A little visual study

[sahlandilbaz]

please delete the thread if possible

I `ve never bothered to read this forum before,
but based on the looks of the site, I was hoping to find some curious/sceptic people, now I see it`s only a ship of fools, wandering around clueless.
Sad to see ,if it`s up to you people , Ripper case wont probably never solved for another millenia. if one of you dumbasses help me , lets delete the whole thread, I dont know how to do it.
So you people maybe stop babbling about a simple idea , or threating it like a banana thrown at you.

Everyday I`m more convinced that americans composed of morons and the very intelligent. There is no middle class. Intelligent are very hard to find.

Please help to delete.

[Doctor X]

Sickert disliked Fry, to put it mildly, and that dislike may be seen (if you're into seeing things in art) in his rather gloomy representation of the critic.

So he was thinking of the autopsy sketch while attending the lecture?

*Flees flying bricks*

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

We need to explain Cabinboy Jack--alter usernames 4 t3h w1n!!11!

His panties are in a bit of a knot since no one will except his theory that Jack was a homosexual ant.

That, and Ally stole his pony.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Cap'n Jack]

That's it, JM, you Fry up Dr Do-Little's old cod and Bob is Cornwallis' uncle.

[jmenges]

Not that it necessarily bears repeating, but the Sickert sketch is of painter and art-critic Roger Fry, made by Sickert, one assumes, on the spot while attending one of Fry's lectures. Sickert disliked Fry, to put it mildly, and that dislike may be seen (if you're into seeing things in art) in his rather gloomy representation of the critic.

No more, no less.

JM

[Mike Covell]

I think its pure coincidence, but you should sell your ideas to Pat Cornwell, I hear she isn't short a bob or two!

[JSchmidt]

I fail to see any similarities between the two pictures. While you might interprete the waistcoat in the Sickert drawing as the ragged cleft the killer left in poor Catherine Eddowes, I'd think that the rest of the drawing should resemble the morgue sketch way more then.
What about the eyes/glasses? Shape of the head? Hair?
And even if it did resemble the mortuary sketch, we would have to rule out that Sickert saw the sketch and tried to reproduce it.

[Doctor X]

dear weird people,

Dear Pompous Fat-Head:

My only goal was to share, and want to know if someone else sees it too or not.

Please interpret that picture. Methinks Sickert is involved. . . .

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[kensei]

Just wanted to give one little piece of input here- I'm on the fence about Sickert, but it's actually not necessary to even mention Cornwell when discussing him as a suspect in general because she was not the first to suggest it.

[paul emmett]

Hi, sahlandilbaz.

While I'm not buying into the big hands notion, I do think that there are scars/traumas that the artist cannot escape from.

As far as new material and new suspects, you should just do some reading around this Casebook: there is a wealth of both knowledge and material.

[sahlandilbaz]

dear weird people,

My only goal was to share, and want to know if someone else sees it too or not.
Funny thing leonardo mentioned, he was my actual source for looking to Sickert`s drawings, according to him at one of his Codexes , a painter always draws things like himself/or herself, if he has big ugly hands, or some ugly features the painting cannot escape and carries what it`s creator like inside.
And another thing must be said, if you are like me, someone who dont have any access to original paperwork about the case, or some good details about other suspects, Sickert is our best in comparison and to study. His relationship with Whistler or his actions after becoming somewhat famous are all archived.
We dont have this luck with any other in my opinion.

[Ally]

Sahland...

If you have already decided that Sickert is guilty, then I am sure you can find "proof", clues and hints in almost everything the man ever did...much like Cornwell did. That doesn't mean that what you are seeing is what was intended by Sickert. You are basing your assessment of the work on a judgement you've already made. That will not be considered convincing proof by any skeptical person, viewing it with an unbiased eye. The entire case against Sickert has been tainted by Cornwell's book. A slapdash, shoddy piece of investigation and outright fantasy. Her ego and her arrogance led her to inventing a history for Sickert that are not born up by the evidence that actually is factual. The fact that she based her theory on this invented history is just absolutely idiotic. So I am afraid that any speculation that derives from Cornwell's work is going to be inherently flawed, and if you attempt to find "evidence" in random pictures, well you are mostly in for a rough road.

[Sam Flynn]

Most of you can't accept the possibillity that Cornwell may be on to something.

She is - she's onto a nice little earner. As to the drawing: full marks to Sahlandilbaz for making the interconnect with an obscure drawing, but any resemblance between it and Eddowes is assuredly slight and coincidental - unless Roger Fry's abdominal cavity really did start where his chin left off.

[Doctor X]

We are part of a Colony [Tm.--Ed.], yes.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[plang]

Typical mob behavior. Most of you can't accept the possibillity that Cornwell may be on to something. Most of you go with popular opinion for fear of ridicule. As long as you are one of the gang, that's all that matters, right?