|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 29 October 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects:
Cornwell Archives:
Archive through 29 October 2002
Author: Ally
Saturday, 19 October 2002 - 04:29 pm |        | Hi Stan,
If I had a nickel for everytime someone said gossip was a commonly known fact, I'd have four million dollars to waste on a stupid theory too. What exactly is your documentation of this "commonly known fact" that she is a man-hater? |
Author: Eliza Cline
Saturday, 19 October 2002 - 07:48 pm | | | I don't think Cornwall can fairly be called a man-hater just because she is offended at the idea of a vicious killer being celebrated and mythologized, while the victims are more or less ignored. That is something that bothers me too, not because JTR is a man, but because he is a murderer. |
Author: Stan Russo
Sunday, 20 October 2002 - 12:09 pm | | Ally,
If I had a nickel for every time major gossip had a real basis in foundation, I'd have four million dollars also. Asking for documentation is like asking for hard evidence in this case. There of course is none, but there are obvious reasons, her complete arrogance and hatred of a suspect because she feels he committed the murders.
Her theory, we all do not know yet. We do know the suspect because she had to go on national TV and proclaim him as the murderer. I can guarantee you this, her theory will be biased, as from her actions, past-history, and public statements about Sickert and this case, it will be a total obliteration of Sickert as a man, using the murders as a sort of backdrop for her to brutally attack his life. That doesn't necessarily make her theory (which you call 'stupid') wrong. Doesn't have to make it right either.
Every major 'Ripperologist' would destroy her in a one on one debate about this case. Her book will probably use the murders as backdrop, and mainly show Sickert to be a cold blooded murderer. I doubt if she will question the validity of more than 1 or 2 prime historical suspects. Before it's out there I view this as an art book, about the life of an artist, not as a book on 'JTR'.
Eliza,
To attack this case from the standpoint of hatred or disdain that 'JTR' is mythicized, as opposed to the victims is biased. Let's face the hard cold facts, we're not here to make amends or reparations for these women's deaths. We can't do that. We're here to solve this case, if that's possible. That starts and ends with a focus on the man who committed the murder, but should not be started with any biases, whether they be racial, or in her case sexual. Somewhere along the line, the famous crime solver Patricia Cornwell forgot that.
STAN |
Author: Caroline Morris
Sunday, 20 October 2002 - 02:23 pm | | I agree with you entirely, Stan. In the end it's all subjective. It's you and me and Ally and Pat Cornwell and everyone else using our indivual biases on this old case - this cold case - and anyone who pretends it's for the sake of the victims alone is kidding themselves.
So is Cornwell really any worse than anyone else who has ever favoured a particular suspect? Is it her money that people are jealous of then, or her status as a well-known person, perhaps?
Does it really matter so much if this woman is about to add to the myths that already surround the ripper murders?
Perhaps what is more interesting is why it should matter so much to people.
Love,
Caz
PS Sunday night and a couple of glasses of wine inside me - sorry! hic |
Author: Ally
Sunday, 20 October 2002 - 03:19 pm | | Stan,
So basically, it's not a well-known fact that she is a man-hater. It's your opinion that she is. Thanks for clarifying.
Ally |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Sunday, 20 October 2002 - 05:04 pm | | Since Caz mentioned jealousy, I sat down and thought, was is it about the Patricia Cornwell stuff that DOES bother me? Here's my little tirade:
The title "Case Closed" really bothers me. There is going to be a lot of people to read this book that otherwise know nothing about the JTR saga. It annoys me that they may draw their conclusions from this book only, but it IS each person's personal responsibility to educate themselves thoroughly on a case. I knew after reading just one Lizzie Borden book that I wouldn't be able to trust just one author. (That's why I think books like Sugden's or A to Z are invaluable to the casual reader who only wants to acquaint themselves with the case...when I started on Lizzie Borden a long time ago it was like an ocean of theories. The moment I became interested in JTR and mused over a list of titles, I knew Sugden was probably the most logical place to start, facts only, please).
Anyway, back to Patricia Cornwell. Another thing that bothers me is the impression that, even though many other people have done years of painstaking research, she gives the appearance of erasing all this off the map because she is the only one capable of "real" research. Maybe she doesn't really feel that way, but she gave off that feeling to me. Evans, Fido, Begg, Skinner, Wilson, DiGrazia, etc. etc. etc. its like all the unbelievable research they have accomplished through the years doesn't matter, only hearsay related to Walter Sickert is all that matters. To my way of thinking, it is very ARROGANT to just waltz into a cold case and "solve" it, ignoring the research of these men who are experts on the case. None of these men have mentioned here on the Casebook that they were contacted by Cornwell for any information. (Though that doesn't mean she hasn't) I just cannot imagine trying to come up with a new groundbreaking book on the subject of JTR without consulting at least a few experts. They've dedicated their whole lives to it, surely they MUST know a thing or two!!!!!!
So that's what bothers me, the arrogance of it all. Hopefully when the book comes out she will be able to explain a thing or two about her behaviour and it will make sense...who knows, maybe she can convince us all. But I have serious doubts. I may be wrong and I will have no problem admittig it if I am...I hope she CAN come up with something new.
But I get very defensive if I feel like my new "heroes" (Ripperologists) are getting the shaft. These guys have spent too much of their life educating themselves on this case just to have someone waltz in grab all the credit! |
Author: Howard Brown
Sunday, 20 October 2002 - 05:54 pm | | | Dear Ms.Conklin: I feel precisely as you do regarding Mrs.Cromwell's book....I was a street Hockey coach for some time. I know quite a bit about being a street hockey coach. That does not mean that I would be a good or even fair ICE hockey coach. Likewise,I feel the same way about how the Ripperologists.some of whom are probably in some serious financial debt still,were not contacted. Thanks for mentioning this fact. Howard |
Author: Howard Brown
Sunday, 20 October 2002 - 05:55 pm | | | Whoops !! I meant Mrs.Cornwell......... |
Author: David Radka
Sunday, 20 October 2002 - 07:29 pm | | N.B. The case will not be solved by Cornwell's, nor anybody's reasearch. The case will be solved by mastery.
David |
Author: Howard Brown
Sunday, 20 October 2002 - 08:23 pm | | | Dear Mr.Stewart Evans: On a previous post,Wed. Sept.4th,02,you wrote to Mr. Fido about who found the O'Donnell manuscript.Did the information you supplied come from Mr.Harris ? Is it true that Melvin Harris gives permission for anyone to quote from the Cremer memoirs in return for a payment to the NSPCC ? Thanks very much,Mr. Evans !! Howard |
Author: Stan Russo
Sunday, 20 October 2002 - 11:28 pm | | Ally,
Let me clarify. Yes, it is my opinion that Mrs. Cornwell is a 'man-hater'. I have no definitive proof. My opinion however is not something I just formulated out of thin air. I came to my opinion from an educated standpoint regarding her actions, words, and outlook about this case in particular. As always, I could be wrong. I just read her that way, and as I said before her arrogance warrants criticism.
STAN |
Author: Caroline Morris
Monday, 21 October 2002 - 02:52 am | | Hi All,
Brenda wrote:
'But I get very defensive if I feel like my new "heroes" (Ripperologists) are getting the shaft. These guys have spent too much of their life educating themselves on this case just to have someone waltz in grab all the credit!'
And Howard wrote:
'Likewise,I feel the same way about how the Ripperologists.some of whom are probably in some serious financial debt still,were not contacted.'
I can understand these feelings and I can see how arrogant this makes Cornwell look with her $$$$ and her 'case closed'.
But if her theory is pants, it would still be pants even if she paid all our Ripperologists whopping great consultation fees for their input. Unless she is totally insincere in her belief that she's got the right ripper, it's unlikely she would be swayed from her theory by any of them, no matter how insistent they are that her evidence against Sickert sucks.
The result would be that her book naming Sickert as JtR would still be published, still be called 'Case Closed', and the consultants she paid would be accused of all sorts (remember 'Final Chapter' and the film 'From Hell'?).
As for grabbing all the credit for going it alone, do we really need to worry overmuch on that score? Anyone previously interested in the case will surely be wary by now of titles like 'Case Closed', 'Final Chapter', 'True Face', 'Final Solution' and so on. I was talking to someone in the pub on Friday night and I mentioned Jack the Ripper. He said, as many have before him, "Don't know much about it, but I'm sure they solved it a few years ago, didn't they? They do know who he was now, don't they?"
"So", says I, "Who was he then?"
"Haven't got the foggiest", says he. 
Love,
Caz
PS See you all soon - I'll be away from the boards for about a week. |
Author: Ally
Monday, 21 October 2002 - 07:00 am | | Stan,
Could you please tell us what outlook, words and actions of hers caused you to feel this way? Because other than her disdain for a man who killed at least four women (which I believe someone already pointed out is hardly the same thing as hating all men)I have searched for any statements attributed to Ms. Cornwell and haven't found any that could smack of man-hating. I assumed you must have some other source that we are unaware of to have formed your educated opinion.
Ally |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Monday, 21 October 2002 - 09:31 am | | Vicki,
Sorry for the belated reply. The painting by Sickert I am refering too shows a woman lying down in the same position as the Eddowes morgue photograph. It also shows the woman in the same perspective and lighting as the morgue photograph. This means that eithe Sickert painted the picture after seeing the morgue photograph or was there painting the picture while viewing the body at the same angle and in the same light as the photographer. Or, according to Ms. Cornwell's theory, the photographer was just lucky enough to capture the same position, perspective and lighting that Sickert viewed the body at.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 21 October 2002 - 09:55 am | | Hi Folks,
Is there anything NEW that Pat can contribute to the Casebook? [Thats all I can think of for the moment.]
Rosey :-) |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Monday, 21 October 2002 - 12:52 pm | | Brenda -
Thank you for including me in the pantheon of Ripperologists you have mentioned, but your gracious comments notwithstanding, I am but a mere amateur in comparison with those others. My strength is as a simplifier and populariser, not a researcher, I assure you.
However, I come to note that if you access http://news.independent.co.uk, or go through www.forteantimes.com (Patricia Cornwell vs jack the Ripper), you will find a 20 october story titled "Patricia Cornwell: The Paranoid Detective." It is a brief precis of her Sickert case, and notes that the BBCs Omnibus will be doing an hour-length programme on her theory on 30 October (in time for All Hallows' Eve). Besides taking a dismissive view of her theory, the article portrays Cornwell as a most unpleasant and vindictive personality; certainly no-one I could imagine spending time with.
And with regards to Cornwell's 'man-hating,', I cannot speak to that, but the profile notes that she had a lesbian affair with the wife of an FBI man who subsequently came after the pair with guns blazing. Cornwell describes herself as being attracted to both sexes, but those who know her well believe her passions lie more to the Sapphic side.
But read the profile for yourself. |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Monday, 21 October 2002 - 01:31 pm | | Fund=give money to
amentalism=without brains
(I wish I'd thought of that)
Seriously, thanks for the link CMD. Interesting article, and I think I'd much prefer Ms. Cornwell's fiction over her Sickert book (I didn't much care for the writing style in the sample chapter--too convoluted). Plus, I hate that she destroyed that painting of Sickert's. For that reason, I probably won't be buying her new book, but I'll check it out at the library if I can find it.
Having said that, I wonder if she might be a victim of the old double standard, to an extent. I tend to raise a skeptical eyebrown when I hear a successful woman is 'difficult.' Look at Barbara Streisand, Yoko Ono, Madonna, and Martha Stewart--all 'difficult' women, not to be trusted. I notice that many businessmen are 'unethical' or 'corrupt,' but I've never heard any successful man described as 'difficult'--except for Sean Penn
I can't think of a single valid reason for bringing up Ms. Cornwell's sexuality--except that lesbians aren't to be trusted either, I suppose. (A quick note--I'm not referring to CMD's post, but to the article that's referenced in it).
Just a thought
Dave |
Author: Michael Raney
Monday, 21 October 2002 - 02:18 pm | | Gang,
If you don't know already, I guess I will out myself. I am a Gay man. It doesn't make me a "woman hater". My closest friends are women. I think that some people feel that Ms. Cornwell is basically Lesbian and that makes her a "Man hater". It just means that she chooses to love differently. Okay, now that I have that out of the way. I don't like Ms. Cornwells writing, I don't agreee with her theory and I think (my OPINION folks) that she is an idiot for destroying a work of art. I think everything she has done to promote Sickert as Jack has been done to sell a book. Period. I think at one time she truly believed that Sickert was Jack. She spent a lot of time, money and effort to prove it. When she couldn't, she started the hype to try and recoup some of her money from book sales. Just my opinion everyone. |
Author: Stan Russo
Monday, 21 October 2002 - 03:27 pm | | To all,
I am responsible for this comment 'man-hater', and did not realize it would stir such a debate. I did not mean to insult anyone, as I was only stating my opinion. This comment has now taken on a life of its own, and the debate, if there should be one, is working in the wrong direction.
I still believe in my own opinion of Ms. Cornwell, and why she has focused her attention on this case. I have stated this a number of times in previous posts. Any biases that enter into an investigation such as this will always cloud the issue. Her research into an idea for a fictituos novel led her to Walter Sickert. Sickert's actions to her appear to that of a man who hated women. Ms. Cornwell has then set out to prove that Sickert was 'JTR'. You tell me if that is not a biased approach, without using the term that has spurned this great debate.
My words in describing Ms. Cornwell were not meant to hurt or offend anyone. If that is what took place I apologize to all who have been offended or hurt by those comments. In no way was that the desired result.
STAN |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Monday, 21 October 2002 - 06:13 pm | | Stan - you are right, it does seem to have taken a life of its own. When you first wrote it, my only thought was "ooooh, naughty!" in total jest. I never took it that you were berating gay people. I can't imagine anyone here stooping to that. Anyway "man-hater" and "lesbian" are not one and the same anyway...I'm not a lesbian and I hate pretty much all of you men out there! LOL!
I don't think Stan should have to serve time for one comment, let's parole him, smoke a peace pipe, and move on.
CM DiGrazia - I find your humility refreshing (and somewhat rare attribute, apparently, amongst the Ripperologists ;-)
However, its time to face the facts....you have done a lot of information Ripper work - the magazine itself is worth a million. When someone like me goes on a tirade like I did on that post, naming the "top names" off of my head....well, your name is one of the top names in the field now. You might not be doing the same kind of work as some of the others, but don't underestimate the importance of what you ARE doing. You have officially "arrived". |
Author: judith stock
Tuesday, 22 October 2002 - 01:27 am | | "AMEN" to Brenda, C-M!!! She's right! Whether you want to be or not, you're there...and you're a pretty damned good emcee, as well! You all can catch C-M's road show at the next US Ripper conference in 2004!
And do you know what? I could give a hairy rat's a** what ANYONE does in the privacy of his/her bedroom, or on the stove top, for that matter! I, personally, dislike Cornwell because she pads her books shamelessly, thus cheating her public of its' hard-earned money, she continues to denigrate these boards, and the posters thereon, as sycophants and amateurs, AND she thinks that simply because she spent a bucket of money and destroyed valuable paintings, she MUST be right. I have to agree with Don Rumbelow ..... Cornwell IS a cultural vandal.
Cheers to all,
J |
Author: judith stock
Tuesday, 22 October 2002 - 01:35 am | | Sorry for the follow-up post, guys...I try to let off steam in just one post! This hearkens back to Eliza's post of 19 October, and I must take issue with only one point: in how many instances, Eliza, are ALL the victims of a serial killer so widely known? We know the names of the victims, the names of their children, husbands, the locations where they last lived, and sometimes even what they ate right before they died. I submit that the Ripper, while remaining a nameless entity, has immortalised the women; NOT that they would have chosen this particular way to go down in history...but we DO know them, and many of us feel we know them well.
'Nuff said....
Cheers to all
J |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Tuesday, 22 October 2002 - 11:54 am | | Scott, the painting that you are referring to is titled Le Journal and was painted by Sickert circa 1906. This painting was one of an apparent series that seem to depict several different women but all with the same hairdo and usually wearing a string of pearls. A comparison of this painting and the morgue photograph of Catherine Eddowes lying in her mortuary coffin does not show enough similarities to warrant Patricia Cornwell's observations that this painting depicts Catherine Eddowes.
The woman in Le Journal is sitting in a chair, leaning back against the arm of an overstuffed sofa while Eddowes is stretched out in her coffin. The axis of the two are different and while Eddowes mouth is open and slack jawed, her features mutilated and her hair matted, the figure in the painting is composed and peaceful. with her mouth closed and her hair coiffed.
In my article in the July issue of Ripper Notes I theorise how Sickert could have painted images of Mary Kelly and Catherine Eddowes based on two specific photographs published in a French book in 1899, Sickert was living in France at the time, but the photograph of Eddowes in her coffin was not one of them. Anyone interested in reading the article will find it on the Casebook in the Ripper Media boards.
Wolf. |
Author: Eliza Cline
Tuesday, 22 October 2002 - 12:28 pm | | | I saw an interview with Cornwell and I thought a couple of comments she made were revealing. She said several times, something to the effect of, "If I'm wrong, it's awful...if I'm wrong, I've done something terrible!" A psychologist might deduce that subconsciously she realizes her error and she has guilt feelings. |
Author: Garry Ross
Wednesday, 23 October 2002 - 06:47 pm | | All,
For those with BBC1, next week you can see a Patricia Cornwell documentary - I think it's an Omnibus one at 22:35 - 23:35 next Wednesday.
take care
Garry |
Author: Kevin Braun
Thursday, 24 October 2002 - 10:43 am | | Last night the Travel Channel (USA cable) carried the program ...
Top Ten Places of Mystery
Scour the globe for the most intriguing and mystifying tales throughout the history of mankind. From legendary location to mythical creature to unexplainable structure, visit these puzzling places and attempt to solve the mysteries that surround them.
Guess what was #1. London 1888 and the JtR mystery. Don Rumbelow was interviewed on the Ripper Walk. At the very end, Cornwell's new book was mentioned. Mr. Rumbelow stated that the Sickert theory has been around for at least 30 years and unless she has come up with new information, no one else knows about, she will not solve the case. Nevertheless, he said he can not wait to read the book. Mr. Rumbelow also ventured his opinion on how MJK was killed.
The next airing of the program is Oct 26 2002
3:00 PM ET. It's worth a look.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Neal Shelden
Saturday, 26 October 2002 - 04:15 pm | | The Omnibus programme about Patricia Cornwell's Sickert the Ripper claims is mentioned in The Sun TV mag today.
It says 'in the basement of Manchester City Art Gallery was a startling find - a Sickert painting, never published, entitled Jack the Ripper's Bedroom'.
Solved at last!  |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 26 October 2002 - 05:37 pm | | Hi, Neal:
This is not new news about Walter Sickert having painted a painting called "Jack the Ripper's Bedroom," nor that the painting is at Manchester City Art Gallery. I would seriously challenge the contention that this Sickert painting was "never published."
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Ashleah Skinner
Sunday, 27 October 2002 - 12:02 pm | | In the UK's Sunday Mirror of Sunday 27th October 2002 (today) is an article on Sickert which reads:
“DNA proves killer was artist
Sickert, claims crime writer”
A leading crime writer claims to have solved the mystery about the real identity of Jack the Ripper…and his name was Walt.
Patricia Cornwell, famous for her Kay Scarpetta novels about an American forensic pathologist says she has found crucial DNA evidence to prove the Ripper was Walter Sickert – an impressionist painter some of whose work hang in the top Tate Britain gallery.
Cornwell’s has spent more than £2 million and two years on her own investigation into the killer who disembowelled five prostitutes in East London between August and November 1888.
Cornwell’s claims will be published this week in her book Portrait of a killer: Jack the Ripper. She says early searches for DNA on letters written by the Ripper and letters and paintings by Sickert failed. But more advanced testing methods over the past year found DNA on a Ripper letter which matched DNA on the Sickert letters.
Originally Cornwell wanted to have her fictional character Dr Scarpetta, investigate the case but took it over herself. She bought 30 of Sickert’s paintings and tore up at least one in her quest for fingerprints of bloodstains.
She was sure it was Sickert from circumstantial evidence. The artist was first named the possible Ripper in the 1970s when historians studied a series of his paintings called the Camden Town Drawings which showed a clothed man on a bed with a naked prostitute, in one case with his hands round her neck.
Psychologists also noted how, as a young boy, he was abused by his father and had problems with his genitals which needed surgery and rendered him impotent. Cornwell believes his anger at his sexual inadequacy may have been the trigger for the killings.
The first breakthrough came in 1888 when a letter was sent – allegedly from the Ripper – to a London newspaper. The capital’s residents were gripped by the tale and hundreds of letters were allegedly sent by the Ripper to the police. Most were hoaxes.
But during her investigation Cornwell unearthed a letter that had not been sent to the Ripper archive at the Public Record Office. She found under forensic examination that it had a distinctive water mark – from Perry and Sons – a top stationer of the time and the same as Sickert used.
One Sickert expert has backed Cornwell’s theory but others in the art world have dismissed her as ‘crackpot’.
However corn well says that on the evidence, ‘a jury back then would have said “Hang Him.’” |
Author: Keith Rogan
Sunday, 27 October 2002 - 02:53 pm | | It's been over a year since I've last perused these boards. Someone up above hit the nail on the head when they stated that the Ripper had to be someone famous, simply because at this late date only famous people can be properly researched. I think that describes the reason for my loss of interest - likely the Ripper was some nondescript denizen of the East End whose name will never be known.
However, Cornwell's book has rekindled my interest somewhat. A new theory to be examined...
I have to say I am a bit appalled at the negative comments here. After all, the book hasn't even been released and other than a few publicity teasers, we don't really know what she'll present to bolster her case.
Yesterday, while looking online for copies of the Sickert paintings of murdered women (that Cornwell describes), I came across an interesting Sickert etching here: http://search.famsf.org/4d.acgi$Record?371&=list&=1&=walter&=And&=3&=0&=keywords&=Yes&=sickert%20&=&=&=Yes&=&=f
At first I was going to pass on, but there was something familiar about the scene in the etching. I opened up Casebook and began perusing various pictures until I came across the well known photo of the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street. The scene in the etching appears to duplicate 29 Hanbury street in nearly every particular, except that it is reversed - the door appearing on the left instead of the right, etc. Taking that into account, it's pretty damned close! The windows have the rounded tops, the tree next door appears near the fence (reversed of course...), even the little door down into the basement appears to be present in the correct place...
This is probably all coincidental, no doubt yards look much the the same in poor neighborhoods throughout urban England. But, a backyard in a poor neighborhood is rather an odd subject for an artist. If I recall correctly, the victim there was strangled with her neckerchief and the etching is entitled "The Hanging Garden"... Weird.
Comments?
Keith |
Author: Keith Rogan
Sunday, 27 October 2002 - 02:59 pm | | Sorry, the link above doesn't seem to work...
Instead, try http://www.thinker.org/fam/article.asp?key=37
You'll then need to type "Sickert" into the KEYWORD search at the bottom of the page - the "Quick Search" will not turn up the etching in question.
There are four Sickert works in the archive here, the one I'm referring to is entitled: The Hanging Garden
Keith |
Author: Dan Norder
Sunday, 27 October 2002 - 04:29 pm | | At this point it seems pretty clear that the only info Cornwell has against Sickert is the same nonsense she's been saying for the last year. If she had something more substantial it would be in the news reports.
A quick debunking again:
1) Sickert was not made impotent as a child. He had a son for crying out loud, the same one who started the hoax that first mentioned Sickert in relation to the crime. Talk about a hole you could drive a truck through!
2) The DNA experts tell the news media that the tests of the letter she talks about were "inconclusive" and "mixed" and do not link Sickert to that letter -- and even if it did it's far more likely to be a hoax letter than a real one.
3) Everything else is incredibly insubstantial and absurd. No modern jury would hang him for these crimes, assuming he had a defense attorney of any level of competence. Heck, it wouldn't even get far enough to bring a trial, any judge would throw it out.
And, Keith... even though Sickert was interested in the ripper killings and may have visited the scenes of the crimes or seen morgue photos or what have you to make paintings based on them (which is far from proven), that is a thousand miles away from saying he was the ripper.
You're posting on a ripper board, showing interest in the murders, that doesn't make you a killer. People going on the ripper tours in London aren't all rippers. Whitechapel rssidents in the crowds gawking at the murder scenes at the time weren't all killers. And Cornwell spending all the time and money writing about the ripper murders doesn't make her the ripper.
I hope there's some balanced news coverage of this. Perhaps we need to contact the news media to act as spokespeople for common sense and serious ripperology. If I bought books through Amazon I'd go leave a revew.
Dan |
Author: The Viper
Sunday, 27 October 2002 - 04:50 pm | | Maybe there are some art experts out there who can shed some light on the history of this Hanging Gardens painting. I believe that for a few years from 1925 Sickert rented a property at 56 Noel Street (later Noel Road) in Islington, backing onto the Regent's Canal. He painted the view over the latter as the Hanging Gardens of Islington. Would this be the same painting? Whether it is or not, the reproduction in the link (above) doesn't look much like the rear of 29 Hanbury Street.
Regards, V. |
Author: Dean James Hines
Sunday, 27 October 2002 - 05:21 pm | | Hi Folks,
Just seen a advert this Sunday, funny enough straight after 'Silent Witness', Omnibus, BBC1 this Wednesday night, (0ct.30th, 10:35GMT) looks at Pat Cornwell's investigation into JTR.
Regards
D. |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Sunday, 27 October 2002 - 09:27 pm | | | And so the media circus begins......just in time for Halloween, too. |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Monday, 28 October 2002 - 10:33 am | | Dan -
Just a quick note: if by Sickert's "son," you mean Joseph Gorman "Hobo" Sickert, it has never been proven that he is related in any way to Walter Sickert.
However, Sickert expert Wendy Baron asserts fairly positively that Sickert fathered a natural child by his mistress, Therese Lessore.
I have yet to get to that bit of Cornwell's book, however. I received a preview copy over the weekend and am finding it dull, frustrating and extraordinarily amateurish. If this is a sample of her 'best-selling' prose, then the publishing trade is in worse shape than I believed. |
Author: Timsta
Monday, 28 October 2002 - 11:44 am | | Viper:
You are quite accurate in your description of the location of Sickert's 'Hanging Gardens of Islington' painting. As a long time habitue of the Island Queen pub in Noel Road, I am familiar with both the work and its setting.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Monday, 28 October 2002 - 06:22 pm | | Christopher Michael, a small correction. Walter Sickert did not have a child with Thérèse Lessore, whom Sickert married in 1926 when he was sixty-six years old. Although Sickert and Lessore had had a long friendship before they married they never had any children.
I believe that you are thinking of Mme. Augustine Villain, a Dieppe fish merchant whom Sickert lived with in Neuville, just outside of Dieppe, and who became Sickert's mistress. Their relationship seems to have lasted for five or six years although Sickert only lived with Mme. Villain for about three of those years. It was during this relationship that Mme. Villain became pregnant and bore a son, Maurice, whom it is assumed was Sickert's child. Sickert certainly kept in touch with the Villain family and painted Maurice in his French army uniform during the Great War.
Wolf. |
Author: David Radka
Tuesday, 29 October 2002 - 12:33 am | | "I hope there's some balanced news coverage of this. Perhaps we need to contact the news media to act as spokespeople for common sense and serious ripperology. If I bought books through Amazon I'd go leave a revew.
Dan"
Why don't you do these things for yourself, Mr. Norder, if you think they should be done? Why do you ask that others using this web site do them?
David |
Author: Dan Norder
Tuesday, 29 October 2002 - 01:15 am | | David,
I'm not sure what your complaint is. I said "we," which obviously includes me. I really can't see how there could be any confusion over that point.
If you're worried that I won't leave an Amazon review, the problem is that the site won't let me until I buy a book through them. That's probably to protect themselves from people who would sign up under several names to leave multiple reviews on the same book.
Rest assured that the next time I have a book to buy I will do so via the Casebook's Amazon affiliate link and then go review Cornwell's book.
Dan |
|
|
|
|
