|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Sickert, Walter
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Sickert, Walter
Author: Paula Wolff
Friday, 29 November 2002 - 08:31 am |        | | Uhmmmmm.... I seem to see my name taken in vain. Ok,Peter, no more killing the messenger and, Ivor, thanks for the chance to whine and dine with Peter, but I've Atilla the Hun dropping by later and he knows squat about Jack, thank goodness. Kudos to you, Howard, we are all grown pretty here, but especially from whence I hail. Now the idea of a Weslhman is very interesting, but wouldn't he rather have pickled leeks than onions? He would not get coffee even after the third date; I don't drink it. Never got the hang of it. Love tea. And, yes, to the chocolate. I'm expecting a call anytime, Peter. |
Author: Paula Wolff
Friday, 29 November 2002 - 08:35 am | | Make that Welshman. The excitement, you understand.
P |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 29 November 2002 - 01:05 pm | | Guys, calm down!
Paula doesn't seem to understand that coffee over here is a euphemism ...
I love pickled onions! In fact pickled onions is my middle name - the other kids at school really used to rip the P*** out of me for that one.
Just in case there are any misunderstandings, I ain't the welshman - Manchester born and bred.
Ivor - damn it! You're just too good! But hell will freeze over before I admit to D'Onston being the Ripper just so as I can get myself a date with a good ol' willing Southern gal who makes great coffee and looks like Jodie Foster ...hang on a minute ...D'Onston was the Ripper after all!!!
How - thanks for the e mails, I'll reply soon.
Peter
This one's for Paula - XXX. |
Author: Paula Wolff
Friday, 29 November 2002 - 02:56 pm | | Oh Peter, not a Welshman???!!!! Hopes dashed to pieces. Manchester, huh? In for a schilling, in for a pound. But you still wouldn't get any coffee.
JODIE FOSTER????????????????
I should hope not. Puleaze. We can do better than that. But if you're ever in the state of Texas, drop by and we'll sure talk. XXX to you also. What a strange conversation. Oh, I'm not as big on British euphemisns as Texas slang so I'll go blush in private. You're a hoot.
With sincerest wishes Atilla would get here quick....
Paula |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 30 November 2002 - 08:54 am | | What the world needs now, is love sweet love, it's the only thing that there's just too little of.
I'm a hoot? Thanks for that! You're a doll!
If you're ever over in Britain and some guy invites you back to his hotel room "for coffee", beware! He expects much more ...
It's cool, you don't have to look like Jodie Foster, Shania Twain will do just as well.
Peter |
Author: Monty
Monday, 02 December 2002 - 11:25 am | | ....but Peter, you keep on inviting me up to your place for coffee !!!!
Monty
 |
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 02 December 2002 - 04:13 pm | | | That's because I want to have my way with you Monty! |
Author: Paula Wolff
Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 08:17 am | | What's with the competition around here?? I am absolutely crushed! First I was going to get a cup of coffee and now Monty. Peter, make your choice or I'm taking my marbles and going home!!
:>)
Paula |
Author: Michael Raney
Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 04:59 pm | | Monty,
Hey, if you are going to switch sides, I get first dibs, not Peter. I fought Divia for you and I will fight Pater too! ;-)
Mikey |
Author: chris scott
Friday, 06 December 2002 - 12:10 pm | | I have posted a pic to the Pictures from various Threads boards under a new conversation heading of Sickert House. This is a pic of the house Hopeville where Sickert lived from 1934 and which is situated in St Peters village in Broadstairs, East kent. The pic was taken in 1906 but the house is still there and as I live only about 3 miles from there I will taking some up to date pics shortly which I will of course post. One word of caution - the caption to the pays says Sickert lived there from 1934 until his death in 1942. I have read elsewhere (on the St Peters village website) that he only lived there for 4 years (1934-1938) and I know that he died in Bath
Hope this is of interest
Chris Scott |
Author: Sarah R. Jacobs
Saturday, 14 December 2002 - 03:35 pm | | The Cornwell book is so full of maybes and couldabeens and wecan'tsayhewasn'ts...
A) Cornwell's examination of Sickert's artwork is done with *stated* disregard for any art historian's or art theorist's interpretations and/or analyses. She cannot believe that he is experimenting with new ways of seeing and positioning skin & flesh, the female body, and the male body. So she cannot, following this, interpret the colors of the female nudes' skin (ashy white, with splotches of decay's blue-green and blushes only here and there) as the very thing that Impressionists tried to do with color: experiment 'til they got it "right."
Also, she forgets that these women are living in an age before suntans were fashionable and before even window heaters existed. If he did use poor women as his models, then, I'd like to show Cornwell what colors my tiny, size-5 1/2-ring, hands turn just on a gloveless winter day when I don't move them. Not moving for hours at a time in winter in a freezing, coalless and woodless garret would have done that to anyone.
B) The DNA evidence is shaky, and I didn't read of any second opinions, either.
C) Both DNA and fingerprint evidence would only prove that Sickert was the Ripper by dizzying circular logic: Remember, Cornwell states throughout the book that the best she can do is "We can't prove Sickert wasn't in London" during the Whitechapel Murders, but she can't prove his was, either. So she's going on glorified false confessions/circumstantial evidence AT BEST, because there is no proof that Sickert was even there to do what the letters he may or may not have written say the writer did.
C) Cornwell, on page 197, writes the term "shabby-genteel," which has been written as above in the OED since 1971, as "shabby, genteel." This not only shows an ignorance of British "The Queen's" English and her idioms, but conveys a larger ignorance of an entire lexicon of the very complex social hierarchy of Great Britain. "Shabby-genteel," the way the OED and the rest of us spell it, means "Attempting to look genteel and keep up appearances in spite of shabbiness" (p. 2758 of Vol. II of the Compact Edition of 1971). "'Shabby, genteel' appearance," as Cornwell has it, without adding a [sic], so it's hard to tell if that's just the way it was on the paper she quotes and she didn't have time to add "[sic]"(If that's the story, then the book's publication was even more rushed than I had at first suspected), would mean that the person *himself* looked like a shabby *person*, but that he was nattily dressed, all the same. An easy punctuation error for a Victorian-era policeman in the middle of both the night and a manhunt to make. Not so easy for an author with gobs of time, money, and innate writing ability (for shame, Patricia! I only write this because I really did hope and expect that this *was* the last chapter, that my own secret suspect could be filed under "Oops!" and yours could burn with all vigorousness in Hell. But you let me down, and that's why I'm so annoyed. And you play fast and loose with your so-called evidence, so I feel like you're trying to put on over on me. I could go on, like I did on the Fortean Times website's message board. I won't though. It's too sad. I love your books, but it'll be hard for me to go back to them, now that I get where you're coming from, and what you'd let go to press without checking, first. I'm sad, because I thought my suspect was kind of silly, but yours is even sillier. Yeah, Walt's an arschloch. But come off it! I know you're a feminist. I am, too. Most people are, these days. But pointing fingers into the empty air? You need a vacation, not another project. You need sleep. Because, see, here's the thing: We may or may not solve this mystery, but it can't be solved in any one person's lifetime. It will probably take some clue that may or may not still exist, some letter actually written in a victim's blood, or a photo actually taken by Jack, himself, before he fled.
But a creepy feeling and a resemblance to a morgue photo (and by the way, that woman with the "mangled" face looks a lot more like Ellen Cobden than like Catherine Eddowes. Ellen, being a woman who humiliated Sickert by divorcing him rather publicly, might be a woman whose face, in Sickert's arschloch-ic mind, deserves "blacking out," over and over **in artworks**, 'til he has his hate safely out of his system.)of a sketch is not evidence. Not in any world not entirely constructed by the author, anyway. I think your novelistic tendencies overwhelmed your good judgement, here. And don't think it wasn't an enjoyable read! It was just as good as, if not several times better than, your best work thus far. But it still isn't a solution, and in order to be fair to Walter's family, you should have at least waited to find some of Sickert's lady-friends' diaries from the time of the killings (to find, e.g., "Walter was over last night dressed as a sailor. What a wolf he is!") before you had it published as nonfiction.) |
Author: Jon Van Skiver
Friday, 20 December 2002 - 01:28 pm | | Hi everyone,
Here's a review of Patricia Cornwell's book that might be of interest.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/20/1040174387937.html |
Author: chris scott
Saturday, 21 December 2002 - 11:20 am | | Hi all
I have found a copy of a Sickert print Id not seen before and it mentions THAT name in the title:-)
The print is dated 1923 and is called "Jack Ashore"
The link to it is
http://www.londonprintfair.com/pages/exhibitor/34.html
 |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 22 December 2002 - 07:43 am | | That's interesting Chris, but I suppose the less hysterical amongst us would say that "Jack" refers to a sailor - a term that was, and still is, commonly used.
Monty, Paula, Michael ...whatever happened to Divia? Did she breach her parole regulations and get taken back inside?
Peter |
Author: chris scott
Sunday, 22 December 2002 - 08:03 am | | Hi Peter
Im sure youre right - Jolly Jack tar and all that. But with all the current hoo hah (or however you spell it!!) I couldnt resist posting it:-)
Chris S |
Author: Paula Wolff
Sunday, 22 December 2002 - 10:43 pm | | Hi Peter,
Huh? I think I'm very dense. Who is Divia? Have I lost time again??? I hope you have a Merry Christmas or holiday of your choice. But you've always been so kind to me on this board, so I hope Santa is especially good to you!!
Cheers,
Paula |
Author: James Terence Kearney
Saturday, 04 January 2003 - 09:20 am | | | I think the book is a ripper of. I have just been looking at the book and I am not convinced that Sickert is the Ripper by any measure. Using paint for the ink in the letters!! Come on now folks, do we really want to find out who the real Ripper was? I don't think we do to be honest. We just want to be entertained and live through the romanic Victorian period of hackers, music halls, robbers, con men street doctors and top hats. |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Saturday, 04 January 2003 - 12:46 pm | | Dear Peter:
Shhh... I'm still on the run! The men in white coats can't catch me now! Muahahaha!
*smooch*
Divia |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 04 January 2003 - 04:54 pm | | G'day,
I don't think Sickert would have used the tool of his trade (paint) in the letters, because that would have narrowed the search for an author down to those who had access to and could afford paint.
LEANNE |
Author: Philip Rayner
Sunday, 05 January 2003 - 09:18 am | | | Granted that if the police realised it was paint it would lead them to think of an artist but the fact is they probably have the forensic ability to find out if it was paint |
Author: richard nunweek
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 11:13 am | | walter sickert was a suggestion painter his imagination idearly would match yours most of his work was of a sadistic nature .however his pictures were of topics that were known during his lifetime maybe he left clues that could be i
nterputed as ripper clues mayby not.there is however one point which is very strange .at the turn of the century he painted a picture entitled a passing funeral where two women were looking through a window.no more then that . if i am right he was painting a work that wouldnt come to light untill 17 years after his death
let me explain in 1959 in farsons guide to the british in response to an appeal at the end of the two part special on jack the ripper for imformation from the public he received a letter from a elderly lady who wrote that many years before when her mother was alive she told her of
an occurrence at leytonstone cemetary on the day of mary kellys funeral she and a friend were visiting a friends grave very close to the service . after the service had ended the two women saw one man stayed behind and when he thought he was alone he spat down on the grave several times the two young women were terrified incase the man would get them
pure hersay.some people might say just oral history but just ask yourself is that the type of conversation a mother would discuss with her daughter one morning over tea,and is it the kind of noncence a elderly lady would write in not a kind memory of her mother to tell such a morbid tale to the media
so the point of this being was the picture named a passing funeral a reference to events of kellys funeral if so how sickert be able to paint something that was not common knowledge unless he was there . question was he the person that was seen by the two women not joseph barnett like i have always
believed regards richard. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 11:56 pm | | Hi Richard,
I am not familiar with the story you recite or the painting you describe. However, if true, it is possible that the two events are coincidence.
Nonetheless, I think Cornwell and Sickert supporters would find those two bits of information compelling.
Rich |
Author: brad mcginnis
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 12:21 am | | | hi richard. i guess you are in favor of capital punishment. brad |
Author: richard nunweek
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 06:22 am | | hi brad.
actually i am in favour of capital punishment after the events in birmingham recently . i am not a follower of p cornwall ,i read her book over xmas it kept me quiet. the only two pieces of intrest i managed to find was the reference to a picture A PASSING FUNERAL and her efforts in quiet successfully proving sickett may have wrote at least one ripper letter.people have said on the boards SO WHAT . but would people say SO WHAT if it could be proven joseph barnet, hutchinson,.m druit ,sir william gull, and a host of other popular suspects wrote at least one letter everybody would be saying what a fantastic breakthrough .i just look for peices of imformation which are based on factual evidence or intresting circumstancial i believe in the old saying of all us ripper folk ie. when the real jack steps forward people will say WHO
regards richard |
Author: Keith Sladic
Saturday, 18 January 2003 - 04:48 am | | Walter Sickert is another odd candidate for Jack the Ripper, in my opinion. I am fairly new to the Jack the Ripper subject, well, more so than most who post here; however, I am familiar with the subject enough to know that Sickert has actually been on the suspect list for quite some time.
But I must say, he does not sound right to me. Too much of a social animal to be Jack, in my opinion.
I often wonder why Cornwell focused on him in the first place. Because of his art? Or because he was something of a "big" name that she noticed?
I have not yet read her book. I have seen two programs (one on ABC, here in the U.S. The other on TLC).
The profile information that was offered in both programs was that of a general profile. It seems Ms. Corwell did not read John Douglas's book, The Cases that Haunt Us, in which Douglas offers a profile based on his FBI career. The thing that gets me is that Cornwell say on his book, "John Douglas is masterful and unrivaled in scientific and gifted probing of the violent mind."
Well, Douglas, who was one of the people responsible for the ISU of the FBI makes it clear that the UNSUB would probably not have communicated with anyone on this matter. He would have been a loner. He would not have had any successful relationships with women. He would have been paranoid. He was, for the most part unorganized, though there are some aspects of organization. He would have not been adept at meeting people socially.
Douglas states "if he had been married in the past, it would have been to someone older than himself, and the marriage would have been brief." (Page 69, The Cases that Haunt Us, Douglas &Olshaker, 2000)
The crimes took place, if I am not mistaken, on the weekends or on holidays. Sickert, being an artist would not have followed the working days of the every day joe, if I am not mistaken.
Sickert was probably not Jack. I will say he was probably interested in the case. Perhaps obsessed with it; but he was not Jack in my opinion.
But perhaps if I had spent over a million dollars hoping to prove he was, I would make it sound as if he were indeed.
Cornwell should stick to writing fiction, in my opinon. She does not understand history, nor does she understand the proper procedures of going about historical research.
She made the comment on one of the shows that she felt that she had enough evidence that would have caused a jury to demand that Sickert be hanged, and she stated that that was good enough. Perhaps Ms. Cornwell should look at history and courts?
I mean, after all Jesse James was never found guilty of robbing banks, and O.J. Simpson was found not guilty; yet the vast majority of folks that I know would agree that James did indeed rob banks and Simpson got away with murder.
But I may be mistaken. |
Author: Philip Rayner
Saturday, 18 January 2003 - 07:53 am | | Speaking as one who has read the book I can assure you it will not convince you. You can find comments all over the message board about the Cornwell theory and very few are positive.
My own personal take was the same as yours Keith, that the theory was manufactured to fit Sickert. Unfortunately it doesn't and Cornwell's so called evidence is nothing of the sort. Te presented 'Evidence' would be thrown out of court by any competent Judge.
The clincher from Cornwell is that some mDNA from Sickert letters matched that of JTR letters.
This assumes that:
1. Jack the Ripper wrote the letters attributed to him.
2. That the mDNA definitley identifies Sickert as that writer.
My answer to 1 is that this has never been proved and in fact many people are sure he didn't.
2 Mdna would only narrow down the field of possible Ripper suspects, it in no way proves that, assuming 1 is true, Sickert is the only possible suspect.
I feel that Sickert was obsessed with the crimes and he may have written the letters as a hoax. He may also have included some references in his work as an artist. These 'clues' are tenuous to say the least. In truth it is just possible that Sickert may have been the Ripper but the purpose of a Ripper book is to provide proof and this Cornwell fails miserably to do.
For my money Sickert was not the Ripper. |
Author: C. Junkie
Saturday, 18 January 2003 - 05:27 pm | | I like Patricia Cornwell books a lot and I thought I was going to be totally convinced by her argument against her suspect Sickert but I found out that skill in fiction shouldn't be used to write non-fiction books. I was really disappointed by the book.
CJ |
Author: Cris Novack
Saturday, 18 January 2003 - 07:21 pm | | After being stuck in an airport, looking for something to read, I too am plodding thru the book and agree with the 2 statements above: If anything Cornwell is trying to prove some link between some letters and Sickert, far from proving he is JTR; and as non-fiction, it disappoints.
By sharing some examples of his art, it gives me a somewhat better insight into Sickert, who had his share of issues. But the case against him remains weak IMO.
When I am done, it will on my list of "Top 10 Books to take to GoodWill".
"Case Closed"? Ha-Ha!! |
Author: David Radka
Saturday, 18 January 2003 - 10:35 pm | | Cris,
I'll pay you $5 for the book. Let me have your address by e-mail, and I'll send you the money.
David |
Author: Keith Sladic
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - 01:53 am | | Well, I will say that I have some comfort in reading the three posts following mine. Because I was a bit nervous about posting my position on the matter without reading the book, first.
But I will say that after seeing Cornwell on two programs, I have no real interest in reading her book. Perhaps some will view this as being closed minded and maybe it is to a degree.
Any time a Ripper candidate is mentioned, there seems to be someone who makes a point that no matter who is mentioned, many will not buy into it because many really do not want this case solved. I disagree. I want the case solved. But I want it solved right.
Sickert seems to be the next big thing. Why? Because a famous, well established writer said she would stake her career on it. But what does she have at stake really? She is best known for writing fiction. She is not a historian. Her career is safe. She just spent a lot of money.
I for one think that the Ripper is probably a lot like the profile offered by Douglas. He turned out right--well, he was probably right, in my opinion, on the Boston Strangler. He said Desolvo was not right. He was a rapist, but he was not the killer. DNA samples seems to support this. This came after Douglas's book came out.
For a while I thought that Tumblety was the one. Now I do not because of a number of factors; but one key factor is he was a social individual. You have to be to be a swindler or quack.
But now we have Sickert up front. He will undoubtedly take Prince Albert's place for the next few years...movies, etc.
The waters have been muddied yet again.
The thing that must come out is evidence that shows that Sickert is not a likely candidate.
As of now, I think that the best thing to look at is whether or not he was in France or not at the time.
I think he was probably.
We are looking at a man who probably had a job in which he had the weekends off and holidays off. A man who was quite and shy. No real friends. No real lovers. He lived in the area. And I would be willing to bet that the cops, despite what folks said about them, had an eye on him. Maybe just through dumb luck.
Of course, I could be wrong. |
Author: Keith Sladic
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - 02:06 am | | Oh yeah, I wanted to also say a few other things.
Mr. Nemo is not a big deal. There were more people who knew their latin in the victorian period, compared to today.
Also, all of the art that was shown of Sickert's, on the programs that I saw, did not display any mutilation. In fact, I honestly could see how one might interpret most of the women as possibly sleeping, in his art. Anyone who would have gotten off on cutting up women like that--anyone who was there who got off on killing--would certainly paint what he had seen. He would not have been subtle in his art. Especially if he needed it to get off.
Sickert was a man of his times. He was into the case of the times. Not unlike many who focus their attentions on serial kills of today and purchase art work by them. |
Author: Steve Hodder
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - 04:44 am | | As a new recruit to these Boards I have one positive thing to say about the Cornwell book: it caught my interest.
The tv programme I saw on Cornwell's theory was utterly unconvincing & irritating, but it made me want to learn more. And now I'm hooked!
Regards |
Author: judith stock
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - 12:57 pm | | Then welcome, Steve. It's good to come here with a healthy dose of skepticism; you're much safer that way, and you haven't put yourself out on that proverbial limb and begun sawing!!!
Welcome, and enjoy.
Judy |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - 02:09 pm | | Howdy Steve,
Welcome aboard.
To all the newbies, come to the Ripper chat on Tuesday night! We're having our one and only Cornwell festival, featuring what I am sure will be fun and lively debate that will probably only get a few of us sued!
B |
Author: Keith Sladic
Tuesday, 21 January 2003 - 12:30 am | | LOL.
That was too funny.
It reminds me of the statement Cornwell said--and forgive me if I come off as a Cornwell knocker-- but she said something along the lines of she better be right because if she is not her career would be destroyed and that she would have to resort to something like waiting tables.
I do not know why she made this comment; but I would dare say her career as a writer is safe and sound. She should stick with fiction in my opinion. It's honorable. Stick with what you know, is what Dr. Doyle (an English teacher of mine)always said to his students.
I for one will try my hardest to to make the chat. Sounds fun and stimulating. Sue away is what I say. |
Author: Spryder
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 10:26 am | | The Art Gallery of Hamilton (Ontario) intends to release an exhibition and/or press release on Tuesday morning of, in their words, "international significance." Sources from within the gallery hint that the announcement may have something to do with their Walter Sickert exhibit, though so far no one will confirm or deny this officially.
I believe that Sickert's The Painter in His Studio, 1907, is held at the gallery, and according to a reporter at the Hamilton Spectator they also have one of Sickert's self-portraits.
If anyone lives in the Hamilton area and is interested in digging around for more information.... |
Author: Spryder
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 10:42 am | | Here is the actual press release:
Quote:For immediate release
Media Advisory - Photo Opportunity
Art Gallery of Hamilton to make an announcement of international significance
WHAT
Announcement and interview opportunity
In addition to the announcement, the Art Gallery of Hamilton will comment on its upcoming renovation project. A light lunch will be provided.
WHEN
11:00 a.m., Tuesday, 11 February 2003
WHERE
Art Gallery of Hamilton, 123 King St. W., Hamilton
WHO
Patrick J. Collins, Chair, Art Gallery of Hamilton
Louise Dompierre, President and C.E.O., Art Gallery of Hamilton
Bruce Kuwabara, chief architect, AGH renovation, Partner, Kuwabara McKenna Blumberg Architects
BACKGROUND
The third largest public art gallery in Ontario, the AGH has three fundamental collecting and programming strengths -- 19th-century European, Historical Canadian, and Contemporary Canadian -- and owns one of the finest collections in the country.
|
Author: Stan Russo
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 12:11 pm | | Spryder,
Sickert's paintings have become a moot point. Many see what they want to see. They provide alternate explanations for a theorists views of Sickert's titles and graphic artistic nature.
Sickert was in London during the time of the 'JTR' murders so his later artwork simply could have been affected by these murders. No one will ever know for sure why Sickert's art may reflect the 'JTR' murders.
If this message of international significance refers to Walter Sickert and 'JTR', rest assured that there will be a bandwagon of detractors to argue the opposite.
One thing regarding this case should be embraced by all who seriously research: There will never be definitive proof to indict any suspect or suspects as 'JTR'. The future is to embrace new innovative theories and attempt to validate or disprove these theories.
STAN |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 12:26 pm | | Regarding poor Mr. Sickert, this is a message from my German associates:
"Johann Jürgen Sickert was born 1803 and died 1864. On June 03, 1828 he
married one Margarete Caroline nee Thiele. The sons Oswald Adalbert
Sickert, born February 21, 1828, and Albert Heinrich Sickert, born July 17,
1829, were born as a result from this marriage. Albert Heinrich Sickert
died already on August 12, 1829. Furthermore we know that Margarethe Thiele
was married with one Marius Justus Niebuhr prior to her marriage with
Johann Jürgen Sickert. Children were born from this marriage, as well, but
we do not know any further details".
Oswald Adalbert being of course the father of Walter. So does anyone know more about dna testing than I do? Given that paternal relatives are likely to be, at the closest, 2nd cousins, is that close enough for any sort of dna match?
The maternal family seem confusing as the orthodox view pace Ms. Cornwell is that Walter's mother was illegitimate. However her birth is, on the face of it, recorded as being the child of a married couple so maybe orthodoxy is wrong. Research continues on that line. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 12:28 pm | | | Formatting problems above are due to German accenting |
Author: chris scott
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 05:02 pm | | http://homepage.dtn.ntl.com/wellfurlong/art/sickert.htm
At the above site I read this passage:
An article appeared in The Art Newspaper December 2002 (issue no. 131) entitled Portrait of a Killer? in which Henry Lessore, Sickert's nephew, gives the case for his uncle's defence.
Has anyone read this article or know if it is available online please?
many thanks
Chris S |
Author: Stan Russo
Tuesday, 11 February 2003 - 01:33 pm | | Chris,
Henry Lessore would have been Sickert's nephew by marriage. His 3rd wife was Therese Lessore, whom he married in 1926 at the age of 66. He had known her before the 1920's as a friend and reunited with her as a close friend after the death of his second wife Christine Angus in 1920. Their friendship and companionship grew possibly into love and their marriage in 1926 resulted.
Henry Lessore is not a blood relative of Walter Sickert. He should not have any claim against anyone who implicates Walter Sickert as 'JTR'.
STAN |
|
|
|
|
