Sickert & Emily Dimmock

[kensei]

I would like to play Devil's Advocate about something here, and I want to start out by saying that I do NOT think that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper. There was a time when I did, after I first read Patricia Cornwell's book and before I learned where she had fallen short. That was followed by a period where I still considered him a viable suspect but just one of the many. Now I just don't anymore. But though Cornwell was wrong on many points, I do think that she also raised many interesting ones that are at least food for thought. I also think it is significant that she was not the first to suggest Sickert as a suspect, she only expanded on the idea to an extreme degree.

It's been established that Sickert was indeed fascinated with the Ripper, that the subject did turn up in his artrwork, and that he had "Ripper moods" in which he would more or less playact the Ripper (but that he also had such moods about other notable and much less dark historical figures). It is this propensity of his that leads me to speculate about him and his connection to the acknowledged subject of his "Camden Murder" series of paintings, prostitute Emily Dimmock, killed by cut throat in 1907 when Sickert was 47 years old. There is the story- though I understand it is unsubstantiated and may be just urban legend- that while police were on the scene of the crime in the morning Sickert appeared walking down the street, artist's supplies in hand, and asked what was going on. As he was a known figure at that time, the police told him, and then relented to his request to be allowed inside to sketch the body. I've always thought that IF that story was true, surely that should have made him if not a suspect, at least a "person of interest" in the crime.

I vacationed in London six months ago and in addition to touring all the traditional Ripper sites I also took it upon myself to visit both Sickert's home at that time (Mornington Crescent) and Emily Dimmock's (Agar Grove), in Camdentown, and view at least their exteriors. Cornwell describes them as being a 20-minute walk apart. I would put it at more like half an hour, and that was at a hard and diligent pace. Moreover, the murder house was on a side street off of a main road. Sickert was known to have loved long walks, but the odds of him just blundering along at the time of the murder with artist's supplies in hand did not seem likely. Again, IF the story is true, Agar Grove (which was then called St. Paul's Road) being his deliberate destination seems more likely. It is probably a coincidence, but an intriguing one, that Dimmock's address on that street was #29, the same as Annie Chapman's murder site on Hanbury Street.

Devil's Advocate time- Sickert was not Jack the Ripper, but after nearly 20 years of fascination with the case to the point of playacting it, and after possibly coming into contact with a rather notorious prostitute in the area where he was living, might his fascination finally have led him to act out a fantasy of wondering what it was really like to be the Ripper? Cutting the throat and finding that he didn't like it as he'd thought he would might be the reason for there being no further mutilation of the body. But continued fascination with at least the idea of it would have then led to his paintings of it, and thus financial gain from his one and only murder. It is pure speculation, and I have no idea how likely it is to be true or sheer fantasy. So slam me to your heart's content if you wish.

For what it's worth, Sickert's house at 6 Mornington Crescent has a historical plaque on it announcing that he lived and worked there, while Emily Dimmock's house at 29 Agar Grove had construction scaffolding erected along its front. I wonder what kind of people live at each site now.

[miss marple]

Sickert was fascinated by crime, all his life, in the way that everyone on the casebook is.
His favourite crimes were Jack the ripper and the Titchbourne Claiment. He had his own story about a landlady who had a lodger who was jack the ripper.He loved telling this story.
Like his mentor Degas Sickert loved painting prostitutes and working class women, he believed true beauty was not in society women or young beauties but could be found in the ordinary,and the mundane. He was also part of the realist movement of the late 19th century, literature [ Zola] and art Degas, Lautrec which sought to represent urban life.
Part of this was painting from photographs, and newspapers photos[Degas pioneered this]and an interest in depicting popular culture. The series of paintings known as the Camden Town Murders dealt which his fascination with the female nude, they are not necessarily prostitutes as models, but by imposing that title on on them creates a narrative construction, but like all artists he was just playing ideas that interested or obsessed him. and the fact that such a high profile murder of a prostitute took place on his 'manor' so to speak was probably to good an opportunity to miss, in terms of titles for the paintings.
Miss Marple

[Limehouse]

It is also worth noting that the alternative title of The Camden Town Murder is What Shall We Do For The Rent?. The painting does, indeed, depict a nude woman (well, half a nude woman to be precise) but it is hardly an erotic pose. The woman faces away from the camera, towards the wall beside the bed. A man sits on the side of the bed, head downcast, hands clasped. To me, the painting seems to be making a statement about the extremes to which some people were driven. It does not seem to be a figment of someone's fantasies - it is rather a sad but sympathetic scene. Far from revealing murderous intent, it seems to speak to me of the artist's tenderness, empathy and perhaps pity.

[BTCG]

Sickert was fascinated by crime, all his life, in the way that everyone on the casebook is.
His favourite crimes were Jack the ripper and the Titchbourne Claiment. He had his own story about a landlady who had a lodger who was jack the ripper.He loved telling this story.
Like his mentor Degas Sickert loved painting prostitutes and working class women, he believed true beauty was not in society women or young beauties but could be found in the ordinary,and the mundane. He was also part of the realist movement of the late 19th century, literature [ Zola] and art Degas, Lautrec which sought to represent urban life.
Part of this was painting from photographs, and newspapers photos[Degas pioneered this]and an interest in depicting popular culture. The series of paintings known as the Camden Town Murders dealt which his fascination with the female nude, they are not necessarily prostitutes as models, but by imposing that title on on them creates a narrative construction, but like all artists he was just playing ideas that interested or obsessed him. and the fact that such a high profile murder of a prostitute took place on his 'manor' so to speak was probably to good an opportunity to miss, in terms of titles for the paintings.
Miss Marple

I find posts such as this to be fascinating.

While at times complaining about others jumping to conclusions, the author seemingly exempts him/herself from these rules.

Sickert found beauty in the ordinary, or mundane? This exceeds the facts in evidence. Yes, B follows A, but this does not mean that A caused B.

He chose prostitutes, most likely, for a variety of reasons, and this would be known only to him as to why.

But, prostitution is an employment of convenience, and married men need convenience above all else.

Given microscopic examination, paper experts can conclude that Sickert stationary was used to create Ripper letters.

Once can be explained by poor jest, or perhaps alcohol or other drug influence.

Several letters is far more troubling.

Any Sickert defense that brushes over this would seem to merit the same level as the infamous "all depends what 'is' means' defense.

[Limehouse]

I find posts such as this to be fascinating.

While at times complaining about others jumping to conclusions, the author seemingly exempts him/herself from these rules.

Sickert found beauty in the ordinary, or mundane? This exceeds the facts in evidence. Yes, B follows A, but this does not mean that A caused B.

He chose prostitutes, most likely, for a variety of reasons, and this would be known only to him as to why.

But, prostitution is an employment of convenience, and married men need convenience above all else.

Given microscopic examination, paper experts can conclude that Sickert stationary was used to create Ripper letters.

Once can be explained by poor jest, or perhaps alcohol or other drug influence.

Several letters is far more troubling.

Any Sickert defense that brushes over this would seem to merit the same level as the infamous "all depends what 'is' means' defense.

So, you are suggesting that anyone who wrote more than one hoax Ripper letter is a strong suspect? The police and other organisations received hundreds of letters. Are you suggesting that Sickert wrote them all? Perhaps you mean he wrote just several of them, and all the rest were written by single hoaxers? Considering the number of letters received, your argument is just not logical.

[Mondegreen]

Could he have decided to act out those fantasies? It's not impossible, I suppose, and I would find a theory like that far more plausible than him being the Ripper.

I don't know all of the details in Emily Dimmock's murder. Depending on when her body was discovered (what hour) and the sort of schedule Sickert tended to keep, I can also easily imagine that he could have been strolling by on his way to painting someone or something and noticed the police's presence. Being fascinated with crime as he was, he asked what was going on. It's hardly unusual even today, if police or even an ambulance arrive somewhere, for people who are walking by or live in the area to go see what's going on.

I find posts such as this to be fascinating.

While at times complaining about others jumping to conclusions, the author seemingly exempts him/herself from these rules.

Sickert found beauty in the ordinary, or mundane? This exceeds the facts in evidence. Yes, B follows A, but this does not mean that A caused B.

He chose prostitutes, most likely, for a variety of reasons, and this would be known only to him as to why.

But, prostitution is an employment of convenience, and married men need convenience above all else.

Choosing prostitutes or the motif of prostitution for his works is hardly unusual. Society was changing rapidly at the time and just as today we have a big number of articles and discussion on living in the digital age and changes in our society in the past decades and how this affects people, at the time there was also a fascination with a similar subject. Many painters and writers found interest in subjects related to crime and prostitution, an underworld of sorts that was very real in large cities. Several of Baudelaire's poems, for example, draw on similar subjects.

Prostitutes were often employed as models, partly because of the fascination above, and partly because posing nude for artists was not something considered respectable for the majority of women.

I'm sure there are many other reasons also that have been covered by many studies in sociology, history of art, feminist studies, etc. about gender roles, eroticism, and common tropes in the art of the time pertaining to "fallen women".

None of that proves that Sickert was the Ripper.

Sure, maybe he had sinister reasons for choosing to depict prostitutes in his work, reasons that we can't be certain of. That's not impossible. In truth, however, it's much less likely that he had a murderous fascination with prostitutes and more likely that just like many artists of his time he was interested in them as part of the "modern life" and the "underworld" they sought to depict, of which crime was another one.

The fact that such a cultural trend existed doesn't absolve Sickert from being a Ripper suspect, but it sheds some light on his work and puts into context, meaning that it also offers other explanations that are far less sinister and more probable.

Given microscopic examination, paper experts can conclude that Sickert stationary was used to create Ripper letters.

Once can be explained by poor jest, or perhaps alcohol or other drug influence.

Several letters is far more troubling.

Indeed, writing several letters posing as the Ripper would be strange and troubling but an artist being a strange and troubling person does not necessarily make them a murderer.

Any Sickert defense that brushes over this would seem to merit the same level as the infamous "all depends what 'is' means' defense.

Perhaps because the plausibility on someone being the Ripper or not does depend on the meaning of the same behaviours that are used to point them out as a suspect. Painting prostitutes as part of an ongoing trend among artists is one meaning, painting prostitutes due to a wish to murder and mutilate them is another meaning... and they're very different ones, that put the suspect in very different lights.

If there was evidence that the meaning of his actions is the latter, there wouldn't be so much discussion about his viability as a suspect. The fact is, we just don't know why he did it, but it's likely that he was simply engaging in a trend he would have also picked up from other artists that were his contemporaries.

I'm not saying he's not the Ripper, since I don't have my mind made up on a suspect. However, many of the "evidence" that points to him has many explanations that are simpler and more probable, and which are worth taking into account.

[Penhalion]

http://books.google.com/books?id=2TihtTWL5LUC&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=artists+using+prostitutes+as+models+in+late+victorian+art&source=bl&ots=Xxk5M6W1Pi&sig=liDZ6MhWRx3OkRHG1AMkIwO441Q&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bkpiU7q7CoWHyATVxYHADw&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=artists%20using%20prostitutes%20as%20models%20in%20late%20victorian%20art&f=false

[Mayerling]

Sickert was fascinated by crime, all his life, in the way that everyone on the casebook is.
His favourite crimes were Jack the ripper and the Titchbourne Claiment. He had his own story about a landlady who had a lodger who was jack the ripper.He loved telling this story.
.
Miss Marple

It was not unusual for artists to be attracted to criminals or crime. Jack Sheppard was painted while in prison in 1725. Sarah Malcolm (who murdered two women for gain) was painted by William Hogarth in 1736. When John Williams, the supposed "Ratcliffe Highway" serial killer, killed himself in prison (or was murdered in prison) in 1811, Thomas Lawrence sketched the corpse with the tight noose around his throat. The illustrator Gustave Dore did a picture (I believe called "The Execution") based on his visiting the execution of the first known "Whitechapel" murderer, Henry Wainwright, in 1875. Even abroad this interest in crime occurs. In December 1888 the artist Paul Gauguin was outside the prison within a crowd waiting for word that the serial killer Prado was guilloutined.

One thing about the murder of Phyllis Dimmock is that there was an arrest and trial, but an acquittal - the illustrator and cartoonist Robert Wood. That too might have kept Sickart's interest in the case. The last known artist who was a killer was Richard Dadd, who killed his father in 1843, but ended up in an asylum ("Bedlam") for the criminally insane - and proceeded to paint the masterpieces his reputation is now resting on.

Jeff

[miss marple]

I am sure Robert Wood was the killer, but was lucky in Marshall Hall's defence. There is no othet viable suspect.

Miss

BTCG thinks he is being clever but his comments on my post make no sense. I suggest BTCG actually read Sickert's writings and he might learn something about the man.

[BTCG]

Wrong!

Sickert WAS the Ripper... he wrote many of the letters cited. The paper evidence as coming from Sickert's quire... you can't argue against this, at least, sensibly (yes, his wife had access to the paper too).

The question is: was Sickert also the killer?

[BTCG]

No sense?

It made no sense, so you were forced to reply.

Pot... meet kettle!

[Damaso Marte]

Thought that just occurred to me: if Casebook were around back then, Sickert would surely be a poster. Imagine the arguments we might have with him@

[David Orsam]

Dare I say there is a recently published book, "The Camden Town Murder Mystery" by David Barrat (that's me!) - self-published under the imprint of Orsam Books - which has a section dealing with Cornwell's book, showing a number of errors that she makes. It also shows that there were other suspects than Robert Wood.

[Rosella]

The Rising Sun murder does point to Robert Wood, though, to a great extent, and yes I know there were other suspects, her defacto Bert Shaw for example.

However, that little drawing on the 'assignation' postcard, the obviously frantic hunt for it afterwards, Wood's liking for the company of prostitutes, his attempts afterwards to build an alibi by asking a male friend and Ruby Young to lie for him, all point to his being the probable murderer.

Ruby recognising Wood's writing on the card and the fact that he was seen drinking with Phyllis Dimmock at the Eagle pub are all pointers too, IMO. I agree with Miss Marple with regard to Marshall Hall. A modern jury would probably have convicted Wood.

I agree with other posters that Sickert was a man fascinated by murder. The Camden Town murder was a tremendous sensation, just as the Ripper Murders had been. He may well have felt compassion for a young woman so brutally murdered and this may well have drawn him to sketch and paint 'What shall we do for the Rent' and others

[Ausgirl]

He may well have felt compassion for a young woman so brutally murdered

I really think not.