Sickert Was Ripper

[Limehouse]

I seem to recall Sickert having a son named Joseph, but I don't remember where I saw the reference. I think it was Underwood's book. If so the fistula trauma couldn't have been too heinous.

Hi Yankee,

Officially, Sickert had no children. The man calling himself Joseph Sickert has been accused by some of being an imposter.

I very much doubt that a fistula would prevent one from fathering a child. There is not even any firm evidence to suggest Sickert had such an affliction. If he did, it's hardly the basis for becoming a homicidal maniac.

Kind regards,

[YankeeSergeant]

Sickert'

I seem to recall Sickert having a son named Joseph, but I don't remember where I saw the reference. I think it was Underwood's book. If so the fistula trauma couldn't have been too heinous.

[PaulB]

And where do you suggest such a manifesto could/would be found?

A communist party headquarters somewhere?

[mandrake80]

Must have been a fast ferry between the murder of Stride and Eddowes

If this was the case why has no passenger manifesto been discovered to prove his trips back and forth?

Mike

And where do you suggest such a manifesto could/would be found?

[Limehouse]

An excellent summary of Cornwell's weaknesses, Patrick. As others have previously stated, Cornwell starts with a suspect and builds the evidence around him to fit her theory.

If artists and creative types are to be judged psychotic criminals on the basis of the contents of their work, what does that say about Cornwell herself?

[Patrick S]

I post as I have - just last night - completed my second reading of Cornwell's 'Portrait of a Killer', my first since it was released. Let me start by saying that one never stops learning. As one observes, reads, studies, views can and opinions change. New impressions are often formed.

Upon my intial reading of 'Portrait' I had already studied the case for fifteen years or so. Based on what I knew in 2002, I was quite skeptical of Cornwell's methodology and conclusions. My takeway was one of disbelief. Now, some dozen years on, having learned exponentially more about the crimes, the victims, the investigators, etc., I find my impressions are quite different: Amusing. Laughable. Absurd. It is - as one may expect considering it's author - a work of complete fiction. Cornwell comes off as quite a silly person, an unserious investigator, and a poor judge of facts.

To call her 'evidence' circumstantial is high flattery indeed. A fistula, we know not where, is assumed to have rendered him impotent, and therefore out to destroy women. Ugly women. For, Patricia tells us that all of Sickert's (JtR), victims were 'hags'. Sickert perferred to paint 'hags', you see. Therefore he loved to kill them, as well. The only problem with this line of reasoning, stated as fact by Cornwell, is that we do not know for certain that these women were ugly 'hags'. We have only mortuary photos to go on (With the exception of Chapman, who is - granted - not beautiful in the photo that's been recovered of her in life). Alas, some contemporary descriptions of the victims tell us that they may have been quite attractive.

Conwell, again, proceeds down another very slippery slope in order to tie Sickert to JtR: That the majority of the 'Ripper Letters' were genuine and authored by Sickert. In order to convince the reader she must tell us that it's quite easy to 'disguise' handwriting, especially for a gifted artist (like, who else, Sickert). He borrows his pal Whister's 'American "Ha-Ha" expression'. He uses his father's and his own favorite insult: "fools". She goes one. These are all phrases spanning myriad letters, different postmarks, different handwriting, differing levels of literacy (also faked by Sickert).

He may have been a genius, too. He was most definately a psychopath, according to Cornwell. How else could he paint such horrible things, you see. He was the master of disguise, as well. Because he was an actor, you know. Skilled at using wigs and fake mustaches, make-up and costumes. He dressed as a soldier to kill "Tabran". He collected soldier's uniforms for his paintings. Loved to dress like a soldier. Even found another soldier to hang out with he and Pearly Poll the night he killed "Tabran" (in a fit of rage because she laughed at his tiny penis). Who was it? Why didn't he come forward? Was he in on it? So many questions.

On and on. Absurdity upon absurdity. I can certainly see how the uninformed would be swayed. Therefore, I can see how SHE would be swayed. The bug was put in her ear by an investigator early on. As a writer of fiction, this was such a wonderful story, she convinced herself of it and invented scenarios that may convince those new to the case, but would viewed as the rubbish it is by those with some knowledge of the crimes. And let's face it: We do represent a comparatively small sub-culture, do we not? So why not write a book for HER fans, people who lap up this drivel because of it's source, not because of it's veracity?

Any reasonable student of the case might conclude that Sickert likely wrote more than one and likely many of the letters. We know he was obsessed with Jack the Ripper. Many were. MANY STILL ARE. Sadly, for Cornewell, this fact and her invented biography of the man prove him a killer: Case closed.

[BTCG]

Is there evidence that he sent taunting letters to the press and the police? If not, how does the fact that a man uses his own stationery to send letters from his home address mark him out as a serial killer?

Seriously, "Famous Artist Was Serial Killer" is not an avenue worth pursuing.

Regards, Bridewell.

Pattie's book provides the details. I suspect that we'll be greatly updated when her new book comes out.

[BTCG]

I say twit because she concludes using her own theories, such as Sickert's motive being because of a botched fistula operation.

[GUT]

Please don't call the woman a twit. According to you she has found the only scientific evidence. Disagree with her by all means but don't be rude.

[GUT]

So someone writes [let's say] Dear Boss. It plastered all over the place and they're not tempted to write more?

[BTCG]

No joke. The twit has proven that Sickert penned some of the Ripper letters. This indeed, could sway a jury.

One in jest. More?

[GUT]

One letter is a lark; more are a confession.

Please tell me you are joking.

[BTCG]

One letter is a lark; more are a confession.

[Cogidubnus]

Hello Tricky Dicky

Because at one time my wife and I were both interested in The Whitechapel Murders (among others) we both, one year, about ten years ago I think, bought each other the paperback Cornwell book as Christmas presents, both of us laughed, both of us read and both of us reached the same conclusions...

My wife has long lost interest in the WCMs...

One copy of the book (my wife's) is now with my ripper collection, the other for a long time helped prop up a corner of one of our (two) joannas, but since it (the piano) was repaired I've rather lost track...and who cares?

Doesn't that say it all?

All the best

Dave

[Richard E. Nixon]

I wasn't suggesting by any means that you were rude. You are just mistaken, that's all.

The list of adjectives I mentioned I was applying just to myself, to imply that I am rarely any of these things except where Sickert is concerned. They did not apply to you.

Lastly, if you have an open fire where you live, why not light it tomorrow morning with Cornwell's book? Mind, thinking about it, it may be too damp to catch.

Bye-eee.

Graham

I threw out Cornwell's book the last time I moved. It was quite possibly the worst Ripper book I had read. There's not a shred of evidence in it to even suggest that Sickert was the one. What surprises me is that Cornwell has a reputation as an excellent writer. Why did she feel she needed to publish such an absurd story? I can't really believe that Cornwell actually believes her conclusion. Perhaps she needed attention?