Patricia Cornwell - Walter Sickert - BOOK 2

[Elamarna]

Aha. Well, that puts a very different slant on things. If I am not misreading you, this means that out of the 148 surviving sketches of Queenie Lawrence, only the one/s made on the first occasion, in combination with the Gattiīs performance, will carry the date of the performance, wheras the rest will carry a large array of OTHER dates, between the original performance date and the finishing of the painting, a year later?

If that is so, and if we carry this over to Sickert, it sounds as if he may have been in France when dating the London music hall sketches Cornwell speaks of.

Would that be correct?

I think a fair view would be that where in the past there was overwhelming evidence for his not being in UK that cannot now be seen as so. Cornwall uses more than one dated sketch in her argument. It cannot be discounted that he is in London now as it certainly could before.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Sickert sketches are tricky, especially the music hall sketches. He did not just sketch at the venue, then return home and paint the sketch; it was a long process that involved several sketches. Each element was a new sketch, not a change to the original. For instance, Queenie Lawrence at Gatti's starts with her appearance in July, 1887, the painting is done in 1888. Between the July, 1887, appearance, and the final picture, there are 148 sketches that have survived, and are known. That is not all of them, final composite sketches are missing. Sketches have the date that they were done, not the original sketch date. Wendy Baron has spent decades studying Sickert, and her book "Sickert: Paintings and Drawings", explains it in great detail.

Aha. Well, that puts a very different slant on things. If I am not misreading you, this means that out of the 148 surviving sketches of Queenie Lawrence, only the one/s made on the first occasion, in combination with the Gattiīs performance, will carry the date of the performance, wheras the rest will carry a large array of OTHER dates, between the original performance date and the finishing of the painting, a year later?

If that is so, and if we carry this over to Sickert, it sounds as if he may have been in France when dating the London music hall sketches Cornwell speaks of.

Would that be correct?

[Elamarna]

Sickert sketches are tricky, especially the music hall sketches. He did not just sketch at the venue, then return home and paint the sketch; it was a long process that involved several sketches. Each element was a new sketch, not a change to the original. For instance, Queenie Lawrence at Gatti's starts with her appearance in July, 1887, the painting is done in 1888. Between the July, 1887, appearance, and the final picture, there are 148 sketches that have survived, and are known. That is not all of them, final composite sketches are missing. Sketches have the date that they were done, not the original sketch date. Wendy Baron has spent decades studying Sickert, and her book "Sickert: Paintings and Drawings", explains it in great detail.

Hi this is the issue. If we take the dated sketches as all being done on site at the date on the sketch then it seems he was in london. If however that is not the situation in all cases the position is less clear.
Cornwall certainly presents evidence of his being in London; the question is how reliable is that particular evidence?


Steve

[sleekviper]

Sickert sketches are tricky, especially the music hall sketches. He did not just sketch at the venue, then return home and paint the sketch; it was a long process that involved several sketches. Each element was a new sketch, not a change to the original. For instance, Queenie Lawrence at Gatti's starts with her appearance in July, 1887, the painting is done in 1888. Between the July, 1887, appearance, and the final picture, there are 148 sketches that have survived, and are known. That is not all of them, final composite sketches are missing. Sketches have the date that they were done, not the original sketch date. Wendy Baron has spent decades studying Sickert, and her book "Sickert: Paintings and Drawings", explains it in great detail.

[Elamarna]

Well, since I do not know what it amounts to, itīs impossible for me to have an opinion. I was kind of hoping that it was definitive proof, but it seems it may not be?

Ok I will say that what is presented in the book is clearly indicating that he was in London at the time.

Steve

[Fisherman]

You know me Fish, being cautious as always, I think it is probably reliable information that he was in London at the time.


Steve

Well, since I do not know what it amounts to, itīs impossible for me to have an opinion. I was kind of hoping that it was definitive proof, but it seems it may not be?

[Elamarna]

Having read the last few pages, I identify two things that interest me.

First, Steveīs wording that Cornwell has found material that "appears" to put Sickert in London at the time of the murders.
Whatīs with the "appears" - just how safe is the information, supposedly deriving from music halls if I am correct?

Then thereīs J Mengesī pointing to circumstantial evidence that Sickert may have been the first to point a finger at Gull - to me, this whispers of a will to actively engage in the proceedings, something that makes me think that if he coud do that (and I know that the evidence is circumstantial only), then surely he could also write a mock Ripper letter or two?

You know me Fish, being cautious as always, I think it is probably reliable information that he was in London at the time.


Steve

[Fisherman]

John G: Excellent post Paul. Regrettably, once a theorist adopts a suspect it seems to me that objectivity goes out of the window. In fact, one wonders what Christer's opinion on the subject would have been if, say, Lechmere was a much younger man at the relevant time, i.e. too young to have committed the Torso crimes.

Does one? Let me tell you then! My view would have been that Lechmere was probably not the killer, at least not of the 1873 victim.

Can you explain to me what other routes one could take? Did you think that I would proclaim Lechmere a probable six-year old killer?

Can we be for real?

The reality is there's absolutely nothing to connect the earlier Torso crimes with the latter ones, and the latter crimes differ to such an enormous extent to the C5 murders common sense dictates that they are highly unlikely to be connected either.

No, that is not the reality. It is your picture of it, every bit as skewed and twisted as you are proposing I would be if Lechmere was a younger man.

[John G]

‘What has not been said is that Sickert was born in 1860, which would have made him 13 at the time the Ripper/Torso killer murdered the 1873 torso victim. I have little doubt that this victim had the same originator as did the Ripper series. So it is a litmus paper I always use when personally judging who is a likely contender for the combined role.’

That's what you wrote. In reply I wrote that one can’t dismiss a candidate for the Ripper because that person couldn’t have committed a murder in 1873 that you believe the Ripper committed. Well, of course you can do that. You’d just done it. What I should have said is that it is wrong to do it. It is wrong to pre-judge someone else’s theory because it doesn’t fit some criteria of your own making. In fact, I think it is unprofessional to do that. Now, I greatly admire the stamina you display when fighting your corner, often long after everyone else has lost interest, but I’m afraid that age and infirmity and the urge to bake some bread mean that I cannot indulge you as others do, especially as you’ve spiralled this chat into assorted irrelevant directions. You have voiced your opinion, I have voiced mine. I think I'll leave it at that.

Excellent post Paul. Regrettably, once a theorist adopts a suspect it seems to me that objectivity goes out of the window. In fact, one wonders what Christer's opinion on the subject would have been if, say, Lechmere was a much younger man at the relevant time, i.e. too young to have committed the Torso crimes.

The reality is there's absolutely nothing to connect the earlier Torso crimes with the latter ones, and the latter crimes differ to such an enormous extent to the C5 murders common sense dictates that they are highly unlikely to be connected either.

[Fisherman]

Having read the last few pages, I identify two things that interest me.

First, Steveīs wording that Cornwell has found material that "appears" to put Sickert in London at the time of the murders.
Whatīs with the "appears" - just how safe is the information, supposedly deriving from music halls if I am correct?

Then thereīs J Mengesī pointing to circumstantial evidence that Sickert may have been the first to point a finger at Gull - to me, this whispers of a will to actively engage in the proceedings, something that makes me think that if he coud do that (and I know that the evidence is circumstantial only), then surely he could also write a mock Ripper letter or two?

[Abby Normal]

It should be kept in mind that Walter Sickert's name has been bandied about as a Jack the Ripper suspect for going on 50 years in a half-dozen books long before Patricia Cornwell came along. So I don't think she should be entirely blamed for 'adding another famous name' to the list of suspects.

The Royal Conspiracy theory, which goes back nearly 100 years now (a theory which in it's main points Patricia Cornwell does not agree with), is still a bit shadowy in its origins and so I for one am interested in reading whatever new someone with the aid of top-notch researchers has to say about it. Cornwell provides interesting but circumstantial evidence that it was Walter Sickert who first pointed the finger at Dr. Gull being involved in the crimes. And like it or not, the Royal Conspiracy theory is a part of Ripperology, and a part of Ripperology is the study of how suspects were named, theories born, and how those theories mutate over time.

JM

Well said. Point taken.

[Abby Normal]

He said he tried the first book, and i have to agree with him on that, however this is a different animal, and to attack the author is in my view unfair.




That however was not what was said, it was an attack on the author without providing any support for the view.





That's the problem as I see it Abby, its very different from the previous book.
Paul suggested that we judge it on its own merits, which I tried to do.
There is some good new research in the book, and that alone improves it no end. And yet still it does not convince me.

Of course I don't expect people to read every book, its a costly business.



I agree 100% over the earlier book, and the same with the shawl book, that probably did more damage to Kosminski as a suspect than anything else I can think of.



Well I respect Paul and he says he believes she really believes this, so I don't think its purely about him being another famous suspect.



For some people that is in itself of interest, not that I am particularly interested in it.

The same is true of the diary is it not?





I think she can prove some of the letters were on paper he is known to have used, not being an expert on such things I am reliant on the expert.
For some that is interesting




I remember us all attacking Pierre for not giving a name, but on the whole I agree. However to me it applies to all the named suspects, not just the famous ones. What applies to one should apply to all.
And the end result of that would be no suspects named at all.



Thank you for that, I similarly respect your approach, you are open minded and that is all one can ask.

He was obsessed with the ripper all his life, there is an obvious similarity in some of his work and the murders, but that could well be just because of the said obsession.
Until recently he was not viable, as it appeared he was not in the UK at the time, however one of the things in the new book is that Cornwall appears to establish that he was in the UK after all.

As you probably remember on the recent thread you began on favourite suspects I listed him in my third tier, that makes him viable that is all, not probable and not near the top of the possibilities.

That's about it I guess, the letters do not come into it for me, but if he was not the killer,( and I don't think he is) then the letter writing fits with his apparent obsession on the subject.

Hope that helps Abby.


Steve

Yes of course El. As usual a very well thought out and gracious post. Thank you for responding fo my request for you to lay out your reasons for sickert.
I'm going to ponder.

[jmenges]

It should be kept in mind that Walter Sickert's name has been bandied about as a Jack the Ripper suspect for going on 50 years in a half-dozen books long before Patricia Cornwell came along. So I don't think she should be entirely blamed for 'adding another famous name' to the list of suspects.

The Royal Conspiracy theory, which goes back nearly 100 years now (a theory which in it's main points Patricia Cornwell does not agree with), is still a bit shadowy in its origins and so I for one am interested in reading whatever new someone with the aid of top-notch researchers has to say about it. Cornwell provides interesting but circumstantial evidence that it was Walter Sickert who first pointed the finger at Dr. Gull being involved in the crimes. And like it or not, the Royal Conspiracy theory is a part of Ripperology, and a part of Ripperology is the study of how suspects were named, theories born, and how those theories mutate over time.

JM

[GUT]

In a nutshell...

I believe she has found some interesting stuff, but in the end it's a case of overegging the pudding. Something that happens frequently with interesting suspects.

[GUT]

He said he tried the first book, and i have to agree with him on that, however this is a different animal, and to attack the author is in my view unfair.

100% agree

That however was not what was said, it was an attack on the author without providing any support for the view.

That's the problem as I see it Abby, its very different from the previous book.
Paul suggested that we judge it on its own merits, which I tried to do.
There is some good new research in the book, and that alone improves it no end. And yet still it does not convince me.

I actually enjoy her writing, but am far from persuaded by her arguments

Of course I don't expect people to read every book, its a costly business.



I agree 100% over the earlier book, and the same with the shawl book, that probably did more damage to Kosminski as a suspect than anything else I can think of.

And her books will probably do the same with Walter

Well I respect Paul and he says he believes she really believes this, so I don't think its purely about him being another famous suspect.

Here we disagree, if she believes it or not (and I think she does) really doesn't change his status, I suspect Pierre sincerely believed he was into something.....

For some people that is in itself of interest, not that I am particularly interested in it.

The same is true of the diary is it not?

Yep

I think she can prove some of the letters were on paper he is known to have used, not being an expert on such things I am reliant on the expert.
For some that is interesting

I think it's interesting as insight into Sickert as a person.

I remember us all attacking Pierre for not giving a name, but on the whole I agree. However to me it applies to all the named suspects, not just the famous ones. What applies to one should apply to all.
And the end result of that would be no suspects named at all.

I think this whole celebrity suspect and witness as suspect springs from the need some seem to have to put a name, rather than accept that he was probably a real nobody.

Thank you for that, I similarly respect your approach, you are open minded and that is all one can ask.

He was obsessed with the ripper all his life, there is an obvious similarity in some of his work and the murders, but that could well be just because of the said obsession.
Until recently he was not viable, as it appeared he was not in the UK at the time, however one of the things in the new book is that Cornwall appears to establish that he was in the UK after all.

As you probably remember on the recent thread you began on favourite suspects I listed him in my third tier, that makes him viable that is all, not probable and not near the top of the possibilities.

That's about it I guess, the letters do not come into it for me, but if he was not the killer,( and I don't think he is) then the letter writing fits with his apparent obsession on the subject.

Hope that helps Abby.


Steve