It is not that Sickert was a 'sophisticated social being ' that stops him being the ripper .It is the fact that he was a creative, an artist, a lover of life and humanity. Sickert was a life enhancer not a life taker.if you had read anything of Sickert writings you would know this .Serial Killers are flawed ,sick personalities not fulfilled happy beings like Sickert. Serial killers lack empathy and have a false sense of their superiority. They are not creatives. Often they are failures and nurse resentments against others.
Whenever wild suspects are put in the pool. Personality is never taken into account. The question is never asked, does this person possess the personality defects of a serial killer? The more famous the person, the more we know about them, yet insane theories are still tossed in the ring with no evidence what so ever. Cheers Miss Marple
I am afraid that I am going to have to disagree with you on this one. I certainly don't think Sickert was the Ripper by any stretch of the imagination but I don't see how any suspect can be dismissed on the basis of personality. There are always stories in the newspaper of some happily married man, pillar of the community, who is involved in child pornography or some other horrible thing. Look at the BTK killer, for example, he was prominent in his church and chided his neighbors over the length of their grass. We can only see the outward appearances.
...He passed the time in his cell by writing and taking correspondence courses on literature and narrative writing. He began submitting children's stories to the radio, which ultimately broadcast about 50 of them. One woman, a music teacher and single mother, was so moved by them that she visited him in prison and later testified at his parole hearing that a man who wrote such tales was "full of love". He wrote a play and a volume of poetry; then in 1982 his autobiographical novel, Purgatory, was published. Unterweger became a celebrated author. In 1988 Purgatory was presented to the public in a film adaptation, first in cinemas, then on ORF television. (...) Unterweger gave televised readings in the prison auditorium which were attended by intellectuals and government officials. Later he was allowed to attend the premiere of his play, End Station Prison, at the Vienna People's Theatre. A short, slender man with delicate, youthful features, he had a particularly strong effect on women, many of whom have described him as looking like a "little boy".
"Unnoticed and unmentioned by the eye of Cornwell, these works show the continuing influence of Degas (and of early Cezanne paintings such as The Murder and The Abduction as well). In a painting alternatively called Interior and The Rape, Degas painted a giant menacing man barring the door of a small room while a woman sits cowering on the other side of the room. This is one of Degas' strongest paintings, as anyone who has seen it in Philadelphia or on tour will know. The suitcase in the middle of the picture glooms with an unearthly light. You wonder why Cornwell doesn't accuse Degas or Cezanne of being the Ripper. The reason is simple. These artists are as invulnerable to Cornwell's investigations as Cornwell is invulnerable to my criticism. Poor Walter Sickert is not."
The Impressionists broke up after 1886, and Degas began keeping more and more to himself, concentrating, along with his painting, on his photography and sculpture. He began favoring pastels over oils, mixing them with different media and experimenting with a variety of techniques, and it was now, curiously enough, that his work began to show distinctly Impressionist qualities. And, even more curiously, these beautiful, luminous works – many of which show nude women in intimate moments, bathing, combing their hair, etc., and are considered by some modern art critics as proof of Degas's misogynist outlook - now found acceptance with the public.
In 1894, a French Army Officer of Jewish descent, Alfred Dreyfuss, was falsely accused of treason, and this caused a great uproar in French Society. Degas took the part of the Anti-Dreyfuss crowd and revealed himself to be rabidly antisemitic. Since he couldn't do anything in halves, he topped his unsavory behavior by breaking off contacts with all Jews – including his childhood friends, the Halevys, and his long-time art colleagues, Renoir and Cezanne.
I know I'm treading on thin ice here. So it seems to go whenever discussing Sickert. First of all, many thanks for the clarification about the Rising Sun. I'm going to be traveling to London in about six months and doing quite a bit of Ripper touring and that's going to help a bit. But in regards to the Camden murder-- Cornwell describes the morning after a certain way, and if you or anyone else has evidence to contradict her then I am very interested in hearing it because I am still fairly new at all this and am just trying to understand. She recounts how as the police were on the scene in front of Emily Dimmock's house with her body still inside, Walter Sickert just happened to come strolling down the street with his artist's supplies in hand and asked what was going on. When told, he became intrigued and asked permission to go inside and sketch the body, which he was given since he was famous and well known by that time, which of course led to his "Camden Town Murder" series of artwork, the implication being that if he was in fact the killer then here was his most audacious act of all, profiting financially from one of his murders. My question- is it a matter of record that Cornwell's account of that morning really did happen? Because if it is, then I have to say that if I had been a detective on the scene that morning I would have eyed Sickert with EXTREME suspicion, and at the very least viewed him as a "person of interest."
Please excuse the late response. I made that post a couple of weeks ago and hadn't returned to this thread.
Cornwell quotes a 'short' article in the London Evening Standard newspaper about the Camden Town Murder paintings from Nov 29 1937, thirty odd years after the murder which states 'Sickert, who was living in Camden Town, was permitted to enter the house where the murder was committed and did several sketches of the murdered woman's body.' No doubt this quote exists but even Ms.C doesn't seem convinced of the truth of it as she then says 'Supposing this is true.....' Much has been written about the paintings and I don't believe anything else has been said that placed Sickert at the scene so the person who wrote the Standard article must have been just plain wrong.
. He used to tell a story of a landlady who had told him of a lodger, she suspected of being the ripper. It was probably a tall tale he told for effect . Osbert Sitwell, a friend of his, recounts this story in detail in the introduction to a collection of Sickert's writings. He adored Sickert and really brings him alive.
I can quote Sitwell's account if anyone is interested.
Yes Miss Marple I would like to hear it at your convenience.
Patricia Cornwell is full of S***. In my belief, we as ripperologists of all levels should be trying to get Jack the Ripper convicted in an English Court of law. however, mrs.Cornwell has managed to come up with mere speculation. It is the same problem with many suspects in the ripper murders, and will continue to be. However, I want to give the award for biggest waste of money ever to "Portrait of a Killer!" Congratulations on beating the Democratic Primaries in getting this award!
Both she and Walter Sickert are talented and creative artists.
Both she and Walter Sickert specialize in macabre subject matter.
Both she and Walter Sickert claimed that their art gave them special insight into the Ripper matter.
Both she and Walter Sickert claimed to have figured out who Jack the Ripper really was.
She's indicted herself as being Jack the Ripper.
And in the ultimate irony, her own conclusion proves her techniques are worthless.