Patricia Cornwell - Walter Sickert - BOOK 2

[TomTomKent]

Iwould again point out that (a) the letters are part of an accumulation of 'evidence' or argument, just as the case against a number of suspects, to pick on a recent one, Francis Thompson, is based on an accumulation. To consider one part of the Thompson argument in isolation would be unfair to that argument. (2) The 'subjective opinion' is partly Patricia's, but mostly that of Sickert art expert Anna Robins, who you can Google for her qualifications and experience. As subjective opinions go, her's is apretty weighty one. Just as Peter Bowers' is for the paper. (3) Patricia's researches produced some eidence which suggests that Joseph Sickert obtained his story in whole or in part from Walter Sickert. If that is rge case then there could be significant implications, not only in whether Walter Sickert had any link with the crimes, but also in tracking back the origins of the Royal Conspiracy story. (4) Jean Overton Fuller didn't invent her story about Florence Pash. Florence Pash told Violet Overton Fuller something about Walter Sickert and Jack the Ripper.

So it's not all down to a couple of letters and just whether Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper or not. The river runs rather deeper than that. Or at leastit does for those whose interest in Ripperology extends beyond just who he was. I think this is important stuff and I hope other folk can see that too.

Important, yes, but not as far as I can see, especially when looking beyond the context of Ripperology at all, but to art history, and just plain old fashioned history, a case for connecting the man to the murders, as anything other than somebody who shows exactly the kind of morbid curiosity we would expect from Sickert. You could more reasonably argue that it is proof of the kind of colourful and gothic personality that would have made Sickert an attractive focus for the Royal Conspiracy Hoax.

The rivers run deep. But they never seem to flow in any direction that would lead to the act of murder. That is entirely what was off putting about he first book, and what seems to be off putting in the interviews and press releases selling this book. That Sickert was influenced by the Ripper, that he reflected a deep interest, an felt a personal connection, is something that is not a surprise, and is interesting, and, if anything, is probably undersold when presented as evidence of "and therefore he done it!"

[PaulB]

Here is the difference:
We have reasons to consider some of those you mention as a suspect, without considering the letters, for which we previously had good reasons to consider hoaxes.

If you tied Druitt, or Kosminski to one of the letters, it would be shedding new light on why the investigators at the time gave them serious consideration as suspects, and would give us new insight into the investigations.

On the other hand, the letters are being touted as a reason to consider Sickert as a suspect. Sickert's name has been floating around the mythology for a few decades, and there have been convoluted attempts to tie him to suspicion that have never held water. (Any case built on somebody's subjective opinion of art, literature, or poetry, is not based on evidence, but on the "Who's Who gamesmanship".

There is nothing alarming in pointing out that, as credible or interesting as it may be that Sickert could have written one of the letters, proving he was one of many hoaxers would not be proving he was the Ripper, but would fit with what already know about him as an artist obsessed with the most prolific story of his day.

Iwould again point out that (a) the letters are part of an accumulation of 'evidence' or argument, just as the case against a number of suspects, to pick on a recent one, Francis Thompson, is based on an accumulation. To consider one part of the Thompson argument in isolation would be unfair to that argument. (2) The 'subjective opinion' is partly Patricia's, but mostly that of Sickert art expert Anna Robins, who you can Google for her qualifications and experience. As subjective opinions go, her's is apretty weighty one. Just as Peter Bowers' is for the paper. (3) Patricia's researches produced some eidence which suggests that Joseph Sickert obtained his story in whole or in part from Walter Sickert. If that is rge case then there could be significant implications, not only in whether Walter Sickert had any link with the crimes, but also in tracking back the origins of the Royal Conspiracy story. (4) Jean Overton Fuller didn't invent her story about Florence Pash. Florence Pash told Violet Overton Fuller something about Walter Sickert and Jack the Ripper.

So it's not all down to a couple of letters and just whether Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper or not. The river runs rather deeper than that. Or at leastit does for those whose interest in Ripperology extends beyond just who he was. I think this is important stuff and I hope other folk can see that too.

[TomTomKent]

Hi,
All this Sickert, may possibly have written letters,but so what, is alarming.
Would any better regarded suspect, such as Druitt,Kosminski, James Kelly, Joseph Fleming, have a ''So what'' affixed to them, if they were believed to have written letters
Regards Richard.

Here is the difference:
We have reasons to consider some of those you mention as a suspect, without considering the letters, for which we previously had good reasons to consider hoaxes.

If you tied Druitt, or Kosminski to one of the letters, it would be shedding new light on why the investigators at the time gave them serious consideration as suspects, and would give us new insight into the investigations.

On the other hand, the letters are being touted as a reason to consider Sickert as a suspect. Sickert's name has been floating around the mythology for a few decades, and there have been convoluted attempts to tie him to suspicion that have never held water. (Any case built on somebody's subjective opinion of art, literature, or poetry, is not based on evidence, but on the "Who's Who gamesmanship".

There is nothing alarming in pointing out that, as credible or interesting as it may be that Sickert could have written one of the letters, proving he was one of many hoaxers would not be proving he was the Ripper, but would fit with what already know about him as an artist obsessed with the most prolific story of his day.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
All this Sickert, may possibly have written letters,but so what, is alarming.
Would any better regarded suspect, such as Druitt,Kosminski, James Kelly, Joseph Fleming, have a ''So what'' affixed to them, if they were believed to have written letters
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer

Spot the difference time.

https://www.google.no/search?q=ripper+letters&prmd=ivsn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjc6I6I6PHSAhVjOpoKHeB6A3oQ_AUIBygB&biw=360&bih=592#imgrc=QcmsaO_0BhQFQM:

Phil

You know me, Phil - a bit slow on the uptake... Not sure what you are after here?

[Phil Carter]

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...

Hello Christer

Spot the difference time.

https://www.google.no/search?q=ripper+letters&prmd=ivsn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjc6I6I6PHSAhVjOpoKHeB6A3oQ_AUIBygB&biw=360&bih=592#imgrc=QcmsaO_0BhQFQM:

Phil

[Fisherman]

PaulB: ‘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.’

That's what you wrote.

Yes, it is. And nota bene that I wrote that I PERSONALLY use this parameter as a litmus paper. Not that I encourage everybody else to do so.
If we are to look at what YOU wrote, this is enlightening:

"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."

In sentence number one, you say that you don´t make any demands for a historically correct approach. Then, in sentence two, you demand that the accepted "rules" about conducting history should be followed. Then, in sentence number four, you instead say that you do not demand that they are followed.
So you are saying that the "rules" should be followed, and that you are not demanding that they are...?
I find it all a bit incoherent.

In reply I wrote that one can’t dismiss a candidate for the Ripper because that person couldn’t have committed a murder in 1873 that you believe the Ripper committed. Well, of course you can do that. You’d just done it. What I should have said is that it is wrong to do it. It is wrong to pre-judge someone else’s theory because it doesn’t fit some criteria of your own making. In fact, I think it is unprofessional to do that.

Ripperology is not my profession, of course. So I find the word "unprofessional" a bit misplaced. "Wrong" covers what you suggest better, I find. And you are entitled to speculate that it is wrong, just as I am entitled to speculate that it is right, given the factors involved.
Then again, you are speaking of a more theoretical and less practical approach - laying out the "rules" once again, as it were.

Now, I greatly admire the stamina you display when fighting your corner, often long after everyone else has lost interest, but I’m afraid that age and infirmity and the urge to bake some bread mean that I cannot indulge you as others do, especially as you’ve spiralled this chat into assorted irrelevant directions. You have voiced your opinion, I have voiced mine. I think I'll leave it at that.

What´s that old saying again...? Ah, yes: It takes two to tango!
I respect your stance and your thinking. It was never anything but well intended and knowledgeable. I just think it could be a little less "rules" and lecturing at times.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,
No book will ever likely identify Jack the Ripper for certain. The author may very well believe that their candidate was the killer and they will write from that perspective and try to convince their readers, but most readers seem to accept that the best the author is really able to do is make a case - ‘could so-and-so have been Jack the Ripper?’ In the case of Patricia Cornwell a lot of people seem to expect he to have proved that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper. The letters serve to illustrate the point. Patricia doesn't say they prove that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper and they don't, they should just be considered along with the other arguments presented in the book to see whether a case can be made.

hi Paul

Agree with you on all of that.

I think some object to Patricia Cornwall out of hand,

Cornwall does manage to present him as a viable suspect, if not a particularly strong one, certainly far better than some which have been put forward.

I am reasonably convinced that Sickert may have sent some of the many hundreds of letters.
I however do not think the other arguments presented in the book (to be fair have not finished it yet) are strong enough to make a compelling case in favour of Sickert.


Steve

[PaulB]

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

Hi Steve,
No book will ever likely identify Jack the Ripper for certain. The author may very well believe that their candidate was the killer and they will write from that perspective and try to convince their readers, but most readers seem to accept that the best the author is really able to do is make a case - ‘could so-and-so have been Jack the Ripper?’ In the case of Patricia Cornwell a lot of people seem to expect he to have proved that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper. The letters serve to illustrate the point. Patricia doesn't say they prove that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper and they don't, they should just be considered along with the other arguments presented in the book to see whether a case can be made.

[PaulB]

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.

You don't have to read Patricia's book and I am certainly not urging you to do so. In fact, I don’t blame you for being put off by the first book. I only pointed out that Patricia has acknowledged that the second book is better than the first, that the Kindle edition is remarkably cheap (and the Kindle in Motion book is fun), and that if you are prepared to invest the time then perhaps you should read the second book before allowing your poor expectations to prejudge it. I'm not saying the second book is any better than the first either.

[PaulB]

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.

‘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.’

That's what you wrote. In reply I wrote that one can’t dismiss a candidate for the Ripper because that person couldn’t have committed a murder in 1873 that you believe the Ripper committed. Well, of course you can do that. You’d just done it. What I should have said is that it is wrong to do it. It is wrong to pre-judge someone else’s theory because it doesn’t fit some criteria of your own making. In fact, I think it is unprofessional to do that. Now, I greatly admire the stamina you display when fighting your corner, often long after everyone else has lost interest, but I’m afraid that age and infirmity and the urge to bake some bread mean that I cannot indulge you as others do, especially as you’ve spiralled this chat into assorted irrelevant directions. You have voiced your opinion, I have voiced mine. I think I'll leave it at that.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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