Snicklefriz

I recently finished Portrait of a Killer and was left with a few questions.

1. Based on that publication do you believe the evidence you brought forward would have been enough to lead to a conviction if Sickert was tried today?

2. In the book you said, "Sickert never painted something he did not see" This was a huge piece of information but I don't remember it being explained...how did you come to that conclusion?

On a scale of 1-10, 1 being no way 10 being absolutely certain do you think that Sickert's first wife knew he was the ripper? Do you think it is perhaps something he might have confessed to her, do you think that fits his character?? Or something she found upon her own devices....

Thanks, I agree, I loved the book but damn if he didn't slip through the cracks of a true conviction and that really bothered me. For what it's worth I think you are right, it seems everything is only circumstantial unfortunately.

I will keep my eye out for the rewrite. I believe she knew something as well. The amicable divorce was strange, as if Sickert knew she had an idea and kind of wanted to stay on good terms. That whole section of the book had this really strange vibe between them, I think she saw his demons.

Which letters do you own from Jack The Ripper? Where did you buy them?