Most ridiculous suspect

[Herlock Sholmes]

But of course we have no way of knowing the travel plans of the sickert family do we ? Just because they were having fun on the 6th doesnt mean they werent home on the 8th.
Some weeks Is still a vauge description of time from the wife letter ,particularly when we dont know the exact contents of its wording .( ive never seen it ) 13 days could that that be described as weeks . ? All in all still not proof .

But doesn’t it seem strange to you that someone would write home telling someone what great fun they were having if they intended to set out for home in the next day or so? Certainly it doesn’t prove 100% that he couldn’t have been back on the 8th it’s a strong pointer against it.

The letter from his wife is another strong pointer. To dispute this we would have to accept that his wife used the phrase ‘for some weeks,’ when she’d actually meant 13 days (so less than 2 weeks) This doesn’t add up.

The reason that I asked about the Blanche letter was because, as Blanche was French, how can we know that his visit from Sickert didn’t take place in France?

For me the weight of evidence very strongly points to Sickert being in France at the time of Chapman’s murder.

[rjpalmer]

The reason that I asked about the Blanche letter was because, as Blanche was French, how can we know that his visit from Sickert didn’t take place in France?

If one was obsessed enough, they could research it further and try to hammer down the dates, but Blanche has paintings from 1888 that were clearly composed while he was in Dieppe. An artistic friend named Maurice Lobre also has a painting "The Bathroom of Jacques-Emile Blanche" that dates to 1888 when he was visiting Blanche's family home. The house in Dieppe was apparently a popular place to stay in the summer. There aren't any hard dates that I know of, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

The Bathroom of Jacques-Émile Blanche - Lobre, Maurice. Museo Nacional Thyssen-Bornemisza (museothyssen.org)

[Herlock Sholmes]

If one was obsessed enough, they could research it further and try to hammer down the dates, but Blanche has paintings from 1888 that were clearly composed while he was in Dieppe. An artistic friend named Maurice Lobre also has a painting "The Bathroom of Jacques-Emile Blanche" that dates to 1888 when he was visiting Blanche's family home. The house in Dieppe was apparently a popular place to stay in the summer. There aren't any hard dates that I know of, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

The Bathroom of Jacques-Émile Blanche - Lobre, Maurice. Museo Nacional Thyssen-Bornemisza (museothyssen.org)

Thanks for that Roger.

“He passed some of the summer in Dieppe (Normandy) in the house where his friend the painter Jacques-Émile Blanche would spend long periods, and which from 1885 had become a meeting place for French and English artists such as Degas, Whistler and Sickert”

So he spent the summer with Blanche (who was clearly at home in Dieppe at the time. And Blanche’s house was a place where artists like Sickert met up.

I think that we’re as close as we can be to saying that Sickert was fairly obviously in Dieppe at the time of the Chapman murder.

[erobitha]

Maybrick is the most ridiculous, considering the amount of interest he draws. At least with most of the other suspects who are regularly discussed on here , whether you agree with them or not you can generate some form of case, even if it is on not much . But with Maybrick there is none, apart from a very obvious fake diary.
Regards Darryl

...and a watch, and a huge stack of circumstantial evidence.

Still, I find the vitriolic reaction to Maybrick fascinating.

[Abby Normal]

...and a watch, and a huge stack of circumstantial evidence.

Still, I find the vitriolic reaction to Maybrick fascinating.

theres zero circumstantial evidence for maybrick, the watch or the silly diary. which is why the vitriolic reaction against him is indirectly proportional.

[FISHY1118]

If one was obsessed enough, they could research it further and try to hammer down the dates, but Blanche has paintings from 1888 that were clearly composed while he was in Dieppe. An artistic friend named Maurice Lobre also has a painting "The Bathroom of Jacques-Emile Blanche" that dates to 1888 when he was visiting Blanche's family home. The house in Dieppe was apparently a popular place to stay in the summer. There aren't any hard dates that I know of, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

The Bathroom of Jacques-Émile Blanche - Lobre, Maurice. Museo Nacional Thyssen-Bornemisza (museothyssen.org)

Thats right there are no dates, so everything we know about sickert and him being in france at the time of any of the murders is just speculation and circumstancial .No more or less than any other jtr suspect .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thats right there are no dates, so everything we know about sickert and him being in france at the time of any of the murders is just speculation and circumstancial .No more or less than any other jtr suspect .

But there are dates?

He was definitely in Dieppe having fun 2 days before Chapman’s murder (minus a day of preparations for return and the actual return)

[FISHY1118]

Thanks for that Roger.

“He passed some of the summer in Dieppe (Normandy) in the house where his friend the painter Jacques-Émile Blanche would spend long periods, and which from 1885 had become a meeting place for French and English artists such as Degas, Whistler and Sickert”

So he spent the summer with Blanche (who was clearly at home in Dieppe at the time. And Blanche’s house was a place where artists like Sickert met up.

I think that we’re as close as we can be to saying that Sickert was fairly obviously in Dieppe at the time of the Chapman murder.

So then its also fairly obvious that Druitt was in Bounemouth on the 3rd and 4th of Aug playing in a cricket carnival ,that he would not travel 200 miles to stab Martha Tabram to death on the 7th then travel 200 miles back ? Not to mention all the other murders that are attibuted to JTR after Druitt was pulled dead out of the Thames River ? and his cricketing schudule during the C5 murders makes it damm near impossible that Druitt was Jack the Ripper . Yet you lable people ''Clueless'' when they dismiss him as a suspect?.

There is no proof that Sickert was in France at he time of the Chapman murder , and people can rule him out for whatever reason they like, except this one .

[Darryl Kenyon]

...and a watch, and a huge stack of circumstantial evidence.

Still, I find the vitriolic reaction to Maybrick fascinating.

Please can you enlighten me on the huge stack of circumstantial evidence so I can reassess James ?

Regards Darryl

[erobitha]

Please can you enlighten me on the huge stack of circumstantial evidence so I can reassess James ?

Regards Darryl

In addition to the research found in Shirley Harrison's book (sham marriage, drug addiction, violence towards women, usage of prostitutes etc), I have also discovered the following:

- In 1866 he had an office address at 46 Lime Street, EC1 a two minute walk from Mitre Square
- In Sept 1888 he had issues with his eyes (Gustav Witt letter to Home Office August 1889). Numerous witnesses reported the suspect having issues with their eyes
- There was no unified code of ethics in the United States in the 1870s with regards to diagnosing syphilis - doctors could write anything they wanted on someone's record. Like Malaria.

Already the above makes his character far more likely to commit such these murderous acts than Druitt who had no connection to the area at all.

But hey, lets just all assume there is nothing to discuss beyond the scrapbook.

[erobitha]

theres zero circumstantial evidence for maybrick, the watch or the silly diary. which is why the vitriolic reaction against him is indirectly proportional.

Thanks for that insight.

[Aethelwulf]

In addition to the research found in Shirley Harrison's book (sham marriage, drug addiction, violence towards women, usage of prostitutes etc), I have also discovered the following:

- In 1866 he had an office address at 46 Lime Street, EC1 a two minute walk from Mitre Square
- In Sept 1888 he had issues with his eyes (Gustav Witt letter to Home Office August 1889). Numerous witnesses reported the suspect having issues with their eyes
- There was no unified code of ethics in the United States in the 1870s with regards to diagnosing syphilis - doctors could write anything they wanted on someone's record. Like Malaria.

Already the above makes his character far more likely to commit such these murderous acts than Druitt who had no connection to the area at all.

But hey, lets just all assume there is nothing to discuss beyond the scrapbook.

Now I'm no fan of the Druitt theory, but I would still rate him light years ahead of Maybrick as a suspect.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So then its also fairly obvious that Druitt was in Bounemouth on the 3rd and 4th of Aug playing in a cricket carnival ,that he would not travel 200 miles to stab Martha Tabram to death on the 7th then travel 200 miles back ? Not to mention all the other murders that are attibuted to JTR after Druitt was pulled dead out of the Thames River ? and his cricketing schudule during the C5 murders makes it damm near impossible that Druitt was Jack the Ripper . Yet you lable people ''Clueless'' when they dismiss him as a suspect?.

There is no proof that Sickert was in France at he time of the Chapman murder , and people can rule him out for whatever reason they like, except this one .

Seriously Fishy?

Druitt was a train journey of around 4 hours away, 3 days before a disputed JTR victim! Anyone is free to dispute Druitt’s viability or otherwise as a suspect. I haven’t claimed that he was the ripper. I just favour him of the named suspects and I’m of the opinion that he’s often too easily dismissed. That’s all. I’m not promoting Druitt. That said, one thing that we cannot dismiss Druitt on (which actually applies to the vast majority of suspects) is timing. It cannot be shown that he couldn’t have been at any of the locations. We can’t show that he was either of course. As far as I’m aware we can’t prove that Lewis Carroll was elsewhere?

Sickert was in Dieppe, with his mother making no mention of preparing for or even having any intention of returning just 2 days before a generally accepted ripper victim. So even if they decided to return immediately after his mother had put her pen down they would have still have had the preparations for a return followed by a journey across the channel followed by the journey up to London which I’m guessing would have taken up a whole day. So this would narrow down the available time to around a day. So I’m not saying that based on this we can say that it would have been impossible for Sickert to have been in Hanbury Street but the information that has come down to us very strongly suggests that he was in France at the time. I don’t see how this can be disputed?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Now I'm no fan of the Druitt theory, but I would still rate him light years ahead of Maybrick as a suspect.

Of the ‘named’ I favour Druitt, Kosminski/Cohen and Bury as the likeliest but if I had to put money on it I’d go for an as yet unnamed killer.

[Iconoclast]

My patience is never anything other than thin at the best of times, but this thread has finally snapped it.

The 'worst' Jack the Ripper candidate and people home in on James Maybrick, the ONLY candidate with ANY case against them in 130 years?

Whilst one can argue that the scrapbook and the watch and the circumstantial evidence are either hoaxed (in the case of the first two) or just bizarre coincidence (in the case of the third), one cannot demonstrate this categorically (simply by conjecture and inference) therefore one can NEVER argue that these make James Maybrick's candidature for Jack the Ripper weak!

And please don't ask uneducated questions like "so what's the circumstantial evidence?". If you don't already know what the circumstantial evidence is, you shouldn't be commenting on it. If you don't know what it is within the scrapbook which points us directly at James Maybrick, you shouldn't be commenting on it. If you do not understand why the Maybrick watch points directly at James Maybrick, you shouldn't be commenting on it.

Other candidates with even a tiny amount of evidence against them: Erm ... erm ... erm ... oh, Sickert seemed to be fascinated with Jack and probably wrote some of the letters so it must be him!

And all of the other candidates? Erm ... erm ... erm ...

Despite what is commonly believed on the Casebook - primarily by those who haven't even READ the Maybrick scrapbook - James Maybrick stands head and shoulders above EVERY SINGLE OTHER POTENTIAL CANIDATE, and yet we suffer a painful cacophony of truly insipid and uninspired conjecture around people who have no greater link to Jack the Ripper than they once went to London on a works outing.

The scrapbook, the watch, and the welter of circumstantial evidence do not prove categorically that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper (though the 'F's and the 'M's in Kelly's room are as good as it's ever going to get, I suspect), and no-one needs to believe what they don't like the sound of (from a great distance, it generally appears), but if the measure of acceptance was shifted from blind faith and dull opinion to a simple contrast of evidence, Maybrick would already be convicted and damned in the Eternal Court of History.

As much as many of you would love it to be true, the scrapbook has NOT been proven to be a hoax. Nor has the watch. Before you post on James Maybrick's candidature for Jack, please give some thought to doing a small amount of research into it first.

Ike