Author: Ky
Sunday, 15 December 2002 - 02:41 am |        |
Thanks again Chris,
You are As always helpful and (presumably) patient with a newby like me.
Now if I could get my hands on a copy of that guest book!
Ky |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 15 December 2002 - 02:10 pm | |
PETER BIRCHWOOD: Yes, I will. Please mail me your address so I can let you have a copy of the tape.
Chris, Ivor, Whoever ...
I'm pretty satisfied that Sickert had something to do with some of the letters.
The sum (pun intended) of all that?
Nothing.
I'm satisfied that he scribbled in the Cornwall guest house book, too.
Does it prove anything?
Yes, he went to Cornwall.
He wasn't Jack, she hasn't proven he was Jack, but her research is valid, it is new and it is ground breaking.
She should be welcomed to the arena, not scared away.
Regards
Peter |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 15 December 2002 - 03:16 pm | |
Hi, Peter:
You better check out the "Case Solved" board, Peter, as I may have identified the man behind the Maybrick Diary.
All the best
Chris |
Author: Crissy Burroughs
Sunday, 15 December 2002 - 05:45 pm | |
Dave,
Thank you, so much for the link to the Caleb Carr review. He is one of my favorite writers and it pleased me so much to read it. Thanks again!
Crissy |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Sunday, 15 December 2002 - 05:50 pm | |
Crissy, you're very welcome. I like him too.
Dave |
Author: Dean James Hines
Sunday, 15 December 2002 - 06:47 pm | |
Hi All,
Season Greetings to everyone. I've just popped home for a brief break and out of curiosity, and I thought being the pantomine season I'd check up what's the latest on the Cornwell/Sickert show. Taking a stance against Corwell's assumptions, as my previous discussions have layed out, I thought that being the Season of Good Will as well, I'd share some information. I recently, in my art history studies came across a book on memoirs relating to Sickert and although I am having trouble dating it there are some, if very brief references, to Jack the Ripper. Unfortunately my ongoing dissertation means that I am limited in pursuing this fully. The text may or not may further fuel the fire of debate that surrounds Sickert's whereabouts in 1888 but I still remain firmly in the 'Sickert is not the Ripper' corner and only cite this information for the sake of objective criticism. When I know more I shall let you know. Happy hols to everyone.
DJH |
Author: Vila
Sunday, 15 December 2002 - 10:37 pm | |
Howard!!!!
I do hope that you and your daughter are uninjured. And the teenage girl as well, of course. I didn't mean to start a trend among we Casebook posters. In case I have, everyone *please* wear your seatbelts and be on the lookout for driving hazards.
As to the car damage Howard, it does sound totaled... If the frame is bent it can be straightened, but the cost is prohibitive and the process usually doesn't work 100%. Transmissions are easy for a skilled mechanic to replace, but frame-straightening is more of an art form. I do hope that you had lots of insurance on the car. I fear the safest thing to do is buy another one.
I also hope the teenager had lots of insurance too, 'csuse she'll be the one buying your next car if so.
I send out my best wishes for you and hope you reap blessings in the future.
Vila |
Author: Billy Markland
Monday, 16 December 2002 - 02:14 pm | |
Vila, I suspect you may have started something here! I was involved in a small fender bender last Monday in Texas. No serious damage to me, I wish I could say the same about the rental car  !
Best of wishes,
Billy |
Author: stephen stanley
Monday, 16 December 2002 - 04:46 pm | |
As the Cornwell book has made the U.K. non-fiction top 10, I should have expected it....but it threw me today when doing the weekly shopping to see dozens of copies on sale in my local ASDA (that's Walmart in the U.S.)....mind you at less than £10 it's nearly worth throwing a copy in with the frozen peas & Christmas booze!!
Steve |
Author: Philip Rayner
Sunday, 29 December 2002 - 09:34 am | |
Hello all, my name is Phil Rayner and I am from Southeast England. (Turn left at London and stop before you fall into the sea.).
I have taken a quick look at the message boards and tried to assimilate the various opinions. There are many archives and I have a limited amount of time so I apologise if anything I say duplicates previous posts. I am familiar with many theories and am quite well versed in Ripper lore.
I first came across the Cornwell/Sickert theory via THAT documentary and it seemed to hang together if you make assumptions about the letters being genuine. There were gaps big enough to drive my car through but there was mention of a book. This would plug those gaps I felt. I have never been so wrong. I bought the book and there are even bigger gaps.
For me her theory was destroyed many years ago. Walter Sickert, she maintains, was the Ripper because he had operations which left him unable to have a normal sex life or children and therefore he wanted to revenge himself on womankind. Presumably she had no knowledge of Stephen Knight and the fact that he was the victim of a hoax perpetrated by Walter Sickert's son. Strange then that she mentions it in the book. It is one of the most damning sections. She relates the basic plot and then appends 'Or something like that.' Really gives you confidence in her research.
Her book flits about from subject to subject. I was nearly halfway through before I got to the first canonical murder. I definitely get the feeling that she reached her conclusion then attempted to find corroboration. I cannot in all honesty use the word evidence in conjunction with this theory. As has already been mentioned the most Ms C has managed to prove beyond doubt is that Sickert was influenced by the murders, as any artist or poet would have been.
Her 'proof' that Sickert was present for one murder is fascinating. He may have been present to murder Martha Tabran on Aug 6th, she says, because he was definitley in London on the 4th. They had these things called trains!
In some ways I feel sorry for the woman. I am sure she believes that she has solved the case. It seems to me that the title of the book (specifically the 'Case closed') is arrogant in the extreme and an insult to some very intelligent people whose research was much better. It also set her up to be ridiculed and shot down in flames.
These are only the main problems I have with the theory. Each page has me wondering at the sheer arrogance this woman displays. She has shown contempt for those who have an interest in the case, especially those who disagree with her. By now she must know that the feeling is mutual.
If I were a Sickert family member I would have been reaching for my lawyer as soon as the book hit the shelves. |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 11:27 am | |
Hi, all:
The BBC online site has material on Cornwell and her theory that Walter Sickert was the Ripper. Links lead to an article on Don Rumbelow's Ripper Walk and photographs of the murder sites today. Bookseller and writer Richard Shephard puts Cornwell's theory in the context of other theories on the case.
See
Stalking the Ripper
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: James Jeffrey Paul
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 11:48 am | |
I know that the man claiming to be Walter Sickert's illegitimate son later retracted the conspiracy theory that he told Stephen Knight, but was his claim to be a Sickert definitely disproved, as well?
And didn't he later retract his retraction and claim that some of the conspiracy theory, at least, really WAS true? And where is the fellow today? |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 12:29 pm | |
Hi, James
There was a recent post announcing that Joseph Sickert died last week (sorry, I don't remember which thread). I'm not very familiar his claims, so maybe someone else will come along and give you their views on it.
Best,
Dave |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 01:00 pm | |
Chris,
Thanks for that link. While listening to Mark Lawson's interview with Patricia Cornwell, the little snippet from The Archers preceeding the show made me smile.
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: John Savage
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 06:29 pm | |
James Jeffrey Paul
Joseph Sickert's claim first came to public view in the BBC TV series of 1973 ( see book: The Ripper File by Elwyn Jones). Stephen Knight later re wrote the story with his own conclusions, this being "Jack The Ripper - The Final Solution" 1976.
Some years later (in the 1980's) Joseph recanted his tale and this was told in the Sunday Times.
However he then told another version of his story to Melvyn Fairclough which was published in the book "The Ripper and the Royals" (1991)
In 1992 Paul Begg, Paul Feldman and Melvyn Fairclough interviewed Joseph's cousin, Ellen May Lackner, who said that parts of his story were true (JTR A-Z)
As far as I am aware his claims to descent from Walter Sickert or the Royal Family have never been proved.
If you have not yet read Stephen Knight's book, do give it a try, because, be it true or not, it is a facinating read; and in my view at least has had a lot to do with the increased interest in the case over the last 30 years.
Regards,
John Savage |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 09:51 pm | |
Stephen Knight reads like William J. Fishman. The experience is something like eating a plate of plain, unseasoned noodles, served at room temperature. Very bland. Like trying to hit an eephus pitch--you've got to supply all your own energy.
What I write doesn't read that way. I throw the fast ball right down the middle of the plate. If you can catch up to it, the ball will go a long way.
David |
Author: Alegria [Moderator]
Wednesday, 05 February 2003 - 07:03 am | |
Neagle,
Before you begin posting again, go back and read the rules. The one about thread hijacking is fairly self explanatory.
Posts Deleted. |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 03:41 pm | |
I haven't kept up with this thread for a while but thought I'd throw this in for what it's worth.
At the beginning of writing her book on Sickert/JTR, Patricia Cornwell said she didn't have an interest in the case. I have been motivated to read some of her fictional works, Scarpetta etc and, amazingly, in the first two that I've read, she mentions Jack the Ripper on more than one occasion.
So much for not having an interest in the case ...
Peter |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 04:43 pm | |
Hey, Peter
Since you're delving into her fiction, what do you think of it? It seemed to me the style she used for 'Portrait of a Killer' was much more suited to a novelist (the hypothetical meeting of the Elephant Man and Sickert, for example). I saw a few different examples that didn't belong in a non-fiction piece, but I thought would make great story ideas.
Listen, if you can dance like Michael Jackson, I'll manage you. We'll split the profits two ways (90-10). Since Monty is apparently extremely handsome, we'll have him as background.
And has the Cornwell appearance you attended aired yet?
Cheers,
Dave |
