Sorry, there is PLENTY of evidence that Sickert was the Ripper. If you notice, all the women in the paintings appear to be in some kind of death repose...He channeled his evil deeds into his paintings...Look again very carefully...Patricia Cornwall has worked with forensic pathologists for a couple of decades and knows what she is writing about. She is a brilliant woman...
Besides, there is more than just the paintings, which are very creepy btw. The watermarks, the penile abnormailty causing possible resentment, the handwriting in the guestbook, and even small bits of mitochondrial DNA link Sickert as Jack the Ripper. Plus the letters were proven to be written by an artist, and the style is similar. And Mr. Nemo written on a telegram, his freakin stage name! I am not saying Sickert is necessarily the Ripper (though I think so) but you can't say she is wrong.
What do you mean little to no evidence? Like the artists interviewed in a recent documentary called Stalking Jack the Ripper, there seems to be almost some sort of denial. And as for pinkskylie1 saying Sickert was in France during the murders, it was only a day's ride, if that, across the English Channel, he could kill someone and the next evening be in France. The circumstantial evidence is very heavy, and to have all that evidence pile up is no coincidence.
The thing is, for over a century now, there have been 6 or 7 suspects in the case of Jack the Ripper. The evidence that Cornwell DID find ELIMINATED EVERY ONE OF THEM......EXCEPT W. R. Sickert.
so think about that. Of course...she didnt "prove" that it was in fact Sickert that commited the murders. Even these days its quite hard to acutally prove something in a court of law. Especially when all a defense team needs is a "reasonable doubt" ....whatever the fuck they are worth anyways.
here's the deal...if you want to disagree with someone or something with some weight to carry you with your argument...STUDY them. You can avoid having an uneducated guess, and in some cases, avoid being a hypocrite.
So if you disagree with Cornwell, then read her book on Sickert.
Just because Walter Sickert painted provocative pictures of prostitutes does not made him a murderer. It's too easy to scapegoat him. It's doubtful that this mystery will ever be solved after more than a century now. Jack has become a legend on a par with Vlad the Impaler or Elizabeth Bathory almost a thing of folklore.
I have read Patricia Cornwells book on J the R,two or three times over.Whilst VERY engrossing and thought-provoking,i am left with no more answers than before.There is such a controversy over the identity of JR,that its all been mudded-up with speculation and the lack of real hard physical evidence and unsophisticatied police work.-and the lore of the of the story itself.Everyone THINKS they know who Jack was.Walter Sickert has about the same possibility as any of the suspects.Who knows?
"She has come to this conclusion with little or no evidence," is quite a mockery you've made. Cornwell's investigation has proven more than anyone else could prove. Walter Sickert was at least the author of the Ripper letters to Scotland Yard. The evidence beyond that is plenty. I commend Cornwell for her work and think it was anything but unfair to Sick Sickert.
I agree. Obviously Cornwell invested a lot of time and money to write something which could damage her career if proven wrong. Would she do that for no reason? I think that cbsection8 obviously has not read her book, otherwise he/she would see that Cornwell busted her ass to make sure she was not accusing the wrong person. I do not deny Sickert was a brilliant artist, but remember that Hitler was also a brilliant orator.
weirdo for sure, probably not jtr. killer obviously lived in whitechapel and was comfortable and known by locals enough to operate at the height of the hype. sickert would not have fit in enough.
She's made a better case than anyone else has made for any other suspect. It's jealousy that keeps people from admitting she is right. To me Walter Sickert IS Jack the Ripper and his paintings are scary as hell as are photos of the man himself. Looking at his eyes gives me nightmares.
I don't feel any jealousy but I do believe that Cornwell failed at proving that Sickert was Jack the Ripper. She tries too hard to make the facts stick to her theory, which is not the way investigators are supposed to work. People who believe her have been fooled by her self-importance.
People who believe her read the book and found her theory very compelling. Walter Sickert's name has been tossed around by many ripperologists. Why does everyone want to discredit Cornwell? Sorry, I think those who can read this book and not believe WRS is JTR are motivated by something other than common sense. She may have failed to provide hard evidence (the case is 114 years old) but it would be very hard to explain away the multitude of coincidences regarding Sickert and the Ripper murders
unfairly labelled!?!? are you kidding did you even read her book or any others!? i for one think he really could have been from the evidence she has shown
5 STARS- Very well done! Any chance you can do another of Sickert's works? It's hard to get a good look at his artwork, whether online or in books...It's murky to start with & loses all detail so easily when reproduced. Your video is very informative because you get such clear close-ups of the actual paintings; the colors, the brush-strokes and the characteristics of the paint itself are quite clear. And the music you chose fits his creepy artwork perfectly... THANK YOU!
Patricia Cornwell's book is a very dishonest book. The 'evidence' she presents is very flimsy and is nothing but conjecture. She unfairly trashes a man's reputation - something she can only get away with because he is long dead. In fact, she produces nothing of substance, except for the 'fact' that DNA tests show that he wrote letters posing as Jack the Ripper. The DNA 'evidence' could apply to 10% of the population, not very good odds of convicting anyone there.
What Patricia Cornwell established, without a doubt, is that Walter Sickert was at least the person mailing the "Jack the Ripper" letters to Scotland Yard, back when the murders were happening.
The only way to know if he was really the killer, however, would be if they had DNA from the internal organs he mailed along with the letters, and DNA from the victims' corpses. If you had that, then you could say for sure whether Sickert was also the killer.
Lol, getting thumbs down for pointing out the obvious fact he wasn't Jack the Ripper. A lot of sad conspiracy theorists hang out on Youtube it would appear. Imagine that!
I don't think he was the ripper, but i think he was somebody. I wouldn't be surprised if he had committed some crimes, even murders in his life. He is quite strange, and Cornwall is dead right when she says that he was of a class that was above all suspicion.
To me, Patricia Cornwell's books are pretty interesting but when she is asked to comment on todays unsolved murders , half the time she does't know what the hell she's talking about. I saw her on Good Morning America the other day commenting on that little British girls disappearence. She only told Diane Sawyer of what a rookie cop and CSI followers already would know.
I am reading the book at the moment and agree with everyone who says it is a very well written book. Cornwall did a good job. I think Walter Sickert was just lucky he lived in that time. Nowadays he was for sure taken in for at least a serieus questioning.
not to mention sickert visited cornwall, and in the hotel where he often stayed there is the log book from the 1890s and it has been vandalised by jack the ripper stating his name, very artistic drawing of mutilated women and at the bottom of the page...the initials W.R.S...walter richard sickert.......
patricia cornwellis an amazing writer and di a lot of investigating on jack the ripper. they did DNA tests on the back of the stamps of a ripper letter and a sickert letter. also, the paper used in a sickert letter and a ripper letter came from the same pack of 20 sheets purchased by sickert at the time one of the ripper letters was sent.
I don't believe he was jack the ripper. Patricia Cornwell is full of crap. She surely must be a very big feminist to judge somenone with very little evidence.
I find it intriguing how one who obviously hasn't read the book is doing the self same thing they accuse Patricia Cornwell of. Actually, arkdov, there was extensive research done and, as with all of her works, the book is very well written.
Out of curiosity, what would being a feminist have to do with jumping to conclusions? And before you jump to yours NO, I am not a feminist.
Having read the book, wouldn't it be more accurate for you to say, "I don't agree with the conclusions Patricia Cornwell drew from the extensive research she evaluated."?
There was substantial circumstantial evidence. There were also many eerie similarities between some of Sickerts' works and the Ripper murder scenes, his lodgings, etc. cont.
Cont. I am quite willing to agree to disagree with you. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. It simply annoys me when someone states something as fact when they can't be certain. So unless YOU are the Ripper, or possess empirical evidence that someone else was the Ripper, you should say you think or feel or believe, that he wasn't.
<I>"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan</I>
Agree with Macabre64. When will men stop judging achievements made by intellectual women as a result of feministic lobbying? It's stupid. And, it actually makes us men look even more stupid. I am right now reading the book by Cornwell, and whether it's false or true is not the point -- we will probably never know that for sure -- the point is it is a beautifully written piece of work.
It's really very sad some people judge a woman as "a very big feminist" & "full of crap" with no evidence at all. On the contrary. Patricia Cornwell's book is outstanding, even with its inevitable imperfections. Her ennemies (alas, the word is the right one) are too often the exact contrary of this clever, kind, sincere & hard-working person with her feet on the ground.
And i've got news for people - sometimes it takes a feminist (someone who cares about women's rights) to CARE enough to investigate something 114 years later. Saucy Walter is guilty. If only he were still alive we could string him up
Sorry, there is PLENTY of evidence that Sickert was the Ripper. If you notice, all the women in the paintings appear to be in some kind of death repose...He channeled his evil deeds into his paintings...Look again very carefully...Patricia Cornwall has worked with forensic pathologists for a couple of decades and knows what she is writing about. She is a brilliant woman...
elaine31347 2 years ago 2
Besides, there is more than just the paintings, which are very creepy btw. The watermarks, the penile abnormailty causing possible resentment, the handwriting in the guestbook, and even small bits of mitochondrial DNA link Sickert as Jack the Ripper. Plus the letters were proven to be written by an artist, and the style is similar. And Mr. Nemo written on a telegram, his freakin stage name! I am not saying Sickert is necessarily the Ripper (though I think so) but you can't say she is wrong.
jomac012 2 years ago 4
What do you mean little to no evidence? Like the artists interviewed in a recent documentary called Stalking Jack the Ripper, there seems to be almost some sort of denial. And as for pinkskylie1 saying Sickert was in France during the murders, it was only a day's ride, if that, across the English Channel, he could kill someone and the next evening be in France. The circumstantial evidence is very heavy, and to have all that evidence pile up is no coincidence.
jomac012 2 years ago 2
Never mind jack the ripper ! This tune by aphex twin is cool!
delphium75 2 years ago
The thing is, for over a century now, there have been 6 or 7 suspects in the case of Jack the Ripper. The evidence that Cornwell DID find ELIMINATED EVERY ONE OF THEM......EXCEPT W. R. Sickert.
so think about that. Of course...she didnt "prove" that it was in fact Sickert that commited the murders. Even these days its quite hard to acutally prove something in a court of law. Especially when all a defense team needs is a "reasonable doubt" ....whatever the fuck they are worth anyways.
bfbeach86 2 years ago
here's the deal...if you want to disagree with someone or something with some weight to carry you with your argument...STUDY them. You can avoid having an uneducated guess, and in some cases, avoid being a hypocrite.
So if you disagree with Cornwell, then read her book on Sickert.
bfbeach86 2 years ago
I disagree. Like she said, Walter Sickert was a master of disguise and had been an actor. I think her theory is very plausible.
tayber33 2 years ago
Just because Walter Sickert painted provocative pictures of prostitutes does not made him a murderer. It's too easy to scapegoat him. It's doubtful that this mystery will ever be solved after more than a century now. Jack has become a legend on a par with Vlad the Impaler or Elizabeth Bathory almost a thing of folklore.
strawberrygirrl 2 years ago
I have read Patricia Cornwells book on J the R,two or three times over.Whilst VERY engrossing and thought-provoking,i am left with no more answers than before.There is such a controversy over the identity of JR,that its all been mudded-up with speculation and the lack of real hard physical evidence and unsophisticatied police work.-and the lore of the of the story itself.Everyone THINKS they know who Jack was.Walter Sickert has about the same possibility as any of the suspects.Who knows?
littlequeen64 3 years ago
"She has come to this conclusion with little or no evidence," is quite a mockery you've made. Cornwell's investigation has proven more than anyone else could prove. Walter Sickert was at least the author of the Ripper letters to Scotland Yard. The evidence beyond that is plenty. I commend Cornwell for her work and think it was anything but unfair to Sick Sickert.
IAmWhateverIAm 3 years ago
I agree. Obviously Cornwell invested a lot of time and money to write something which could damage her career if proven wrong. Would she do that for no reason? I think that cbsection8 obviously has not read her book, otherwise he/she would see that Cornwell busted her ass to make sure she was not accusing the wrong person. I do not deny Sickert was a brilliant artist, but remember that Hitler was also a brilliant orator.
jomac012 2 years ago 3
weirdo for sure, probably not jtr. killer obviously lived in whitechapel and was comfortable and known by locals enough to operate at the height of the hype. sickert would not have fit in enough.
Scottthefish 3 years ago
I'm really skeptical about Patricia Cornwell's claims.
themainthing1974 3 years ago
She's made a better case than anyone else has made for any other suspect. It's jealousy that keeps people from admitting she is right. To me Walter Sickert IS Jack the Ripper and his paintings are scary as hell as are photos of the man himself. Looking at his eyes gives me nightmares.
GrissomLovesSara 3 years ago
I don't feel any jealousy but I do believe that Cornwell failed at proving that Sickert was Jack the Ripper. She tries too hard to make the facts stick to her theory, which is not the way investigators are supposed to work. People who believe her have been fooled by her self-importance.
pinkskylie1 3 years ago
People who believe her read the book and found her theory very compelling. Walter Sickert's name has been tossed around by many ripperologists. Why does everyone want to discredit Cornwell? Sorry, I think those who can read this book and not believe WRS is JTR are motivated by something other than common sense. She may have failed to provide hard evidence (the case is 114 years old) but it would be very hard to explain away the multitude of coincidences regarding Sickert and the Ripper murders
GrissomLovesSara 3 years ago
What coincidences? The fact that Sickert was in France when the murders occurred?...
pinkskylie1 3 years ago 2
walter sickert = jack the ripper. he painted a painting, titled " jack the rippers bedroom". it was so obvious.
wigganegg 3 years ago
unfairly labelled!?!? are you kidding did you even read her book or any others!? i for one think he really could have been from the evidence she has shown
dinosaurxxrawr 3 years ago
5 STARS- Very well done! Any chance you can do another of Sickert's works? It's hard to get a good look at his artwork, whether online or in books...It's murky to start with & loses all detail so easily when reproduced. Your video is very informative because you get such clear close-ups of the actual paintings; the colors, the brush-strokes and the characteristics of the paint itself are quite clear. And the music you chose fits his creepy artwork perfectly... THANK YOU!
JazzzzBaby 3 years ago
Patricia Cornwell's book is a very dishonest book. The 'evidence' she presents is very flimsy and is nothing but conjecture. She unfairly trashes a man's reputation - something she can only get away with because he is long dead. In fact, she produces nothing of substance, except for the 'fact' that DNA tests show that he wrote letters posing as Jack the Ripper. The DNA 'evidence' could apply to 10% of the population, not very good odds of convicting anyone there.
jude13 3 years ago
What Patricia Cornwell established, without a doubt, is that Walter Sickert was at least the person mailing the "Jack the Ripper" letters to Scotland Yard, back when the murders were happening.
The only way to know if he was really the killer, however, would be if they had DNA from the internal organs he mailed along with the letters, and DNA from the victims' corpses. If you had that, then you could say for sure whether Sickert was also the killer.
TheLogicJunkie 3 years ago
Cornwell built a good case against Sickert. Several yrs. earlier James Maybrick was added to the list of probable rippers.
procommenter 3 years ago
Lol, getting thumbs down for pointing out the obvious fact he wasn't Jack the Ripper. A lot of sad conspiracy theorists hang out on Youtube it would appear. Imagine that!
retread01 3 years ago
I don't think he was the ripper, but i think he was somebody. I wouldn't be surprised if he had committed some crimes, even murders in his life. He is quite strange, and Cornwall is dead right when she says that he was of a class that was above all suspicion.
hammerofmariotos 4 years ago
To me, Patricia Cornwell's books are pretty interesting but when she is asked to comment on todays unsolved murders , half the time she does't know what the hell she's talking about. I saw her on Good Morning America the other day commenting on that little British girls disappearence. She only told Diane Sawyer of what a rookie cop and CSI followers already would know.
Creolelady281 4 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The simple fact is he wasn't Jack the Ripper. The idea is laughable. His paintings absolutely cannot be held as any kind of evidence AT ALL.
retread01 4 years ago
i agree!
dirty06maggot 3 years ago
I am reading the book at the moment and agree with everyone who says it is a very well written book. Cornwall did a good job. I think Walter Sickert was just lucky he lived in that time. Nowadays he was for sure taken in for at least a serieus questioning.
Shahla33 4 years ago 3
not to mention sickert visited cornwall, and in the hotel where he often stayed there is the log book from the 1890s and it has been vandalised by jack the ripper stating his name, very artistic drawing of mutilated women and at the bottom of the page...the initials W.R.S...walter richard sickert.......
Andrewcoldginmetal 4 years ago 6
patricia cornwellis an amazing writer and di a lot of investigating on jack the ripper. they did DNA tests on the back of the stamps of a ripper letter and a sickert letter. also, the paper used in a sickert letter and a ripper letter came from the same pack of 20 sheets purchased by sickert at the time one of the ripper letters was sent.
Andrewcoldginmetal 4 years ago 5
I don't believe he was jack the ripper. Patricia Cornwell is full of crap. She surely must be a very big feminist to judge somenone with very little evidence.
arkdov 4 years ago
I find it intriguing how one who obviously hasn't read the book is doing the self same thing they accuse Patricia Cornwell of. Actually, arkdov, there was extensive research done and, as with all of her works, the book is very well written.
Out of curiosity, what would being a feminist have to do with jumping to conclusions? And before you jump to yours NO, I am not a feminist.
Macabre64 4 years ago
I've read the book.
arkdov 4 years ago
Truly? Well perhaps comprehension was the issue then eh?
Macabre64 4 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There is no proof that walter sickert was the ripper.
arkdov 4 years ago
Having read the book, wouldn't it be more accurate for you to say, "I don't agree with the conclusions Patricia Cornwell drew from the extensive research she evaluated."?
There was substantial circumstantial evidence. There were also many eerie similarities between some of Sickerts' works and the Ripper murder scenes, his lodgings, etc. cont.
Macabre64 4 years ago
Cont. I am quite willing to agree to disagree with you. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. It simply annoys me when someone states something as fact when they can't be certain. So unless YOU are the Ripper, or possess empirical evidence that someone else was the Ripper, you should say you think or feel or believe, that he wasn't.
<I>"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan</I>
Macabre64 4 years ago
Agree with Macabre64. When will men stop judging achievements made by intellectual women as a result of feministic lobbying? It's stupid. And, it actually makes us men look even more stupid. I am right now reading the book by Cornwell, and whether it's false or true is not the point -- we will probably never know that for sure -- the point is it is a beautifully written piece of work.
luminousoctaves 4 years ago 6
It's really very sad some people judge a woman as "a very big feminist" & "full of crap" with no evidence at all. On the contrary. Patricia Cornwell's book is outstanding, even with its inevitable imperfections. Her ennemies (alas, the word is the right one) are too often the exact contrary of this clever, kind, sincere & hard-working person with her feet on the ground.
Soliblog 4 years ago 7
And i've got news for people - sometimes it takes a feminist (someone who cares about women's rights) to CARE enough to investigate something 114 years later. Saucy Walter is guilty. If only he were still alive we could string him up
GrissomLovesSara 3 years ago 2