Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another Sickert Book?

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

  • Another Sickert Book?

    It would appear that Mrs. Cornwell is not done with Walter Sickert.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...icle-1.1533524

  • #2
    Wow. This book's got everything going for it. Sickert AND a Royal Conspiracy!

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Patrick S View Post
      Wow. This book's got everything going for it. Sickert AND a Royal Conspiracy!
      What a great idea!

      Sickert driven by Druitt and assisted by Gull, murders the women while Prince Eddy films it with a new fangled camera. But the film gets stolen so the royal family ask Tumblety, Cream and Deeming to get the film back which Kosminski witnesses, hence why he's thrown into an asylum to get him out of the way. Bury and Fegelbaum play tug of war with the piece of Eddowes' apron before a dog jumps up, grabs it and returns it to his master, Fogelma. Fogelma passes it on to Pedachenko who is really Abberline in disguise but he doesn't want the case solved just yet.....

      Meanwhile Eddy indiscreetly tells his tutor JK Stephen who wants a bit of the action and blackmails the Royal Family. He gets hit by a windmill and after stabbing some bread, dissapears from the scene. But all the while, Klosowski is acting as a go between between the locals on Whitechapel Rd and the Police, hence why Abberline forgets himself and says that he knew him in 1888 before Swanson kicks him under the table.

      One piece of info that Klos passess over is that MJK's previous Beau Fleming, has been sniffing around so Abberline passes the info to Sgt Godley who mistakenly arrests her current chap, Barnett. D'Onston gives Barnett an alibi though in return for a piece of MJK's hair which he, D'Onston, uses in a potion to make himself invisible.

      And whilst invisible he witnesses the former prime minister Gladstone carrying merrily on inviting prostitutes into his carriage whilst the worst anyone suspects is that he's a gentle, albeit naiive old fool. After dispatching Frances Coles, Gladstone has a change of heart and asks Maybrick to take the fall for him which being a patriot and gentleman, he happily does. But his obviously made up recollection of the murders fools no-one and goes missing for 100 years just in time for the ghost of David Cohen to add a few lines to the Swanson marginalia before chuckling off into history.


      That's five minutes of my life I won't get back. But still more likely than Patricia Cornwell's book!

      regards,
      Last edited by Tecs; 12-05-2013, 01:55 PM.
      If I have seen further it is because I am standing on the shoulders of giants.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Tecs View Post
        What a great idea!

        Sickert driven by Druitt and assisted by Gull, murders the women while Prince Eddy films it with a new fangled camera. But the film gets stolen so the royal family ask Tumblety, Cream and Deeming to get the film back which Kosminski witnesses, hence why he's thrown into an asylum to get him out of the way. Bury and Fegelbaum play tug of war with the piece of Eddowes' apron before a dog jumps up, grabs it and returns it to his master, Fogelma. Fogelma passes it on to Pedachenko who is really Abberline in disguise but he doesn't want the case solved just yet.....

        Meanwhile Eddy indiscreetly tells his tutor JK Stephen who wants a bit of the action and blackmails the Royal Family. He gets hit by a windmill and after stabbing some bread, dissapears from the scene. But all the while, Klosowski is acting as a go between between the locals on Whitechapel Rd and the Police, hence why Abberline forgets himself and says that he knew him in 1888 before Swanson kicks him under the table.

        One piece of info that Klos passess over is that MJK's previous Beau Fleming, has been sniffing around so Abberline passes the info to Sgt Godley who mistakenly arrests her current chap, Barnett. D'Onston gives Barnett an alibi though in return for a piece of MJK's hair which he, D'Onston, uses in a potion to make himself invisible.

        And whilst invisible he witnesses the former prime minister Gladstone carrying merrily on inviting prostitutes into his carriage whilst the worst anyone suspects is that he's a gentle, albeit naiive old fool. After dispatching Frances Coles, Gladstone has a change of heart and asks Maybrick to take the fall for him which being a patriot and gentleman, he happily does. But his obviously made up recollection of the murders fools no-one and goes missing for 100 years just in time for the ghost of David Cohen to add a few lines to the Swanson marginalia before chuckling off into history.


        That's five minutes of my life I won't get back. But still more likely than Patricia Cornwell's book!

        regards,
        My theory regarding escaped American Indians and the seventh cavalry makes more sense and is much more believable.
        Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

        Comment


        • #5
          Hi,
          I was going to start a thread on this myself after reading an article from the London Evening Standard on line.
          She claims to have more evidence of a Royal Conspiracy...does anyone know what this might be?

          Regards.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by spyglass View Post
            Hi,
            I was going to start a thread on this myself after reading an article from the London Evening Standard on line.
            She claims to have more evidence of a Royal Conspiracy...does anyone know what this might be?

            Regards.
            Hi spyglass,I have no details or facts for you just like the person who is resurrecting this story I think it could be a case of please beam me up to the mothership.
            Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

            Comment


            • #7
              .

              I will listen to her evidence....but I'm not expecting much.

              Comment


              • #8
                I think it has something to do with Gull. She thinks he was Sickert's doctor or something. Of course, Gull had nothing to do with the Ripper murders any more than did Sickert. I'm sure she has much new 'evidence', but it will have to do with Sickert and the Ripper letters and nothing to do with the actual Ripper murder investigation.

                Yours truly,

                Tom Wescott

                Comment


                • #9
                  DNA, huh? Sickert was cremated, so where's the DNA going to lead, down the primrose path? Because if the DNA matches on Sickert's known letters to JtR letters, Sickert is beyond comparing DNA. Maybe Cornwell is going to go for mitochondrial DNA and Sickert's mother's body?
                  And the questions always linger, no real answer in sight

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I remember reading that the press and police received some 10000 plus letters regarding the ripper murders.Linking one man to a communication sent during the period of the murders is a very long way from naming him as our killer.
                    Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Ian Porter's essay

                      Please correct me if I am wrong, but is the crux of the original argument for Sickert the following:

                      a) Sickert Painted creepy works of art.
                      b) May have had access to multiple studios in or around Whitechapel.
                      c) May have authored one or more letters during the Ripper scare.
                      d) May have traveled to Ireland with his wife after 30 September 1888.
                      e) Was closer to the prostitutes of Dieppe, but did not avail himself of those unfortunates because the French port town was too small.

                      Source: Ian Porter's essay on Sickert in Jack the Ripper the Suspects. Published by the Whitechapel Society in 2011

                      There has to be more to this argument than what I have gleaned from previous literary works. Familial DNA comparisons, matching Sickert's known property to one or more letters would be interesting; however, if this all that Cornwell is presenting in her new book, then it is far from conclusive evidence of guilt.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Hi Richard

                          On the evidence, which you discovered, (and which I rate as highly as I rate anything I've seen so far of Ms Cornwells!), I think Mrs Maxwell did the lot of them...not...

                          Dave

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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.
                            Hi Richard,I will concede all the above points to you but why did sickert stop killing he lived to a ripe old age I do believe and it was only his son with a little help from stephen knight who brought his name into the ripper story.
                            Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              From what I understand yeah, thats what she's running with. I haven't read her book myself but I did see the documentary about it called Jack The Ripper Case Closed. She seems to have made up her mind from the go that Walter Sickert is Jack the Ripper and is twisting her findings to suit that theory.

                              She manages to get access to alot of the Ripper letters for DNA tests, but it appears that she is only testing the hoax letters, she never tests the Dear Boss letters or the From Hell letter. The only thing she finds is a watermark on one of the hoax letters that matches stationary that Sickert had been know to use. To me this at best proves that either Sickert penned one of the hoax letters, or whoever wrote this particular letter used the same brand of stationary as Sickert.


                              Also, I've heard that Walter Sickert wasn't in London during 2 or 3 of the murders, is this true? If so, wouldn't that be the first thing you'd check before dropping millions of dollars to accuse a man of being the worlds most notorious serial killer?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X