Okay, let's put aside my little language obsession for now. Are you ready for the big revelation? The one that absolutely proves that Sickert was more likely than anybody else to be Jack the Ripper?
Well, without providing any evidence at this point in the book (though she does provide substantive evidence later on), Sickert had a genital abnormality, and he'd had three surgeries for it by the time he was 5 years old. In fact, according to his own nephew (whom Cornwell interviewed), the abnormality was in his penis. From these facts, and some of Sickert's artwork, Cornwell extrapolates that Sickert may have had a short stump of a penis.
Well, that's all well and good. Based upon the evidence she presents later on, it may well be true. But it's a hypothesis. The problem is that Cornwell takes her hypothesis and argues as if it's a certainty. And she even gives her case a head-start. She plants the notion in the reader's mind before ever presenting any evidence to support it.
Okay, so what are some of the ways that Cornwell runs with her hypothesis? Oh man. Here is where it really gets "good." Actually, she piles one hypothesis on top of another hypothesis on top of another hypothesis, and before we know it, Cornwell has reached certainty. But I just have to wonder... If the foundation itself is a hypothesis, and everything built on top of that foundation is a hypothesis, then how do we get to a certainty--at least in the "real world" of logic? I mean, am I dense or something? Is it really really obvious that if a guy might have had a mutilated penis, and the guy's painting mentor was getting married in a few days... that the guy would have been driven (at least temporarily) over the edge into murdering and mutilating women? Ooops. I'm getting a little ahead of myself here.
Anyway, here's a little bit of the process that gets Cornwell to her certainty. First, like most Victorian gentlemen, Sickert liked to use pseudonyms in writing letters to the editors. Secondly, Sickert (Cornwell, by now, assumes) could not have normal relations with a woman.
Article comments
1 - jackie Hazan
I have read the Patricia Cornwell's book on Jack the ripper. I was very much intrigued by Sicket's sketch of "He killed his Father in a fight". If you look at the left arm of the dead father you can just make out the word Jack, look at the K. If you look very closely at the left top arm of the killer you will see the unmistakeable R. look at the top of where the knife is being held by the killer. There are two heads there which resemble very closely punch and judy. Look at the spiky hair of the killer's head. Sicket liked his hair spiky. look at the wooden knob of the bed, you can make out a sketch of a face rather like a puppet's face. Have a look at the dead Father's shoe. At first glance it reminded me of a woman's shoe with a heel. If anybody sees anything else of interest please let me know.
2 - Yo
I have just read Patricia Cornwell's book and unfortunately felt theories were based on supposition and speculation. Although the profile of the Ripper from facts known would appear to be that of an educated and clever person I am surprised to find Sicket living a full life without never revealing in a conversation or moment of weakness something about the terrible deads he did - or is that typical of a psychopath bahaviour of which I do not have an understanding. I am also not sure why fingerprints from Sicket cannot be found somewhere from the many papers, paintings, personal effects he left which could be compared to the fingerprint found on one of the ripper letters. The white overalls donated to some museum - do they not reveal a fibre/hair from Sicket which could also give a DNA picture?
3 - Mal.k.
Well, I am not completely finished with the book as of yet. But I have always been terribly intrested in Jack the Ripper and who he may be...I recently viewed (On the net) Some of his art...And after reading some of Cornwell's book, I don't see the paintings "morbid" Or that they hint that Sickert might have been the Ripper. Although her she does have a very good theory...Maybe I am just not lokking at the right ones. But I precieved that all of his paintings would be vicious and morbid, like she desribes... I haven't seen the painting "he killed his father in a fight" and I would so very much like to see it. If someone would tell me where I could look to view it, I would be extremely grateful.
4 - Mick James
I think you've pretty much nailed Cornwell's modus operandi here--it's like the old Marx brothers skit: "The stolen money must be in the house next door..." "But there is no house next door" "So what, we'll build one!".
What I can't work out is why Cornwell so desperately needs Sickery to have been the Ripper. I mean, why should she care?
5 - Mick James
I think you've pretty much nailed Cornwell's modus operandi here--it's like the old Marx brothers skit: "The stolen money must be in the house next door..." "But there is no house next door" "So what, we'll build one!".
What I can't work out is why Cornwell so desperately needs Sickert to have been the Ripper. I mean, why should she care?