Jack the Ripper: Sickert & The Art of Murder

[Mad Manfred]

I'm not scrolling through seven pages of yabbering so I'll just come out and ask -

Just a few questions regarding Jack the Ripper:

1 - Was his identity ever revealed? I'd heard that it was a royal and no one found out because the family hid him beneath their estate.

2 - How many women/people did he kill?

3 - He only killed prostitutes, correct?

4 - Why did he stop?

5 - During what years did he strike?

6 - It was in London, no?

Thanks!

[irons]

I'm not scrolling through seven pages of yabbering so I'll just come out and ask -

Just a few questions regarding Jack the Ripper:

1 - Was his identity ever revealed? I'd heard that it was a royal and no one found out because the family hid him beneath their estate.

2 - How many women/people did he kill?

3 - He only killed prostitutes, correct?

4 - Why did he stop?

5 - During what years did he strike?

6 - It was in London, no?

Thanks! 

386848[/snapback]

1)His identity is still a mystery, many suspects have been put forward but none have been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

2) Again a bit of a mystery, between 3 and 9 have been mentioned. I think it was 5 or 6 at most.

3)Yes, as far as we know.

4) Good question, some people think that after the last murder (Mary Jane Kelly), which was very brutal his mind gave way, and he either commited suicide or was commited to an asylum. Without knowing who he was, we can't be sure.

5) 1888.

6) In the Whitechapel area of London.

Edited December 5, 2004 by irons

[Mad Manfred]

Thanks irons

[Jackdaw]

Dear Irons,

ITWOZ not I who offered Sickert's offspring (and failed to deliver)

ITWOZ not I who 'stated' Sickert was impotent (please check my posts)

ITWOZ not I who said the Ripper letters were genuine ( and the telegram!)

ITWOZ however was created by you

[SerenitysRiver]

I'm very interested to read your seperate theories and pieces of "evidence" .... however, could you possibly back off a bit? The competetiveness over who is right and who is wrong is distracting from the point: what do we believe, to the best of our abilities and knowlege, was Jack the Ripper? Agree to disagree and share your views.

I'm very interested in the case and wish to know more. I will keep my eye on this thread, as I plan to write a Ripper-inspired character into one of my novels. Keep posting and share your theories!

[Yuppy Boboski]

"what do we believe, to the best of our abilities and knowlege, was Jack the Ripper? "

"Jack the Ripper" was an act of terrorim.

The women were not the finals victims to be.

The identity of "the guy who cut the poor women up" is completely immaterial to the solution of the case.

The authors that push one suspect over the others can only but basing their whole "theory" on fairy tails.

They just completely forgets "History", if they have ever been interested in it.

The case has been misunderstood to such an extent that it is scaring to think of it even today.

Not that I want to sound arrogant or purposedly accusator here but I was struck since the beginning by the fact that the case was reopened by a simple City Constable who, falling "by chance" over the pictures of some liver and other entrails, jumped up and said, "oh, sure, this is Mary Jane Kelly".

This Constable of course never knew MJK, he was born, I think, some 60 years after her death, and it is curious how he did recognize her at once by the liver.

Maybe he knew she was an heavy-drinker ?

Of course, it can only be a coincidence that he fell over the picture justat the right time to oppose "his" book to come to the one of Stephen Knight.

Have you said conspiration ?

I say it twice:

first in 1888 to committhe facts (and I say 1888, nor 1887 or 1889, neither 1891);

second in 1975 when things began to become a little "scary".

Yuppy Buddy.

[irons]

SerenitysRiver is right Jackdaw this is getting us nowhere, who said what first, nonconclusive proof either way, people getting uptight. Not good. I'm moving on and going to try and answer some of Serenitys questions. Perhaps to stop hijacking Jackdaws thread maybe we should start a new one? I'm game if you are Yuppy? Let us know Jackdaw if it's OK to continue here or if you want us to start another thread?

[Jackdaw]

Dear Irons,

Please feel free to do as you think fit. My thread will always be open to you, as it is others. By the way, I have enjoyed our 'jousts' and banter.

Edited December 7, 2004 by Jackdaw

[SerenitysRiver]

I think it can be constructive to compare your theories and conclusions, as contradicting one another and bringing up the weaknesses in each other's theories can lead to a more in depth discussion on the pros and cons of each conclusion, and may bring to light some interesting points that we would not have thought to discuss.....

It's simply dancing upon the fine line between contradiction and aggressive arguments. That is all. I would enjoy seeing more than one opinion in this thread, if you are willing to keep the discussion open to many views, as I believe you all are.

[SerenitysRiver]

Also, does anyone know where I could find a website with a detailed description (preferably illustrated) of the victims and their wounds? If you do, please tell me, as I'm having a hard time sorting through all of the Ripper information online in order to find one with imagery. Thanks!

[Jackdaw]

Dear SR,

For more detailed info try 'casebook.org' It is full of Ripperologists!

[irons]

Have a look here Serenity, best I could find. CLICKY

Some of the photos aren't exactly nice Serenity, just a little warning.

I too have enjoyed our jousts Jackdaw, problem was it wasn't getting us anywhere, no doubt we'll lock horns again about something else.

In a bit of a rush at the moment, but i'll post soon about how many victims were actualy murdered by the ripper. Estimates range from three to nine or even ten. It would maybe be a good place to start.

[SerenitysRiver]

Thank you very much. That was very helpful. My searches last night could only come up with a site with photographs of the victims, as shown in Iron's link.... however, they lacked the detail in description and the diagrams of wounds inflicted.

Again, thank you, and I hope so see more soon!

[Jackdaw]

Dear SR,

Not wishing to upstage my learned colleague IRONS but may I again state that the website :- http:casebook.org/forum will have all the answers to you questions.

Good hunting

Jackdaw

[SerenitysRiver]

lol, yes. I meant for the thank you to go to both of you. Thank you for the site suggestion, hun.

[Jackdaw]

Irons,

I will be more than happy to discuss the victims and await your post.

After which maybe we could consider/examine all the suspects?

[irons]

I'll state the victims that were attributed to the ripper and also put remarks next to each.

Annie Millwood, 25th February 1888: Could she have been the only woman to survive a ripper attack? Her injuries are similar to Tabrams, so it's a possibility.

Emma Smith, 3rd April 1888: Yuppy seems quite keen on her as a ripper victim, but as Smith said herself it was three men who attacked her so I say no.

Martha Tabram, 7th August 1888: A fair chance this was his first murder victim. The MO is different than his later victims (she was stabbed 39 times), but she certainly can't be ruled out.

Mary Ann (Polly) Nichols, 31st August 1888. For sure a ripper victim, the throat cutting and attacks to the torso that was to be his trademark are seen here first.

Annie Chapman, 8th September 1888: No doubt about it, another ripper victim.

Elizabeth Stride, 30th September 1888. Throat cut but no mutilations, was he disturbed before he could continue his grizzly work, many people think so. More than likely a ripper victim.

Catherine Eddowes, 30th September 1888: It's been said that after the failure to 'rip' Stride he went to look for another victim to satisfy his needs. Eddowes was certainly a ripper victim.

Mary Jane Kelly, 9th November 1888: A few have doubted she was a ripper victim as it was the only murder commited indoors but I think she was a victim.

Alice McKenzie, 17th July 1889: She is a possibility, the wounds were similar but there was a long interval between MJ Kelly's murder and this one. Most people say she wasn't, but i'm not so sure.

There have been other murders attributed to Jack but most can be discounted for one reason or another. What is interesting is that the Whitechapel area is on record as only having 1-2 murders per year at that time. So either the ripper was very busy or there's a big coincedence happening here. Maybe he commited more murders than we think.

This realy is an open book and many people have different views and it would be great to hear them, but in summing up-

Annie Millwood-possibly.

Emma Smith-no.

Martha Tabram-possibly.

Polly Nichols-yes

Annie Chapman-yes

Elizabeth Stride-yes

Catherine Eddowes-yes

Mary J Kelly-yes

Alice McKenzie-possibly.

[SerenitysRiver]

*twiddles thumbs*

Come back to me! Post more!

Edited December 14, 2004 by SerenitysRiver

[Jackdaw]

Dear Irons,

In the main I agree with your last post re the victims. (Now there's a novelty!)

However I myself will not as yet discount the murder of Emma Smith. The more I consider this case and the few facts that remain, the more I am convinced that some form of conspiracy was at work. Whether it be Royal, Art, Business, Masonic, Medical Science etc etc etc.

Smith's dying words were, " They were three. " Could her assailants have been Gull, Netley and another ( Sickert? )

Why did Netley make two attempts on the life of the young girl Alice Crook. During the second one he was chased by an angry mob and apparently drowned in the Thames.

Did any of the victims know one another. (or even share a secret?) Apparently they did. But why were they slain?

Eddowes stated that she knew who the Ripper was.

Kelly often posed for Sickert.

In my humble opinion too many coincidences are evident for the murders to just be random killings. They were without doubt both contrived and well planned. Even to the extent of making them appear masonic and subsequently offering up numerous suspects.

Whatever his involvement was in the mystery, Sickert undoubtedly painted and secreted clues to the case within his masterpieces.

[Yuppy Boboski]

Smith's dying words were, " They were three. "

Thank you "Jackdaw" to quote me from the site "thesupernaturalworld.co.uk/forums".

I would appreciate nevertheless a reference, not because I am particularly "skinny", but because it is a normal way to exchange ideas betwenn "honest" people which aim is....well....to exchange ideas.

At least it shows that you have...well (ahem..)...taste and flair...but quoting out of the context is but a dangerous game.

Saying (as I did in a peculiar message) that Emma Smith's dying words were:

"They were three" is only but speculating.

We do not know exactly which were the "dying words" of Emma Smith by herself but only by what other people referred, and, indeed even worse, what newspapers choose to report of what those people referred.

At least that for Dr Haslip (London Hospital) and the woman keeper of the Satchell's lodging-house.

Inspector Reid's report was written by...Inspector Reid, who never spoke with Emma Smith.

Concerning the number of assaulters, you surely would have noticed that the different testimonies are clearly contradicting one another, or, if you prefer, are not clear at all.

So, thank again for quoting, but for your purposes, instead of extrapolating words from a message and putting them out of context, better to use the formula "there were some".

Unless you are able to integrate them in a global "theory" which could itself explain any "speculative" (or deductive if you prefer) detail.

The list produced by "irons" here above, with the relative remarks, is a good product of a diligent student of the case who, nevertheless, is still following the master's steps.

These have placed the investigation on the tracks of a serial sexual killer.

Obviously, the only available way for an investigator to go, prior to an arrest or without the availability of any confession is to look for the "similarity" of the crimes (not the least to determine which are linked).

Iron's list is based on the conception that in a sexual serial killer case the Modus Operandi is often the same crime after crime or, at worst "evolutive" (the killer gaining experience).

No problem for me....I mean....if we are in presence of a sexual serial killer who uses the same Modus Operandi as far as poossible.

How "irons" determine that this is a "SSK" case or on which others "SSK" cases he bases his perception that a SSk's MO can be determined by the crime scenes (on which, beware, we have only scant descriptions and thus we must lean on our interpretation of these descriptions)...remains a mystery.

I do not see "irons", in your list the name of Emily Eskins.

Why ?

Your remark about the absence of crime in the Whitechapel area and the deduction you make about that in the "Jack case" is extremely pertinent.

All the above is my HO.

Truly Yuppy Dummy Buddy.

Edited December 14, 2004 by Yuppy Boboski

[Yuppy Boboski]

Interesting to notice, "Jackdaw", that your answer to my post (some days ago) on the "last words" of Emma Smith on the other site was:

"I do not care about Emma Smith".

Your apparently rethinking of her case that clearly comes out from your last message of this site seems to show that you are in the early stage of your research on the case and that you are quite open to any suggestion.

I can only but praise your attitude, which does not fit with the ones often met in the Ripper world.

Could our Lord bless you in your search by not letting you drop the case when the first hurdles will present on your road to the Word.

Anyway, at least now I understand why you are so lean to always refer to Sickert and his paintings.

Was it not natural for man to believe in Thor when the phenomena of lighting could not be explained otherwise ?

Truly Yuppy Tutty Frutty.

[irons]

You're right Yuppy, I probably do lean towards the SSK theory. But only because nothing better or concrete has come along to make me think otherwise. I would be very open to any interpretation, even conspiracy theories, if they were grounded in some kind of proof and logic. I haven't read of any so far which has convinced me to change my mind.

Emily Eskins?, sorry Yuppy that name isn't known to me. Was she also known under another name?

[Jackdaw]

Dear Yuppy,

I can assure you that I have not changed my tact or approach to the case or indeed Emma Smith. Whether I quoted you or not her dying words were about her assailants which numbered three or four.

Unlike the other victims, Smith was robbed, raped and sexually violated ie an 'item' was rammed/became stuck within her virgina. The trauma of which undoubtedly killed her. A Ripper victim?

You seem infactuated by Smith. Why?

[Yuppy Boboski]

"Unlike the other victims, Smith was robbed, raped and sexually violated ie an 'item' was rammed/became stuck within her virgina."

Robbed ?

Yes, but not "unlike" the other victims.

Whether the other victims had money/jewels on them or not when the body was found is immaterial.

Whether they had it on them or not just before being killed is immaterial to the same degree.

The fact is that "Jack" did look for what could have been "valuable" for him in the pockets of "his" victims in at least two cases, Chapman's as her secret pocket under the skirt was cut, torn and emptied and Eddowes as the things contained in her pockets were scattered around the place.

Like it or not, till the moment you have not proved it otherwise, the most likely valuable to find in someone's pocket is money/jewels.

The legal system in our countries condemn the culprit even if he does not steal anything.

The intention is enough.

We may safely say that "Jack" could have been asked to answer, at least in two cases (aside from Smith), of attempted robbery.

Notice (just for curiosity) that Chapman went out that night because she hadn't "enough" money to pay for her lodgings (at least that's the words she used with Donovan).

It does not mean she had no money at all.

Nevertheless, no money at all was found on her body.

Notice too that on Stride there is no mention of money found on her body while clearly she received a lot (everything is relative) just some hours previously.

So, Smith was robbed from her money and on Chapman and Eddowes (at least), "Jack" seems to have looked for it and on Stride "he" may well have taken it away.

Raped, sexually violated ?

If this was the case, it certainly would be right to precise "unlike" the other victims.

Technically speaking nevertheless this was not the case.

A "rape", which I guess is a "sexual violation", is defined by the act of a penis penetration in the woman's reproductive organs without her consent.

As you rightly say, she was rammed with "an item".

There is absolutely no evidence by what she states that "rape" was the object of the assault or that any of her assailant did get or show (by some exclamation or peculiar action) a whatever "sexual" satisfaction, physical or psychological it be.

Indeed, what we know about the police conclusion upon her case (see "police reports" in "The Ultimate") is that robbery seemed to them to have been the motive, and nothing else).

So, she was penetrated in her sexual organs, just like Chapman and Eddowes were penetrated in their abdomen by a knife to get at their sexual organs.

I leave you (and to the "experts" ripperologists and the FBI) the conclusion that all this could have had some mysterious sexual motivation, but to underline the fact that the "penetration" was performed by another weapon and by another way is to be, in my opinion, pennywise and poundfoolish.

Extremely salvage violence on women.

For all of them.

Sure Smith was alive, the others dead when it was perpetrated.

There are explanations coming from similarities, others from differences.

What's the problem ?

"You seem infactuated by Smith. Why?"

For the simplest reason: she is the center of the case known as "Jack the Ripper".

You will allow me to retain the explanation for a future publication (if the Lord will allow me).

Iron's,

remember that 10 years ago if you'd pronounced the name of Annie Milwood, all of the "experts" ripperologists would have replied: "Annie who ?".

I hate to say this but the research on the case has been till now nothing more than a discussion around a tea cup between some friends (not always "friends" by the way).

Don't be impressed by books on the case of 500 pages and more written by "historians", "criminologists" or even "historian criminologists".

Don't even listen to what I say, do your own research and begin from scratch.

Yuppy Woopy.

Edited December 16, 2004 by Yuppy Boboski

[Yuppy Boboski]

Jackdaw,

"Whether I quoted you or not her dying words were about her assailants which numbered three or four."

Sure, but you did quote me (word by word), which I appreciate because I find it also a striking good formula to use.

So, why do not simply say it ? (question of respecting also the guys who run the other site).

Yuppy Duddy.

PS: don't even think for one moment I got the least offence from it and that I could be angry at you in any way.

Just a matter of establishing standard of messages exchange.

I may have found in your previous messages some hints that you may well have encountered some "characterial problems" in the Ripperworld.

Do not worry too much about it, indeed it should be a good asset in your favor.

All that, of course, in MHO.

Edited December 16, 2004 by Yuppy Boboski