Patricia Cornwall said...

[richardh]

[S]ince identifying Sickert in 2002 as the killer of five women, she has used forensic scientists to examine letters written to police and newspapers by someone claiming to be the murderer.

They concluded that the author of the letters, written in 1888, and Sickert were the same person.

"It's almost statistically impossible that it wasn't Sickert and Jack the Ripper who wrote these letters.

"There are two water marks on Jack the Ripper letters and three on Walter Sickert letters that are out of a batch of only 24 sheets of paper."

LINK

Discuss

[Tom_Wescott]

[S]ince identifying Sickert in 2002 as the killer of five women, she has used forensic scientists to examine letters written to police and newspapers by someone claiming to be the murderer.

They concluded that the author of the letters, written in 1888, and Sickert were the same person.

"It's almost statistically impossible that it wasn't Sickert and Jack the Ripper who wrote these letters.

"There are two water marks on Jack the Ripper letters and three on Walter Sickert letters that are out of a batch of only 24 sheets of paper."

LINK

Discuss

Yes, but didn't the paper belong to Whistler?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Errata]

Wasn't every child taught to write English out of the same book for like, 50 years? Which makes me think it wouldn't be too terribly surprising if the handwriting matched one in ten people. Had they bothered to compare it to a bunch of different samples.

[Limehouse]

Wasn't every child taught to write English out of the same book for like, 50 years? Which makes me think it wouldn't be too terribly surprising if the handwriting matched one in ten people. Had they bothered to compare it to a bunch of different samples.

That's a very good point Errata. When I researched my family history, I was struck by how similar the handwriting was on each certificate and each document signed and/or written by a dozen different ancestors dating from about the 1840 to around the 1950s. All of them lived in London.


Richard - As paper-making is very expensive, I am wondering why a particular batch consisted of only 24 sheets of paper? Could it be that this batch was a residue and that the rest of the batch was sitting in various locations with many people having access to it? There are various other ways a batch could have been attributed to Sickert when, in fact other people had received it. For example, at my place of work, when we collect a pack of paper or card from the print room, we have to sign for it. Only yesterday, I was given half a pack and did not have to sign for it because the person who had the rest of the pack before me signed it out but only needed half of it.

[Bridewell]

"It's almost statistically impossible that it wasn't Sickert and Jack the Ripper who wrote these letters.

Qualification as a forensic scientist does not involve statistical expertise. A calculation of statistical probability by such an individual should be viewed in that light.

(Try a Google of 'Professor Roy Meadow Cot Death Statistics')

[PC Fitzroy-Toye]

Dose this not just indicate that Sickert maybe wrote some of the JTR letters? the only letter that may have some meritt is the Lusk letter and thats more to do with what it came with than its content.

[pinkmoon]

The police received thousands of letters about the Whitechapel murders so to prove authorship of any dosnt make you our killer also 24 is a very small batch indeed which I find very fancifull. Ms cornwell has convinced herself who jack the ripper was and little things like facts won't get in her way anyway wasn't old walley in France when the murders happend!!!

[Penhalion]

I was under the impression that the Lusk/From Hell letter had been lost and so was not available for forensic testing. Since that is the letter out of all of them that is thought to have the best chance of being genuine (i.e. from JtR), then it wouldn't really matter which letters she analyzed because they were hoaxes written by members of the public. I can believe that Sickert might have written one or more but this tenuous connection does not make him Jack.

[GUT]

But give her credit it does get people interested.

[John Wheat]

Considering that it is highly unlikely Jack wrote any of the letters that means Cornwell has cleared Sicket then.

[Bridewell]

"There are two water marks on Jack the Ripper letters and three on Walter Sickert letters that are out of a batch of only 24 sheets of paper."

Paper was sold in quires of 24 sheets, with 20 quires to the ream of 480 sheets. I find it hard to envisage a manufacturer embarking on a production run of only one quire with the same watermark, but a 24 sheet "batch" is a quire. There will indeed have been only 24 sheets to that particular quire. The key question has to be how many such quires were there, and how many reams? A "batch" of 24 sheets sound to me like one quire among many - and not, therefore, in any way exclusive.

[Barnaby]

Paper was sold in quires of 24 sheets, with 20 quires to the ream of 480 sheets. I find it hard to envisage a manufacturer embarking on a production run of only one quire with the same watermark, but a 24 sheet "batch" is a quire. There will indeed have been only 24 sheets to that particular quire. The key question has to be how many such quires were there, and how many reams? A "batch" of 24 sheets sound to me like one quire among many - and not, therefore, in any way exclusive.

Extremely informative. This suggests Cornwall is playing fast and loose with the facts.

[RivkahChaya]

"It's almost statistically impossible that it wasn't Sickert and Jack the Ripper who wrote these letters."

Discuss

Well, this means "It is possible that it wasn't Sickert and Jack the Ripper who wrote these letters," just with some qualifying.

Considering that it is highly unlikely Jack wrote any of the letters that means Cornwell has cleared Sicket then.

Or, that Sickert wrote some fake letters, which is a crime, but minor compared to serial murder. I can believe that Sickert wrote some fake letters, actually.

Paper was sold in quires of 24 sheets, with 20 quires to the ream of 480 sheets. I find it hard to envisage a manufacturer embarking on a production run of only one quire with the same watermark, but a 24 sheet "batch" is a quire. There will indeed have been only 24 sheets to that particular quire. The key question has to be how many such quires were there, and how many reams? A "batch" of 24 sheets sound to me like one quire among many - and not, therefore, in any way exclusive.

I think it wasn't just the watermark itself, but its position on the paper. I don't know that all sheets in a quire would match, though. I think it's more likely that the sheets in the same position in different quires in the same ream would match. It has to do with the way the paper is cut.

BTW: Is paper still sold in reams of 480 in the UK? a ream is now defined as 500 sheets here, because that's how it's sold now in the US. And yet, we can't seem to go metric.

[GUT]

G'Day RivkahChaya

It's 500 in Aus too. But in a lot of ways we're more American than British.

[GUT]

Just been looking at watermarks on some paper I've got, out of the same packet and the watermarks actually don't match on all of them, I suspect it depends on how the sheets were stacked. But anyone's guess how the stacked and cut in 1880's.