Jack the Ripper: Sickert & The Art of Murder

[Jackdaw]

Dear Irons,

The questions I set were in efforts to make the viewers think for themselves. Although I appreciate your comments you have, like many before you, failed to see their relevance to the case.

An example being question 4) Millitary uniforms.

Shortly before her death Martha Tabram was last seen in the company of a soldier-Coldstream Guards style uniform possibly from the Tower Barracks.

Tabram suffered 39 stab wounds.One of which pierced her heart and was probably inflicted by a 'bayonet' type weapon. (Coroner's report)

Despite witnesses ( including a police officer) who had seen the soldier earlier that fateful evening attending the barracks for Identity Parades of the guards to be carried out, he was never traced.

In studying the events surrounding each murder an element of disguise and cunning is apparent. Whether it be clothing, accent ( English, German, French, and even American etc etc). That is of course if one is to believe that the murders themselves were committed by the same person. However that is only my humble opinion.

[irons]

Tabram was seen with a military man/men but that was up to four hours before her murder. Personaly I think she picked up by someone else nearer to the time of her death, and he was the murderer. Whether that was the ripper is open to debate, some think it was a ripper killing, some don't, I'm undecided. The MO is different and there were two weapons used. The MO doesn't realy bother me as he was possibly looking for his most satisfying way to kill, it wasn't till the Nicholls murder that he perfected it.

What does bother me is the weapons used, almost all the wounds were described as stabs from a penknife. A penknife doesn't sound like the ripper at all. Some claim that the Doctor was mistaken and that a surgical instument was used, that sounds far more feasable. If that was true then I would concur that Tabram was probably killed by the ripper.

As I pointed out earlier I think your going down a dead end with disguises and uniforms. If he was using uniforms and it was succesfull in the Tabram killing why not use them all the time? However, maybe he did but was not spotted by any of the witnesses, but I doubt it.

After reading anything I can get my hands on about the ripper I think there is only one witness for sure that positively saw the killer and that was a policeman, Sergeant Stephen White. This is his description:

"He was about five foot ten inches in height, and was dressed rather shabbily, thou it was obvious the material of his clothes were good. Evidently a man who had seen better days, his face was long and thin, nostrils rather delicate and his hair was jet black. His complexion was inclined to be sallow, and altogether the man was foriegn in appearance. The most extraordinary thing about him however, was the extraordinary brilliance of his eyes. The man was slightly bent at the shoulders thou he was obviously quite young, about 33 at the most, and gave one the idea of being a student or professional man. His fingers were snow white and long and tapering"

No mention of a uniform or any kind of disguise and this was on the night of the double murder. Just because I don't agree with you Jackdaw doesn't mean i'm not interested in seeing any other Sickert links you may find, paintings or otherwise. I'll keep my posts neutral, and good luck.

[Yuppy Boboski]

"Tabram was seen with a military man/men but that was up to four hours before her murder".

Yes (indeed it would seem less than four hours but this is a detail),

but those two soldiers were very likely the two identified by Connolly at the Wellington Barracks.

From memory the first name was George, the second I do not remember.

The two soldiers produced an alibi (both quite weak) and Inspector Reid chose to believe them instead of a drunken prostitute.

This can't hide the fact that she identified them at once and, as the E.L.A. reports (the reporter being present on the parade) she was absolutely "positive" about her identification.

The soldier seen by PC Barrett (who was still out of the barracks at an hour when he should have already been inside!) was never retraced.

And Barrett went with Connolly to the Wellington Barracks and was able to face the men she identified.

So, if you are right in suggesting that the two soldiers seen with Tabram were not her murderers, that still leaves us with a problem about "unidentified soldier seen near the crime scene around the estimated hour of death".

The MO is only reliable if you have identified , well...the MO.

Since we do not know anything about "Jack", "his" motives or, worse, "his" victims, you simply can't use the "MO" as support of anything because we have nothing to base our determination of the MO.

That the Ripperologists base their deduction on what they interpret as an identifiable MO says a lot about their conclusions.

Indeed, to have a story to say, they begin by the hypothesis that we are in the presence of a sexual serial killing thing on which they may apply the "MO" as it has been established in research on sexual serial killer.

They begin by stating as a truth what should be demonstrated.

Then to try to show you that they have indeed proved it, they go on building their SSK story eliminating what does not fit in it.

Emma Smith was assaulted by three men ?

Emma Smith you are dismissed.

Martha Tabram was not cut ?

Martha Tabram you are dismissed.

And so on....

The SSK thing (which your post seem to support) is no better than the Black Magic thing theory, it uses the same methodology.

It does not stick to facts, it begins with an hypothesis and then try to use and interpret the facts to corroborate it.

Nothing bad in that.

Indeed I think that this is the only way to go through the case.

The luck of the SSK theory is not really that it is convincing (it leaves too many questions unanswered and some interpretations of the facts are highly suspicious) but merely that till now it has been the more convincing among the others.

This may make it the best up to today, but it does not make it true.

Remember that the general MO (approach and put to death) as it has been conceived till today comes from an hypothesis, that we are in presence of a SS killer killing prostitutes, not by an analysis of precise facts (which would not be possible due to lack of complete and reliable information).

Remember also that the general case as conceived today is the result of what "experts" had to say and have published about it.

All in all maybe ten or twelf persons (always the same) in the last forty years.

A very restricted circle easy to manipulate.

The world of publishing may not be as diversified as it could be.

The world of "Jack the Ripper" is a very small club quite "jealous" of his autoproclaimed authority.

At least this is what I have been able to dinstinguish in two or three years of research.

Truly Yuppy.

PS: Sergeant White was the man who failed to elicit the night of the double event a testimony from Matthew Packer, maybe the only person to have seen and heard a very interesting person (to say the least), thus a police officer for which we could have some legitimate suspicion about his competence.

Modern Ripperologists tend to put a shadow on Matthew Packer.

Have I told you that a good number of modern Ripperologists are themselves ex policeman or magistrates or historian criminologists thus all people who have by nature and function some inherent difficulty in considering the work of the police at the time as "dubious" ?

Well..just my two cents.

[Burgundy Johnson]

I know nothing about Jack the Ripper but this is a very interesting thread. Although i fail to see the images in the "paintings" (they look like red blurs to me, unless someone would like to point out the images to me?) i feel that the sickert case that Jackdaw presented is solid, if it could use some sourcing if possible (quotes from the book, etc.)

and as i have not read the book you are talking about, i can't judge your findings. but yuppy does also present a good point. so i don't know who to beleive. ah well.

sickert did it

and if possible could anyone post the WHOLE painting and not just a fragment?

Edited November 28, 2004 by Joe013

[Jackdaw]

DISGUISES

Victim- Last seen with a soldier?

Victim- Last seen with a sailor?

Victim- Last seen with a gent wearing top hat?

Victim- Last seen with a male wearing a deerstalker hat?

Victim- Last seen with a stranger carrying a gladstone bag?

Victim- Last seen with a gent who had a red handkerckief/neckerchief?

Victim- Last seen with an American chap?

Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc

In his early days Sickert himself was an actor. His stage name being MR NEMO.

Mr Nobody, as it translates, always had access to stage make up, costumes etc etc throughout his life.

Edited November 29, 2004 by Jackdaw

[Yuppy Boboski]

Disguising, putting on stage, are two aspects that come very likely to the diligent investigator in the "Jack the Ripper" case and if they have quite always been dismissed by "experts" till today is because, once again, they start with the hypothesis that "Jack" was a lonely homicidal maniac, and nothing else.

They disregard any suggestion of plot because this would imply the search for a motive a bit more complicated than the usual "sexual" one which would in its turn imply for many of the authors that they just would be unable to publish any book.

Remember that by definition an author, to become such, must write a book.

What further book would you be able to write on "Jack" if you can't propose any motive ?

Everything has been already told.

So, why to look further when the motive is all there already ready to be used like surgelated fishsticks ?

Many authors today are no searchers, only decorators.

Many others would see their reputation seriously put at stake if one day another theory comes out and show their weakness.

The reputation of one life.

This is today situation in the Ripper field.

"Jack" may not have finished to "kill".

We must nevertheless not forget two things:

first, to criticize the SSK leads to nothing, if one can't present anything better and second, witness testimony is one thing but it is subjective and subject to impressions and mistakes, the only thing that tells a crime is the crime scene.

This can't lie.

Truly Yuppy Tutti Frutti.

[irons]

What you say is true Yuppy, witnesses can be very wrong even just after the event. It happened to me once. Me and my (ex) girlfriend were walking home after a night out and bumped into her sister and this guy. The next day we found out she had been a victim of drug rape. I was asked by the police if I could identify this guy again and I knew that I couldn't even thou it was only a day or two later. I didn't have an awful lot to drink so that wasn't the problem, it was dark thou (around 2 in the morning) so that didn't help. But because I wasn't realy paying much attention to him, his face just didn't register.

Many witnesses in the ripper case were coming back from nights out at all times of the morning and unless something realy unusual caught there eye I think they would be in the same position I found myself in, which was not having a good recollection of his features or dress at all. That's why I believe Sergeant Whites testimony (above many, if not all others). It's too long to print here but the man was acting very strangely and he wanted to engage him in conversation and even detain him, he WAS paying attention unlike me in the situation I described earlier, All reports say he was one of the most intelligent officers they had ever met and he rose very high in the police and the CID. His testimony has been called into question by some but I still incline to believe him, at least above other witnesses who had been drinking all night.

As for the SSK thing, (I take it that means sexual serial killer?) I agree. At the times of these murders a motiveless killer was almost unknown and Jack is descibed as the first modern serial killer, this realy baffled the police at the time. Since then we have caught and questioned hundreds of serial murderers and sex and power (over thier victims) seems to be thier only motives. If something better and concrete comes along then maybe the bias will shift, but after all these years I doubt if anything will. And rubbish like masonic conspiricies and black magic rituals only cloud the matter.

Jackdaw, I wouldn't call wearing a hat, a neckerchief or carrying a bag disguises. As for the sailor, I can't recall a witness saying she saw a man in a sailors outfit, maybe I just don't recall. What was the name of the witness?

[Burgundy Johnson]

as for the sailors outfit if i remember correctly the women were seen with those disguises/people i'd recall seeing someone in a sailors outfit

[Yuppy Boboski]

You strike the nail on the head (is that english ?), irons, with your valuation of eye-witnesses, we should put some value only on the ones that had a particular reason to see at "Jack" in a peculiar way.

Witness like Long should not be dealt with.

Lawende with a lot of caution.

Different thing for Schwarz, Hutchinson.

Their testimony is very important indeed and must tell us something.

But what ?

Things that they did see or things that they were to see ?

I agree with you for White's testimony if it were..White's testimony.

The problem is that the account comes out as a notice for an obituary in a newspaper (I do not remember which)in 1931.

No corroboration in contemporary police files or papers.

No direct testimony reported even second hand.

Nothing and we could even argue that it may have been the original creation of a journalist or of a White's colleague as a last "original" tribute.

"Sailor" I think comes out from deposition of some witnesses, from memory (but certainly not completeand maybe not even correct):

PC Smith (or Marshall): seeing someone with Stride wearing a cap with a peak like a sailor.

Lawende: describing the guy with "Eddowes" at church passage as "like a sailor".

Someone reporting to the Star on the 1st of October of having seen in Backchurch Lane at 00.30 a guy wiping his hands looking like a sailor...and so on.

I think nevertheless in those streets near the Docks it was probably the most likely look to be described with, something not to say: "he looked like everybody, nothing special".

Truly Yuppy.

PS: I agree with "rubbish" Masonic and Black Magic, but I never dismiss all in block.

Sometimes it's good to discard the dirty water from the basin, but we must pay attention not to throw away the baby with it.

Whatever the critic to any author, even the worst, there is in his work, life and passion.

[Jackdaw]

Dear all, I find your comments both interesting and enjoyable.

Irons! How can you forget the 'sailor' clue? It is part of Jacky boy's folklore!

Have you also forgotten the smartly dressed American and the tale of the red handkerchief/neckerchief. What about the cartoons & caricatures drawn on the Ripper letters. "The clues are endless but just to throw the hounds off the scent I will paint my CAMDEN TOWN MURDER phase. For I know that no person on earth will ever decipher the truth hidden within my masterpieces."

Some say that Eddowes was murdered by mistake because she sometimes used the name Kelly. I for one disagree. Sickert knew her and she will ultimately become part of his Art of Murder Victims Signature.

Stride, I, Chapman, Kelly, Eddowes, R, Tabram = SCKET

Apparently, Eddowes once uttered that she knew who Jack was. I wonder if that is the reason part of her nose had to come off (nosey)

[Yuppy Boboski]

Stride (S), Chapman ©, Eddowes (E), Kelly (K), Tabram (T) = SCKT.

So, why do not begin the slaying by Stride and continuing by Chapman, then Eddowes, then Kelly and stopping with Tabram ?

ps: I leave the absence of Nichols and the mystery of the letters "I" and "R" (both absent) because I am sure you have some kind of explanation.

Concerning the facial wounds on Eddowes:

it has been too often neglected that those were of 2 very different kind:

First, the 2 inverted "V" on the cheeks and the small cuts through the eyelids.

Done with care, diligently.

Second the slashing of the face.

Salvage cuts, disorderly done.

Why ?

It is only when every piece of fact can be put together and explained by a "general" theory that we know we are approaching the truth (Hercule Poirot - paraphrasing him from "The clocks").

I am not interested in "who" did it,or why or how, what I try to understand is "what" happened there that had never happened before and would never happen since ?

I am sure the rest follows.

But how can any author try to give a solution of the case if he does not even know what exactly the case is about and how could one knows who "Jack" was if he does not even know "what" "he" did do.

The only ascertained facts are the victims and their crimes, beginning by chosing a certain number of them to put in the "Whitechapel case" is beginning by limiting it, by definition.

Indeed, by chosing to conceive the case around a presumed author, "Jack", is already giving it a direction it might not have had at all.

The case must be one's of "victims of murder", not one of "murderer or murderers".

Truly Yuppy.

[irons]

Jackdaw, of course I hadn't forgot about the 'sailor' clue. What I meant was it was not a sailor or someone in a sailors disguise that the witnesses saw. As Yuppy said there was mention of a sailors cap but I wouldn't call that a disguise, anyone can shove a hat on his head. Other witnesses have stated "he had the look of a sailor about him". This is a generalisation and doesn't mean the man was a master of disguise as you like to put it.

I had a look throu a few ripper books last night, and it looks like your right Yuppy, White's description of the killer could well be heresay. Apparently it was printed after his death and no record can be found in official police reports. It was printed by The Peoples Journal around 1919 (the year of his death).

After I checked his statement I went throu the other witness statements and found some common characteristics of the ripper the prime witnesses all agreed on, he was:

5'5"-5'8" in height.

30-35 years old.

Medium to stocky build.

Pale complexion, dark hair with a small moustache.

I'm always dubious about authors who are pushing some kind of theory, they twist fact and incidents to suit those theorys and I have taken this description from 'nuetral' books. The Jack The Ripper A-Z, by Paul Begg, Martin Fido and Keith Skinner, and what I think is the best book on the subject, The Complete History Of Jack The Ripper by Philip Sugden. Both books are worth reading if anyone is interested in the ripper mystery.

Edited November 30, 2004 by irons

[Yuppy Boboski]

ok irons, you are right I think to be suspicious.

Nevertheless, I would not call Begg, Fido and Skinner so "neutral".

They are all convinced that the case of "Jack" is a SSK one.

They only differ about the best suspect: "Kosminski" for Begg, "Cohen" for Fido and "Druitt" for Skinner.

There is nothing in their methodology different from the authors who push plots (masonic-royalty) or no-plots other motive (Black magic).

Like them they start from an hypothesis.

I agree that they seem to be twisting facts a lot less than the latters but they generally use another form of "twisting": they discard events.

Following them nothing happened outside what would be a book case of SSK:

they go for :

- progression of wounds

- confort zone

- same MO (or differences explained by apprenticeship)

- same signature

- victimology, time of event

and so on....

Indeed they build a case much better than the true SSK ones we have seen in the real world (Chikatilo, Sutcliffe, Kürten, Vacher.....)

With all respects Begg is terrible in this way.

His books are full of details but he does not dare any little interpretation.

Sugden, the only one who dares a little of it (interpretation), comes to frustration (see his description of the Stride murder) and overall aknowledge that a "plot" might eventually be conceivable.

I think it would be unfair not to mention Steward Evans and Melvin Harris in the list.

Except if you dropped them because the latter is no more and the former had a heart stroke (not so hard I think so).

Anyway, none of them respects what really happened, they all make choices that fit better the SSK thing instead of starting from events.

As for me, no one is going to convince me if he does not explain me what happened to Emma Smith.

The poor woman was the only one to die after having suffered the hell.

She must be treated with the honours.

Oh yes, and she was also the only one able to speak.

So, the only one to give us a clue ?

Truly Yuppy.

Edited November 30, 2004 by Yuppy Boboski

[irons]

I hear what your saying about Skinner, Begg and Fido Yuppy. The Ripper A-Z is supposed to be an overview of the whole case written by all three. Unlike thier solo books, I haven't read any bias one way or the other, maybe they were keeping each other in check when writing this book. I have to admit thou that I haven't read the book from cover to cover as it's more a reference book with suspects, victims, topics etc set out in alphabetical order. I only look at it when I need to look something up.

Emma Smith is forgotten about by ripperologists unfortunately, probably due to the fact that it is claimed that three young men attacked her and apparently was able to say so as she survived the attack, for a while anyway, she died a few days later in hospital.

I didn't neglect Harris and Evans as such it's just that I used the two books I mentioned for the rippers general description.

It's an interesting point you made earlier about Catherine Eddows and those cut marks, maybe there was something important there. He must have been very rushed yet he took time to nick those eyelids. Could he have recognised something about those eyes that he didn't like? Maybe she had said to him that she recognized him from somewhere and he took out his frustration of this on her eyes? But that's getting into conjecture again, probably we'll never know for certain.

[Yuppy Boboski]

Yes irons, about the AZ you are right, I was speaking about the books they have written by their own.

Indeed when I say that they start from the hypothesis that "Jack was a SSK" I may even be wrong.

Probably they start by the assumption that a SSK acts in a certain way and then apply that assumption to the case, they are not quite clear in that or at least I have not understood it very well.

Anycase, it's the result which fails to convince me.

For Eddowes it is generally assumed that "Jack" was in a hurry but is that true ?

Likely if the woman seen by Lawende was Eddowes.

But was she ?

Lawende says he only recognizes her by the hat and the clothes and that she turned him her back.

He does not speak about her wearing a white apron (which she did when she came out from police station).

Incredibly, no one asks him at the inquest about it.

Jackdaw, you come back often to the red handy wore by the man with Eddowes as stated by Lawende.

Pc Smith, Marshall, Packer, Schwarz,(Brown), do not mention it.

So, what are we to believe, "Jack" kills Stride then goes for Eddowes but first he decides to go back home to put on an handy to the neck not to be recognized ?

Hans Gross, the german criminologist made a case about a practice among criminals: one tries to pass for more and more to become one.

So, are we to understand the red handy as a "disguise" or just as a misunderstanding ?

Truly Yuppy.

[Jackdaw]

Dear forum, or should I say Yuppy and Irons. I appreciate your comments, however I feel compelled to add the following:

It was I on page four of this article/forum who submittted the fact that the two vees cut into Eddowes's face were not an M as most Ripperologists believe.They want it to be an upside down VV which makes an M, which must be MAYBRICK!

Utter nonsense! Jacky boy wished the inscription to be seen as VV ( a V on each cheek) which joined state W. Which inturn states WALTER.

Irons, your description of a suspect on page 6 is intersting.

5ft 5ins to 5ft 8ins,30- 35yrs,medium to stocky build,pale, dark hair,moustache

You wouldn't be attempting to describe Sickert would you?

Yes I do believe that a red neckerchief/handkerchief was involved within this mystery. Please see pg 4 re EDDOWES and KELLY. In checking the murder scenes such an item was not found. But why? Only the killer would know that such an item may hold a clue.

In closing may I say that I will soon be offering a better conspiracy than that of the Royals!

Edited December 1, 2004 by Jackdaw

[Yuppy Boboski]

"It was I on page four of this article/forum who submittted the fact that the two vees cut into Eddowes's face were not an M as most Ripperologists believe.They want it to be an upside down VV which makes an M, which must be MAYBRICK!

Utter nonsense! Jacky boy wished the inscription to be seen as VV ( a V on each cheek) which joined state W. Which inturn states WALTER."

Jackdaw,

we do not know what "Jack" wished the inscription to be seen as because nobody has ever interrogated him on such a wish.

What we know is that Eddowes face had two inverted "V", one on each cheek, and thus the odds are that "Jack" wished the inscription to be seen as two inverted "V".

There is no problem for me if you want to interpret it as an "M" or a "W", but you had better have a good explanation for that.

"Maybrick" ? "Walter" ? or a graphical representation of some obtruse "Black Magic" sign ?

Nevertheless I can't avoid thinking why not a real "M" if that was the intention or a clear "W".

Once again, the problem is not the detail about the cheeks but the global theory beyond all that (SSK and BM), further, they want us to believe they have understood the signs on the cheeks but they fail to come with an explanation for the "grapes" element in the Stride's murder or the Goulston street Graffito saying that the first was an invention and the second not pertinent.

Difficult to base a credibility upon that kind of conclusions.

"Yes I do believe that a red neckerchief/handkerchief was involved within this mystery. Please see pg 4 re EDDOWES and KELLY. In checking the murder scenes such an item was not found. But why?"

In the Eddowes case because it was not worn by her but by the man seen with a woman by Lawende at the end of church passage, and this man had no reason to discard his red neckerchief at the crime scene, moreover if he was totally unrelated with the crime.

In the Kelly case, we have no mention of the red handy Hutchinson saw Mr Astrakhan giving her at the entrance of Miller's court because...we have no mention of anything found at the Kelly's crime scene.

So, aside from the possibility you have found out the list of Abberline's describing the objects found there (which seem to have disappeared quite quickly from the official documents), I would not lean on anything relating to the fact this handy was not found.

Indeed, the mention of it by Hutchinson could well be one of the element that made Abberline very confident about Hutchinson deposition.

Assume for one moment that the handy (which was not Kelly's) was found in the room.

"In closing may I say that I will soon be offering a better conspiracy than that of the Royals!"

There is only one that could be better: that of the "Juwes".

But beware: do not dismiss .... Emma Smith ... or .... I will come after.

Truly Dummy Buddy Yuppy.

Edited December 2, 2004 by Yuppy Boboski

[irons]

Upside down V's, M's, victims names spelling out the name of the killer, all highly unlikely. That would mean the killer would have to go around searching for victims with certain initials in thier names, doubtful. Unless he knew them of course......

Yuppy, why the emphasis on Emma Smith, i've never realy thought of her as a ripper victim, do you know something I don't?

And Jackdaw, i'm looking forward to this new theory of yours.

[dazdillinjah]

I just finished watching an INCREDIBLE documentary on History Channel claiming to have solved the 'Jack The Ripper Mystery' ... the doco had absolutely stunning & compelling evidence that the Ripper was the American 'Dr Francis Tumblety' I wont go on (that way everyone can watch the doco for themselves)

HOWEVER I want to stand by JD BECAUSE all of his information/evidence & theory is equally compelling & as far as I can tell TOTALLY original. MUCH RESPECTS JD Im still following this thread with great interest & suspense

[Jackdaw]

Dear Yuppy,

In your earlier post you did not wish to offer Mary Ann Nicholls because you knew that, I , Jackdaw , would come up with an answer? I for one answered your pose much earlier on page 4 of this topic.

Just to refresh here we go. How about the fact that Sickert was a misogynist. Or the fact that he had a problem with his manhood (penis) as a result of health problems in infancy.

But when all said and done let us not forget he was a Mary Ann Nicholls = MAN

Dear Irons,

On page 5 and in answer to my questions you respond to question 10 by stating that Sickert had several mistresses' and children. I for one would love to know who they were. The majority of Sickert and indeed Ripper experts are of the opinion that Sickert sired no offspring. He, as mentioned above, may well have been incapable of such an act/event. Obviously you know different. Please tell us more.

[irons]

If you look again at page 5 Jackdaw, you will see the links provided by user Area69. The next post (by me) tells you where to look for facts about sickert and his impotence 'problem' and about his children.

One man claiming to be his son is Joseph Sickert who is known to me. In Stephen Knights book, Jack The Ripper: The Final Solution it his him who gives us 'facts' pertaining to the masonic conspiracy theory. Although you have to take Josephs statements with a pinch of salt, he refuted much of them after Knights book was published.

Edited December 3, 2004 by irons

[Jackdaw]

Dear Irons,

I am very disappointed with your reply. I believed that you were going to give us something new. You stated on page 5 that Sickert had mistresses and bore children. All you can offer now is Joseph Sickert. A poor effort may I say! Can the world offer any proof as to who his father really was?

You mentioned children. I eagerly await the other offspring.

Edited December 4, 2004 by Jackdaw

[irons]

Jackdaw, check that LINK! By the way if you're so sure he was impotent why not post the proof? (doctors reports of the fistula of the penis for instance) I only mentioned Joseph as he was known to me as I have read Knights book. And I said that I wouldn't take his word for it as he wasn't entirely reliable. If you don't believe he was Sickerts son, then the masonic conspiracy is proven as a work of complete fiction. It therefore stands that Sickert should never have been mentioned in connection with Jack the ripper in the first place! So what do you believe Jackdaw, that Joseph was his son OR the conspiracy theory and Sickerts relation to the crimes is nonsense? You choose.

[Jackdaw]

Dear Irons,

The tone of your reply smells of anger and frustration. Could this be caused by the fact that you cannot offer the forum any of Sickert's offspring?

If so can I give you and the forum a few facts:

1) James Whistler was, in his day, a highly acclaimed painter.

2) Walter Sickert was his student.

3) Whistler would often laugh by way of sounding "Ha Ha"

4) Sickert listened and found Whistler's laugh amusing to say the least.

5) Whistler was a great cartoonist and loved drawing caricatures.

6) Sickert aspired to be like Whistler and attempted to draw likewise.

7) Whistler had a relationship with a lady who was Sickert's one true love.

Hence the friendship of Whistler and Sickert was no more

However do you not find the following facts strange:

1) Several of the Ripper letters contained the phrase "Ha Ha"

2) Many of the Ripper letters contained caricatures and cartoon type characters

similar to those drawn by both Whistler and Sickert.

3) One of the Ripper letters was apparently written by use of a paint brush.

4) Stains upon one of the Ripper letters were at first thought to be blood.

However tests now show that the marks are consistant with a victorian artists

pallette/mixing compound.

My Conspiracy Theory?

"The true teacher will always know the works of his students"

Edited December 5, 2004 by Jackdaw

[irons]

Of course I can't, as such give absolute proof of Sickerts offspring, it's all lost in the midst of time. What we're left with is what his friends and aquantances said. We have no cause to doubt them, unlike Pat Cornwell who was pushing a 'theory'. I don't claim to be a Sickert expert, but the art experts claim this fact to be true, also that he was in France at the time of some, if not all of the murders. This alone convinces me Sickert was not the ripper, if you have proof to refute these claims feel free to post them.

It is frustrating at times when you keep stating info like the above which has no bearing whatsoever on the ripper case. His relationship with Whistler for instance. I guess you think it's all to do with the ripper letters, which no one except Cornwell believes were written by the killer. I'm not just talking about ripper experts, i'm talking about the FBI, home office record keepers themselves, policemen with an interest in the case, the police at the time of the murders and the list goes on. As I stated before the only letter with a possibility of being genuine is the 'from hell' letter, and i'm doubtful of that one as well. Again if you have proof otherwise let me know.

I couldn't go into court with a murder suspect and just claim he was guilty and when the judge says "proove it" I say to the judge, "proove to me he didn't do it!" You see Jackdaw when offering a suspect the onus is on you to provide proof, i'm still waiting on proof of impotence and look forward to the proof that all these ripper letters are as genuine as you claim.