Nope.

900Hilton But if he did it somewhere else how come those cases are as famous as the ones in England?

900Hilton, amazing maybe, but not exactly her theory. Look up Stephen Knight.

Jerry Oh mate, seriously, stop commenting on Every single comment. She didn't create the theory, but has popularised it, WE GET IT!

SICKERT WAS The Ripper! A Fact. Great Job, Patricia.

fake news

She truly believed everything that she presented at the time. She has since confessed that she has changed her opinion and has gone back to writing successful crime fiction.

She got it all wrong.

And the irony is that Churchill was a bigger murderer than Jack ever was! By plundering the whole world into war. The man could not wait to start a war with Germany despite many offers of peace

jack the ripper never had sex with his victims either

doug it is now believed joseph barnett who lived with mary kelly is who the experts feel is most likely the ripper. you should look into this you will find it informative

@@alexhaggerty39 profiler John Douglas shoots down that theory....the guy that accuses Joseph Barnett uses John Douglas's profile..of which he based his theory...but Douglas explains why Barnett absolutely wasn't jack the ripper

@@raysierra4194 Ray thankyou firstly in responding to me. Their are many theorries such as patricia cromwells as she spent millions as she thought the ripper was the artist walter sickert i would be very interested in you going further in your opinions and hear from you who you think the ripper might have been would look forward in hearing from you Ray

@@alexhaggerty39you know, all I've read on jack the ripper....man,my honest opinion is.... I really don't know.....I think Cornwell brings up some great points..what gets me is when she points out that painting on the wall when Mary Kelly was killed.it looks like Sickert.she said "he signed his work"...however alot of ripperalogists shoot her theories down...its really hard to say after all these years....a crime that happened way before any of us were born........one thing about Walter Sickert.is that it sounds like he wrote alot of those jack the ripper letters...Thiers other paper experts too....who agree with Cornwell that Sickert did in fact write most of the ripper letters.but they don't think he was jack the ripper though.....but what that means is Walter Sickert actually created the ripper myth....I found that real significant......another thing John Douglas says is the kind of killer that jack the ripper was.he wasn't the type of killer to contact the police......I recommend reading John Douglas's book "the cases that haunts us" excellent book.where he talks about his opinions on jack the ripper,lizzie Borden,the Lindberg kidnapping,jon Benet ramsey,the zodiac.....

fake news

That is not true. Also, his name is spelled "Sickert" with an "e" NOT an "a".

They're pretty sure he was in France at the time painting The Red Shop (The October Sun) c.1888.

@@lw3646 Read Ms. Cornwell's book -- Sickert had a habit of dating the drawings he made when taking in the scenes at various London (East End) dance halls (the equivalent to today's strip clubs, I guess). These datings show that the man was, in fact, in London during the time in which the Whitechapel fiend performed his "examinations of the human body" (wording used by the Ripper in a letter to the London police)!

The only authentic letter that I know of had proof of its authenticity, a kidney taken from the body of Catherine Eddowes

All but maybe Katherine Eddows.

Why?

I would say satisfying

fake news

You are correct

@@arnedewildeman8787: Do your homework. Lechmere was the Ripper.

@@jonsilence i love the profile picture and he was not the ripper because my grand father was you silly goose

@@arnedewildeman8787: Lechmere was AT THE SCENE of one of the murders that he himself had just committed. This does not apply to any other suspect. Do your homework. :)

yes, but Sickert wasn't an outsider, he'd been renting an apartment in Whitechapel district for five or more years. plus he was able to blend into his surroundings by disguising himself as one of the numerous street pimps that patrolled the streets looking for customers. plus Sickert knew how to use knives the same way that a butcher knows how to cut up a pig. no one was going to risk their lives to fuck with him. plus he had other people helping him. some of them were gang members that he hired to dump the bodies in the river... that's right, only a handful of his victims were placed to be discovered to boost newspaper sales; the rest were dumped in the river because they knew better than to draw more attention than was necessary... probably hundreds thrown in the river or eaten by cannibal gangs...

not sure that i would have wanted to have been "hog tied" and had my legs spread open by a strange nurse as Patricia describes it. it just sounds like cruel & unusual punishment... and would either of the parents have possibly been standing there watching the whole agonizing torture?? this story just gives me the creeps...

und zee nurse had a moustache and bright cherry lipstick... sorry...

fake news

Too bad it's not her Ideas. Sickert was put forth by Stephen Knight long before Cornwell came along.

Jerry she probably saw the name and decided to do further research. I don't think she claimed to have offer his name first. its a very good read. I even started to consider Whistler himself, his only famous painting was of his mother, and the girl in the pink dress was a studio model and was also done as in a white dress!

On another site I gave her credit for finding supportive evidence for Knight's theory. The point is, we shouldn't give her credit for the theory itself. Even some of the evidence she "found" was brought out by Stephen Knight.

Cornwell never said that she originated the idea that Sickert was the killer, but unlike Knight and others, she pursued forensic evidence to match the Ripper to Sickert.

What forensic evidence did Cornwell match to Sickert? What she did was take Knight's theory and made it her own. Today when you hear about Sickert as a Ripper suspect, it's Cornwell who's named as the author of the theory. I guess it's legal to steal from a dead man.

Agreed. Sickert was Ripper fixated but he was not the killer. The closest you'll get to ID'ng the real Ripper is Charles Lechmere-Cross. The comprehensive evidence is overwhelming.

@@jonsilence You're being lied to.

@@Jay-tk7ib: My money's on Lechmere.

fake news

She just wants to ignore it lol

Arne De Wildeman ew. Such a trump thing to say

Every documentary you watch on this case gives you an apparent "definitive" single person as a killer dismissing all of the rest. It's absurd!

there were thousands of prostitutes living in that district and hundreds of pimps. do you know what happens when you want to stop working for a pimp or you betray a pimp?? Mary Kelly was killed by her pimp boyfriend and then cannibalized. and the rest were killed by pimps or gang members too. we want to make up some mysterious conspiracy to explain this because we are afraid to see the truth. there were no drunken Satanists running around London after midnight... although one of the prostitutes claimed that her pimp was Satan incarnate... when a girl was learned to have contracted syphilis, she was quickly retired so that fresh meat could take her place... that is why they call it the "meat market", and also the Whitechapel district supposedly had several slaughter houses in the vicinity but thousands of starving people who couldn't afford to buy meat because they were dirt poor... they were forced to cannibalize other poor people in order to survive... don't know why they'd take the guts though instead of choice pieces of meat... that don't make any sense... because the guts would have shit inside of them... unless there was something inside their shit that was special... like a diamond necklace or something priceless... opium?? or was the killer taking these guts and placing them on an altar to feed a hungry demon??

joseph barnett who lived with mary kelly with new findings check out buzzfead

@@alexhaggerty39 Buzzfeed is a joke.

I think you are wrong and stupid the little boy named Frank helped the ripper with killing the hoes so thath they could eet beans

@@arnedewildeman8787 You're not experienced with humor, are you?

@@Jay-tk7ib i am not joking i am writhing facts

i also suspected a similar possibility... no one would ever have suspected the police...

Sickert wasn't the Ripper. It was a psychotic vagrant named Kosminski. The police at the time knew that this man was the murderer, and had him locked away in an insane asylum. The killings stopped.

Exactly the kind of pseudo-logic that littered her pathetic book. Please never try to become a policeman, lawyer or judge. Thank you.

Her book is largely the research of Stephen Knight.

@@Jay-tk7ib Her sole concentration on Sickert is due to him passing on to his son the Aberline diaries. Stephen Knight's 'The final solution' and Melvyn Fairclough's 'The Ripper and the Royals' owe much of their content to Joseph Sickert. Walters son. She knows all about these two books. It's her job to do a hatchet job on Sickert. Shoot the messenger. Aberline, in his retirement, said only this; 'If the public knew what i discovered, they would find it very interesting indeed'. The present royals purchased 20 copies of 'The Ripper and the Royals'. as soon as it was published. The Queen's comment; 'Fascinating'.

@@markrymanowski719 Yes, Joseph Sickert is the source. I have both of those books, and along with my own research looking into old newspaper articles, etc., I believe Joseph's story is the truth. There may have been a few small details forgotten, but the basics of the story make too much sense to be fake.

this is also actually true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@@arnedewildeman8787 cannibalism?? indeed possible

@@terry63lee omg you think the same i have made a paper about this woul you like to reed it?

Where’s the evidence for that?

supposedly none of the Sickert children had any offspring, it was like a family curse. the boy who was claimed to be Sickert's son was adopted off the streets and raised as his own child since he himself was sexually impotent... not sure what lies Sickert told his "son" about being the rightful heir to the thrown but it was all a bunch of hogwash...

@@terry63lee Proof?

The problem is, it's not exactly her case. Walter Sickert was put forth by Stephen Knight long before Cornwell came along.

fake news

@@arnedewildeman8787 SHOW me, don't TELL me.

@@Jay-tk7ib you have to be woke to see it because then you would realise that jack the ripper is a story from the government to keep us inside at night so they can install camera's en tracking machines on the cars and they can charge the bird drones

@@arnedewildeman8787 I'm in the market for one of those 1888 cars, so let me know if you spot one. 😆

this is actually true

fake news

She's not the first to do that. Look up the name, Stephen Knight.

There is NO evidence that he was in France when the murders were committed. Absolutely NONE! Also, as an American who lived in England for 8 years, I can verify how easily and quickly one can leave England and be in France within mere hours. The same can be said about the era in which Sickert lived and travelling across the Channel was a very common occurrence for Brits. Sickert was always on the move and rarely informing anyone of where he was going at any given time. His behavior was suspicious and odd. Drawings he made at local dance halls, which were dated by Sickert, prove that he WAS in London at the time of most murders. As for others, again, there is no paper trail to show where he was.

Who were the men who found all the other Ripper victims? Would you like me to give you their names? Were they all Jack the Ripper?

@@Jay-tk7ib: MULTIPLE factors serve to reasonably characterize Lechmere as a prime suspect, not just the fact that he was "first on scene" with a freshly killed victim. First and foremost is his use of a name which was neither the name he went by nor traceable. This is highly suspect from the inception. Then when you look at his job and regular work-travel route and times, he fits perfectly. If Lechmere was NOT the killer, then he was unlucky enough to have a ton of circumstantial evidence indicating he was; in terms of the law of odds, this is like saying someone won the lottery half a dozen times over a short period. Possible? Yes. Probable? No. Police work is relatively simple; you follow the bouncing ball of the evidence and see where it takes you, what narrative it suggests. When you add up everything known about Lechmere the implications are obvious.

@@jonsilence That's wrong. He had used the name Cross before because it was the name of his step-father. That name would have been traceable. Why would Lechmere have shown up at the inquest at all? Don't you think it would have been safer to simply never show up than to lie about his name? How does his job make him a suspect? Yeah, he probably had blood on his clothes from work, but only going home FROM work, not as he went TO work. I imagine it was like today and they wore aprons to protect their clothes, so It's not certain that he would have had bloody clothes, even on his way home. Some of the Ripper victims were found in locations that were not on his work routes, but that doesn't stop people from making up silly reasons why he would have been there. People develop tunnel vision and they can see nothing else but what they've been spoon-fed, regardless of how little sense the theory makes. As for a ton of circumstantial evidence, I can show the same thing for several Ripper suspects. I can show a list of evidential points for a guy that you've probably never even heard of as a Ripper suspect, but that doesn't mean he was the Ripper. There are too many men of that time that have that sort of evidence against them, and we know they were not all JTR. With Lechmere, the things that work against him being the Ripper outweigh the circumstantial evidence for him being the Ripper. The biggest thing is the common sense angle. A man is on his stroll into work when he happens to see a prostitute on the street, a street that others walked to get to work, so he decides he has 3 or 4 minutes to kill, so he kills the woman and starts to rip her open until he hears footsteps. That was Lechmere's work route, so he would have known that he was not the only one who walked it. Being his work route, don't you think that would have automatically shed suspicion on him, and don't you think he would have known that? Then when he hears footsteps, what does he do? Does he run away? No, he stays and talks to Robert Paul. Why wouldn't he run? People like to say there was no place to run to, but that's simply not true. Then he goes with Robert Paul to find a policeman. A POLICEMAN! You would think that would be the last thing he would do if he had just committed a murder. He later shows up at the inquest, which was another thing he wouldn't have had to do. He decides to deceive the authorities by giving them a fake name? Do you not think that he would have known that they could check up on that and find out his lie? Wouldn't that have made him an even bigger suspect in their eyes? After all, it's one of the biggest reasons why he's a suspect today, along with the victims being found on his work routes. Both of those things are reasons why Lechmere likely would have NOT done this, instead of reasons why he WOULD have. It's common sense.

@@Jay-tk7ib yes this is true. plus his work route was the same route that the beat cops and pimps and prostitutes all walked at night. which would make them all suspects too...

@@terry63lee I wonder why Robert Paul isn't being considered. They had to go find him, unlike Lechmere who showed up willingly.

Of course. Two of the girls lived in the same house. And all the girls operated out of the same pub.

There is no evidence at all the victims knew each other. They may have drunk at the same pub but so did potentially hundreds of people, since Whitechapel at that time was full of alcoholics. That is not evidence they knew each other. I've read up on Jack the Ripper for the past 5 years and I have never heard or read that two of the victims lived in the same house, not once.

Keep reading.

@@CrazyIrishDrunk1 3 of them lived on the same street all were working firls and frequented the same pub. I think it's safe to say they all knew each other.

not necessarily as there were probably about a million people living in the whitechapel area of london (not a big area) at the time of the ripper killing

@@jonsilence Everyone is entitled to their opinion

I don't believe that the murders were done with a kukri now. I believe the weapon used was either a barber's razor or a scalpel. And that the victim's were lying down on the ground passed out unconscious when the Ripper cut their throats. Also, I now realize that Sickert and Tumblety did not have a friendly relationship with each other; Sickert hated Tumblety and wanted him gone. There was no elaborate conspiracy. Sickert was a sadistic madman who got a cheap thrill out of killing people and tricking people. All of this because Joseph Gordon claimed to be "Joseph Sickert", the son of Walter Sickert. There is no proof.

@@terry63lee Actually, his name was Joseph Gorman. There is good evidence shown in the style of the mutilations, coupled with the fact that the main players in this were Masons. Either the mutilations were Masonic rituals, or someone was trying to make them look like they were that. That's what I see.

@@Jay-tk7ib yes i agree now that there was a conspiracy, but the main players were technically members of the Hermetic Order Of The Golden Dawn (an occult offshoot of The Freemasons), the letters H.O.G.D. are drawn in blood on the wall behind the fifth canonic victim... and the two killers i suspect the most are Walter Sickert and Dr. Robert Donston Stephenson... working together as master (Stephenson) and disciple (Sickert)... the cannibalism wasn't so much for food but part of a Satanic ritual that involved human sacrifice and consumption of blood and flesh... in other words, a Satanic perversion of The Last Supper in which Jesus Christ offered his followers wine (blood) and bread (flesh)...

these two were rogue members who were eventually banished from the order because of their radical views...

@@terry63lee Could be. What are your thoughts about the writing on the Goulston Street wall, the 3 Jewes being the 3 ruffians, Jubela, Jubelo, and Jubelum.?

fake news

Yes did you know jack liked beans and was a manchester city fanboy

ethan pinch yea shes rich and bored. Lol

Agree.

So show me the evidence? What documents have you read that definitely show he was NOT in London in 1888? One of his drawings is Bedford Music Hall, Camden Town, dated 1888. Then there is the drawing of Emily Lyndale, seen a s‘Sinbad the Sailor’ at Gattis Music Hall, and also sitting in a chair in this image is Tom Tinsley. The year? 1888. Read... "Sickert: Paintings and Drawings, page 19. He was busy in London most of that year making drawings and preparing for an upcoming art exhibit. In April 1888 he exhibited with the NEAC...in LONDON.