Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Key question regarding the BBC 1973 series and the graffito

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

  • FISHY1118
    replied
    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 .

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    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...
    .

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • FISHY1118
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Herlock,

    Not certain yet.

    I'm currently working on it.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • FISHY1118
    replied
    Or maybe Joseph Sickert was indeed Walter Sickert son , which if true poses a interesting question , Walter died in 1942 ,Joseph maintained he was told the story by he father Walter when he was 13/14 . Joseph being born in 1925 would make it 1938/9.

    Now again, if this is true it means Joseph Sickert, a man nobody ever heard of who lived a life of a virtual recluse, who by Walters account was told an incredible story about who the whitechapel murderer was , then decided to wait 35 years to tell knight so they could both make a few bucks ?

    Add to this Jean Overton Fullers mother Violet Fullers life long companion Florence Pash, who claimed Walter Sickert who she associated and spent time with and was a painter in her own right , told her the same story he told Joseph.

    So another question beckons , why on earth would Jean Overton Fuller go to all the trouble of researching and publishing her 1991 book based on a story which by that time was being debunked as a made up fantasy by every ripperoligist on the planet ?. One wonders her motives as to why she would expose herself to the same ridicule that both joseph and knight came under....... just for a few bucks

    Finally , lets take Joseph out of the picture altogether and go with the theory he lied and made the whole thing up. How then do we explain Florence Pashs exact same lie she told to violet fuller in 1948? according to Jean Overton Fuller.

    So now, do we have two people who most likely never met, never knew the other existed ,who were told the same lie from the same source in Walter Sickert 50 years apart?

    Im sure ill come under some criticism for even mentioning this topic , it seems to be a taboo subject these days on this forum, where just having a different opinon gets you labeled a crazy conspiracy theory nut . Ah well so be it.
    Last edited by FISHY1118; 07-23-2019, 02:10 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • PaulB
    replied
    Originally posted by APerno View Post

    Hope I am not too obnoxious stepping in; the answer may be money!

    1970 was just one year after the files were opened; maybe Knight was already beginning his investigation/conspiracy theory and the two hooked up. Makes the whole show much better if Gorman is legally named Sickert. Maybe the royal conspiracy theory was a Knight-Gorman conspiracy right from the get go! Just speculation.
    I'm not aware of any evidence that Knight and Sickert knew each other prior to Knight interviewing Sickert at the time of the BBC Television series, and having been through Knight's personal papers, I found no suggestion that the two knew each other prior to that time (or that Knight was creating a conspiracy theory, for that matter). The question is a fair one, why did Joseph believe he was the son of Walter Sickert? Why did his family accept that he was the son of Walter Sickert? Why did his wife and children accept their surname being changed by deed poll? When you stop to think about it, changing one's name, one's family's name, doesn't seem something you do lightly or that your family would lightly accept. Did Joseph just wake up one morning and decide he was the son or Walter Sickert? Did he just tell his wife, Edna, 'Oh, by the way, your surname is now Gorman-Sickert'? Or was it a belief of long-standing? If so, what encouraged Joseph to do something about t in 1970? Lots of questions...

    Leave a comment:


  • APerno
    replied
    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
    Hope I am not too obnoxious stepping in; the answer may be money!

    1970 was just one year after the files were opened; maybe Knight was already beginning his investigation/conspiracy theory and the two hooked up. Makes the whole show much better if Gorman is legally named Sickert. Maybe the royal conspiracy theory was a Knight-Gorman conspiracy right from the get go! Just speculation.

    Leave a comment:


  • GUT
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    Jubela, Jubelo and Jubelum would have been known as the "Jubes", not the "Juwes", if anything. The whole "Juwes" thing is utter nonsense.
    A work colleague (and friend) was for a few years the highest Mason in the country, I asked him about Jules he said he had never come across it in Masonry, I had no cause to doubt his word.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X