Patricia Cornwell - Walter Sickert - BOOK 2

[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]

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

She has said so on BBC Television.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Novelists make the lousiest detectives.

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

[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.

[PaulB]

well, unless she can establish that he was even in London in the fall of 88 and not in France then the rest is pretty much moot, IMHO. I think as a baseline if your going to put forth a candidate for a valid suspect, you need to baseline at least establish that!

after that, she would need to confirm that his handwriting matches said letters.

has she at least done any of these two things?

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.

[Abby Normal]

well, unless she can establish that he was even in London in the fall of 88 and not in France then the rest is pretty much moot, IMHO. I think as a baseline if your going to put forth a candidate for a valid suspect, you need to baseline at least establish that!

after that, she would need to confirm that his handwriting matches said letters.

has she at least done any of these two things?

[Fantomas]

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.

So, as an explainer of Trump to a frazzled, logical mind, Cornwell's book is reassuring - ah, presumption and whimsical assertion are meat and drink to every egomaniac!

[Ginger]

I suppose one must tip one's hat to her for tenacity.