Author: Philip Rayner
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 04:38 am |        |
This is something that struck a chord in Cornwell's book.
Her premise is that the operations on Sickert's sexual organs left him unable to enjoy sex, father children and so on, thus creating the frustrated and crazed killer we know and love.
The biographical information in the book tells us he was married three times.
Does anyone feel there is some discrepancy there? This may be one for the ladies to answer as the problem and it's solution lies within the minds of the ladies he married. It seems to me that Sickert would mention this to his wives to be or that sooner or later they would realise something was wrong.
I am aware that sexless marriages existed and some were quite successful and perhaps the ladies concerned followed the Victorian ideal of sex for procreation only. My only query is whether three women would marry Sickert knowing of these problems. Even if they followed the procreation ideal surely one of them would want children?
Or is it possible that the problems Sickert had were exaggerated by Cornwell to serve her case? It would fit with her normal MO. I subscribe to the latter explanation.
Any thoughts? |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 08:56 am | |
| It's interesting that of the six children of Oswald Adalbert and Eleanor Louisa Moravia Sickert none had children within marriage. This may point to a genetic problem within Eleanor's family. |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 11:05 am | |
Philip,
There is a section, I believe, about this in the debunking that's on the main page. The fistula that Cornwell claims Sickert has was not verified by any contemporary source - just rumor from the family members.
When you look at the medical records, the hospital that he had his surgery at worked almost exclusively on rectal and anal fistulas, not penile. So there is more circumstantial evidence that his fistula did not damage him sexually.
And she completely ignores Joseph Sickert's claims of being his illegitimate son.
So it's pretty obvious that she's ignoring some stuff that could damage her claims.
B |
Author: Philip Rayner
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 11:19 am | |
All of which pretty much confirms my own views. I did read the debunk and you may have noticed that I am not Ms Cornwell's greatest fan. My post was merely to find out if I was just judging this particular aspect in relation to my views on her case in general or whether anyone else considered this rather odd.
Far from ignoring things that damage her claim she actively casts doubt on the theory by using contradictory facts in her book.
A small example. She claims that Sickert was likely in London on August 6th as he was definitely there on the 4th. Later she talks about his ability to post letters from various places using the trains. She says he could be in France within a day of leaving London. I know it doesn't prove he wasn't there on the 6th August but if he used the trains, in the two days he could have travelled quite a distance into France. Once again she has negated her own argument. |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 11:33 am | |
Dear Phillip:
It seems to me that she did that quite a bit, though it is not for me to say. After all, I am a simple person with an interest in a complex topic. Cornwell is a successful author that spent a lot of money and time into the research needed to complete her book. And of course, we have the words, which I shall paraphrase, that came from Cornwell herself: "An admission of guilt holds more weight than proof of guilt".
How about them apples?
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Philip Rayner
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 11:54 am | |
Sounds like a good caveat to me. It doesn't matter if she's wrong as long as she admits the fact. I'll have to remember that next time I forget my anniversary!
Seriously, if you are going to get into this area of study and do so with an attitude like hers, surely you shouldn't be surprised when your theory is examined by others who are just as passionate about it and found wanting. I think she underestimated the intelligence and tenacious approach displayed by true Ripperologists.
Someone on the boards mentioned that Ms Cornwell is still researching the theory. Perhaps she was under pressure to publish quickly and released the book before it was ready. If so I hope she does a better job next time. The Ripperologists await any further information with interest............ |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 12:12 pm | |
Hi Philip:
You know, her attitude towards the Ripperologists was a bit lacking, in my opinion. When I heard her taking phone calls on a radio show, she really bristled at calls from individuals that had spent a great deal of time researching the Ripper murders. Not only that, but she scorned the word "ripperology".
I was ready to afford her the respect her position as an accomplished author entitles her to, but it really put me off that she held so little respect for people that disagreed with her opinion. And let's not forget that "opinion" is exactly what she has published. The only thing she has proven is that Sickert might have written some of the letters but that does not prove that he actually committed the crimes. But since Cornwell states that these letters admit guilt, then he must be guilty, even though there were hundreds of other letters written by other people claiming the same things that the alleged Sickert letters claimed... well then. I guess Sickert did it if you can follow that logic. Ye gods, what am I saying? She can't be serious!
I don't know, I think she is trying to bend the facts to fit her theory. As many people do.
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Grailfinder
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 12:17 pm | |
Philip
You ask "My only query is whether three women would marry Sickert knowing of these problems".
I answer, To question the mind of a woman is a brave thing for you to do? Just ask yourself why do ALL convicted killers get proposals of marridge day in day out? regardless of the horrific crimes they commited? beats me! so Sickert having a problem downstairs seems trivial to me, dont you agree?
GF |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 02:38 pm | |
Divia,
I love that quote: "An admission of guilt holds more weight than proof of guilt."
Reminds me a story of a guy I knew who was in the Bureau. Told me when he was a homicide cop before going over to the FBI, two of the other detectives in his department had a case where a woman was killed, and the prime suspect was a mildly retarded kid, in his early 20s, who was very close to the woman. They claimed the motive was he refused her sex, and then drowned her in her bathtub.
They took the kid in for questioning, and played good cop/bad cop to him. Got the kid really looking up to the good cop guy - got him to the point that he'd do anything for approval. They coerced the kid to confess to killing her, even got him to explain in detail (by asking leading questions) how he killed her.
They got a conviction, and the kid was on his way to death row when they reviewed the case and found that the livor mortis on the body showed that she was killed sitting down, not laying in a bathtub. I don't recall what happened to the cops for it.
They conned a retarded kid in admitting he killed a woman. Maybe admissions of guilt aren't always better than proof.
B |
Author: Philip Rayner
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 02:40 pm | |
| Don't worry I've scheduled a group of women to come round and beat me up for daring to question the female mind. I'm quite looking forward to it. |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 02:54 pm | |
Dear Brian:
I love that quote: "An admission of guilt holds more weight than proof of guilt."
Let me reiterate that this was a paraphrase of something that Cornwell said on Diane Rehm's program. Let no one say that this was verbatim!
HOWEVER... that was more or less what she said. Oh, what I'd give for a transcript of that show.
This message was brought to you by the CYA Internet System. If this had been an actual quote you would have been instructed where to verify it via footnotes.
Warm regards,
Divia
PS: Brian may be the Messiah, but Monty is God. |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 02:58 pm | |
Dear Philip:
This is one female that believes that you are entitled to question the female mind. You just aren't allowed to disagree with it, argue with it, consider it illogical, or anything else that might be mistaken for a negative attitude towards all things femme.
Other than that, you're okay. Any questions?
Jus' kiddin'!
Warm regards,
Divia
PS: Hold still whilst I pour Karo syrup on you... it's part of the punishment. |
Author: Philip Rayner
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 03:05 pm | |
You call that punishment?
Phil |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 03:09 pm | |
Dear Phil:
It is when I roll you in Froot Loops and call in the Cocker Spaniel.
Divia |
Author: Garry Ross
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 08:25 pm | |
Divia,
They prefer aniseed oil...erm, so I heard somewhere.
*runs out of thread*
take care
Garry |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Saturday, 04 January 2003 - 01:01 pm | |
Dear Garry:
Trust you to know....
You can run from the thread, but you can't hide!
*smooch*
Divia |
Author: Joseph P. Matthews
Saturday, 04 January 2003 - 02:46 pm | |
Hello all
Divia -- When did you hear the show with Cornwell on the radio? I wouldn't mind find a transcript of that myself. Did you have any luck with that?
What you've described is not very surprising to me, though. I remember watching her interview with Diane Sawyer back in 2001 and thinking that she was very arrogant. The case she made on that show was not very convincing to anyone with knowledge of the crimes, in my opinion. I was even more disturbed that Sawyer conducted the interview when it seemed apparent to me that she knew nothing of the crimes beforehand. I'm not a journalist, but if I were going to conduct an interview I would, at the very least, make an attempt to study the subject matter beforehand. She accepted everything Cornwell said with little skepticism or argument.
On another thread, it was mentioned that Cornwell refused to appear for an NPR show when she learned that noted experts would be present to debate her. If that is indeed the case, then how can she expect anyone to believe her?
I should mention that I have read the book. After reading, my opinion has not changed. I found the book to be unorganized and filled with illogical assumptions. She did provide a bibliography of her sources, but I find her lack of footnotes to be appalling. The book is filled with "quotations," many of them being only one word in length. Yet, it is not noted where they came from in most instances.
Disappointing indeed...
Best wishes,
Joe |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Saturday, 04 January 2003 - 07:17 pm | |
Hi Joe:
I don't remember exactly when it was, it was several weeks ago. It was on Diane Rehm's radio show, and transcripts may be available through the NPR website. I'll do a quick check and let you know. Also, CTG might remember when it was.
I thought that perhaps the real proof would lie somewhere between the pages of her book, rather than give her concrete proof to the general public without their purchasing a copy of her book. However, it seems that there really wasn't any significant evidence other than what she had already stated in previous interviews. Sad, unfortunate, and a bit of a time-waster, in my opinion. Geez, before I post anything here, I always try to get my facts straight and have the information to back myself up in case I'm challenged. I suppose that if I were to just refuse to answer to such challenges, as Cornwell has, that would save time... and make me look foolish and self-important to boot.
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Philip Rayner
Sunday, 05 January 2003 - 09:28 am | |
| Sad and a bit of a timewaster, sums up Cornwell's theory in a nutshell. |
Author: Philip Rayner
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 07:05 am | |
Just reread the section on Sickert's wives in 'Case closed'. Apparently his wife Ellen (Cobden) sued for ddivorce on the grounds of adultery (Two counts.). Cornwell argues that the real reason was non consummation of the marriage. Ellen thinks she will be shamed by an admission that they had never had sex.
For God's sake woman wake up and smell the roses. If there were two counts of adultery isn't it just possible that Sickert committed adultery twice. But then your theory falls down. For me Sickert was guilty of being a serial womaniser. Seemingly women were quite happy to pose nude for him and even if he had some damage to his penis (Which is seriously in doubt.) you are not going to tell me he didn't even try to seduce them.
Then we have the supposed french sickert child. And of course Joseph Sickert. Then there's the music halls which Sickert frequented. Half naked women dancing on stage inspired his art but nothing else. Why torture himself if he couldn't satisfy the desire it raised in him. Surely if he could only achieve satisfaction via 'Ripping' this would hold no interest for him.
There is no end to my objections to this theory. it's just full of holes. |
Author: John Hacker
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 07:41 am | |
Joe and Divia,
It doens't look like there are transcripts of the Cornwell interview available online, but you can listen to the interview via streaming media or order it on cassette tape. (Cost for the tape is 7.50 for WAMU members, and 15 for non members)
Here's the link:
WAMU
The Cornwell interview was on Nov 19th.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: John Dow
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 09:53 am | |
| Ignore this - a duplicate of the message below |
Author: John Dow
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 09:54 am | |
| For UK listeners, Cornwell was the guest on Desert Island Disks last Friday morning on Radio 4. Can't report what she said though, I just couldn't bring myself to listen to it, despite being in the middle of a long car journey with nothing else to do. Might be worth checking the BBC website if you want to hear it - they usually keep programmes online. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 01:42 pm | |
Hi John,
I heard some of the Desert Island Disk prog. Apart from Abba's 'S.O.S' and a couple of Annie Lennox numbers, I didn't think much of what I heard. 
Cornwell started talking about the paper 'evidence' found since her book came out, and how she had (at the time of broadcasting) narrowed 2 Sickert and 2 'ripper' letters down to one batch of 6,000 sheets of notepaper. She made a big thing of it, implying that this was her strongest evidence yet!
Sue Lawley, to her credit, called it all circumstantial, and Cornwell quickly rebuked her, referring to the huge population of London at the time and how 6,000 sheets was therefore a tiny sample in comparison (forgetting to say what proportion of that huge population would have bought notepaper of any kind). Cornwell argued that this evidence alone would have been enough to indict Sickert.
Sue Lawley obviously wasn't impressed, but disappointingly didn't ask what the evidence was for the 2 ripper letters actually being from the killer. Nor did she ask why Cornwell was coming up with new evidence that didn't sound very conclusive, when her book claimed to have already closed the case.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Philip Rayner
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 02:59 pm | |
Frrankly Caz I would expect no more of her.
Phil |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 04:51 pm | |
Dear John H.:
Thanks for ferreting out that info!
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Joseph P. Matthews
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 02:02 am | |
Divia - Thank you for answering and I apologize for the tardiness of my reply. I rather liked your assessment of her book. Each day, I try to justify the fact that I actually paid money to buy the darn thing. Oh well, at least I got a few long looks from other customers in the bookstore. I was skimming through it before purchasing and was chuckling at some of the "facts" that I noticed. I guess that makes me one of the "ripperologists" that Cornwell refers to as strange and weird.
John Hacker - Thank you for that information. I will listen to that as soon as I have a chance.
Caz - I'm not surprised that Cornwell rebuked Sue Lawley. (I'm not familiar with her, by the way) Although I obviously did not listen to that broadcast, from your description, her new "evidence" doesn't seem very conclusive. And, as you pointed out, it would be nice to hear Cornwell's "evidence" that the 2 letters were in fact written by the murderer. Cornwell begs the question too often in her book. I am glad to hear that someone actually argued with her, though. Unlike Diane Sawyer who swallowed every bite and asked for seconds.
Best wishes,
Joe |
