|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 19 October 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects:
Cornwell Archives:
Archive through 19 October 2002
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Sunday, 11 August 2002 - 10:45 pm |        | LINK
This is a link to ABCnews.com...there is a new story out there about Patricia Cornwell and her pet suspect, Walter Sickert. Everyone has a great way of making their suspect seem like "the one"....I fall for all these stories. I don't believe she's on the right track but I'll still be reading that book when its out.
Of note the story states a possible DNA match from a Ripper Letter and a Sickert Letter. Maybe Sickert was a letter hoaxer?? |
Author: Dan Norder
Monday, 12 August 2002 - 04:15 am | | I saw the Primetime broadcast, it was such an exercise in poor thinking it wasn't funny.
As far as the DNA goes, originally no matches were found. Further testing supposedly found several different DNA types on the Sickert envelope and one of those supposedly matched DNA found on an obscure letter.
Assuming all these probablies pan out, all we have is someone linked to a Sickert envelope (possibly not even from the same time period) linked to a stupid letter. As I find it highly probable that the Ripper sent no letters -- and there's certainly no evidence that he did, other than wishful thinking -- this whole thing is a jumbled mess of half baked assumptions.
Assuming we put any faith in how she's conducted the DNA evidence, the best she is shown is that someone with access to a Sickert letter wrote a ripper letter, which is far more likely to suggest a hoax than anything else.
I wonder if they tested Cromwell to see if it isn't her DNA that was found. Wouldn't surprise me if that's what it turns out to be.
She says juries would convict Sickert based upon her evidence... but I find it much more likely that they would convict her of gross misconduct.
Dan |
Author: thom bratt
Monday, 12 August 2002 - 01:16 pm | | Dear Dan:
I think that you are being too hard on Ms. Cronwell. Although her evidence is not conclusive you must admit that no one has presented any conclusive evidence against any suspect. However, she has done something that no one else has be able to do so far and that is to obtain physical evidence, such as; DNA, water marks on two letters and--as presented on the latest ABC broadcast--an old hotel register with a JTR signature and sketches that could be Sickert's. This is not much but it is more than any one has be able to obtain against any suspect.
There seems to be a reluctance among ripperologest to accept Ms. Cornwell's choice (Sickert)as a viable suspect when they have accepted other people's suspects on nothing more than hearsay; perhaps it is just amateur sleuth jealousy.
I believe that Ms. Cornwell is on to something and she has enough circumstantial evidence to place Walter Sickert very high up on the long list of suspects. I hope she sticks to it and finds more physical evidence. I think she needs to fill in a few wholes and tie up a few loose ends but all in all she has presented a stronger case than I've seen so far from any one else. I feel if any one can solve this case she can. After all, she is not an amateur, she is a true detective.
I am probably one of a very few who truly wish to see this case solved. I want to know who was Jack The Ripper. Most buffs seem to want this mystery to live forever, if for any other reason than to assure them of a life long hobby.
Regards,
Thom |
Author: Maryam Moniri
Monday, 12 August 2002 - 03:11 pm | | | I have just one question in reference to Patricia's "investigation". She mentions that she interviewed Walter Sickert's only relative, whom happened to be is nephew. Why was Joseph Sickert not at all mentioned, brought up, or referenced in her $4 million + "investigation" You would think if she is dubbing JTR as Walter Sickert she would at least follow up on Stephen Knights interview w/Joseph Sickert. Knight's book which revealed to the world the Royal Consipiracy Theory is well known by not only Ripperologists, but anyone who is remotely interested in the case. Why didn't Patricia acknowledge this? Why did she not prove its truth or fiction? Very interesting.... I'm suprised noone else thought to ask her. |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Monday, 12 August 2002 - 03:45 pm | | Dear Maryam:
I'm confused, too, and I don't know if anyone has asked Ms. Cornwell about it.
Ms. Cornwell is convinced that a defect in Sickert's penis, coupled with his failure to procreate from any of his three marriages and numerous affairs, turned him into a serial killer. If this is true, then Joseph Sickert could not possibly be Walter Sickert's son. As far as I know, no one has questioned her about Joseph and no one has questioned Joseph's parental lineage. Perhaps another poster can clarify this?
Perhaps she will cover this in her book; I'm sure that she is not revealing all before its publication.
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Maryam Moniri
Monday, 12 August 2002 - 04:22 pm | | Divia,
Thank you so much for your comment, it made me laugh 
I just don't understand that in an age such as this, where every detail is investigated, critiqued, and reviewed that someone could overlook something as significant as this. I guess if you've got $4 million to spend, many things could be overlooked in order to benefit your cause.
I just want 5 min. with Patricia, to ask her about Joseph Sickert and to see what kind of reply she can come up with.
Anyone's thoughts??? |
Author: Dan Norder
Monday, 12 August 2002 - 08:52 pm | | Thom-
The main problem with Cromwell's "evidence" is that it has no bearing on determining who the Ripper was.
I could spend a million dollars trying to get DNA testing to match Sir Arthur Conan Doyle to a story written about a madman who kills unfortunates, but that has nothing to do with proving that he actually killed anyone.
The very best Cromwell has done is piss away money in trying to prove that Sickert was a prankster and a liar, and even that has been inconclusive. The matching watermarks are no proof at all, as anyone in the London area could have paper with the same watermarks... and who cares?
And the hotel register is a joke. So someone singed their name Jack the Ripper, I bet lots of people pulled stupid stunts like that. Even if Sickert doodled in the book, which hasn't been proven, it doesn't mean he was the one to put Rip's signature there. Even if you link the doodles to the signature, that is probably more likely evidence that he really wasn't Jack the Ripper than evidence that he was. We're supposed to believe that the real Jack went around signing his name on things? How silly.
This nonsense about other investigators not believing her because they are jealous and don't want the crime solved is another indication that her ego is the one that's severely overinflated.
Honestly, to call Cromwell a real detective due to prior work experience ignores the fact that she is a loose cannon with no concept of linking evidence to actual murders. It's enough to make me wonder if she hasn't tried to convict lots of other innocent people just to gain publicity for herself. She's a scary, scary woman.
I, personally, would like the case solved, but chasing after obscure hoax letters and tearing paintings open have a better chance of finding a piece of the True Cross than finding this particular serial killer.
It's really too bad she didn't spend the money in endeavors that make sense instead of chasing after a fringe suspect left over from the Royal Conspiracy nonsense.
Dan |
Author: Joseph P. Matthews
Monday, 12 August 2002 - 09:02 pm | | Does anyone know what letter Cornwell has supposedly used to find her DNA "evidence?"
Given that many, if not all, of the surviving Ripper letters are probably hoaxes, I fail to see how this could link Sickert to anything other than the role of a prankster.
So, if she indeed does have DNA that suggests that Walter Sickert wrote this Ripper letter, I am interested in seeing how she makes a case for its authenticity. After all, isn't that essential to her case?
Best wishes,
Joe |
Author: Dan Norder
Monday, 12 August 2002 - 09:36 pm | | On the Dateline piece, they showed the letter and explained that it was an obscure one that hadn't been in the archive and thus hadn't been covered with the standard protective material (heat sealed plastic). They had previously tested several other letters they considered to be from the Ripper, but because of the preservation process, the DNA was supposedly destroyed.
I get the idea that Cromwell and these archivists are under the impression that Jack wrote something on the order of at least 10 - 20 letters. I can't see how these people think the ones they did test were legit. (Alhough I personally believe none are.)
From rereading the story on the website at the URL above, it says that the DNA experts who find the link between the "ripper" letter DNA and the mishmash of DNA found on the Sickert letter believes it was only a coincidence that a match was shown, as DNA mixtures are difficult to match with any certainty. I missed this on the show when it aired because Cromwell immediately goes from saying, well, it's evidence of a possible match, to exaggerating it into further proof that she's right and everyone else -- including, presumably, the DNA experts -- are wrong.
Dan |
Author: Dan Norder
Monday, 12 August 2002 - 09:51 pm | | More info on the letter, from an archived chat with Cornwell posted at:
LINK
PATRICIA CORNWELL
This was a letter that was donated to the public record office in London around a year ago and, according to the public record office, had been in the possession of the 'Ripper' expert Donald Rumbelow.
The letter makes reference to the author's "murder of Mary Kelly" and it included an envelope with a postmark and a stamp. This particular letter was one of two alleged 'Ripper' letters that bore the watermark that is identical to the watermark on Walter Sickert's personal stationary at that time.
I don't know where the letter has been all these years. But there is absolutely no reason to suspect it is anything but authentic because, were it not, someone would have had to manufacture the postmark, the stamp and a watermark that was dated 1887, which I believe would have been impossible.
ABCNEWS.COM
How common was this watermark at the time?
PATRICIA CORNWELL
This particular paper manufacturer was very popular. However, it was a very high grade of paper and was not something that an ordinary person would use.
In fact, of all the alleged 'Ripper' letters in the public record office, and we're talking about at least 500, there were only two or possibly three letters that had any sort of watermark at all. Two of those were the ones that were identical to Sickert's personal stationary.
One thing the show did not make clear was that there were two 'Ripper' letters that bore this watermark Ñ one of them, which the police have always taken seriously, has been in their files since the beginning. The other was the recent one to turn up. |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Tuesday, 13 August 2002 - 01:17 am | | Dear Maryam:
It just reaffirms how people brush over the facts to make the story fit their theory!
I have a feeling that if you were to speak with Ms. Cornwell, she would brush over that little tidbit and say something about how no one knows for sure that Joseph was Walter's son, or something to that affect. Anyway, Joseph already admitted that the story he told Knight was made up.
And, in regards to the fine writing paper, lots of people would have had access to it. Even if you say that 1% of the London population had access to that paper, it would still be too many people to solely implicate Sickert.
Wolf wrote an excellent article for Ripper Notes (and it is posted here in the Dissertations) entitled "The Art of Murder"... if you haven't read it yet, then please do! As always, Wolf says it much better than I could ever try.
It's funny... one of my friends that knows of my interest in Jack the Ripper made a comment to me the other day; she said that at this point, whoever Jack was, it must be someone famous because that is all the information we have now. And in a way, she's right. We lost so much information in the blitz, and celebrities are researched and documented much more than nobodys. Which is why we have Royal Conspiracies, and accusations against famous writers and painters, and other persons of note (famous or infamous). I almost feel sorry for them!
I think that if Cornwell had done a little more research before ripping up a bunch of paintings (and boy, is the art society going ape over that!) and spending that much money on testing, she would have realized that she still would not have concrete proof that Sickert was the Ripper. For instance
1. How many people handled the paintings? Earlier fingerprints could be obscured by new ones.
2. What is the likelihood of finding DNA on anything that is so old and has been handled so much? I know they have pulled DNA from mummies, but this is different. They pulled body tissue from the inside or drilled for pulp in the teeth, and the mummies were, for the most part, undisturbed or sparingly handled.
3. Sickert changed the names of his paintings frequently. "The Camden Town Murder" painting was originally called "What Shall We Do For Rent?" or something like that, and it had an even earlier title as well. It is not clear that the woman is dead, and she doesn't look like Kelly in the picture. Her arms are not posed the same, for one thing. I know that there are others that Cornwell claims look like the murder victims, but I just don't see it.
Anyway, enough of this chattering! Have a great day!
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Robert Maloney
Tuesday, 13 August 2002 - 08:13 am | | My "game leg" tells me Ms. Cornwell "knows" more than we think she knows. I'm sure my Dadd, Richard, would have agreed with me.
Rob |
Author: P. Ingerson
Wednesday, 28 August 2002 - 01:19 am | | Hi all,
The silliest thing about all this, is that Cornwell's theory isn't even as original as she claims.
"The Secret Cases of Sherlock Holmes" is a collection of short stories by Donald Thomas in which the fictional detective investigates unsolved real-life mysteries (publ.1997 Pan Books, ISBN 0-330-36977-6). In story, "The Case of the Camden Town Murder," Holmes concludes that Sickert was a sexual killer. And Sherlock's case was based on looking at exactly the same Sickert painting that Cornwell ripped up to "prove" her case..!
Cheers,
Pi. |
Author: thom bratt
Wednesday, 28 August 2002 - 06:36 pm | | Dear Dan Norder,
Sorry for my delay in responding to your message posted August 12th, but regardless of the time laps I find that we do agree on one point, that is; the evidence presented in the ABC broadcast of Ms Cornwell's investigation of Walter Sickert is in itself inconclusive, I even said so in my earlier post. However, I believe what was presented in that broadcase was not all of her evidence, not all of her case. I am sure she has more evidence that will be explained in her book and I am hoping that she'll drive enough nails into this case to finally close it forever.
I did not know until recently that Walter Sickert has been a suspect since the 1960's. That being the case why are so many people upset with Ms Cornwell's assertions that he is the Ripper. These same people probably accept the Royal Conspiracy "nonsense" easier than the actuall evidence--although circumstantial--that Ms Cornwell has presented on an old acknowledged suspect. In studying the case I find that Walter Sickert's name pops up a surprising number of times for someone who would be considered a mere "fringe" suspect.
As for the hotel register, yes people play tricks and scribble false names about ("Killroy was here"); however the quick glimpse that they gave to us of the JTR signature in that hotel register looked to me very similar to the JTR signature in the "Dear Boss" letter. I believe Sickert could very well have been that much of an egotist that he would sign his name as JTR and then laugh about it later. After all there were a couple of laughs in the "Dear Boss" letter; I saved some of the proper red stuff in a ginger beer bottle over the last job....it went thick like glue and I cant use it. Red ink is fit enough I hope ha ha." Also; "They say I'm a doctor now...ha ha."
Whoever wrote this letter was having fun just like the person who signed that old hotel register was having fun and I don't believe that he was a prankster. I believe that he was a murderer.
Regards,
Thom |
Author: Dan Norder
Wednesday, 28 August 2002 - 07:45 pm | | Thom,
Well, you may certainly choose to believe that this person wasn't a prankster and was a murderer. But you need real evidence to show that your opinions are anything more than a personal hunch. And real evidence is sorely lacking.
The largest problem is that you think someone who wrote letters and signed a fake name in a hotel register (and said person or persons have not been proven to be Sickert yet) must be the murderer, yet there were literally hundred of letters pretending to be from the killer and many contradict each other or otherwise are obviously not from the same hand. Why then would you pick certain letters and certain jokes and suddenly elevate them to true evidence of a real crime? There has to be a reason before anyone has cause to believe you -- a reason other than being convenient for your Sickert theory.
We also know from police arrests and such that many people hinted to others or even said outright that they were the killer. These people are called cranks. Cranks aren't taken seriously today and, to its credit, the police back then didn't take most of them seriously either. Sickert was a known crank. That's one of many reasons why he doesn't seem like a credible suspect to be a real killer.
But then if we ever get any real evidence to link a letter writer to the crimes (and then Sickert to *that* letter) or Sickert directly to the murders then someone finally is getting somewhere. Cornwell is going to have to have a whole heck of a lot more credible information in her book than just the character assasinations she's given in public so far before she can be taken seriously.
Dan |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Wednesday, 28 August 2002 - 11:45 pm | | Dear Thom"
That being the case why are so many people upset with Ms Cornwell's assertions that he is the Ripper.
This is what I think (and comments from the Peanut Gallery are, as always, welcome):
1. She spent a lot of money on paintings that she ended up destroying looking for DNA evidence. The fine art community was shocked and outraged at this. Of course, Ms. Cornwell paid for them, could do with them as she wished, but Sickert was an accomplished artist in his own right, Royal Conspiracy or no. Many art lovers feel that works of art truly belong to everyone to enjoy, contemplate, and learn from. It was somewhat fruitless to look for DNA or fingerprints on the paintings; they had been handled, cleaned, etc. many times throughout time and there was little to no chance of finding any.
2. Ms. Cornwell spent a lot of money on testing that returned inconclusive results. We at the Casebook message boards expect people to back up their statements with facts. To tell everyone that you are staking your reputation on your theory and support it with weak circumstantial evidence and no scientific data... well, I'm sorry, I laughed when I heard it. I found it laughable, and I suppose some others do too.
3. Ms. Cornwell writes fiction for a living. It is difficult for some people to take her seriously.
4. As Martin Fido pointed out before, the publishers push for a conclusion to the book naming a suspect as the Ripper. They would rather have a book that supports one theory because it sells better than a reference book.
A. What good would it do for Ms. Cornwell to research the Ripper case and write a book that was about all the most likely theories without saying on the last page "This is the Ripper"?
B. I know she was doing research for something else, but if you see an opportunity to squeeze another book out of it... why not?
I agree with you; she must be holding the aces to her chest until the book comes out. Or, maybe she isn't. Maybe it is just a way to generate more publicity for her book. Some of us that think she's barking up the wrong tree will still buy/read her book.
However, in Ms. Cornwell's defense, all of the current theories are based on circumstantial evidence, some more credible than others. To dismiss her theory because it is speculation and circumstantial would be like dismissing Tumblety, Maybrick, and all others that are currently suspected.
I will more than likely read her book to see if she's been holding aces or if she's bluffing. I'm sure that there will be many people discussing the book after it comes out. That is, if she wasn't bluffing after all.
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Shana Mcnelly
Sunday, 01 September 2002 - 11:59 pm | | All of the people above,
"But you need real evidence to show that your opinions are anything more than a personal hunch. And real evidence is sorely lacking." ~Dan Norder
Can someone PLEASE show me some real evidence in any of the other suspect cases?
The fact of the matter is, We have no clue who the ripper was. And we will most likely never find out. All we have are these ideas, hunches, and thoughts.
As I have said before, Patricia Cornwell has her mind in the right track. And as Dan Norder has said that the DNA is'nt a thing, at least Cornwell has an idea. And is trying to back it up.
It almost seems that these other suspects are coming up because they were suppose to have been seen with one of the prostitutes and then the one dissapeared, then it seems all other evidence is gone...Only one thing can make a suspect a suspect, and then it can all be downhill from that, and STILL be considered a suspect, no matter if the only idea they have is he was a doctor. And thats not real evidence.
Im going to read Cornwells book, So much of this evidence that I've heard and researched about JTR and Sickert seem to fit. And though Im not going to back up the DNA evidence 100% Im not going to doubt it and throw it on the curb either.
I still agree with Cornwell, and I might change my mind someday..I might not...oh well. And Patricia Cornwell might have the best idea or the worst..but who can tell.
Sometimes the thing you least expect can be the thing you search for all your life.
I just dont think its right for people to come up and say basiclly "That can't be right. You can think that but it cant be right. Theres no evidence and that person doesnt know what she is talking about" etc etc etc, because I can probably look at every JTR suspects story, and reasons as a suspect, and say the exact same thing. Everyone has their idea, everyone has their hunch, nobodys right, nobodys wrong. And sometimes you just have to deal with the fact that the Jack The Ripper killings might never be solved unless we can get a time machine.
And whats the point anyways? If we did find out it was sickert..what could we do? "Kill Him!"? No punishment is more hurtful then allready being dead.
I would love to find out who the ripper really was..just to say.."So..he/she did it...hmmm" and learn more about that person..motive...etc etc. But I really dont see it happening anytime soon. |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Monday, 02 September 2002 - 12:36 am | | Dear Shana:
The fact of the matter is, We have no clue who the ripper was. And we will most likely never find out. All we have are these ideas, hunches, and thoughts.
Well, that's basically what I said: "However, in Ms. Cornwell's defense, all of the current theories are based on circumstantial evidence, some more credible than others. To dismiss her theory because it is speculation and circumstantial would be like dismissing Tumblety, Maybrick, and all others that are currently suspected."
It almost seems that these other suspects are coming up because they were suppose to have been seen with one of the prostitutes and then the one dissapeared, then it seems all other evidence is gone...Only one thing can make a suspect a suspect, and then it can all be downhill from that, and STILL be considered a suspect, no matter if the only idea they have is he was a doctor. And thats not real evidence.
Actually, I don't think that the suspects were identified as having been seen with the victims before the murders. All the cases are built on circumstantial evidence. Not one of them would garner a conviction (some *might* gain an indictment) in a court of law at this point. Ms. Cornwell states that what she has dug up on Sickert would be enough to convict him in a jury trial. Well, that remains to be seen. From what she has told the world so far, I disagree. But we don't have all the information yet, we will have to wait for her book. However, I wonder why you think that she is on the right track? I am not dismissing your opinion, I really am interested, as I am in nearly all the theories. One more point: I noticed that the suspects page at Casebook does not include all the people that have been suspected as being the Ripper. Perhaps one of the other suspects is the real culprit?
Everyone has their idea, everyone has their hunch, nobodys right, nobodys wrong. And sometimes you just have to deal with the fact that the Jack The Ripper killings might never be solved unless we can get a time machine.
This is what I love about Casebook. The mystery will never be solved. We can continue to debate and investigate until the mad cows come home. Nobody's wrong, and nobody's right. However, some people are more right than others. Some theories are more farfetched than others (Royal Conspiracy and Carroll come to mind) and some are more thought-provoking or controversial than others. It is great fun diving into the history and separating myth from fact.
Warm regards from the devil's advocate,
Divia |
Author: Michael Raney
Wednesday, 04 September 2002 - 05:14 pm | | Divia darling,
Well said! Well said!
Mikey |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Wednesday, 04 September 2002 - 10:35 pm | | Dear Mikey:
Thank you! *curtsy*
*smooch*
Divia |
Author: thom bratt
Thursday, 12 September 2002 - 06:53 pm | | Dear Divia,
Thank you for responding to my post. When I posed the question; "why are so many people upset with Ms. Cornwell's assertions that he is the Ripper," I was referring to the fact that he had already been a suspect since the 1960's...or so I've heard. Therefore, since he was already accepted by many experts as a viable suspect, why are these same people in a dither over Ms. Cornwell's assertions? I would think that people who have already accepted him as a suspect would welcome new evidence, circumstantial or not, that could build a stronger case against him.
You mentioned that the 'fine art community' was shocked and outraged that Ms. Cornwell destroyed some of Sickert's paintings. I did not know that any paintings were destroyed. I believe it was mentioned in the ABC broadcast that one painting was accidentally torn. Regardless, Ms. Cornwell's handling of the paintings has no bearing on whether Sickert is the Ripper or not. If the people who criticize Ms. Cornwell's choice of Sickert as the Ripper solely because they are outraged by her handling of his paintings then they are completely missing the point.
If Ms. Cornwell does not revel enough evidence in her book to conclude that Sickert was the Ripper then she must answer to the fine art community, but on the other hand if she does have conslusive evidence, circumstantial or not, I feel that the evidence will vindicate her methods
Regards,
Thom |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Thursday, 12 September 2002 - 08:08 pm | | Dear Thom:
When I posed the question; "why are so many people upset with Ms. Cornwell's assertions that he is the Ripper," I was referring to the fact that he had already been a suspect since the 1960's...or so I've heard. Therefore, since he was already accepted by many experts as a viable suspect, why are these same people in a dither over Ms. Cornwell's assertions? I would think that people who have already accepted him as a suspect would welcome new evidence, circumstantial or not, that could build a stronger case against him.
This was just one point that I posted; many art lovers could care less about the identity of the Ripper. The thought that a work of art would be destroyed (and some would argue that a tear in a sound piece would mark it as "destroyed") in a quest for Jack the Ripper is, in their minds, ludicrous. Ms. Cornwell has put a slight spin on Sickert's involvement in the Whitechapel murders. As stated before, he was thought to be an accomplice in the "Royal Conspiracy" theory. Ms. Cornwell seems to believe that Sickert acted alone, whereas the Royal Conspiracy theory names three involved in the crimes. I suggest that you read the Royal Conspiracy piece on the Suspects page of Casebook. It has the story regarding Sickert's alleged involvement. There's probably a lot more to it, too... but I'm too sick and lazy today to go look it up and quote everything. I'm not recalling every theory containing Sickert, but I am fairly certain that Sickert was not mentioned until the 1970's, when Joseph Sickert came forward with his piece of the tale. If this is incorrect, someone please correct me. My ear is still quite painful and I just don't feel like going back and confirming that statement right now. Maybe later.
By the way, I went back and reread my post; I used "paintings" because, according to the ABC website:
She bought up 30 of Sickert's paintings, some costing as much as $70,000, only to tear some of them up to look for clues. She bought his painting table and had forensic experts scour it for fingerprints. She visited the scenes of the Ripper's crimes, and the modest graves of his victims.
and: Cornwell's team also tore apart several of her Sickert paintings, scrutinizing the frames and canvas for fingerprints or traces of blood, but found nothing. It was the same story with his painting table.
And on the subject of the fine arts community being shocked and outraged, I offer this tidbit from The Guardian:
But Cornwell's claims - which are to form the basis of her next book - were met with derision yesterday by Sickert experts and biographers outraged that one of his paintings had been sacrificed "to add credence to this silly theory". Their only consolation was that Cornwell appears to have paid well above the market rate for her collection.
Even so, one of the London dealers who sold her two Sickerts this year said Cornwell had "gone beyond the pale". Andrew Patrick, of the Fine Arts Society, who refused to say which paintings she had bought from him, said: "If as is claimed a painting was cut up, that is very wrong. Everyone knows this stuff about Sickert is nonsense. He loved these dramatic titles, and to play with the idea of menace."
Richard Shone, who curated the last big Sickert show at the Royal Academy in London in 1992, said: "I can't believe she has done this, it's such a red herring. It all sounds monstrously stupid to me. Is she so obsessed that she doesn't mind the destruction of a painting by such a very fine artist to add credence to this silly theory? If even Sickert were Jack the Ripper it would not justify this. It's like taking a Caravaggio apart to investigate the stabbing he was involved in. It's mad."
You also stated: Regardless, Ms. Cornwell's handling of the paintings has no bearing on whether Sickert is the Ripper or not. If the people who criticize Ms. Cornwell's choice of Sickert as the Ripper solely because they are outraged by her handling of his paintings then they are completely missing the point.
Again, it was mainly the fine art community that objected to the mishandling of Sickert's work. They don't care who the Ripper was. Personally, I am not interested in Sickert's work. However, I do find it rather silly to destroy a painting looking for the kind of evidence that Ms. Cornwell was looking for, for reasons I have already posted.
Again, I will state that Ms. Cornwell is probably holding back her aces on her theory. Otherwise, why would we bother buying her book if she tells us how it ends before it even hits the stands? We shall see how much "proof" she has dug up on Sickert, and I'm certain that there will be much discussion on the subject afterwards. Unless, of course, it's a load of rubbish.
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Dan Norder
Thursday, 12 September 2002 - 08:35 pm | | >Therefore, since he was already accepted by many experts as a viable suspect
No experts ever claimed he was a viable suspect. Some amateurs claimed he was involved in a crazy plot that all experts ridiculed, and now that he has been singled out as the sole supposed murderer he's still pretty damned silly as a suspect.
>I believe it was mentioned in the ABC broadcast that one painting was accidentally torn.
No, several paintings were destroyed deliberately.
Maybe you should go read about all of this before you weigh in with an opinion.
Dan |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Thursday, 12 September 2002 - 08:53 pm | | Dear Dan:
Thanks for the confirmations. My greatest fear is that I will post something that will be immediately attacked as a falsehood.
Ah, now to my hot tub, then hot water bottle, hot tea, and curl up with hot Caleb Carr's Killing Time for a bit. I might check the boards again before retiring.
Making my way to the bath,
Divia |
Author: Jack Traisson
Thursday, 12 September 2002 - 10:58 pm | | Hi All,
Walter Sickert as a suspect has been bandied about
longer than most people realize; long before
Joseph Gorman starting weaving his fantastic tale
(which initially never involved Walter in the
crimes of JtR).
In 1947, Osbert Sitwell published 'A Free House
or The Artist as Craftsman: Being the Walter
Walter Richard Sickert.' where he tells the story
of Sickert's claim to have lived in a room
formerly occupied by a veterinary student
suspected of being JtR. Sitwell repeats
this tale in his 1950 book 'Noble Essences or
Courteous Revelations: Being a Book of Characters
and the Fifth and Last Volume of Left Hand,
Right Hand' (how's that for a title!).These books
started the intitial whisperings.
Also, if Jean Overton Fuller's account in
'Sickert and the Ripper Crimes' of Florence
Pash's story is accurate, then the latter was
talking about the Sickert connection around 1948.
Colin Wilson was certainly aware of Sickert as a
suspect, so to Donald McCormick, as he relates
the story in 'The Identity of JtR' (1970 ed.),
before Joseph Gorman came in to public view.
Sickert's alleged involvement in the Whitechapel
Murders is long and strange, but as Dan, and
Divia have already pointed out, never as a viable
suspect. Even Melvin Faiclough now admits to
being taken in by Joseph Gorman's stories.
Cheers,
John. |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Thursday, 12 September 2002 - 11:46 pm | | Dear John:
Thanks for that clarification. As I sit here, nursing my sick ear, my sick head, etc., I am glad that someone else did the legwork for me. I think my legs are the only things working right now, apart from my achey fingers... who knows how long they will last?!?
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Stan Russo
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 12:48 pm | | John,
Just to clarify. Walter Sickert was never considered a suspect, outside of whispers, which we can not base in fact, until Donald McCormick mentions he might have been thought to be the murderer. McCormick uses Sickert basically as a means of eliminating M. J. Druitt, to push for his own suspect Vassily Konovalov.
Sitwell was a friend of Sickert and relays the veterinary story as something that Sickert would tell his friends, but never implies that he may have been the murderer.
McCormick, who is a proven liar was the first to drag the tilte of suspect onto the painter Walter Sickert.
STAN |
Author: Jack Traisson
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 04:35 pm | | Hi Stan,
Your post is correct but it doesn't clarify mine.
My point was to show that prior to Gorman
showing up 1973, and Knight's 'Final Solution'
in 1976, implicating Walter Sickert, that the
artist's name was known in association with
the case.
McCormick's credibility is not an issue because
we are only dicussing his publication of Sickert's
name as a JtR suspect. I mentioned the McCormick
reference merely to show that the Sickert name
was not pushed forward out of the blue. It was
there already.
In Robert Emmons' 1941 book 'The Life and Opinions
of Walter Richard Sickert' he mentions this little
story: "He wore a loud check coat, long to the
ankles, and carried a little bag for his drawings.
One night in Copenhagen Street a party of young
girls fled from him in terror, yelling,
'Jack the Ripper, Jack the Ripper!'"
I am suggesting that between Emmons, Sitwell,
and other stories floating around in the 1940's,
until McCormick in 1970 that Walter Sickert's
name was connected to the Ripper case. I am
also saying (as a logical assumpion) that it is
almost a certainty that someone before
McCormick offered him up as a suspect,
though not in print.
Cheers,
John |
Author: Timsta
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 05:33 pm | | Jack:
Wow. You gotta be pretty scary to frighten the locals in Copenhagen St. I had a friend who used to live on the York Way Estate *shudder*.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Stan Russo
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 05:56 pm | | John,
You are correct that Robert Emmons relayed the 1888 Copenhagen Street story in 1941. He does not however make the leap that Sickert was considered a suspect.
In 1948, Florence Pash, a close personal friend of Sickert, and possible lover of the painter told a story to Violet Fuller that Sickert must have seen the bodies in order to describe them. Jean Overton Fuller, in 1990, makes the leap that Sickert was 'JTR'.
Yes Sickert's name was connected to the 'JTR' legend before the 1973 debacle by Joseph Gorman, but the first person to make this public knowledge was in fact Donald McCormick. And Mccormick has never revealed his sources regarding Sickert.
And now we have Cornwell ...
Heaven help us
STAN |
Author: Eliza Cline
Thursday, 17 October 2002 - 01:41 pm | | People who think Cornwell has other proof up her sleeve about Sickert are just indulging in wishful thinking. I am quite sure she has nothing more than what she has revealed. Which means that she has no hard evidence whatsoever. I am a fan of her books but I am shocked that she appears to have gone over the edge on the question of JTR. There are so many other more credible suspects out there which she has ignored.
Sickert is simply not credible as the Ripper. The idea that the maniacal killer of Mary Jane Kelley could then de-escalate his murders to just ordinary stabbings; the idea that Sickert would choose to commit his murders in public streets when he had several out-of-the-way studios; the idea that he would target the poorest of poor women, rather than those of his own age and class; are just some of the many problems with her theory. |
Author: Maryam Moniri
Thursday, 17 October 2002 - 02:27 pm | | Great thoughts Eliza!
I personally agree with you 100%. There are just too many holes in Cornwells theory, too many unanswered questions or questions which she is avoiding. Personally, I think that Cornwell knows she invested too much of her time and money to indulge any of these unanswered questions and holes. If you had spent millions of dollars and wasted the time of valuable scientists and theorists then why would you want to combat other theories. We shall see what happens when her book is published and the world can see how ridiculous her ideaologies and theories are. |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Thursday, 17 October 2002 - 04:46 pm | | I have to chime in here. I do not know if anyone brought this up but Cornwell shoots herself in the foot. One of the claims that Cornwell made on the air was that Sickert never painted anything he had not seen. She then shows a painting of woman lying down. In the painting, the woman is wearing a pearl necklace. Cornwell then shows a morgue photo of Kate Eddowes. She then states that Sickert painted the picture from memory. She states that only he would have known what Eddowes would have looked like lying there in Mitre Square.
The problem is she shows Sickert’s painting, and then she shows the MORGUE PHOTO both are identical. It is obvious that sickert did not paint Eddowes as he saw her in Miter Square. He painted her as he saw her in the photo.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Stan Russo
Thursday, 17 October 2002 - 05:57 pm | | Eliza and all,
It is a naive approach to dismiss another's theory, firstly before even reading about it, and secondly because it is based on no hard evidence.
Firstly, we don't know what the man-hater Cornwell's book will display. We don't know what she analyzed, other than paintings, or what she has come up with in the way of a plausible theory.
Secondly, there is NO HARD EVIDENCE AGAINST ANY SUSPECT. From your argument regarding this, 'Jack the Ripper' did not exist, because no suspect is plausible due to the absence of hard evidence AGAINST EVERY SUSPECT.
The truth is no one will ever know what really happened, and this is why theories are presented. Lack of vision is what will keEp this case in the 19th century. Maybe we should all enter the 21st century and embrace new ideas, until they are disproven, or at least until we can actually read them.
STAN |
Author: Eliza Cline
Thursday, 17 October 2002 - 09:44 pm | | | I think there IS what I would call hard evidence (thought not much): there are witness descriptions, the "From Hell" letter, etc., but you are right that what evidence there is can't be conclusively matched to any suspect. But I think the evidence that does exist, as well as plain common sense, precludes Sickert as a viable suspect. I don't think Cornwell has uncovered anything that would justify her calling her book "Case Closed," or tearing up paintings by a renowned artist. |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 18 October 2002 - 08:42 am | | Hi, Stan:
You caution us rightly not to prejudge Patricia Cornwell's theory and yet you refer to the author as "the man-hater Cornwell." Aren't you pre-judging yourself, Stan?
All the best
Chris George |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Friday, 18 October 2002 - 05:03 pm | | Chris -
Since it IS Patricia Cornwell, I don't consider Stan to be pre-judging. If we were discussing anyone else on the earth, I would chide him for it. She doesn't keep very many opinions to herself, ya know. |
Author: Vicki
Friday, 18 October 2002 - 06:28 pm | | Scott,
I think Cornwell's theory is that Sickert did not see the morgue photo, so how could he have painted her in the picture unless he saw her at the scene of the crime, as the Ripper.
There is the September 17, 1888 McClelland Ripper letter, that may be a hoax. Anyway, it says,
"What a pretty necklace I gave her." Whether Sickert is the Ripper or not, maybe he sent the necklace letter
Vicki |
Author: Monty
Saturday, 19 October 2002 - 08:25 am | | Hi everybody !
Im trying to hold comment on this till I read it for myself but, out of interest, what do you folks think of the chances that a film or mini series is about to be made on this book ??
Just wondering
Monty
|
Author: Stan Russo
Saturday, 19 October 2002 - 12:43 pm | | Chris,
I'm not pre-judging Cornwell. She does hate men. This is commonly known fact. This is why she decided to investigate the case, because a murderer, a man murderer, was being extolled and heralded, garnering all the attention, while the victims received very little attention. She came out and stated this on the 20/20 interview. This in my opinion is a really bad way to start off an investigation to a murder case, especially one that has baffled for 114 years. The biases she verbally displays, as well as her outright arrogance warrants criticism. Her theory, which we do not know yet, however, does not.
Monty,
Expect it in the works. As far as I know, and Judith Stock or Tom Olsen would know better, Walter Sickert has never been a character in any 'JTR' movie, including the 'From Hell' just out last year.
STAN |
|
|
|
|
