Patricia Cornwell - Walter Sickert - BOOK 2

[Elamarna]

Hi El
I cant help but feel empathy for Varqms view. He tried reading it and gave up. At least he tried and perhaps found it so bad just from that determined it was a waste of time-whats wrong with that? everyones different.

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.

I don't think you need to read the book to make valid comments. I don't need to read Newtons Principia or El Ron Hubbards Dyanetics to assess the validity and truthfulness of either and make comment.

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

I mean do you really expect everyone to read every friggen suspect book that's come out before they can comment on it? If you know the basic tenets, the general background of an author and what other experts think you can form an opinion and make valid comment..

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.

Ill keep an open mind and await any real evidence for Sickert but sometimes I cant help but wonder if this sort of book(s) is what makes ripperology have such a bad reputation.

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.

I mean at the end of the day what is really anyone expecting is going to come of this? what light is really going to shed on anything? IMHO probably just another famous suspect to add to the list.

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.

OK so it may shed some light on the royal conspiracy theory history-but so what? -your not really talking about a valid suspect or even real history anymore-but about the history of a hoax or crackpot theory-woop de do! Its like a whole cottage industry has sprung up around the various ripper suspects, or artifacts, or stories and the history of their debunking.

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?

or that sickert may have written a ripper letter? at the end of the day itll more than likely never be proven. and even so-who cares? not that earth shattering new information IMHO to go ahead accuse someone of being a serial killer.

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

IMHO, I think you do need to balance these things against the morality of accusing someone being the ripper, and especially a famous person, who has a certain legacy. so I kind of see varqms point on that.

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.

so that's the evil twin response to my earlier post! LOL. and Ill be the first to apologize if any other real evidence comes up that points in Sickerts direction.

You Know I respect your opinion-in a nutshell why do you think Sickert should be considered a valid suspect?

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

[Abby Normal]

So basically you a ridiculing something you have not read, that's such a great approach to history.

I don't think Sickert was our killer, and the book does not change that view, but at least I bother to read it before attacking the author.

Steve

Hi El
I cant help but feel empathy for Varqms view. He tried reading it and gave up. At least he tried and perhaps found it so bad just from that determined it was a waste of time-whats wrong with that? everyones different.

I don't think you need to read the book to make valid comments. I don't need to read Newtons Principia or El Ron Hubbards Dyanetics to assess the validity and truthfulness of either and make comment.

I mean do you really expect everyone to read every friggen suspect book that's come out before they can comment on it? If you know the basic tenets, the general background of an author and what other experts think you can form an opinion and make valid comment..

Ill keep an open mind and await any real evidence for Sickert but sometimes I cant help but wonder if this sort of book(s) is what makes ripperology have such a bad reputation. I mean at the end of the day what is really anyone expecting is going to come of this? what light is really going to shed on anything? IMHO probably just another famous suspect to add to the list. OK so it may shed some light on the royal conspiracy theory history-but so what? -your not really talking about a valid suspect or even real history anymore-but about the history of a hoax or crackpot theory-woop de do! Its like a whole cottage industry has sprung up around the various ripper suspects, or artifacts, or stories and the history of their debunking.

or that sickert may have written a ripper letter? at the end of the day itll more than likely never be proven. and even so-who cares? not that earth shattering new information IMHO to go ahead accuse someone of being a serial killer.

IMHO, I think you do need to balance these things against the morality of accusing someone being the ripper, and especially a famous person, who has a certain legacy. so I kind of see varqms point on that.

so that's the evil twin response to my earlier post! LOL. and Ill be the first to apologize if any other real evidence comes up that points in Sickerts direction.

You Know I respect your opinion-in a nutshell why do you think Sickert should be considered a valid suspect?

[Elamarna]

I read part of the first book but whats the point in continuing. One of the things I'm trying to imply is what if Paul Begg is accused of of murder in the future in a book because Jack the Ripper: The Definitive History contains some hidden messages and the style of writing and some words frequently used are similar to a couple of letters purportedly written by a killer.It's ridiculous.
My last word on this.

So basically you a ridiculing something you have not read, that's such a great approach to history.

I don't think Sickert was our killer, and the book does not change that view, but at least I bother to read it before attacking the author.

Steve

[Varqm]

I read part of the first book but whats the point in continuing. One of the things I'm trying to imply is what if Paul Begg is accused of of murder in the future in a book because Jack the Ripper: The Definitive History contains some hidden messages and the style of writing and some words frequently used are similar to a couple of letters purportedly written by a killer.It's ridiculous.
My last word on this.

[Michael W Richards]

Since its been generally accepted that few, if ANY Ripper letters likely came from the unknown person who was given the nickname, the absolute best Ms Cornwell can contribute is putting a name to one of the hoaxers.

[Abby Normal]

I think that's a very sad post. Many suspects have been advanced without it being shown that they were in London when the murders were committed, but Patricia has demonstrated as best she can that Walter Sickert was in London.

Okay, when someone has a lot of money then the possibility that they paid for supporting expert opinion is possibly something one should consider. But taking that opinion with 'a grain of salt' is acting as if the experts have been paid to give supportive opinion. And worse still, some people will believe that they have been paid for their opinion. Now, I am certain that none of the experts were in any way influenced by money, and I am also certain that Patricia never tried to influence any opinion. So, whilst I fully appreciate why the possibility that the expert opinion was bought, I think it's also something that shouldn't be insinuated without specific evidence. It's also a very easy way to undermine the evidence.

But it's clear that nobody really wants to discuss Patricia's boook sensibly, which is pretty much as expected, so I'll probably head off into the sunset,

Hi Paul

I think that's a very sad post

I'm sorry you feel that way. I actually thought it was a pretty innocuous post.

Many suspects have been advanced without it being shown that they were in London when the murders were committed, but Patricia has demonstrated as best she can that Walter Sickert was in London.

yes she has. and you have also graciously posted the specific reasons why also and for me its most appreciated! However, Ive also seen other evidence to show that he wasn't in London so for me that aspect is still up in the air, and far from my opinion that a very valid suspect should be shown more likely than not to have been London during the ripper murders.

Okay, when someone has a lot of money then the possibility that they paid for supporting expert opinion is possibly something one should consider. But taking that opinion with 'a grain of salt' is acting as if the experts have been paid to give supportive opinion. And worse still, some people will believe that they have been paid for their opinion. Now, I am certain that none of the experts were in any way influenced by money, and I am also certain that Patricia never tried to influence any opinion. So, whilst I fully appreciate why the possibility that the expert opinion was bought, I think it's also something that shouldn't be insinuated without specific evidence. It's also a very easy way to undermine the evidence.

I'm not trying to say there is anything wrong with that-that they are embellishing, or lying because they were paid. or saying something they don't really believe because they are being paid. someone who is an expert may believe there are pros and cons for anything and simply giving there pros because that's what they've been asked and paid to do. I don't begrudge them that-everyone has to make a living. But it why I say I take it with a grain of salt that's all.

But it's clear that nobody really wants to discuss Patricia's book sensibly, which is pretty much as expected, so I'll probably head off into the sunset

IMHO I think people are discussing it very sensibly-most importantly you! and this newb appreciates it. so please don't leave. I had always considered Sickert in the fantastical category of ripper suspects before this thread, and when respected posters such as yourself and Elamarna say otherwise(and give reasons and opinions) I take notice and give it weight. I wouldn't have even considered him a viable candidate-now I do. I still consider him highly unlikely but at least now I don't completely scoff. I also find it very interesting in this thread peoples thought processes on the whole thing-what makes a candidate a viable "suspect", where do you draw the line, etc. I also find the discussions about the whole is it slander, morally acceptable to accuse someone in publication of being the ripper,etc. as a recent poster has, very interesting and a good question for debate.

on a related issue-I keep seeing everyone saying well read her book read her book before you comment. I don't agree, respectfully. I simply don't have the werewithall to buy and read every suspect book that comes out. A lot of the time I rely on people with knowledge of the case and consensus to be built when considering a suspects viability-and to stand the test of time so to speak. Not sure if that's right, but I do greatly respect what the consensus of knowledgable people is, and form opinions and make decisions based on it.

Now that being said, I do buy ripper books, and suspect books when my interest has been peaked to a certain point. For example I bought and read Rob Houses book on Kosminsky, eventhough before I wasn't that jazzed on him as a suspect-but in my mind he was enough of a valid suspect at the time for me to do so. Also, If Fish were to publish a book on Lechmere, or Debra Arif on the torso murders I would buy them in a heart beat. And part of the reason why I would and why I bought Robs book, is because they post on here, take the fire, and I feel I have come to know them to some extent. So I have a sort of personal investment in there opinions so to speak.
If Cornwell were to come on here and post and debate I would probably be more inclined to buy and read her book, but as it stands right now, my interest, as well as my opinion of his viability as a suspect, as I mentioned before, has not been peaked enough. so Ill keep an open mind and await any other evidence that points in his direction happily, but for now I remain highly skeptical.

[PaulWilliams]

Patricia Cornwell is not the first to pick a suspect and attempt to build a case against them. She is the first to demonstrate a genuine link between that suspect and some of the letters purportedly sent by the Ripper. This is a major discovery that forces us to rethink longstanding views on the correspondence. It is also interesting to know that a literary agency accepted Joseph Gorman's claim for royalties.
I do not believe that Cornwell has proved her case that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper. I do welcome her contributions and acknowledge the extensive research that she has undertaken.

[Elamarna]

I did not call anybody Jack the Ripper.For discussion sake it's all well and good and I have no problem with that.But there are laws/standards of proof.If you publish and accuse a person of murder you better have something,at least follow some of it's standards otherwise it's slander.You can't have just some wild fantasy.This Sickert fellow was a great artist.How would you like to be accused of murder in a book,now or way in the future.

Hi there,

May one ask if you have read the book?

I have, and am not convinced that there is enough hard evidence to say Sickert was the killer, but there enough in my view to say he is viable, that is he is not impossible or ruled out.
Just to add that he is on my 3rd tier of possibles, that's a highly unlikely in my view.

There are certainly some points in the book which need to be looked at deeper, these may not prove anything but if you don't ask you won't know..

I assume you apply the same to all suspect books, those which suggest the poor, Kosminski, Barnett etc, as well as celebrity and say all of those are morally wrong too, given that no book so far published has anywhere near enough evidence to meet any standards of proof?


Steve

[Varqm]

Calling anyone Jack the Ripper is doing exactly the same thing. What's the diference?

I did not call anybody Jack the Ripper.For discussion sake it's all well and good and I have no problem with that.But there are laws/standards of proof.If you publish and accuse a person of murder you better have something,at least follow some of it's standards otherwise it's slander.You can't have just some wild fantasy.This Sickert fellow was a great artist.How would you like to be accused of murder in a book,now or way in the future.

[Elamarna]

I think that's a very sad post. Many suspects have been advanced without it being shown that they were in London when the murders were committed, but Patricia has demonstrated as best she can that Walter Sickert was in London.

Okay, when someone has a lot of money then the possibility that they paid for supporting expert opinion is possibly something one should consider. But taking that opinion with 'a grain of salt' is acting as if the experts have been paid to give supportive opinion. And worse still, some people will believe that they have been paid for their opinion. Now, I am certain that none of the experts were in any way influenced by money, and I am also certain that Patricia never tried to influence any opinion. So, whilst I fully appreciate why the possibility that the expert opinion was bought, I think it's also something that shouldn't be insinuated without specific evidence. It's also a very easy way to undermine the evidence.

But it's clear that nobody really wants to discuss Patricia's boook sensibly, which is pretty much as expected, so I'll probably head off into the sunset,

Paul

I have to say much of what you have posted on this item is very true.

Yes there are certainly questions about the origin of the Royal Conspiracy raised by the book and indeed questions about sickerts behaviour and apparent obsesion with the murders.

I also found the actual type of relationship he had with his wife very intriguing.

There is no reason to doubt the paper evidence that I can see.

However it's not enough in my view to make him a stronger suspect for me, this of course has to take into account that Sickert as been considered a viable suspect by me for a number of years.

One would hope that those who do not share that view will read the book, it's actually well written book with plenty of new research.

Steve

[PaulB]

The thing for me and I may be echoing points others are making is this: if a modern suspect is not tied to the case in any direct way ie, a witness, a contemporary suspect, or even a person of interest then I think if you are going to put forth a non contemporary suspect at a bare minimum you have to at least establish that your suspect was probably in London at the time of the ripper murders.

If you can't even do that then well you can pretty much dress anyone up for the ripper murders. And if there's money or any other type of personal gain you can pretty much get any "expert" to come down on your side, so I take that with a huge grain of salt.

I think that's a very sad post. Many suspects have been advanced without it being shown that they were in London when the murders were committed, but Patricia has demonstrated as best she can that Walter Sickert was in London.

Okay, when someone has a lot of money then the possibility that they paid for supporting expert opinion is possibly something one should consider. But taking that opinion with 'a grain of salt' is acting as if the experts have been paid to give supportive opinion. And worse still, some people will believe that they have been paid for their opinion. Now, I am certain that none of the experts were in any way influenced by money, and I am also certain that Patricia never tried to influence any opinion. So, whilst I fully appreciate why the possibility that the expert opinion was bought, I think it's also something that shouldn't be insinuated without specific evidence. It's also a very easy way to undermine the evidence.

But it's clear that nobody really wants to discuss Patricia's boook sensibly, which is pretty much as expected, so I'll probably head off into the sunset,

[GUT]

Thanks Phil
Actually all this talk about letter writing has got me thinking. Why isn't news man Bulling a ripper suspect? We have contemporary accounts that accuses him as the letter writer of dear boss. Dear boss has some clues that perhaps only the ripper would know. He also was obviously there at the time and he's tied to the case. It seems he has motive for the murders also.


Hmmm need to think about this a little more. LOL!

What clues would only Jack know?

[PaulB]

You're starting to sound like her publicist, Paul. What's the crack here?

Maybe I am sounding like that. I just think there are interesting things in Patricia's book which prejudice against her is going to cause people to miss. I think the best thing for me to do is leave that to happen. It's no skin off my nose.

Cheers
Paul

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

I agree. Money persuades. Well said.


Phil

Thanks Phil
Actually all this talk about letter writing has got me thinking. Why isn't news man Bulling a ripper suspect? We have contemporary accounts that accuses him as the letter writer of dear boss. Dear boss has some clues that perhaps only the ripper would know. He also was obviously there at the time and he's tied to the case. It seems he has motive for the murders also.


Hmmm need to think about this a little more. LOL!

[Phil Carter]

The thing for me and I may be echoing points others are making is this: if a modern suspect is not tied to the case in any direct way ie, a witness, a contemporary suspect, or even a person of interest then I think if you are going to put forth a non contemporary suspect at a bare minimum you have to at least establish that your suspect was probably in London at the time of the ripper murders.

If you can't even do that then well you can pretty much dress anyone up for the ripper murders. And if there's money or any other type of personal gain you can pretty much get any "expert" to come down on your side, so I take that with a huge grain of salt.

Hello Abby,

I agree. Money persuades. Well said.


Phil