Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kudos For Cornwell

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I am sure that she is irked a little a by the negative attitude of so many Ripperologists, but what the heck, they're just oddballs.
    SCORPIO

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Scorpio View Post
      If Sickert was a letter hoaxer, and thanks to Cornwells book there are compelling reasons to think so,then he deserves the slating he gets.
      No, he doesn't. Even if Sickert did write one or more hoax letters, you really believe that he should be labelled a serial killer? Really?

      And Cornwell is (was) a great writer of crime fiction. Christ, it doesn't make her Nabokov.
      best,

      claire

      Comment


      • #18
        I do not think Sickert should be a labelled a serial killer because i dont believe he committed those crimes, but hoax letter writers belong to a class of pathetic loser/ petty criminal." Genius " Sickert should no better.
        I thought Cornwells Ripper effort was superior to the Scarpetta books.
        SCORPIO

        Comment


        • #19
          Clearly she made an error of judgement in accusing Sickert of being a serial killer on the 'evidence' she presented.

          But what always surprises me is how many people, while condemning her for this terrible crime, accept almost without question her evidence for Sickert having authored one or more ripper letters. I don't see it myself; I would need more and better evidence before I accuse him of this.

          That being said, if I believed he wrote a single ripper letter I would have rather less sympathy for him, because it was not only a sick and despicable prank for anyone to play, but he would only have had himself to blame if he had been arrested for it at the time and consequently suspected of far worse.

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


          Comment


          • #20
            I think "Scorpio" is correct in essence when he wrote that Patricia "made a genuine effort to drag ripperology into the forensic age". Had she not been so determined to claim that she had solved the mystery, but had just written a book detailing the forensic work done and the results then would she have encountered the same quantity and same kind of criticism? Somehow I don't think so. So what people have objected to is her arrogance in claiming to have solved what others couldn't, but I again wonder how much this was imposed on her by her publishers and television. When people invest as much money in something as gets invested in every new Cornwell book, the pressures are enormous. even on lowly hacks it can be bad.

            As for the Ripper letters Sickert is alleged to have written, this was a conclusion reached by the paper examiner and historian Peter Bower, a quietly authoritative expert witness used worldwide by museums and art galleries, and is based on microscopic examination of correspondence which suggests that Ripper letters and Sickert letters came from the same small batch of paper, from which it seems highly improbable that both sets of letters didn't come from the same source. I understand that a full account of the evidence has not been possible because the owner(s) of the Sickert lettersis can and have imposed restrictions on their publication. Peter's conclusions have nevertheless been questioned and are by no means known to be correct.

            Other experts, notably the Sickert authority Anna Gruetzner Robins, who wrote Walter Sickert:The Complete Writings on Art, also added their weight to the conclusion that Sickert penned Ripper missives, so, allowing that it is possible that these people felt under pressure to support Patricia, which I must admit isn't the impression I received, it's possibly understandable that she felt a greater conviction that she's struck pay dirt with Sickert than her other evidence and theorising merited.

            Overall, Monty probably hits the nail right on the head when he said that Patricia became the bete noir of Ripperologists because she publicly bad mouthed them, but I think she was misled into believing that the Ripperological community was out to "get her" and she went into a defensive attack mode. People have personal issues and even multi-millionaire writers like Patricia Cornwell aren't immune from being deeply hurt by the criticism they receive - or anticipate.
            Paul

            Comment


            • #21
              Cornwell genuinely believes that Sickert did this,and she has the right to state this, with or without evidence. The impressive effort to find evidence, and the overall energy and ambition to take ripperology somewhere, the best seller list for example, and increase public interest in this case. The public is intelligent enough to dismiss Cornwells suspect, while still enjoying a engaging read in an area they might not have done so.
              SCORPIO

              Comment


              • #22
                Hey Paul,

                I guess her fears were justifiable in some cases Paul, however a little groundwork wouldnt have gone amiss.

                Monty
                Monty

                https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

                Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Scorpio View Post
                  Cornwell genuinely believes that Sickert did this,and she has the right to state this, with or without evidence.

                  She didn't say she BELIEVES Sickert was the murderer, she said Sickert WAS the murderer. there's a big difference there.

                  Personally, it's the worst Ripper related book I've ever read. and that includes the "diary". it's by far the worst "pet suspect" book I've ever read. and most "pet suspect" authors present their theories only and don't go so far as to say their favorite suspect actually WAS the killer.

                  other than that, I don't know what kind of writer she is. I have never read any of her other books, don't know any of the titles, and personally never would read any of her other books based solely on the one in questions.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Deja Vu all Over Again!

                    Hey all, What is it with these Cornwell/Sickert threads? It's like a game of Wack a Mole. As soon as one of these threads is hammered into the ground, another regularly pops-up.

                    Best Wishes, Mike
                    Mike

                    "Twinkle, twinkle little bat."

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Scorpio View Post
                      A question has bothered me. Why has Patricia Cornwell become Ripperologies Aunt Sally ?.Alright, may be " case closed " should of read " case dismissed for lack of evidence ", but i still consider Cornwells effort the best in pet suspect class of JtR book, which, admittedly, is attracting more dogs than CRUFTS. Cornwells book was engaging, original, but accessible, and has made a genuine effort to drag ripperology into the forensic age, which is damn sight more than most manage or try to do. If Sickert was a letter hoaxer, and thanks to Cornwells book there are compelling reasons to think so,then he deserves the slating he gets. A few years ago, a man called John Humble was jailed for hoaxing, but he was no Richard Sickert, so maybe Cornwell was right, and Sickert belonged to a class above suspicion or punishment. I hope Cornwell writes more JtR material, because its one of the few JtR books that i am likely to buy.
                      Yours, Scorpio.
                      Cornwell's attempt to apply a forensic approach to solving the crime is all very well. However - she knows nothing at all about art and made no attempt what-so-ever to do any research about the art movement associated with Sickert's work. Had she done so she might have understood him and his work a little better.

                      The rationale she applies for suspecting Sickert is rather like concluding that because Cornwell knows about murder and writes about murder - she must therefore surely be a murderer!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I commited the worst crime of all: I gave up on a book and have a strongly held opinion based on the fact that I could not bring myself to finish the book. It was poorly written and, as it had the misfortune of being released when I was getting to grips with google, I made some pretty lame and silly attempts to prove to myself it was all okay (I wish I had found this site back then). But I gave up after thinking: "Is she sure ONLY JTR could know that? And if so how can we know it now?" A few searches for Sickert later, and I find that actually he was obsessed with the case and apparently devoured every article on it he could read (like modern writers and artists still do today). A few more searches suggest that not many of the "secrets" Sickert knew had failed not to be dragged out into the media sensation of the time. If the evidence of the book boils down to "Sickert read newspapers" he was not a class above suspicion, he was in the same boat as any other literate Londoner.

                        Just my two cents, sorry if it is a bit muddled.
                        There Will Be Trouble! http://www.amazon.co.uk/A-Little-Tro...s=T.+E.+Hodden

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Tabran

                          Can anyone tell me why Cornwell spells Tabram as Tabran? Is this based on new research that shows 'Tabram' as wrong?

                          Thanks

                          Helena
                          Helena Wojtczak BSc (Hons) FRHistS.

                          Author of 'Jack the Ripper at Last? George Chapman, the Southwark Poisoner'. Click this link : - http://www.hastingspress.co.uk/chapman.html

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            She also had Mr. Evans as Steward. I dunno if he's Cunard or P & O

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Hi Helena. No, it's based on old research that's bad. I recall she also misspelled the name Eddowes.

                              Yours truly,

                              Tom Wescott

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                I'm a bit disappointed; I thought maybe she'd found out something new.

                                Thanks everyone.

                                Helena
                                Helena Wojtczak BSc (Hons) FRHistS.

                                Author of 'Jack the Ripper at Last? George Chapman, the Southwark Poisoner'. Click this link : - http://www.hastingspress.co.uk/chapman.html

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X