Some thoughts, after a year's study:

[BTCG]

Whether we like it or not, the ONLY evidence that has ever been found... was found by the most hated ripperologist of all... Ms. PC.

I started my journey over a year ago last February, and in my Ripper studies, I have read some 50-60 different books, slightly more blob/essays, and watched some 20-30 videos.

So, what does my crystal ball reveal:

My North Star= Occam's Razor

Walter Sickert is/was Jack the Ripper

It's my belief that not only is/was Sickert your first serial killer... but if he had actually been apprehended, his arrest would have revealed:

1- The first portable rape kit

2- The first portable sedation kit

3- The first shrine to his victims

His arrest would have opened/began an understanding of the evolution of this type of specialized murderer, as the so-called Ripper murders were most likely, neither his first, nor his last murders.

Sickert likely began his criminal life as a thief. This would have escalated into assault, and from there, into murder.

His first murders would have been low-risk: I'd wager that he began by poisoning his victims. It would be interesting if we could track the deaths of servants and other people he would have deemed beneath him so as to see how many met with untimely death, or sudden disappearance.

After a time, likely coinciding with his prolonged opium use, death by poison would not have offered him the thrill he was seeking. At this point, poison became a mere tool for him in murder.

Opium users (in any form) soon develop issues in obtaining sleep. Users initially attempt to keep to their normal schedule. But the drug soon interrupts normal sleep, requiring odd-hour napping in an attempt to make up for lost sleep. Dependence soon leads to secondary, evening doses. And when the supply becomes interrupted, terrible withdrawal symptoms occur.

Combining this addiction with the addiction to murder would have lead Sickert to incorporate what he'd learned about himself and drugs.

Prostitutes likely served double-duty: as models, and victims.

When someone is paying you, and proving booze to you, selling your mate's boots for some quick meal-money isn't an issue.

Sickert was a source for a late-night bottle. What they didn't know... was what he had added to it: a good dose of opium.

After a few swallows, strangulation becomes much easier... the precursor to the cutting.

[DRoy]

BTCG,

There sure is alot of guesswork and assumptions in your post. That isn't a very good way to arrive at a conclusion. I'm not sure what books you read or what videos you watched but you've missed alot of actual evidence.

I wish you good luck in convincing others. I for one am not buying though.

Cheers
DRoy

[BTCG]

BTCG,

There sure is alot of guesswork and assumptions in your post. That isn't a very good way to arrive at a conclusion. I'm not sure what books you read or what videos you watched but you've missed alot of actual evidence.

I wish you good luck in convincing others. I for one am not buying though.

Cheers
DRoy

Of course there's guesswork and assumption.

The ONLY objective evidence was found by Cornwell... and yes, that does not prove that Sickert wrote them... it proves that his stationary was involved.

BUT... society has recognized the wisdom of Occam's Razor...

Need I explain that to you?

[Ally]

No but you do need to explain how precisely Sickert writing a letter distinguishes him from the other hundreds of people who wrote letters claiming to be from Jack the Ripper. They can't all be Jack the Ripper, so therefore, someone having written a letter is irrelevant and meaningless when it comes to establishing who was Jack.

I am not entirely sure you understand the concept of Occam's Razor, since you misuse it, quite egregiously. Nothing in what you wrote illustrates the principle you cite.

[mklhawley]

BTCG,

The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness. You're at the right place to dialogue and debate, but empty your cup and standbye for some things you may not have known about Cornwell and Sickert.

Sincerely,

Mike

[lynn cates]

yup

Hello Ally.

"I am not entirely sure you understand the concept of Occam's Razor, since you misuse it, quite egregiously. Nothing in what you wrote illustrates the principle you cite."

Precisely.

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

A year's study and this is what you come up with? You've just cut yourself with that razor.

Mike

[Phil Carter]

Hello Mike, Ally, Lynn, Mike, DRoy, BTCG, all,


As most know, Walter Sickert's father was Danish.

The Danish (and Norwegian for that matter) word for "sure" is..

"sikkert"


That might help anybody looking for abysmal clues in favour of Walter Sickert's candicacy as Jack the Ripper.

It won't help the cause though, which is as dead in the water as a man in a rowing boat without oars facing the prospect of a tsunami wave 80ft high...in a raging storm...at night...with a rather large leak under his feet.


Phil

[Phil H]

Poor walter - why is it that the intellectually challenged seem to latch on to him.

True, as Sitwell and Pash show, Walter seems to have had an obsession with the murders (as in a later generation many diod with the JFK assassination, I suppose). Cornwell has demonstrated that he was probably a writer of hoax letters - but that does not make him, even potentially, a killer.

There is also plenty of EVIDENCE in regard to the case - the files etc. Some of it is questionable, and detection in 1888 was not as advanced as it has become. But we are not short of material - it is intellectual rigour that is required.

You state that you "have read some 50-60 different books, slightly more blob/essays, and watched some 20-30 videos."

Much would depend on which books you read - some Ripper volumes on my shelves are outdated (Knight, McCormick, half of matters, as examples). One book on Barnett got the wrong individual! Some material in older journalistic books was invented. Knight misued research material and deliberately covered up some evidence adverse to his theory. So one has to be careful.

Some of the videos were good in their day, but must now be seriously out of date, and most are superficial. All the films are rubbish in scholarly terms.

In fact the only books you really need are relatively recent ones: The Ultimate Source Book; Letters, Scotland Yard Investigates; Begg's volumes; the A-Z, maybe the recent CSI book; Sugden - and a few suspect books, Evans on Tumblety, Fido on Kosminski etc. the dissertations on Casebook would also be very helpful on detail.

On Sickert specifically have you read JEAN OVERTON FULLER? or ROBERT EMMONS as examples?

The first portable rape kit And that comprises?

the so-called Ripper murders were most likely, neither his first, nor his last murders. the others being?

Sickert likely began his criminal life as a thief. This would have escalated into assault, and from there, into murder. Evidence?

His first murders would have been low-risk: I'd wager that he began by poisoning his victims. Evidence?

Sickert was a source for a late-night bottle. What they didn't know... was what he had added to it: a good dose of opium. Where is the medical basis for such an assertion? Please indicate any of the doctors who saw the victims who support that view?

Nothing in that farrago of nonsense, remotely touches Sickert. For all your alleged reading - what of novels and picture books? - you cite no sources, and your conclusion appears to recede your arguments or any evidence. You make unsupported and unsustainable statements with no corroboration.

How much do you really know about Sickert's life or his art? have you looked at his paintings in the flesh as it were? I have - I have the catalogue of the Royal Academy exhibition to prove it. I went specifically because I was interested in whether his work provided ANY support for Knight's or other's views. IMHO they do not.

You seem to me to traduce a significant and influential artist without sympathy or understanding, proper research or evidence. Your post is, in some ways, even worse than the recent nonsense thread claiming that Van Gogh was JtR!!

Now is the time to put up or shut up. Put up your evidence - citing sources and references etc, and I'll debate with you seriously and in detail. Otherwise, stop houding a man who cannot respond.

Phil

[Limehouse]

Hello BTCG,

I think we may have crossed paths on this matter before?

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Where do I start?

Firstly, I'd like to ask you, have you ever studied Sickert's life outside that written about him by Cornwell? Have you, for example, read any of his personal letters? By this, I mean those he wrote to friends such as Virginia Woolf? These reveal a lot more about his life, his work and his personality than some crude readings of his paintings could ever do.

Secondly, as Phil H has stated, where is your evidence that Sickert was an opium user? Nothing, I mean nothing, in his life or work supports this claim.

Thirdly, most specialists in serial murder would agree that it is almost unknown for a poisoner to change to a slash/mutilator or vice versa. They are completely different types of murderer for a good many reasons that I do not have time to explain at this precise moment (but I will).

Finally (for now) there is no evidence that some of the letters were written on Sickert's actual stationery, only that they were written on a batch of stationery that included Sickert as a customer. That stationery could have ended up anywhere, and in any case, as Ally points out, writing a letter claiming to be a murderer does not make one a murderer as the famous Yorkshire Ripper hoax demonstrates.

However, I would be very interested to hear more of your ideas. If you can offer something in the form of very solid evidence, I am sure we would all be very pleased to discuss it.

Warm regards

Julie

[BTCG]

No but you do need to explain how precisely Sickert writing a letter distinguishes him from the other hundreds of people who wrote letters claiming to be from Jack the Ripper. They can't all be Jack the Ripper, so therefore, someone having written a letter is irrelevant and meaningless when it comes to establishing who was Jack.

I am not entirely sure you understand the concept of Occam's Razor, since you misuse it, quite egregiously. Nothing in what you wrote illustrates the principle you cite.

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.'

[BTCG]

BTCG,

The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness. You're at the right place to dialogue and debate, but empty your cup and standbye for some things you may not have known about Cornwell and Sickert.

Sincerely,

Mike

Not if you seek to use it as a weight.

[DRoy]

BTCG,

I'm sorry for being a bit negative about your conclusion, I just find it mind-boggling that this kind of conclusion can still be arrived at. Even if the only book you ever read was Cornwell's; you still shouldn't be able to arrive at that conclusion!

Besides, didn't you know...Van Gogh is the Ripper

[BTCG]

Hello BTCG,

I think we may have crossed paths on this matter before?

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Where do I start?

Firstly, I'd like to ask you, have you ever studied Sickert's life outside that written about him by Cornwell? Have you, for example, read any of his personal letters? By this, I mean those he wrote to friends such as Virginia Woolf? These reveal a lot more about his life, his work and his personality than some crude readings of his paintings could ever do.

Secondly, as Phil H has stated, where is your evidence that Sickert was an opium user? Nothing, I mean nothing, in his life or work supports this claim.

Thirdly, most specialists in serial murder would agree that it is almost unknown for a poisoner to change to a slash/mutilator or vice versa. They are completely different types of murderer for a good many reasons that I do not have time to explain at this precise moment (but I will).

Finally (for now) there is no evidence that some of the letters were written on Sickert's actual stationery, only that they were written on a batch of stationery that included Sickert as a customer. That stationery could have ended up anywhere, and in any case, as Ally points out, writing a letter claiming to be a murderer does not make one a murderer as the famous Yorkshire Ripper hoax demonstrates.

However, I would be very interested to hear more of your ideas. If you can offer something in the form of very solid evidence, I am sure we would all be very pleased to discuss it.

Warm regards

Julie

Julie,

THE most telling is that the one objective fact has been avoided by this group in the manner of a disease: Cornwell has produced the only objective evidence in the history of the case. And egos have been bruised along the way.

The ego must be physically nested near the eye, as these bruises seem to be blocking vision.

[Michael W Richards]

Whether we like it or not, the ONLY evidence that has ever been found... was found by the most hated ripperologist of all... Ms. PC.

I started my journey over a year ago last February, and in my Ripper studies, I have read some 50-60 different books, slightly more blob/essays, and watched some 20-30 videos.

So, what does my crystal ball reveal:

My North Star= Occam's Razor

Walter Sickert is/was Jack the Ripper

It's my belief that not only is/was Sickert your first serial killer... but if he had actually been apprehended, his arrest would have revealed:

1- The first portable rape kit

2- The first portable sedation kit

3- The first shrine to his victims

His arrest would have opened/began an understanding of the evolution of this type of specialized murderer, as the so-called Ripper murders were most likely, neither his first, nor his last murders.

Sickert likely began his criminal life as a thief. This would have escalated into assault, and from there, into murder.

His first murders would have been low-risk: I'd wager that he began by poisoning his victims. It would be interesting if we could track the deaths of servants and other people he would have deemed beneath him so as to see how many met with untimely death, or sudden disappearance.

After a time, likely coinciding with his prolonged opium use, death by poison would not have offered him the thrill he was seeking. At this point, poison became a mere tool for him in murder.

Opium users (in any form) soon develop issues in obtaining sleep. Users initially attempt to keep to their normal schedule. But the drug soon interrupts normal sleep, requiring odd-hour napping in an attempt to make up for lost sleep. Dependence soon leads to secondary, evening doses. And when the supply becomes interrupted, terrible withdrawal symptoms occur.

Combining this addiction with the addiction to murder would have lead Sickert to incorporate what he'd learned about himself and drugs.

Prostitutes likely served double-duty: as models, and victims.

When someone is paying you, and proving booze to you, selling your mate's boots for some quick meal-money isn't an issue.

Sickert was a source for a late-night bottle. What they didn't know... was what he had added to it: a good dose of opium.

After a few swallows, strangulation becomes much easier... the precursor to the cutting.

Very interesting ....I wonder what you might suggest once youve studied the cases, the people, the area, the environment, and the political status for more than 20 years. Or 30, or more. Some here have studied for 5 decades.

The longer you study amigo you will see that not one "suspect" has any kind of legitimate reason for being considered as such...including Walter.

Cheers