Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Patricia Cornwell: Meet Jack the Ripper

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

  • Patricia Cornwell: Meet Jack the Ripper

    Casebook members, what are your current views on Cornwell's 'proof'?


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVjwJXdMhWQ
    ---------------------------------------------------
    JtR3D.com JtR 3D Blog
    ---------------------------------------------------
    HHAP

  • #2
    Hello Richard,

    Thanks for posting the videos.

    If you put on Sickert glasses then suddenly everything is going to appear Sickert. I think her conclusions suffer from an inherent problem with suspect oriented investigations. That is, you reach a conclusion and cherry pick the evidence to support it. I think that is what she did. Sickert certainly comes across as a weird guy and a circumstantial case can be made for him being the Ripper but then again a circumstantial case can be made for any number of suspects.

    Interesting that her careful scrutiny of the wall in Kelly's room turned up a caricature of Sickert but she didn't see the famed F.M. initials.

    Reviews of her book on Amazon show that many of the readers were less than impressed.

    c.d.

    Comment


    • #3
      Well you can usually find anything you look for if you look hard enough with little discernment.
      G U T

      There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

      Comment


      • #4
        Patricia Cornwell has spent considerable time and money researching the Whitechapel murders. I think she genuinely has become intrigued with the case. I also believe she has made a sincere effort to advance understanding of the crimes. As CD states, there is an element of being focussed on Walter Sickert being the ripper and she overstates her case. Nevertheless, an interesting voice in this space.

        The videos in the link in the OP all start with an assertion that walter sickert is the ripper. This is far from proven and is an example of her over confidence in her theory. There is no definitive proof proffered. Some interesting reading but not case closed.

        Comment


        • #5
          I think Cornwall is right in saying that the Ripper was cleaver and he was certainly was not a lowlife. If Sickert lived in Whitechapel at the time of the murders, like everyone else he should be looked at as a potential suspect and there's no harm in that. I suppose Sickert is a far better suspect than many of the names that have been banded about on this website over the years. Interesting but I'm still on the fence.

          Comment


          • #6
            Im usually quite leniant on various peoples theories, there suspects etc. within reason. However cornwall is a nut job, its a crackpot theory and sickert as the ripper is a non starter. I actually bought her original book, but couldnt even get past the the first couple of chapters. I think it was when i read she claimed most of the ripper letters were sent by the ripper. Lol.
            "Is all that we see or seem
            but a dream within a dream?"

            -Edgar Allan Poe


            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

            -Frederick G. Abberline

            Comment


            • #7
              Any caricature is but the tip of the iceberg ....
              involved but no killer
              You can lead a horse to water.....

              Comment


              • #8
                If Walter Sickert was obsessed, his artwork seemed to showed this. And Cornwall can only put Sickert in the area for three of the Ripper murders, so perhaps it is game over for Walter as a suspect.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Cornwell had the pillowcase of a theory about Sickert and paid "Ripperologists" such as Keith Skinner for the "stuffing" (who also provided the same for Bruce Robinson's hot aired whimsy may be more emblematic of a certain profession than the "canonical five ever were, ahem)

                  Her "autopsies" on Sickert's work are rightly seen as the more grotesque features of her utter ignorance of the themes of the European impressionist movement of which WS was an exemplary British exponent. Using her logic, you would cut up the master tapes of 'The Smiths' lps to prove Morrissey was guilty of the Moors murders.

                  I came to ripperology via the Royal Conspiracy route and realised quickly what real shoe-leather wearing researchers could produce. Writing and research of a wholly superior quality to the likes of Cornwell. One also begins to realise that the British establishment, politicians and the police, were more conscientious and concerned than broad brush, half-baked theories allow. However, via the worst excesses of Empire building and slow as treacle solutions to social deprivation, one doesn't need some relatively small ritual murder pinned on them to make you view them with some disdain in some areas.

                  One day Keith Skinner will need pinned down, either by interview or expose, on the metaphorical Tower Bridges he sells to "name" ripperologists. In the meantime, a few months on casebook.org will sharpen your wits, strengthen your integrity and raise your standards.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Hello everyone, I've not posted before but read as much as I can on the forums. Some really good interesting finds by researchers and some absolute bonkers theories by others lol. Walter Sickert like other prominent "famous" faces would stick out like a sore thumb skulking around Whitechapel in 1888. None of the known facts of the case fit Sickert as a serious person of interest let alone full blown suspect. Really cannot understand why some writers go down these routes (other than to flog books of course). It wastes everyones time. Same with the Maybrick diaries - seriously expect people to believe a rich bloke from Liverpool comes down to London every other week to seek out a destitute middle aged drunk and then slaughter them, avoid the police, the public, the vigilantes, and escape back to the north? And then write a diary...Hmmm.
                    Walter Sickert was just interested in the dark side of the human soul and would just like most people of the day, read with revulsion and fascination at the papers reports of the Ripper crimes. He painted the world as he saw it that's all. Cornwell's totally off her meds if she thinks this is a worthy lead to pursue.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Welcome to the boards Marty.

                      Nice all encompassing post.

                      I think you'll do just fine on these boards.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The most recent iteration of the Cornwell book is very good for its maps and illustrations ... but that's about it. As the first poster said above, Ms Cornwell decided upon a suspect and sifted through available evidence to cherry pick the scant crumbs that might be viewed to support her selection. As a solicitor for 35 years, I can assure Ms Cornwell that no prosecutor in a western democracy would even look twice, perhaps not even once, at instituting a prosecution of Mr Sickert. There is actually no evidence at all linking Mr Sickert to the crimes, and pretty much all of her 'evidence' could just as easily apply to hundreds, if not thousands, of men living in and around London in 1888.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Oherga,

                          HOOEY! You've got Ripper letters using stationary the was a part of WS's quire of paper. The only answer offered by Ripperologist's here is

                          "well, that doesn't prove WS wrote them..."

                          The obvious allusion being WS's wife (who was in Ireland around this time) would also be a suspect... which is absurd!

                          Say what you will, but writing a letter taking credit for the deed is tantamount to a confession.

                          Or, are you saying a confession is not enough to convict?
                          Last edited by BTCG; 03-20-2019, 11:15 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Marty View Post
                            Hello everyone, I've not posted before but read as much as I can on the forums. Some really good interesting finds by researchers and some absolute bonkers theories by others lol. Walter Sickert like other prominent "famous" faces would stick out like a sore thumb skulking around Whitechapel in 1888.
                            Originally posted by Marty View Post
                            Walter Sickert was just interested in the dark side of the human soul and would just like most people of the day, read with revulsion and fascination at the papers reports of the Ripper crimes. He painted the world as he saw it that's all. Cornwell's totally off her meds if she thinks this is a worthy lead to pursue.

                            WS was a former actor, and was said to dress in disguise and lurk about.

                            That alone would render him invisible on the streets.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Yes that's true but I'm just not really convinced he was the Ripper

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X