Sickert Was Ripper

[denn034]

Apology Requested

....Oh, and Denn034: if, per your last post, the case is closed, mystery solved, finis, etc., etc., hopefully that's the last we'll ever hear from you. (does the "034" refer to your IQ, by any chance?) I don't often get personal, nasty, rotten, horrid, insulting or sarcastic on these boards, but I do make an exception with anything suggesting that Sickert was the Ripper....Cheers, Graham

Was I rude? If so, then, I apologize. If not, then, apology requested.

[Graham]

Was I rude? If so, then, I apologize. If not, then, apology requested.

I wasn't suggesting by any means that you were rude. You are just mistaken, that's all.

The list of adjectives I mentioned I was applying just to myself, to imply that I am rarely any of these things except where Sickert is concerned. They did not apply to you.

Lastly, if you have an open fire where you live, why not light it tomorrow morning with Cornwell's book? Mind, thinking about it, it may be too damp to catch.

Bye-eee.

Graham

[johnnyerwin]

Second, I asked for proof that the other Ripper suspects used the nickname and you gave me none.

I think the problem with your chain of thinking is that is depends on a series of unproven (and weak) theories. Pretty well all of your conclusions have some serious arguments against them.

First of all, it is generally agreed that most (if not all) of the letters are fakes. The "from hell" letter MAY have some chance of being genuine. The telegram you speak of has never been considered as a serious contender for being from the killer. You attempted to compare it to the "from hell" letter in order to qualify it too as being possibly genuine, however one only has to glance briefly at both documents to see that takes a real stretch to conclude that.

Secondly, even if Sickert did write the telegram, what does that prove? Should we then also suspect some of the newspaper folks that were strongly suspected of having written some of the other notes as being Ripper suspects? Even if we accept that Cornwell's mDNA work proves that Sickert wrote that correspondance (which it doesn't) it simply cannot conclude that he did the killings. There is pleny of evidence to suggest that he was not present during any of the killings, and none to suggest that he was present (only conjecture). There's plenty of other reasons why it's difficult to accept him as a serious contender for a suspect if you broaden your reading somewhat.

Lastly, the use of the name "mr nobody" has already been explained as having been common at the time. The fact that someone in a small list of people (the suspects in this case) had used it at one or another proves that. The point that nobody else on the list is known to have used it simply does not prove anything. Again you place all your money on the telegram as being sent by the killer.

I don't know how much time you have invested in ripper research but I suspect you are rather new to serious inquiry on the subject. It's tempting to believe a particular theory or author's work but I would suggest that you should read everything you can get your hands on first before you start forming opinions on who could possibly be a suspect. While not impossible, Sickert being the killer doesn't pass the acid test of critical inquiry for anybody who cares to aquaint themselves with all the material availalble.

Read on!

[needler]

Good morning??

denn034....I GUARANTEE that every single person EVER interested in JtR became so because he/she picked up a book that PROVED ____________ (you fill in the blank) was the killer. I GUARANTEE it! The reader came away from that first Ripper encounter absolutely, positively, completely, determinedly convinced that the subject of the book was, indeed, Jack the Ripper....FULL STOP......and the new reader will defend to the death the named suspect. We all have done that. You don't remember the Knight controversy that arose in the 70's and made more than one grown man weep over the ridiculous lengths to which an author will go to make the evidence fit the crime. HOWEVER, we all would hope that we can grow a bit from that first book, and learn to evaluate the ENTIRE picture rather than jump into the pool before we have checked for the water!

These message boards have entertained millions who KNOW who the Ripper was ....millions! Usually these folks adjust their gear ratios after their second book and they find just as much evidence for Gull as for Sickert as for Bury as for Druitt as for Carroll as for Maybrick ....well, you get the picture. Using Cornwell's logic I can now LOUDLY proclaim that Her Majesty Queen Victoria was Jill the Ripper, and before you jump all over me and my suspect, I must remind you that Victoria was the Queen and could do any damn thing she wanted, so prove she was NOT the Ripper.

I can think of about ten books ..and these are the VERY BEST..... that never try to name the Ripper; the reason being that choosing a killer and then making the evidence fit is not logical (see my upcoming book on Victoria as Ripper). Even the newest cop on the beat will recognise that arresting a man carrying a smoking gun and running from the crime scene is far more sensible than arresting someone because he's having a bad hair day, and you don't like his teeth. While Cornwell's argument sounds great standing alone (or maybe not) and with no objective evidence to support it..... and that is ONLY if you haven't read any of the OTHER Ripper books..... the truth is that she decided that Sickert was the Ripper, and then began working backwards from that. Just read the forward or preface or whatever when she describes her meeting with John Grieve and he mentions Sickert. That's all it took for her to open the checkbook and buy all the "evidence" required.

I'm afraid you'll have to have FAR more substantive proof that "he COULD have been" or "it's only logical" or "he PROBABLY was" to get very far defending that pile of rubbish which, by the way, is filed in bookstores in the "fiction" section with her other masterpieces.

"Enuf....it's too early in the morning for me to engage in a Cornwell debate, but I'll entertain a motion to re-engage AFTER you've read Rumbelow, Evans, Sugden and any of the others that are NOT suspect driven.

Cheers,

Judy

[richardnunweek]

Hi All,
Suggesting Walter Sickert as being JTR is hard to swallow, however one intresting snippit does lead to a possibility.
The work entitled 'A Passing Funeral' which has two women apparently looking through a window [ although the viewer does not see the event] I personally find intresting, for it could have depicted a event which allegedly happened at Mary Kellys funeral where two teenage girls [ according to correspondence sent to Associated Rediffusion in 1959] observed a man spit down on the grave.
I appreciate that any possibility that Sickert was refering to that is absurd, for how was he to know such a occurence took place in the early 1900s when it was not made semi public until 50years later.
Absurd.... Unless he was present at the funeral ands was aware of two females watching..
Regards Richard.

[detective abberline]

Sickert?

Sickert? Been there. Done that. Masonic conspicaries, Dr Gull, PAV, Roman Catholics. Have I left anyone out? Please.
Cheers

[The Grave Maurice]

Writers have been claiming to know the identity of JtR since The Star pointed a finger at the elusive, and probably mythical, "Leather Apron" as early as 5 September 1888. It's a very popular pastime, but it's a mug's game.

[Limehouse]

Denn034, I agree with those who conclude your line of reasoning does not point to any evidence whatsoever that Sickert was the killer.

Like several others, I don't get the hair dye bit at all. There is no absolutely reliable Ripper witness. In any case, it was not just the hair colour that varied in 'Ripper sightings', it was build and height too. Additionally, I don't think there is any evidence that Sickert knew how to make hair dye.

The nickname is another point that doesn't add up. Just because a man writes a letter claiming to be the killer, doesn't make him guilty. Now here I can offer an idea. Perhaps Sickert did write this letter - to taunt the police. There was little love lost between actors and the police because of the latter's habit of baiting and trying to trap homosexuals, some of whom were in the acting profession.

Painting and drawing pictures of crime scenes does not make one a murderer - many painters and artists have been inspired by quite horrible events and in any case, you might as well say that because Patricia Cornwell writes about murder she must therefore be guilty of a few.

Most of what Cornwell wrote about Sickert's probable guilt was laughable. At one point she describes how a large knife had been found on a doorstep a few streets away from one of the murder scenes. She describes it as being large, like a cook's knife, and then goes on to report that 'Sickert enjoyed cooking for friends'. Most of her 'evidence' is along these lines.

[Bob Hinton]

In that case....

One only has to see the various descriptions of the Ripper to see that he could only have been a hairdresser or actor with access to hair dyes to make him look dark and fair haired. One only has to see the words "Mr. Nobody" on a Ripper telegram to know that Sickert, who's screen name was "Mr. Nobody" during his acting days, must've written one or more of the Ripper letters. Being an actor with quick change, make-up, and hair dying experience would've made it possible for him to be both dark and fair haired. Sickert's focus on hurting women in his drawings and paintings is icing on the cake. All of that combined can only mean that Sickert, the only Ripper suspect that was nicknamed "Mr. Nobody" with the necessary hair dying skills, was Jack the Ripper. One fails to see how it could be otherwise!

I would suggest that 'one' acquaints himself or herself with the facts of the case not silly nonsense like this!

[George Hutchinson]

Does anyone sniff a troll here? I find it hard to believe that any serious poster would have consistantly put up bewlidered and uninformed tosh post after post after post when every single reply he has had has laughed at his assumptions. Let's all give up, folks. A sea of individuals including members of the Police Force, authors, historians (including art) and researchers who have spent their lives objectively studying this case are all obviously mistaken. Newbie wins.

Dear God. YAAAAWWWWNNNN.

PHILIP

[Mr Poster]

hi ho GH

Whilst fully agreeing that this chap is a bit of a berk..........I'm never fully convinced that such characters are newbies.

If we look at AP's new persona....cap'n'Jack. If he had come with some of his choicer morsels and we hadnt twigged to writing style or whatever...one could well think he was a newbie even though he wasnt.

Knowing the sense of humour that people round here have......there is the possibility that such tricksters are old hands?

Not that that makes it any the less boring.............

p

[johnnyerwin]

The thought of this "persona" being a sockpuppet did come to mind. They seem to have vanished nonetheless.

[Graham]

As far as anyone on these boards knows, has Cornwell ever mounted any kind of defence against all the justified criticism and flak aimed at her silly assertions?

Cheers,

Graham

[Ally]

Actually she's mounted a great defense. She's hired bodyguards to protect her from all the crazed Ripperologists who are out to kill her.

oh and lately she's apparently paying gobs of money for a Ripperologist researcher to "prove" Sickert was the Ripper.

[Graham]

Actually she's mounted a great defense. She's hired bodyguards to protect her from all the crazed Ripperologists who are out to kill her.

oh and lately she's apparently paying gobs of money for a Ripperologist researcher to "prove" Sickert was the Ripper.

Yeah, I did hear that Steven Park had moved on since the bottom fell out of the fake Diary business...

...Christ, can you imagine the fuss if Cornball had picked Maybrick rather than Sicker???

Graham