Case Closed 2 due 2010?

[Mike Covell]

An interesting Q+A session with Patricia Cornwell here, http://www.pioneerlocal.com/hinsdale/entertainment/2914746,doings-patricia-112510-s1.article

The following question and answer features,

PP: Your controversial book, Portrait of a Killer -- Jack The Ripper: Case Closed, caused quite a stir in 2002,when you stated your case for British painter, Walter Sickert as The Ripper. You have hinted that there will be further commotion, in 2012 when Sickert's copyrighted letters become public domain. Is another book planned?



Cornwell: At some point I need to revise my original book, and yes, it would be a relief to have the copyright lifted on Sickert's materials. The copyright has prevented me (and experts) from publishing images of certain comparisons that were made. For example -- watermarks on letters Sickert wrote that match watermarks on taunting letters the alleged Jack the Ripper sent to the police and the press. It is striking to see the actual photographs. It's also striking to see photographs of Sickert's art, and one can't publish those either, without permission. Needless to say, permissions aren't always easy to obtain if the theory one is pushing is that the person of interest quite likely was a serial killer.

[How Brown]

Needless to say, permissions aren't always easy to obtain if the theory one is pushing is that the person of interest quite likely was a serial killer. -P.Cornwell

The person of interest was in France.
Sickert had some long arms.:pound:

[Mike Covell]

Just realised that I posted this thread under the date of 2010 when it should have been 2012.:puke:

[Magpie]

What bollocks.

The postmarks would be a clear cut case of "fair use" if ever there was one.

Letters from pre-1923 would have no copyright in any case.

Sounds like a cop out to me.

[Mike Covell]

Sounds like she just keeps putting it off and pushing the date back further. I was under the impression she had a crack (think I spelt that right) team of Ripperologists in pay searching for the "evidence".

[Paul]

I understand that the copyright issues of which Patricia speaks are absolutely genuine and that she would be delighted to be able to publish the comparisons, as would, I believe, Peter Bower, the paper historian and expert, on whose examination of the documents the claims by Patricia are based.