Jack The Ripper Revealed!
Descartes
American author Patricia Cornwall reveals that Jack
The Ripper was British Impressionist painter Walter
Sickert. And she backs up her claim with DNA evidence
and watermark tests that she commissioned, performed
on notes that Scotland Yard has long believed to have been written
by Jack himself.
By the way, Sickert was no obscure
footnote in the history of British Art. He was a major
figure--a pupil of Whistler (who figures peripherally in
the crimes,) a disciple of Degas, a masterly painter, a
prolific draughtsman, and an aesthetic whirlwind who
influenced countless British artists between Turner
and Bacon.
Cornwall--one of the most successful of
all contemporary crime story authors--says she is 100%
certain it was Sickert, and she stakes her personal
reputation on the evidence that she has collected.
Some of that evidence has already appeared in
the press--and it is devastating (especially to the
reputations of numerous expert Jack The Ripper
authors who have fingered 21 other suspects over
the past 110 years.)
Can there be any doubt this story will soon be made
into an opera? Whom do you think is the composer
best suited to bring it to the operatic stage?
D.
PS: And who will revise the third act of Berg's Lulu?
Descartes
>In her book scheduled for release next week,
>American author Patricia Cornwall reveals that Jack
>The Ripper was British Impressionist painter Walter
>Sickert.
Oops, make that Patricia Cornwell.
PTD will have to find something else to nitpick.
D.
Michael Haslam
A review of the TV docu. made the point that Cornwell showed herself, a victim of a callous father, to be as obsessed with her Ripper thesis as Sickert, a victim of horrific penile surgery as a child, may have been obsessed with the Ripper.
Nothing relevant to music in this.
MJHaslam
Peter T. Daniels
>
> In her book scheduled for release next week,
> American author Patricia Cornwall reveals that Jack
> The Ripper was British Impressionist painter Walter
> Sickert. And she backs up her claim with DNA evidence
> and watermark tests that she commissioned, performed
> on notes that Scotland Yard has long believed to have been written
> by Jack himself.
> Can there be any doubt this story will soon be made
> into an opera? Whom do you think is the composer
> best suited to bring it to the operatic stage?
"Whom ... is the composer ...?" Tsk, tsk, tsk.
> D.
>
> PS: And who will revise the third act of Berg's Lulu?
What's wrong with it as it's currently performed?
> >In her book scheduled for release next week,
> >American author Patricia Cornwall reveals that Jack
> >The Ripper was British Impressionist painter Walter
> >Sickert.
>
> Oops, make that Patricia Cornwell.
>
> PTD will have to find something else to nitpick.
Else besides what? Why should I care if you can't even remember the name
of someone I never heard of?
See above.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Tony Duggan
Descartes <cog...@ergo.com> wrote in message
news:93g4sug7mjuu8bp68...@4ax.com...
> In her book scheduled for release next week,
> American author Patricia Cornwall reveals that Jack
> The Ripper was British Impressionist painter Walter
> Sickert. And she backs up her claim with DNA evidence
> and watermark tests that she commissioned, performed
> on notes that Scotland Yard has long believed to have been written
> by Jack himself.
The letter concerned has, in fact, been dismissed as a forgery by all the
Ripper experts for many years.
In all Cornwell, in fact, just rakes over ground that has already been
covered well by Jean Overton Fuller and Stephen Knight many years ago in
their books, and has been dismissed as total rubbish a lot of it laid at the
door of Sickert's son Joseph who told the story to Knight and then later
admitted that it was "one big fib". In short Cornwell's, hardly new, theory
concerning Sickert is a load of hogwash slandering an innocent man.
For an interim refutation of this load of toss go to:
http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-artofmurder.html
--
Tony Duggan, England.
dug...@scribble.freeserve.co.uk
Mahler CD recordings survey is at:
http://www.musicweb.uk.net/Mahler/index.html
Tony Duggan
On the Message Board there is a lively discussion on Cornwell well under way
including the reactions of one expert, Stewart P. Evans, that deserves
reproducing here:
Evans writes:
In answer to the query above by Dean, no I was not approached by the BBC for
my comments. Don Rumbelow was the only authority used and they stated that
he was the only one they required. His was the only dissentient voice in the
programme pushing Cornwell's theory. Don summed it up very well when he
stated:
"Out there is an element who is going to believe this nonsense that Sickert
is the Ripper. Some lunatic will go into the Tate or somewhere else and
slash a canvas because he was Jack the Ripper. This is the sort of thing,
this sort of nonsense, which actually triggers this behaviour and there is
this element out there who will believe it."
Ms. Cornwell, apparently, indicated from the very early days of her research
that she wished to use no recognised Ripper authority in her work, other
than John Grieve who was then a serving, high-ranking officer (Deputy
Assistant Commissioner) with the Metropolitan Police. His part in
introducing her to the Ripper case was described in the Omnibus programme.
When ABC did their Primetime programme on Ms. Cornwell's theory in the USA
last year they contacted me the day before the broadcast. They asked if I
would agree to an interview about it to discuss my views on it. I agreed and
an ABC camera team came here that night and I was linked up for an interview
with New York which was filmed. It must have lasted the best part of an
hour. I fully explained that I thought the idea of Sickert as a Jack the
Ripper suspect was a nonsense and that his name as such, had emerged only as
late as the 1970's and even then only as a part of the Royal conspiracy
farce.
They apparently weren't hearing what they wanted to hear. They seemed keen
to discover if I would be able to conclusively dismiss Sickert as a suspect
with incontrovertible evidence such as the fact that he was abroad at the
time of the murders. Of course I wasn't. Sickert's movements are not
recorded in such detail. However, I explained the reasons why the theory was
totally unsupported by any grain of evidence and that Sickert was never a
suspect at all.
Needless to say when the programme was aired no interview with me appeared
on it. Also, needless to say, I received no payment for the interview.
Chris George has pointed out that Ms. Cornwell has listed the two volumes,
The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion and Jack the Ripper Letters From Hell
in her book. These are, essentially, reference works and this is, I presume,
the reason she used them. They have no suspect bias at all. We were, in
fact, aware that her team was using these books during her research.
Regarding the so called 'evidence' of the Openshaw letter I would have the
following to say. There is nothing whatsoever to connect it with Sickert.
The DNA testing that was conducted on the letters at the PRO was a failure
and no nuclear DNA was traced. Tests were carried out for mitochondrial DNA
and the tests were not negative, but they proved little. Scott Medine has
made an excellent summary of the weakness of this 'evidence' and I need not
explain it over again. It does not even link Sickert to any letter. It
merely does not exclude him, as it does not exclude many thousands of
others. Ms. Cornwell's own team member, Dr. Paul Ferrara, was patently very
honest and summed up:
"It's not definitive at this point, it's iffy. But tantalisingly iffy,
again, in terms of, um, we can't eliminate Walter Sickert."
It is interesting to think that they may have detected DNA contamination
from me, as the Openshaw letter and envelope was in my personal possession,
for around six months, about a year before Ms. Cornwell even learned of its
existence. And I photographed the watermark in this letter at that time. The
fact that the watermark matched, in the part '& Sons', that of the watermark
'A Pirie & Sons' found in a Sickert letter does not mean that he wrote it.
Again the honest Dr. Ferrara stated:
"I think that its reasonable to assume that a lot of people used that
particular stationery. So this is not a smoking gun by any stretch of the
imagination. But at least we were able to establish a tenuous link or
commonality between at least one of the Jack the Ripper letters, and
subsequently some others, and Walter Sickert."
What was not mentioned is the fact that almost certainly this letter is just
another irrelevant hoax.
Finally may I say, in my opinion, the whole case against Sickert is a house
of cards and not one shred of solid evidence against him is adduced. After
six million dollars spent no new fact on the Ripper case, as far as I can
see, has been found.
Descartes
<dug...@scribble.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>The letter concerned has, in fact, been dismissed as a forgery by all the
>Ripper experts for many years.
I love it, I love it! The insular group of male British Ripper "experts" are
now regurgitating their warm beer over the shock that an American woman
crime writer has cracked the here-to-fore unsolved mystery "Who Was
Jack The Ripper?" They are mortified that Cornwell never consulted them!
And you, Tony Duggan, are Exhibit A.
It should be obvious even to you that all those Ripper "experts" are as
ignorant as a typical inebriated loudmouth in a local pub if they have been
wrongly fingering 21 innocent suspects for more than 100 years--and attacking
each other while they were at it. The letter may have been dismissed by some
of the so-called "experts" whose theories didn't explain its existence, but the
facts pertaining to the letter are convincing to many others (including
many average citizens in the general public who might have sat in a jury box if
the case had ever gone to trial. As Cornwell said on TV, if a 19th Century jury
had seen the watermarks, there is no doubt that Sickert would have hung) There
is certainly no scientific evidence for anyone, including you, to dismiss the
letter--so your charge is rubbish.
>
>In all Cornwell, in fact, just rakes over ground that has already been
>covered well by Jean Overton Fuller and Stephen Knight many years ago in
>their books
Wrong. The evidence she presents is new. Not a word of it appears
in Fuller and Knight. They may have rejected Sickert as a suspect
years ago based on their own conclusions, but neither had Cornwell's evidence.
>, and has been dismissed
You just don't get it, Tony. One cannot dismiss evidence, one can
only disprove it. The opinions and the personal reputations of
the so-called experts are totally irrelevant. Cornwell's evidence
will be scrutinized and re-tested. If it doesn't hold up on scientific
grounds, everyone will know. But you and the Ripper Expert Club
have jumped the gun. Cornwell's detailed evidence will soon be available
to all.
>as total rubbish a lot of it laid at the
>door of Sickert's son Joseph who told the story to Knight and then later
>admitted that it was "one big fib".
None of Cornwell's evidence is based on the confused and
contradictory evidence of "Joseph Sickert" (who may or may
not have been Walter Sickert's illegitimate son.)
> In short Cornwell's, hardly new, theory
>concerning Sickert is a load of hogwash slandering an innocent man.
You don't know that for a fact, anymore than the loudmouth
drunk in the local pub knows it. Neither you nor anyone else
has yet presented any evidence disproving Cornwell's
material. For example, if you could prove that Sickert
was in France thoughout the period of the Ripper
murders (and the Camden Town murders), then you
could justifiably make statements like the nonesense above.
But you can't disprove her charges--yet, at any rate.
So you are simply frothing at the mouth. By the way,
what is new is not that Sickert is the suspect, but that
Cornwell has new scientific evidence indicating that
Sickert was The Ripper. Let see you disprove her
evidence, not dismiss it or quote so-called "experts.".
>For an interim refutation of this load of toss go to:
>
>http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-artofmurder.html
Casebook.org is a great website. One can vote for any of
21 Ripper suspects. The wealth of totally contradictory "evidence"
from a 100+ years of Ripper writers show exactly how absurd
is Tony's misplaced faith in the "Experts."
D.
Descartes
>Nothing relevant to music in this.
>
>MJHaslam
It is certainly relevant that it was really Walter Sickert who
murdered Lulu and the Countess Geschwitz!
D.
Descartes
>Sickert could have written and sent the
>letters without being the Ripper; he could have contaminated the letters
>after they had been received by the police.
>MJHaslam
Couldda, wouldda, shouldda. That is
not evidence. That is your speculation.
There is no evidence to show that Sickert
handled the letters after they had been
received by police. Although time
has blurred the facts, many have
written that Scotland Yard assumed
the Overcamp letter is authentic
because it reveals a familarily with
details only the Ripper could have known.
D.
Michael Haslam
What are the chances of CH Parry being the Ripper? Unless he has a cast iron alibi he should be added to the list of suspects.
MJHaslam
Descartes
word of substantiated fact that disproves Cornwell's evidence. There
is only the speculations of self-appointed "experts" who are
grousing openly that they were not chosen to rebut her book on TV.
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 15:20:46 -0000, "Tony Duggan"
<dug...@scribble.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>For those interested in the Ripper case, go to:
>
>http://www.casebook.org/
>
>On the Message Board there is a lively discussion on Cornwell well under way
>including the reactions of one expert, Stewart P. Evans, that deserves
>reproducing here:
>
>Evans writes:
>In answer to the query above by Dean, no I was not approached by the BBC for
>my comments. Don Rumbelow was the only authority used and they stated that
>he was the only one they required. His was the only dissentient voice in the
>programme pushing Cornwell's theory. Don summed it up very well when he
>stated:
Note Evans' charge that the BBC was "pushing" Cornwell's theory.
Conspiracies everywhere!
>
>"Out there is an element who is going to believe this nonsense that Sickert
>is the Ripper. Some lunatic will go into the Tate or somewhere else and
>slash a canvas because he was Jack the Ripper. This is the sort of thing,
>this sort of nonsense, which actually triggers this behaviour and there is
>this element out there who will believe it."
Rumblebow's "dissent" (above) has got to be the most irrational, moronic
attempt at rebuttal in the history of debate.! Anyone who believes Cornwell's
evidence is capable of sneaking into the Tate Galley and slashing
Sickert's paintings. Rumblebow is obviously unfamiliar with the
concepts of scientific evidence and logic.
>
>Ms. Cornwell, apparently, indicated from the very early days of her research
>that she wished to use no recognised Ripper authority in her work, other
>than John Grieve who was then a serving, high-ranking officer (Deputy
>Assistant Commissioner) with the Metropolitan Police.
Oh, what a shame! Cornwell never gave Rumblebow or Stewart
the right time of day. And the jilted self-proclaimed "experts" are sticking
knitting needles in a voodoo doll of her.
>His [Grieve's] part in
>introducing her to the Ripper case was described in the Omnibus programme.
>
>When ABC did their Primetime programme on Ms. Cornwell's theory in the USA
>last year they contacted me the day before the broadcast. They asked if I
>would agree to an interview about it to discuss my views on it. I agreed and
>an ABC camera team came here that night and I was linked up for an interview
>with New York which was filmed. It must have lasted the best part of an
>hour. I fully explained that I thought the idea of Sickert as a Jack the
>Ripper suspect was a nonsense and that his name as such, had emerged only as
>late as the 1970's and even then only as a part of the Royal conspiracy
>farce.
Again, not a word of proof to disqualify any of Cornwell's evidence--which
none of these self-proclaimed "experts" have examined in detail yet!
To say such bluster is pre-mature is self-evident.
>They apparently weren't hearing what they wanted to hear. They seemed keen
>to discover if I would be able to conclusively dismiss Sickert as a suspect
>with incontrovertible evidence such as the fact that he was abroad at the
>time of the murders. Of course I wasn't. Sickert's movements are not
>recorded in such detail. However, I explained the reasons why the theory was
>totally unsupported by any grain of evidence and that Sickert was never a
>suspect at all.
Utterly laughable as a response. The reason why Sickert could not possibly
be the Ripper is: no British "expert" seriously suspected him in the past!!!!
And Rumblebow openly admits that he could not provide the BBC with
any incontrovertible evidence that Cornwell's naming of Sickert as The
Ripper is factually wrong.
>
>Needless to say when the programme was aired no interview with me appeared
>on it. Also, needless to say, I received no payment for the interview.
Yes, it was needless to say. The BBC determined that what Rumblebow had
to say was worthless.
>
>Chris George has pointed out that Ms. Cornwell has listed the two volumes,
>The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion and Jack the Ripper Letters From Hell
>in her book. These are, essentially, reference works and this is, I presume,
>the reason she used them. They have no suspect bias at all. We were, in
>fact, aware that her team was using these books during her research.
Duh??? What does that indicate? Nothing relevant to a rebuttal
of Cornwell.
>
>Regarding the so called 'evidence' of the Openshaw letter I would have the
>following to say. There is nothing whatsoever to connect it with Sickert.
Pure opinion. None are so blind as those who will not see.
>The DNA testing that was conducted on the letters at the PRO was a failure
>and no nuclear DNA was traced. Tests were carried out for mitochondrial DNA
>and the tests were not negative, but they proved little.
Rumblebow's tainted opinion again. The DNA tests, in conjuction with Cornwell's
other tests, are powerful enough on their face to have withstood scrutiny of
many independent retained by Cornwell--with lots more scrutiny yet to come
from public officials.
>Scott Medine has
>made an excellent summary of the weakness of this 'evidence' and I need not
>explain it over again.
Scott Medine has yet to see the details of Cornwell's evidence.
But he couldn't wait to get his name out before the public again with
his specious summary.
>It does not even link Sickert to any letter. It
>merely does not exclude him, as it does not exclude many thousands of
>others. Ms. Cornwell's own team member, Dr. Paul Ferrara, was patently very
>honest and summed up:
>
>"It's not definitive at this point, it's iffy. But tantalisingly iffy,
>again, in terms of, um, we can't eliminate Walter Sickert."
All DNA evidence works by a process of elimination.
What is cited as evidence in every legal proceding is the
PROBABILITY of a match. 100% probability is an
impossibility in DNA testing. But the probability can
be high enough to establish guilt or innocence in
egal procedings.
>
>It is interesting to think that they may have detected DNA contamination
>from me, as the Openshaw letter and envelope was in my personal possession,
>for around six months, about a year before Ms. Cornwell even learned of its
>existence.
More utterly irrelevant speculation from Rumblebow. The man
is incapable on staying on track.
>And I photographed the watermark in this letter at that time. The
>fact that the watermark matched, in the part '& Sons', that of the watermark
>'A Pirie & Sons' found in a Sickert letter does not mean that he wrote it.
The man has blinders on. Rumblebow, you obviously MISSED the
connection between the watermark match on the Ripper letter and
Sickert's letter. And now you are tap dancing to cover your ass!
>Again the honest Dr. Ferrara stated:
"Honest" Dr. Ferrara? Is Rumblebow inferring that all of the
other independant experts that Cornwell retained were
DISHONEST? Does he have any proof of dishonesty?
Of course not.
>
>"I think that its reasonable to assume that a lot of people used that
>particular stationery. So this is not a smoking gun by any stretch of the
>imagination. But at least we were able to establish a tenuous link or
>commonality between at least one of the Jack the Ripper letters, and
>subsequently some others, and Walter Sickert."
>
>What was not mentioned is the fact that almost certainly this letter is just
>another irrelevant hoax.
What you fail to mention is that you have absolutely no proof whatsoever
to make the indefsible statement that this letter is just another
irrelvant hoax. "Almost certainly"????? What transparent twaddle!
>
>Finally may I say, in my opinion, the whole case against Sickert is a house
>of cards and not one shred of solid evidence against him is adduced. After
>six million dollars spent no new fact on the Ripper case, as far as I can
>see, has been found.
Well, as you say, that is your opinion. Backed up by nothing. Oh well,
you can always try to convince your drinking mates at the corner pub.
Maybe you will have better luck there.
D
>
>
>
>
>
John Harrington
Or Hillary.
J
Descartes
wrote:
>My theory is that Bill Clinton did it.
That's not Jack The Ripper. That's Bill The Zipper.
D.
Descartes
from Descartes The Quipper
Tony Duggan
Subject: Re: Jack The Ripper Revealed!
View: Complete Thread (14 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical
Date: 2002-11-01 11:12:20 PST
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 15:08:01 -0000, "Tony Duggan"
<dug...@scribble.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> In short Cornwell's, hardly new, theory
>concerning Sickert is a load of hogwash slandering an innocent man.
> You don't know that for a fact, anymore than the loudmouth
> drunk in the local pub knows it. Neither you nor anyone else
> has yet presented any evidence disproving Cornwell's
> material. For example, if you could prove that Sickert
> was in France thoughout the period of the Ripper
> murders (and the Camden Town murders), then you
> could justifiably make statements like the nonesense above.
In an article in today's (London) Sunday Times Sickert's biographer Matthew
Sturgis delivers a damming rebuttal of Cornwell's garbage. Specifically:
"Cornwell makes no attempt to link Sickert to the murder scenes. In fact,
for much of the late summer of 1888 he was staying with his mother and
brother in France, 20 miles from Dieppe. The exact dates of his holiday
cannot be fixed but he probably left London in the middle of August - one
drawing is dated August 4 and after that there are no references to his
being in town. On September 6, six days after the murder of the Ripper's
first victim and two days before the murder of the second, Sickert's mother
wrote to a friend about the happy time they were having.
It seems Sickert may have stayed until early October as he painted a picture
of a local butcher's shop flooded with late summer light; he titled it The
October Sun. If so, he missed the murders of Elizabeth Stride and Catherine
Eddowes in the early hours of September 30.
Cornwell does not even acknowledge this pretty good alibi."
But the whole article by Sturgis is worth reading and should discredit
this barmy drivel once and for all.
Find it in today's (London) Sunday Times in the Review section:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-467058,00.html
---
John Harrington
dug...@scribble.freeserve.co.uk wrote on 11/3/02 1:21 AM:
Has anyone involved in this thread actually read the book?
J