Walter Sickert: Whitechapel Murderer ?

[John Wheat]

Let's see your proof.

No lets see your proof that Sickert was the Ripper.

[John Wheat]

To BTCG

Are you quite sure Jack the Ripper wasn't Dr Barnardo or Vincent Van Gough?

Cheers John

[BTCG]

No, I have not said that. But it does not rule out other people having access to his writing paper.

Let's see your proof.

[Limehouse]

I see, so his writings to other artists at this time, are forgeries.

No, I have not said that. But it does not rule out other people having access to his writing paper.

[BTCG]

I see, so his writings to other artists at this time, are forgeries.

[Limehouse]

Certainly there is. Using equipment purchased to break the law is the responsibility of the owner of the equipment. Sickert's stationary was used to send confession letters. Sickert is responsible for its use.

If it was Sickert's stationery, how on earth could he have control over who used some of it? Suppose it was his stationery and it was used by someone else when he was in France. How is he responsible?

And, as I have often stated, writing a letter or two of confession does not mean one is a murderer.

[BTCG]

But there is no substantial evidence that Sickert wrote any of the letters, even if Ms Cornwell has shown that one of them was written on a batch of paper, some of which may have been purchased by Sickert.

Writing letters to taunt the police in cases like this is not unusual and is not evidence that the writer was guilty of murder.

Most psychologists and criminal experts agree that murderers of this type do not stop until they are caught. Are you suggesting Sickert simply stopped killing after Kelly and carried on with his life until he died?

As for Cornwell, well isn't she just another Ripperologist

Certainly there is. Using equipment purchased to break the law is the responsibility of the owner of the equipment. Sickert's stationary was used to send confession letters. Sickert is responsible for its use.

[Limehouse]

Methinks that in Sickert, Cornwell has a suspect that Ripperologists cannot defend their behavior against.


And yet, Ripperologists and their vanity feel compelled to spite their faces with their own blades.

One confession letter can be written off as jest: more cannot.

But why let that stop the body of Ripperology?

But there is no substantial evidence that Sickert wrote any of the letters, even if Ms Cornwell has shown that one of them was written on a batch of paper, some of which may have been purchased by Sickert.

Writing letters to taunt the police in cases like this is not unusual and is not evidence that the writer was guilty of murder.

Most psychologists and criminal experts agree that murderers of this type do not stop until they are caught. Are you suggesting Sickert simply stopped killing after Kelly and carried on with his life until he died?

As for Cornwell, well isn't she just another Ripperologist

[BTCG]

And... be prepared:

I suspect that Sickert correspondence dating from what was supposed to be ironclad (the time he was (sic) undisputedly in France, painting) will be unveiled. Some of these letters will be written on Sickert's home stationary and will bear local postmarks. If this is not enough, playbills dating from this narrow window, containing Sickert's drawings, will also be unveiled.

Now, again, it's circumstantial. But the circumstances are starting to resemble a wall of evidence.

[BTCG]

Good evening Mr Sickert, and welcome,

The vast majority of Sickert's work is far from macabre. Have you explored it further than the few mentioned by Ms Cornwell?

Almost the whole of London and most of England was interested in the crimes and it was not just Mr Sickert who represented the killings in his work.

Many, many artists are eccentric - it is what gives them their inspiration and Sickert was painting at a time when art was becoming much more than just portraits and landscapes.

If Ms Cornwell really wanted to prove Sickert was the Ripper, she would have made much more of an effort to determine where he was during the autumn of 1888, or at least at the time when some of the women were killed.

Methinks that in Sickert, Cornwell has a suspect that Ripperologists cannot defend their behavior against.


And yet, Ripperologists and their vanity feel compelled to spite their faces with their own blades.

One confession letter can be written off as jest: more cannot.

But why let that stop the body of Ripperology?

[Ausgirl]

the DNA match Cornwell found was between the Ripper letter received by Dr. Openshaw and one written by the artist James Whistler

Wrong artist, mayhap?

[Sickert]

Agree

I changed my mind about who the ripper was. I think it may have been George Chapman.

[kensei]

The way I recall it, the DNA match Cornwell found was between the Ripper letter received by Dr. Openshaw and one written by the artist James Whistler during the time that Sickert was apprenticed to him and doing things such as mailing letters for him. It's hardly proof though and I don't think Sickert was the Ripper.

[Limehouse]

Limehouse it's the fact that he put things in his paintings that only the police and the killer knew. And as for where the DNA came from, ever heard of Mitochondrial DNA.

If it's a fact - why didn't they arrest him?? Yes - I have heard of mitochondrial DNA but in this case it's not a reliable test.

Sickert probably was not even in the country when at least two of the murders were committed - how do you answer that?

[The Grave Maurice]

1)...where did she get a sample from. Answer one of his relatives.

I don't think so. What relative would that be, exactly? As I recall, Cornwell's hired guns compared the mitochondrial DNA from one of the Ripper letters to a letter known to originate from Sickert's house. The chance of a direct connection was still remarkably low.

And please don't tell me that I have to re-read her book to find this information. I don't think I could stand it.