Author: Vicki
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 11:33 am |        |
Dean,
I read your thread. It was interesting.
There were art expositions, which Sickert may have attended, also attended by other artists like Picasso. http://www.clemusart.com/exhibcef/picassoas/html/8605877.html
He had painted over a picture called "Last moments" of a dying woman receiving her last rights. There is an open drawer in the night stand, a light, white bedding, and the priest. "Last Moments" isn't real clear in the x-ray, so I found the picture in a book. The painting over "Last Moments" is "La Vie," which is supposed to represent Picasso's good friend Casagemas. Casagemas tried to kill his lover, then took his own life. These paintings predate Sickert's Ripper art.
I don't know what the woman with the baby is supposed to represent, because I don't think either Casagemas or his lover had children. The painting is in The Cleveland Museum of Art, and we know the whole Royal conspiracy set on Cleveland St.. The first thing I thought of when I saw the two paintings on the same palette was Mary Kelly and the royal conspiracy. The Ripper case may have been known all over the world and possibly the rumor of a royal conspiracy.
http://lilt.ilstu.edu/bekurtz/pablo_picasso.htm |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 11:41 am | |
David,
£$£$£ $£$£$£ $£$£$£ $£$£$ £$£$£$££$ £$ £ $£$£ = 
But thats what they are in it for isnt it ??
Including you....or am I mistaken ??
Monty
 |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 11:50 am | |
Jim,
"Ally, Caz,
To liven things up, you could mud wrestle in a paddling pool, wearing bikinis, in the City Darts."
I suggested that last year. Except it was in a pool of chocolate.....even offered to promote it.....got a venue, leotards and even a backing track of Frankies "two tribes".
Caz was game but Ally never replied.
What do you think my chances are of getting Ms P Cornwell in as a replacement ??
Hell, I'd even throw in Graham Kelly as an incentive.
Monty
|
Author: Jim Jenkinson
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 12:17 pm | |
Monty,
My humble apologies for stealing your original idea ! I had a feeling myself that I couldn't have originated the idea of such a depraved spectacle.
I doubt very much if Ms Cornwell would wish to participate in something that indirectly perpetuates one of "the twentieth century's least attractive entertainment industries."
After all she's got her reputation to think of.
Jim |
Author: Olly Raisbeck
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 01:21 pm | |
Hi Guys
I watched the Omnibus programme last week and found the whole programme tacky. I was not interested in the fast car that she left at the airport (that she locked with the top down and in the way of other planes that could have parked up) could it have been passed as a piece of FOD for all you airport enthusiasts?? Just like her book (FOD: Foreign Object Debris)!!
I am rather new to JTR. However I wasnt convinced about throwing the internal organs above the shoulder of one of the victims because that was the logical place to throw them. This man obviously new what he wanted to do. Surely he would have had some idea as to what he would have wanted the victims to look like. Was this not about control?
Additionally, the autopsy of Mary Kelly described the different internal and external organs that were found around different parts of the body. Although this looked like a frenzied attack, was there not some order involved? Would he not have placed the organs where they were because that is what he wanted to happen? What about the missing heart?
Am I right in saying that the eyes of Mary Kelly were intact, incredible seeing the amount of destruction that has occurred around her face. If so the recent film Red Dragon is all about "Seeing and images". Fair enough this is the movies and glass is put in the eyes of the victims but could JTR have wanted the victims to have seen him carry out the mutilation?
Finally, did Joseph Sickert make the story up about Walter Sickert as stated in the A-Z of JTR?
I know I have left many details out but I have so many questions that need many answers.
All the best
Olster |
Author: Olly Raisbeck
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 01:24 pm | |
PS
When I say Foreign Object Debris, I am not using it as an insulting term to foreigners. just in case I have offended anybody |
Author: Spryder
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 02:39 pm | |
I really must offer some fore-warning before I post the following link. It is not for the squeamish.... and certainly not for the MALE squeamish.
However, I did have some questions while reading Cornwell's book about the exact nature of a "fistula of the penis". This page offers some good information on the condition as found in pediatric medicine. Again, it contains graphic photos.
http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/limaye/ |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 04:26 pm | |
My God, Spry!!!!  
Guys! Might I suggest as an antidote after visiting that very frightening site, you might want to, for a chuckle, visit a humorous rap by Chris O'Carroll, a poet friend of mine who has written herein about "The Vagina Monologues" and other items--
Don't Dress for Dinner
Chris |
Author: Dan Norder
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 06:09 pm | |
Anything that gets two warnings from our distinguished webmaster while the photos of the mutilated ripper victims get none must be too horrible for words. Can't make me click that link, no way, no how.
Dan |
Author: Michael Raney
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 06:20 pm | |
Spry, I should have listened to your warning! Very graphic photos. I thank God that it is something that is extremely rare these days. The site itself was however, informative.
Chris, I have absolutely no desire to read ANYTHING having to do with a vagina, thanks anyway!
Mikey |
Author: Vicki
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 07:18 pm | |
Olly,
Not that I don't believe it, but Sickert's story seems like a lot like the "Les Miserables" story.
Spryder,
I didn't want to look, I get nightmares.
Vicki |
Author: Lisa Jane Turner
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 07:55 pm | |
Sorry if I reiterate the question should it have already been asked; but how did Ms Cornwell qualify her 'team' to take swabs from the PRO documents? Surely such credentials as "I have money and big project going here" should not pave way for open interference with primary sources.
I felt let down that the documentary did not focus more intimately upon the actual forensic process. |
Author: judith stock
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 03:41 am | |
FYI re: Cornwell and her book. I have received an e-mail regarding why the October RIPPEROLOGIST will be late; Cornwell's publishers are making C&D withhold sending the mag until AFTER her book comes out; the RIP apparently has a review of the book within its' pages, and the publishers don't want the review to hit before the book does. Odd that....I always thought a review, when published before the street date, would make everyone want to go out and buy the book....maybe the publishers know something we don't...... just one more thing, in life, that makes you "hmmmmm."
Cheers,
J |
Author: Harry Mann
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 04:27 am | |
Chris,
Not having read or seen any of the T.V.documentories by Cornwall,did she give any reason why Sickert became a serial killer.Was there any indication from her that he might have killed the Whitechapel victims,and then made up the story of a conspiracy.
Odd that she should select him, and do so without some reference to his background in Whitechapel having some influence on his selection of victims there.
Insanity itself is sometimes the excuse,but there is a reason why even the insane kill.She should at least attributed some reason for the killings.
Regards,
H.Mann. |
Author: Jim Jenkinson
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 05:16 am | |
Judith,
I have seen several reviews of the book on various websites. Admittedly they are of the type,
"unputdownable", "ideal for the beach", but they are still up.
Jim |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 09:39 am | |
Hi, Judy, Harry, and Jim:
First, Judy, the review of Cornwell's book for which the mailing of Ripperologist is being held up, is the one I wrote. I understand though that the supposed embargo only applies to the British publisher and the American publisher have no such embargo. As Spry has pointed out to me The Times of London have already reviewed the book, so it's all a bit silly.
Harry, according to Cornwell's book, Sickert's murder spree began after the wedding of his mentor, James McNeill Whistler, on 11 August 1888. The imputation is that Sickert was so upset about the sudden wedding and Whistler and his bride departing to honeymoon on the continent that he began his bloody rampage. This seems though a flimsy reason for the Ripper's reign, if Sickert was the Ripper. Mary Ann (Polly) Nichols would not be killed for nearly another three weeks after the Whistler wedding (31 August) and the Tabram murder, which some credit to the Ripper, had already occurred (7 August). Moreover, Cornwell admits that relations between Whistler and his former apprentice had cooled by this date so it is problematic how upset Sickert could have been at Whistler's marriage. Of course, we are led to believe that Sickert's genital deformities engendered a hatred of women in him, but the actual reason for him to start murdering (if he did) appears inadequately explained by Ms. Cornwell.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 11:53 am | |
Spry,
Hell, thats enough to start a rage in me !!!
Monty
 |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 12:10 pm | |
| There is absolutely no doubt that those responsible for actually introducing Walter Sickert to popular Jack the Ripper literature were our old friends Colin Wilson and Donald McCormick. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 12:57 pm | |
Hi, Stewart:
Thanks for your suggestion that the persons responsible for introducing Walter Sickert to popular Jack the Ripper literature were Colin Wilson and Donald McCormick. I am though curious as to why Sickert should have moved from being a bit player in the Ripper saga to center stage.
All the best
Chris |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 01:04 pm | |
| It's simple really Chris, from Wilson to McCormick, from McCormick to the Royal conspiracy fantasy and Knight. Recipe for a fantasy in three easy stages. |
Author: Dean James Hines
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 02:04 pm | |
Hi Vicki,
Thank you for your review on Picasso. I've just got back in after a flight from Dublin. Have a cracking head ache at the moment (probably Guinness induced). I look forward to reviewing the sites listed. Plane flights and Sickert conspiracies - fetch me more Anadin.
DJH |
Author: Spryder
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 02:55 pm | |
Some noteworthy articles on Patricia Cornwell from "Slate" and "The Spectator" - the Slate article is particularly amusing.
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2073560
http://www.spectator.co.uk/bookreview.php3?table=old§ion=current&issue=2002-11-09&id=1268 |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 03:43 pm | |
Stephen,
Thanks for the link--both are interesting articles. I particularly liked the humor of the Slate piece, but I have to say Cornwell is spot on about "ha-ha" being an Americanism. Bother the dictionary, now that I think of it, I don't believe I've ever heard an "ha-ha" from any of our British cousins--it's always "har-de-har-har" or "tee-hee." Sometimes it's a snort or snigger, often milk pours from the nose, but never "ha-ha."
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Ally
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 03:43 pm | |
So far I think my favorite part is where Cornball is explaining how Sickert could have taken the name Jack the Ripper from Shakespeare, she goes on for a good half a page about Sickert's interest in Shakespeare and how Shakespeare has used the word Jack in his plays. She then concludes with the fact that the word Ripper doesn't actually appear in any of the plays.
And uh...huh? So how exactly did he take it from Shakesperes plays?
She's a nutter allright. |
Author: Howard Brown
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 04:46 pm | |
| I wanna know how this yo-yo gets to write off 6 Million bucks for this book ! How can this be ? |
Author: Timsta
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 04:57 pm | |
Hi all.
I find it particularly amusing that the author of the Slate piece is one David Cohen.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: judith stock
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 05:38 pm | |
Yup, CG, I knew it was your review in the RIP, and the whole embargo thing is more than a bit bizarre, anyway, especially since it is not being enforced on both sides of the Pond. Paul Begg rightly says that she is keeping her bum well and truly on THIS side of the Atlantic, anyway; any appearances she has scheduled for the UK are limited, as opposed to the blitzkrieg we will be exposed to! Sounds like she would rather have her teeth drilled than go up against someone like.... Stewart or Paul. Never let it be said that Ms Cornwell went knowingly into the lion's den.
Cheers,
J |
Author: Jim Jenkinson
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 06:36 pm | |
Hi David,
"Bother the dictionary", isn't that a rather Cornwellist approach ?
Ha ha
Jim
|
Author: Kev Kilcoyne
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 06:41 pm | |
Dear Rosemary O'Ryan
Thank you for enlightening me! T'would seem the lady author is also a fake with not an original idea in her head. Oh well never mind :-)
Slainte
Kev |
Author: Garry Ross
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 07:34 pm | |
David O',
You should know that all of us over here in the UK are too 'stiff upper lipped' to "ha ha" and also when we're tucking into our kidney suppers it would make the most horrendous mess on ones one if we were to do such a terrible thing too.
and I really must get the butler to sort out my dry cleaning too. ha ha...oops!
take care
Garry |
Author: Walter Timothy Mosley
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 09:25 pm | |
From one of the online dictionaries:
patsy
Etymology: perhaps from Italian pazzo fool
n : a person who is gullible and easy to take advantage of
: a person who is easily manipulated or victimized : SUCKER
Did Ma and Pa Cornwell know what they were doing when they named their baby girl or what? |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 03:25 am | |
Now the royal conspiracy at present,might be seen by many as pure fantasy,and may in fact be that.However if one part of the supposed fantasy is in some way proven,or information unearthed to show that it was probably true,then that could swing many people to the idea that Sickert is a believable prospect for the Ripper.
Substitute Walter Sickert for Gull and very little of Joseph Sickert's story is changed,and Cornwall might just say her theory of Walter Sickert as the Ripper is proven,and only the reasons for Sickert being the Ripper were wrong.
Sure she is out on a limb at the moment,but the limb hasn't yet broken.
H.Mann. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 03:56 am | |
Trouble is, we know how the 'Royal conspiracy' nonsense was conceived in the 1960's, was developed and refined in the 1970's, by Joseph Gorman and Stephen Knight, and has been embellished and perpetuated as a 'good story' ever since. There is not a jot of historic evidence to support it in any way shape or form.
And it was this fantasy that firmly attached Sickert's name to the subject, via Wilson and McCormick, eventually leading to him being suggested as a suspect. |
Author: Jim Jenkinson
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 04:56 am | |
Hi Judith,
I note your comments about Ms Cornwell's limited scheduled appearances in the UK. This will come as devastating news to the shareholders of transatlantic airlines.
Patsy Cornwell's Flying Circus has helped them break even in the last 12 months.
Jim |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 01:59 pm | |
Here's another Sickert clue - remember that a ha ha is an architectural fancy; it's a wall or fence which is set in a ditch so as not to obstruct the view from within a park or garden. Remember, too, that the locale near Christ Church was known as Itchy Park by the Whitechapel locals, and the use of this 'Americanism' becomes clear.
See - just as good as PC, and for a lot less money.
On another note - thanks, Spry for the above links. I will say that one of the more heartening outcomes of this whole farrago is that a lot of writers seem to have learned their lesson about jumping on the Ripper bandwagon after the Diary debacle - the net and print media are awash in articles tearing Cornwell and her book apart, so we should, I hope, be spared some of the more frenzied support that was there for Maybrick and Knight.
Would that Cornwell would apologise and restore her tattered reputation, but I fear I shall be as old as Walter Sickert himself before I see such a day. |
Author: Mark Andrew Pardoe
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 02:31 pm | |
Ah! Christopher-Michael,
You are right about a ha ha being an architectural feature but did you know there is a Ha Ha Road in Woolwich? Woolwich is quite close to Blackheath and so perhaps the finger is swinging back to poor old Druit.
Cheers, Mark |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 02:46 pm | |
Please, no more ha ha. The ha ha letters had nothing to do with the case. Let's get rid of this forever.
David |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 05:06 pm | |
Hi, CM:
You wrote: "Would that Cornwell would apologise and restore her tattered reputation. . ." Wouldn't it be more to the point, having failed to come up with the necessary goods, that she should apologize and restore Walter Sickert's tattered reputation?
All the best
Chris |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 05:14 pm | |
Hi all,
Walter Sickert might have been the Whitechapel murderer. I don't think Ms. Cornwell advances the case.
This is not to suggest I believe Sickert is the murderer - he like about a million other people of the time could have been the killer.
One item does strike me - the painting Sickert drew of a man, sitting on the edge of a bed, his head bowed, beside a woman laying on the bed in the same position of Kelly is rather haunting. (the painting can be seen on the slate.com website previously mentioned).
Had the murderer been a painter, this is the kind of art work I might expect of him. This, of course, does not make Sickert Jack the Ripper.
Rich |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 06:10 pm | |
Here's a newbie adding his two cents:
I just don't see how it is at all plausible that Sickert could be the Ripper.
One main reason, and this is really just common sense, not in depth detail oriented fact flinging. If Sickert were the Ripper, why did he stop after Kelly (or after Coles if you think she was a victim...)? Sickert died in 1942 - why were there no more murders throughout his lifetime?
Everything I've read/seen about the Ripper killings points out that these were sexually motivated killings (i.e. the killer was sexually aroused by what he did). He's not just going to stop.
Just doesn't make any sense to me. Cornwell needs to start rereading her Holmes - don't shoehorn suspects into the crime. |
