|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Mat Bowen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 10:13 am: | 
|
Hi,
In the 1976 book "Walter Sickert" by Denys Sutton the author states that on one occassion Sickert came across a party of girls and claimed to be Jack the Ripper before they ran away in terror. Does anyone have any information on this alleged incident?
In the same book it says Sickert told Keith Baynes (an artist whom he met during World War I) that he painted a picture of Jack the Ripper in 1906. I don't see any pictures of men painted by him in 1906 (they seem to be of nudes and music halls) but there are two self portraits of Sickert from 1907, in one of which (The Painter in his Studio) Sickert is standing behind a headless statue. Does anyone have anyone have any information on this supposed conversation between Sickert and Baynes?
Thank you for any info,
Mat |
Tommy Nilsson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 5:29 am: |
|
Hi Mat!
The painting Sickert was refering to was probably "Jack the Rippers Bedroom", you can find it in the casebook under the thread "Venetian Studies". The painting shows Walter Sickerts bedroom...the painting was never exhibited. Sickert gave it to his young friend and modell Cicely Hey. Sickert made several paintings of her. You can see them together in "Death and the Maiden".
Regards, Tommy |
Mat Bowen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 4:09 pm: |
|
Hi Tommy,
Thanks for your reply!
You're probably right although supposedly that was painted in 1908 and from what i've seen of it, it looks like a lady in the picture. How i wish for a really high resolution copy of that painting!
If anyone has any info about the supposed claim Sickert made to be Jack the Ripper then i'd be really interested. I don't believe Sickert was the Ripper but i wonder if at times he convinced himself he was.
Thanks,
Mat |
Tommy Nilsson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 4:54 am: |
|
Hi Mat!
If you can describe the painting in more detail, I may be able to help you find it. I believe that Sickert painted Jack many times, at least from 1888 to 1935 (Jack & Jill).
One question I am asking myself is; why a well known (and later famous) artist would seek and need reputation linked to Jack the Ripper.
And why is it that he is obsessed with Jack at the same time he is working with a series of sketches and paintings on the theme of the Camden Town murder - nearly 18 years later? Did he know that Jack did it? How come?
Regards, Tommy |
dyan ting
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 02, 2004 - 11:00 pm: |
|
I have just read Cornwell's book and I am convinced Sichert is the the Ripper. Why else would he paint such violent images. He had many other lodgings and was a master of disquise. I think he is the ripper. D |
Mat Bowen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 4:49 pm: |
|
Hi Tommy and Dyan!
Unfortunately i don't have any description of the painting itself, just that it was painted in 1906. I think theres a lot of evidence showing Sickert had a rather grim fascination with Jack but i find it difficult to believe he actually was Jack. Other suspects stand out to me as more likely candidates.
However i am interested as to what extent Sickert was involved with the Jack case. In particular the alleged incident of him claiming to be Jack. Whether drunk or sober, joking or serious, it's an odd thing to claim, that is assuming the incident took place at all.
Cheers,
Mat |
Tommy Nilsson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 6:47 am: |
|
I don´t think it´s a Sickert (poor quality), but I´m sure that it´s made by someone who knew Sickert, or at least his paintings (the carpet, the iron bed, the mantelpiece, the mirror, the dead woman, the two-faced man, the red scarf, etc, etc) - it may be a joke, made by a friend or student of Sickert.
But one can´t be a 100% sure, Sickert was a joker and prankster too...
Either way, fake or not, the painting may refer to the "lost" Jack the Ripper painting by Sickert made in 1906, talked about in Denys Suttons book; Sickert told Keith Baynes that he painted Jack in 1906. Personally, I think that Sickert talked about the painting "Mrs Barett" (1906). 
Send more information please!
Regards, Tommy Nilsson
PS The painting is discussed in the thread: "Walter Sickert" by Denys Sutton
I also would like to add that Sickert painted some very strange images around the time of his stroke (in the 1920´s), such as "Lazarus breaks his fast" and "Abrahams servant" and later in the 1930´s "Patrol" with the little figure of a man running behind the (dead) policewoman. That figure is even stranger then Jack in this "new" painting.
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 956
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 10:40 pm: |
|
Hi Tommy
Thanks for sharing this artwork with us. The style does look vaguely like Walter Sickert's work, at least the type of seedy mood evoked by a number of his "in the bedroom" scenes, e.g., his Camden Town series. I would like to note though that this appears to be a crayon sketch, by the strokes apparent, rather than a painting.
All my best
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 959
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 11:08 am: |
|
Hi all
Sorry I guess I was offbase in the prior post. I had not yet seen new thread started by Stephen, "Ripper inspired painting by Sickert?". I had assumed the question was about the artwork posted by Tommy Nilson in his post of Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 6:47 am, which I now realise, is "Mrs Barrett" by Walter Sickert, given by the Tate site as painted by Sickert in circa 1908. Sorry for the confusion.
Best regards
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Tommy Nilsson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 3:51 am: |
|
Hi Chris George!
This is embarrassing! My post of 28/9 was not ment for this thread, but the thread "Ripper inspired painting by Sickert?" - then it makes sense.
"Mrs. Barett" is indeed by Sickert (well known and documented by Baron) and it is of course in crayon.
Sickert sent it as a easter gift to a lady...
There is another crayon of Mrs.Barett from the same time known as "Mrs. Barett, Blackmail".
Regards, Tommy |
Tommy Nilsson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 4:07 am: |
|
Hello Chris George!
Wendy Baron dates "Mrs.Barett" to (c 1906). One of the reasons for that is probably that it was recieved as a gift.
The importance of this is that Sickert painted murder related paintings long before his Camden Murder project. All the time since 1888.
Regards, Tommy |
Paul M. Boggs
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 3:56 pm: |
|
Hi Everybody!
I have accessed „casebook“ off and on for a long time, but this is my first posting. It refers to Mat Brown's June posting about the 1976 biography on Walter Sickert by Denys Sutton. As Sutton died in 1991 (?), I cannot address my question to him, but maybe someone on the list can give me an answer.
In Sutton’s biography, he quotes two letters between Sickert and Sickert’s first wife “Nellie”. In the first of those (Dec. 8, 1898), she makes direct reference to his “adulterous life.” In Sickert’s response, he admits that he has “not been faithful to you since our marriage” and also that “during the two years since we parted I have been intimate with several women.”
Although other sources have claimed that Sickert was adulterous, this is the first concrete “evidence” of Sickert’s infidelity I have found and I would like to know 1.) where Sutton got these letters (they are not footnoted), 2.) has anyone come across them (or similar forms of specific confirmation of Sickert’s infidelity) elsewhere, 3.) can their authenticity be documented.
Thanks for your responses! PB
|
Danielle Coates
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 4:58 pm: |
|
Hi everyone, I have read Patricia Cornwell's book, and am on the fence as to wether Sickert is Jack, the Ripper or not, but I have a question as to Paul's comment. If Sickert was indeed unfaithful, and Cornwell was right about Sickert not being able to "perform", how was he unfaithful? |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 560
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 3:20 pm: |
|
Hi Danielle,
To keep it brief, Cornwell was completely wrong when she claimed that Sickert could not perform sexually, and that's not her only error in that book. She may be a well-respected fiction author, but as a researcher of nonfiction she's basically a disaster.
And as long as I'm giving advice on sources to ignore, Tommy's claim above that Sickert painted scenes of murder continuously since 1888 is complete nonsense.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Heath Black
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 06, 2005 - 8:20 am: |
|
Even if Sickert did claim to be the Ripper in order to scare a group of children it's hardly likely to be true. I doubt that the real killer would have revealed his identity so casually. |
Angie
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 06, 2005 - 9:58 pm: |
|
"To keep it brief, Cornwell was completely wrong when she claimed that Sickert could not perform sexually"
What makes you so sure of that?
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 563
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 2:01 pm: |
|
Hi Angie,
Sickert was well known for his sexual escapades, numerous wives and mistresses, rumored illegitimate children, and so forth. For details, see the recently-released authoritative biography Walter Sickert: A Life by Matthew Sturgis.
Cornwell ignored all that and instead chose to take an idle rumor that he had a surgery on his penis (originating from people who couldn't tell his privates from his backside) and then twist and exaggerate what that would have meant (if it were real, which it's not) into some sort of life-altering disfigurement, solely to advance the theory that he was a killer.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 265
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 3:47 pm: |
|
"numerous wives" says it all for me.
What woman would complain about her husband's infidelity if he couldn't perform with her at least once? She would have to know he could perform,period,to accuse him of any dalliances with other women. Otherwise,they wouldn't worry about what couldn't materialize.....unless they were three very strange women who were totally uninterested in sex with their husband prior to or on the wedding night. Maybe Mrs.Cornwell has an explanation for that. The woman is a madcap ! A madcap,I say !!!
Stan Russo was right about Cornwell. Regardless of whether Sickert was the Ripper or part of a trio or duo or whatever of killers....her insistence on this guy being sad in the sack is silly. 3 wives? Sexless marriages? No close encounters?
(Message edited by howard on March 07, 2005)
How Brown
JTRForums
www.jtrforums.co.uk
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 154
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 5:27 pm: |
|
Angie - I wholly endorse Dan's points.
I was, at one time, intrigued by the idea of Sickert as the Ripper and read quite widely about him. I also went to the last big Sickert exhibition at the Royal Academy in London some years ago to look closely at his paintings (first hand and not as small illustrations) and seek any clues in them. The catalogue is still behind me on my shelves as I write.
I came away from both my reading and the exhibition convinced that he was never remotely JtR; had seen no evidence of it bar unsupported and unsubstantiated hearsay.
The fact is Sickert was an actor and an enthusiast. He adopted characters to enter into when painting to help him capture mood and intensity/insight. He dressed up, he had mascots like a red handkerchief, and he made up stories, entering into them for days - becoming someone else.
But that does not mean he was JtR.
True, he was obsessed with Jack, but that does not mean he was Jack.
And until deluded perfervid, over-rich and cocky Patricia Cornwall came along with her half-baked, secondhand theory, I had never encountered any suggestion but that Sickert was a notable lover, known for his multiple marriages (into old age).
Nuf said,
Phil
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 790
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 7:18 pm: |
|
It should be added, since we are talking specifically about the impotence question here, that Patricia Cornwell's only source for this idea was John Lessore, a nephew of Sickert's third wife, and he later made it clear that he had never suggested anything of the kind, merely that there were some family rumours of some kind of sexual dysfunction.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me" - Hunter S. Thompson (1939-2005)
Visit my website - http://www.ashbooks.co.uk/
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1760
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 3:04 am: |
|
With regard to Sickert's alleged impotence, it may be worth posting the following. These are the report and the ruling in Sickert's divorce case from Ellen Cobden in 1899. Both reports are from the Times:
19 July 1899
DIVORCE
SICKERT V SICKERT
This was the petition of Ellen Millicent Ashburner Sickert, née Cobden, for the dissolution of her marriage with Walter Richard Sickert, an artist, by reason of his adultery and desertion.
Mr. Deane, Q.C. (Mr. Llewellyn Davies with him) said that the parties were married at the Marylebone Registry on June 10, 1885. On account of the respondent's occupation the parties were continually travelling abroad on sketching tours, &c. In May, 1895, the wife's suspicions were aroused owing to her finding in her husband's possession a letter signed "Ada." She spoke to him and he admitted his misconduct, but she forgave him. In December, 1898, the petitioner wrote to her husband saying that despite the fact that in September, 1896, he had told her that he had been living an adulterous life ever since they had been married she had hoped against hope that he would reform, but she had been forced by his conduct to abandon that hope for the future. In answer to this letter the respondent wrote, saying, "It is quite true that I have not been faithful to you since our marriage, and it is equally true that during the two years since we parted I have been intimate with several women. As I told you long ago, I cannot continue a life of dissimulation; I have chosen my mode of life and I am unable to alter it. An undertaking to do so on my part would be misleading. Ever your profoundly attached, Walter Sickert." As he persisted in his conduct, and had not supported her for over two years, she determined to live apart from him, and from inquiries which have been made on her behalf it was ascertained that in April and May of this year he had stayed in London and at Newhaven with two different women, and the petitioner then instituted these proceedings. Evidence having been given in support of the charge of adultery, Mr. Justice Barnes inquired how it was proposed to establish the charge of desertion.
Mr. Deane - My submission is that where a man makes it impossible for any decent and self respecting wife to live with him he practically turns her out of the house. The learned counsel cited following cases in support of his argument:- "Graves v Graves" (33 L.J., P. and M., 65); "Pizzala v Pizzala" (12 The Times Law Reports, 451); "Koch v Koch (1899, P., 221).
Mr. Justice Barnes - "Koch v Koch" is no authority for your proposition in this case, for there the misconduct took place in the very house the wife was living in.
Mr. Deane - Yes, it is a much stronger case, no doubt.
Mr. Justice Barnes - The point is an important one. I shall take time to consider any judgement.
28 July 1899
PROBATE, DIVORCE AND ADMIRALTY DIVISION
(before Mr. Justice Barnes.)
SICKERT V SICKERT
A full report of this undefended divorce appeared in The Times of July 19, 1899. The facts are stated by the learned Judge.
Mr. Justice Gorell Barnes, in delivering judgement today, said - The petitioner in this case prays for a dissolution of her marriage with the respondent on the ground of his alleged desertion and adultery. The adultery, which occurred in April, 1898, and May, 1899, was proved, but an important question is raised with regard to the alleged desertion. The facts appear to me to be that the petitioner was married to the respondent, who is an artist, on June 10, 1885, and that they lived together until February 29, 1896. The effect of the evidence is that in 1895 the petitioner had strong suspicions that the respondent was leading an improper life; that in 1895 she found a letter to him from a woman, and that he admitted to two cases of adultery, one with that woman and one with another woman, but that, as he promised to have nothing more to do with them, she forgave him; that in May, 1896, there was a short separation between them in consequence of his conduct, but that he rejoined her in Switzerland; that on February 29, 1896, while they were at Fluellen, on the Lake of Lucerne, he made a statement the effect of which that it was of no use concealing the fact that he had never been faithful to her, and never could be, and that the petitioner said that as long as the respondent lived that sort of life she could not live with him, but was willing to do so if he would give it up, but he declined to do so. They therefore separated, and have ever since lived separate. On December 8, 1989, the petitioner wrote to the respondent as follows:-
"Dear Walter,
In spite of your having told me, when we parted in Switzerland in September, 1896, that, immediately after our marriage and ever since, you had lived an adulterous life and that you felt sure you could never live a different one, I have been hoping against hope that you would abandon it, but all that I have heard of you during the last two years has forced me to give up all possible hope for the future.
Yours truly,
E.M. Sickert."
To this letter the respondent replied, on December 14:-
"My dear Nellie,
I have received your letter of December 8. It is quite true that I have not been faithful to you since our marriage, and it is equally true that during the two years since we parted I have been intimate with several women. As I told you long ago, I cannot continue a life of dissimulation. I have chosen my mode of life and I am unable to alter it. An undertaking to do so on my part would be misleading. Ever your profoundly attached,
Walter Sickert."
Shortly afterwards, viz. in May, 1899, this suit was commenced. There have been a number of cases on this question of desertion, but as they were mostly undefended, and the question raised upon the facts in this case is of considerable importance, I reserved my judgement. A wife is entitled to obtain a divorce from her husband if he has been guilty of, inter alia, adultery coupled with desertion, without reasonable excuse, for two years and upwards. In order to constitute desertion there must be a cessation of cohabitation and an intention on the part of the accused party to desert the other. In most cases of desertion the guilty party actually leaves the other, but it not always necessarily the guilty party who leaves the matrimonial home. In my opinion the party who intends to bring the cohabitation to an end, and whose conduct in reality causes its termination, commits the act of desertion. There is no substantial difference between the case of a husband who intends to put an end to the state of cohabitation and does so by leaving his wife and that of a husband who, with the like intent, obliges his wife to separate from him. This view of the law, applicable to desertion, has been taken in the cases of Dickinson v Dickinson (62 L.T., 330) and Koch v Koch (1899, P., 221). In the first of these cases the husband brought to the house a woman with whom he had immoral relations. The wife refused to admit her, but the husband insisted. The wife remained a short time in the house, and then told her husband that either she or the woman must leave the house. The husband told her that she might do as she liked, but that the woman would remain. The wife thereupon left and never afterwards cohabited with her husband. Sir Charles Butt held that the husband was guilty of deserting his wife. In the second case, which was heard before myself, the husband was guilty of immoral relations with a servant in the house. The husband refused to break off these relations or discharge the girl, and the wife thereupon left the house. The husband continued to live for years with the servant. I held the husband guilty of desertion. In these two cases the adulterous intercourse which the husband refused to put an end to was being carried on in the matrimonial home; but in the earlier case of Graves v Graves, heard by Lord Penzance in 1864 and reported in 3 Sw. and Tr., 250 and 33 L.J., P. and M., 66, the adulterous intercourse, though carried on for a time in the house occupied by the petitioner and respondent, was not discovered by the petitioner until after the parties had separated. The report in the Law Journal is the fuller of the two, and the headnote is as follows:- "Shortly after a marriage the husband, with the intention of bringing about a separation, so treated his wife as to compel her to leave him. She subsequently made several offers to return, but he refused to receive her. She continued willing to return until she found that he was carrying on an adulterous intercourse which had subsisted since the marriage. She then refused to return except upon condition that such intercourse should cease. Held, that such conduct before the wife became aware of his adultery amounted to desertion, and that such desertion was not put an end to by her unwillingness to return while the adultery continued." The present case is scarcely distinguishable from the case of Pizzala v Pizzala, reported only in 12 The Times Law Reports, p. 451. The husband was carrying on an adulterous intercourse with another woman, but not in the matrimonial home, and refused to break it off, although his wife told him that unless he did so she must leave him. The wife then left him, and he continued to live with the woman for over two years. The President held the husband guilty of desertion. These cases all appear to me to have been decided in accordance with the principles shortly stated above, and no distinction has been made whether the adulterous intercourse was carried on in the matrimonial home or elsewhere. A wife whose husband is carrying on an adulterous intercourse with another woman or other women is not bound to remain in cohabitation with him. She can at once obtain a judicial separation. She may, however, be willing to remain with her husband provided he will give up the connexion complained of, and if he refuses to do so, a wife with any self respect has only one course to take - that is, to withdraw from cohabitation. The husband in such a case must be taken to intend the consequences of his action - that is to say, his wife shall not live with him. The situation the produced is just the same as if the guilty husband left his wife. Desertion is not to be tested by merely ascertaining which party left the matrimonial home first. It may be committed by a husband acting as I have just said, and if the attitude of the parties remain the same for two years the offence of desertion contemplated by the statute is complete. I may add that the American writer Bishop, in his work on the law of marriage and divorce, has the following passage on the subject of desertion (sec. 787) - "It is immaterial which of the married parties leaves the matrimonial home, the one who intends bringing the cohabitation to an end commits the desertion." I am of opinion that upon the facts proved in evidence before me in the present case the respondent has been guilt of adultery coupled with desertion for two years and upwards, and I pronounce a decree nisi, with costs.
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 160
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 8:58 am: |
|
That's the boy I've always known!!
you had lived an adulterous life and that you felt sure you could never live a different one... all that I have heard of you during the last two years has forced me to give up all possible hope for the future.
I never recognised the Sickert promulgated by Cornwell.
Phil |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 323
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 11:49 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
Interesting information and thanks for posting. If I recall correctly there is mention in Sutton's book about Walter having had an illegitimate son by a Dieppe fish wife with whom he had an affair.
Rgds
John Savage |
Danielle Coates
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 2:54 pm: |
|
Okay, thank you all for clearing that up for me. I was just making sure that I got all the facts straight before I made a judgement of what is what. |
Angie
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 8:32 pm: |
|
Sickert was well known for his sexual escapades, numerous wives and mistresses, rumored illegitimate children, and so forth. For details, see the recently-released authoritative biography Walter Sickert: A Life by Matthew Sturgis.
I'm wondering what automatically makes "them" right and Cornwell wrong.
|
Angie
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 8:33 pm: |
|
Can we all please stay away from personal attacks here? It's one thing if you disagree with Cornwell, but it's another thing to attack her personally.
|
Angie
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 3:00 pm: |
|
Even if Sickert did claim to be the Ripper in order to scare a group of children it's hardly likely to be true. I doubt that the real killer would have revealed his identity so casually.
It would be been easy for him to say something like that because no one back then would have believed him anyway. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 566
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 4:11 pm: |
|
Hi Angie,
It's not that we automatically believe Sturgis over Cornwell, it's a question of the amount of evidence supporting the conclusions. The evidence of Sickert's sexual activiy is overwhelming. Sturgis is a historian who cites multiple sources, and the multiple marriages and multiple sources all saying the same thing are extremely strong. Cornwell's a fiction writer with no experience who has no evidence other than what one person who got confused on a detail told her, added in with an overpowering desire to try to make him look bad.
It's simply a matter of weighing the evidence. There's no contest: Cornwell is just plain wrong.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 176
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 2:26 am: |
|
I wrote:
...until deluded perfervid, over-rich and cocky Patricia Cornwall came along with her half-baked, secondhand theory...
If when you were complaining about personal attacks, you had that in mind, can you please tell me which part of what I said is not factual?
She is "deluded" in that the logic of her own book fails entirely and obviously to make the case she proposes.
She is perfervid, in that she is clearly over-enthusiastic, pursuing a single suspect to the point of obsession.
She is self-evidently over-rich in that she can thrown so much of her own money at the tests and experiments, and research required by her book.
She is cocky in that she continues to promote her failed theory with apparent and un-called for confidence.
Her theory is half-baked because it is not supported by evidence as is clear when you read the book - the ending does not arise from her findings.
It is secondhand, because others, not least Jean Overton Fuller, Florence pash, (poor old Joe Gorman) and to an extent, Stephen Knight, have covered the ground before her.
Since when does stating facts (admittedly bluntly) amount to a character attack.
Indeed, it might be said that Miss Cornwell's book is an exercise in unsupported character assassination of a notable painter, and someone unable to defend himself.
Nuf said,
Phil
|
Restless Spirit
Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 38
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 11:19 am: |
|
Phil Hill
Hi Phil, I know we got of to a poor start, but I do not want that to interfere with our views and posts on the board.
I totally agree with you with respect to Sickert and Cornwell's book. I read the book, I saw her interview on TV where she was wanting to take the credit for solving this age old mystery. Obviously she did not!!! Her book had many missing FACTS.
Just wanted to back you up here, not that you need it, though.
friends I hope.
Restless Spirit
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 179
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 1:58 am: |
|
Thanks Restless, but as I said elsewhere, I think I'll refrain from discussion with you.
Phil |
Stuart
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 7:50 pm: |
|
Greetings,
I have just finished reading Pat Cornwell's book - 'Portrait of a killer', so I thought I would jump on this thread to give my view.Ironically, all that this book has proven to me, is that he is not JtR. This Sickert spent his life trying to get into the ' Main Game ', but he was only a bench man.This attempt to connect himself with Jack the ripper - whose eminence was achieved by imfamy anyway - shows how desparate he was to get on the field.These hoaxed letters and paintings, which tenuosly link him with Jack, mean he is no better than Cornwell herself.They are 2 peas in a pod - perfect for eachother! As far as character attacks go , they both deserve a little bit of a rev up.
In the first chapter , Cornwell states she knows absolutely who JtR was, and calls her book case closed.She has done this even though it is literally not the case. In future I will only listen to theorists who say ' this man needs to be looked at'. I will run a mile from anyone pedaling 'cased closed ' nonsense.
Stuart |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 10:13 am: |
|
Hi all,
Cornwell went into the study of Jack the ripper with only one purpose and that was to proove that Walter Sickert was Jack. I think she put blinders on. I do not believe she was a student of the case. Researchers like Chris Scott and others are students. they find information that I would never be able to find because I lack the skill and reasearch is a skill! Clearly Sickert was not impotent. However I do not believe he had children with any of his wives? I think it is a mistake to jump into the ripper murders with a suspect in toe. I believe you must enter the case with an open mind and try to find Jack the ripper.
It has been a long time since I have read Cornwell's book. I probably should read the book again before I start discussing its content. She did convince me that Sickert wrote a few Jack the ripper letters. She did make a conribution and I believe that it is solid. She did not connect Sickert to any of the famous Jack letters and this may ultimately help proove his innocence. However, nobody els has been able to connect someone to the ripper letters. [ I have no doubt that Chris Scott or Malta Joe will someday find the pin that actually wrote the lusk letter.] I would have liked to see Cornwell take a larger look at the case. She is a talented woman and she may have been able to give us some real good insight. The key to solving the ripper case is going to be acceptance Writers and researchers are going to have to accept the evidence that will someday be put before them. Someone is going to put the puzzle together [ they may have already.] correctly!
Your friend,CB |
Angie
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 5:54 pm: |
|
"Since when does stating facts (admittedly bluntly) amount to a character attack. "
But it's not a fact! It's your subjective opinion. |
Stuart
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 9:45 am: |
|
Hi CB,
I certainly dont buy the Sickert theory iether. I try not to be negative about anybody , so as I said above, they both deserve a bit of a rev.I dont think Pat is a bad person at all, but deep down she new she was a long way from the finishing line with Sickert. I believe she called the book 'case closed 'for one reason.She spent millions on this investigation and came up with almost nothing. She had to recoup her losses so she told everyone "I have caught the ripper".By the time a milliom people had bought the book to see, she had recovered her money and was out of there, and back to fiction.
You also said you dont believe Wally had any offspring. I am only learning about this case day by day so give me a bit of latitude. But one of the big theories involves Walter Sickert's son Joseph Sickert.I read a fascinating account of how his father Walter told him about the Prince Albert affair. This was on a BBC documentary which gave birth to the royal conspiracy.Walter married the illegitimate child of this affair and concieved his son Joseph.Has anyone refuted this Joseph man yet?
I agree with you on this mate - it's a hell of a jigsaw puzzle - the ultimate game of cludeo.60 plus individual suspects and conspiracy theories.Some individual suspects, like Sickert, intermingled in other theories like the royal one.Add to that, scorned lovers, quack doctors, drug addicks, sailors , antisemitics, lodgers and many other gents in top hats.Whoever does solve this puzzle will be the next Messiah! I am not one of the souless ripperologists on the messageboards who say NEVER. I think the ripper is not totally infallible and could be bagged. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 2:16 am: |
|
Hi Stuart! Thanks for your responce. It is nice to hear from somebody who is not an "expert" on the ripper murders. It is important to get fresh ideas and opinions from people who have not been saturated with information. Since you are just getting started with your investigation I would suggest you do not read any books. Source books are fine. [I rccomend The Ultimate Jack The Ripper Companion by Stewart P. Evans & Keith Skinner.] Stay away from books that support a specific suspect. A good writer could convince someone that Sherlock Holmes was the ripper. Stay away from movies based on the killings. The casebook contains alot of good information. I know it is tempting to read a good book or see an interesting movie but all this would do is clutter your mind with someone elses views and versions of the facts. Set back some night [with all the lights on.] and read the inquest reports and then the eyewitness accounts. Read the oppinions of the detectives who worked the case. Read the press reports. Work the case from the inside out. Draw your own logical conclusions. It will pass alot of time. I guess I am saying do not make the same mistakes I made! My mind is all clutterd up with information. After you get familiar with the facts of the case and the suspects Then read all the different theories you can because someone will put the mystery together. Maybe it will be you?
I like the fact that you are willing to ask questions but the problem is I do not have an answer. I am not sure if Joe was Sickert's son or not. I will not clutter you mind with my uneducated oppinion but I think that it has been a subject that has been debated. Stephen Knight claimed that Joe was his source for his book Jack the ripper final solution. I never read the book but the movie From Hell is loosely based on the book. I imagine that the royal conspiracy theory has been around for a long time. The idea probably is as old as the murders. I do not believe Joe's version stands up under investigation but this is a good example of what I posted above. I have read five different versions of the Royal conspiracy and every time somebody makes a good argument against one aspect of the theory then somebody will come along and give another version and then another version untill finally one make sence. I have never seen the BBC documentary [I would like too.] and I do not know if Joe Gorman Sickert was indeed Walter Sickert's son but I have doubts about some aspects of his story.
I feel good research is being done everyday. Cornewll's research may ultimately help clear Sickert. Good work is being done concerning Dr. Tumblety and this may lead to prooving his innocence or make the case against him stronger. I hessitate to dismiss any theory but I hope someday to know enough about the case to be able to except the right theory when it is ultimately put forward.
I hope I am right in assumeing you are not American. I enjoy sharing a common interest with people from all over the world. thanks for giving me the chance.
Your friend,CB
|
Robert Keppler
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 1:22 pm: |
|
I have just finished Cornwell's book and what struck me is that if she was going to sub-title it "CASE CLOSED", she might have stayed away from so much conjecturing. Many times she would drift into paragraphs full of statements that began, "He might have..", "Maybe he..." "You can picture him..." I am not a lawyer, but I do not believe any prosecutor would bring any case to trial based on so much conjecture and thin circumstantial evidence. If the Los Angeles DA couldn't convict OJ with the evidence they had, Cornwell couldn't even get an indictment with hers. |
Mary Watson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 11:10 pm: |
|
While I cannot take a firm stance for Sickert being JtR, I find it interesting that we have selective gullibility when it comes to (1) believing he was a notorious ladies' man based upon hearsay; and (2) believing he was sexually dysfunctional based upon hearsay. I would propose that neither is provable (short of testimony from a lady who would know), and so one believes the story one wishes. It would have been an easy deception, I think, for any man to hold himself out as a ladies' man during victorian times (in order to deflect suspicion about his "maleness") when "nice" women were notoriously ignorant of a great deal of sexuality which we now take for granted. There is no way to know what Sickert meant by his confessions of infidelity, nor what his goal was in proffering them. It seems to me, from reading between the lines, that perhaps his wife Nellie, had some misgivings about divorcing him, in spite of his confessions (she didn't sound like she really wanted to do it from the testimony). So is it possible that she knew he was fabricating it in order to give her an acceptable "out"? It's not like it hasn't been done before in legal cases. An alternative to accepting him as a ladies' man would be to accept him as an asexual man who was covering it up by fabricating it all.
Just a thought....
Mary |
Paul Boggs
Police Constable
Username: Pboggs
Post Number: 2
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 4:33 pm: |
|
Hi! On Dec. 8, I posted an inquiry to this message board. Dec., Jan., Feb. all passed without any response, so I stopped checking. Just out of casual interest, I checked back again yesterday and – wow! Thanks for the responses! I’ll try to pick up this thread again without being too long-winded.
In re: Cornwell’s theory. I find much of the criticism against her a bit too – shall we say - simplistic. For that matter, I often get the impression that many of her critics have not even read her book – or at least not read it carefully and objectively. (Most of us get pretty defensive – sometimes offensive too - when our personal sacred cows ( i.e. favourite suspects) are attacked.)
Cornwell’s major contribution, in my eyes, is her attempt to create a criminal profile of a suspect, and I find that approach highly commendable. Hopefully more such at-tempts will follow. Much of the criticism focuses too narrowly on specific points while ignoring the total package. If three out of 20 points are weak or even incorrect, that does not mean that one can automatically dismiss the other 17 points. (e.g. Ted Bundy’s VW is described in some sources as brown, in others as yellow. A moot point, unless you are a police officer searching for the vehicle.)
That being said, several months of close investigation (hence my posting on Dec. 8) into Sickert have 98% convinced me that Cornwell simply got it wrong. The keystone to her entire theory is her supposition that Sickert was sexually impotent, incompe-tent, or whatever. That is NOT a moot point, and there is simply too much concrete evidence which speaks against that.
Chris Scott’s posting (March 10) of the court’s report and ruling in Sickert’s divorce proceedings, as printed in The Times (July, 1889) provides that concrete evidence. Thanks to you for that valuable information Chris!!!
I just wrote “98%”. It is possible that Sickert might have committed the JtR murders, but with a different motivation than that given by Cornwell. After six months of looking so closely at him, I have not been able to find any trace of such a motivation. I find Sickert a pretty despicable person, but that doesn’t make him a mass murderer.
So, now it’s back to step one again.
|
Laura Morales
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 2:18 pm: |
|
Hi Everybody:
I just finish Patricia Cornwell’s book on Jack the Ripper. I have to say that at first I didn’t think Walter Sicker to be the Ripper. He was an artist, I wonder many times, an artist wouldn’t do such things. An artist get inspire by many things, I’m an artist myself and I’m fascinated with freaky things like serial killers. But I don’t paint violent scenes or headless body or anything like that. I don’t even like to see the pictures or the description of how the victims were found.
The truth is WS had a big problem in his head to made him paint such things. After finishing the book and paying attention to all the details given by Cornwell, and having and open mind, I came to think that Sicker could had really been JTR.
I mean DNA was there, and for me there isn’t nothing more convincing than that. If Walter S, had nothing to with the crimes, why then was his DNA on a Ripper letter? Can someone explain that to me?
I apologize if you don’t agree with me, but hey we are free to speak our mind.Over all we will never truly know who was Jack the Ripper, unless he comes out of his grave and tell us, and yet i think no one will believe it , because what we really love about this murder case is the mystery man behind it and we enjoy trying to search for him. Not knowing who he was is what makes this case be interesting and last with the past of years. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 727
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 5:36 pm: |
|
Hi Laura,
You wrote:
"I mean DNA was there"
I'm afraid you've been taken in by Cornwell's purposefully ambiguous writing there. The tests did not find any of Sickert's DNA. Period. Full stop.
I end up explaining this over and over, but I might as well do it again for anyone who hasn't seen me post it before.
You are thinking the popular notion of DNA tests, like you see on the CSI TV show or something. That's not what they tested. What they found was mostly disintegrated DNA on a letter claiming to be from the Ripper but widely considered a hoax that may or may not have come from more than one person and none of which may have been left there by the person who actually wrote it. They then compared that to mostly disintegrated DNA on a letter by Walter Sickert that may or may not have come from more than one person and may not have Walter Sickert's anywehere in it (servants often licked stamps, for instance, or it could have been someone else who touched it in the century since then, since none of these things were stored in a way that would prevent contaminating DNA from other sources). They then found mitochondrial DNA (which is not nuclear DNA, i.e. the stuff that you and only you have) which is something akin to comparing blood types, and then they discovered that there was not a match but that the tests didn't rule out a match (which is kind of like hearing that the winning Supermegabucks Lottery number started with 3 and seeing that you have a ticket that starts with 3... you don't know yet that it's not a match, but it's still way too early to be thinking that it has a good chance to be).
Even under pristine conditions (uncontaminated evidence that you have clean samples from from only one known person -- blood sample stored in a test tube at low temperatures, for example), if you find similar mitochondrial DNA on two different items, all you've done is shown that one out of every 10 people or so out there has that same kind of DNA. It's not only impossible to make an exact match using it, but the odds are pretty low that you are talking about the same person.
But these things were not stored in pristine conditions, and we don't know where the mitochondrial DNA came from. That means the odds of the samples being a match are much, much worse than that. We could be comparing damaged DNA from one of Sickert's servants, students, or lovers to the guy who sold the stamp to the person who wrote the letter claiming to be Jack the Ripper and discovering that those two people were third cousins or something. So somebody in England back then but we aren't sure who was related to somebody else in England back then but we don't know who that is either! (And even that assumes that the DNA didn't come from a more modern source, which it very well could have as these things were handled by a variety of people over the last century). Lots of people were related to each other. Big deal.
None of that tells us anything about who might have killed anyone, and this kind of evidence if it were ever raised in a court case would be thrown out by the judge for being completely meaningless.
And the worst part of all of this is that Cornwell paid really smart forensics people to do this. You are just an average person who doesn't understand how DNA works and can get confused. The experts she had doing this for her no doubt told her that these kinds of tests prove absolutely nothing, but yet she still chose to pretend that they were actual evidence. She has no excuse for trying to pull the wool over the eyes of her readers like that.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 672
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 7:47 am: |
|
Laura, you wrote:
"...If Walter S, had nothing to with the crimes, why then was his DNA on a Ripper letter? Can someone explain that to me? "
Well, writing a letter doesn't mean you committed the crime. We know Sickert was obsessed with the Ripper killings - that doesn' make him the murderer either.
Phil
|
Courtney Karr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 11:15 am: |
|
Hi Angie,
You are a very smart and perspicacious woman. Of course Phil's remarks about PC were defamatory and his own subjective opinion, not fact.
My opinion on PC's book is that she has indeed busted sick Walter Sickert! |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2573
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 11:36 am: |
|
How fun.
No there isn't any evidence Walter did it, poor guy
Jenni
"be just and fear not"
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 674
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 11:51 am: |
|
You are entitled to your own opinion, Courtney. That said, your opinion of Ms Cornwell's book indicates just how much weight we need accord them.
Phil |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2575
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 11:59 am: |
|
Phil,
umm, thats way too harsh.
Jenni
"be just and fear not"
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 675
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 1:41 pm: |
|
Perhaps I should have added a smiley, Jenni.
  There you go, Courtney, no offence meant.
Phil |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2577
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 4:51 pm: |
|
Hi Phil, 
I'd hate to see it when you meant offence by what you said Phil, or when you intended to make out someone was stupid.
Still at least you didn't mean it to sound bad, so hey, I'll let you off i guess!!!!
cheers
Jenni
"be just and fear not"
|
Stuart Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 12:26 pm: |
|
'There is no evidence Walter did it, poor guy'
There is no evidence any suspect for this case did it. Conversly, there is no evidence any suspect for JtR , including Sickert, did not do it. He remains a suspect until cleared.
Laura: 'We will never know who was JtR unless he comes out of the grave'. NOT TRUE. If you have studied law, you would know that for a case to go to court there must be substantial evidence against the defendant. If the case is prooved beyond reasonable doubt, the jury will find him guilty.In most murder trials, there is not photographic or video evidence of he/she perpetrating the murder, OK. This means that to convict a murderer you must find the hard evidence to do it.This can be hard and takes alot of effort, as you may see on TV, or in movies like 'A Few Good Men'.This is the way it is in reality. So without people coming back from the dead, or murder cam, it is possible to solve a crime.It has been done for centuries.
With some good clues, and a hell of alot of hearsay, there just isnt the hard evidence to convict anyone yet as Jack.With archeologists recreating crime scenes thousands of years old today, the vital evidence may still be out there. |
Angie
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 12:10 pm: |
|
"And the worst part of all of this is that Cornwell paid really smart forensics people to do this. You are just an average person who doesn't understand how DNA works and can get confused. The experts she had doing this for her no doubt told her that these kinds of tests prove absolutely nothing, but yet she still chose to pretend that they were actual evidence. She has no excuse for trying to pull the wool over the eyes of her readers like that."
First of all, you need to re-read the book. PC never claimed that she by DNA had solved the case. Not even once. And if you feel like knowing what the experts who did the tests told her re the forensic evidence, you can watch a documentary called "In Search of the Ripper". |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
