Patricia Cornwell - Walter Sickert - BOOK 2

[Abby Normal]

Can anyone please tell what specific letters she is claiming sickert wrote.

ive asked the question numerable times and no one seems to know the definite answer. surely Cornwell has said what specific letters he wrote No?

Ive got letters from hell so if anyone knows what specific letter(s) shes claiming he wrote I can look them up.

thanks in advance!

[Fisherman]

Can anyone please tell what specific letters she is claiming sickert wrote.

ive asked the question numerable times and no one seems to know the definite answer. surely Cornwell has said what specific letters he wrote No?

Ive got letters from hell so if anyone knows what specific letter(s) shes claiming he wrote I can look them up.

thanks in advance!

This old aquaintance:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TjiToWwEttQ/Uebu7bLsgII/AAAAAAAAY10/wjFXW-zrqns/s1600/letters+4.jpg

is supposedly one of them, Abby! Seems artistic enough...

[PaulB]

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 that´s why, Paul.
Without going in on the overall explanation, I´m 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. Let´s 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.

You see similarities between a murder committed in 1873 and the murders committed in 1888. If you are correct then Walter Sickert is very, very unlikely to have been Jack the Ripper. But you don't know that the 1873 and 1888 murders were committed by the same person. You can do what you like, of course, but I wouldn't exclude any candidate for the Ripper on the assumption that my unproven theory was correct, no matter how persuasive the evidence might appear to be.

I have no idea what you are talking about regarding Huchinson, but you would seem to be pre-judging again.

[Fisherman]

You see similarities between a murder committed in 1873 and the murders committed in 1888. If you are correct then Walter Sickert is very, very unlikely to have been Jack the Ripper. But you don't know that the 1873 and 1888 murders were committed by the same person. You can do what you like, of course, but I wouldn't exclude any candidate for the Ripper on the assumption that my unproven theory was correct, no matter how persuasive the evidence might appear to be.

I have no idea what you are talking about regarding Huchinson, but you would seem to be pre-judging again.

Pre-judging? Yes, I suppose some would say that - mainly the ones who say that they see no similarity whatsoever between Toppys handwriting and that of the Dorset Street witness. Forensic handwriting specialist Frank Leander would not say anything such, however...

Be that as it may, the more interesting matter is that of comparing the 1873 victim to the Ripper murders. In that case, the similarity I am talking about is one that is glaring enough - and one that is not often seen in murder cases. It is quite, quite rare, which is why I am saying that we are dealing with the same killer in all probability.
There is not just the one similarity, of course. But the one I am referring to means that if they were NOT the same killer, then something extremely odd was going on.

Out of interest, where do you stand on the topic of the Ripper and the Torso man possibly being the same man, Paul? And why? That is if I may ask?

[Abby Normal]

This old aquaintance:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TjiToWwEttQ/Uebu7bLsgII/AAAAAAAAY10/wjFXW-zrqns/s1600/letters+4.jpg

is supposedly one of them, Abby! Seems artistic enough...

Thanks Fish
so this is a letter that she found his dna on the envelope and or the paper matched the kind he used?

[Fisherman]

Thanks Fish
so this is a letter that she found his dna on the envelope and or the paper matched the kind he used?

I believe this is one of three letters coming from that 24-paper stack that also involved regular Sickert letters.
Whether it was also involved in the DNA business, I can´t say.

I never read Cornwells first book, but I may read the second.

[PaulB]

Pre-judging? Yes, I suppose some would say that - mainly the ones who say that they see no similarity whatsoever between Toppys handwriting and that of the Dorset Street witness. Forensic handwriting specialist Frank Leander would not say anything such, however...

Be that as it may, the more interesting matter is that of comparing the 1873 victim to the Ripper murders. In that case, the similarity I am talking about is one that is glaring enough - and one that is not often seen in murder cases. It is quite, quite rare, which is why I am saying that we are dealing with the same killer in all probability.
There is not just the one similarity, of course. But the one I am referring to means that if they were NOT the same killer, then something extremely odd was going on.

Out of interest, where do you stand on the topic of the Ripper and the Torso man possibly being the same man, Paul? And why? That is if I may ask?

'Pre-judging' has nothing whatsoever to do with Topping. It is about having a pre-conceived and unproven idea and making judgements based on it, which is what you are doing when you dismiss as valid suspects anyone who cannot have committed the 1873 murder. It really doesn't matter how good a case you can make for believing that the 1873 murder was committed by Jack the Ripper, it could still be wrong. Stranger things have happened! Walter Sickert does not fit your personal criteria and you are therefore pre-judging Patricia's argument because of it. I don't think that's fair or right, but I'm happy to let folk make up their on minds about that.

I don't have an opiion on the torso/Ripper connection. I'll look into it more closely, but to makea pre-judgement of my own I'd say that I think it is unlikely that Jack the Ripper committed murders significantly earlier than 1888. I could be wrong though. And I probably am.

[Fisherman]

PaulB: 'Pre-judging' has nothing whatsoever to do with Topping. It is about having a pre-conceived and unproven idea and making judgements based on it, which is what you are doing when you dismiss as valid suspects anyone who cannot have committed the 1873 murder. It really doesn't matter how good a case you can make for believing that the 1873 murder was committed by Jack the Ripper, it could still be wrong. Stranger things have happened! Walter Sickert does not fit your personal criteria and you are therefore pre-judging Patricia's argument because of it. I don't think that's fair or right, but I'm happy to let folk make up their on minds about that.

You may have missed the point I was making about Toppy, but as I said - it really does not matter.
I am aware that I do not adjust to your demands about a historically correct approach to Ripperology. You really should not take that too seriously, though - there is no set of rules to which we must all adjust out here. We are quite free to form our own ideas and make our own conclusions, and that is the exact prerogative I am using.
That´s not to say that you don´t have a point - just as you say, no matter how good a case I can make for an inclusion of the 1873 torso case, I can nevertheless be wrong. Stranger things have indeed happened. That´s all very true!
I am nevertheless convinced that I am on the right track here, since I have had it confirmed by many separate details, all of them working in combination with the scenario I have in mind. And since it is a scenario that is quite unusual and odd, the fact that the separate elements all support it, is not very likely to be coincidental. So I am quite happy to work from the presumption that I am correct, and quite prepared to admit that I am wrong if anything surfaces to prove it.

I don't have an opiion on the torso/Ripper connection. I'll look into it more closely, but to makea pre-judgement of my own I'd say that I think it is unlikely that Jack the Ripper committed murders significantly earlier than 1888. I could be wrong though. And I probably am.

Nicely put, Paul, if I may say so! And on the surface of things, very logical - the notion that the Ripper would have killed long before 1888 does need something special to work. It is only because I have noticed such a special matter that I entertain the idea, a matter that is perhaps more clearly expressed in the 1873 victim than any other victim.

But one can accept a probable connection without touching on the 1873 and 1874 deeds! There are so many similarities of such great rarity involved in the series that I think it defies logic not to work from the assumption of one killer only for both series. Cuts from sternum to pubes, abdominal walls cut away in large flaps, rings taken from the victims, colon sections gone lost, inner organs taken out, uteri extracted...
We would be complete idiots not to discuss a common identity; at least that´s my contention.

[PaulB]

PaulB: 'Pre-judging' has nothing whatsoever to do with Topping. It is about having a pre-conceived and unproven idea and making judgements based on it, which is what you are doing when you dismiss as valid suspects anyone who cannot have committed the 1873 murder. It really doesn't matter how good a case you can make for believing that the 1873 murder was committed by Jack the Ripper, it could still be wrong. Stranger things have happened! Walter Sickert does not fit your personal criteria and you are therefore pre-judging Patricia's argument because of it. I don't think that's fair or right, but I'm happy to let folk make up their on minds about that.

You may have missed the point I was making about Toppy, but as I said - it really does not matter.
I am aware that I do not adjust to your demands about a historically correct approach to Ripperology. You really should not take that too seriously, though - there is no set of rules to which we must all adjust out here. We are quite free to form our own ideas and make our own conclusions, and that is the exact prerogative I am using.
That´s not to say that you don´t have a point - just as you say, no matter how good a case I can make for an inclusion of the 1873 torso case, I can nevertheless be wrong. Stranger things have indeed happened. That´s all very true!
I am nevertheless convinced that I am on the right track here, since I have had it confirmed by many separate details, all of them working in combination with the scenario I have in mind. And since it is a scenario that is quite unusual and odd, the fact that the separate elements all support it, is not very likely to be coincidental. So I am quite happy to work from the presumption that I am correct, and quite prepared to admit that I am wrong if anything surfaces to prove it.

I don't have an opiion on the torso/Ripper connection. I'll look into it more closely, but to makea pre-judgement of my own I'd say that I think it is unlikely that Jack the Ripper committed murders significantly earlier than 1888. I could be wrong though. And I probably am.

Nicely put, Paul, if I may say so! And on the surface of things, very logical - the notion that the Ripper would have killed long before 1888 does need something special to work. It is only because I have noticed such a special matter that I entertain the idea, a matter that is perhaps more clearly expressed in the 1873 victim than any other victim.

But one can accept a probable connection without touching on the 1873 and 1874 deeds! There are so many similarities of such great rarity involved in the series that I think it defies logic not to work from the assumption of one killer only for both series. Cuts from sternum to pubes, abdominal walls cut away in large flaps, rings taken from the victims, colon sections gone lost, inner organs taken out, uteri extracted...
We would be complete idiots not to discuss a common identity; at least that´s my contention.

I don't make any demands 'about a historically correct approach to Ripperology'. There are widely accepted 'rules' about conducting history and they should be followed. They are not my 'rules'. I do not demand that they be followed. I don't know where you got that nonsense from.

You can accept that the 1873 and the 1888 murders were committed by the same person. You can accept anything you like. I simply think it is unfair - and in my view unprofessional - to discount as a valid suspect someone who could not have committed the 1873 crime and therefore does not fit your criteria. Obviously you will disagree. That's up to you.

Nobody, certainly not me, has suggested that there should be no discussion of a common identity. I haven't said that your belief that the 1873 and 1888 murders weren't comitted by the same person. I would hope that I would give that suggestion the same very careful attention as I give to other theories, including Patricia's, whose books I have at least read. But the validity of your theory isn't and never has been in question, it's simply whether or not you are right to dismiss another person's theory because it doesn't fit conclusions you have reached that may be persuasive in themselves but have not been proved and are not, as far as I am aware, generally accepted.

[Fisherman]

PaulB: I don't make any demands 'about a historically correct approach to Ripperology'. There are widely accepted 'rules' about conducting history and they should be followed. They are not my 'rules'. I do not demand that they be followed. I don't know where you got that nonsense from.

Well, mainly from criticism you have directed at me over time. If I am wrong about it, so much the better.

You can accept that the 1873 and the 1888 murders were committed by the same person. You can accept anything you like. I simply think it is unfair - and in my view unprofessional - to discount as a valid suspect someone who could not have committed the 1873 crime and therefore does not fit your criteria. Obviously you will disagree. That's up to you.

I think you may be overreacting somewhat. Patrica Cornwell has all the means it takes to push her suspect, and she does so in an emphatic manner. What I think about it will not have any measurable impact at all. Furthermore, I am not telling anybody to follow my example. Nor would people do so if I did.
I am reading the evidence the way I see it, and I am accordingly reasoning that anybody who was not old enough in 1873 to be the likely killer of the 1873 torso victim, is not likely to be the Ripper either, since I am pretty certain that they were one and the same man.
I am not telling people that the gospel we should live by is accepting this. I am saying that not haveing been of age in 1873 is a very serious flaw in my book, whenever choosing a Ripper suspect.
And that can only be "unfair" if I rob somebody of his or her right to disagree. I really don´t think I do, Paul.

Nobody, certainly not me, has suggested that there should be no discussion of a common identity.

And I have never said that you did, have I? So I fail to see why you defend yourself on the point.

I haven't said that your belief that the 1873 and 1888 murders weren't comitted by the same person.

Misphrased, I take it - but I think I see what you mean.

I would hope that I would give that suggestion the same very careful attention as I give to other theories, including Patricia's, whose books I have at least read. But the validity of your theory isn't and never has been in question, it's simply whether or not you are right to dismiss another person's theory because it doesn't fit conclusions you have reached that may be persuasive in themselves but have not been proved and are not, as far as I am aware, generally accepted.

These are public discussion boards, Paul. To me, that means that they are a place where suggestions may be put forward for discussion. I happen to think that the Ripper killed the 1873 torso victim, and that impacts my thinking. As I said before, if I am wrong, I will accept everything that follows with such a thing. What I do not accept as readily is any idea that I need to prove my suggestion decisively before I am allowed to let it govern how I do my Ripperology. And I do it by grading down suspects who were too young to have killed in 1873. Not by dismissing them, but by grading them down.
I´m sure that there is room for both my suspect and thinking and Cornwells ditto. Just as I have misgivings about her suspect, I´m sure she may have misgivings about my suspect too. And I consider that perfectly fair.

[Elamarna]

I am reading the evidence the way I see it, and I am accordingly reasoning that anybody who was not old enough in 1873 to be the likely killer of the 1873 torso victim, is not likely to be the Ripper either, since I am pretty certain that they were one and the same man.
I am not telling people that the gospel we should live by is accepting this. I am saying that not haveing been of age in 1873 is a very serious flaw in my book, whenever choosing a Ripper suspect.

Christer,

Firstly thanks for explaining on the other thread, your reasoning for 147 Cable Street, which as I suspected is not based any palpable evidence, just your reasoning that if Lechmere were the killer it is an obvious place.
Which is a fair conclusion once one takes that approach.


I have also been following the exchange between you and Paul, and I see the problems that I and some others have with your theory on the two killers being the same is still unresolved.

This falls into two broad areas

While there are some similarities between some of the Torso and Ripper killings, these are not compelling for some who have a background in medical/natural science.

We have discussed that before, flaps, cuts etc, and I see no need to rehash that again, particularly on a thread which has apparently moved far from its original topic, and would move even further.

The other more important issue, therefore, given we are unlikely to agree on the first point at present, is your repeated pointers to 1873.

You have stated I believe that the 1873 case includes pointers, that are, obvious to you, with regards to links to 1888 and to the possible reason for both sets of murders.

The problem with the above is that you are not at present prepared to say what these observations are. Indeed on the other forum, you even said you were sorry that you would/could not reveal them yet.

While I fully respect that view, it does make the acceptance of your view on this particular issue impossible to accept at present, or even to meaningfully discuss.


If I am wrong on any that, it is my misunderstanding and I apologize


And let me be clear, I do not rule out the possibility that the two sets of murders were committed by the same hand, to do so would be unreasonable; however I see it as no more than that, a possibility!

I patiently await the release of this new information.


Steve

[Elamarna]

apoology

Christer and all

my apologizes, the first paragraph of my previous post was meant for another thread, some how while cutting and pasting it got included, sorry

I have edited it to make it clear that 1st part relates to another thread.


Steve

[Elamarna]

I am about 2/3 of the way into the new book, and while there are lots of coincidences, nothing concrete is offered to wards Sickert being JtR.

there may well be a case that Sickert wrote some of the letters, but that does not make him a killer.

Still its better written than many suspect books.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Christer,

Firstly thanks for explaining on the other thread, your reasoning for 147 Cable Street, which as I suspected is not based any palpable evidence, just your reasoning that if Lechmere were the killer it is an obvious place.
Which is a fair conclusion once one takes that approach.

It is a VERY obvious place. As for palpable evidence between Lechmere and the Pinchin Street torso, you may like how a bloodied rag was found in the building works of St Philips church near the London hospital - a building site that lay along the route from Pinchin Street to Doveton Street. The rag was found the day after the torso was discovered.

So this is the second bloodied rag found at a spot along a route from a Ripper murder place/Torso dumping place to Doveton Street.

Like I always say - Charles never had much luck with the coincidences.

I have also been following the exchange between you and Paul, and I see the problems that I and some others have with your theory on the two killers being the same is still unresolved.

This falls into two broad areas

While there are some similarities between some of the Torso and Ripper killings, these are not compelling for some who have a background in medical/natural science.

We have discussed that before, flaps, cuts etc, and I see no need to rehash that again, particularly on a thread which has apparently moved far from its original topic, and would move even further.

I disagree, as usual. When victims from two series - in the same city at the same time - have their abdomens cut from sternum to pubes, when victims from two series loose their abdominal walls in large flaps, when victims from two series loose colon sections, when victims from both series have rings wrenched from their fingers, no background in medical/natural science can hide the fact that this IS compelling evidence for naming the killers one and the same. And that applies regardless of HOW the abdominal walls were cut away, with a butter knife, a garden shearer, a surgeons knife or whatever other implement.

The other more important issue, therefore, given we are unlikely to agree on the first point at present, is your repeated pointers to 1873.

You have stated I believe that the 1873 case includes pointers, that are, obvious to you, with regards to links to 1888 and to the possible reason for both sets of murders.

The problem with the above is that you are not at present prepared to say what these observations are. Indeed on the other forum, you even said you were sorry that you would/could not reveal them yet.

While I fully respect that view, it does make the acceptance of your view on this particular issue impossible to accept at present, or even to meaningfully discuss.

I generally agree with you on this point, Steve - you are at an unfair disadvantage in any discussions about the 1873 victim until I tell you what it is I use in my thinking.
It all owes to how I responded to criticism for having suggested the inclusion of this victim in the ripper/torso tally by saying that I understood the misgivings some had, but that I had something much more significant that pointed to such an inclusion.

I do, but it remains that I am not telling. And therefore it also remains that no discussion can be had about it. Whether you think it is impossible to accept, as you say, is up to you. It is not as if I am going to prove you wrong.

If I am wrong on any that, it is my misunderstanding and I apologize

See the above.

And let me be clear, I do not rule out the possibility that the two sets of murders were committed by the same hand, to do so would be unreasonable; however I see it as no more than that, a possibility!

I patiently await the release of this new information.

So do I.

[TomTomKent]

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.

It is the current interviews that are putting me off. She is making a case for Sickert the hoax letter writer, and selling it as Sickert the Ripper. I don't want to prejudge her investigation (and I already said if word or mouth gets me excited, I might add it to my TBR list), but I am I am afraid her interviews are not convincing me this is an investigation I will find interesting, or a book I will find entertaining.

My interest is of course no indication of how valid, or flawed, her book is. But it is being sold as something I don't think parses, and thus makes me sceptical of wasting money (or, as you correctly point out) time on it.

I don't mind an investigation that falls flat, or fails to convince me, as long as it entertains. I don't mind a book being written in an irksome voice as long as it is interesting. Unfortunately the premise sounds too flawed to spark my interest, and experience has told me that Cornwell does not write her non-fiction books in a voice I want to spend too much time with.

I'm open to be convinced (hence looking at threads like this, if there was something in this discussion, some aspect of the narrative that was not being done justice by the interviews, or a hot buzz that the discussion about X brought up an interesting revelation, I would be willing to pick it up), but for now I remain... sceptical. It is more likely to remain one of those books I will pick up eventually, rather than one that is purchased and remains on my TBR list as more books pile on top of it.