Portarit of a killer: Jack the Ripper, Case Closed

[Zuni]

I read patricia Cornwall's book over the weekend, and it is a first class work. She makes a very strong circumstantial case that artist Walter Sickert was the ripper and that the murders did not begin or end with the 5 prostitutes slain in Whitechapel in the fall of 1888.
For everyone that likes unsolved mysteries and true crime, this is a great book.

[CMT]

1. I read it too

and interesting evidence she has involving paper used to write Ripper letters.

[Zuni]

2. yeah

I had no idea that there were so many 'potential' Ripper letters. The whole partial DNA thing is also quite a strong bit of circumstance, it wouldn't be allowed in court but is still intriguing.

[WoodrowFan]

3. Sorry, debunked

Sorry, but here thesis has been pretty much debunked. For one thing, Sickert was in France when many of the murders were committed. There ar eproblems with trying to use DNA the way she does as well.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-pamandsickert.html

an excerpt from the website./

Although any one of these several bits of evidence could feasibly be ignored or explained away, the combination of all these independent sources confirming the same thing - namely, that Sickert was in France at the time of the Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes murders - suggests that Sickert could not have been the killer. While it is true that ferry service between England and France was widely available, and technically Sickert could have travelled back and forth before and after each murder, that is pure speculation and there is no evidence to suggest this was the case.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So what does that leave us with? I think at best we can say that Cornwell has found some very interesting connections between Sickert and some of the Ripper correspondence, which is certainly worthy of further investigation. For this she should certainly be applauded. Ripper researchers have wondered for years whether or not it was possible to extract useable DNA from any of the extant documents, and thanks to Patricia Cornwell's research we now know that it is, apparently, possible. Her finding of a possible link between Sickert and the Openshaw letter is an important discovery, and, if confirmed, would add a third member to our list of known "Ripper hoaxers."

However, there remains as yet no concrete evidence that definitively connects Sickert with the Ripper letters, and, even if there was, that remains a far cry from being able to name Sickert as the Ripper himself. Cornwell's findings in no way should be considered sufficient evidence that the case is solved "100%". No jury, today or in 1888, would ever convict Sickert on the basis of her findings.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

4. Yep. Cornwell has very little real evidence. Francis Tumblety most likely

Not that anyone can ever prove that, of course.

[Zuni]

5. I disagree

Many of the points in the book are the talking points of this piece. She does mention that Sickert could have gone to France, for one. It was possible in 1888 to go to France for a day trip from london if one was so inclined. She talks about his so called trip at length.
She never claims anything about the DNA--indeed she points out the weakness of the evidence. She just writes her findings--that DNA samples on a Sickert letter, a possible Ripper letter and Sickerts old clothing have a DNA sequence that rules out 99% of the world's population. Not conclusive, but certainly interesting.
Many of the letters 'from the Ripper' were regarded as pranks then and now by investigators. She disagrees about many of them.
That is one of the points of her book.
The person who wrote this article is probably a 'ripperologist' who either out of jealousy or personal ambition does not want this book to become the bible of ripper investigators.
Most of his 'defense' points are brought up in the book and discussed.

[WoodrowFan]

7. It's not enough Zuni. *S*

I had to deal with this a lot with students when I taught college history. Someone would read a book proving Queen Elixabeth REALLY wrote Shakesphere and the student was convinced. You can't just read one book and say AHAH that's it, especially in cases where the issue is controversal, and even more so if the author is a reporter or amature historian. You have to read the opposing viewpoints as well to weigh the evidence. I know you liked the book Zuni, and it sounds interesting, but it's a real stretch to say Sickert jumped a ferry to go to Britian, murder again, then jump the ferry back when there is simply no proof he did so. And given the evidence that he was in France, she would HAVE to prove that he could have taken a ferry to be the killer. Besides, as the website noted, he's not a new suspect so I doubt that jealosy was the motive for the critique.


BTW, I have no dog in this fight, I have no "favorite" candidate for who the killer was, I am just interested in how historical evidence is presented and weighed.

[Zuni]

12. I rarely, if ever, jump on a historical bandwagon

But this book had some evidence that I found rather damning. On top of that, I read the link and I am still not convinced that she was wrong.
But, if one was able to find solid evidence of her errors, i would be open to it.

[Zuni]

15. One more point

Sickert may have been in france for certain periods in 1888. he was known to travel there often. But, he could have gone back to london for periods also during that time and then visited France again. When I lived for a summer in Ocean City Maryland, I often left the eastern shore to come back home.
There is nothing to say conclusdively that he was in France or in london at the times of any of the murders.

[SiobhanClancy]

16. One small point...

I read the book,and all I found was a shaky circumstancial case against Sickert. While he may well have been the Ripper,I don't think she proved it. Evidently she proved it to her own satisfaction,but not to mine. My choices would be 1)anonymous person/name forever unknown 2)John Maybrick 3)Francis Tulmuty(sp). I can't prove it,but give a few million to spend,and I'm sure I can come up with some evidence:)

[WoodrowFan]

17. The evidence

There is evidence he was in France at the time, there is no evidence he was in Britain, or anywhere except France. The burden of proof then falls on those that say Sickert was the killer to prove he was in Britain. That's the way historical evidence works.

[Zuni]

21. Handwriting analysis

of "ripper letters' mailed from in England show that he might very well have written at least some of them. Some of the Ripper letters have crude drawings that are VERY similar to other crude drawings on Sickert's correspondence.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

24. FWIW I think Sickert may well have written some letters.

Doesn't make him the Ripper, though. Plenty of hoaxers out there, even in the nineteenth century.

[WoodrowFan]

25. problems

1. handwriting analysis is very subjective.

2. the "Ripper" letters seem to be fakes (ie, not written by the reall Ripper) so even if Sickert wrote them it proves only that he was obsessing about the case, which would put him in plenty of company.

3. crude drawing? also, very subjective.

again, nothing that would convince a jury, or a historian.

[Zuni]

6. There is very little evidence that Sickert was in France

at the time. One letter, without an envelope or a postmark is the sole bit of evidence of his jaunt to france.

If he was in France, it was not for the whole time of the Autumn, and he never visited any of his friends in Normandy, and this was a different time of year that he normally went. he had spent the early summer, perhaps up to July in France, not the autumn in 1888.

[WoodrowFan]

8. Untrue

That is Cornwell's claim, but it's not entirely true. The website I linked above notes that there are several other letters from friends and family from late summer-early Fall that refer to Sickert being in France until at least October.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

14. What admissible evidence does Cornwell have?

Sickert is likely to have written a Ripper Letter, is that it? Does she have anything to tie him to the crime scenes, victims or any likely weapons? Not being rhetorical, geniunely wondering.

[Zuni]

18. since there were no fingerprints at the time

there was also no search of his belongings from the police, as he was never a suspect
there was also no forsenic sciences
no eyewitnesses
and many of the crime scenes and investigations were hopelessly contaminated or destroyed by the police, who did an awful job of investigating

The case is circumstantial, and revolves around the letter writing, sickert's strange nocturnal habits, a black bag he carried and the fact that he often had secret studios all over the East End.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

22. Yeah, I'm afraid no court's gonna convict on that.

Hardly case closed.

[Zuni]

23. I wouldn't convict either

If I were on a jury, i would not have convicted him based on the entirely circumstantial case.
I would need fingerprints, witnesses, and other things to give a guilty verdict

[Screaming Lord Byron]

26. Fair enough, I just wished she hadn't said case closed when it isn't

It's likely we'll never know.

[supernova]

9. What about the Queens Physician?

That's the theory put forth in the From Hell graphic novel, and movie. The queen's personal physician killed the women 1) due to his own deteriorating mental health 2) as a way to silence the women who serviced Prince Albert. (If you believe the rumors about his womanizing.)

I'm no expert just curious what more long-time students of the case think about this theory?

[WoodrowFan]

10. Website

I am not a Ripperoligist (is that a word?) but this site seems to have a good summary.

http://www.casebook.org/intro.html

[Screaming Lord Byron]

11. The Gull hypothesis is pretty unlikely.

The whole masonic conspiracy is on pretty shaky foundations.

[Zuni]

13. He was an old man at the time

like 70 or 80 or so. I think that in itself rules him out.

[dofus]

19. I read the book myself

and was not totally convinced. She makes a case, but there's waaaay too much of "He could have done this, it's possible he was there, perhaps this happened " as compared to really solid evidence.

I've read several Ripper books and find them all quite interesting. Scotland Yard's files on the Ripper have been sealed until some time later this century, and apparently a lot of evidence from the crime scenes has disappeared from the files (according to "The Complete Jack the Ripper" by Donald Rumbolow, 1976).

[leftofthedial]

20. Bush's great-great grandfather did it

that family is evil!