|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 160
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 9:49 am: |       |
Hi Mark Starr,
I am sorry that I have not been able to reply to your earlier posts as I have been away on holiday for the last week.
I am today trying to catch up on a weeks backlog of work, and will post a detailed reply to the above as soon as I have time.
Best Regards,
John Savage |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 895
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 5:33 am: | |
Mark,
You are aware that there was more than one English artist alive in 1888 aren't you? Even if he did think Sickert did it does that mean he did? No.
If you weren't implying this then I apologise as I haven't read all of the posts above.
Sarah |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 162
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 11:56 am: | |
Hi Mark Starr
I have tried to answer your various questions and hope that the following will help you:
My meaning in using the term “Cleveland Street Connection” is the relationship of the Fitzrovia area to the JTR case, we are told by Knight, Fairclough and Overton Fuller, that Mary Kelly worked and lived in this area. Of course this has never been proved, so anything else which could help prove the claim is of interest. This would include numerous different stories, such as Inspector Abberline being involved in the Cleveland Street Scandal of 1889, the existence of the Bellord Domestic Agency or that Bellord & Perkins Estate Agents owned the house in Fitzroy Square were Gladstone once lived.
I have no knowledge of Walter Sickert having an illegitimate son in France.
The claim that Alice Crook had two illegitimate children comes once again from Joseph, who tells us that his brother was named Charles and that his birth was never registered and that he disappeared shortly after birth. (full details of this will be found in “The Ripper and the Royals) With regard to birth certificates I have checked the index to the birth registers for the December quarter 1925 which gives us the following information:
GORMAN, Joseph W.O.
Mothers maiden name: CROOK
District: PANCRAS
Vol. 1b Page 32
When I stated that I would be more inclined to agree with your possibility B, please let me state that my opinion (and it only that) is that someone, perhaps Walter Sickert or perhaps someone else passed the bare threads of the tale to Joseph and that he, over the years added to it, so in the end we have Freemasons, the Royal Surgeon, Randolph Churchil et al involved. I make this statement simply because I do not believe that anyone could make up such a fantastic story, including people who really did exist, simply to cause a hoax. If that was his intension surely he would have come up with something more believable? Another possibility is that rather than getting the bare bones of the story from Walter Sickert, Joseph may have got them from his friend Harry Jonas (1893 – 1990), who was an artist, and may have known Walter Sickert.
Please note that Ellen May Lackner was not a sister of Joseph, but a cousin; I have no idea if she or any of her children are still alive. Joseph who sadly died last year was survived by his wife with whom I believe he fathered 3 children. Also I don’t think Joseph has never claimed that Alice Crook married Walter Sickert, it was merely an affair.
According to Joseph Walter Sickert told him the story when he was in his early teens, and that it did not come out all at once, but over a period of time. There is no documented link between Walter Sickert and any of the people involved in the story, all information is derived from Joseph, whom I believe had no notes and told his story from memory. The only documented link is the “Abberline Diaries” produced by Joseph, and these are widely held to be forgeries.
I hope that I have covered all your questions, and the source for my replies is from the books by Stephen Knight and Melvyn Fairclough, both of which hold more detail, but alas no sure proof of a link between Walter Sickert and any member of the Crook family.
Best Regards
John Savage
|
Ken Bugler
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 8:13 am: | |
I would much like to look at the art that depicts these ripper murders but find exact location on the web intolerable. Which paintings are being scrutinized as evidence he did the deed. Oh and where are the paintings on the web cause I am not coming up with any obvious leads.
Marry Shelly had six weird deaths in her life before age 18. Did she incorporate her possible guilt into her story of Frankenstein?
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 8:35 pm: | |
Mark wrote:
"So what English artist could Detective Marriott possibly be pursuing as a viable suspect?"
Considering that those theories mentioned in the part you quote above were theories that he considered totally ridiculous (NOT ones he thought possible), you pointing out that he was referring to Sickert as if it meant that he should be taken seriously as a suspect is all the more hilarious.
You should have read the other news articles before bringing it up, LOL. Here's one:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1165119,00.html
It includes the following unambiguous statement:
"Mr Marriott said he could prove that none of the six key suspects who still capture the popular imagination could have carried out the murders - including the artist Walter Sickert, who was recently named as the Ripper by the American crime writer Patricia Cornwell. "
Not that I necessarily think Marriott has any more clue than most people here, but you can't use him to try to support you when he actually is completely against you.
(Message edited by admin on March 17, 2004) |
Sharon Grant
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 3:59 pm: | |
Hello Mark
The letters and the word I mentioned can be seen at the feet of the man in Sickerts work, I have only the copy from Cornwalls book at the moment... but is obvious none the less.
I have read another book titled If I recall correctly.....Jack the myth....which makes some very interesting insinuations as to Charles Warrens rather crazy nephew..... other locations where murders were committed, that even Cornwall felt were the work of Jack, was a convalescent home for police.. where the looney nephew was regularly pack off to...who was known to study medical books at length and had been diagnosed by many physicians as paranoid schizophrenic..... ripper letters constantly taunting....I`m under your nose!.....questions and ridicules the bobbies as to their progress....
No JTR was no ordinary joe..he was close...he was above suspicion so to speak but he was so obvious that they over looked him,
he had education....and he walked that fine line between sanity and insanity....and he was having fun with societys refuse.
Some of Sickerts work shows a penchant for the hidden word, two sides to the coin, the dark side of the personalty.... He killed his father in a fight!...is Cornwall the only person to see a male face coming up behind the female figure in Ennui?... and JTR`S bedroom.... was his own bedroom....please!!!.... the saying that goes kinda like this, I`ll be corrected If I get it not quite right, but hopefully you`ll get the idea,
If it looks like a skunk....and smells like a skunk.... it`s a skunk.
Sickerts countenance in the photo `when the mood struck he shaved his head` is menacing to say the least.
Well my letter will be dealt with one way or another, but I rest assured, fairly none the less.
Cheers Mark
Happy hunting.
|
Tommy Nilsson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 6:19 am: | |
There is an old saying in Sweden about the devil, "Nar fan blir gammal blir han religios", and I don´t know if this is an international saying.
The meaning is "When the devil gets old he becomes religious".
That was my first thought when I saw Sickerts 3 "religious" paintings. But this is only a hypothesis, among others. Was Sickert ever in contact with any religious or philosophical group of any kind?
Regards, Tommy |
kathryn
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 6:46 pm: | |
i think he did it, he fits the profile, he had all the right stuff, the strength and the talent to pull something off like this and no one would expect him to be this type of person, all his drawings show what type of person he is. and i think he did it.
kat |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1170
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 21, 2004 - 10:18 am: | |
Kathryn,
Just one slight problem, he was in France at the time with his family. I think they would have noticed if he had popped back home for a couple of days at a time.
Artists can draw all sorts of "dark" paintings but that doesn't show anything really, as was proved by the artists on this board.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess  |
Tommy Nilsson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 4:21 am: | |
"As was proved by the artist on this board". No nothing has been proved of that sort.
Walter Sickerts paintings of Ripper victims, dead women, places where murder took place, etc does not prove that he was innocent, it´s the other way around.
And his alibi in France...it´s weak... |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 626
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 11:50 am: | |
But not nearly as weak as the "case" against him.
Cheers,
Ally
 |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1175
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 12:05 pm: | |
Tommy,
How can being in a whole other country be a weak alibi?
Also, he never once painted a dead woman, that's just what you see, other's do not see that. You have no proof that he painted dead women, let alone the ripper victims.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 116
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 10:42 pm: | |
I agree with Sarah and Ally.
Cornwell claims he killed three or more women on a couple of different nights and sent off five or more letters on different days during a time multiple sources say he was a thousand miles away. That's not just a strong alibi, that's about as rock solid as you can get.
And you have to be pretty creative to think he painted any Ripper crime scenes or victims.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Scott Suttar
Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 35
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 11:42 pm: | |
I agree with Sarah Dan and Ally,
Art often imitates life, many forms of art do. This does not mean that every artist has to commit crimes to write, paint, draw, sing or create films about them. The very lie to this theory lies with Cornwell herself. She writes novels about murders! I guess if any of the crimes she describes in her art resemble in any way modern crimes she should be taken in for questioning.
And besides all of this Sarah is correct in stating that all of the evidence points to Sickert being overseas at the times of some of the murders. So to further the Sickert theory, someone will first have to show that he had travelled back to London and was present at the correct times. Nothing short of that will be persuasive, certainly not art interpretations.
PS: Dan did you get the photo OK?
(Message edited by Scotty on May 24, 2004)
Scotty. |
Tommy Nilsson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 4:44 am: | |
Hi Sara!
Walter Sickert did paint Ripper victims; Catherine Eddowes was one of them, compare the photos of her and then look at Sickerts painting "Puttana in Casa". (You can find them in Cornwells book), or look at "Le Journal".
That is just one example, the list is very long and I have given a lot of examples in the casebook. One important question is of course how and when Sickert saw the victims. There seems to have been one book published in France with photos of the victims and Sickert may (of course) have used it. I know that this have been discussed in the casebook but I have not found the name of the book or when it was published.
But still, the main question is that of Sickert painting dead and mutilated women - and he did from 1888 to at least 1935. Again and again.
I´m working on an essay in this matter and hope to finish it 2005, it is a lot of material...
In the meantime, take a long good look at Sickerts painting from 1929; "Lazarus breaks his fast". What´s his meal?
Regards, Tommy |
Tommy Nilsson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 5:09 am: | |
Hi Dan!
Walter Sickert was indeed creative! A master of the art and he painted murder scenes and he was not always secretive about it, at least not in the "Camden Town Murder" series of paintings, altough he chosed to exhibit them in France.
Regards, Tommy
|
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 119
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 5:14 pm: | |
Hi Tommy,
Sickert did not paint dead and mutilated women. The paintings you name are impressionistic, with brush strokes that are ill-defined as part of the artistic styling and shouldn't be viewed as mutilations. By your argument, Monet painted dead and mutilated landscapes and ponds.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Tommy Nilsson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 4:55 am: | |
Oh! I forgot o! Virginia Woolfe, it is!
Tommy |
Tommy Nilsson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 4:49 am: | |
Hi Dan!
The paintings are showing death and mutilated women, disregarding the style they are painted in!
Do you mean that there is no content in a painting if it is impressionistic?
You can paint death expressionistic, realistic, surrealistic or impressionistic - but it is still death.
But I think that it is correct that Sickert did hide behind his style sometimes.
Sickert called himself a realistic painter and said that he only painted what he had seen with his own eyes. He told Virginia Wolfe that he was a literary painter and that every picture tells a story. His work has been called impressionistic, post-impressionistic, realistic and expressionistic, all by different experts.
This is very complex matter and I would prefer to show examples of paintings, etchings and sketches in a context, but there are some problems.
First: I do not have access to all material and all of his important paintings in colour, yet.
Second: I am not sure of copyright issues; some of the interesting paintings are made as late as 1935.
Third: There is a lot of work to do; it is a lot of material.
But I hope to be back later (even if it will take some time) and present some of my material, when my essay is completed - if the Casebook says OK.
Regards, Tommy
|
Vincent
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 9:33 am: | |
"By your argument, Monet painted dead and mutilated landscapes and ponds."
Brilliant point!
Regards, Vincent |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 7:25 pm: | |
We need to test the hypothesis re, When and how Walter Sickert left France covertly to arrive in London to continue the murder sequence: or, conversely, the impossiblity of Walter Sickert being in Whitechapel at the required time to continue the murder sequence.
So far, we have reached an en passe...but I feel someone, somewhere, has a bright idea.
Rosey :-) |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1186
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 11:21 am: | |
Tommy,
What makes you think these women he painted were dead anyway? They are not cut up or mutilated in anyway and so I don't understand why you think they are dead. Also, that painting is not of Catharine Eddowes at all. Does it say her name on it or say "Dead Prostitute"? No. Why? Because it wasn't her. It looks nothing like her to me.
Can I just ask, how long have you studied Jack the Ripper and how many other books have you read? I hope you realise that Patsy Cornwell didn't look into this subject until she decided on writing this book. If this was your first book on the subject I suggest you read more into it without trying to pin it on Sickert.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page