|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Lee Ireland
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 6:36 pm: | 
|
Yesterday I bought Patricia Cornwell's book Portrait of a Killer, Jack the Ripper, Case Closed, at the public library for $5.00, mainly because it was a donation to the library. I didn't have to read any more than the title and jacket of the book to know that the author had a lot of nerve, to say the least, and that her theory was far-fetched. But there's something to be learned from everything I think, and I've always been fascinated by the case, so I bought the book and read it quickly and with great enthusiasm. Then I went online to read some reviews. It turns out that Sickert wasn't even in London at the time of two of the Ripper's murders, according to Sickert's chief biographer, who has as evidence a letter written by Sickert's mother. Apparently Cornwell didn't do a thorough job of research, or did she simply ignore this fact so she could get some publicity and score another bestseller?
This brings me to the moral/philosophical question I'd like to pose to all of you. Which is worse? Mutilating a living human being or mutilating the reputation of a dead artist? |
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 431
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 9:05 pm: |
|
Hi Lee. The former is OBVIOUSLY worse without doubt.
In the case of Sickert, anyone who has any interest in JTR or the man himself will know instantly what the truth is. It's just the gullible public we need to worry about - I suggest the only people who will take this book on board are Cornwell fiction (of the non-libellous kind) lovers.
The question of did she ignore the facts is a more sticky one. I think she did ignore the facts. Love (or hate) is blind, they say...
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3329
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 11:35 pm: |
|
Hi Lee,
"Apparently Cornwell didn't do a thorough job of research, or did she simply ignore this fact so she could get some publicity and score another bestseller?"
For many scholars of the case, the former option is quite obvious -- she didn't do a thorough enough research -- but she probably ignored a lot of facts also in order to "prove" her case. So... a combination of both, I would say.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 211
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 1:56 am: |
|
She made the fatal mistake of selecting her victim before having any evidence. In other words she situated her appraisal rather than appraising a situation!!
She considers no other suspects or options, and provides no arguments in favour of Sickert.
The only possible good things I can find to say about the book and its author are that:
a) she has thrown some light on the Ripper letters and may have shown that Sickert was the author of some;
b)she has almost certainly proved that Sickert didn't do it.
Phil |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 798
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 3:19 am: |
|
A point I have pondered with regard to this - she was given the suspect by John Grieve who told her she "might want to look at" Sickert. At almost the same time, Grieve was appearing in the television programme "The Trial of Jack the Ripper" arguing that Kosminski was almost certainly the Ripper. So why was he telling Cornwell that it was Sickert?
The answer could well be that when Cornwell visited Scotland Yard and spoke to Grieve, she was there because she was planning a book in which Kay Scarpetta comes to London, gets fascinated by the Ripper case and "solves" it. I suspect Grieve was giving her a good candidate for a "fictional" Ripper, and she just didn't realise.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me" - Hunter S. Thompson (1939-2005)
Visit my website - http://www.ashbooks.co.uk/
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 215
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 5:56 am: |
|
Now THAT could have been an interesting book. A sort of Ripperesque "Daughter of Time" (Josephione Tey 50s about Richard III). |
Carolyn
Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 36
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 6:11 am: |
|
Allen,
Great post, I love your idea. Would explain a lot. Brought a smile to my face!
Still smiling,
Carolyn |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 281
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 4:49 pm: |
|
Alan said..."At almost the same time, Grieve was appearing in the television programme "The Trial of Jack the Ripper" arguing that Kosminski was almost certainly the Ripper. So why was he telling Cornwell that it was Sickert?"
Al...remember when I came up with that goofy idea for a Ripper movie..."A Fistula Full of Dollars.." ? Well, Grieve may have been thinking about the sequel..."For A Few Dollars More.."
The guy did an Olympic level backflip on suspects didn't he ? Maybe if I looked good in heels,he'd side with Stephenson ! Or give him a ride in my Lear jet !
Money talks...
How Brown
JTRForums
www.jtrforums.co.uk
|
Judith A. Stock
Sergeant
Username: Needler
Post Number: 19
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 9:20 pm: |
|
Alan....along the same lines as your post, do you think it possible that Cornwell IMAGINED she heard Grieve say she should look at Sickert?? Her imagination seems to have been in overdrive of late...........I shall say no more............
Judy |
Restless Spirit
Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 43
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 8:05 am: |
|
Glenn, Phil
I got the same impressions when I read Patricia's book on Sickert. There was absolutely no evidence that he was the ripper, actual facts were not there at all for him as Jack.
Her interview on TV was evasive and full of conjecture. She needed the publicity to help pay for the expense she incurred in writing her book. If you check on Amazon you will find her book on sale for a rediculously low price, not what you would expect for a well written, or popular book.
all the best
Restless Spirit
|
Lee Ireland
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 8:21 am: |
|
I think it's quite possible, though, as one poster has suggested, that Sickert did write some of the letters. He had a morbid imagination, and evidence shows that he was interested in Jack the Ripper. I think he projected himself into the case as much as he could. However, since he was a rather sensitive artist type, I believe the idea of slashing women and removing their internal organs would have been too revolting to him.
Were any serial killers ever painters or writers or artists of any kind? I can't think of any.... |
spitzcoon
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 4:17 pm: |
|
Lee, I agree with you on the fact that Jack the Ripper was Walter Sickert. How could an artist be equiped with the knowledge to cut open and remove a female's organs. How do we even know if it was a man? It could have been a woman? |
Courtney Karr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 2:49 pm: |
|
Oh, please, it wasn't a woman for God's sake.
Ridiculous, for so MANY reasons.
Jack (not Jacqueline)the Ripper was Walter Sickert.
Case Closed. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
