Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another Sickert Book?

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

  • #16
    Sickert did not' dress up' as the ripper, whatever that means.
    He was a great ranconteur who was fascinated by contemporary stories including the Ripper and the Titchbourne claimaint. His art was not macarbre but in a late 19th century realist tradition, his master was Degas, he was one of the first artists to be inspired by photos. His art was about the ordinary working people of a great city.
    Apart from the much repeated truth that he was in France during the murders, I do not see how owning stationary from a batch on which someone had written a hoax letter could put him in the frame. There were hundreds of ripper letters written, its like saying anyone interested in a contemporary murder must be a murderer.
    Apart from the inaccurate assumptions of her first book, its sounds like Cornwall has swallowed Stephen Knight. The poor cow has a fixation on proving Sickert' dun it' People in that state are beyond rational thought.
    There must be better things to do with her money.
    I advised anyone who has not done so to read Sickert's writing on art, that will give you a better understanding of the man than all this curfuffel.

    Miss Marple

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by miss marple View Post
      its sounds like Cornwall has swallowed Stephen Knight. The poor cow has a fixation on proving Sickert' dun it' People in that state are beyond rational thought.

      Miss Marple
      Exactly right. Imagine how fixated one must be to fill two books with tenuous connections, invented motives, ailments, psychoses, unconvincing "evidence" and out-of-leftfield conclusions! What could the motivation be.....oh...wait.......I think I know.

      Comment


      • #18
        She really should stop wasting our time and her money.

        I think my idea of who Jack is, is more credible.

        I think it is winnie the poo.

        They both have the same middle name.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by richardnunweek View Post
          Hi,
          If it could be proven that Sickert definitely penned a Ripper letter, then I would consider it damming evidence, how can any of us seriously suggest that we should ignore someone of eccentricity , that used to dress up as the Ripper, and obsessed with wearing a handkerchief , and painting macabre paintings , and whats more writing letters, and posting them, posing as the killer.
          Regards Richard.
          Where is the evidence that Sickert dressed up as the Ripper? How could he dress up as someone who is completely unknown? I am also struggling with the idea that someone obsessed with wearing a handkerchief might be Jack the Ripper.

          Bram Stoker wrote macabre books. So did Mary Shelley and even Shakespeare. It doesn't make them murderers. Painting about a topic that was in the news as much as JtR was is no grounds for being a suspect. Even writing one of the letters is no grounds for guilt. Has anyone forgotten the Yorkshire Ripper 'Geordie' hoax?

          Cornwell is hijacking popular myth and hearsay and working it into yet more nonsense. She ought to watch out. Using her logic, the contents of her books should make her a prime suspect for any unsolved serial murders in the USA.

          Comment


          • #20
            Hi.
            No grounds for guilt..
            Would we say the same if Druitt , or Barnett, or Chapman , was proved to have wrote a Ripper letter.?, or even suspected of writing one.
            Regards Richard.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by richardnunweek View Post
              Hi.
              No grounds for guilt..
              Would we say the same if Druitt , or Barnett, or Chapman , was proved to have wrote a Ripper letter.?, or even suspected of writing one.
              Regards Richard.

              I certainly would.

              Comment


              • #22
                G'Day Phil

                Originally posted by ukranianphil View Post
                She really should stop wasting our time and her money.

                I think my idea of who Jack is, is more credible.

                I think it is winnie the poo.

                They both have the same middle name.
                What do you mean wasting her money? She made an absolute fortune out of the first one and no doubt will out of this one. If you think she's loosing money I've got a Toll Road I'll sell you at a good price.
                G U T

                There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                Comment


                • #23
                  She is a pompous twit... but, she has uncovered the only evidence in the case.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    but, she has uncovered the only evidence in the case.
                    The only evidence?

                    Are you sure about that?
                    G U T

                    There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Enlighten us... what other scientific evidence exists?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        You didn't say scientific, you said the only evidence.
                        G U T

                        There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          What is the Evidence about the Kidney if not scientific.

                          What of the medical evidence on each victim.

                          If you mean DNA evidence that might be different.
                          G U T

                          There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            No chain of evidence as to the kidney.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X