Patricia Cornwell on Radio 4

[Limehouse]

Patricia Cornwell was interviewed on Saturday Live (BBC Radio 4) this morning and although JtR did not crop up in the interview itself, listeners were invited to email or text the show and there was at least one communication with a listener who asked if she still believed Sickert was the Ripper. She confirmed that she believed he was JtR and she also denied ever having destroyed one of his paintings to obtain DNA but claimed the 'hole' was caused by dry rot. At least, that's what I think she said (I was ironing and clanging the iron around, plus I'm going a bit mutt in one ear). I find it hard to believe one of his paintings would be allowed to suffer from dry rot?

[Magpie]

I saw a documentary where she claimed that the art dealer she bought it from didnt' crate it properly and a piece of wood punched a hole in it.

I believe her when she says she didn't destroy the painting, however the fact is that when the rumour first arose, not only did she not counter it, but she seemed to embrace it as an example of the sacrifices she was willing to make for "the Truth". It was only when the expected waves of praise turned into almost universal scorn and condemnation that she started walking it back.

[Limehouse]

Thanks for that clarification Magpie. I think she lost enormous credibility when she strayed into true crime territory.

[Luke111]

I agree on that one. In my opinion Cornwell looked only at the facts she wanted to see. There are many holes in her theory.
But id like to hear the thoughts of other on the forum, that have a little more experience than me.

[claire]

Yes, she said the painting hadn't been crated properly and when they opened it, it had a hole in the middle--wow. If you'd forked out good money for a Sickert, wouldn't you make a right hoo-ha about it?

Still, that aside, she said that the people who disputed her argument really hadn't read her book, and really should, as there was some great science in there...she also alluded to writing a new version of the thing, which she hadn't had time for, but she was still firm that Sickert was the Ripper ('or at the least had written some of the letters attributed to the Ripper' [not a perfect quote]).

She's mad as a box of frogs, really, and that doc was extremely funny, but I think she comes from a sincere place.

[mariab]

Does anybody happen to know which Sickert painting was the one in question?

but I think she comes from a sincere place.

Thoroughly agree. The overenthusiasm of the neophyte in research, who's not fully aware of the ethical questions behind it.

[Magpie]

Does anybody happen to know which Sickert painting was the one in question?


Thoroughly agree. The overenthusiasm of the neophyte in research, who's not fully aware of the ethical questions behind it.

If I remember correctly, it was some dreary, landscapy kind of thing.