Some thoughts, after a year's study:

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Nevermind that it is not a fact that the murderer must have written any letters.

[GUT]

Let's cut to the chase.

Sickert MAY have written some letters.

That is the most you can say.

And even that is based on the paper in some letters being from the same batch as one he had paper from.

A lot of paper to the batch.

The DNA is inconclusive.

Obviously Ms C has another book coming out but she needs a lot more than she had in "Portrait of a Killer" to persuade most people here.

And I admit I like her books, I enjoyed Portrait just was not convinced by her conclusions.

[BTCG]

Let's cut to the chase.

Sickert MAY have written some letters.

That is the most you can say.

And even that is based on the paper in some letters being from the same batch as one he had paper from.

A lot of paper to the batch.

The DNA is inconclusive.

Obviously Ms C has another book coming out but she needs a lot more than she had in "Portrait of a Killer" to persuade most people here.

And I admit I like her books, I enjoyed Portrait just was not convinced by her conclusions.

It's pretty clear that correspondence from Sickert to various friends was sent using his home stationary within the time period that some claim that Sickert was in France.

Paper expert Peter Bower tells us that 'definitely' Sickert stationary was used in several Ripper letters.

What's puzzling is Ripperologist's reactions to this: that this is somehow normal behavior, and writing letters taking credit for murder is no big deal.

It's interesting, that Ripperologists will state that Sickert was in France during this time period, while offering no proof whatsoever. Oh wait, Sickert's Mother said so, in a letter.

But let's apply some of their (sic) logic: prove to us that Sickert's Mom's letter isn't a forgery.

And there, is the rub: a double standard.

[GUT]

What's puzzling is Ripperologist's reactions to this: that this is somehow normal behavior, and writing letters taking credit for murder is no big deal.

Well considering there were 100's of letters sent and Sickert has been, possibly, linked to a handful obviously it wasn't unusual.

[BTCG]

Well considering there were 100's of letters sent and Sickert has been, possibly, linked to a handful obviously it wasn't unusual.

Nope!

To write even one is unusual. But one letter could be written off as a jest. More than one is behavior you expect to see from a psychopath: injecting himself into the investigation.

[GUT]

To write even one is unusual. But one letter could be written off as a jest. More than one is behavior you expect to see from a psychopath: injecting himself into the investigation

But still doesn't make him a murderer without more than just letters.

[GUT]

Just re-reading the full thread in post #11 BTCG you wrote

I'm not so sure that there were 'hundreds' of letters written by different people. I believe they were written by a very small group.

So hundreds off letters written by a small group you say, but now you argue Sickert was the killer because he wrote more than 1, can't have it both ways can you?

Either lots of people wrote letters, or writing more than one does not a Ripper make.

[Limehouse]

It's pretty clear that correspondence from Sickert to various friends was sent using his home stationary within the time period that some claim that Sickert was in France.

Paper expert Peter Bower tells us that 'definitely' Sickert stationary was used in several Ripper letters.

What's puzzling is Ripperologist's reactions to this: that this is somehow normal behavior, and writing letters taking credit for murder is no big deal.

It's interesting, that Ripperologists will state that Sickert was in France during this time period, while offering no proof whatsoever. Oh wait, Sickert's Mother said so, in a letter.

But let's apply some of their (sic) logic: prove to us that Sickert's Mom's letter isn't a forgery.

And there, is the rub: a double standard.

It was not his mother, but his WIFE who wrote the letter. Can you (or Patricia) produce one person who can claim to have seen, spoken to and touched Walter Sickert in London during the Autumn of 1888?

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Have you ever known any artists?

Nope!

To write even one is unusual. But one letter could be written off as a jest. More than one is behavior you expect to see from a psychopath: injecting himself into the investigation.

Or an artist injecting himself to try and get perspective/inspiration.

[John Wheat]

To BTCG

Are you perfectly sure Jack the Ripper wasn't Vincent VanGough or Dr Barnardo?

Cheers John

[Patrick S]

I'm not so sure that there were 'hundreds' of letters written by different people. I believe they were written by a very small group.

Some of the first gives us our best clue... (from memory)it was sent to a news agency, so as to gain a wider audience. Not something the common man does.

This leads us, again using Occam's Razor, to the simple solution: it was an attempt to sell newspapers, while being vague enough so as not to lead to the newsman's employer.

Sickert felt compelled to 'join the party.'

Strange. I've read the same Cornwell books that you have and found them utterly laughable. I've not read her works of fiction, and I'm afraid that I never will because she'll always be, in my mind, a fool, owing to the absurd hypothoses she draws from her research into Sickert. And I say that she researched Sickert quite deliberately. She did not research the Whitechaqpel murders so much as she researched Walter Sickert. The mere fact that Cornwell clearly began the project, regardless of her assertions to contrary, to prove Sickert was JtR should invalidate her conclusions as a whole, as well as your continued assertions that Occam's Razor selects Sickert as JtR. In fact, if Occam's Razor is actually applied here, the biggest assumption of all must be instantly ignored: That the killer actually wrote any, one, or some of the letters sent to the police, media, Lusk, etc. One must also assume that contemporary investigators were dolts, completely lost, incompetent, incapable. They didn't view Sickert as a suspect. Sticking with Occam's Razor just a moment longer, may I say I find it astounding that you cite it, and then list assumptions as long as your arm about Sickert being a thief, poisoner, etc., etc..

Now, I've only been studying JtR, off and on, for the past 28 years. Like you, I've had periods where I've been convinced that one 'suspect' or another was the killer. Unlike you, I had the good sense not to shout my convictions from the rooftops, especially after only a year down the Whitechapel Road, so to speak. Ultimately, further research, reading, discussion, led me to doubts, deadends, and - sadly - uncertainty. And most of us know that, ultimately, uncertainty is all that remains, 125+ years on.

PDS

[Limehouse]

Strange. I've read the same Cornwell books that you have and found them utterly laughable. I've not read her works of fiction, and I'm afraid that I never will because she'll always be, in my mind, a fool, owing to the absurd hypothoses she draws from her research into Sickert. And I say that she researched Sickert quite deliberately. She did not research the Whitechaqpel murders so much as she researched Walter Sickert. The mere fact that Cornwell clearly began the project, regardless of her assertions to contrary, to prove Sickert was JtR should invalidate her conclusions as a whole, as well as your continued assertions that Occam's Razor selects Sickert as JtR. In fact, if Occam's Razor is actually applied here, the biggest assumption of all must be instantly ignored: That the killer actually wrote any, one, or some of the letters sent to the police, media, Lusk, etc. One must also assume that contemporary investigators were dolts, completely lost, incompetent, incapable. They didn't view Sickert as a suspect. Sticking with Occam's Razor just a moment longer, may I say I find it astounding that you cite it, and then list assumptions as long as your arm about Sickert being a thief, poisoner, etc., etc..

Now, I've only been studying JtR, off and on, for the past 28 years. Like you, I've had periods where I've been convinced that one 'suspect' or another was the killer. Unlike you, I had the good sense not to shout my convictions from the rooftops, especially after only a year down the Whitechapel Road, so to speak. Ultimately, further research, reading, discussion, led me to doubts, deadends, and - sadly - uncertainty. And most of us know that, ultimately, uncertainty is all that remains, 125+ years on.

PDS

A really excellent post Patrick.

[BTCG]

Strange. I've read the same Cornwell books that you have and found them utterly laughable. I've not read her works of fiction, and I'm afraid that I never will because she'll always be, in my mind, a fool, owing to the absurd hypothoses she draws from her research into Sickert. And I say that she researched Sickert quite deliberately. She did not research the Whitechaqpel murders so much as she researched Walter Sickert. The mere fact that Cornwell clearly began the project, regardless of her assertions to contrary, to prove Sickert was JtR should invalidate her conclusions as a whole, as well as your continued assertions that Occam's Razor selects Sickert as JtR. In fact, if Occam's Razor is actually applied here, the biggest assumption of all must be instantly ignored: That the killer actually wrote any, one, or some of the letters sent to the police, media, Lusk, etc. One must also assume that contemporary investigators were dolts, completely lost, incompetent, incapable. They didn't view Sickert as a suspect. Sticking with Occam's Razor just a moment longer, may I say I find it astounding that you cite it, and then list assumptions as long as your arm about Sickert being a thief, poisoner, etc., etc..

Now, I've only been studying JtR, off and on, for the past 28 years. Like you, I've had periods where I've been convinced that one 'suspect' or another was the killer. Unlike you, I had the good sense not to shout my convictions from the rooftops, especially after only a year down the Whitechapel Road, so to speak. Ultimately, further research, reading, discussion, led me to doubts, deadends, and - sadly - uncertainty. And most of us know that, ultimately, uncertainty is all that remains, 125+ years on.

PDS

Great post, if we ignore the fact that you side-step the issue.

Show us your proof. Or, tell us why the standard for you should be less than that for Cornwell.

[BTCG]

A really excellent post Patrick.

See above,

[GUT]

G'day BTCG

Care to respond to post 142.