|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Marissa
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 8:40 pm: |       |
Thank you Mark Starr for your post regarding my latest one. Also, thank you for "bravo-ing"  me for my efforts. I have a very good memory and I remembered reading something about that French book. It just took me a bit to go back and find the facts exactly. So thank you for your post. I agree with you in what you said:
"When people charge Cornwell with making up facts, they had better be prepared to document their charges -- or make themselves look foolish. Making up facts means fabricating evidence, knowingly inventing facts and providing false citations. Fabricating evidence does not include expressing personal opinions or making theories to explain evidence. Every writer must do exactly that in order to place facts into context.
I have said many times, and I will say again, I never had the slightest difficulty in distinguishing between the facts on one hand and the opinions and theories other the other hand in Cornwell's book, or in anybody else's books either. Every writer assumes that his readers have the modicum of intelligence and judgement necessary to distinguish between the two without printing the facts in green ink, and the opinions and theories in red ink. But evidently, in the cases of some on this thread who protest that Cornwell made up her facts, he/she might be giving them too much credit."
And to Wolf Vanderlinden, I had no idea that her mentioning the French book was not in other versions but only the paperback one of Cornwell's. I just purchased the Cornwell book about 2 weeks ago, so that is the one I am quoting from, so you are right.
 ,
Marissa
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 5:50 pm: | |
Mark wrote:
"I think it is fair to say that, for the most part, even the most vocal detractors of Cornwell's book have conceded that she has convincingly demonstrated that Walter Sickert wrote at least one of the Ripper letters."
This is absolutely not fair to say. Some of her critics say that he MAY have written a HOAXED letter, but it's completely incorrect to claim that Cornwell has convincingly given good, solid reasons for saying that he did in fact write even one letter. It's plausible (unlike most of her other conclusions) but definitely not proven by any stretch of the imagination. |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 289
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 2:31 am: | |
Hi Mark,
I am sorry if I put the quote from NOBLE ESSENCES on the thread without realizing it had been done before - I was unaware it had been, or that there had ever been a thread about Sitwell. Even so, I wonder how many people have even bothered to read the book or the two pages that I copied out. Also I have not read the dissertation on Sickert that you have posted - I will try to do so. Nor have I read the Cornwall book which is why I refrain from attacking it or her (it would be presumptuous of me to do so without reading it).
On the other hand, I still feel that more research is needed into Sitwell's writing of that passage because the elipsis marks suggests there may have been parts of it edited out somewhere.
I fail to see too why it is impossible for Sickert to have lucked out and ended up rooming in Jack the Ripper's old rooms at a lodging house?
Why is such a coincidence totally impossible? I will admit though, I have a suspicion regarding this that would deflate the truth of the story Sickert is relating to Sitwell (and to Rothenstein, and Rutherston, and Beerbohm - see Tom Cullen's AUTUMN OF TERROR, where Beerbohm's quote about it is mentioned). I suspect it has to deal with another criminal.
Also, the anecdote does show that the Ripper was like King Charles head to Mr. Dick. Sickert was fascinated by the case. He might have had a guilty secret - but he just may have found the case fascinating (like the people on this website). He certainly showed an interest in the case elsewhere - why else do a painting called Jack the Ripper's room? But is it guilty knowledge, or his love of decay and the gutter, or his fascination with crime (the Tichborne Case, the Camden Town Murder). More research has to be done here too. What does Cornwall say of this (especially his interest in the Tichborne Case)?
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 1:54 am: | |
Dan wrote:
>This is absolutely not fair to say. Some of her critics say that he MAY have written a HOAXED letter, but it's completely incorrect to claim that Cornwell has convincingly given good, solid reasons for saying that he did in fact write even one letter. It's plausible (unlike most of her other conclusions) but definitely not proven by any stretch of the imagination.
Naturally, Dan, I had already excluded you even before you posted. Since there are numerous examples on Casebook of precisely this concession made by vocal critics of Cornwell, my comment stands exactly as I wrote it.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 3:27 am: | |
Jeff wrote:
>What does Cornwall say of this (especially his interest in the Tichborne Case)?
Cornwell has nothing to say about Sitwell's Noble Essences, other than listing it in her bibliography. The Tichborne Murder occurred when Sickert was 11 -- so not even Cornwell accuses Sickert of that one.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
ERey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 2:12 pm: | |
Jeffrey Bloomfield wrote:
“I fail to see too why it is impossible for Sickert to have lucked out and ended up rooming in Jack the Ripper's old rooms at a lodging house?”
I fail to see why everyone is allowing the question to be framed in this way.
Rather than asking “What are the chances of Walter Sickert, an eccentric artist with an avid interest in the Ripper case, renting the former rooms of Jack the Ripper?”, isn’t more sensible to ask, “What are the chances of Walter Sickert, an eccentric artist with an avid interest in the Ripper case, being told by his landlady –- by way of a sensational and rather implausible story -– that he was renting the former rooms of Jack the Ripper?”
In the Casebook suspects summary, the “lodger” story is referred to as an urban legend, albeit one possibly containing some grains of truth. Mark Starr has pointed out some of the many permutations this story has taken, although why he thinks the version recently posted by Chris Scott is veracious eludes me (personally, I loved the bit about the “sheep’s liver” – oogh!). Even Marie Belloc Lowndes’s well-known fictional version of the story is supposedly based on a real conversion in which the speaker presented the story as personally known fact.
So why act like it’s EITHER Walter Sickert rented the former rooms of the Whitechapel murderer OR… ?
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 290
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 8:21 pm: | |
Thanks Mark for explaining that Cornwall did not discuss the interest in the Tichborne Case. Now, if I can find out whether the original manuscript or notes of NOBLE ESSENCES still exists.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 1:14 am: | |
Erey wrote:
Mark Starr has pointed out some of the many permutations this story has taken, although why he thinks the version recently posted by Chris Scott is veracious eludes me.
I don't know whether the landlady's story is true, or veracious. However, because she was interviewed at length and questioned in a very thorough and professional manner by the reporter from The People, I am sure that we have an accurate -- if incomplete -- account of her testimony. Moreover, all the circumstances surrounding the landlady's testimony reported by both the reporter and by Bachert make her an extremely credible witness. Other than she was too frightened to name the lodger, I don't see any reason to doubt her word. The parts of her story that do not make sense are not because she dissembled, but rather because her story is not complete. Inexplicably, there was no further followup.
None of the other lodger accounts is credible -- especially Sickert's. Indeed, Sickert's story was checked out by a researcher from Ripper Notes, who tracked down every student of veterinary medicine in London during the Whitechapel Murders. Not one student matched all the elements in Sickert's account. That is conclusive proof that Sickert lied. Sickert's landlady never told him about any such veterinary student from Bournemouth who died of consumption shortly after the last murder because there never was a veterinary student from Bourneouth who died of consumption shortly after the last murder. Not even Dan Norden can wriggle out of that proof -- but I am sure he will try.
As I've said on the Port Philip Herarld thread repeatedly, Albert Bachert -- unreliable scoundrel that he may have been -- was not the witness in the Port Philip Herald's account. The landlady in Auldgate was.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 12:36 am: | |
Jeff wrote:
Thanks Mark for explaining that Cornwall did not discuss the interest in the Tichborne Case. Now, if I can find out whether the original manuscript or notes of NOBLE ESSENCES still exists.
All of Osbert Sitwell's works and collected papers are at the Research Library of The University of Texas. They will search for anything you want.
Regards,
Mark Starr
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 291
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 1:35 pm: | |
Mark,
I have to ask you one or two questions off the Board about Sickert, if you don't mind. Can you contact me by e-mail, please.
Jeff |
ERey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 10:26 am: | |
Mark Starr wrote:
"Sickert's landlady never told him about any such veterinary student from Bournemouth who died of consumption shortly after the last murder because there never was a veterinary student from Bourneouth who died of consumption shortly after the last murder."
Oh, dear.
If anyone besides Mark does not understand the point I was making in my last posting, let me know and I'll be happy to explain further.
Thanks. |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 2:20 pm: | |
Jeffrey:
I would be happy to respond offline. But I see no email address for you posted. I have set up what is called a 'disposable email address' that I can post online (I can easily delete it in the event it becomes a magnet for spam.) You can reach me at plelf-spam@yahoo.com
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 292
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 10:24 pm: | |
Mark,
Actually you can send me a private message using my profile on this web site. The point is that I have an idea regarding the lodger story and Sickert.
Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 224
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 10:59 pm: | |
Mark,
In your post of Feb 29th above, you point out that there is no vet. student who matches the description given in Sickert's account. You then go on to suggest that the falseness of the story proves Sickert lied about his landlady telling him the story in the first place?
It may be the Sickert is accurately relating a false story told to him. It may be that Sickert just made up the whole thing (as you suggest). It may be that the story is entirely true and the vet student was somehow missed in the investigation. It may be that the "suspect" in the story lied to his landlady about being a vet. student (placing the lie with him, or 2 people removed from Sickert).
In other words, showing the story is false does not prove Sickert is the one telling fibs. You have to be careful what you label as "conclusive proof".
- Jeff
|
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 3:17 am: | |
Jeffrey Bloomfield wrote:
Mark, Actually you can send me a private message using my profile on this web site. The point is that I have an idea regarding the lodger story and Sickert.
Jeffrey:
I tried to send you a private message using your profile on this website, but it did not work -- I suspect because I am not a registered user of Casebook. As I noted earlier, you can reach me at plelf-spam@yahoo.com (and I will award a special prize to anyone who can identify who coined the word "plelf", when, where and why.)
Regards,
Mark Starr
|
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 4:48 am: | |
Back in April 2003, Scott Medine wrote on Casebook:
>While researching my book I have found the hard evidence that proves Sickert did not commit the Whitechapel Murders. The hardcore evidence lies in the backyard of 29 Hanbury St. I am still toying with the possibility of releasing the information in article form.
Did I miss something? What was this great revelation all about? ..."PROVES Sickert did not commit the Whitechapel Murders"???? (Please note: Medine placed an s on Whitechapel Murders. So whatever happened at 39 Hanbury St., it eliminates Sickert as a suspect in all five canonical murders. And since he specifically challenges Cornwell, who includes Martha Tabran among the Ripper's victims, Medine will presumably eliminate Sickert as a suspect in SIX Whitechapel Murders.)
Whatever happened to this promised book or article? The author is a former detective. Evidently, he has been toying with Sickert for almost a year. At least when Cornwell publically claimed "Case Closed," she published a book.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 12:18 am: | |
Jeff Hamm wrote:
>It may be the Sickert is accurately relating a false story told to him. It may be that Sickert just made up the whole thing (as you suggest). It may be that the story is entirely true and the vet student was somehow missed in the investigation. It may be that the "suspect" in the story lied to his landlady about being a vet. student (placing the lie with him, or 2 people removed from Sickert).
Is this the same Jeffrey Hamm who recently wrote in another thread: "Just because something is not impossible doesn't make it true or plausible"?
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 227
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 2:29 pm: | |
Yes Mark, this is one and the same poster.
To demonstrate, just because it is not impossible that Sickert is the one lieing does not make it conclusively true that Sickert must be the one lieing. Why? Because there are other just as plausible explanations. Why are the other explanations "just as plausible"? Because all explanations only require one person to lie. You have decided that one person must have been Sickert, when in fact there are at least 2 other individuals who could be the source of the incorrect information that caused the investigation to demonstrate that at least something about the story is not quite right.
When you use the phrase "conclusively proves" you must have demonstrated that no other explanation, however implausible, can be true. (The limits on the "implausible alternatives" is that the alternatives do not violate some fundamental principle of the universe; such as requiring someone to be in both France and England at the same time.)
What you presented as "conclusive proof" did not satisify this criterion, which is what I was pointing out. I thought I made that specifically clear in the last line of my previous post.
I never said your explanation was not both possible and plausible. I simply pointed out there are other possible and plausible explanations that don't require Sickert to be the liar. Therefore, what you have presented should not be considered a conclusive proof.
- Jeff
(Message edited by jeffhamm on March 02, 2004) |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 6:42 pm: | |
Sorry, Jeff, looks to me like you are hoisted upon your own petard. What you consider possible is not what I consider plausible. You might as well claim that Walter Sickert and A. Conan Doyle were possibly switched at birth, like the babies in Wilde's "The Importance of Being Ernest" and G&S' "Pirates of Penzance." After all, they were born within months of each other. Could have happened.
Regards,
Mark Starr
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 264
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 9:04 pm: | |
Mark,
When it's possible that 3 different people are lying, and you insist that it has to be 1 specific one... That doesn't really sound like you're looking at it objectively...
Regards,
John |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 293
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 10:17 pm: | |
Hi Mark,
I tried using your plelf-spam address, but for reasons connected to my lack of expertise with computers, I couldn't. Therefore, we have to figure out a way for me to safely pass my e-mail address to you.
Basically, if you are interested, I believe I know what is the basis of the "lodger" story, and have found an odd minor point that links it to Sickert (as with much of this type of research, it might link with him - depends on how you look at it).
If anyone reading this knows my e-mail address and can pass it to Mark off the Casebook website, please do so. If Mark is still interested, and gets the e-mail address, he can contact me. Otherwise, I'll just have to wait until I can write this up in an article for THE RIPPEROLOGIST.
I do not know who coined that word. The closest I can think of is the old word "pelf" regarding
wealth. President Grover Cleveland once made a speech (that made some waves) against robber baron types using the phrase "communism of pelf".
It was a seven day wonder, but never caught on -
Grover did not have that gift of phrasing that Teddy Roosevelt had when he created such phrases as "muckrakers", "lunatic fringe", or "My hat is in the ring!".
Best wishes,
JEFFREY BLOOMFIELD
(not to be confused with Jeff Hamm). |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 230
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 11:27 pm: | |
Hi Mark,
I guess I don't understand why it's more plausible to suggest Sickert is the one making up the entire story than it is to suggest his landlady made up the story and he's just passed it on. If we accept the notion that Sickert was interested in the JtR killings, then his landlady might have seen this as way to ensure he rents the room longer (for instance; yes just made that up but in case you want a motive, that's one that's not implausible; another is she was just having him on and he bought it hook line and sinker, I'm sure I could spin off a few more).
Anyway, I really don't see anything compelling about in what you've presented that requires Sickert to be the one who's "fibbing". The story he told was not verified when researched. But, since he claims he was told this story by his landlady, in order to prove Sickert is the one telling tales, you have to prove she did not tell him this story (prove it, not assume it, not believe she didn't, but actually prove it with evidence). Otherwise, it is very possible and plausible, that she is the one who lied. Moreover, if it turns out she did tell him the story, one would then have to work back and identify her lodger, to determine if he lied to her about details of his background.
Until you can prove the landlady did not tell Sickert the story, you cannot conclusively place the lie on Sickert. You can suggest it may have been Sickert who made up the story, but you have in no way conclusively proved it.
And that's all I was pointing out by suggesting some other plausible alternatives. Some are more probable than others, I admit, but none require a great deal of suspension of disbelief. And all of them explain why the story, when investigated, was not verified. Only one of those explanations is that Sickert made the whole thing up.
- Jeff
(Message edited by jeffhamm on March 02, 2004) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1220
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 4:48 am: | |
Mark wrote:
>Whatever happened to this promised book or article? The author is a former detective. Evidently, he has been toying with Sickert for almost a year. At least when Cornwell publically claimed "Case Closed," she published a book.
Great. I don't know what preferences Mark Starr has regarding book writing and publishing, but since I work in the business myself, I can reveal that only very experienced authors and researchers manages to conceive a book in a year. A year is nothing if you want to do a serious research or you're not writing fiction.
The research for my own book took three years, but it could have taken even longer than that.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 231
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 2:14 pm: | |
Mark,
By the way, I'm not failing to follow my own advice. If you notice, I have never claimed that any one particular alternative "must" be true. I fully agree that Sickert "could" be the one who made up the whole story. However, given there are other reasonable explanations, just because it is possible Sickert lied doesn't mean he did. This is why I point out you have not conclusively proved Sickert lied. I've never once claimed "the landlady must have lied", only that it is reasonably possible that she could have. Hence, the evidence you present is equivocal, and not conclusive.
- Jeff |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 5:41 pm: | |
Dear Mark Starr,
Not another suitor, please! No, I refuse your invitation to meet under the arch at Pinchin Street :-)
It is obvious to many posters that you have not been following the plot thus far. To quote David Radka: The nature of this mystery is a circle where the centre is everywhere and the circumference is nowhere.
However, I shall instruct one of my minions to email you the best image of "Jack the Ripper's Bedroom", courtesy of Ripperology boffins at NASA, using the latest Fractal Compression Filter technique...code-name "GOLD". Stand-by for lift-off!
Rosey :-) |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
