do you believe it is based on facts, and that Jack the Ripper is really Walter Sickert?
2006-08-27 22:59:27 · 4 answers · asked by Inquirer 5 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
and did you have nightmares during the time you were reading the book?
2006-08-27 23:00:19 · update #1
No, she relies far too much on circumstantial evidence, leaps to some thoroughly unjustified conclusions and completely fails to prove any connection betwen Sickert and JTR. Even her attempt to match Sickert's DNA to letters purporting to be from JTR sent to the London newspapers is pointless - even if Sickert did send some of these letters, all it would prove is that he sent some crank letters. The newspapers got literally hundreds of these letters, JTR couldn't have written them all.
2006-08-28 08:25:29 · answer #1 · answered by Huh? 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Patricia Cornwell was insistent that Sickert was the killer and even tried to do DNA testing. She skewed the information to make it look like he did it.
Almost all of the historians and scholars dismiss her book and information as being untrue.
Cornwell has bipolar disorder and also has said some strange things about her books and characters. She once said she wasn't just weird, she's weird differently. Kind of a strange lady who is a good writer.
2006-08-28 17:47:43 · answer #2 · answered by Ice4444 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
A great book! I love Cornwell. I think she makes a very good case for Sickert having been the Ripper.
2006-08-28 09:22:32 · answer #3 · answered by Sweetchild Danielle 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
No, I do not believe it was based on fact. There is a site somewhere that shows that Cornwell left out many facts and twisted things to fit her theory. She decided who she thought it was and then discarded any information that didn't fit her idea. I cannot respect that.
2006-08-28 06:04:03 · answer #4 · answered by Amelia 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋