Tweet
Couldn't help but notice no victim category on Emily Dimmock, the married, murdered prostitute victim of the Camdentown Murder on September 11, 1907. I'm not clear on whether the widely discredited writings of Patricia Cornwell are the only source for connecting her to the Ripper, but I thought the various aspects of the case might be worthy of discussion.
Cornwell believes that Walter Sickert was the Ripper and that he continued killing intermittently after 1888 until he got too old, and that when he moved to Camdentown in north London he killed Emily Dimmock, leaving her with her throat cut face down in her bed inside a locked bedroom while her clueless husband was out of town. She also writes of an unconfirmed story about the next morning when police were on the scene of the murder and Sickert just happened along with his artist supplies in hand, asked what was going on and then asked if he might be allowed inside to sketch the body. As he was famous at the time, they supposedly allowed it, resulting in the subsequent "Camdentown Murder Series" of paintings. Some- just a few- have considered this to be the one time that Jack the Ripper actually profited financially from one of his murders.
I do not think Sickert was the Ripper, but there are those who do. I understand that the story of him showing up at the Dimmock crime scene is only a rumor, but some will take it as gospel, and IF it is true then surely he should have at least been a "person of interest" in the investigation if not a suspect? I do not think that one need believe Sickert to have been the Ripper to believe that he MIGHT have killed Dimmock.
About a year ago while on vacation in London I toured all the Ripper sites and even included Camdentown. I walked from Sickert's old home at 6 Mornington Crescent to Emily Dimmock's house on an obscure side street at 29 Agar Grove (called St. Paul's Road at the time of the murder). It was quite a hike, about a half hour, and I couldn't help but thinking that if Sickert really walked that far with artist's supplies tucked under his arm, it wouldn't be likely that he just happened upon the scene. It would have been a deliberate destination.
Just thought I'd open up the subject for discussion for anyone with any opinions, or who might have any knowledge of the characters of the locations or who might have taken the same walk I did. Personally, I've wondered if Sickert's known fascination with the Ripper and his penchant for dressing up and acting out historical figures he was interested in might have led him to commit this one and only one murder. Not saying I believe it, it is just a wondering.
Cornwell believes that Walter Sickert was the Ripper and that he continued killing intermittently after 1888 until he got too old, and that when he moved to Camdentown in north London he killed Emily Dimmock, leaving her with her throat cut face down in her bed inside a locked bedroom while her clueless husband was out of town. She also writes of an unconfirmed story about the next morning when police were on the scene of the murder and Sickert just happened along with his artist supplies in hand, asked what was going on and then asked if he might be allowed inside to sketch the body. As he was famous at the time, they supposedly allowed it, resulting in the subsequent "Camdentown Murder Series" of paintings. Some- just a few- have considered this to be the one time that Jack the Ripper actually profited financially from one of his murders.
I do not think Sickert was the Ripper, but there are those who do. I understand that the story of him showing up at the Dimmock crime scene is only a rumor, but some will take it as gospel, and IF it is true then surely he should have at least been a "person of interest" in the investigation if not a suspect? I do not think that one need believe Sickert to have been the Ripper to believe that he MIGHT have killed Dimmock.
About a year ago while on vacation in London I toured all the Ripper sites and even included Camdentown. I walked from Sickert's old home at 6 Mornington Crescent to Emily Dimmock's house on an obscure side street at 29 Agar Grove (called St. Paul's Road at the time of the murder). It was quite a hike, about a half hour, and I couldn't help but thinking that if Sickert really walked that far with artist's supplies tucked under his arm, it wouldn't be likely that he just happened upon the scene. It would have been a deliberate destination.
Just thought I'd open up the subject for discussion for anyone with any opinions, or who might have any knowledge of the characters of the locations or who might have taken the same walk I did. Personally, I've wondered if Sickert's known fascination with the Ripper and his penchant for dressing up and acting out historical figures he was interested in might have led him to commit this one and only one murder. Not saying I believe it, it is just a wondering.
Comment