Some thoughts, after a year's study:

[BTCG]

Care to respond to post 142.

I did. Waiting for the proofs.

[GUT]

No you responded to 146 I'm asking about you statement that the 100's of letters were written by just a few people, but Walter is JTR because he wrote letters.

[BTCG]

No you responded to 146 I'm asking about you statement that the 100's of letters were written by just a few people, but Walter is JTR because he wrote letters.

How convincing... anything else?

[Roy Corduroy]

Good evening Mr/Mrs BTCG and welcome to the discussion group,

...in my Ripper studies, I have read some 50-60 different books, slightly more blob/essays, and watched some 20-30 videos.

That's outstanding.

Based on the level of study however, this comment of yours stumps me:

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

To put it kindly, the victims in the Whitechapel murder file were, yes sometimes prostitutes, but not attractive enough to be models for an artist. The women were known as "the Unfortunates" because of their reduced station in life. They had fallen on hard times, and were often on the bottle, with their good looks a memory of bygone days.

Roy

[The Good Michael]

Based on the level of study however, this comment of yours stumps me:

Roy,
I'm afraid you're coming at this idea from a different angle with a lot of baggage. Let me simplify things, if I may. If you accept without question that Cornwell was right, then the victims had to have been part-time models.

Glad I could help.


Mike

P.S. Get rid of all other JTR books. Baggage.

[GUT]

G'day Mike

I'm afraid you're coming at this idea from a different angle with a lot of baggage. Let me simplify things, if I may. If you accept without question that Cornwell was right, then the victims had to have been part-time models.

Seems to be oh so true and all that knowledge after just a year of study. I have obviously been doing it all wrong as have most on here.

[Patrick S]

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.

Proof for what? What suspect did I present? Would you like 'proof' that Sickert was not JtR? So that's where we are now? Because Cornwell tells us Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper, all those who disagree with her findings and the manner in which she arrived at them must produce proof that he was NOT the killer? I hope you never serve on a jury.

I'm happy to debate you on this topic or any other. I only require that you present a reasonable argument. From what I've read thus far, I don't see how that's possibe. You make very little sense, sir.

Respectfully,

PDS

[Patrick S]

Let's talk, for a moment, about 'side-stepping' issues, shall we?

It's likely Sickert was out of the country in fall 1888. Address the assumption that he was actually in London.

You suggest that it's likely that Sickert was a theif. That's the kind of assumption that Occam's Razor so detests! Tell us WHY it's not mere assumption. Show us your PROOF! Or, at least, show us a suggestion of this previous criminal history?

I could create quite a long list. Alas, you are a neophyte and deserve gentle treatment. Respond to the above and I'll have more for you.

[Patrick S]

Choosing suspects based on celebrity status?

Methinksnot. Experts in the field are certain that Sickert penned some of the Ripper letters. One could be a lark...to exceed one, is a confession.

The onus then is on us, to disprove the confession. Like it or not, this is the ONLY scientific evidence ever uncovered.

Let me apologize in advance for being less than gengle here. But, this is likely the single silliest thing posted on this board. Ever. Here you are, citing things like Occam's Razor, posting the most absurd assumptions imaginable when it comes to Sickert!

You DECIDE - or pehaps Cornwell wrote it first and thus, for you, it's gospel (?) - that Sickert writing more than one letter is a confession. In order to do that you must ASSUME that it was not simply someone fanatically interested in the case (certainly no secret, in 1888, or now) injecting himself into it on whatever level possible. I don't think I'm alone in saying that this is one huge assumption.

I will congratulate you, though. You've brought life to the board, my friend! Sometimes it takes a bit of foolishness to get the old wheels turning again!

[Penhalion]

I don't put very much importance in Walter Sickert's use of a particular type of paper. Even if it was his 'house stationery', I doubt there was some force preventing him from throwing some in his suitcase when he traveled to France. He might have been uncertain of having access to writing paper wherever he was staying in France, or he might have just liked that particular type of paper for his writing. As an artist, he might have had strong preferences in paper and ink.

For me, being pretty well documented as being in France really strikes him off the list of possible Rippers (aside from other items too tedious to mention). While travel between France and England was considerably easier than it had been even 50 years before, it still took time and more importantly money, the latter of which I don't believe Sickert had in any excess at the time.

[MayBea]

I started my journey over a year ago last February, and in my Ripper studies, I have read some 50-60 different books...
So, what does my crystal ball reveal:
Walter Sickert is/was Jack the Ripper...

BTCG, you take me back to my first year of Ripper study back in the 80s. I read all the books in the library and then started my own historical research.

Two clues gave me the direction I would follow up on:

1. The Conspiracy rumors told me to look for someone famous or relatively famous. (Persistent rumor is persistent for a reason.)

2. The M clues at the Chapman and Eddowes murders told me to look for someone with an initial M in their name. (Of course, the M could have been an upside-down W.)

I remember searching through the indexes of British history books for a couple of hours, looking for famous figures with the initial M, before moving on to some other subject and not going back.

Thirty years later, I think I was on the right track but I didn't realize I was right at the time. Of course, I got back into it because of Cornwall and the Diary Debate.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

BTCG, you take me back to my first year of Ripper study back in the 80s. I read all the books in the library and then started my own historical research.

Two clues gave me the direction I would follow up on:

1. The Conspiracy rumors told me to look for someone famous or relatively famous. (Persistent rumor is persistent for a reason.)

2. The M clues at the Chapman and Eddowes murders told me to look for someone with an initial M in their name. (Of course, the M could have been an upside-down W.)

I remember searching through the indexes of British history books for a couple of hours, looking for famous figures with the initial M, before moving on to some other subject and not going back.

Thirty years later, I think I was on the right track but I didn't realize I was right at the time. Of course, I got back into it because of Cornwall and the Diary Debate.

Sigh.... And that's fine. So long as your argument forms are valid. Which is the issue here with BTCG.

[Cogidubnus]

Sorry mate but no... what BTCG seems to be insisting on is that we accept his arguments as absolute gospel (for no particular reason other than he says so), unless we can disprove them by contemporary evidence. This is clearly backwards to generally accepted logic.

Personally, reading his stuff, I think he's nothing but a troll, albeit a deep-rooted one who's taken the trouble to sit in the background until now, and should be ignored...but I'm sure there will be detractors to this view...in the long run, who cares?

All the best

Dave

[GUT]

G'day Dave

I keep promising myself that I will ignore this person's posts but keep getting sucked in by the inanity of the arguments proposed and lack of evidence to support same.

said elsewhere I suspect Patricia has her next book coming soon.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Cogi!!!

Good speaking with you again my friend!!! I was attempting a tactful productive approach. First to deal with the argument form before moving anywhere past that. Start at step one kinda thing. I noticed that offering constructive critisism got no response, whilst the blade, so to speak, was met. Was hoping it was sinking into the subconscious and would later emerge victorious. Gotta try, right? And how the hell are you? Hope all has been well with you and yours.