Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sickert Was Ripper

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • oh, good idea...I've got a spare hour or two for some sustained and serious research... 'Contemporary reports indicated the likelihood that the killer had hair. Given the presence of hair in the comb on our suspect's dressing table, the implications are fairly damning.' Move over, PC...your reign is over!
    best,

    claire

    Comment


    • well bag the hair and I'll go and see if I can get a load of money to get some DNA tests done...then we'll get all the letters and test them...there's gonna be a match somewhere and hell if there isn't we could just lie and say there was, then we'll write a fiction book that reads like a non fiction and develop our story to suit our needs...we'll make millions!!
      Oh I'm soooo excited! oh hang on though...hasn't this been done already? I don't suppose you have a diary do you?! There should be damning evidence in there...

      Comment


      • Actually, I do. And there are, gosh, several days for which there is no entry! Lol, enough already! Tee hee.
        best,

        claire

        Comment


        • Question

          Is Sickert's height and build similar to the Ripper witness descriptions?

          Comment


          • ??

            denn.....WHICH witness description? and after slogging through most of 'em over these last million years, my question is WHO DOES NOT FIT THE DESCRIPTIONS? Hell, EVERYONE fits one of the descriptions, which is why the cops rarely rely on "eye witness" descriptions ONLY.

            Now go have a lovely weekend with NO RIPPER in it, read a great mystery and have a pint!! Relax a bit......

            Cheers,

            Judy

            Comment


            • Hello needler!

              I think it is also possible, that Saucy Jacky manipulated the eye-witnesses the following way:

              1. Shaving at times so, that he left himself a moustache

              2. Shaving at times so, that he left himself a moustache with a small beard below his chin.

              3. Shaving at times everything off.

              4. Not shaving at all at times!

              All the best
              Jukka
              "When I know all about everything, I am old. And it's a very, very long way to go!"

              Comment


              • Good morning, Jukka. I'm very impressed! You give the Ripper a LOT of credit for being smart, and there's not much anyone can say that will convince me he was. We have a party question that asks "would you rather be smart than lucky?". I would want to be lucky like the Ripper, who was very lucky, indeed.

                And while I applaud your creative theory of the traveling mustache, I REALLY don't believe he was smart enough to be that devious. I can accept animal cunning as one in his column, along with blandness and a downright chameleon-like ability to blend in....but smart?? Probably not. WAIT! I'd like to amend that: STREET smart, absolutely; creative smart.......nah.

                But good luck with the traveling mustache theory. Hope it might bear fruit; until then, though, I'm going to believe in my own favorite suspect......the un-named, fly below the radar, UN-noticed fella from down the road. No name, no history, no future, no life, no chance, no conscience.

                Cheers,

                Judy

                Comment


                • Hello needler!

                  I hope you have picked the word "possible". That is; not for sure!

                  In fact: I also think, that JtR was a perfect nobody, maybe being even in a crowd following the research.

                  Again a "possible": even perfect nobodies are sometimes smart!

                  All the best
                  Jukka
                  "When I know all about everything, I am old. And it's a very, very long way to go!"

                  Comment


                  • You're right, Jukka; "possible" should be a required word in Ripper discussions. I don't know if you remember the OJ trial, but a cop who answered questions "never" and "always" got himself into pretty deep excrement for using those words. "Possible" and "maybe" really are the operative adjectives we should use; there can be no absolutes in this case.....mostly because there was no one around with a video camera, and YouTube wasn't invented yet!

                    Now I'm going to solve the case of the missing croissant.........

                    Cheers and happy weekend,

                    Judy

                    Comment


                    • Sickert was over 6 foot, with very striking features.He was very handsome when younger. There is no description of men seen with the victims that matches Sickert. Miss Marple

                      Comment


                      • Not Over 6 Foot!

                        Originally posted by miss marple View Post
                        Sickert was over 6 foot, with very striking features.He was very handsome when younger. There is no description of men seen with the victims that matches Sickert. Miss Marple
                        I just came across the following in Cornwell's book: "Photographs and several items of [Sickert's] clothing donated to the Tate Gallery Archive in the 1980s suggest he was probably five foot eight or nine." In other words, a case can be made that Sickert matches the height requirement to have been the Ripper.
                        Last edited by denn034; 09-01-2008, 01:39 AM. Reason: Add Words

                        Comment


                        • having only Ms. Cornwell's book to go on for info on this theory i feel she does a great job proving some of the letters were written by sickert & that he was strangely interested in the ripper case but that does not make him the ripper imo ,there is no more proof the hes the ripper then there is that any the main suspects are ,plus there is evidence of him being France at the time of one of the murder.

                          Comment


                          • Sickert ??

                            Cornwells book in places is good in its attempts to approach the profile logically etc but she ends up making too many assumptions and false allegations.
                            She puts forward a strong case for Sickert writing the letters of which I personally believe he may have done (for sick fun) she however assumes that the author of the letters inevitably was the Ripper.
                            Unfortunately the police received a lot of letters during the murders claiming to be the ripper. 90% were probably written by eccentrics like Sickert with only a marginal amount from the real JTR. Unless of course you are of the belief that there was more than one person involved. Sickert could of then easily written letters without having to be in Whitechapel at the time and created a false trail for police to follow.
                            His motives however to do this are questionable at best.
                            (I however don't really believe that I reckon he was trying to make a quick buck)

                            Comment


                            • What I don't understand is the amount of importance she attaches to paintings like 'JTR's Bedroom'. He was an artist and therefore painted about the subject. Is it any different to an author such as herself writing about the subject?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by miss marple View Post
                                Sickert was over 6 foot, with very striking features.He was very handsome when younger. There is no description of men seen with the victims that matches Sickert. Miss Marple
                                Yes but when he put on his magic hair dye he lost a foot in height.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X