Patricia Cornwell - Walter Sickert - BOOK 2

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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]

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]

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]

Yeah, well... I am pretty picky about what I buy in terms of Ripper books, and so I am sitll undecided whether to go for this one or not. There is also the new Wescott book to consider, that purportedly restores Charles Lechmere to a status of witness only - as per Amazon.

My gut feeling is that neither book is irreplacable.

As for the sketches, of course it cannot be discounted that they were made in London. The problem is that it cannot be discounted that they were made pretty much anywhere either.

Agreed..

The kindle edition is cheap by the way.

Steve

[Fisherman]

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

Yeah, well... I am pretty picky about what I buy in terms of Ripper books, and so I am sitll undecided whether to go for this one or not. There is also the new Wescott book to consider, that purportedly restores Charles Lechmere to a status of witness only - as per Amazon.

My gut feeling is that neither book is irreplacable.

As for the sketches, of course it cannot be discounted that they were made in London. The problem is that it cannot be discounted that they were made pretty much anywhere either.

[Elamarna]

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.

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

[Fisherman]

I think a fair view would be that where in the past there was overwhelming evidence for his not being in UK that cannot now be seen as so. Cornwall uses more than one dated sketch in her argument. It cannot be discounted that he is in London now as it certainly could before.

Steve

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.