Patricia Cornwell - Walter Sickert - BOOK 2

[sleekviper]

Yes, he made sketches of sketches. He imported elements of previous sketches into what he was planning to use as a final piece. Some elements are used multiple times, some not at all. He would not rework what was done, he would create a new sketch. Which is why there are 166 known Katie Lawrence, and 148 Queenie Lawrence. No relation to each other. Which is why he would create a final composite before the actual painting, to make sure all the elements worked as he planned. That requires sketches of sketches.

[Elamarna]

I agree.

Abby

Glad we all agree on the end result even if David and I on this occasion are applying slightly different reasoning..

Steve

[Abby Normal]

You mean sketches of sketches? Well aside from the fact that I don't believe that Wendy Baron says he ever did this type of thing (which is what sleekviper claimed) so that there is no reason to think that it was Sickert's working practice, it would mean that he must have made sketches in situ which he destroyed, having made further sketches of those sketches at a later date. And this would only even work as an alibi destroyer if for some reason he made those later sketches while abroad. No, I'm afraid I regard this suggestion as equally implausible. A sketch saying "Collins, 28 Sept 1888"must surely mean that he was at the Collins Music Hall on 28 Sept 1888.

I agree.

[Elamarna]

You mean sketches of sketches? Well aside from the fact that I don't believe that Wendy Baron says he ever did this type of thing (which is what sleekviper claimed) so that there is no reason to think that it was Sickert's working practice, it would mean that he must have made sketches in situ which he destroyed, having made further sketches of those sketches at a later date. And this would only even work as an alibi destroyer if for some reason he made those later sketches while abroad. No, I'm afraid I regard this suggestion as equally implausible. A sketch saying "Collins, 28 Sept 1888"must surely mean that he was at the Collins Music Hall on 28 Sept 1888.

In that particular case I would agree with you David

Again what we are doing here is looking at a suggestion and seeing if is viable at all. Thats to me how research should progress.


You obviously say not a viable argument. I on the other hand do not rule out the possibility on some sketches, but not actually on the ones used.


Steve

[Elamarna]

OK got it. I see what you mean by evidence now.

but that being said, all it is is evidence that some of the ripper letters were written on the same type of paper he used.
so we have hundreds of hoax letter writers and paper that was sold to what? thousands of people? how can she or her expert conclude that he was probably the letter writer of some of them based on that?

and the dated sketches only show that he was probably in London on or near those two dates.

sure its evidence of something-but hardly evidence for being the ripper.

I mean is that really "far more" "evidence" that the real crackpot theories have?

and Davids already pretty much debunking a lot of her ideas. It makes me wonder about the quality of her research and ability to objectively and correctly analyze material.

Abby the paper it is argued by her expert is a very limited run. So far I have seen no counter argument to that.

You are right David has argued against some of her suggestions. But in reality it's only a few.

And you are correct I do not think it is evidence for Sickert being the ripper either.


Steve

[David Orsam]

I think hes saying he didn't actually have to physically have been in the music hall when it was dated-that an original sketch could have been done earlier when he was actually in the hall and that other follow up sketches from the original might have been done later-like in his studio for example-and dated on the day he finished that one.

You mean sketches of sketches? Well aside from the fact that I don't believe that Wendy Baron says he ever did this type of thing (which is what sleekviper claimed) so that there is no reason to think that it was Sickert's working practice, it would mean that he must have made sketches in situ which he destroyed, having made further sketches of those sketches at a later date. And this would only even work as an alibi destroyer if for some reason he made those later sketches while abroad. No, I'm afraid I regard this suggestion as equally implausible. A sketch saying "Collins, 28 Sept 1888"must surely mean that he was at the Collins Music Hall on 28 Sept 1888.

[Abby Normal]

No again you misunderstand me Abby,

Not that he was the ripper but some supporting evidence. Such as the sketches suggest he was in London for some of the period and the evidence on the paper, which Cornwall claims some of the letters were written on.

That is far more than the real crackpot theories ever have.

Steve

OK got it. I see what you mean by evidence now.

but that being said, all it is is evidence that some of the ripper letters were written on the same type of paper he used.
so we have hundreds of hoax letter writers and paper that was sold to what? thousands of people? how can she or her expert conclude that he was probably the letter writer of some of them based on that?

and the dated sketches only show that he was probably in London on or near those two dates.

sure its evidence of something-but hardly evidence for being the ripper.

I mean is that really "far more" "evidence" that the real crackpot theories have?

and Davids already pretty much debunking a lot of her ideas. It makes me wonder about the quality of her research and ability to objectively and correctly analyze material.

[Elamarna]

I think hes saying he didn't actually have to physically have been in the music hall when it was dated-that an original sketch could have been done earlier when he was actually in the hall and that other follow up sketches from the original might have been done later-like in his studio for example-and dated on the day he finished that one.

David

Abby has that correct. I am talking of what could happen in general terms.
However in the particular cases Cornwall uses believe some if not all are originalso.

Sorry if I was not clear.

Steve

[Elamarna]

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.

I think in that case we are looking at an on going study rather than follow up sketches. So I concur with you.
However the approach which was suggested and which I suspect may also have been true is not unknown with artists.

I agree I see no reason to doubt the sketches Cornwall uses in her book to support the argument.

Steve

[Abby Normal]

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?

I think hes saying he didn't actually have to physically have been in the music hall when it was dated-that an original sketch could have been done earlier when he was actually in the hall and that other follow up sketches from the original might have been done later-like in his studio for example-and dated on the day he finished that one.

[Elamarna]

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

No again you misunderstand me Abby,

Not that he was the ripper but some supporting evidence. Such as the sketches suggest he was in London for some of the period and the evidence on the paper, which Cornwall claims some of the letters were written on.

That is far more than the real crackpot theories ever have.

Steve

[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!

[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?

[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]

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.