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.

[Lewis C]

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.

OK, so we at least are on the same page now that Ryder and Begg are saying that the letter is from 1888. How judicious they were in determining that is another question. I don't know anything about Ryder, but I do think that Begg is generally pretty judicious.

My position all along has been that as far as we know, Sickert doesn't have an ironclad alibi, which means that we can't rule him out. However, as each of us evaluates suspects, we should each consider how likely it is that someone who was in France on September 6th and September 16th (if we accept that he was) would have gone to the London area to kill someone and returned to France in the days between Sept 6 & 16 without there being any evidence that he ever left France during that period. And then ask what is there about Sickert that would lead one to believe that he was the Ripper anyway. Again, it's not impossible, but there are thousands of people that we could say that about.

[FISHY1118]

OK, so we at least are on the same page now that Ryder and Begg are saying that the letter is from 1888. How judicious they were in determining that is another question. I don't know anything about Ryder, but I do think that Begg is generally pretty judicious.

My position all along has been that as far as we know, Sickert doesn't have an ironclad alibi, which means that we can't rule him out. However, as each of us evaluates suspects, we should each consider how likely it is that someone who was in France on September 6th and September 16th (if we accept that he was) would have gone to the London area to kill someone and returned to France in the days between Sept 6 & 16 without there being any evidence that he ever left France during that period. And then ask what is there about Sickert that would lead one to believe that he was the Ripper anyway. Again, it's not impossible, but there are thousands of people that we could say that about.

Ok , so now equate that same reasoning with Montague Druitt, a suspect who in most minds here is rated very highly , however his movements surrounding his cricket schedule and the time factor required to be in London for the Nichols murder can be argued the same as your Sickert reasons .

There is on this site a podcast all about Druitt , and its very detailed in the way just how unlikely it would have been to have got to Whitechapel on a particular murder night . This reasoning is no different that what you suggest of Sickert .

If its ok for Druitt its ok for Sickert.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Surely you must agree Fishy that a single train journey from Dorset to London of around 117 miles would have been far less challenging than Sickert travelling from wherever he was staying in France to a ship across the channel followed by a journey from port to a railway station then a train to London?

[FISHY1118]

Surely you must agree Fishy that a single train journey from Dorset to London of around 117 miles would have been far less challenging than Sickert travelling from wherever he was staying in France to a ship across the channel followed by a journey from port to a railway station then a train to London?

I seem to remember Ally,s summary on that podcast as to Druitts travel times was a little more complicated that the Herlock , I might go back and take another listen . But at the time I remember being gobsmacked as to the degree of difficulty he would have had to overcome to make to Whitechapel on the night of one or more of the murders . I don't believe it was as simple as just a single train journey. Like I said tho, I'll take another listen.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I seem to remember Ally,s summary on that podcast as to Druitts travel times was a little more complicated that the Herlock , I might go back and take another listen . But at the time I remember being gobsmacked as to the degree of difficulty he would have had to overcome to make to Whitechapel on the night of one or more of the murders . I don't believe it was as simple as just a single train journey. Like I said tho, I'll take another listen.

No one knows what time the cricket match started or finished though Fishy. Two innings were played with a paltry 87 runs being scored in total so the actual cricket couldn’t have taken long. Chris Phillips posted this from Bradshaw which shows that even if Druitt had left at 6.30pm he could have got to London, Waterloo via Salisbury for 10.37pm. The cricket match however could have been done and dusted by 2.00pm though allowing him an extra 4 hours of travel time.

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/persons-of-interest-or-actual-suspects/m-j-druitt/588052-proof-of-innocence?p=590091#post590091