Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

i have just finished reading 'patrica co... ' portrait of a serial killer
and she believes that 'jak the ripper is sickert well the things she has found out bout him... are really intresting... and make me think that she may have hit the nail on the head at the bak of the book they have dna results from the ripper letters and from sickerts paintings and letters and some of the numbers match ... its very intresting and very graphic tho...ergh



really sorry i dont know how to spell so forgive me bout the speelings of names

i couldn't tell ..haven't read it

well u shud if yuor into it its very good

she makes a damn good case for Sickert - but she was biased before she started to investigate.

Either way: Sickert was a foul bloke and certainly was obsessed with the ripper and may have wanted people to think it was him.

very true but most of paintings how far to much resemblence to the rippers murder scenes ...

Lots of people got to see the murder scenes - and remember the only reason we know his paintings look like them is because of photos, so Sickert could easily have seen the pictures.

Not that Im saying its not him - just that its worth keeping an open mind as its not as %100 certain as Cornwell would have us believe

SICKERT ?

What a great name for a serial killer !

isnt it just .....


but i am getting at the dna test result at the back of the books his results from letters and objects his virtually match those results of the rippers...

Just because you can virtualy "prove" he wrote some letters doesnt prove he was anything other than a letter writer.

very true but its not just from letters its from many other things....