Patricia Cornwell - Walter Sickert - BOOK 2

[David Orsam]

Sickert's Whereabouts in 1888

There are eight relevant Sickert pencil sketches, all mentioned in Wendy Baron's 2006 book, Sickert Paintings and Drawings, two of which are dated 28 September 1888, three of which are dated 5 October 1888 and one is dated 8 October 1888. Five of these are specifically inscribed has having been drawn at Sam Collins' Music Hall, which was in Islington. Therefore I do not see how it is plausible to argue that Sickert was anywhere but in London on 28 September, 5 October and 8 October 1888. Patricia Cornwell also notes that further sketches by Sickert in a couple of art galleries place him at music halls on various dates between 26 July and 5 August 1888 and also on 5 October 1888.

On the other hand, Cornwell has to concede that there is evidence that Sickert was in France between 19 August and 17 September 1888. If he was there for that entire period then that excludes him from having murdered Nichols and Chapman so that would be the end of it.

However, Cornwell makes the point that Sickert could have travelled back from France to London in a day and there is no actual evidence as to Sickert's exact whereabouts on 31 August and 8 September. One can't necessarily argue with this but if one follows the logic of it, Sickert could have popped back to France on 29 September, returning to London on 4 October. Which means that we have got nowhere.

[Elamarna]

There are eight relevant Sickert pencil sketches, all mentioned in Wendy Baron's 2006 book, Sickert Paintings and Drawings, two of which are dated 28 September 1888, three of which are dated 5 October 1888 and one is dated 8 October 1888. Five of these are specifically inscribed has having been drawn at Sam Collins' Music Hall, which was in Islington. Therefore I do not see how it is plausible to argue that Sickert was anywhere but in London on 28 September, 5 October and 8 October 1888. Patricia Cornwell also notes that further sketches by Sickert in a couple of art galleries place him at music halls on various dates between 26 July and 5 August 1888 and also on 5 October 1888.

On the other hand, Cornwell has to concede that there is evidence that Sickert was in France between 19 August and 17 September 1888. If he was there for that entire period then that excludes him from having murdered Nichols and Chapman so that would be the end of it.

However, Cornwell makes the point that Sickert could have travelled back from France to London in a day and there is no actual evidence as to Sickert's exact whereabouts on 31 August and 8 September. One can't necessarily argue with this but if one follows the logic of it, Sickert could have popped back to France on 29 September, returning to London on 4 October. Which means that we have got nowhere.

David

I think you are correct. We cannot place him in London on the murder dated but it seems clear to me at least that he was in London during the period of the murders


Steve

[David Orsam]

I think you are correct. We cannot place him in London on the murder dated but it seems clear to me at least that he was in London during the period of the murders

Yes, indeed, Steve, assuming you mean at some point during the period of the murders, but that doesn't mean much if he was in France when Nichols and Chapmen were murdered.

[Elamarna]

Yes, indeed, Steve, assuming you mean at some point during the period of the murders, but that doesn't mean much if he was in France when Nichols and Chapmen were murdered.

That is the issue.


Steve

[John Wheat]

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 don´t 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.

For once I agree with you Fish.

[John Wheat]

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

Hi Steve

I've read the first one and I watched a documentary about it and as that convinced me that the Sickert Theory is a crackpot theory I won't bother reading Cornwell's second book.

Cheers John

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve

I've read the first one and I watched a documentary about it and as that convinced me that the Sickert Theory is a crackpot theory I won't bother reading Cornwell's second book.

Cheers John

John

The first book is in my view very poor. However crackpot is far to strong a term to use, after all where does that let us put the like of Lewis Carroll and those painters who's work contains hidden pictures. At the very least Sicker drew drew murders.

And while I do not for a moment consider Sickert to be our killer, there is still some valuable research in this book.
For instance the originals of the Royal Conspiracy are discussed and that alone is worth reading if just to put to bed that idea so beloved of the film world.
There is also some good analysis of the letters for those to whom that is an interest.

While I understand you not wanting to buy the book; to not want to read it is a mistake to my way of thinking.


Steve

[David Orsam]

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 don´t 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.

For once I agree with you Fish.

The notion that Sickert dated his sketches to reflect a date on which he did NOT draw them is somewhat bizarre and, as far as I am aware, not based on anything said by Wendy Baron (as claimed earlier in the thread by sleekviper). So Fisherman's difficulty in understanding why it has been said that Sickert was in London "during the killings" is easily resolved, in the sense that Sickert was clearly in London on 28 September and 4 October 1888 due to him dating his sketches from the Sam Collins Music Hall on those dates.

[John Wheat]

The notion that Sickert dated his sketches to reflect a date on which he did NOT draw them is somewhat bizarre and, as far as I am aware, not based on anything said by Wendy Baron (as claimed earlier in the thread by sleekviper). So Fisherman's difficulty in understanding why it has been said that Sickert was in London "during the killings" is easily resolved, in the sense that Sickert was clearly in London on 28 September and 4 October 1888 due to him dating his sketches from the Sam Collins Music Hall on those dates.

Fair enough David. However proof of Sickert being in London at the time is just that. It has to be noted that the Population of London at that time was quite large to say the least.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

John

The first book is in my view very poor. However crackpot is far to strong a term to use, after all where does that let us put the like of Lewis Carroll and those painters who's work contains hidden pictures. At the very least Sicker drew drew murders.

And while I do not for a moment consider Sickert to be our killer, there is still some valuable research in this book.
For instance the originals of the Royal Conspiracy are discussed and that alone is worth reading if just to put to bed that idea so beloved of the film world.
There is also some good analysis of the letters for those to whom that is an interest.

While I understand you not wanting to buy the book; to not want to read it is a mistake to my way of thinking.


Steve

Hi Steve

I'm not sure how the Lewis Carroll theory makes the Sickert Theory any less crackpot.

Cheers John

[David Orsam]

Young Woods

My main interest in reading the new edition was to see if Ms Cornwell had managed to correct an absolute howler of an error she made in the interpretation of a police report about a theory of a journalist called Harold Ashton regarding four postcards which, she thinks, were sent to the editor of the Morning Leader in 1907 by the murderer of Emily Dimmock (who she thinks was Walter Sickert). Unfortunately, the howler remains firmly embedded in the new edition. Had the author invested a moderate sum in purchasing my book "The Camden Town Murder Mystery", he says modestly, instead of spending her money on paintings, she would have seen where she has gone so embarrassingly wrong.

On the other hand, she has clearly discovered that she wrongly identified the Rising Sun Public House, patronised by Dimmock, as being in Tottenham Court Road when it was actually off the Euston Road. She also appears to have worked out that the so-called "rising sun postcard" was posted by Robert Wood to Emily Dimmock on 9 September 1907 rather than handed to her three days earlier as she originally believed. Other errors, which I pointed out in my 2014 book, remain, however.

And I have noticed what I believe to be one further error in respect of the Camden Town murder which has only really become apparent in the new edition. In the 2007 edition, Cornwell mentioned a letter written by Sickert’s ex-wife, Ellen Cobden, at some point in 1907 (Cornwell does not give the exact date) in which Cobden asked about "poor young Woods" who, Cornwell tells us, was due to face a trial later in the year. Cornwell’s obvious belief is that this was a reference to Robert Wood, who was tried for the murder of Emily Dimmock in December 1907, and that Cobden was aware or suspected that her ex-husband was the real murderer and was struggling with her conscience, fearful that an innocent man would be convicted for a crime that Walker Sickert committed.

On reading the 2007 edition, it did not surprise me that Cobden might have been expressing sadness at Wood’s plight – many people in England during October-December 1907 were convinced of his innocence – although it did seem odd that she would spell his surname as 'Woods' - but in this new edition Cornwell provides some further information. She says there is a further reference in Cobden’s correspondence to 'young Woods' in the summer of 1908 when his case was mentioned in Parliament. This tells me that 'young Woods' could not have been Robert Wood because his case was not mentioned in Parliament during 1908.

It makes me wonder if 'young Woods' was, in fact, Lieutenant Henry Charles Woods of the 2nd Battalion Grenadier Guards who, in a highly publicised case, forced a Court of Enquiry at Chelsea Barracks which commenced on 18 November 1907 to investigate allegations of unfair treatment (or "ragging") against him. Woods lost his case and resigned from the army on 18 December 1907. The case was raised in the House of Commons on 3 February 1908. On this date, the Times reported that his father, Colonel Woods, "has sent a letter to every member of Parliament soliciting their assistance on his son's behalf". On 21 August 1908, it was reported that Colonel Woods had addressed a letter to the prime minister asking his aid in securing a full decision in the House of Commons of his son’s case. I don’t know if the case was raised again in the House in the summer of 1908 but this would appear to be more likely than anything said about Robert Wood.

It may be noted in that a letter written by an unnamed Colonel to a Major Cavendish was produced during the proceedings of the Court of Enquiry which began:

"My dear Cavendish,
Young Woods of your battalion, and also his father, have written to me to give an expression of opinion respecting certain reconnaissance work executed by the former under my auspices."

So there we actually have an independent contemporary mention of Lieutenant Woods as "Young Woods".

At the time of the Court of Enquiry, Lieutenant Woods was 27 years of age (a few years younger than Robert Wood).

I haven’t seen the Cobden correspondence that Cornwell refers to, so my conclusion can only be tentative, but I rather suspect that the mention of "poor young Woods" was to Lieutenant Woods and that Cornwell has misunderstood it.

[David Orsam]

Nemo

Patricia Cornwell notes that in his younger acting days Walter Sickert went by the name of 'Nemo', or 'Mr Nemo'. This basically meant 'Nobody' or 'Anonymous' and was not an uncommon pseudonym but the fact that five letters catalogued in the Whitechapel Murders file at the London Metropolitan Archives were signed ‘Nemo’ is enough for Cornwell to assume that they were written by Sickert (although she does not tell us what those letters say or if Nemo was also claiming to be the murderer or, by contrast, was offering advice to the police to help them catch the murderer).

If this was not enough, someone signing himself as 'Nemo' had a letter published in the Times of 4 October 1888.

Cornwell quotes selectively from the letter. Firstly this bit:

"The mutilations, cutting off the nose and ears, ripping up the body, and cutting out certain organs – the heart &C"

The interesting element for Cornwell is that the author has referred to the cutting out of the heart yet it was not until the murder of Mary Jane Kelly that a heart was actually (supposedly) removed.

Then she quotes this end passage:

"Unless caught red handed, such a man in ordinary life would be harmless enough, polite, not to say obsequious, in his manners, and about the last a British policeman would suspect.
But when the villain is primed with his opium, or bang, or gin, and inspired with his lust for slaughter and blood, he would destroy his defenceless victim with the ferocity and cunning of the tiger; and past impunity and success would only have rendered him more daring and reckless,
Your obedient servant,
October 2 NEMO"

On it’s own it’s a little bit odd. If this is supposed to be a letter written by the murderer (Sickert) why is the writer seemingly uncertain about whether opium, bang or gin is the driving force? Would he not know which it is? And what did Nemo mean by "such a man"? Why was Nemo even writing to the Times?

Once we see the parts of the letter that Cornwell omits, everything becomes clear. The letter actually begins thus:

"Having long been in India and, therefore, acquainted with the methods of Eastern criminals, it has struck me in reading the accounts of these Whitechapel murders that they have probably been committed by a Malay, or other low-class Asiatic coming under the general term of Lascar, of whom, I believe, there are large numbers in that part of London. The mutilations, cutting off the nose and ears, ripping up the body, and cutting out certain organs – the heart &C – are all peculiarly Eastern methods and universally recognized, and intended by the criminal classes to express insult, hatred and contempt; whereas, here the public and police are quite at a loss to attach any meaning to them, and so they are described as the mere senseless fury of a maniac."

So the rather crucial piece of information that the writer claims to have lived in India for a long time has been completely omitted by Cornwell. Apparently this was not important enough for her reader to be made aware of. But it’s pretty crucial because what Nemo appears to be saying that it is the Lascars who perform mutilations and cut out organs such as the heart.

Nemo continues:

"My theory would be that some man of this class has been hocussed and then robbed of his savings (often large), or, as he considers, been in some way greatly injured by a prostitute – perhaps one of the earlier victims; and then has been led by fury and revenge to take the lives of as many of the same class as he can. This is also entirely in consonance with Eastern ideas and the practices of the criminal classes."

So when he refers to the villain being high on opium or drink he is referring to this Eastern killer.

Is there any significance that this letter was signed in a name known to have been used by Sickert?

Well the fact of the matter is that Nemo was a very frequently used pseudonym for letters to the editor published in the Times. We find letters from Nemo on a wide variety of topics in the Times of the following dates

26 Feb 1827
23 Dec 1833
28 Dec 1833
24 Nov 1836
23 Nov 1843
13 Nov 1844
28 Dec 1844
12 July 1845
19 Feb 1846
6 April 1849
31 July 1849
17 Aug 1850
16 Sept 1850
27 Sept 1850
18 Jan 1851
19 April 1852
2 Nov 1852
26 Jan 1853
14 Feb 1853
25 June 1853
20 Sept 1855
4 Jan 1856
24 June 1856
6 Aug 1856
1 Nov 1856
12 Nov 1856
19 Nov 1856
11 April 1857
9 July 1857
15 Sept 1857
18 Sept 1857
22 Oct 1857
26 Oct 1857
24 May 1858
27 July 1858
30 Aug 1860
14 Jan 1861
21 Jan 1861
6 Sept 1861
8 Feb 1862
6 May 1863
9 May 1863
26 July 1864
14 April 1865
27 June 1865
12 Oct 1865
20 Oct 1865
13 Dec 1865
21 July 1867
8 June 1868
7 Oct 1868
27 Oct 1869
24 Dec 1869
4 Jan 1870
19 Aug 1871
28 May 1873
16 Sept 1873
21 Sept 1874
4 Dec 1875
17 Aug 1877
4 May 1880
23 Dec 1880
28 Dec 1880
3 Feb 1881
31 Jan 1882
14 May 1883
2 June 1884
16 Sept 1884
18 Feb 1885
9 May 1885
14 Jan 1887
12 May 1887
19 Aug 1887
31 May 1888
10 July 1888

I think we are on safe ground in saying that all of the above were not authored by Walter Sickert.

It’s actually interesting to note that the letter of 17 August 1850 was about a fight between two women in Whitechapel witnessed by the author about which he was told a police officer had refused to intervene while the letter of 27 July 1858 was said to have come from the Dardenelles and was about mutilation of Turkish soldiers by the Motenegrins who cut off the noses, lips and ears. As Walter Sickert had not yet been born it is certain that he wrote neither of these Nemo letters but one can only wonder what Cornwell had said if they had been published in 1888 or thereabouts.

Further, there were another three letters from 'Nemo' in the remainder of 1888 alone: On 9 October 1888, about the new German drill book, on 1 November 1888 about Irish Protestants and the Union and on 25 December 1888 about Liberal Unionists and the National Liberal Club. It is inconceivable that Cornwell did not locate these letters – she would certainly have searched for all letters from Nemo in the Times during 1888 – but there is no mention of them in her book.

Although Cornwell claims that the use of pseudonyms by authors of letters to newspapers at the time was rare, this is not my experience and does not seem to be supported by the above.

My conclusion is that Jack the Ripper or no Jack the Ripper, there is no good reason to think that Walter Sickert was the author of the 'Nemo' letter of 4 October 1888.

[David Orsam]

Mathematicus

According to Cornwell, included in a set of "letters attributed to Jack the Ripper at the National Archives" is an undated one signed by a 'Mathematicus'. Actually, the letter is not a JTR letter. It’s a letter from a member of the public suggesting that the Ripper was a tailor due to the fact that 'ripper' and 'buckle' were words used in tailoring. Nevertheless, this letter excites Cornwell because she tells us, unconvincingly, that Sickert was "a Mathematicus technician".

She is also excited by the fact that a letter was published in The Times of 12 September 1888, during the period of the Ripper murders, from someone using the pseudonym 'Mathematicus'. Moreover, a reply to this letter from someone signed as 'Pomingolarna' was published in the Times of Monday 17 September 1888 which, says, Cornwell, "happens to be the date of possibly the first Ripper letter where the name Jack the Ripper appears." She is referring here to a controversial letter discovered in 1988 by Peter McClelland signed 'Jack the Ripper' but, really, a more tenuous connection is hard to imagine, even if the 17 September letter is genuine. The letter from 'Pomingloarna' would have been written at some point between 13-15 September and had nothing to do with Jack the Ripper or the murders.

In fact, the original 'Mathematicus' letter challenged the notion that, due to the lack of different words for numbers in their language, "savages" (aborigines) did not have the mental capacity to appreciate or understand any number greater than four. Hence, with the letter being about numbers, the name of 'Mathematicus' was appropriate. The person writing in response as 'Pomingolarna' said that he (presuming it was a 'he') was writing "from personal experience of the Australian native". 'Pomingolarna' wrote a further letter in the debate about the ability of Australian natives to count on 28 September which was published in the Times of 2 October 1888.

Pomingolarna (or Pomingalarna) is an area on the outskirts of Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, Australia. Someone called 'Pomingolarna', claiming to have had experience of horses in Australia, had a letter published in the Times of 29 June 1878. A further letter from a 'Pomingolarna' about the rise of Australasian wool was published in the Times of 5 October 1886. Quite possibly the same person wrote all three letters and the name has nothing whatsoever to do with the Tichborne case, with which Sickert had an interest, as Cornwell suggests.

As for 'Mathematicus', this was a fairly common pseudonym for letters in the Times. As long ago as 13 Dec 1786 a letter from 'Mathematicus' containing a mathematics question was published in the Times. Additional letters from 'Mathematicus' on a variety of topics appeared in editions of the Times dated 15 November 1819, 23 September 1835, 22 December 1854, 16 November 1866 and 9 August 1867. 'Mathematicus' also replied to responses to his original letter in the Times which was published in the Times of 18 September 1888.

There is, in my view, absolutely no reason to suppose that the 'Mathematicus' whose letter was published in the Times of 12 September 1888 was Walter Sickert or that 'Pomingolarna' was also 'Mathematicus', replying to his own letter.

[Elamarna]

Patricia Cornwell notes that in his younger acting days Walter Sickert went by the name of 'Nemo', or 'Mr Nemo'. This basically meant 'Nobody' or 'Anonymous' and was not an uncommon pseudonym but the fact that five letters catalogued in the Whitechapel Murders file at the London Metropolitan Archives were signed ‘Nemo’ is enough for Cornwell to assume that they were written by Sickert (although she does not tell us what those letters say or if Nemo was also claiming to be the murderer or, by contrast, was offering advice to the police to help them catch the murderer).

If this was not enough, someone signing himself as 'Nemo' had a letter published in the Times of 4 October 1888.

Cornwell quotes selectively from the letter. Firstly this bit:

"The mutilations, cutting off the nose and ears, ripping up the body, and cutting out certain organs – the heart &C"

The interesting element for Cornwell is that the author has referred to the cutting out of the heart yet it was not until the murder of Mary Jane Kelly that a heart was actually (supposedly) removed.

Then she quotes this end passage:

"Unless caught red handed, such a man in ordinary life would be harmless enough, polite, not to say obsequious, in his manners, and about the last a British policeman would suspect.
But when the villain is primed with his opium, or bang, or gin, and inspired with his lust for slaughter and blood, he would destroy his defenceless victim with the ferocity and cunning of the tiger; and past impunity and success would only have rendered him more daring and reckless,
Your obedient servant,
October 2 NEMO"

On it’s own it’s a little bit odd. If this is supposed to be a letter written by the murderer (Sickert) why is the writer seemingly uncertain about whether opium, bang or gin is the driving force? Would he not know which it is? And what did Nemo mean by "such a man"? Why was Nemo even writing to the Times?

Once we see the parts of the letter that Cornwell omits, everything becomes clear. The letter actually begins thus:

"Having long been in India and, therefore, acquainted with the methods of Eastern criminals, it has struck me in reading the accounts of these Whitechapel murders that they have probably been committed by a Malay, or other low-class Asiatic coming under the general term of Lascar, of whom, I believe, there are large numbers in that part of London. The mutilations, cutting off the nose and ears, ripping up the body, and cutting out certain organs – the heart &C – are all peculiarly Eastern methods and universally recognized, and intended by the criminal classes to express insult, hatred and contempt; whereas, here the public and police are quite at a loss to attach any meaning to them, and so they are described as the mere senseless fury of a maniac."

So the rather crucial piece of information that the writer claims to have lived in India for a long time has been completely omitted by Cornwell. Apparently this was not important enough for her reader to be made aware of. But it’s pretty crucial because what Nemo appears to be saying that it is the Lascars who perform mutilations and cut out organs such as the heart.

Nemo continues:

"My theory would be that some man of this class has been hocussed and then robbed of his savings (often large), or, as he considers, been in some way greatly injured by a prostitute – perhaps one of the earlier victims; and then has been led by fury and revenge to take the lives of as many of the same class as he can. This is also entirely in consonance with Eastern ideas and the practices of the criminal classes."

So when he refers to the villain being high on opium or drink he is referring to this Eastern killer.

Is there any significance that this letter was signed in a name known to have been used by Sickert?

Well the fact of the matter is that Nemo was a very frequently used pseudonym for letters to the editor published in the Times. We find letters from Nemo on a wide variety of topics in the Times of the following dates

26 Feb 1827
23 Dec 1833
28 Dec 1833
24 Nov 1836
23 Nov 1843
13 Nov 1844
28 Dec 1844
12 July 1845
19 Feb 1846
6 April 1849
31 July 1849
17 Aug 1850
16 Sept 1850
27 Sept 1850
18 Jan 1851
19 April 1852
2 Nov 1852
26 Jan 1853
14 Feb 1853
25 June 1853
20 Sept 1855
4 Jan 1856
24 June 1856
6 Aug 1856
1 Nov 1856
12 Nov 1856
19 Nov 1856
11 April 1857
9 July 1857
15 Sept 1857
18 Sept 1857
22 Oct 1857
26 Oct 1857
24 May 1858
27 July 1858
30 Aug 1860
14 Jan 1861
21 Jan 1861
6 Sept 1861
8 Feb 1862
6 May 1863
9 May 1863
26 July 1864
14 April 1865
27 June 1865
12 Oct 1865
20 Oct 1865
13 Dec 1865
21 July 1867
8 June 1868
7 Oct 1868
27 Oct 1869
24 Dec 1869
4 Jan 1870
19 Aug 1871
28 May 1873
16 Sept 1873
21 Sept 1874
4 Dec 1875
17 Aug 1877
4 May 1880
23 Dec 1880
28 Dec 1880
3 Feb 1881
31 Jan 1882
14 May 1883
2 June 1884
16 Sept 1884
18 Feb 1885
9 May 1885
14 Jan 1887
12 May 1887
19 Aug 1887
31 May 1888
10 July 1888

I think we are on safe ground in saying that all of the above were not authored by Walter Sickert.

It’s actually interesting to note that the letter of 17 August 1850 was about a fight between two women in Whitechapel witnessed by the author about which he was told a police officer had refused to intervene while the letter of 27 July 1858 was said to have come from the Dardenelles and was about mutilation of Turkish soldiers by the Motenegrins who cut off the noses, lips and ears. As Walter Sickert had not yet been born it is certain that he wrote neither of these Nemo letters but one can only wonder what Cornwell had said if they had been published in 1888 or thereabouts.

Further, there were another three letters from 'Nemo' in the remainder of 1888 alone: On 9 October 1888, about the new German drill book, on 1 November 1888 about Irish Protestants and the Union and on 25 December 1888 about Liberal Unionists and the National Liberal Club. It is inconceivable that Cornwell did not locate these letters – she would certainly have searched for all letters from Nemo in the Times during 1888 – but there is no mention of them in her book.

Although Cornwell claims that the use of pseudonyms by authors of letters to newspapers at the time was rare, this is not my experience and does not seem to be supported by the above.

My conclusion is that Jack the Ripper or no Jack the Ripper, there is no good reason to think that Walter Sickert was the author of the 'Nemo' letter of 4 October 1888.

Nice work David.


Steve

[David Orsam]

Williams Buchanan

A letter from a Williams Buchanan of 11 Burton Street about the successful use of bloodhounds in Dieppe to track down the murderer of a little boy in the early 1860s published in the Times of 9 October 1888 (along with a similar one from the same person in the Echo of 2 October 1888) is another letter which excites Cornwell.

She wasn’t able to corroborate the existence of the Dieppe murder and the only information she can find about Williams Buchanan is that he was on the electoral roll in 1889/90 at the Burton Street address under the name of William Buchanan.

Consequently, she suspects that Williams (or William) Buchanan was really Walter Sickert playing letter writing games, having created a false identity in real life.

Now it’s fair to say that the British Newspaper Archive was not available when Cornwell wrote her first book but it is available today and it only takes a few minutes to discover that Williams Buchanan was a quack selling a baldness cure which featured in published advertisements in a number of regional newspapers between May 1887 and October 1889. Here is an example from the Leeds Times of 27 October 1888:

Prematurely Bald People

And those whose hair is weak and “falling” should send at once for my circular (post free). If case undertaken, a cure guaranteed. Scientific treatment. Testimonials from all sorts and conditions of men and women.

Address, Williams Buchanan, B.A. Specialist, 84, Park Street, Regent’s Park, London N.W. Laboratory, 11 Burton-street, W.C.

It is, I think, a little unlikely that Walter Sickert went to such extreme lengths to create a cover story by placing numerous advertisements in newspapers and even creating his own Buchanan’s Petrolia as can be seen in the below example from the Preston Chronicle of 14 May 1887:

BALDNESS CURABLE
BUCHANAN'S PETROLIA

LADIES and GENTLEMEN whose Hair is Thin or Falling, or who have Bald Patches or Scanty Partings, should use BUCHANAN'S PETROLIA, a carefully compounded preparation, positively guaranteed to produce a Fine Growth of Hair, Beard, Whiskers, or Moustache, within a Month's time, provided the slightest vitality be let in the bulbs or roots.

As a specific for the Hair, BUCHANAN'S PETROLIA has no equal, and it is as harmless as it is effective. It is, moreover, delightfully cooling and refreshing to use, and renders the Hair soft, pliable, and glossy.

TRY IT

even if all other so-called "Restorers" has failed.

Hundreds of Testimonials attest its efficacy.

Mention this paper when ordering.

Post Free (large bottle, 3s, 6d, in stamps) WILLIAMS BUCHANAN, 11 Burton St, London, W.C.

I don’t think Walter Sickert is likely to have created a false persona selling a baldness cure, inserting advertisements into northern newspapers between 1887 and 1889. That being so, the letter in the Times of 9 October 1888 has nothing to do with him.