Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Key question regarding the BBC 1973 series and the graffito

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi Herlock,

    Joseph Gorman changed his name to Gorman-Sickert in 1970.

    Any idea why, at the age of 45, Joseph might have begun thinking he was the son of Walter Sickert?

    Regards,

    Simon
    Hi Simon,

    Sorry I missed your post.

    I have no idea at all. Perhaps he was Sickert’s son?
    Regards

    Herlock






    "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

    Comment


    • #62
      Hi Herlock,

      Thanks for your reply.

      Perhaps he was Walter Sickert's son?

      Why does the word 'doubtful' keep popping into my head?

      Regards,

      Simon
      Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
        Hi Herlock,

        Thanks for your reply.

        Perhaps he was Walter Sickert's son?

        Why does the word 'doubtful' keep popping into my head?

        Regards,

        Simon
        Hello Simon,

        Mine too. More than once.

        What do you think might have been his motive or reason for thinking or pretending that he was Sickert’s son?
        Regards

        Herlock






        "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

        Comment


        • #64
          Hi Herlock,

          Not certain yet.

          I'm currently working on it.

          Regards,

          Simon
          Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

          Comment


          • #65
            What do you think might have been his motive or reason for thinking or pretending that he was Sickert’s son?

            Perhaps while your at it Simon you could discover somewhere why the Walter Sickert family trust /foundation /estate[what ever it is] ,whos worth would no doubt be considerable owing to the value of all his works and paintings . Why then to the best of my knowledge did they never come out and challenge Josephs right to to claim he was Walters son? After all would he not then have some sort of legal challenge to the estate [if that was his motive which it clearly wasnt] and or his paintings ?

            Or was it because they thought Joseph could never really prove the fact he was Walters son that they never really bothered to much.

            But then according to Jean Overton Fullers claim , Joseph at some point in time was receiving payment from the Walter Sickert Estate for certain writing and paintings. So if thats true, why would a phony baloney, made up storyteller be receiving such payments from such a famous painter estate?.

            You once offered to discuss Joseph and knights book a few weeks backs and because some people who are to quick to shoot others down i let it go , for me its not about trying to prove whos right and whos wrong its about the different possibilities i see when it comes to the things ive read and researched . When it comes to Joseph Sickert and all the people involved in his story i.e. fuller ,pash and there are others , surely they cant all be lies, surely it cant all be a made up fairy tale ?

            With the kindest regard, healthy discussion, and the right to have a different opinion . [ [shame one has to qualify that , but on this forum its a given ]...Fishy

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post


              Perhaps while your at it Simon you could discover somewhere why the Walter Sickert family trust /foundation /estate[what ever it is] ,whos worth would no doubt be considerable owing to the value of all his works and paintings . Why then to the best of my knowledge did they never come out and challenge Josephs right to to claim he was Walters son? After all would he not then have some sort of legal challenge to the estate [if that was his motive which it clearly wasnt] and or his paintings ?

              Or was it because they thought Joseph could never really prove the fact he was Walters son that they never really bothered to much.

              But then according to Jean Overton Fullers claim , Joseph at some point in time was receiving payment from the Walter Sickert Estate for certain writing and paintings. So if thats true, why would a phony baloney, made up storyteller be receiving such payments from such a famous painter estate?.

              You once offered to discuss Joseph and knights book a few weeks backs and because some people who are to quick to shoot others down i let it go , for me its not about trying to prove whos right and whos wrong its about the different possibilities i see when it comes to the things ive read and researched . When it comes to Joseph Sickert and all the people involved in his story i.e. fuller ,pash and there are others , surely they cant all be lies, surely it cant all be a made up fairy tale ?

              With the kindest regard, healthy discussion, and the right to have a different opinion . [ [shame one has to qualify that , but on this forum its a given ]...Fishy
              Its very easy to make that kind of comment whilst you’re being polite to Simon on an issue that’s not directly connected to the crimes. A bit different when someone disputes any of your opinions and gets called a moron!

              Regards

              Herlock






              "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                Hi Herlock,

                Not certain yet.

                I'm currently working on it.

                Regards,

                Simon
                Hello Simon,

                Good luck with the research but if it’s not favourable to the Knight theory Fishy will dismiss it.

                Im sure that it hasn’t gone unnoticed with you that he still hasn’t backed up his claim to be able to prove that your Knight/Sickert research was wrong?

                Oh well...
                .
                Regards

                Herlock






                "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                Comment


                • #68
                  Hi Fishy,

                  Your comments are in bold.

                  "Joseph at some point in time was receiving payment from the Walter Sickert Estate for certain writing and paintings."

                  Joseph Gorman changed his name by deed poll to Gorman-Sickert in 1970. He was 45 years old. This where our story starts.

                  According to Patricia Cornwell, nineteen years later, on 19th September 1989, Joseph [then 64 years of age] received a payment of £154.88 from a literary agency.

                  The payment was a permission fee and a 50% share of an advance for the use and paperback release of "A Free House," a compilation of Walter Sickert's writings edited by Osbert Sitwell. The book was originally published in 1947.

                  AMS Press Inc [New York] published a paperback edition of "A Free House" on 1st June 1989. Patricia Cornwell was diligent in asking how Joseph Sickert was entitled to receive any revenues from it.

                  Sixteen years later she got her answer.

                  On 10th March 2005, the literary agency involved explained—

                  "It is our understanding that Joseph Sickert was Walter Sickert's son and inherited the copyright on his father's work . . .

                  "Our original contact for the Estate was Walter Sickert's widow."

                  Thérèse Lessore, Sickert's third and last wife, died in 1945.

                  "Our files indicate that we received instructions in 1989 [the year of Joseph Sickert's payment], and presumably it was at that point that he inherited copyrights."

                  Joseph changed his name to Sickert in 1970, but as far as we know didn't receive any financial benefit until 1989.

                  "Why would a phony baloney, made up storyteller be receiving such payments [sic—a payment] from such a famous painter estate?"

                  Seven years later, in October 2012, the anonymous literary agency stated that the source of their information couldn't be clarified. The payment instruction may have come from the Sickert estate, from Joseph Gorman, or someone else.

                  This is not very reassuring. In essence they were saying that anyone could have claimed to be the son of Walter Sickert, and they would have sent him a cheque for £154.88.

                  Regards,

                  Simon
                  Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                    Hi Fishy,

                    Your comments are in bold.

                    "Joseph at some point in time was receiving payment from the Walter Sickert Estate for certain writing and paintings."

                    Joseph Gorman changed his name by deed poll to Gorman-Sickert in 1970. He was 45 years old. This where our story starts.

                    According to Patricia Cornwell, nineteen years later, on 19th September 1989, Joseph [then 64 years of age] received a payment of £154.88 from a literary agency.

                    The payment was a permission fee and a 50% share of an advance for the use and paperback release of "A Free House," a compilation of Walter Sickert's writings edited by Osbert Sitwell. The book was originally published in 1947.

                    AMS Press Inc [New York] published a paperback edition of "A Free House" on 1st June 1989. Patricia Cornwell was diligent in asking how Joseph Sickert was entitled to receive any revenues from it.

                    Sixteen years later she got her answer.

                    On 10th March 2005, the literary agency involved explained—

                    "It is our understanding that Joseph Sickert was Walter Sickert's son and inherited the copyright on his father's work . . .

                    "Our original contact for the Estate was Walter Sickert's widow."

                    Thérèse Lessore, Sickert's third and last wife, died in 1945.

                    "Our files indicate that we received instructions in 1989 [the year of Joseph Sickert's payment], and presumably it was at that point that he inherited copyrights."

                    Joseph changed his name to Sickert in 1970, but as far as we know didn't receive any financial benefit until 1989.

                    "Why would a phony baloney, made up storyteller be receiving such payments [sic—a payment] from such a famous painter estate?"

                    Seven years later, in October 2012, the anonymous literary agency stated that the source of their information couldn't be clarified. The payment instruction may have come from the Sickert estate, from Joseph Gorman, or someone else.

                    This is not very reassuring. In essence they were saying that anyone could have claimed to be the son of Walter Sickert, and they would have sent him a cheque for £154.88.

                    Regards,

                    Simon
                    Hi Simon,

                    It appears possible then, even likely, that they simply took Joseph’s word for this? Did Sickert have any surviving descendants at the time? If not, would Joseph have been aware of the fact?
                    Regards

                    Herlock






                    "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Hi Herlock,

                      I'm going to change my name to Simon Fleming and try a similar tactic with the Ian Fleming estate.

                      I'll let you know how I get on.

                      Regards,

                      Simon
                      Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Its very easy to make that kind of comment whilst you’re being polite to Simon on an issue that’s not directly connected to the crimes. A bit different when someone disputes any of your opinions and gets called a moron!
                        Thats because you were, and are still behaving like one. Simon was not .

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Seven years later, in October 2012, the anonymous literary agency stated that the source of their information couldn't be clarified. The payment instruction may have come from the Sickert estate, from Joseph Gorman, or someone else.
                          So in actual fact we dont know do we ?, what we do know is the payment instructions ''may'' have come from the Sickert estate [so possible]


                          ''for me its not about trying to prove whos right and whos wrong its about the different possibilities i see when it comes to the things ive read and research ''


                          thanks for your post. regards fishy.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                            Hi Herlock,

                            I'm going to change my name to Simon Fleming and try a similar tactic with the Ian Fleming estate.

                            I'll let you know how I get on.

                            Regards,

                            Simon
                            Hi Simon,

                            it might be worth a crack.

                            Or you try ‘discovering’ a confession by Gull?

                            Someone might fall for it.
                            Regards

                            Herlock






                            "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                              Thats because you were, and are still behaving like one. Simon was not .
                              It’s very noticeable that you still haven’t done what you said that you could do though. Disprove Simon’s research. Now’s your chance. Or should I say your 27th chance. Or do you think that just because you make a claim it should be taken as true? I won’t hold my breath for an honest approach though. You’ll probably employ your usual change the subject tactics and start talking about TOD’s. Perhaps if you answered questions and backed up your claims you might get some respect?

                              Back up your claim then. If you cannot then we know it was untrue. Well....we knew that all along didn’t we.
                              Regards

                              Herlock






                              "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Fairclough , Joseph Sickert and Gull, and t.o.d, you had your chance and you refused to listen to these topics which you were wrong about , and as explained you don t get a second chance to discuss them with me, feel free to yell it from the highest roof top to anyone else ,

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X