You have GOT to read this..

[WTM]

New revelations from the current 'starr' of Ripperology. From the Casebook Message Boards:

That Walter Sickert was Jack The Ripper is now established by my multiple links on top of Cornwell's multiple links. It is self-evident that Sickert successfully avoided suspicion in the Whitechapel murders throughout his lifetime. He avoided suspicion as Jack The Ripper because he took extraordinary pains and precautions to avoid detection. Walter Sickert was very good at covering his tracks. He avoided detection in the Camden Town Murder for the same reasons. Except here he made a major miscalculation and post-humously gave himself away.

It is too funny - this guy is actually serious! And nothing fazes him! I really must apologize to the Royal Theorists - there really is someone even more hopeless.

[sorcia_us]

That is bad...

So did he meticulously avoid being associated with the murders
or did he paint them in graphic detail??

It has to be one or the other.

By the way, I think it is safe to say..

Whoever the Ripper was, he managed to avoid being detected -

God, what kind of idiot posted that?

[Melissa McMahan]

Yeah I read that guys post at Casebook. I already gave him a sort of dry sarcasm reply to it too. Well you'd have to know my dry wit in order to know when I jest in that type of sarcasm. LOL! I just did it in a way this guy won't know I think he's a sheep, because boy did Corwell pull the wool over his eyes! WHOA! I think that guys name is Tommy Nilsson, he's one of the people who believe Cornwells fairy-tale that Sickert was Jack the Ripper. Here is one of Tommy's post for your enjoyment...

TOMMY'S POST BELOW -

"Hello!

Sickert writes Jack the Ripper letters, one with a self portrait ("This is my photo of Jack the Ripper"), a sketch drawn in the same way as in an etching. All sketches should be made like etchings, he says. He talks about Jack the Ripper, year after year, spreading rumours. He paints "Jack Ashore" (yes, there was a Jack the Ripper message in a bottle), "Jack & Jill" (portrait of Edward G. Robinson, no 1 gangster in the movies and Joan Blondel) and "Jack the Rippers bedroom" - his own room. He “dresses” like Jack the Ripper.
He paints the victims, at least two of them in several paintings; "Le Journal", "Puttana in Casa", "Siesta", to name only a few. He says he made them in Venice. He paints his friend and model Mrs. Swinton; “The lady in a gondola”. Mrs. Swinton tells Wendy Baron that these and other portraits of her were painted in Sickerts studio, “from life, drawings and photographs”.
He paints dead, mutilated and frightened women, over and over again. He paints "Maple" and the etching "Pimlico", from places related to murder. He creates a whole series of paintings "The Camden Town Murder" and exhibits them in France. He sketches "Death and the Maiden", a self portrait with Cicely Hey, full of violent faces and a murder scene.
In 1935 he paints "Patrol", a portrait of a policewoman. You can see a small figure in a black suit laughing, while running from the police (look just over the painted title "Patrol"). The policewoman´s head is not attached to her body.
There are plenty of paintings that look like images of murder victims, especially from the period 1903-1908. Buy Wendy Barons book "Sickert" and you will find them! What about "Reclining Nude", "Fille Vènitienne Allongèe", "Conversation", "Nude", "Le lit de Cuivre", "Nude behind flowers", "Mornington Crescent Nude", "Summer Afternoon..."
He is a suspect, all right!

Regards, Tommy

PS Cornwell is right, there is a funny sketch of Whistler in the guestbook. All the sketches look like Sickerts. Could be a forgery, but I doubt it. "

[Melissa McMahan]

I think you are right but in any case here was my reply to Tommy boy, you might be as amused by it as I was to write it. I think the word, "ZING" works to say the very least. LOL!

MY REPLY TO TOMMY AT CASEBOOK -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want you to read all of this because I have another point to make about a radio program called "War of the Worlds." There was something that went on with this that I think proves something about jumping the gun. Back when people would sit down with their radios on, there where radio programs kind of like TV shows today. One was "War of the Worlds." Orson Welles came on and read this but it came off as a real news broadcast. Many people went into panic mode over what they heard. They really believed that Earth was at war with Mars. It's one of the best known that Orson Welles ever did. Here is a URL to a site to see for yourself...

http://www.greatnorthernaudio.com/sf_radio/wow.html

Now Tommy boy let's play "Suspects and Clues" I won't name off but just two good suspects that beat Sickert by a bloody mile. Pun meant by all means. There are others who fit Jack the Ripper a heck of a lot better than Sickert or Lewis Carroll put together.

Francis Tumblety - A dozen or more jars containing female uteri and hated all women to the point of madness. Very good Ripper suspect.

Michael Ostrog - Released, March 10 1888, as "cured." Mentioned in Police Gazette, October 1888, as a "dangerous man" who failed to report. Sentenced to two years imprisonment in Paris for theft, November 18th, 1888. Pretty good suspect.

W.R. Sickert - Some muddy paintings with names that point to Jack the Ripper. Paper found that might point to Sickert writing a HOAX JTR letter. Someone told Cornwell that Sickert had his penis worked on by doctors. Cornwell's "if and's and but's" exaggerated claims that are NOT facts.

I'm sorry but I'm not a sheep, I don't jump on a bandwagon. I need more that PROVES Sickert's guilt and all Cornwell did in her book was give her point of view pretty much. It's like "War of the Worlds." Right is not proven by a show of hands but cold hard facts. Cornwell has not showed me enough facts to make me believe Sickert was Jack the Ripper. No matter how interested he was in the JTR case that does not mean very much. Steven King likes writing very gory stories that seem as if were a killer himself. Is he? Perhaps Sickert strange sarcastic wit is over Cornwell's head. Heck I know mine is, some people don't get sarcasm but it's nothing more than an off the wall type of humor. Sickert had this type of humor as he would make remarks about being Jack the Ripper or knew who he was. So what? It does not mean anything without the FACTS to back it up. That's what I feel Cornwell is missing in her book any real facts. She goes on and an about what she believes backed up with what? 2ed had info about his penis that she beats into the ground. No real facts just her point of view. She assumes alot but again, no real facts to back it up. I'm just not buying it. If Sickert was Jack the Ripper I would need to see more in the way of facts to believe it. Not paintings, hoax JTR letters and not a so called penis problem. That's not enough to prove Sickert was Jack the Ripper. Right now on a scale to one to ten I'd put Sickert at a three. Others I have at a eight or nine but nobody at a ten yet. Thank you.

[How Brown]

Melissa: The person Tim was referring to with the "starr" reference has told me that he is just testing a theory out over there. I have an e-mail from him that proves it.

We have to remember that there are people who like to hammer away, dogmatically,mantra- like, with their favorite suspect. One salient fact in the Ripper Case is that whomever is suspected,should at least be known to have been in London on the kill-dates. This sounds academic. However,the more I personally scour the Internet for potential members, the one fact that strikes me the most about neophyte and more than marginally informed students of the Case,is that to an alarming amount of these people,it simply doesn't faze them that ANY SUSPECT should be known to have been in London on these dates. We can do that with Stephenson,for an example. We can't do that with Sickert.

Cornwell doesn't CARE if Sickert can be proved to have been in London on all the dates.

The inference that Sickert was slick enough to avoid suspicion and yet ,as Sorcia very astutely points out, painted these alleged portraits of victims is a contradiction of the highest order. Its sort of like saying " I like to go swimming,but I hate to get wet..."

In 5 years,all this crap will blow over.

[Melissa McMahan]

So this (CUSSING) sorry ecuse for a human being is just being a pain in the butt? I think he could use an enema, one that takes all day. I'm not going over to Casebook anymore, they suck!

Is it any wonder why I don't trust most people?

[sorcia_us]

I just thought of something else about Cornwell's theory, in it she says in the book that the condition that caused his operation was a common diagnosis. Well, then, that time period must be absolutely crawling with Ripper suspects.

[D1g1TaL Gh0sT]

"That Walter Sickert was Jack The Ripper is now established by my multiple links on top of Cornwell's multiple links. It is self-evident that Sickert successfully avoided suspicion in the Whitechapel murders throughout his lifetime. He avoided suspicion as Jack The Ripper because he took extraordinary pains and precautions to avoid detection. Walter Sickert was very good at covering his tracks. He avoided detection in the Camden Town Murder for the same reasons. Except here he made a major miscalculation and post-humously gave himself away."

This is the KIFEIEST KIFE, that has EVER kifed.

This paragraph, much like the concept of Sickert being the Ripper, is a TOTAL, 100% contradiction. If you are indeed taking, "extraordinary pains and precautions to avoid detection", suffice to say, you're not exactly going to break out the paint and easel, and paint portraits of the crime scenes. Then, take those portraits, and display them, for all the world to see.

[Melissa McMahan]

You know what? I thought about this after reading Ghost post.

Let's just say for a moment of brain-dead logic that Sickert was Jack the Ripper.

Everybody knows JTR avoided being caught. Duh!

If Sickert were the Ripper that would mean he got away scott free. So then roughly 15 or 20 years later he starts painting the crimes. Yeah, that makes a whole lot of since. Sure it does.

Or could it be Sickert found it amusing to go around saying he "knew" who Jack the Ripper was. Painted dark images and even wrote hoax JTR letters just for his own amusement? Some people have odd fetishes after all. Maybe Sickert did all this to tease the ladies with. He was married 3 times after all. :rolleyes:

[How Brown]

After reading Melissa's post, it seems that .................

1. The women Sickert married were unaffected by his fistula.........
2. He seemed to savor the company of women. He didn't bump any of 'em off and from what can be determined,they were totally unaware of his side job in Whitechapel........
3. That life is unfair. Here's a guy who is now world-famous for his "refrigerator door " type of art ( If you have kids, you know what I mean....). On the other hand, his wienerschnitzel has been discussed more than anyone in recent memory.

[sorcia_us]

I think we have pretty well established that Sickert was NOT JTR -

although I have read that he was moderately obsessed with the crimes. But then again, aren't we as well?
I know that the vast majority of us who are interested in this case are not the least bit interested in attacking women and stealing their body parts.
I think Sickert became associated with the murders through some fairy tale spun by his son that also made them relatives of the Royal Family of England.
Egad!
Anyway, it is well-known that although Joseph Sickert initially implicated Gull and the Royal family as well as the Freemasons and his own father, he also recanted and admitted he made up the whole thing prior to publication of a book that "exposed" this alleged plot that reads more like fantasy fiction than reality.

Joseph Sickert is also said to have admitted that the part of the tale pertaining to JTR was made up to a leading Ripper researcher (but he still claims to be related by blood to the Royal Family).


Why is this not more well-known? Well, likely because then a bunch of people would have to admit they were stupid for not checking their facts and sources, and that they were foolish enough to be taken in by this obvious crackpot theory!

[D1g1TaL Gh0sT]

Agreed. It's far eaiser for somebody to just take someone at their word, then it actually is for them to put in some effort, and do their own research to verify that person's claims. It reflects today's society. They want all knowledge and experience handed to them on a silver plate, without doing any work to get it.

[How Brown]

Great posts,people !

[Melissa McMahan]

Hello people and mostly Howard.

Hey I thought about it and I did go back over to Casebook for one last post if it goes through that is. I'm not sure it will but in any event I have cut and pasted it below. I wanted a tad of revenge and perhaps I got it. If you read this close enough you can tell I made a little dig at someone over there. Someone writing a Sickert as the Ripper book who is not Cornwell BTW. It's not a knife I jab with but sarcasm from hell. LOL! Here's that post...

"I for one refuse to have a battle of wits anymore with some of the people who are on Cornwell's side having Sickert as the Ripper. For most of them have the ture agenda to prove it anyway or anyhow they can. Without any true facts or any real logic. All just so some books can be writen and sold. Anyone who dares not believe are asked why we "defend" Sickert. That is not the point nor is it even a good come back. I do not defend Sickert but I do not put a bloody knife in his hand either. We have the right to question Mrs. Cornwell's book, just as we do any book writen. I myself have read many books on the subject of Jack the Ripper and found at least some slight slant in most of them. However in Cornwell's book I found a 100% slant with no real facts to back up much of what she claims. She may have proved Sickert wrote a HOAX JTR letter but everything else is just a guessing game with her. If anyone wishes to prove Sickert was really Jack the Ripper then it's simple. SHOW US THE FACTS, CLUES AND LOGIC BEHIND IT PLEASE! Other wise it's just a guessing game like so many other JTR suspects. The truth is nobody can prove yet if ever who Jack the Ripper was. Rather you believe he was Sickert, Carroll, Druitt, Tumblety, Cream or anyone else on the long list of suspects. I would sure hope that we at least have him on the list but the truth is that list may not have the real Jack the Ripper on it. He may have not even have ever been a suspect and forever be lost in the sands of time. Thus the guessing game goes on."

[How Brown]

Melissa.....It looks like you have reached the point that some of us reached recently or some time ago. Its the "burn-out" effect that happens when you try to explain that Cornwell ( for an example ) has yet to prove poor Walt Sickert was even in Whitechapel on all of the kill-dates or that linking him to "hoaxed" letters proves nothing.

This is a typical condition that being behind a computer monitor and not face to face can cause. People like to go " around and around" with comments such as, "Why do people defend Sickert ?".....You cannot percieve their real intention. Thats why I sent you and the other very astute person and friend, that e-mail. It was to show you the reason I mentioned the "mental masturbation" tendencies of people such as the subject of the e-mail, on another thread.

You're a sensitive person who would appreciate a reply to the questions you ask elsewhere( Believe me,I see what the responses consist of when they are made to you...),but have noticed the effete nature of some of the respondents. Most of the people who are involved in studying JTR are introverted people. With introverts, it is sometimes harder for them to "lighten" up.

Other sites out there in the cyber-world are filled with people with "scores to settle" and soapboxes to stand on. Here,you will not find any of that "mano a mano" type confrontation.

If I may be so bold, I would simply suggest not trying to intelligently confront those who argue for a suspect,while not playing by the same rules you play by.
So,remember that while you are here,you are always going to be treated like a real and valuable person. Thats because you are. Your friend, Howard