Patricia Cornwell - Walter Sickert - BOOK 2

[David Orsam]

Henry, yes he certainly did develop his sketches in the studio. For the Collins Music Hall painting (which emerged from his earlier sketches) Wendy Baron notes that there are two extant drawings "both fully realized studies of the whole scene, stage and audience". One is a watercolour reminiscent of some of his sketches and one is in pencil, pen and ink (although in respect of this drawing Baron says that it "may well have been drawn from, rather than in preparation for, the painting").

I rather think there is a distinction being made by Baron between a 'drawing' and a 'sketch' and I suspect that she uses the word 'sketch" to describe a study made from life and a 'drawing' as a more developed study, evidently made from an earlier sketch. Certainly, as you say, an expert would be able to spot the difference.

However, even if that is not correct, unless sleekviper responds with something said by Wendy Baron in her 2006 book, I am going to humbly declare myself 100% right and sleekviper 100% wrong because his original post in the thread, about which I was complaining, gave the impression that his authority was Wendy Baron's 2006 book. It was this, I believe, which induced Fisherman to suggest that Cornwell was wrong to claim that Sickert was in London in late September/early October 1888. But my point is that Wendy Baron does not support him, so unless you or he can show that Wendy Baron says in her book that Sickert made sketches of sketches - let alone that he annotated such sketches with the location despite being drawn in his studio - then he's wrong and I'm not!

[Fisherman]

Henry, yes he certainly did develop his sketches in the studio. For the Collins Music Hall painting (which emerged from his earlier sketches) Wendy Baron notes that there are two extant drawings "both fully realized studies of the whole scene, stage and audience". One is a watercolour reminiscent of some of his sketches and one is in pencil, pen and ink (although in respect of this drawing Baron says that it "may well have been drawn from, rather than in preparation for, the painting").

I rather think there is a distinction being made by Baron between a 'drawing' and a 'sketch' and I suspect that she uses the word 'sketch" to describe a study made from life and a 'drawing' as a more developed study, evidently made from an earlier sketch. Certainly, as you say, an expert would be able to spot the difference.

However, even if that is not correct, unless sleekviper responds with something said by Wendy Baron in her 2006 book, I am going to humbly declare myself 100% right and sleekviper 100% wrong because his original post in the thread, about which I was complaining, gave the impression that his authority was Wendy Baron's 2006 book. It was this, I believe, which induced Fisherman to suggest that Cornwell was wrong to claim that Sickert was in London in late September/early October 1888. But my point is that Wendy Baron does not support him, so unless you or he can show that Wendy Baron says in her book that Sickert made sketches of sketches - let alone that he annotated such sketches with the location despite being drawn in his studio - then he's wrong and I'm not!

Eh - what I said was that if Sleekviper was correct, then there could be no certainty that Sickert was in London on the dates spoken of. I did not conclude that he could not have been in London at the stage.

Here is my post, some of it in bold:

Aha. Well, that puts a very different slant on things. If I am not misreading you, this means that out of the 148 surviving sketches of Queenie Lawrence, only the one/s made on the first occasion, in combination with the Gatti´s performance, will carry the date of the performance, wheras the rest will carry a large array of OTHER dates, between the original performance date and the finishing of the painting, a year later?

If that is so, and if we carry this over to Sickert, it sounds as if he may have been in France when dating the London music hall sketches Cornwell speaks of.

[David Orsam]

Eh - what I said was that if Sleekviper was correct, then there could be no certainty that Sickert was in London on the dates spoken of. I did not conclude that he could not have been in London at the stage.

Yes, Fisherman, that is precisely why I summarised your position as being that Cornwell was wrong to claim that Sickert was in London in late September/early October 1888. Isn't that correct? You have confirmed that you said that it is not certain that Sickert was in London on the dates spoken of so it follows that, on the basis sleekviper was correct (which you were assuming he was), Cornwell must have been wrong to claim that Sickert was in London on those dates. So what's your problem with my summary?

[Fisherman]

Yes, Fisherman, that is precisely why I summarised your position as being that Cornwell was wrong to claim that Sickert was in London in late September/early October 1888. Isn't that correct? You have confirmed that you said that it is not certain that Sickert was in London on the dates spoken of so it follows that, on the basis sleekviper was correct (which you were assuming he was), Cornwell must have been wrong to claim that Sickert was in London on those dates. So what's your problem with my summary?

My problem with your summary is that it is wrong.

I am not saying that Cornwell is wrong to claim that Sickert was in London in September/October 1888. I am saying that if Sleekviper is correct - and I am not saying that he is or that he is not - then we cannot be sure that the sketches from the music halls were drawn and dated the same day as Sickert visited the establishments.

It is a more subtle approach to the issue than the one you suggest on my behalf. Far from concluding that it is a closed case, I leave it open.

And far from representing me correctly, you are doing the opposite.

That is all I have to say for now - I am not going to spend time on Casebook for some time, unless something really interesting surfaces.

[David Orsam]

My problem with your summary is that it is wrong.

I am not saying that Cornwell is wrong to claim that Sickert was in London in September/October 1888. I am saying that if Sleekviper is correct - and I am not saying that he is or that he is not - then we cannot be sure that the sketches from the music halls were drawn and dated the same day as Sickert visited the establishments.

It is a more subtle approach to the issue than the one you suggest on my behalf. Far from concluding that it is a closed case, I leave it open.

And far from representing me correctly, you are doing the opposite.

That is all I have to say for now - I am not going to spend time on Casebook for some time, unless something really interesting surfaces.

I understand why you want to run away again Fisherman. The fact is that you have been saying that Cornwell is wrong to claim that Sickert was in London on 28 September and 5 October 1888. It's basically exactly the same thing as I said originally but you felt your usual need to quibble with pointlessly.

I want to stress that you are wrong because we CAN be sure that Sickert was in London on 28 September and 5 October 1888. That is the information we are given by Sickert on his sketches.

[Fisherman]

I understand why you want to run away again Fisherman. The fact is that you have been saying that Cornwell is wrong to claim that Sickert was in London on 28 September and 5 October 1888. It's basically exactly the same thing as I said originally but you felt your usual need to quibble with pointlessly.

I want to stress that you are wrong because we CAN be sure that Sickert was in London on 28 September and 5 October 1888. That is the information we are given by Sickert on his sketches.

I´ve rarely read a more idiotic post - but then again, it IS written by you, so it was expected.

I know quite well what I said - that YOUR certainty that the sketches were from the occasions they seemed to be from - is no certain thing if Sleekviper is correct.

That does not mean that Cornwell must be wrong - for example, even if there ARE numerous sketches with the same motive and done on different days, it still remains that the ones Cornwell have could be done on the establishments named on the day they are dated. Ergo, Sickert can have been in London on the dates mentioned on the sketches.

I would say, however, that we can NOT be 100 per cent certain that the sketches prove that Sickert was on the places named and depicted on the sketches. As I said before, I am no Sickert specialist, but generally speaking, any artist could make a series of sketches, all under the same name but with different dates. Therefore, Sickert COULD (once again, I am not familiar with his manner of working) have made a series of sketches with the text "Music Hall X, 1 Oct 1888", "Music Hall X, 2 Oct 1888" and so on; a common name, but varying dates.
As I say, this is just a generalized suggestion that could provide another solution to things than yours.

Now I am leaving you to your sad delusions about my running. Don´t forget to put your extra roomy hat on when you go out.

[David Orsam]

I´ve rarely read a more idiotic post - but then again, it IS written by you, so it was expected.

I know quite well what I said - that YOUR certainty that the sketches were from the occasions they seemed to be from - is no certain thing if Sleekviper is correct.

That does not mean that Cornwell must be wrong - for example, even if there ARE numerous sketches with the same motive and done on different days, it still remains that the ones Cornwell have could be done on the establishments named on the day they are dated. Ergo, Sickert can have been in London on the dates mentioned on the sketches.

I would say, however, that we can NOT be 100 per cent certain that the sketches prove that Sickert was on the places named and depicted on the sketches. As I said before, I am no Sickert specialist, but generally speaking, any artist could make a series of sketches, all under the same name but with different dates. Therefore, Sickert COULD (once again, I am not familiar with his manner of working) have made a series of sketches with the text "Music Hall X, 1 Oct 1888", "Music Hall X, 2 Oct 1888" and so on; a common name, but varying dates.
As I say, this is just a generalized suggestion that could provide another solution to things than yours.

Now I am leaving you to your sad delusions about my running. Don´t forget to put your extra roomy hat on when you go out.

So much for "That is all I have to say for now"!

Fisherman, you were most certainly NOT challenging my certainty that the sketches were from the occasions they seemed to be from because I hadn't posted in this thread when you made your post #160, which is what we have been discussing.

What happened is that you responded to sleekviper's post as it if it was a major discovery, exclaiming "Aha. Well, that puts a very different slant on things." Even worse is that you went further than anything sleekviper said by claiming that "it sounds as if he may have been in France when dating the London music hall sketches Cornwell speaks of." Nothing said by sleekviper indicated that Sickert might have been in France on September 28 and October 5 (as opposed to anywhere else in the world). But clearly you leapt on the possibility that Sickert might not have been in London, loving the idea that Cornwell's certainty was misplaced.

As it happens, when I mentioned you earlier, I was defending you because I felt you had been being misled by sleekviper's suggestion that Wendy Baron was supporting the notion that Sickert might not have been in London on those dates. However, as I have demonstrated, she does not say any such thing.

You can speculate all you like about what the dates on the sketches mean but it is no more than ill-informed layman opinion. The expert opinion of Wendy Baron, as I have demonstrated, is that the sketches must prove that Sickert was in London on 28 September and 5 October 1888. There can be no reasonable doubt about this and any speculative unfounded argument to the contrary is simply not credible.

[Abby Normal]

So much for "That is all I have to say for now"!

Fisherman, you were most certainly NOT challenging my certainty that the sketches were from the occasions they seemed to be from because I hadn't posted in this thread when you made your post #160, which is what we have been discussing.

What happened is that you responded to sleekviper's post as it if it was a major discovery, exclaiming "Aha. Well, that puts a very different slant on things." Even worse is that you went further than anything sleekviper said by claiming that "it sounds as if he may have been in France when dating the London music hall sketches Cornwell speaks of." Nothing said by sleekviper indicated that Sickert might have been in France on September 28 and October 5 (as opposed to anywhere else in the world). But clearly you leapt on the possibility that Sickert might not have been in London, loving the idea that Cornwell's certainty was misplaced.

As it happens, when I mentioned you earlier, I was defending you because I felt you had been being misled by sleekviper's suggestion that Wendy Baron was supporting the notion that Sickert might not have been in London on those dates. However, as I have demonstrated, she does not say any such thing.

You can speculate all you like about what the dates on the sketches mean but it is no more than ill-informed layman opinion. The expert opinion of Wendy Baron, as I have demonstrated, is that the sketches must prove that Sickert was in London on 28 September and 5 October 1888. There can be no reasonable doubt about this and any speculative unfounded argument to the contrary is simply not credible.

HI David
How do we know he didn't make an original sketch earlier than 28 September while in the music hall, and then at a later time re drew the sketch (possibly somewhere else)on 28 sept but put the date of 28 September on it marking the date of when it was re drawn? I don't know just throwing ideas out there-I just don't know how we can be so certain that sketches with that date on it absolutely confirm he was there on that date.
He more than likely was but can we really be 100% certain??

[David Orsam]

HI David
How do we know he didn't make an original sketch earlier than 28 September while in the music hall, and then at a later time re drew the sketch (possibly somewhere else)on 28 sept but put the date of 28 September on it marking the date of when it was re drawn? I don't know just throwing ideas out there-I just don't know how we can be so certain that sketches with that date on it absolutely confirm he was there on that date.
He more than likely was but can we really be 100% certain??

Because the expert, Wendy Baron, effectively tells us that he didn't do strange things like that and it is clear from her book that we can rely on the annotations as showing that the sketches were drawn in the locations and on the dates stated.

While you can always throw up theoretical possibilities, I can only repeat there can be no reasonable doubt that Sickert was in Islington on 28 September and 5 October 1888. You won't have failed to notice that this is the test of proof at criminal trial level.

[Abby Normal]

Because the expert, Wendy Baron, effectively tells us that he didn't do strange things like that and it is clear from her book that we can rely on the annotations as showing that the sketches were drawn in the locations and on the dates stated.

While you can always throw up theoretical possibilities, I can only repeat there can be no reasonable doubt that Sickert was in Islington on 28 September and 5 October 1888. You won't have failed to notice that this is the test of proof at criminal trial level.

thanks David
your probably right. I agree its somewhere between no reasonable doubt and 100% certain. LOL! : )

would love to see more of your research on it!!

[Fisherman]

So much for "That is all I have to say for now"!

Fisherman, you were most certainly NOT challenging my certainty that the sketches were from the occasions they seemed to be from because I hadn't posted in this thread when you made your post #160, which is what we have been discussing.

What happened is that you responded to sleekviper's post as it if it was a major discovery, exclaiming "Aha. Well, that puts a very different slant on things." Even worse is that you went further than anything sleekviper said by claiming that "it sounds as if he may have been in France when dating the London music hall sketches Cornwell speaks of." Nothing said by sleekviper indicated that Sickert might have been in France on September 28 and October 5 (as opposed to anywhere else in the world). But clearly you leapt on the possibility that Sickert might not have been in London, loving the idea that Cornwell's certainty was misplaced.

As it happens, when I mentioned you earlier, I was defending you because I felt you had been being misled by sleekviper's suggestion that Wendy Baron was supporting the notion that Sickert might not have been in London on those dates. However, as I have demonstrated, she does not say any such thing.

You can speculate all you like about what the dates on the sketches mean but it is no more than ill-informed layman opinion. The expert opinion of Wendy Baron, as I have demonstrated, is that the sketches must prove that Sickert was in London on 28 September and 5 October 1888. There can be no reasonable doubt about this and any speculative unfounded argument to the contrary is simply not credible.

And I am answering AGAIN!

I wrote France, but I could have written Transylvania. It was France as in "anywhere else than London".

What Sleekviper suggested WOULD put a different slant on things, and that has not changed.

My speculation, as you call it, is not "ill-informed laymans opinion" - there are artists who work like this. I never said that I thought Sickert would have - I instead acknowledged that I am not familiar with his working methods.

My own stance is that there seems to be a clear possibility that Sickert WAS in London and drew his sketches there. It is not a certainty, but a very good suggestion.

Now I am going to run again, David. Misleadings, misrepresentations, ignorance and misplaced arrogance has always made me do that. Today is no exception.

[John Wheat]

John

It's about plausibility.

Sickert while highly unlikely is not impossible and real tangible evidence is presented.

While one may not agree with or indeed accept that evidence, it is far strong than the argument, for want of a better word, put up for Wonderland.


Steve

Fair enough Steve. I think Sickert is only marginaly more plausable than Lewis Carroll though.

Cheers John

[Elamarna]

Fair enough Steve. I think Sickert is only marginaly more plausable than Lewis Carroll though.

Cheers John

No problem John

I would just say there is nothing to suggest ANY link from Carroll to Jtr, whilst to Sickert there are some.
Possible letters.
Life long obsession.

Nothing to directly link but far more than Carroll.

I am not minded to believe in Sickert; I just don't put him in the bin.
Steve

[David Orsam]

I wrote France, but I could have written Transylvania. It was France as in "anywhere else than London".

So that was your big point was it Fisherman? The one that you felt the need to come back to the board to post? That when you said of Sickert, "it sounds as if he may have been in France when dating the London music hall sketches Cornwell speaks of", you meant no more than that he could have been absolutely anywhere in the world?!!! (Although for some unknown reason you think that doesn't include London despite sleekviper not posting any reason to think Sickert was out of London on those dates).

Right then, so it follows that it would be perfectly fair for me to say: Aha, that puts a different slant on things in respect of Charles Lechmere. It now sounds as if he may have been in Paris over the weekend of 29/30 September 1888 and indeed on 8/9 November 1888. Do you agree that is a fair and reasonable statement?

It must be fair to say that because we have no evidence that he wasn't in Paris...or Rome, or Glasgow or anywhere frankly. He could have been anywhere in the world, just like you (wrongly) seem to think Sickert was.

Clearly I overestimated you Fisherman. I had thought that you were overly influenced by sleekviper saying: "Wendy Baron has spent decades studying Sickert, and her book "Sickert: Paintings and Drawings", explains it in great detail" and had thus been misled by that statement. Instead, it seems that you were so impressed by a random person posting an unsupported theory on this forum to the effect that Sickert's working method involved making sketches of sketches which he would date in misleading fashion that you felt the need to declare that Sickert might have been out of the country on days when he was dating his sketches as being very much in London.

But thank you for giving me the opportunity to repeat once again that there can be no reasonable doubt that when Sickert dated a sketch "Collins Music Hall, 28 Sept 1888" it means it was sketched at Collins Music Hall in Islington on 28 September 1888, proving that he was very much in London on that date. Any argument to the contrary is doomed to fail.

[David Orsam]

Some comments from me about the paper issue.

One of the most pertinent questions asked earlier in this thread was: which Ripper letters are supposed to have been written by Sickert according to Cornwell? More to the point: which Ripper letters are supposed to forensically match the stationery used by Sickert? I don't think these questions have ever been properly answered in this thread. It's not very easy to work it out even when you read Cornwell's book. The letter with coffin and skull identified by Fisherman in #92 & #96 as coming from a 24 paper stack is not, I think, one of the letters forensically linked to Sickert.

I will attempt to answer these questions later in this post but first I have a few issues with Cornwell's general approach.

Apparently, 392 letters and envelopes supposedly written by the murderer were forensically examined on Cornwell's behalf, of which 59 were found to have watermarks. Now, by my count, Cornwell identifies 14 letters (with 5 different types of watermarks) which match watermarks known to have been used by Sickert.

So my first question would be: what does Cornwell say about the circa 45 letters with watermarks not known to have been used by Sickert? Can we rule them out as being Sickert letters on the basis that he did not use such stationery?

And what about all the hundreds of letters without watermarks? Shouldn't we be concluding that these were not by Sickert? Cornwell certainly does not do this and, in fact, she says she believes that 'the majority' of the Ripper letters in the National Archives were written by the killer (i.e. Sickert).

Cornwell tells us that there were some 1,200 different watermarks in use in the late 1880s with some paper makers producing over 100 different varieties but she doesn't tell us which were the most popular types of paper, which must make a difference to the results. I can't work out if the fact that Sickert is known to have used five different types of watermarked stationery increases or decreases the likelihood that Ripper letters would be found with those same watermarks.

The five types of watermarks used by Sickert in the 1880s according to Cornwell were these:

1. Joynson Superfine
2. A. Pirie & Sons
3. Monckton's Superfine
4. Brookleigh Fine
5. Gurney Ivory Laid

It is the Gurney Ivory Laid paper where Cornwell feels that her expert has found a precise forensic match with Sickert's stationery. But let me deal with each of these in turn.

Joynson Superfine

We are not given much information about the "several Ripper letters" which Cornwell tells us are on this paper. One, we are told, was sent to the City of London police. And two letters signed 'Nemo' are on this paper but it's not clear if 'Nemo' was claiming to be the Ripper.

A. Pirie & Sons

There are 3 letters on this watermarked paper. One being the Dr Openshaw letter of 29 October 1888 and the other two both being dated 22 November 1888, one claiming to be from Manchester, the other, says Cornwell, coming from East London which, by a process of elimination, I take to be a letter which starts "I do larf when I hears you have cort me I shall do for two more next Saturday..."

Monckton's Superfine

All we have here is a single letter sent to the City of London police in the LMA archive, from a different batch used by Sickert.

Brookleigh Fine

Two Ripper letters at the National Archives are said to be written on this paper but no details are given.

Gurney Ivory Laid

This is the crucial paper. Cornwell's expert has found two letters which can be forensically matched to the same quire of paper used by Sickert.

The first of these is a Ripper letter received by the City of London police on 4 October 1888 which has "doodles and three cartoonish faces on it". No more details are provided (possibly because Cornwell is not allowed to reproduce letters from the LMA archive).

The second is a letter postmarked 31 October 1888. All Cornwell tells us about the letter is that it commences "Dear Boss, I am living 129 C Rd...". She rather coyly cuts it short at this point but we learn from Evans & Skinner's Letters from Hell that this letter was addressed to Old Street police station and said:

"Dear Boss,
I am living in 129 C Rd...and I mean to do another murder in PEN Rd to night
Yours truly
Jack the ripper"

As we can see it's such an innocuous letter that it's hard to see why someone with Sickert's obvious creative ability would have bothered with it, even if he was trying to hoax the police. Certainly it's not a very convincing example of him as the murderer because there weren't any murders committed on 31 October.

We don't get very many details of the forensic match between these two letters and three of Sickert's letters which are supposed to come from the same small batch. But apparently the matches are in the short-edge cuts, fiber analysis, wire profile of forming surface, weight, bulk and opacity of the sheet and surface finish. Cornwell quotes her expert Peter Bower saying "One can only assert that two sheets come from the same batch if everything matches" but she does not actually quote Bower as saying that everything matches although she tells us herself that they do. Well I don't suppose she is making that up but it's a shame we don't hear it in Bower's own words. It worries me that we are not told if there were any control samples used. No report from Bower is included so we don't really know if there are any caveats to his findings or if we are looking at a 100% certain match of the paper.

I have no good scientific reason to doubt the expert findings but it's just that the 31 October letter is so dull that it's hard to conceive why an imaginative person like Sickert would have written it (either as a hoax or because he was the murderer).

Certainly if he was the murderer he must surely have written the Dear Boss letter of 25 September. I say this because it is inconceivable that the killer would have adopted the name "Jack the Ripper", as well as the use of the expression "Dear Boss", used by someone who he would have known was a hoaxer. Yet not only does Cornwell not tell us that there is any forensic match between the 25 September letter and any Sickert letters but I find it very odd that having caused such a sensation when this letter was published at the start of October, the Ripper was happy to write letters which were ignored and likely to be ignored. Why would he not have written subsequent letters in the same handwriting to prove that they were genuine? Why would he not have written to the same person at the Central News Agency? Why, as with the 31 October example, write to Old Street police station? Why not include details which only the killer could have known? Why, to repeat, would he have written such low impact letters?

It's strange that it is only what one might term 'minor' letters that are able to be connected to Sickert which, other than some supposed cartoonish characters on one of the Gurney Ivory letters, don't seem to contain any artwork, let alone good artwork.

On the basis of the very minimal information given in the book about the forensic matching I personally remain sceptical that Cornwell has managed to prove that Sickert wrote any Ripper letters but can't refute the possibility that she has done.