Who was killed by Jack the Ripper?

[FISHY1118]

A letter from Sickert's mother dated September 6th documents that Walter was in St. Valery-en-Caux at that time. "A letter sent by a French painter, Jacques-Emile Blanche, to his father described a visit with Sickert on September 16th." Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Patricia Cornwell and Walter Sickert: A Primer

See also Paul Begg's Jack the Ripper the Facts, pp. 410-411.

I ve had this discussion about said letter/s , its not conclusive in regards to Sickert s movement on the dates on the murders

The 16th you mentioned isn't a murder date and the 6th Sept has no year 1888 on it , if you can post it I'd like to see it . Cheers

[Lewis C]

I ve had this discussion about said letter/s , its not conclusive in regards to Sickert s movement on the dates on the murders

The 16th you mentioned isn't a murder date and the 6th Sept has no year 1888 on it , if you can post it I'd like to see it . Cheers

When I said, "It has been proven that Sickert was in France shortly before and shortly after the Chapman murder, and there's no evidence that he was ever anywhere but in France in the days in between," I didn't mean "the same day" when I said, "shortly before and shortly after". If I had meant that, I wouldn't have referred to the days in between, and I wouldn't have said in the next sentence that he may not have an ironclad alibi.

I don't have a copy of the Sept 6th letter, but from the context of the reference in Ryder's article and Begg's book, it's clear that the year is 1888.

[FISHY1118]

When I said, "It has been proven that Sickert was in France shortly before and shortly after the Chapman murder, and there's no evidence that he was ever anywhere but in France in the days in between," I didn't mean "the same day" when I said, "shortly before and shortly after". If I had meant that, I wouldn't have referred to the days in between, and I wouldn't have said in the next sentence that he may not have an ironclad alibi.

I don't have a copy of the Sept 6th letter, but from the context of the reference in Ryder's article and Begg's book, it's clear that the year is 1888.

Context is not Evidence. Its no where near clear.

Its clear however that Sickert could well have been in London at the time of the murders.

[Lewis C]

Context is not Evidence. Its no where near clear.

Its clear however that Sickert could well have been in London at the time of the murders.

I didn't say that context is evidence. However, understanding context is part of reading comprehension.

[FISHY1118]

I didn't say that context is evidence. However, understanding context is part of reading comprehension.

''Understanding context'' who chooses the ''understanding'' in this case ? .... its subjective .

[Lewis C]

''Understanding context'' who chooses the ''understanding'' in this case ? .... its subjective .

Did you read the 2 sources that I cited? With Ryder, you could start near the bottom of it, at the Fact #6 heading. With Begg, you could start with p. 410. There's no question that both are talking about 1888. It's not subjective, unless you want to call all reading comprehension subjective, which would mean that we can't learn anything factual from reading, because facts aren't subjective.

[FISHY1118]

Did you read the 2 sources that I cited? With Ryder, you could start near the bottom of it, at the Fact #6 heading. With Begg, you could start with p. 410. There's no question that both are talking about 1888. It's not subjective, unless you want to call all reading comprehension subjective, which would mean that we can't learn anything factual from reading, because facts aren't subjective.

Their "opinion" is its 1888 . The actual letter shows 6th Sept on a page.

2 days before Chapmans Murder .

Besides ,You don't think its possible to go back fourth from France to England in two days in 1888 ?,it was only roughly a 6 hour trip back then.

He could easily have left France on the 6th or 7th, stayed the night of the 8th in England ( in time for Chapmans murder) and then back in France on the 9th. We can't rule Sickert out as a suspect on that letter alone im afraid.