So, let me ask... Would you say that Patricia Cornwell has an interest in crime? She writes detective fiction and speculates on the identity of Jack the Ripper, doesn't she? Judging by the fact that you are reading this, I would guess that you have some interest in crime. And I know I do. So, here we are... Walter Sickert liked to read about crime. I like to read about crime. You, right at this very moment, are reading about crime. Cornwell reads and writes about crime. Every Ripperologist in the world reads and theorizes on crime. Unless all of us (or even many of us) read about murder as a prelude to commiting murders of our own, then Sickert's interest in crime seems about as sinister as mine or yours or Cornwell's.

Ah, but as mentioned above, Sickert also liked to paint and draw crime scenes. (Never mind that he is much more famous for painting music halls!). Doesn't that demonstrate a murderous inclination? The short answer? No!

Cornwell is a writer. She paints crime scenes with words. Sickert is a painter. He paints crime scenes with... well... paint (and pencil). Are we to assume that, because Sickert is a visual artist rather than a verbal artist, his portrayal of crime is somehow more sinister than Cornwell's own portrayal of crime? Or, for that matter, Alfred Hitchcock's visual/verbal portrayal of crime? Ummm, I think not. Each artist is using his or her own medium to artistically portray murder. Now, that's not to say that Sickert is absolutely not Jack the Ripper. It's simply to say that if the subjects of his artwork indicate an inclination towards murder, then we could say the same thing about Patricia Cornwell, Alfred Hitchcock, and any number of other visual and verbal artists.

Finally, Cornwell just pulls out the stops in her summation of the charges against Walter Sickert, as she writes: "For Walter Sickert to imagine Whistler in love and enjoying a sexual relationship with a woman might well have been the catalyst that made Sickert one of the most dangerous and confounding killers of all time. He began to act out what he had scripted most of his life, not only in thought but in boyhood sketches that depicted women being abducted, tied up, and stabbed."

Okay, how much of that do I really need to parse at this point? We see, once again, Cornwell assuming the certainty of her hypothesis re: Sickert's genitals. We see her beg the question, as she assumes the very thing she needs to prove in her argument... i.e. that Sickert actually was this killer. But we also see, in the final sentence, a rather tenuous grip on factuality. Without access to his thoughts, how does Cornwell know that Sickert scripted the actual performance of mutilations in his thoughts? And further, while the boyhood sketches depicting the murder of women may have been drawn by Sickert, they are actually part of a collection of his father's artwork. Cornwell has no more certainty that these sketches were drawn by Sickert than she has certainty that Sickert wrote the "Scotus" letter. All she has is hypothesis.