Patricia Cornwell - Walter Sickert - BOOK 2

[Harry D]

Cornwell and Robinson's egomania taint every word of their fascinating but wrong tomes. It is easy to become rapt by the euphoria of conspiracy theory - you hold all the cards if you say the moon is made of cheese and everyone is an alien, for example, so who, in your head can prove you wrong? Hence Trump for example.!

Novelists make the lousiest detectives.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Novelists make the lousiest detectives.

Arthur Conan Doyle and Oscar Slater????????

[Harry D]

Arthur Conan Doyle and Oscar Slater????????

Didn't Conan Doyle coin the "Jill the Ripper" theory?

Naturally, fiction writers tend to sensationalize the case and lean towards conspiracies, high-profile suspects, or crackpot theories.

[Abby Normal]

Yep. There are dated music hall sketches which suggest he was in London and not in France at the time of several of the murders. As for the handwriting, the letters are from the same small batch of paper which in the opinion of the paper expert, Peter Bower, is as probable to have been sold to one person as it can be. The argument is therefore that the handwriting was disguised, to which one might say "yea, right", but one would have to have good grounds for disputing the considered conclusion of a world renowned authority on paper. You also have the opinion of the authority on Sickert's art, Anna Gruetzner Robins, that many of the Ripper letters were identifiably by Sickert. I have no idea whether they do or not, by I'm impressed by the weight of these authority's opinions.

Thanks! interesting stuff!

[TomTomKent]

My two cents: The first book was only able to convince me that Sickert read newspapers and was as interested as a lot of other people in the famous case. All her forensic stuff was interesting, but her own fictional Scarpetta (is that the spelling?) would have chided her for testing with nothing to test against.

All the publicity so far suggests she is making a case about Sickert writing letters that is *just* as convincing. But here's the rub: Her style was so over excitable, and so annoying that I am in no rush to pay to endure it again.

It is going to take a lot of word of mouth buzz surrounding some great revelation to make me shell out for the book over other choices.

[PaulB]

My two cents: The first book was only able to convince me that Sickert read newspapers and was as interested as a lot of other people in the famous case. All her forensic stuff was interesting, but her own fictional Scarpetta (is that the spelling?) would have chided her for testing with nothing to test against.

All the publicity so far suggests she is making a case about Sickert writing letters that is *just* as convincing. But here's the rub: Her style was so over excitable, and so annoying that I am in no rush to pay to endure it again.

It is going to take a lot of word of mouth buzz surrounding some great revelation to make me shell out for the book over other choices.

It’s understandable that after reading and being disappointed by the first book that you have no particular desire to read the new one, but Patricia has stated in several television interviews I’ve seen that the new book is far better than the first. The Kindle edition is extremely low-priced and unlikely to be unaffordable. Time, of course, is a far more valuable commodity, especially when there are other books clamouring for your attention, but it might be worth investing a little of it so as not to pre-judge her on the basis of a book she acknowledges did not cut the mustard.

[c.d.]

"... but Patricia has stated in several television interviews I’ve seen that the new book is far better than the first."

Well now she would say that wouldn't she as opposed to saying this new book is a piece of crap?

c.d.

[GUT]

It’s understandable that after reading and being disappointed by the first book that you have no particular desire to read the new one, but Patricia has stated in several television interviews I’ve seen that the new book is far better than the first. The Kindle edition is extremely low-priced and unlikely to be unaffordable. Time, of course, is a far more valuable commodity, especially when there are other books clamouring for your attention, but it might be worth investing a little of it so as not to pre-judge her on the basis of a book she acknowledges did not cut the mustard.

So she admits the first one wasn't so good, interesting.

[PaulB]

"... but Patricia has stated in several television interviews I’ve seen that the new book is far better than the first."

Well now she would say that wouldn't she as opposed to saying this new book is a piece of crap?

c.d.

She would also say it if that is what she believes to be true, which she does.

[PaulB]

So she admits the first one wasn't so good, interesting.

She has said so on BBC Television.

[Fisherman]

I can only echo what has already been said - if we have a man who is obsessed with the Ripper saga, then we also have a man who is not unlikely to try his hand at writing Ripper letters. It was a very widespread hobby at the time, and the ones most likely to take it up would have been the ones truly fascinated with the case.
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.
My own feeling is that what drew Sickerts interest is how these murders were very theatrical deeds.

[PaulB]

I can only echo what has already been said - if we have a man who is obsessed with the Ripper saga, then we also have a man who is not unlikely to try his hand at writing Ripper letters. It was a very widespread hobby at the time, and the ones most likely to take it up would have been the ones truly fascinated with the case.
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.
My own feeling is that what drew Sickerts interest is how these murders were very theatrical deeds.

Perfectly valid observations, although one can't dismiss a candidate for the Ripper because of a personal belief that the Ripper committed a murder in 1873. After all, that personal belief could be wrong. As for Sickert writing letters, I don't think it can be so easily dismissed, but shows that Sickert's apparently life-long interest in the Ripper murders began in 1888. Maybe that was because he saw themurders as theatrical, as you suggest, or maybe there was a deeper reason, as Patricia senses.

What does seem to be overlooked is not whether or not Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper, but whether he was the originated the Royal Conspiracy theory, arguably the most influential Riper theory ever, and the implications if he did. Having met and talked with Joseph Sickert many times and being interested in the history of the Jack the Ripper, not simply the question of who Jack the Ripper was, I am intrigued by the possibility that Walter created that story in whole or in part.

[Fisherman]

PaulB: Perfectly valid observations, although one can't dismiss a candidate for the Ripper because of a personal belief that the Ripper committed a murder in 1873.

Actually, one can. Whether others agree is an entirely different matter...

After all, that personal belief could be wrong.

Yes, it could. But there are elements involved in the 1873 murder that are very, very rare and I think I know the exact inspiration for these elements. Interestingly, other rare elements, fitting the exact same inspiration ground are repeated in the Ripper cases. So thatīs why, Paul.
Without going in on the overall explanation, Iīm happy to mention one matter that should be considered:
Charles Hebbert says that Mary Kellys eyelids were removed. And when the 1873 torso "mask" was found, it had the eyelids attached.
So both these victims seemingly had their eyelids cut from their faces. In one case, where there was more time and privacy, the whole of the face was cut away from the skullbone,eyelids included, and in the other, more time pressed deed, the face was slashed into mince-meat - but the eyes seem to have been more or less spared, and if Hebbert is correct, the eyelids were cut away. That is not the picture we normaly have of the cutting of the face of Kelly, which is generally described as a frenzied act.
But frenzied killers do not take the time to cut the eyelids away, while at the same time avoiding to damage the eyes; a quite delicate thing to do.

As for Sickert writing letters, I don't think it can be so easily dismissed, but shows that Sickert's apparently life-long interest in the Ripper murders began in 1888. Maybe that was because he saw themurders as theatrical, as you suggest, or maybe there was a deeper reason, as Patricia senses.

I am not dismissing the notion that Sickert could have written the Ripper letters that Cornwell speak of, on the contrary - it looks as if he very likely did. But that does not per se make him anything more sinister than a letter-writer with a morbid interest in the Riper deeds. And they were thirteen a dozen back in the day.
I am - personally - saying that Sickert makes for a very unlikely Ripper, for reasons tied to the 1873 murder, and I fully accept that people may ask for more evidence that I am giving away.

What does seem to be overlooked is not whether or not Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper, but whether he was the originated the Royal Conspiracy theory, arguably the most influential Riper theory ever, and the implications if he did. Having met and talked with Joseph Sickert many times and being interested in the history of the Jack the Ripper, not simply the question of who Jack the Ripper was, I am intrigued by the possibility that Walter created that story in whole or in part.

That is another matter, of course, and an interesting one. Letīs just say that once we enter these domains, much of whatever viability a suspect has starts to wear off rather quickly. Which need not be a good thing - for the longest, the same thing happened to Topping Hutchinson on account of the same connotations, but in the end, it seems that Reg was on the money - at least to my eyes.
So lightning struck in an unexpected place in that case. But how likely is it to do so again...? Hopefully, time will show.

[Henry Flower]

I've changed my mind on these things. I used - as many evidently do - to get irate at researchers 'wasting' time and resources on research that I thought misguided. Now I think it's mostly all good. She might not demonstrate that WS was JtR, but to have someone with her resources establishing (if she does) the identity of the writer of some of the letters, well, that's not to be sniffed at even if we don't all follow her where that leads. That's already more than some researchers will ever achieve.

And there's a lot of sniffy generalisation on this thread: yes, there were "thousands of letters". So what? Some have potentially more value than others, it all depends which letters she identifies as being Sickert's, and what exactly those letters tell us.

I admire her tenacity. She made millions from writing entertaining and successful novels, and she's funding Ripper research out of her own pocket. She may not nail Sickert (a painter I loved long before he got tangled up in the JtR nonsense) but why be sniffy about her trying?

Finally - we need Dave/Cogidubnus on this thread. He had real knowledge and expertise on matters postal. To paraphrase Alan Partridge:

Dave! ... Dave! ... DAVE!? .. Dave! Dave! ... Dave! Dave!.. It's no use he can't hear me.

[miss marple]

Artists are creative.Painters are obsessed with painting doing it, teaching it,writing about it. The fullfillment of art is complete. Serial killers are a. different species.
Do get to the point,Sickert was a very rounded and entertaining man with many interests, a good writer on art and a broad knowledge of many subjects. He was above all interested in humanity, ordinary life, he found working class women more interesting to paint than duchesses, as did most of the french impressionists and Degas, the master of painting life as lived.
He was interested in crime, as would anyone be who is fascinated by human behavour, his favourites being the Tichbourne Claiment and Jack the Ripper.
I did post his Jack the Ripper suspect story years ago.Its time to repeat it.
Osbert Sitwell a friend of his, tells the story in his introduction to Sickert's writings.
To paraphrase: Some years after the murders Sickert took a room in a London suburb. An old couple looked after the house and sometime the old woman told him his room had been occupied by Jack the Ripper. She told him his predecessor had been a veterinary student, after a month or too, the delicate consumptive young man took to sometimes staying out all night. They would hear him come in about 6 in the morning then he would go out to buy the first edition of the paper, he would also burn a suit in the fire when he had been out all night. His consumption got worse and his mother took him back to Bournmouth where he died three months later. Sickert wrote his name in the margin of a book which he gave to William Rotherstein,the book later got lost in the war.
I think Sickert probably embellished this, because it made a great after dinner story and Sickert was a great raconteur. The ripper was great copy.Everyone from all classes was were fascinated by the murders, References crop up everywhere. If Sickert had not mentioned the murders that would have been weird and unusual, as everything else interested him.

Miss Marple