Patricia Cornwell - Walter Sickert - BOOK 2

[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.

[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?

[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]

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.

[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]

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]

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

[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]

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

[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]

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]

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

If Sickert was in the habit of making lots and lots of sketches for his paintings, dating the sketches NOT when the scene he depicted took place but instead when he made the actual sketches (over a long period of time), then I donīt think that Cornwells find has in any way strengthened the case for Sickert being in London during the killings. I am instead having trouble understanding why the suggestion has even been put forward.

[Elamarna]

If Sickert was in the habit of making lots and lots of sketches for his paintings, dating the sketches NOT when the scene he depicted took place but instead when he made the actual sketches (over a long period of time), then I donīt think that Cornwells find has in any way strengthened the case for Sickert being in London during the killings. I am instead having trouble understanding why the suggestion has even been put forward.

I would suggest that it cannot be discounted that the sketches were done in London.
As Paul said it's up to us to read and decided if we thing the points she makes are strong or not.
And reading the book is far better than just taking the word of myself or others on what is said. Not sure if you have looked at it, however if you have or do, I would be surprised if you did not find it a far better book than the first one.

Again let me repeat I do not feel Cornwall proves her case overall but there are some very interesting issues in the book which deserve to be look at again in greater detail.


Steve

[Fisherman]

I would suggest that it cannot be discounted that the sketches were done in London.
As Paul said it's up to us to read and decided if we thing the points she makes are strong or not.
And reading the book is far better than just taking the word of myself or others on what is said. Not sure if you have looked at it, however if you have or do, I would be surprised if you did not find it a far better book than the first one.

Again let me repeat I do not feel Cornwall proves her case overall but there are some very interesting issues in the book which deserve to be look at again in greater detail.


Steve

Yeah, well... I am pretty picky about what I buy in terms of Ripper books, and so I am sitll undecided whether to go for this one or not. There is also the new Wescott book to consider, that purportedly restores Charles Lechmere to a status of witness only - as per Amazon.

My gut feeling is that neither book is irreplacable.

As for the sketches, of course it cannot be discounted that they were made in London. The problem is that it cannot be discounted that they were made pretty much anywhere either.

[Elamarna]

Yeah, well... I am pretty picky about what I buy in terms of Ripper books, and so I am sitll undecided whether to go for this one or not. There is also the new Wescott book to consider, that purportedly restores Charles Lechmere to a status of witness only - as per Amazon.

My gut feeling is that neither book is irreplacable.

As for the sketches, of course it cannot be discounted that they were made in London. The problem is that it cannot be discounted that they were made pretty much anywhere either.

Agreed..

The kindle edition is cheap by the way.

Steve