Well, guess what? One of the letters written to the police (and signed pseudonymously by "Scotus") speculates that the criminal may have had his "privy member destroyed" (i.e. his penis mutilated), and is taking it out on prostitutes. Consequently, Cornwell takes this Victorian gentleman's speculation about the state of the killer's genitalia as fact. And then, from there, she implies that the letter writer may have been Sickert himself! (I mean, Sickert did like to write under pseudonyms, didn't he? Never mind that "Scotus" was not known to be one of them!). Maybe Sickert was just playing with the police, laughing at them.
So here's the status of the Cornwellian logic at the moment: Some Victorian guy suggested that the killer might have had mutilated genitals, so that means that the killer must have had mutilated genitals... particularly since the letter suggesting that theory just might have been written pseudonymously by Walter Sickert (who just might have had mutilated genitals). In the real world, though, the "Scotus" letter really has no authority without any solid evidence of its significance. It's just another of the many pseudonymous theories floating around London at the time.
Along these same lines... One of the letters to the editors was signed using (more or less) an identity that Sickert was known to use in his letters (and had even used on stage). The letter was signed "Nemo." And Sickert was known to use the pseudonym "Mr. Nemo." The author of the "Nemo" letter claimed that his time in India led him to believe that the murders were were using "peculiarly Eastern methods and universally recognized, and intended by the criminal classes to express insult, hatred, and contempt" (Times of London, 4 October, 1888).
Now, unless Sickert had spent time in India (or thought it would be fun to pretend he had spent time in India), it's unlikely that the letter was written by him. But since "Nemo" is a name that is actually associated with Sickert (while "Scotus" is not), it's much more likely that the "Nemo" letter was written by Sickert than that the "Scotus" letter was. (Cornwell, incidentally, never mentions the "Nemo" letter). I'm not quite sure why Cornwell thinks that the theory voiced in the "Scotus" letter carries any more weight than any of the other theories that were going around... except that this theory happens to be the one that best fits her pet suspect.
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?