I am a big fan of the 1973 BBC series, and think the amount of research and the quality of the analysis of it is stunning. The historical reconstructions are a bit clunky but the interplay between Barlow and Watt is great and it is for my money the most exhaustive and level headed study of the case shown on the screen.
One question: when Jospeh Sickert makes his appearance on film in part 6 to give his "story" about the Duke of Clarence etc, the investigators are not taken in by it but do find a possible bit of corroboration in a now missing document. I've read that since this all happened Sickert, who wasn't really a Sickert at all, confessed he made it all up. Did he ever officially state this and if so did he give any reasons for the fabrications, and also explain how some of the information he gave did have possible historical accuracy to it (ie an Elizabeth COOK living in Cleveland Street at the time)?
Apologies if this is all very well known now, I'm a newbie here!
One question: when Jospeh Sickert makes his appearance on film in part 6 to give his "story" about the Duke of Clarence etc, the investigators are not taken in by it but do find a possible bit of corroboration in a now missing document. I've read that since this all happened Sickert, who wasn't really a Sickert at all, confessed he made it all up. Did he ever officially state this and if so did he give any reasons for the fabrications, and also explain how some of the information he gave did have possible historical accuracy to it (ie an Elizabeth COOK living in Cleveland Street at the time)?
Apologies if this is all very well known now, I'm a newbie here!
Comment