Patricia Cornwell - Walter Sickert - BOOK 2

[Elamarna]

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.

David

I did not read it that it was suggested that he dated sketches on dates he did not draw them, rather that some sketches could be follow up work done in his studio and not at the actual site. The date would therefore still reflect the day that sketch was done.

However it does seem clear he was in London during the late summer-Autumn of 88.

Steve

[David Orsam]

WS

Noting that along with the body of the limbless female body discovered in the Scotland Yard building on 1 October 1888 was found a bloodstained copy of the Echo newspaper from 24 August 1888, Cornwell took a look at that newspaper, suspecting that the killer might have had it in his possession for a reason. Her suspicions appeared to be confirmed when she found in the Notes and Queries section that someone using the name "W.S." had answered five questions which had been asked by readers of the newspaper in previous editions. According to Cornwell, sending in five answers to queries was "compulsive" behaviour typical of both Sickert and Jack the Ripper even though none of the answers seem to have any connection with subjects of interest to Sickert or anything to do with the murders.

Having looked at the Notes and Queries section of the Echo in the period July to October 1888 I can say that there was absolutely nothing unusual about one individual sending in five answers. It was quite common. There was a small group of people who frequently sent in replies (and often multiple replies on one day) to questions asked by readers. This group included individuals using the names or initials "S.R.", "K.", "E.L.G"., "Blennerhasst" and "Peter Tickle" amongst others. We find that "S.R". contributed five answers on both 7 and 8 September 1888 and there are plenty of other examples. On 3 August we find someone signing as "Nemo" supplying five answers (all legal related).

In that four month period we find quite a number of answers provided by "W.S." frequently in response to legal questions:

2 Aug 1888 – lodgers’ goods (legal issue).
6 July 1888 – Water company’s powers.
9 July 1888 - Two answers, about special licences and marriage (legal) and corrects Blennerhasset on 12 July about cost of special licences.
18 July 1888 – Origin of name Whitefriars.
20 Aug – Pension of the Kaiser's wife (the Kaiserin).
28 Aug – Two answers – regarding food for tortoises and an answer to a question about why Jews disagree with Christianity.
29 August – more on the Kaiserin’s pension.
20 Sept – Effects of the Merchandise Trade Marks’ Act (says "I know of a large manufacturing cutler in Germany doing an immense trade with our Colonies…").
12 Oct – Bank of England notes (legal position).
18 Oct – Itching (medical).
23 Oct – Bills of Exchange.
28 Oct – Patents.
30 Oct – rights of homeowners (legal question).

It is highly probable that the "W.S." who provided all these answers was the same person.

On 6 July 1888, the answer of "W.S." included this statement:

"Some ten years ago I received a similar notice from the New River Company, requiring alterations with a view to constant supply. Being a leaseholder, I caused the very expensive alterations to be made…"

So "W.S." was a leaseholder in 1878 (when Sickert was an 18 year old art student) who made expensive alterations to a property. This means we can safely say that W.S. was not Sickert.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve

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

Cheers John

John

It's about plausibility.

Sickert while highly unlikely is not impossible and real tangible evidence is presented.

While one may not agree with or indeed accept that evidence, it is far strong than the argument, for want of a better word, put up for Wonderland.


Steve

[David Orsam]

Nice work David.

Thank you Steve.

[Abby Normal]

awesome. thanks for posting these-keep en coming.

The difference between an outstanding researcher and well...

[Elamarna]

Noting that along with the body of the limbless female body discovered in the Scotland Yard building on 1 October 1888 was found a bloodstained copy of the Echo newspaper from 24 August 1888, Cornwell took a look at that newspaper, suspecting that the killer might have had it in his possession for a reason. Her suspicions appeared to be confirmed when she found in the Notes and Queries section that someone using the name "W.S." had answered five questions which had been asked by readers of the newspaper in previous editions. According to Cornwell, sending in five answers to queries was "compulsive" behaviour typical of both Sickert and Jack the Ripper even though none of the answers seem to have any connection with subjects of interest to Sickert or anything to do with the murders.

Having looked at the Notes and Queries section of the Echo in the period July to October 1888 I can say that there was absolutely nothing unusual about one individual sending in five answers. It was quite common. There was a small group of people who frequently sent in replies (and often multiple replies on one day) to questions asked by readers. This group included individuals using the names or initials "S.R.", "K.", "E.L.G"., "Blennerhasst" and "Peter Tickle" amongst others. We find that "S.R". contributed five answers on both 7 and 8 September 1888 and there are plenty of other examples. On 3 August we find someone signing as "Nemo" supplying five answers (all legal related).

In that four month period we find quite a number of answers provided by "W.S." frequently in response to legal questions:

2 Aug 1888 – lodgers’ goods (legal issue).
6 July 1888 – Water company’s powers.
9 July 1888 - Two answers, about special licences and marriage (legal) and corrects Blennerhasset on 12 July about cost of special licences.
18 July 1888 – Origin of name Whitefriars.
20 Aug – Pension of the Kaiser's wife (the Kaiserin).
28 Aug – Two answers – regarding food for tortoises and an answer to a question about why Jews disagree with Christianity.
29 August – more on the Kaiserin’s pension.
20 Sept – Effects of the Merchandise Trade Marks’ Act (says "I know of a large manufacturing cutler in Germany doing an immense trade with our Colonies…").
12 Oct – Bank of England notes (legal position).
18 Oct – Itching (medical).
23 Oct – Bills of Exchange.
28 Oct – Patents.
30 Oct – rights of homeowners (legal question).

It is highly probable that the "W.S." who provided all these answers was the same person.

On 6 July 1888, the answer of "W.S." included this statement:

"Some ten years ago I received a similar notice from the New River Company, requiring alterations with a view to constant supply. Being a leaseholder, I caused the very expensive alterations to be made…"

So "W.S." was a leaseholder in 1878 (when Sickert was an 18 year old art student) who made expensive alterations to a property. This means we can safely say that W.S. was not Sickert.

Really lots of work put in there David. This is the sort of response I had hoped for when this thread began, you have done as Paul Begg suggested. Looked this book and assed it; not the previous one.

Steve

[David Orsam]

David

I did not read it that it was suggested that he dated sketches on dates he did not draw them, rather that some sketches could be follow up work done in his studio and not at the actual site. The date would therefore still reflect the day that sketch was done.

However it does seem clear he was in London during the late summer-Autumn of 88.

Steve,

I had in mind sleekviper's statement that "Sketches have the date that they were done, not the original sketch date." which I couldn't wrap my head around and still can't. And then Fisherman took from this that Sickert's practice was "dating the sketches NOT when the scene he depicted took place but instead when he made the actual sketches".

But I don't understand how a sketch inscribed and dated, e.g. "Collins Music Hall, 28 Sept 1888" can mean anything other than that Sickert was at the Collins Music Hall on 28 September 1888.

[Elamarna]

awesome. thanks for posting these-keep en coming.

The difference between an outstanding researcher and well...

Absolutely agree with you Abby, I certainly cannot do what David does.

Steve

[Abby Normal]

David

I did not read it that it was suggested that he dated sketches on dates he did not draw them, rather that some sketches could be follow up work done in his studio and not at the actual site. The date would therefore still reflect the day that sketch was done.

However it does seem clear he was in London during the late summer-Autumn of 88.

Steve

HI El
not so sure about that. all we know is he was PROBABLY in London the days those two sketches were dated. hardly proof that he was in London or even whitechapel thoughout the duration of the crimes.

[Abby Normal]

John

It's about plausibility.

Sickert while highly unlikely is not impossible and real tangible evidence is presented.

While one may not agree with or indeed accept that evidence, it is far strong than the argument, for want of a better word, put up for Wonderland.


Steve

Hi El
what is the "real tangible evidence" that sickert was the ripper??

[Elamarna]

Steve,

I had in mind sleekviper's statement that "Sketches have the date that they were done, not the original sketch date." which I couldn't wrap my head around and still can't. And then Fisherman took from this that Sickert's practice was "dating the sketches NOT when the scene he depicted took place but instead when he made the actual sketches".

But I don't understand how a sketch inscribed and dated, e.g. "Collins Music Hall, 28 Sept 1888" can mean anything other than that Sickert was at the Collins Music Hall on 28 September 1888.

I can actually, the place is what the sketch is of, in that case Collins music hall. The date would be the date of that particular sketch. What was suggested was there would be an original and then follow up works each similar but not exactly alike with different dates.
At least that is how I read the suggestion.

Of course if there is no follow up in a series and sketches are completely unlike each other it is fair to assume we are dealing with originals and the date would be when he was there.

Steve

[David Orsam]

Steve,

I had in mind sleekviper's statement that "Sketches have the date that they were done, not the original sketch date." which I couldn't wrap my head around and still can't. And then Fisherman took from this that Sickert's practice was "dating the sketches NOT when the scene he depicted took place but instead when he made the actual sketches".

But I don't understand how a sketch inscribed and dated, e.g. "Collins Music Hall, 28 Sept 1888" can mean anything other than that Sickert was at the Collins Music Hall on 28 September 1888.

I might add that Wendy Baron appears to interpret such sketches the same way. In her 2006 book, with reference to a painting of Queenie Lawrence dated "c. 1888", information is provided that there are sketches of Queenie Lawrence inscribed and dated as follows: "Bedford Jan 19 88", "Jan 24 88" and "Jan 24 88". Baron comments that Sickert "began to study her [Queenie Lawrence] consistently from January 1888 when he saw her at the Bedford Music Hall". I see nothing in Baron to suggest that Sickert's sketches were not done at the place and on the date stated on the sketches.

[Elamarna]

HI El
not so sure about that. all we know is he was PROBABLY in London the days those two sketches were dated. hardly proof that he was in London or even whitechapel thoughout the duration of the crimes.

You misunderstand me, or I was unclear

I am saying what you are saying.

Here was in London during the period; maybe not for all of it

Steve

[David Orsam]

I can actually, the place is what the sketch is of, in that case Collins music hall. The date would be the date of that particular sketch. What was suggested was there would be an original and then follow up works each similar but not exactly alike with different dates.
At least that is how I read the suggestion.

Of course if there is no follow up in a series and sketches are completely unlike each other it is fair to assume we are dealing with originals and the date would be when he was there.

I'm afraid I don't follow Steve! If the place is the Collins music hall and the date is "the date of that particular sketch" then the sketch was sketched on the date on place inscribed on the sketch wasn't it? In other words, a sketch dated and inscribed "Collins, 28 Sept 1888" would have been sketched at Collins Music Hall on 28 September 1888 wouldn't it?

Or am I missing something here?

[David Orsam]

awesome. thanks for posting these-keep en coming.

The difference between an outstanding researcher and well...

Thank you Abby. I'm finished for the moment!