|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through 28 January 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Sickert, Walter:
Archive through 28 January 2002
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 28 April 2000 - 06:32 pm |        | G'day Simon,
Regarding 'La Hollandaise': Haven't you ever heard of the artistic movement called 'Impressionism'? I've studied it, enough to recall that this was 'big', during the 1800s.
Let's start debating!
Leanne! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 29 April 2000 - 06:24 am | | Dear Simon,
Get out your excercise book and I'll give you your first art lesson:
'Impressionism' was an art movement that began in France during the 'LATE NINETEENTH CENTURY". Instead of painting what they saw, artists tried to DEPICT what they saw. This was hard for some people to accept as "beautiful".
Before composing a picture, artists first decided on a 'centre of interest', (in the case of 'La Hollandaise' this is the woman's thigh). Her face is a 'secondary'.
Impressionists show the effects of light, on a particular scene, (in this case, the woman's face is obviously in the shade, because she faces away from the light source).
This model is NOT 'Mary Kelly'.
Leanne! |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 29 April 2000 - 04:33 pm | | G'day Leanne ! I am having some trouble with my e-mail connections on the new computer , so bear with me if I am not on-line at certain times. I am studying art at the moment and , as an artist myself , I don't think ' La Hollandaise ' is horrible or sinister. The model has a nose and the black blob is obviously her eye. So I think Jean Fuller and Stephen Knight , the latter not an artist himself , are wrong in this case , but that doesn't mean that the figure is not meant to represent Mary Kelly. In fact , the title might suggest otherwise ! |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 29 April 2000 - 04:48 pm | | I am referring to Mr Morganstone who Mary lived with , believed to be a Morgestern ( possibly Maria Morgestern ) who lived in the Fulham Road in 1881 and was a gas stoker. Barnett said Morganstone worked at Stepney Gas works. The Morgestern brothers , Adrienus and Maria , came from Alphen , Prien , the Netherlands. The title ' La Hollandaise ' ( The Dutch Girl ) may refer to Kelly in that she had picked up some Dutch mannerisms or , more likely , simply because she lived with a Dutch man. The information on Morgestern comes from ' The Man who Hunted Jack the Ripper ' p.59. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 29 April 2000 - 07:38 pm | | G'day Simon,
OK mate, I'm glad you have an artistic understanding. I dont think anyone should comment, unless they do. I haven't seen the book: 'The Man Who Hunted Jack the Ripper' yet, but when I do and read it, I'll catch up to you!
Leanne! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 29 April 2000 - 08:18 pm | | G'day Simon,
I don't know what the book: 'The Man Who....' says of Kelly's Morgstone, but Bruce Paley's book says that when Kelly was 20 or 21, she arrived in London and worked out of a West End brothel.
There she met a 'gentleman' who took her on a trip to France, but for some reason Kelly cut the trip short.....She lived for a time in Ratcliffe Highway, and later in Stepney, with a man named Morganstone about whom little is known.
I am having heaps of trouble, trying to understand what you are saying here. Do you believe that just because the Morganstones were Dutch, and Kelly lived with one, (for a time), this proves that the model was Kelly?
Leanne! |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 30 April 2000 - 02:36 pm | | I might just be suggesting that. Now this might seem flimsy evidence for making the assumption that Kelly was ' La Hollandaise ' , but other pictures suggest that Sickert was thinking of Kelly at this time. As for the Evans/Connolly quote , I will reproduce it here in full for those without the book : " Barnett had stated that Kelly had lived with a man named ' Morganstone ' opposite Stepney Gas Works and after that with a Joseph Fleming. ' Morganstone ' has never been identified but a few clues to his possile identity have now come to light. One of the inquest reports quoted Barnett as saying that ' Morganstone ' worked at Stepney Gas Works. No staff records of the Stepney Gas Company survive. The census records were then checked and in the 1881 census for 43 Fulham Road the family of Morgestern was shown , with the head , Adrienus L. Morgestern , 33 years old , a gas stoker , and his brother Maria A. Morgestern , 26 years old , also a gas stoker of the same address. Both were born in Alphen , Prien , the Netherlands. Given Morgestern's occupation of gas stoker , it would seem we have found the ' Morganstone ' so long sought. The census return for 1891 disclosed that the family no longer lived at the address. " ( From ' The Man who Hunted Jack the Ripper ' , p.59 ) |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 02 May 2000 - 03:22 pm | | | Peter , do you fancy hunting out any information on the Morgestern brothers from the census records or elsewhere ? |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 04 May 2000 - 12:24 pm | | Simon:
Here's the 1881 census entry for the Morgesterns:
Dwelling: 43 Victoria Rd
Census Place: Fulham, London, Middlesex, England
Source: FHL Film 1341016 PRO Ref RG11 Piece 0074 Folio 23 Page 46
Marr Age Sex Birthplace
Adrienus L. MORGESTERN M 33 M Alphen Priel (F), The Netherlands
Rel: Head
Occ: Gas Stoker
Jeanette S. MORGESTERN M 28 F Mzerbo (F), The Netherlands
Rel: Wife
Johanna C. MORGESTERN 7 F Proogendael
Rel: Daur
Occ: Scholar
Maria MORGESTERN 6 F Proogendael
Rel: Daur
Occ: Scholar
Wilhelmin L. MORGESTERN 4 F Fulham, Middlesex, England
Rel: Daur
Occ: Scholar
Petronella C. MORGESTERN 3 m F Fulham, Middlesex, England
Rel: Daur
Maria A. MORGESTERN U 26 M Alphen Priel (F), The Netherlands
Rel: Brother
Occ: Gas Stoker
Although Fulham is West London as opposed to East London, the occupation of Maria A. Morgestern does convince me that Stewart Evans has got the right candidate for the lover of Mary Kelly. There is also a family headed by a John Morgenstern from Germany, who lived in Shoreditch but this man was a Baker. |
Author: Thomas Ind
Monday, 10 July 2000 - 12:35 pm | | Under John Netley’s entry in “The Jack the Ripper A – Z” [1] it states that ‘Sickert further claimed that Netley made two unsuccessful attempts to kill Alice Margaret Crook by running her down: one in the Strand or Fleet Street at the height of the Ripper scare, after which she underwent lengthy treatment in St Bartholomew’s Hospital;…….’ [1]. I apologize for quoting from what is in effect a tertiary source [1].
In 1888 there were two St Bartholomew’s Hospitals [2]. One in Chatham and the other in the City of London [2]. It would be reasonable to assume that Sickert was referring to Barts Hospital in the City as it is not far from Fleet Street and the Strand. The admissions register for Barts during 1888 is still preserved in the Archives. I walked into the Archivist’s office without an appointment and was able to view the register in the time it took to find the pencil in my pocket. Pressed for time I made a brief search for Alice Crook in the years 1887, 1888, 1889, 1890 and 1891 [3]. I was unable to find her.
I found an Alice Crook aged 22 in 1891 (Alice Margaret Crook was 6 years old in this year [1]). She was admitted under Dr Champneys on 12th October and discharge on 27th October. Her complaint was Dysmenorrhoea (painful periods) [3]. I also found an Annie Cook (correct spelling) aged 49 and admitted on 29th June 1990 under Mr Baker with a fractured tibia and fibia. Annie Elizabeth Crook was Alice’s mother and would have been 28 at this time [1].
I also searched for women admitted with the complaint of ‘Run Over’ in the year of 1888. A Mary and Elizabeth Mowett, aged 40 and 10 were admitted on 3rd February. Mary died on 15th of February and the child Elizabeth was discharged on the 7th March [3]. Later on that year an Emily Towell aged 6 was admitted having been ‘Run Over’ [3].
It may be that I missed the relevant entry in this huge book and it’s index. If not, then there is clearly an error in this claim by Sickert. If it was entirely correct, the entry would have been clearly recorded.
I doubt that the hospital admission registers have been searched for potential suspects or victims and a database could be created to prevent future researchers repeating the process. Barts’ archives also hold the registers for The Mother’s Hospital, The Alexander Hospital for Children, The Eastern Hospital, The Hackney Hospital, St Leonards Hospital, The German Hospital, The Metropolitan Hospital, and St Marks Hospital [2]. I understand that the registers of other East End hospitals are held at the Royal London Hospital. Regrettably, all but a few case notes for this period were destroyed (on purpose) in the 1940s [2].
1 Begg P, Fido M, Skinner K. The Jack The Ripper A – Z. Headline Book Publishing, London: 1991.
2 Personal communication with the Archivist at St Bartholomew’s Hospital.
3 St Bartholomew’s Hospital Register of Female Patients 1886 – 1891. Kept in the Archives at St Bartholomew’s Hospital |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 10 July 2000 - 02:39 pm | | For those interested , ' La Hollandaise ' is now on public display again , at the Tate Modern gallery on Bankside , in London. The name - the Dutch Girl - is a mystery , but the blurb by the picture says Sickert is supposed to have painted it , a picture of a prostitute , after being inspired by a novel he was reading at the time ( c. 1904 ). If I remember right the novel was by Balzac.
Anyway , go see it if you can. Its not sinister really , but even a cursory glance will show you its a weird painting. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Monday, 10 July 2000 - 03:17 pm | | Simon,
You should be very careful seeing things too much in paintings. I regularly use scenes that stick into my head after reading a book. And a repeating feature, although more hidden nowadays, is the subject death in a melancholy way: either in the story, or the figure itself is a ghost, or a confrontation with the symbol of it, or in a memory of someone I knew that has died. Some people call it sinister, some have commented that they "would not like to be in my shoes" because they think I'm suicidal or somesorts, while this wish not once in my life has entered my thoughts. I know it is sinister and frightening, but it is nothing more than symbolism, a confrontation for the spectator and a powerimage. As a spectator of art, never make the fault of interpreting too much of the character of the artist into it. Of course an artist brings his own feelings into it, but most of the time superblown like an actor (and this can be very fatuiging). But a lot is made just for the viewers reactions, be it good or bad. As a youngster I was upfronted by such declerations, now I enjoy them, because it shows more of the thinking world of the spectator than me. Artists many times are called exhibitionists, but you can be sure they are voyeurs too. If you look at a painting, forget the artist, but hold the taught of how you feel about it. If it frightens you, if you think it is weird, obscure, sinister, ask yourself why you think that: search for 'your' fears, not the obsessions of an artist. |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 10 July 2000 - 03:39 pm | | | Er... I am an artist ! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 10 July 2000 - 09:02 pm | | G'day Simon,
SO AM I mate!!!!!!!!!
and I once wrote an article for 'Ripperoo' on this painting: 'La Hollandaise', concluding that it was stupid to 'see' anything in it!
I'll dig up what I wrote and argue some more, once I get home from lunch!
Leanne! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 11 July 2000 - 01:22 am | | G'day Simon,
By calling 'La Hollandaise' an 'abomination', I think this is an insult to Walter Sickert's art and his model. I can see a nose and the eyes are dark but well defined. She is not a beautiful woman and her face is not the 'Centre of Interest' in this painting. Her naked thigh is, as it is closest to a viewer of the artwork.
Leanne! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 11 July 2000 - 01:26 am | | G'day Simon,
Have you studied the art movement 'Impressionism'?
Leanne! |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Tuesday, 11 July 2000 - 04:35 am | | Simon- Then I don't understand, why you want to turn your opinion into the thoughts of another one.
Then you have experienced that a lot of viewers would have made comments on your character only by some of your art, while you internally laughed with it, or if it was a good thoughtful opinion said to yourself 'never thought about such an explenation, I should keep that in mind'.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 11 July 2000 - 03:51 pm | | Jill , I recently organised a local exhibition of my paintings and I was very pleased with some of the comments I recieved , they were very complimentary ( I wasn't expecting much praise ! ).
As an artist I did attempt to pass my views and opinions on myself , life , the world and other topics onto my audience , as any other artist who is not merely an illustrator also tries to do. I am a musician too and when I am writing my songs I also try to do this. I believe this is what Sickert did too , in his paintings.
The face of ' La Hollandaise ' is , when you look at it closely , a deathshead IMHO. |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 11 July 2000 - 03:54 pm | | Leanne , Stephen Knight may have said ' La Hollandaise ' was an abomination , but I didn't. You must admit though , it is not a pleasant picture - it is gloomy and disturbing.
Can you scan it up for everyone to see ? ( Everything I scan seems to be about 600KB long , no matter what its size and too big for the Casebook ! ) |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Tuesday, 11 July 2000 - 04:33 pm | | Simon,
I'm glad you had a lot of praise, so congrats (by the way I woul dbe interested to see some work of you if ever possible, just healthy interest). All I really wanted to say, that yes a painting can be very gloomy (and intended like that), with a picture of death right in your face, but that doesn't make someone a murderer, a suicidal person or a conspiritor. I get praise too, but only the ones who can see through the first frightening impact have real admiration for it, but all the others are bothered by the subjects and can't look any further.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Tuesday, 11 July 2000 - 06:11 pm | | Hello Tom. When dealing with the rambling, ever changing story that is Joseph Sickert's, it is best to take a look at as many of his different statements as possible in order to gauge their overall accuracy.
The very first time that the world was told "the truth" about the Ripper murders by Joseph Sickert was in the 1973 BBC television show, Jack the Ripper. Sickert tells us that when Alice Margaret was about seven years old, in 1892, she was run down in Drury Lane and that she spent time in Charing Cross Hospital until she recovered. Only the mention of the one attack on the child.
Two years later, in 1975, Elwyn Jones and John Lloyd's excellent book, The Ripper File, which was based on the earlier BBC Television show, was released. Sickert was re-interviewed and his story put down in writing for the first time. Again, only one attack is mentioned but not on the child Alice Margaret, it is her mother Annie Elizabeth Crook who was run down! Sickert now claimed that this attack occurred in the Drury Lane area and happened before the Ripper murders had started. Annie Elizabeth was sent to a hospital in Fulham where she was kept in confinement until her death. This is not only false, it also contradicts what Sickert had originally claimed was the fate of Annie Elizabeth Crook (which was also false).
With the publication of Stephen Knight's 1976 book The Final Solution we get a third version of events. Sickert now claimed that there were two attacks on the child Alice Margaret. The first in Fleet Street or the Strand, in 1888, in which the child was nearly killed, but after months in St. Bartholomew's Hospital she recovered. The second attack was in February 1892, when Alice Margaret was crossing Drury Lane with an elderly relative. The child was not badly hurt on this occasion and was taken to hospital unconscious but released after a day, having been treated for a concussion.
Another book, another story. Marvin Fairclough's execrable The Ripper and the Royals, printed in 1991, offers a fourth version of events. Now we are told that the first attack on the little girl takes place in late 1888, after the Ripper murders and that she is taken, not to St. Bartholomew's Hospital, but to "the nearest hospital, the Charing Cross in Chandos Place, just behind the Strand." The second attempt is barely mentioned other than it had happened on 3rd February 1892.
If you thought that this was the end to it, you'd be wrong. Remember the "elderly relative" mentioned in Stephen Knight's book? (She was "a woman friend" in the original, 1973 version), she is now supposed to be Florence Pash, artist and friend to Walter Sickert. In her 1990 book, Sickert and the Ripper Crimes, Jean Overton Fuller gives us Florence's version.
"...in broad daylight, near Charing Cross. Coming from St. Martin's Lane...
‘On Trafalgar Square, then, in front of St. Martin's-in-The-Field.?'
‘Not in front of the church. Where it broadens out at the junction with the Strand, near Charing Cross.'"
The location sounds like the first attack but it takes place at the time of the second attack. In all probability, there was some sort of accident involving Alice Margaret Crook, Florence Pash and a coach but that is all it was, an accident.
Wolf. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 11 July 2000 - 06:43 pm | | G'day,
Leanne! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 11 July 2000 - 06:55 pm | | G'day,
NUP! can't do it!
Leanne! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 12 July 2000 - 01:27 am | | G'day Simon,
I just re-read your post made on 'Tuesday July 11 2000 3:15pm'. When you said: 'not merely an illustrator', I hope you didn't have me in mind!
I've studied the elements and principals of design, in painting, page-layout and graphic design. I've studied all the artistic movements, in painting, architecture, industrial design, the lot.
The first 'Impressionism' exhibition began in 1874 and it provoked sensation. Artists began to depict the effects of light, and 'feeling' into their work, instead of painting realistically.
In 1866, Brazille painted 'Monet in Bed after his accident', which shows a dark, faced person in bed.
In 1869, Manet painted 'Olympia', of a naked woman on a bed.
In 1887, Gauguin painted 'Nevermore, O Tahiti', a naked woman on a bed, and she's not pretty!
By 1888 the 'Impressionist' craze had spread to England and was considered by many as: 'ugly, sloppily and badly painted, badly drawn, of a poor colour, everything that is miserable' and now you've added the word: 'deathshead'!
Leanne! |
Author: Thomas Ind
Wednesday, 12 July 2000 - 08:10 am | | Wolf
Thanks. Great information |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 12 July 2000 - 05:10 pm | | Hi Leanne:
Walter Sickert's "La Hollandaise" to my mind is not representative of impressionism. The greatest of the impressionists, e.g., Monet, with his waterlilies at Giverny or Renoir, with his paintings of cornfields with poppies, painted much more attractive works than this work of Sickert's. Bear in mind too that Simon's labeling of "La Hollandaise" as a "death's head" is another attempt on his part to impute inside knowledge of the Ripper murders on the part of Walter Sickert, which the painter may or may not have possessed.
Chris George |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 12 July 2000 - 05:14 pm | | Hi all:
I have just come across what appears to be a recent webpage which covers Sickert, Freemasonry, and the Ripper Murders. Go to http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dwo/curious.htm
Chris George |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 12 July 2000 - 05:51 pm | | When I look at the face of the woman , close up , in the picture of ' La Hollandaise ' , I see a skull face. Thats what I see. From that alone it is simply not possible to impute that Sickert had insider knowledge of the Ripper crimes , it could be that he simply had a taste for the macabre.
The main evidence that Sickert knew about the Ripper is that he told Florence Pash around 1920 that he did , and was painting clues into his paintings to reveal the truth , for whatever reason he did not want to come out and say anything directly. Around this time a version of his famous painting ' Ennui ' appears with a gull painted onto the shoulder of Queen Victoria. This gull does not appear in the earlier version of the painting nor on the preliminary sketch for that painting. The inference is clear : the ' gull ' is Gull , the Queen's Physician. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 12 July 2000 - 10:41 pm | | G'day Simon and Chris especially,
Chris: Have you seen Monet's painting: 'Camille Monet on her Deathbed' (1879)? It aint beautiful and has been described as a 'macabre work'.
BINGO!!!...In my book titled 'The Chronical Of Impressionism', I just found:
'Sickert Walter Richard (1860-1942). A British artist who studied at the Slade under Legros, then worked in Whistler's studio. He became friendly with Degas in 1883 and his paintings, which often depict scenes from urban life, show Degas' influence. From 1899 to 1905 he lived in Dieppe, where he got to know Gauguin. Sickert did much to popularize Impressionism, both through his writings and as a member of the New English Art Club'.
Leanne! |
Author: robert goodwin
Friday, 15 September 2000 - 06:57 am | | | Hi, I've just been reading about the alleged accidents involving Alice and Annie Crook/Cook. There is obviously some debate on where, when, how and the importance of these events. Has anyone thought to have a look in the relevant newspapers of the time? I would do it myself but I'm currently living in Denmark so it's a little difficult! |
Author: Nick Dogan
Monday, 25 September 2000 - 06:01 pm | | Hi.Does anyone know which book on Sickert showed preliminary drawings of 'Ennui' one of which had a face at right angles to the head in place of the gull.
Thanks a lot
Nick |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Tuesday, 20 February 2001 - 10:56 pm | | I am serious about this question: Before John
Sickert, Stephen Knight, and the others popularized the Sickert - Eddy - Crook - Netley
theory of Jack the Ripper, how well known or
regarded was Walter Sickert as a painter or
leader of English Impressionism? I mean, did the
publicity of the Sickert Ripper theory actually
enhance Sickert's reputation as an artist? |
Author: Judith Stock
Wednesday, 21 February 2001 - 01:00 am | | Sickert was a well known and respected artist, both in his lifetime and after he died. I've seen the lovely sketch that hangs in Churchill's home, and can see why he was popular. His
Camden Town Murders are among my favorites, simply because they are so very mysterious..........and all of us here do love a mystery!!
Cheers,
Judy Stock |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 21 February 2001 - 05:13 pm | | Dear Jeff,
Somewhere there hangs a Sickert picture called
'Jack the Ripper's Bedroom'. It is mentioned in the A-Z.
Love,
(In the dog-house!)
Rosemary |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 21 February 2001 - 06:41 pm | | Manchester City art gallery , Rosemary.
I went up last year , but it was closed for renovation ; it may be open again now though.
Simon |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 21 February 2001 - 07:16 pm | | Dear Simon,
A very gloomy painting in a very gloomy room. Needs cleaning.
Love,
(a gloomy)
Rosemary |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Wednesday, 21 February 2001 - 09:49 pm | | I guess I should spell out the question I asked
a little more. Did the rumours about Sickert
and the Ripper Mystery enhance the value or his
paintings on the market?
I was aware that Sickert did the series about
the murder of Ms Dimmock in Camden Town, but
I did not know about the painting of Jack the
Ripper's room.
Jeff Bloomfield |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 22 February 2001 - 03:15 pm | | Dear Jeff,
Jack the Ripper's BEDROOM. |
Author: Chris Scott
Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 08:55 am | | Hi
Thought folk might be interested in this articale in the local (Kent UK) Newspaper:
From THANET TIMES 15 January 2002
Jack the Ripper traced to village
The crazed killer of five prostitutes in old London town has been revealed as a former St Peter's man.
(NB St Peter's is a small village in east Kent UK)
American crime writer Patricia Cornwell is convinced that artist Walter Sickert who spent eight years in Church Street was Jack the Ripper.
She spent two million pounds investigating the Whitechapel Murders in which five prostitutes were slaughtered.
The crimes took place between 31 August and 9 November 1888.
Sickert was an impressionist painter who had a fascination for the horrendous crimes, his relatives and friends claimed. There are many stories and allegations linking him to the killer.
The first was made in a book in 1990.
It claimed Sickert told his friend Florence Pash that he had seen the bodies of all the victims.
The Ripper cut the throats of his victims, sliced out their intestines and removed organs and skin.
Patricia Cornwell bought 32 of Sickert's paintings and many of his personal belongings to examine them for clues.
She claims the proof that Sickert was the Ripper is in the stationery they both used.
She said: "They were the same, with distinctive watermarks and edgings."
Chris S |
Author: Robert House
Monday, 28 January 2002 - 09:48 pm | | If anyone is interested, I have posted a photo of a Sickert painting at: http://web.mit.edu/dcraft/www/rh/images/sickert.jpg
This painting is "Maple Street, London" (1922). It hangs in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC. Next to it hangs another Sickert painting of a nude woman (a prostitute?) who is laying on a bed.
R. House |
|
|
|
|
