the letters we don't even know how many different mDNA patterns may be attached to each letter, and each different mDNA available greatly increases the chances that there will be an accidental similarity to mDNA on something else. When you toss in the fact that the ethnicities wouldn't have been evenly distributed in the population, it's probable that the mDNA being pointed at would be much more common in London at the time (and especially among people with enough spare time and literacy to cook up these letters) than just a normal current distribution of that mDNA type. Heck, based upon the large number of people who have touched these letters I'd be shocked if Cornwell's experts couldn't find mDNA similarities.

The "little known" Cornish folk ballad had been published in at least one (if not more) collection of folk tales that was printed and distributed throughout the world. The 19th century was a positive Renaissance in the collection and dissemination of these types of stories, which were extremely popular. And, of course, there's the all too common sense idea that the story could have traveled around by word of mouth. Certainly the kind of person who would own stationery like the Openshaw letter used would be far, far more likely to have heard of this folk ballad than Mark seems to think. Claiming that someone had to have been Cornish or visited Cornwall to know of it is kind of like claiming that someone singing a Beatles song has to be from Liverpool or visited it.

Saying that the accent in the letter was faked poorly and wasn't how the person normally wrote is a no brainer and does not point to Sickert over any other letter writer.

And I'm not even going to get into the worthlessness of a layman's comparison of handwriting styles that are assumed to be written in a style other than their normal writing, or how meaningless it is to point out that Sickert was familiar with other types of writing when anyone else writing on stationery would be as well.

The evidence pointing toward Sickert is not only *not* irrefutable, as Mark claims, I'd go so far as saying it's rather weak, based upon what we know of it so far. Of course if Cornwell let other experts independently test the materials she has, perhaps they can find something solid.

Trying to claim that Sickert was not in France on Oct. 29 because he had to have been in London to write this letter is a classic example of trying to ignore solid contrary evidence just because it's inconvenient to one's theory.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin

Post Number: 3025
Registered: 10-1997
Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 9:25 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

From Mark Starr:

Kelly Devil
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah

Post Number: 910
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 9:45 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Mark,

I'm sorry but neither you or Patsy Cornwall have proved anything. There is no actual proof that he sent that letter at all. Even Patsy said that the results were inconclusive.

Again, even if he did write this letter is does not prove that he was Jack the Ripper.

Sarah
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz

Post Number: 879
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 12:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Looks like a childish drawing of a cat to me.

Perhaps he wanted to give Mary's pet crocodile on the table a companion - a double creature feature if you will.

I agree with Dan. If the Openshaw letter evidence stands up by itself, it would go down better with all healthy sceptics if an independent expert could confirm the findings.

Trouble is, independent experts cost money, and this time it mustn't come from Cornwell.

But I guess it's still Cornwell's problem.

Love,

Caz
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chris Michetti
Detective Sergeant
Username: Pl4tinum

Post Number: 61
Registered: 2-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 12:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Looks like a number 2 with horns and eyes to me :-) But if Mark hadn't mentioned it was supposed to look like a devil I probably would never have guessed that.
Chris
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna

Post Number: 1296
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 12:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Like I've said a million times in connection with the "art interpreting" discussions:
we see what we want to see. :-)

All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko

Post Number: 236
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 3:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Mark wrote:
“The position of the symbol, on the front face of the wooden bed frame means that it was easily accessible and left to be seen. And yet, I have not come across anything that indicates the police ever took official note of this symbol -- or that anyone else did either.”

Hmmm, I wonder why that is?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash

Post Number: 527
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 4:51 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I would like to point out again, much as it pains me to support Patricia Cornwell in any way, that she has never ever made the claim to have proven that the Openshaw letter was written by Sickert, only to have shown a reasonable indication that it may have been. Mark once again is using Patsy's evidence and claiming to know more about it than she does.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 5:41 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I can honestly say that I don't know what that mark is.

To me, it looks too white to be a feature on the bedframe, as the only other things that show up that white are the rip in the photo, some specks of dust, and something kind of odd thing under the table (what is that thing?). If it were carved into the wood, I would expect some shadowing on some edge, as the light source is extremely unlikely to have been place in such a way to hit it exactly head on so no edge was visible.

On the other hand, it is placed so it fits pretty cleanly on that piece of wood, which would be unusual for some accidental mark on the photo itself and not something physically present that day. It does appear that the lower right part of it hangs down past the edge of the wood slightly though. That could conceivably be a bit of broken off wood if you were to go with the carving theory, but it doesn't really look like it.

I *think* it's some sort of artifact on the photo, but I am not sure.

In any case, if it was on the bedframe and was intended to be a devil, it's a pretty poor one, not something you'd think an artist would come up with.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 6:03 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The evidence on which I've based my conclusions regarding Sickert's authorship of Ripper letters is the additional tests and data that Patricia Cornwell presented in the revised paperback edition of her book, not only the preliminary results in the first edition of her book noted in the press.

Moreover, as Cornwell noted in her paperback edition, her experts' tests on a variety of Sickert and Ripper materials still continue. Additional forensic evidence on many related matters is still being gathered and will also be published soon.

With respect to Sickert's authorship of Ripper letters: on one hand we have a closed universe: several hundred surviving ripper letters that were written and sent in 1888, and in some cases their matching envelopes. I am excluding here any that were not sent in 1888. There may be claims that one or two of these Ripper letters are modern-day forgergies, slipped into the pack during the 116 years that have elapsed by unknown hoaxers. Whether true or not, these claims are all irrelvant, since there is no doubt about the autheticity of any Ripper letter being considered in connection with Sickert. By authenticity, I mean that all the Ripper letters being considered in connection with Sickert were known to have been received in 1888, and they were preserved by police and stored in the Public Records Office -- or in similar archives. There is no evidence to indicate that any Ripper letter now attributed to Sickert was ever doctored, switched or inserted
fraudulently into police files.

On the other hand, we have another closed universe that is completely separate from the first universe: all the surviving letters by Walter Sickert, many with their envelopes. These were collected separately by art experts, and there is no doubt about the autheticity of any of these letters either.

The essential point to understand in matching evidence from these two separate universes is that succeeding layers of definite or probable matches are not simply added together to determine the overall probability of whether or not Walter Sickert wrote Ripper letters, they are multiplied by probability factors -- thus dramatically increasing the overall probability that Walter Sickert wrote Ripper letters. Multiple matches tend to reinforce each other. In other words, a second separate link dramatically lowers the possibility of a mere chance coincidence involving Sickert. A third link lowers it much lower than that. I don't claim to know the exact probability factors or ratios involved in the case of Walter Sickert letter and the Ripper letters. What is important tto me is the common sense evaluation of multi-layered and what seems to me to be overwhelming evidence that Walter Sickert wrote Ripper letters. These conclusions are based on general principles of probability that everyone understands without being a professional probability expert.

It is important to distinguish between evidence that is merely consistent with other evidence, and evidence that actively supports new links to other evidence. For example, the date of the A. Pirie watermarked stationary, 1887, is merely consistent with other Sickert/Ripper evidence in the sense that Walter Sickert could have used paper manufactured in 1887 to write the Overshaw letter in the fall of 1888. If, however, the date of the A. Pirie watermark had been 1890, obviously that would have proved that the letter could not have been written in 1888. In the same sense, one can say that all the internal evidence in the text of the letters is consistent with Sickert's authorship of these Ripper letters. Certainly, nothing in them excludes Sickert writing and sending them in October 1888. And that includes the locations from where they were sent.

In his essay, "Patricia Cornwell and Walter Sickert -- A Primer", Stephen Ryder states: "There is evidence to suggest that Sickert stayed in the Dieppe area at least until early October, 1888. He painted a local buther's shop, 'flooded with sunlight' in a piece he titled The October Sun." And in a recent post, a Casebook art expert stated categorically: "In 1888 Sickert painted The October Sun" -- subsequently adding "This painting was done in St Valéry-en-Caux presumably in very early October before he arrived back in London on the 4th." Let's examine the "evidence" that "In 1888 Sickert painted The October Sun".

Art Historian Wendy Baron, in her book "Sickert," describes Sickert's "The Red Shop" or "The October Sun" thus: "A label on the back bears the inscription 'The October Sun by Walter Sickert,
Paris, Universal Exhibition 1889'. The exhibition was held in May, so if the title accurately describes the picture's content it must have been painted October 1888 or an earlier October." In other words, according to Dr. Baron, this painting could also have been painted in October 1887.

Actually, it could have been painted in any October going back to 1883 -- since Sickert painted in Dieppe every fall going back at least that far. Dr. Baron adds: "I favor 1888 because the vivid red colour used extensively in this landscape was also introduced into Sickert's music hall pictures of that year." I wonder what Dr. Baron would say about her strongly hedged art opinion being used to establish an exact alibi for murder by some. Dr. Baron gives the painting the date circa 1888 to make it clear that the year 1888 is her opinion and not established fact. She also notes that there is no proof Sickert even painted this work in any October - the title notwithstanding. All of this material is, of course, missing in the accounts of those who try to establish an alibi for Sickert into October 1888.

The last known specific date that anyone can point to Sickert being in France is Sept. 15 or 16 -- in St. Valery-en-Caux, as mentioned in the letter by Blanche. [Incidentally, St. Valery-en-Caux is about 50 miles from Dieppe.] A letter by Sickert's wife in London on Sept. 21 is vague hearsay, and it has no relevance to establishing Sickert's whereabouts in France. No one knows on what day Sickert returned to London from France after Sept 16. However, Sickert is indeed known to have been in London sometime in the first few days of October -- to attend an exhibition. So if Sickert painted "The October Sun" in October 1888, this large oil painting should be listed in the Guinness Book of Records under World's Fastest Painted Large Oil Painting. Moreover, there are some other early Sickert paintings that use red. So claims of "evidence" for Sickert being in France in October 1888 are based only on a strongly hedged opinion, not facts -- an opinion made even more doubtful by other undisputed facts regarding Sickert's life and work.

As I noted in an earlier post, internal evidence in the text of the Openshaw Letter indicates new
links between Sickert and other Ripper letters. For example, the poem in the Oct. 29 Openshaw
Ripper letter opens with the line "O have you seen the devle." The poem in the Oct. 10 Ripper
postcard opens with "Have you seen the 'Devil'." This virtually identical repetition of the text
cannot be a coincidence. Either the author of the Oct. 29 Openshaw letter somehow read the text of the Oct. 10 postcard, or the same person wrote both. The Oct. 10 postcard was not published before Oct. 29. From the evidence developed by Cornwell's forensic experts, we know that Walter Sickert wrote the October 29 Openshaw letter. Unless someone can demonstrate that the Oct. 10 postcard was somehow in the public domain, it is clear that Walter Sickert also wrote the Oct. 10 postcard. Therefore, Sickert was in London on Oct. 10.

Regards,
Mark Starr
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
Posted on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 1:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Perhaps it is because Patricia Cornwell continues to sponsor forensic research on Sickert, some people misguidedly think she has not already come to an unequivcal conclusion on the question of Sickert's authorship of Ripper letters based on the scientific evidence developed by her researchers. On the contrary, in her book she writes: "It is obvious that the actual Ripper wrote far more of the Ripper letters than he has ever been credited with. I believe he wrote most of them. In fact, Walter Sickert wrote most of them." I should note that Cornwell is referring here to the letters received during the period of the Whitechapel murders, and not to the hundreds of letters received by police after 1888 up until the present day. While Cornwell has said that her mDNA evidence is not yet conclusive in the absence of a sample of Sickert's mDNA for comparison, she has repeatedly indicated that the rest of the forensic evidence has already clearly established that Walter Sickert wrote Ripper letters.

The "devil symbol" on the side of Mary Kelly's bed that I revealed in an earlier post is not the only possible sign that Sickert was in Mary Kelly's room on the night of the murder. Another of Walter Sickert's letters, this one written on Oct. 2, contains an indication that Sickert decided to remove the heart of a future victim. Of course, after Oct. 2, Mary Kelly was the next canonical victim on Nov. 9; and she was the only victim whose heart was actually removed during any of the Whitechapel murders. Thus, the October 2 letter seems to indicate pre-knowledge of MJK's murder.

During years 1879-1881, Walter Sickert pursued a professional career as an actor in the London theater. He was never successful as an actor -- despite all the documentation that shows a career in the theater was a very important personal goal to him. A letter by one of Sickert's friends states: "Walter was anxious to take up a stage career." There is also ample documentation to show that he had many abilities as an actor that might have led to a successful career. He was handsome and fit. He not only spoke upper-class accented English, he had command of lower-class English accents and dialects. He also spoke fluently French, German, Italian and Latin. He also spoke some Spanish, Greek, and Portuguese -- and even a bit of Danish. He had an astounding memory -- especially for memorizing long sections of plays -- that he displayed on many occasions for his friends. He was a gifted mimic. He knew how to project his voice, and he could sing. But evidently, he was not very good on stage. Whether it was nerves, unnaturalness, stiffness or whatever, Walter Sickert never landed an important role on stage. About Sickert's acting career, another of Sickert's friends wrote: "He was not very successful, so he took up painting."

During the years 1878-1881, Sickert performed in a succession of bit parts in minor trashy plays and reviews. Eventually, he got his foot in the door of Sir Henry Irving's company at the Lyceum. There he played some very minor roles in Shakespeare and other great playwrights. Sickert played on tour outside London in the bit part of an old man in Henry V. He also played the bit part of a French soldier in Henry V. Despite his opportunity to be seen in productions with some the greatest names in British theater, including Sir Henry and Ellen Terry, his career went absolutely nowhere. There is no indication that he ever landed a leading role. Sickert's 1906 self-portrait entitled The Juvenile Lead seems so be another of his painted lies. What juvenile lead did Sickert ever play, and where, and when? But more important, the painting is one of Sickert's most sombre, most shadowy, most contorted self-portraits. His face is partly covered with a hat and with shadows, his skin is garishly rough, and his expression is depressed and seething. Instead of being proud of any youthful success in theater, Sickert looks ashamed of his failure to make a go of it in the theater. This is no publicity shot of a young actor taking off for stardom. Even in 1906, eighteen years after the end of his unsuccessful attempt in the theater, Sickert was obviously still bitter that success in the theater had been denied him.

What has this got to do with the Whitechapel Murders and Sickert's letters? Let's go back to that bit part as a French soldier in Henry V for Sir Henry Irving's Lyceum Theater in 1890. For that role (and perhaps others), Sickert did not use his real name. He invented a stage name: Mr. Nemo. Here was Sickert appearing on the same stage with the greatest actors in the British theater, and he was disguising his identity from the audience and from the rest of the world of the theatre in London by using an obfuscatory name such as Mr. Nemo. Why? Because he had his eye on a career as a leading man in the theater. To be typecast as a bit-role player was, and still is, the kiss of death for every young actor who aspires to be a leading man. But more interesting than why Sickert hid his identity behind a non-descript stage name, is the actual name that he chose for himself: Mr. Nemo. Nemo means "nobody" in Latin -- a language in which Sickert was fluent. Mr. Nobody. The perfect stage name to hide one's true identity.

Eight years later, during the period of the Whitechapel murders, the City of London Police received four letters signed Mr. Nemo. Recently published new evidence developed by paper expert Peter Bower, commissioned by Patrica Cornwell, has established that the paper in all four of these Mr. Nemo letters match paper with the Joynson Superfine watermark used by Walter Sickert in numerous pieces of correspondance and sketches at the time of the Whitechapel murders. These include:
-- 1 Nemo letter that definitely matches two letters that Sickert wrote to D. C. Thompson, all on Joynson Superfine watermarked stationary.
---1 Nemo letter that is a definite match with a letter on Joynson Superfine watermarked paper to William Rothstein.
---2 Nemo letters that are probable matches with letters Sickert wrote on Joynson superfine watermarked stationary to D. C. Thompson.

The first Mr. Nemo letter was received by the City of London Police on October 8. The fact that we now have multiple matches between Sickert letters and Mr. Nemo letters sent to the police in October 1888, and that they were all written on a different watermarked stationary (Joynson Superfine, and not the A. Pirie stationary of the Openshaw Letter and 2 other Ripper letters) is an extremely significant evidentiary development against Sickert. And if that were not enough, there is now yet another different paper/watermark match betwen a Ripper letter and stationary used by Walter Sickert's mother in many of her letters.

However, focusing now on the Mr. Nemo letters, on October 4, The Times of London published a letter that was dated October 2, signed "Nemo." This letter described the mutilations in previous Whitechapel murders in minute, gruesome detail. The letter states: "mutilations, cutting off the nose and ears, ripping up the body, and cutting out certain organs -- the heart & c.---" The abbreviation "c.---" is not mine, by the way, so I can post this article with Casebook's censorious software. Apparently, the abbreviation was made by The Times. I say apparently because the original of this Nemo letter is lost and all that remains today is the published letter in The Times. Nevertheless, it is not Nemo's use of a four-letter word that starts with c in the London Times that is important here. It is his statement about cutting out the heart that is relevant.

On Oct. 2 when this letter was written, no one's heart had been cut out yet, and Walter Sickert had not yet written and sent to the police the four Mr. Nemo letters. Oct. 2 is only a few days after the Double Event on Sept. 30 -- and all the gory details of these two murders were in the previous days newspapers (but no newspaper claimed a heart had been removed.) In the next murder in the Whitechapel series, Mary Kelly's heart was indeed cut out by her murderer -- who took it with him. This removal of the heart parallels the slashing of Catherine Eddowes ear and the double event -- which many believe established pre-knowledge of a crime by the author of the Saucy Jack Postcard. If the author of the Saucy Jack postcard had advance knowledge of the Eddowes murder, then just as well Nemo had advance knowledge of the Mary Kelly murder. In the Eddowes murder, some writers discount Saucy Jack's advance knowledge on the basis that a hoaxer could have gleaned details of both the slashed ear and the double murder in an early morning paper of October 1st. But in the case of Nemo and the Mary Kelley murder, Nemo wrote his letter on Oct 2., it was published on Oct. 4, and Mary Kelly was killed on Nov. 9 -- with no other Whitechapel victims in between. Before Oct. 2 (the date of Nemo's letter in The Times), no previous account of the Whitechapel Murders had ever said any victims heart had been removed. It is possible the murderer of Mary Kelly cut out MJK's heart on Nov. 9 because he read the Nemo letter in the Times on Oct. 4. It also possible that on Oct. 2 Walter Sickert announced his intention in the Nemo letter to cut out the heart of the next Whitechapel victim, an intention he carried out on Nov. 9.

What are the links between all these letters. Peter Bowers' tests establish that Walter Sickert wrote the four letters Mr. Nemo sent to the City of London police. Walter Sickert's stage name was once Mr. Nemo, which translated from Latin means Mr. Nobody. Just prior to Sickert's first Mr. Nemo letter to the police, The Times of London received and published a letter signed Nemo detailing the previous mutilations in detail -- including one erroreous detail: the removal of a heart, which had not yet happened in any victim. In the next victim, Mary Kelly, the heart was cut out and removed.

What has all of this got to do with Jack The Ripper? Because during the Whitechapel Murders a telegram was also sent to the police. The received printed telegram has not survived. But the handwritten original form that the sender gave to the post office to be transmitted has survived. And in the same handwriting as the Openshaw letter, the author of the telegram wrote: "Mr. Nobody [both words crossed out with two horizontal lines] Jack the ripper sent these." The combination of Mr. Nobody and Jack The Ripper as the sender on this one handwritten telegram form is a clear link between the two fictitious names. And the only person on earth who could possibly have put those two names together in a telegram to the London police about the Whitechapel murders was Walter Sickert. Walter Sickert was using at least two aliases in his letters to the police and press: Jack The Ripper and Mr. Nemo (Mr. Nobody.)

Regards,
Mark Starr
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko

Post Number: 248
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 8:14 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi all,

Below is the whole letter, as made public by The Times of 4 October, in which' Nemo' wrote about the cutting out of - among other things - the heart:

“Sir, - Having been long in India and, therefore, acquainted with the methods of Eastern criminals, it has struck me in reading the accounts of these Whitechapel murders that they have probably been committed by a Malay, or other low-class Asiatic coming under the general term of Lascar, of whom, I believe, there are large numbers in that part of London. The mutilations, cutting off the nose and ears, ripping up the body, and cutting out certain organs - the heart, &c. - are all peculiarly Eastern methods and universally recognized, and intended by the criminal classes to express insult, hatred, and contempt; whereas, here the public and police are quite at a loss to attach any meaning to them, and so they are described as the mere senseless fury of a maniac.

My theory would be that some man of this class has been hocussed and then robbed of his savings (often large), or, as he considers, been in some way greatly injured by a prostitute - perhaps one of the earlier victims; and then has been led by fury and revenge to take the lives of as many of the same class as he can. This also is entirely in consonance with Eastern ideas and the practices of the criminal classes.

Hundreds of these men have resided long in that part of London, speak English well - although when necessary they cannot understand a word - and dress in ordinary English clothes.

The victims have been the poorest and most miserable, and probably only such would consort with the class of man I speak of.

Such a man would be quite safe in the haunts occupied by his fellow-countrymen, or, should he wish to escape, he could join a crew of Lascars on the first steamer leaving London.

Unless caught red-handed, such a man in ordinary life would be harmless enough, polite, not to say obsequious, in his manners, and about the last a British policeman would suspect.

But when the villain is primed with his opium, or bang, or gin, and inspired with his lust for slaughter and blood, he would destroy his defenceless victim with the ferocity and cunning of the tiger; and past impunity and success would only have rendered him the more daring and reckless.

Your obedient servant,
NEMO.
October 2.”

All the best,
Frank
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg

Post Number: 688
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 12:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi, Mark

Just a small point about your post of March 26, 2004 - 1:24 pm, where you quote a Nemo letter published in The Times of 4 October 1888.

You say, "The letter states: 'mutilations, cutting off the nose and ears, ripping up the body, and cutting out certain organs -- the heart & c.---' The abbreviation 'c.---' is not mine, by the way,. . . it is not Nemo's use of a four-letter word that starts with c in the London Times that is important here."

But, Mark, this doesn't indicate a "four-letter word that starts with c". Rather, what you have quoted is the old style way of saying "etcetera" styling it as "&c." as Frank also wrote it quoting in full the letter, printed in The Times of 4 October, in his post following yours.

Best regards

Chris George
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe

Post Number: 193
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 9:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Gee, if Nemo is so important to the case maybe we ought to check into the whereabouts of Jules Verne in the fall of 1888. As it is, Nemo as an anonymous name on stage or in correspondence had been in the "public domain" long before Mr. Sickert entered stage left.

Don.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg

Post Number: 690
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 1:10 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi, all

In regard to "Nemo" this was of course Latin for "Nobody" and anyone who had an upper class education in the nineteenth century when they studied Latin would have known the meaning of the word. The word is also well known as a Scottish clan motto "Nemo me impune lacessit" meaning "no one provokes (or harms) me with impunity."

The motto was used on Jacobite banners in the eighteenth century. Specifically, it appeared, for example, on a flag of Lord Ogilvy's regiment: blue with a white saltire that does not reach the corners of the sheet; in the top quadrant a white scroll with Nemo Me Impune Lacessit in black and gold letters, above a thistle in natural colours. Today it is used as a motto for the Royal arms of Scotland. This version of the royal arms, only used in Scotland, may be seen on the wall of the High Court in Glasgow. The royal motto of "Nemo me impune lacessit" (nobody harms me with impunity) is often translated into Scots as "Wha daur meddle wi' me?" laugh

"Nemo me impune lacessit" is also the motto of the Order of the Thistle and may be seen today on the edge of the Scottish one pound coins circulating in Great Britain, first issued in 1984.

None of this of course particularly supports Sickert's candidacy but I relay this information to show that the word had a currency far wider and older than our supposed actor/painter suspect or Jules Verne's Captain Nemo, and particularly as used north of the border.

Best regards

Chris George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn

Post Number: 560
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 6:51 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

if you persist in making assumptions about an artist on the basis of his eccentricity you will not reach even an approximation of what moved him to paint what he did.
If you insist on taking him literally and "translating" his work to suit your own purposes you wont "get" what he was about.
You need to see his paintings in the context of his epoch and what other artists at the time were aiming to do.He was a trend setter,he did not "follow" any particular "school" in the way some did buthe was influenced by the greatest artists of that period,Degas, Pissaro and Manet
among others.He knew Degas as a friend and mentor
and Sickert was nothing if he wasnt EVERY BIT as serious as they were about his paiting.I dont think he reached the same level of brilliance as say Degas Or Manet but he led us on and he still to this day has our leading painters Frank Auerbach,Kossof and to a lesser extent but seeming to share a similar philosophy of painting Lucian Freud.Now you may not like any of these but they ARE at the very top of the tree as painters currently in Britain and Sickert led the way in the type of work they have been engaged in throughout their lives and which inthe case of Auerbach and Kossof primarily via Bomberg who was their tutor they have advanced.
None of these were or are eccentric in my view in the way Sickert was who appears to have loved the limelight and the drama of life and the stage as well as painting and OK made a bit of a fool of himself from time to time dressing up etc.
But as I said in my post on another thread Picasso for example was very "unusual" for his time vis a vis the number of wives he had the horrendously cruel way he depicted them when the relationsip was breaking down , the [Quite wonderful]painting of "Guernica" showing the mass murder of civilians in the Spanish Civil War by Franco"s people,and then we get him later at over ninety acting like a little boy in shorts and "T" shirts surrouded by teenage girls whose portraits he loved to paint. So Picasso was also a great showman and eccentric.
As for Sickert painting murder scenes so what?
People were and still do WRITE about them so what"s the big deal?I still cant quite believe that peo[ple are seriously putting forward the nonsense about him being Jack the Ripper.I thought it was just a way of piling in a fortune for Ms Corn ball.
Natalie
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg

Post Number: 691
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 8:48 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi, Natalie

Just a footnote to your last post and a caveat to Mark Starr's posts on Sickert's art.

You say, "As for Sickert painting murder scenes so what?"

Although Sickert's series of paintings on the Camden murder of 1907 can be termed paintings of a murder, a number of the other paintings of Sickert's that are being singled out by Mr. Starr and Ms. Cornwell as being linked to the Ripper crimes are, of course, just paintings of women in bedrooms not murder scenes as such.

All the best

Chris
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
Posted on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 5:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

One of the most significant facts to come out of the Ripper letters written by Walter Sickert becomes apparent when one considers together two Ripper/Sickert letters that were sent on Nov. 22 (about two weeks after the Mary Kelly murder.) One of these letters was sent from London. The other letter was sent from Manchester. Therefore, on November 22, Walter Sickert traveled from London to Manchester (or from Manchester to London) in order to mail these two letters to police in London.

The distance between Manchester and London is approx. 165 miles. By rail travel in England in 1888, that was a 5-6 hour trip. This fact indicates two things. (1) Such a trip was not merely possible for Walter Sickert, it was not at all difficult. Nor was it expensive. Nor was it risky. Transportation between London and Manchester was regular, and it exposed Sickert to no risk of being identified (especially if he wore a theatrical disguise). (2) Such a rail trip establishes not merely that Sickert might have used day-long voyages to avoid detection as Jack The Ripper, but that in fact he did exactly that.

In terms of hours traveled, the trip from London to Manchester was only an hour or two shorter than the trip from Victoria Station in London to Dieppe, France -- on the Express/Steamer connection that was regularly running the Channel twice a day in 1888. Moreover, as I pointed out in my last post, St.-Valery-en-Caux, where Sickert was last definitely seen in France by Blanche, is only 19 miles from Dieppe (not 50, as I first mentioned.) Thus, the travel time between St.-Valery-en-Caux and Dieppe is of no consequence in a period of approximately two weeks in which Sickert's whereabouts cannot be pinned down verifiably.

We now know that in October and November Sickert was in London writing missives to the police signed Jack The Ripper and Mr. Nemo (Mr. Nobody, Nemo) and posting them in at least two cities in England. We know that the obvious intent of all of Sickert's missives was to throw the manhunt offtrack by creating mythical murderers. The total list of Sickert's mythical fiends and plots to divert attention from himself during the course of his lifetime includes:
Jack The Ripper
Mr. Nemo (Mr. Nobody)
Malays Roaming London
The Camden Town Lodger
The Royal Conspiracy
And we know that Sickert took a train trip from London to another city to confuse the police and make it even more difficult to identify him through his letters. And we know the last date that anyone can cite to place Sickert in France is Sept 16. And we know that Sickert could travel from St.-Valery-en-Caux to Whitechapel in less than a morning + an afternoon.

Thus, from all of this that is known, no claim is possible for an alibi for Sickert -- not only for the Mary Kelly murder on Nov. 9, but also for the Double Event on Sept. 30. There has never been any doubt that Sickert was in London at the time of the Mary Kelly Murder. And now there is not one established fact that places Sickert in France at the time of the Double Event on Sept 30. The last reliable citing of Sickert in France was on Sept. 16, and he was in London on Oct. 2 when he wrote and sent The Times letter.

The idea that the five canonical Whitechapel murders were all committed by one man, and that no other murders were committed by this one man, is a totally unproven conjecture directly traceable to Sir Melville Mcnaughten. There are many obvious differences between the five canonical murders, more than enough to create very substantial doubts that they were committed by one man. Also, there are many obvious similarities between specific canonical murders and murders outside the canon -- especially the murders of Alice McKenzie on 17.07.1889 and Frances Coles on 13.02.1891. Virtually every conclusion that Mcnaughten ever made about the Whitechapel murders was based purely on conjecture and his preconceived opinions, not the facts as they were then known. His erroneous conclusions were far worse than worthless; they were misleading -- not only to the investigators in the 19th Century, but also to the vast number of writers to this day who still continue to perpetrate Mcnaughten's obtuse designation of five Ripper victims.

On the other hand, there are enough major similarities between the Mary Kelly murder and the various torso murders to make one consider the possibility that the person who butchered Mary Kelly also dismembered the corpses in the Rainham Torso Mystery in 1887; the Whitehall Torso Murder of October 3, 1888; the Battersea Park Torso Murder of June 4, 1889; and the Pinchin Street Torso Murder of Sept. 10, 1889. The stark fact that they are all torso murders is enough to link these four murders together. To perpetrate a torso murder, one need special conditions, tools and a highly unusual motivation. These dismemberments were not made to dispose of the bodies unseen or hide the body parts from view. On the contrary, they were done to produce the maximum shock to the public and the police.

Why is it possible that Mary Kelly's murder may be linked to the various torso murders? In addition to the savagery in common, it seems reasonable to me to assume that the dismemberment of the bodies -- removing the head and all the limbs -- had to have taken place indoors, in some sort of private area (such as a storeroom.) If nothing else, it takes time to dismember a body and dispose of the body parts. And it is rather hard to explain to a passerby what you are doing if you are discovered in the act of dismembering a body. Mary Kelly's murder took place in HER room -- and that might be a key difference with the torso murders. But no one knows where the torso murders took place. The police indicated that the bodies were killed and dismembered elsewhere and subsequently moved.

In previous posts, I have described two possible direct links from the Mary Kelly murder to Walter Sickert. Is there a possible direct link from any of the torso murders (which I assume are all linked) to Walter Sickert. Very much so. On October 3, 1888 the headless and limbless torso of a woman was found dumped in a vault soon to become a section of the cellar of New Scotland Yard. This is undoubtedly a symbolic murder, daringly perpetrated with the specific intention of taunting, ridiculing and defying the police right under their noses. The idea that the murderer single-handedly transported a torso in a sack or cart and deposited the body in New Scotland Yard is like a stake in the heart of the police. I maintain that it is this taunting and defiance of the authorities that is the root of the crimes of Jack The Ripper and Mr. Nemo. In order to prove his superiority over the forces of authority, Sickert had to dispose of prostitutes -- worthless trash who had no right to exist. And he did it, just as Leopold and Loeb killed Bobby Franks, to prove he was superior to the police by getting away with murder.

One can see this attitude in the recently posted letter from Nemo to The Times, published on Oct. 4. Nemo wrote: "The mutilations, cutting off the nose and ears, ripping up the body, and cutting out certain organs - the heart, &c. - are all peculiarly Eastern methods and universally recognized, and intended by the criminal classes to express insult, hatred, and contempt; whereas, here the public and police are quite at a loss to attach any meaning to them, and so they are described as the mere senseless fury of a maniac." Here Sickert -- while attempting to divert attention to mythical Malay murderers roaming London -- is obviously trying to tell everyone that the murders are symbolic, and that once again the public and the police have missed his symbolic point because they are ignorant fools. It is clear that Sickert wants to express "insult, hatred, and contempt" not only for prostitutes, but also for everyone else, especially the police.

Another possible link to the torso murders is Sickert's oil painting of an abbatoir -- in which several slaughtered sides of beef, perhaps cows, are pictured in gruesome detail hanging from hooks with heads and limbs missing. Yes, I know, Rembrandt also painted a slaughtered side of beef. The two paintings may have had some connection in Sickert's mind. Just as Sickert's later self-portrait "The Servant of Abraham" may be a reference to Rembrandt's "Abraham and Isaac."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
Posted on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 8:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

A small factual correction. The distance from Dieppe to St.-Valery-en-Caux, where Walter Sickert was last seen in France in 1888 on Sept 16, is not 50 miles, as I mentioned in my last post. The distance is 31 km or 19 miles. St.-Valery-en-Caux is the resort area for the inhabitants of Dieppe. There was then (and there is now) excellent transportation between Dieppe and St.-Valery-en-Caux. So the distance between the two places has even less significance on Sickert's trips to and from London than I had thought. Obviously, the distance of 19 miles had no significance whatsoever.

Regards,
Mark Starr
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
Posted on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 10:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Dear Mr Starr,

So good so far! Still, you have a l-o-n-g w-a-y to go before...before what? It appears that the conclusive evidence (Mr Walter Sickert's corpse) is not available! (Oh, dear.) And we are -here- only concerned with the question of letters written by Walter to the police and the newspapers.
As you suspected, Walter could write in any language he chose (incidentally, he had many names!), and his favourite play was the 'Scottish play'... which provides further food for thought.
Hmm.
The time is approximately 3.00 am. I have just returned from a vista most humans will never see. It is called the 'heavens'...a most remarkable starry sky overhead, I could see almost every star beyond Polaris. I suddenly thought of you and your quest for immortality. Tomorrow I shall begin to beat out a sheet of gold into a crown... but I prefer a wreath of laurel!
I told you about going into strange bedrooms, Mark. Where does it all end?
Rosey :-)
PS.Why did he weep so much in the company of women?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
Posted on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 7:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Frank wrote:
"Below is the whole letter [...]"

...in which it is even more obvious that trying to slant this as a prediction about an upcoming murder is pure nonsense, and that the "Nemo" name being used is the same as saying "anonymous" and nothing more.

Thanks, Frank, for posting that. I would have eventually looked it up (I'm considering a website documenting all of Cornwell's errors), but even taking Mark at his word it didn't make sense. Of course it makes even less sense when you see it.

In fact, it can't even be even considered a Ripper letter at all, as it is not speaking as if it were the killer talking about the crimes. So even if we were to find out that Sickert wrote this (not that there is any reason to believe he did) you couldn't even say he hoaxed a Ripper letter as that's not what it is.

The only way the Sickert theory makes any sense at all is if someone purposefully removes relevant information and focuses on pointless details that are meaningless when discussed in their proper context.

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.