Added: 3 years ago
From: langsense
Views: 22,017
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (122)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • MAYBE THEN PABLO PICASSO IS ALSO A SUSPECT,

    HE ALSO PAINTED WOMEN IN "STRANGE" POSITIONS.

  • Sickert was fascinated with the police. Very common and to have a high profile killer in Sickerts neighborhood must have driven Sickert to new heights of fascination. And I am sure he got someone to show him the murder scene photos....

  • Patricia Cornwell has no idea what she's talking about here.

  • Sickert didn't take the picture of the body at that angle

  • Do we have to be reminded how rich she is every five minutes?

    What an ego she must have.

  • Big red flag that Sickert was not the killer: They don't stop until they are put away or killed. Anyone that does their homework knows that killings in this fashion ESCALATE. You do not hear of other homicides that are more grotesque than Mary Kelly taking place after. A person doesn't commit such a murder and come back from it intact. Just ridiculous

  • @stephei25 Anderson and Swason both knew more about JTR than any other person in the police force and it is very possible that they had captured JTR. Although Anderson didn't name the suspect, it is apparent that he was referring to Macnaghten's Kosminski, a fact confirmed in 1987 when Swanson's copy of Anderson's memoir was made public. Anderson's memoirs give the information about the Kosminski interview. In it a witness says he knew that Kosminki was the ripper.

  • @stephei25 You are right. I wish people would leave the Jews alone! Whatever did they do to deserve such racism? Not meaning to be disrespectful to ANYONE, but people who mistreat the Jews will burn in hell, and these are not our words. They are God's words and Jews are to be loved and respected as well as anyone else on this earth. I don't hate you Steph! I don't even know you for goodness sake!

  • @stephei25

    Actually @kreepeemann was making a point about the comments above by @1Historygenius that JtR was Jewish and that winesses would not testify against him because they were also Jewish.

    You need to apologise. Also saying someone should burn in hell for remarks about a 'peaceful community' .. doesn't seem that peaceful.

  • I noticed that she said the photo of catherine eddowes was taken in the mortuary so it wasnt in its original position as they found it, and the painting reflects that photo's position, doesnt it seem purely coincidental that the girl in the painting's position was similar to that of catherine, only the killer would know the actual position of the body at the scene, this photo wasnt taken at the scene...unless the press released this to the public and sickert found inspiration in it??

  • To bad it has been proven already by a team of master investigators that Jack the Ripper was Aaron Kosminski.

  • @1Historygenius

    Oh well ... if it's been proven beyond all reasonable doubt...

  • @langsense Yes because when they acutally arrested him knowing it was Jack the Ripper they just could not prosecute because some idiot damn eyewitness decided to not to testify against "a fellow jew" so after all this work they finally find Jack the Ripper and some asshole will not testify to lock that damn waste of space of a man away or even execute. Yes some very religious guy runied it all on everyone even if it was a stupid excuse for a man like Jack the Ripper who did brutal things!

  • @1Historygenius

    Knowing he was JtR, did they have proof?

  • @langsense He was somewhat insane and had a great hatred in women especially protstitutes and he had strong homicidal tendencies. During the ripper killings a handful of witnesses gave descriptions of the killer with a moustache (something Sickert does not have), medium build, a cap etc. Kosminski was very much like that. When he was brought for questioning and eyewitness immediately when seeing Kosminski said he was the ripper but he would not testify against a fellow Jew.

  • @langsense The proof was the witness and the fact that he made all witness descriptions.

  • @1Historygenius

    But all these witnesses .. why give evidence at all if you're not going to testify against the person. And if this eyewitness knew straight away that Kosminski was JtR but did not say so.. how do people know that if he didn't say anything?

  • @langsense The proof is from the memoirs of then men that were their like Sir Robert Anderson and John Swanson. Like I said Kosminski is right up their with Tumblety and James Kelly. For Sickert you cannot completely fit him in. He was thought to be in France at the time and the DNA was mitochondrial which could be shared from between one to ten percent of the population, so it was hardly unique to Sickert.

  • @1Historygenius

    So you're now saying it's probably Kosminski.. not definitely Kosminski.. because he's now up there with the other suspects. And Sickert was 'thought' to be in France.. so nothing definite there either. So it could be Sickert or it could be someone else... anyone else.

  • @langsense Sickert could most likely be an accomplice more than a murdrer. Their are many things that do not point out to him such as his motive which had happened way back in his childhood but others like Tumblety and Kosminski have hated women their whole lives do to several incidents. Tumblety was known to have several incidents with the law and their are some cases where he pointed it out to a women. James Kelly knew Whitechapel alot and had alot of experince with the protstitutes.

  • @1Historygenius

    I don't really think Sickert is the killer but I also don't know who is and I don't think anybody can ay for sure... this is my point. Lots of people have left comments ridiculing PC's research but they themselves don't know who JtR is. I'm just not sure why people take it so.. personally.

  • @langsense Well it is obvious why people take it personally. Don't you have pity on these poor women?

  • @1Historygenius

    Of course I damned well do.

    I meant that people take this research by PC so personally... and by that I mean that many instead of just saying they disagree and why, have taken to insulting PC because of her wealth, her gender... and because she is gay.

    Also, I get the feeling that most people interested in JtR really care about his victims, just about the mystery of who he was.

  • @langsense You have forgotten Walter Sickert's relatives and people who have family ties to him.

  • @1Historygenius

    That's been said before. And my response is.. what about the families and friends of all the other suspects which are banded about?

  • @langsense Men like James Kelly probably do not have family since he killed his wife with a knife and was sent to an asylum the escaped to London where he knew a lot about Whitechapel and probrably would have gone there. Tumblety is a homosexual and thus never married a women and probably never had kids. George Chapman poisoned his wives. Those are some of the top 3 suspects while many others do not seem to fit the book.

  • @1Historygenius

    You're still making assumptions though. (And just because you're an homosexual does not mean you don't have family.)

  • @langsense Even assumptions can give help in cases like this. We must remember that sometimes assumptions can be researched and see if they can lead to something. But Sickert is one of the few suspects that has apparent witnesses who say he was in France during the murder but you do not see someone like Tumblety or Ostrog who has witnesses to the possibility that they could be in other places during the murders. Prince Victor for example has some witnesses who can prove he was not their.

  • @1Historygenius

    Look, I'm not goint to go round and round in circles. I don't know who JtR is. I know of the many people that are suspected. So I'm not sure why we're having this discussion. It has not been proven who the killer was and probably never will be. It's a great mystery.

    Assumptions though, have to be proven true and witnesses can be wrong. There is nothing solid.

  • @1Historygenius I knew it was a Jew! Those fucking Jews! You are an idiot, sir. Read a god damned book, would you.

  • @kreepeemann There was a large ammount of Jewish people in Whitechapel and it is possible he was a Jew.

  • @1Historygenius yeah, jack was a jew... his initials were J.L.

  • AngelusSpkGrrl, you're absolutely right...

    ...it does sound silly.

  • I believe sickert is jack the ripper. Jack the ripper wrote letters to the police and played games with them, his paintings is another way for him to see how far he can get and see if people catch on. This is a way for him to tell the world "Hey i am who you are looking for". I went on he jack the ripper tour in london and the guide said patricia was lying i got the feeling maybe like the mystery and wants to keep it that way, cause its one of the things they are most famous for.

  • @elenabodetzvezdoj

    " i got the feeling " is BS. Theres's more proof in other suspects than Sickert.

  • have any of you read the ripper book she wrote i think shes on the right track considering his sad childhood

  • " How far away did Sickert stand from a canvas when he painted? "

    Just a wild stab in the dark but I'd say about the length of a paintbrush?

  • Cornwell is twisting the facts to fit her theory.

    She has decided that WS is JtR and is trying to find the evidence to back up her theory.

  • The ripper was a guy names James Kelly. Watch the documentary of Jack the ripper in America.

    It will convince you.

  • Here's my biggest question...Why hasn't anyone theorized that these murder's were done by something demonic? I know it sounds silly but it makes as much if not more sense than other theorizes.

  • why is eveyone focused on the mary kelly murder

  • @TajrAronson because her murder was the most disturbing. Post mortem, she was literally decapitated & eviscerated much more so than the other victims. Every organ, except her uterus was removed from her body & left all over her bed & side table. Both her breasts were cut off & her thighs & face were literally skinned to the bone. The only organ that was missing was her heart. Also she stood out cos she was the only vic in her 20s (other 4 were in their 40s), had her own room & was attractive.

  • @TajrAronson because her murder was the most disturbing out of the 5 victims which were known as the caionical 5

  • Reaching, much..!

  • Sickert was definately a weirdo, but I didn't live in that time....What if he lived in this day in time and had his own Facebook page? LOL

  • @mycorolla07 he would probably blog his great artpieces under a pseudonym he definitely wouldn't invite patricia cornwell as a friend thats for sure...

  • 5:59 He states that with serial killers they have an ego and are showing that they are better than everyone else etc, but most cases of the killers we hear about or read about are actually the opposite to these profiles that he is suggesting? most have schizoid disorders where they don't have any ego whatsoever and just blend in with there enviroment...

  • Ii tohught the attempt at art critique was funny. Clutching at straws is the best way of describing it.

  • very creepy paintings

  • Maybe they described her murder and parts of the scene in the newspaper; maybe information was leaked by police officers and it trickled down to the public: maybe he drew his painting from these reports? But it is a creepy coincidence!

  • Oh, please ... it's like saying that Picasso must have bombed Guernica because he painted it. Of course Sickert painted murder scenes, they were ingrained in the popular imagination of the period. There's nothing here but complete and ridiculous speculation.

  • @fiveeightsaccount Yeah exactly my feelings ....

  • Ive met Donald Rumbelow and he dismisses Patricia Cornwell's assertion that it was Sickert. Try reading "Jack the Ripper: The First American Serial Killer."

  • I do believe that Sickert is the Ripper. I mean face it, he's the only reasonable suspect, and even though the evidence is mostly circumstancial, the figures all seem to add up. And I think that Cornwell knows a lot more about this stuff than ppl think

  • I feel like the curator is trying to be diplomatic.

  • Hmmm. I think she might be reading a bit too much into that painting.

  • Ripper or not, that painting is creepy, she does look like a ripper victim.

  • Who reads a newspaper the way the painting's woman is reading it? Somebody with bad eyesight in a poorly lit room

  • dont let her fame suck you in she knows nothing its all guestimation

  • theres alot of shocking evidence against sickert.

  • sickert wasnt at the murder scene, so how can he paint in detail, unless he is the ripper.

  • How far back did he stand from his canvas?

    Well his brushes were 22 foot long so work it out for yourself.......what a stupid stupid question.

  • I think that fbi guy did it

  • To all those questions above you will get answers by reading her book. One can not judge or have the whole picture after just watching these clips on youtube.

  • well she has a point but doesnt mean that sickert is jack the ripper!

  • Actually, I think she does. I buy it.

  • She thinks Sickert was 'truely bizzare'? He was an artist...we ARE bizzare, it's in the job description! She's pulling all this out of her arse.

  • what cornwell is doing is what most researchers always do: look at a suspect with a preconception

    that whoever they choose as the killer must be the one.

    the book that will give you a fresh look at the ripper is THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER which by the way has never been to be a fake.

    please get a copy and read with an open mind and you will be totally convinced that JAMES MAYBRICK is the real killer.

  • The Maybrick Diary is a proven sham though. There are a lot of good suspects. Sickert is one not cause of painting but because of the mitachodrial dna on one of the letters. Tumblety is another strong suspect as is Aaron Kosminski and there are others as well. No one knows who the Ripper is. Not for sure, the case is open and not closed and we may never know.

  • she's reeeallly reaching here.

  • I'm sorry the painting just suggest he probably saw a picture of the victim and used it as a subject. One of his other paintings, what shall we do for the rent, seems to be an empathetic commentary on the desperate situation of these women who would still ply the streets even though they knew a monster like the Ripper was about.

  • There are more to W. Sickert than just the pictures for facts. But I guess it's more easy to judge P. Cornwell's theory by just looking at these clips on youtube ;)

  • @MirrPL actually she herself says either in this clip or at some point in the program that the paintings are the most compelling evidence. Mitochondrial DNA is not at all conclusive like regular DNA. Writing letters pretending to be the ripper was very common in the day. She does not include that. All she has concluded is that Sickert himself was a Jact the Ripper crime enthusiast, of which there are many.

  • I hear you. I did not specifically point out Sickerts paintings as being THE clue, mearly that I find P. C's investigation & conclusions most poingent out there up to date. I am neither a P.C enthusiast nor JTR crime enthusiast. I have done my home work on the issue but do not claim myself an expert. I simply try to be as objective as I can with all the material I have read or gotten my hands on. There are too many suspects and none of them plausable like W.S, thanks to P.C's hard work.

  • @MirrPL  you have the right attitude if i may say becuase many people who worke this case want to solve it for reasons none other than fame or glory,

    there are no experts in life, if there was all scientists would agree on global warming and not all of them do , so they cant all be experts or they would all have come to the same conclusion .

    people want to see what they want to see , they want to see the truth

  • ...and yes, I am very aware of that there were many JTR crime enthusiasts and fake letters sent to the police.

    Btw, take a look at W.S's doodles made here and there and what his writings looked like. Pretty scary reasemblences and...coincidenses (?). Anyway, there's too much out there. Putting it all together only a blind person would not stop scratch his/her head and feel a chill down to the bone.

  • she says the most compelling evidence are the subject of his paintings, but they prove nothing more than a painter who was morbidly fascinated by Jack the Ripper and the murders. His subjects were often prostitutes so he would have frequented the East End and would have been following the case like a hawk, like everyone else. I mean here we are over a 100 years later fascinated, you can imagine how interesting it would have been to a contemporary.

  • @acmedressform sort of , -yes- but at the time ??? there is an innate feeling of foreboding in all of us - if this is During the Time of such a series of murders- what Im saying is . JTR makes for fascinating mystery for us NOW but, there are other similar modern examples in our current running time, which unlike solved, old, or ended cases, give us the sense of repulsion.

    there is the possibility that an Artist could be trying to comment on the psychosocial fascination with Foreboding, BUT!

  • I felt embarrassed for her as she was interpreting that painting to the curator. I had to mute it.

  • I didn't feel embarrassed, I just think what she says doesn't reflect the reality of t he painting at all.

  • i have to agree with you on that. i like patricia cornwell but on this interpretation thing, well.....

  • Most of what she is saying we have known for years anyway. I don`t see the point of having an entire programme about what she thinks. Her imagination is running wild at times.

    She should stick to her day job of writing novels.

  • Cornwell just seems to be searching for all "evidence" to support her pet theory. Back in the 90s, some former FBI profilers did a profile of Jack the Ripper, and of all the suspects listed, Kosminski comes the closest to fitting the profile. He was lower-class, had a pathological hatred of women, and was psychotic. As a matter of fact, the detective Donald Swanson was convinced he was the killer.

  • Sickert has that kinda sly half grin, sorta like Eddie Gein: "Guess what i'm thinking"

  • she is blinded by her own ego..he is expressing his interest and emotion towards it via the only way he can..thru artwork..u paint or read things that interest u,,,he wasnt in whitechapel..severin klosowski is def the best suspect by far..he worked under the white hart pub when martha tabram was killed (39 stab wounds) on the stairs above. he lived on the top floor of stairs..1 week later nicholls was killed ..victim no.1 suddenly the most famous man on earth,sated his lust on kelly.fled to u.s!

  • I saw a documentary a couple of weeks ago that pointed the finger at the coroner's assisstant. It was very interesting. I can't remember what it was called but they had some good points. It was on Channel ID. Cornwell is my favorite author besides Edgar Allen Poe and I love her scarpetta series but I think she is grasping for straws here. The book is good but I think she is blinded too

  • One thing the pictures and the letters of the dead were published to the public, so he may have seen them and took the idea to do a ripper type painting. Does not mean he was the ripper.

    Kinda like Ed gain many movies came out of his story

  • These crimes were very easy to carry out in the London of the day, whoever he was died or was imprisoned when they stopped as the American guy says. I don't believe Sickert was the ripper and just decided to stop but it appears Cornwell ignores this.

  • I can imagine Sickert entering into a type of trance as he reminisces about the murders and his thoughts shaped the paintings...His paintings are a powerful testimony in and of themselves. There is a saying often heard in psychology, "He wanted to get caught"...Yes, Sickert wanted to be caught, but didn't want to be caught...He has left powerful clues as to his real identity, too numerous to mention here. Read the book!!

  • i dont think you should be so quick to discredit what she says because she dose have other professionals working along side her and they agreed with her....

    ive read the book and his paintings are really weird...

    kat

  • sikke en spasser hun opklare lige det hele botoxfjæs

  • I'm not a butcher or a yid nor yet a foreign skipper.

    But I;m your own light hearted lad

    Yours truly Jack the Ripper!!!

  • Ya a good lad jack dont let them put ya down

  • ...hmm it doesnt take a genius to be able to tell that a morose painting of what looks like a rotting woman reading the paper with her eyes closed is symbolic of murder

  • ok she has to be wrong shes talking about nothing but Walter Sickert he may have murdered theses women but u can tell that after Mary Kelly the ripper just stopped

  • what i dont get is why they say the ripper had to have been a doctor well thats not true anyone could have done this i would believe it was sickert

  • That's what I think but it's been put to me that he removed only the uterus from one victim and all murders were done in poor or no light. I'm not totally convinced that Jack had a medical background though.

  • I think shed better stick to writing.....from matey theres reactions i dont think shes a very good art critic LOL

  • She's seeing what she wants to see. It's as though everyone who tries to make an ID for the Ripper gets so sucked into it that they lose all objectivity.

  • I agree. The bottle of wine which she thought looked like blood is a good example of that. She only saw it like that because she has this preconceived notion that the painter was Jack the Ripper. I would take anything she says with a very large pinch of salt.

  • her theory and the reasons she gives are simply ridiculous. It's even hilarious when you consider she's talking as if she's an expert, she may be an expert but she's also hella dumb.

  • You're quite correct. Her theory is absurd in the extreme yet she persists in it despite obvious and huge clues that she is wrong. Also, she is no expert in anything at all; she doesn't have even a day of criminal investigations experience and certainly no formal forensics education.

  • James Maybrick was jack the ripper watch the diary of jack the ripper.end of story.

  • ink used on diary was dated 1974...chemicals used in ink apparently..fake diary.google jack the ripper casebook read everything on severin klosowski newspaper articles at the bottom of his write up etc ..the best suspect.

  • where did you read that the ink was dated 1974?Be cause the reports I read from independent labs was that the ink was dated from the time it was said to be written.

  • hello mr black..go to jack the ripper casebook ..then suspects..choose maybrick .go to fact file and all the facts on the tests are here to see.if u buy a book claiming they have the man all u get are info to prove there books claim..they conveniently leave out all the truths that blow their theory out the water.its always better to read material that is unbiased as they give you all the facts know.i.e the guy who found the diary was an unemployed scouser!!.lmao.hope ya take a look all the best.

  • you can bend this anyway you like back and forth, two and fro...but there is no proof unless you want him to be the ripper.Then by carefully twisting the evidence does he fit, just like many other suspects

  • I'm sure she was aware of that.

    I read the book twice and it was mesmerizing. I'm sure she's got it right. Sickert was the ripper.

  • Patricia Cornwell doesn't realize that pictures of the bodies were published in a book which Sickert probably had, and that he probably used those as material for paintings like this one. The book was Vacher léventreur et les crimes sadiques by Alexandre Lacassagne, and was published in 1899.

  • Painting AND serial-killing?Bloke was busy........

  • Walter Sick (ert) is the Ripper.

  • I love you Patricia!

  • She is pretty cool.

    Many people dismiss her Walter claims....but Walty was a funny fellow....so, why not look into him a bit more, eh?

  • lol. eh?

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more