Thank you for having me, and a theory

[Cogidubnus]

Bill...I think SarahLee's comment is one of the most sensible and balanced you're likely to see...For non-suspect related literature I'd really recommend the Philip Sugden book or Rumbelow/Evans "JtR Scotland Yard Investigates", but I'm not partisan and frankly anything with the names Begg, Hutchinson, Clack or Scott attached is going to be well-researched and generally respected...

All the best

Dave

[BTCG]

Hi Bill,

This has to be a quick reply for now, as it's just after 6.30am and I'm off to work soon.

I accept your knowledge of the effect of opiates. My experience of these drugs is limited.

I note that you have made up your mind that Sickert was a sociopath. You have also accepted as fact that Sickert sent some of the Ripper letters to the police and others.

If Sickert did send some of the letters, that does not make him guilty of the murders. The hunt for the Yorkshire Ripper was disrupted for years when police were distracted by a tape and letter sent to them by 'the killer' who turned out, years later, to be unconnected to the case.

I do not accept that a lot of Sickert's painting was connected to the murders. The one exception is the painting 'Jack the Ripper's Bedroom' which came about after Sickert had heard a tale about a young man who had lodged with a couple who believed he was the killer because of his nightime ramblings. None of the claims that Cornwell makes about some of Sickert's other work are fair or accurate.

Have a nice day Bill.

Julie

Hi Julie,


I fully understand. Work calls us all (or, at least many of us), and I've got some to do today, as well.

Here's my thinking on this, in a nutshell, so to speak.

Cornwell's book, in my opinion, is a rambling mess.

From the onset of reading, I've been unable to see rhyme or reason as to her chapter structure. She'll start a chapter subject, go one with it for some time, and suddenly, veer off in another direction. Often, she'll stop and attempt to draw an allusion to something in a one-hundred and eighty degree direction from a previous declaration she has made, and I'll not use her technique: I'll cite a direct example:

In an early chapter, she discusses the Sickert family issues with opiate and other drug (namely, alcohol) addiction.

Leaving her wacky theory alone, i.e., that W.R. Sickert's abstinance from alcohol at a young age proves his father's alcoholism and somehow lays the groundwork for W.R. Sickert himself's alcohol abuse later in life, she notes the Ripper's frenzy as to his thorough use of knife to get specific organs to take, and ties this to a loss of control due to being hyped up on opiates.

Several chapters later, she seemingly forgets the drug frenzy argument, and cites Sickert's clear-headedness due to his sobriety, as to his (and she doesn't say 'Ripper' she names Sickert openly) thorough ability to get to specific organs to take.

I stopped, and said to myself: which is it Patrica, is he in an opiate induced drug frenzy, or is the attack consistant with his clear-headed 'known' sobriety? She has it both ways.

The book (so far, I'm not done with it yet) continues, chapter after chapter, with conclusions made and stated as facts, and as yet, she offers no source for many of these.

To date, I am less than convinced by her arguments, but will share my conclusions (unless of course, this group finds me to be a bore) upon concluding my reading of her book.

Now, let's move on to what has been proven, thus far.

Say what we/they might about Cornwell, few stones may be cast at Peter Bower.

I'll not restate Bower's conclusions. If you are not familiar, I'd recommend reading them. Sickert's stationary was used to pen Ripper letters.

Does this, in itself, prove Sickert to be the Ripper, you ask?

A double-edged blade, in my opinion:

Objective proof has been defined as being 'conclusive enough to leave you with a moral certainty.'

The physical paper cuts Bower confirms would be enough to convict, in many cases.

Now, I'm new here. I am... but a novice in Ripperology.

My ego does not exceed myself... in hat size.

But as a group, Julie, it's my opinion that the (Ripper) community, who I see as dedicated to an honest review of the case, needs to acknowledge it... no matter how painful.

Cornwell's six-million produced the only objective evidence ever offered in the case.

As much as some are against her, let's give her cudos for that.

It's the least we can do.

I look forward to you answer.

-Bill

[BTCG]

Hi Bill,

Welcome to Great Puzzle.

I think your understanding of opiate withdrawl symptoms is very interesting.

Thank you... but your inital statement is in error:

Withdrawl to me, is le obvious

It's the behavior that precedes this that I am interested in.

Let's proceed:


I do not agree with Mss Cornwall's so called solution at all. That isnt because of any dislike of her as an individual or even as a writer. I didnt like her Ripper book that is true, but I certainly enjoyed her fictional work.

If you want a response based on my experince, I'll be happy to do it.... privately.

Send me an e-mail.

Don't send if you expect your ideas to be immune from criticisms.


What I would suggest is that you read other books on the case. I think then you will find other studies that give compelling "solutions" to case, with different suspects.

Only... if the other books offer objectivity.

FYI: I did order some half-dozen books on the subject. I'd say I'm thirty-three percent on reading the relevant subjects, as to her book.

Thank you for the welcome, and I look forward to your response.

-Bill

[Hatchett]

Hi Bill,

Please forgive me I wrote the post in haste.

Something I would ask you to consider is that the bahaviour patterns that you describe so well could and possibly would have applied to a number of individuals who were suffering with all sorts of addictions in Whitechapel at the grim time.

Best wishes.

Hatchett



Best wishes.

[BTCG]

Hello Bill and may I welcome you here, as others have done, as you are quite clearly a thoughtful person and some people here clearly are not.

Cornwell's book is an example of train wreck Ripperology IMO.

Maybe her new book, written with the help of someone who actually knows a bit about the subject may be a bit more persuasive.

All the best

Thank you Stephen,

I think I understand your reference to some here not being thoughtful. I was a bit taken back by one of the poster's vitriol, and reacted in a bit of a gruff manner as a result. I just think that it's a mistake to allow your personal feelings to cloud your judgement, and especially if you've not finished reading the work. It can lead to errors in judgement that can waste precious time.

I was totally unaware that a new book on the subject was in Cornwell's crosshairs. I'll Google it, and see if I can learn anything on the subject.

Thank you again!

[BTCG]

Hi Bill,

Please forgive me I wrote the post in haste.

Something I would ask you to consider is that the bahaviour patterns that you describe so well could and possibly would have applied to a number of individuals who were suffering with all sorts of addictions in Whitechapel at the grim time.

Best wishes.

Hatchett



Best wishes.

Hi Hatchett,

I think you're absolutely right. Opiates were commonly abused in that day (perhaps, no less these days).

My reasoning as to the importance of the use-cycle, as opposed to withdrawl, is that I believe that, if opiate use is tied to these killings, the use-cycle is the most likely scenario, and I'll give you my reasoning.

One of the issues with prolonged opiate use is that the drug interferes with R.E.M. (rapid eye movement) sleep. With a lessening of paradoxical sleep, studies have shown that recuperative dreaming also lessens.

I have had professors state unequivocally that this loss can lead to the impairment of higher reasoning functions, and eventually, insanity in some.

Interesting to me, as it might apply to Sickert.

-Bill

[Cogidubnus]

For just a moment leaving Sickert aside, I think it's a very interesting thought anyhow Bill

All the best

Dave

[BTCG]

For just a moment leaving Sickert aside, I think it's a very interesting thought anyhow Bill

All the best

Dave

Thank you Dave.

[Limehouse]

Thank you Stephen,

I think I understand your reference to some here not being thoughtful. I was a bit taken back by one of the poster's vitriol, and reacted in a bit of a gruff manner as a result. I just think that it's a mistake to allow your personal feelings to cloud your judgement, and especially if you've not finished reading the work. It can lead to errors in judgement that can waste precious time.

I was totally unaware that a new book on the subject was in Cornwell's crosshairs. I'll Google it, and see if I can learn anything on the subject.

Thank you again!

Dear Bill,

I hope you did not read my posts as full of vitriol. I meant only to welcome you to the site and address the weaknesses in Cornwell's work. It is true my views against Sickert as a suspect are strong and if I argued my case too passionately and made you feel your views were unwelcome I am deeply sorry.

Warm regards.

Julie

[BTCG]

Dear Bill,

I hope you did not read my posts as full of vitriol. I meant only to welcome you to the site and address the weaknesses in Cornwell's work. It is true my views against Sickert as a suspect are strong and if I argued my case too passionately and made you feel your views were unwelcome I am deeply sorry.

Warm regards.

Julie

Hi Julie,

Actually, the poster had time only to quickly reply, and I misunderstood.

All water under the bridge.

-Bill

[BTCG]

Finally.... done with the book.

And, there is some documentation at the very end.

I drilled-down upon the mDNA evidence, and I'll make this claim in the same manner as my last.

I am but a novice. I have no way of knowing whether or not this take on the DNA has been addressed.

My take? By my Google searches, I'd wager that it hasn't, and if I cannot conclusively clear up the mDNA mystery, I can certainly point us in the right direction, as how to interpret this data.

Frankly, I'm surprised no one, and this especially includes Cornwell, addressed this aspect of the mDNA.

As I respect you all and your hard work, I'll throw you some meat:

If Sickert IS the Ripper, he did not kill Mary Kelly. But he learned from the crime.

-Bill

[miss marple]

I suggest Bill, that you read Matthew Sturgis biography of Sickert plus Sickert's own writing and art criticism, which will give you a much more rounded portrait if Sickert than the biased assertions of Miz Cornwall.

Without looking at other material it is pointless commenting on the book, because their is so much misinformation in it
Miss Marple.

[BTCG]

I suggest Bill, that you read Matthew Sturgis biography of Sickert plus Sickert's own writing and art criticism, which will give you a much more rounded portrait if Sickert than the biased assertions of Miz Cornwall.

Without looking at other material it is pointless commenting on the book, because their is so much misinformation in it
Miss Marple.

Well, it has been a few months, profitably spent reading nearly a dozen books on the subject. But even this was not enough, so to the amazement of my physician, I read several books on MTDNA, and vetted my findings with FamilyTreeDNA and my physician, with the latter earning me some addition to my chart.

During this time, I logged in here only but a few times, more often directed from a previously read page still in the browser memory. Logging in does little good: ego seems to trump logic to many here, and combating this is rather akin to attempting to empty the ocean with a water glass.

Indeed, I have studied Sickert, and other suspects. Amazon has been a friend, and more than once I have been accosted by my better half as to the numerous credit card charges for obscure books... but well worth it, to me.

And... I keep coming back to one thing; the only objective evidence in the entire case was uncovered by Cornwell: the stationary.

In addition, I believe that I have found enough evidence to seriously undermine the notion that Sickert was entirely in France during the murders.

A smoking gun? Nope. But enough evidence to have earned Sickert a date with the hangman had this evidence been uncovered during his lifetime.

[Limehouse]

Hi BTGC,

Nice to see you back.

For me, evidence that Sickert wrote some of the letters (which I doubt) is not evidence that he murdered those women. You may have heard of the Yorkshire Ripper, who murdered women in the north of England from 1975 to 1981. During the investigation into the murders, a tape and a letter were received by police conducting the investigation. The man who sent these claimed to be the killer and even seemed to have knowledge of the crimes not released to the general public. This 'evidence' seriously hampered the investigation because the detective in charge of the case was convinced this person, a Geordie (from the Newcastle region) was the killer. He wasn't.

Secondly, again, evidence that Sickert may not have been in France is not evidence that he killed those women.

So, personally, I do not see how the stationery issue or the fact that Sickert 'may not have been' in France at the crucial time is enough to earn him a date with the hangman.

Actually, I think there's is quite a lot of documented evidence that Sickert WAS in France, and seen by a number of reliable people, on at least one of the murder dates.

This is just my opinion, of course.

Julie

[Beowulf]

Bill,

Although I do not think Sickert was the ripper, I would love to know more about his painting, the rippers bedroom, or whatever it was called. I'd like to know why that landlady thought she had rented to the ripper, and if there were any traces on what happened to him after he left. What that man gave as his name. I'm surprised not to have read anything about that.

The painting is very mysterious and I kind of like it. Actually it'd be nice to have a print of it.

Sickert really was a good artist. It's understandable he was an enthusiast about the ripper, living right at the time. If he were alive today he might even be on this board.

I would say, often