Patricia Cornwell

[DVV]

Hi Pirate,
I forgot Bower, expert and father of expert...
An American study proofs that Bower is an expert...that's why he could father Sally the expert...
In a self-created field into which nobody ventures...he's obviously an expert...
Next book will tell us who bought sheets of paper, at what time (for that, we will take a look at Maybrick's watch), from which shop, and it will be the word of an expert, father of expert... Though the task seems more problematic than the whole case itself.
As you said, Sickert was in France. That was September.
Were the Dear Boss letter posted from France?
Good luck to Bower's Expert Inc.!

Amitiés,
David (broken-English poster)

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Pirate,
I forgot Bower, expert and father of expert...
An American study proofs that Bower is an expert...that's why he could father Sally the expert...
In a self-created field into which nobody ventures...he's obviously an expert...
Next book will tell us who bought sheets of paper, at what time (for that, we will take a look at Maybrick's watch), from which shop, and it will be the word of an expert, father of expert... Though the task seems more problematic than the whole case itself.
As you said, Sickert was in France. That was September.
Were the Dear Boss letter posted from France?
Good luck to Bower's Expert Inc.!

Amitiés,
David (broken-English poster)

Fantastic deduction, clearly Bower wasn't talking about the Dear Boss letter, well done that man...

[DVV]

Sickert was a splendid subject, not as Sickert-the-Ripper, but his obsession, the impact on his work, the fact that he may got "information'' (police gossip) on Jack in the 90's and later, would deserve to be dug by both an honest Ripperologist and a Sickert's specialist.
That would make a really nice book.

Patricia could invest 6 millions, write the foreword (that would be: this man was so artufully involved that I was mistaken...) and let the benefits to casebook.
I remember her stating that she will never forgive herself, if Sickert is not the killer.
He is not.
I offer her a simple way for redemption.

David (broken-English poster, bloody Corsican)

[Jeff Leahy]

Sickert was a splendid subject, not as Sickert-the-Ripper, but his obsession, the impact on his work, the fact that he may got "information'' (police gossip) on Jack in the 90's and later, would deserve to be dug by both an honest Ripperologist and a Sickert's specialist.
That would make a really nice book.

Patricia could invest 6 millions, write the foreword (that would be: this man was so artufully involved that I was mistaken...) and let the benefits to casebook.
I remember her stating that she will never forgive herself, if Sickert is not the killer.
He is not.
I offer her a simple way for redemption.

David (broken-English poster, bloody Corsican)

Hello David

and good morning.

Just a quick reply as much of the argument has been covered on this thread before. However I do share your sentiment that Sickert is NoT JtR but researching Sickert is a legitimate area of research.

To be fair to Patricia surely she has employed experts with international reputations like Peter Bower and Keith Skinner, to look into her claims.

Personally I beleive that she genuinely believes Sickert did it.

There are many people on casebook who have such a belief about various suspects. Are we to say no one should hold such a beleif until they can bring a case to court and prove it 120 years after the event?

Surely creating the best senario about a suspect is all that there is left?

Unless, you hold the beleif that it was a local man, never in the frame, who will never be known...and personally I find that a cop out.

Surely Patricia has the right to dig, on Sickert, which is what she is doing.

She sounds like a Ripperologist to me?

Yours Jeff

[anna]

Patricia Cornwell...a Ripperologist...er........NO.
There's lots of things PC is.....but she's NOT a ripperologist....thank god.
Or else we'd have her stupid suggestions to put up with, aswell as all the other crank ideas that happen to find their way onto these boards...
Unbelieveable,Pirate Jack's just found TWO people to agree with him on PC...this is a bad dream,and I'm gonna wake up any minute....hopefully!

[DVV]

Hello David

and good morning.

Just a quick reply as much of the argument has been covered on this thread before. However I do share your sentiment that Sickert is NoT JtR but researching Sickert is a legitimate area of research.

To be fair to Patricia surely she has employed experts with international reputations like Peter Bower and Keith Skinner, to look into her claims.

personally I beleive that she genuinely believes Sickert did it.

There are many people on casebook who have such a belief about various suspects. Are we to say no one should hold such a beleif until they can bring a case to court and prove it 120 years after the event?

Surely creating the best senario about a suspect is all that there is left?

Unless, you hold the beleif that it was a local man, never in the frame, who will never be known...and personally I find that a cop out.

Surely Patricia has the right to dig, on Sickert, which is what she is doing.

She sounds like a Ripperologist to me?

Yours Jeff

Hi Pirate,
You are generally right, but in the case of Cornwell/ Sickert, this is really too much. She is dishonest because she claims "case solved".
She is dishonest because she claims to have worked hard on the case, and this is an obvious lie... See as an example, the fact that she calls PC Thain PC Phail - reproducing the mistake of the Times (which once, by the way, gave the correctly "Thain")...
She is dishonest because she claims that Sickert killed up to 40 women!
She is dishonest because until the paperback edition, she did not mention the previous works on Sickert's candidacy...
So you can't treat her the same way other researchers have to be treated.
Too much is too much.
I will add that she insults other researchers in her book and use the term "ripperologist" with great dispise.
So where's the beef?

Amitiés,
David

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Pirate,
You are generally right, but in the case of Cornwell/ Sickert, this is really too much. She is dishonest because she claims "case solved".

Hi David

We've covered this a thousand times. Patricia has admitted it was unfortunate that this was put on the cover.

If you have ever been involved in a book release or TV program you will know the preasure put on authors/producers to make wild claims for publicity purposes..its unfortunate but lifes reality.

Patricia has said it will not be on the next book. What do you want her to do...get on her knees and beg? It aint gonna happen...

She is dishonest because she claims to have worked hard on the case, and this is an obvious lie... See as an example, the fact that she calls PC Thain PC Phail - reproducing the mistake of the Times (which once, by the way, gave the correctly "Thain")...

Well anyone who has the guts to make or create something has to work hard...I'm not saying the results have to be good, just that hard work and 'Art' in its widest sense go together. Dont let anyone tell you different.

She is dishonest because she claims that Sickert killed up to 40 women!

OK you got me hear..its hard to beleive that she seriously entertained this idea...even at my height of including Emma Smith I only ever reached eleven. (off course a few did just drop dead from fright which can increase the body count) However, working out the body count is lagitimate ripperologist pass time.

She is dishonest because until the paperback edition, she did not mention the previous works on Sickert's candidacy...

We all forget that up until Paul Begg published his book the facts very few crime authors actually gave source references, at all. And to some extent you must remember Patricia is a crime fiction writer not a historian.

So you can't treat her the same way other researchers have to be treated. Too much is too much. I will add that she insults other researchers in her book and use the term "ripperologist" with great dispise.
So where's the beef?
Amitiés,
David

That was all a long time ago. She has since employed Keith Skinner. Probably one of the best JtR researchers ever. So she cant dispise Ripperologists that much...

It would be hypocrasy anyway. Like it or not, however you spin the cookie, what Patricia Cornwall does, is doing, and like it or not is....

RIPPEROLOGISTS

Perhaps anna could give us the benefit of her wisdom

In what way does Patricia Cornwall (apart from being rich) differ from any other Ripperologist??

[Dan Norder]

If you have ever been involved in a book release or TV program you will know the preasure put on authors/producers to make wild claims for publicity purposes..its unfortunate but lifes reality.

Except you'd have to be pretty ignorant of the facts to try to claim that the "Case Closed" part was due to outside influence. Cornwell very clearly and unambiguously thought she had solved the case, and was very arrogant and condescending toward anyone who didn't buy into her fantasy.

We all forget that up until Paul Begg published his book the facts very few crime authors actually gave source references, at all.

You can't be serious. I can't see this comment being made seriously by anyone who has read more than a few books. Did you come up with that idea yourself, or did Paul at some point when he was talking to you about trying to get a documentary about himself made try to take credit for revolutionizing the entire field of True Crime?

In what way does Patricia Cornwall (apart from being rich) differ from any other Ripperologist??

Certainly there is a large group of authors who try to pin the blame on their favored suspect by twisting whatever evidence they can, and she isn't too different from many of these.

On the other hand, don't overlook what being rich means she can get away with. Most Ripper authors can't buy full page ads in major newspapers to make whatever crazy claim she wants to make unopposed. Most Ripper authors can't pay scientists to find anything that looks like it might be able to be twisted to support her position. Her wealth puts her into a position where she could do a lot of good for the field of Ripper studies, as she's done for forensics programs at universities, victims' rights organizations and some Civil War history. Unfortunately she's done just the opposite. She rushed in to be the first to do DNA testing on many letters but did so only in an attempt to put Sickert in the frame, when an objective study with preserved DNA available to all researchers would have been much preferable. Instead we don't know if she's contaminated all the letters with her own DNA. Newer tests after she clomped her way through the archive seem to indicate that the only DNA that can be found was that of a female.

[Jeff Leahy]

Except you'd have to be pretty ignorant of the facts to try to claim that the "Case Closed" part was due to outside influence. Cornwell very clearly and unambiguously thought she had solved the case, and was very arrogant and condescending toward anyone who didn't buy into her fantasy.

As I have pointed out to you gain and again, this happened 5 years ago. She has clearly said the next edition will not carry the phraze case closed. It would appear you both have alot in common when it comes to words like sorry or simply..I appologuise.

You can't be serious. I can't see this comment being made seriously by anyone who has read more than a few books. Did you come up with that idea yourself, or did Paul at some point when he was talking to you about trying to get a documentary about himself made try to take credit for revolutionizing the entire field of True Crime?

You can not be serious.....must be Wimbledon week

Certainly there is a large group of authors who try to pin the blame on their favored suspect by twisting whatever evidence they can, and she isn't too different from many of these.

Thats correct. As I said, basically. like it or not..she's one of us...

Whose your favourite suspect Norder? Do you have the guts to stand for something?

On the other hand, don't overlook what being rich means she can get away with. Most Ripper authors can't buy full page ads in major newspapers to make whatever crazy claim she wants to make unopposed. Most Ripper authors can't pay scientists to find anything that looks like it might be able to be twisted to support her position. Her wealth puts her into a position where she could do a lot of good for the field of Ripper studies, as she's done for forensics programs at universities, victims' rights organizations and some Civil War history. Unfortunately she's done just the opposite. She rushed in to be the first to do DNA testing on many letters but did so only in an attempt to put Sickert in the frame, when an objective study with preserved DNA available to all researchers would have been much preferable. Instead we don't know if she's contaminated all the letters with her own DNA. Newer tests after she clomped her way through the archive seem to indicate that the only DNA that can be found was that of a female.

The DNA testing of a series of Hoax letters is an interesting side line but wont tell you much about JtR. As most had been sealed in laminate they wouldnt find much of any use anyway.

About as good as Atlantics DNA test on the Shawl I would think.

However clearly she is employing well respected Researchers looking for something somewhere..

You'll just have to wait..to see what they turn up ...like the rest of us....

[anna]

Oh,and there was I thinking TWO people thought the same as you....but I was wrong,it seems!!
Well,well,well.....now let's see...
Patricia Cornwell a Ripperologist?......NO.
Pirate Jack.....If she were a Ripperologist she would have got things right in the first place...thought every Ripperologist knew that!
Secondly...do we want her to get on her knees.....you bet!
If she hadn't have done wrong in the first place,however long ago it was,there wouldn't be the need for an apology.
And there is!....won't get it?....Don't care...why should we bother about someone who cannot admit in print,that she was wrong.

[Dan Norder]

Whose your favourite suspect Norder?

I was a Mr. Diddles fan from way back. And, no, I don't really think a cat did it, but at least makes more sense than suspects who can be proven to have been nowhere near London's East End on the nights of the murders.

Do you have the guts to stand for something?

Excuse me?

I stand for treating the case as history instead of fiction and/or wild, baseless speculation. I actively encourage and assist other researchers in finding new evidence and other potentially relevant information and present them as objectively as possible.

On top of that, I publish books for Ripper authors, round-aboutly contribute to the Casebook (though Stephen has turned down direct financial support when I've offered them), co-sponsored the recent UK conference, and stepped in with my own time and money to keep both Ripper Notes and the US conference going when the people who had been running them decided they needed a break. And I do all of that without expecting much of anything in return, which is lucky because it doesn't get me anything except an occasional thank you, not that others who contribute to the field get much more than that either.

So please don't try to sit there and pretend that Cornwell's attempt to buy herself a reputation as a crime historian has in any way has helped Ripperology... except occasionally in a completely accidental way, like when someone reads her book, realizes it's nonsense, and then goes looking for the real story.

[Jeff Leahy]

Patricia Cornwell a Ripperologist?......NO.
Pirate Jack.....If she were a Ripperologist she would have got things right in the first place...thought every Ripperologist knew that!


Oh this is priceless. Are you seriously trying to claim that Ripperologists always get it right?

Surely the very nature of ‘Ripperology’ is that most of them are wrong..129 suspects, 128 of whom (assuming a lone killer) are innocent. Doesn’t look like Ripperologists get it right very often to me at all..Maybrick? Gull? Lewis Carol? Diddles the cat? (Oh no that would be Norders solution… )

And who are these Ripperologist chaps anyway? Who invented them?

Actually it would make an interesting thread. Are you a Ripperologist?

To be honest about it I was in denial for a few years, It was Andy Aliffe who pointed out I had somehow become one last summer. But who decides really.is it like freemasonary?

When did you become a Ripperologist? Do you have to proclaim yourself one..or does it creep up on you slowly so , like me you wake up one morning and the conversion is complete?

Secondly...do we want her to get on her knees.....you bet!
If she hadn't have done wrong in the first place, however long ago it was, there wouldn't be the need for an apology.
And there is!....won't get it?....Don't care...why should we bother about someone who cannot admit in print,that she was wrong.


‘Jesus’ I detect a dark side here..no forgiveness, no second chance..’She only said ‘Johova’…are there any women hear?

As I see it your giving her no option..Damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t.

She wont appologuise, she has however done what her critics have demanded. Shes employed a top researcher, shes still digging, shes putting money into research. Perhaps not the research you would want…but then its her money, she can spend it as she wishes…

So, If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck..good chance it’s a Ripperologist.

Patricia Cornwall is one of you now...get over it.

She probably hates the idea as much as you do.

[Jeff Leahy]

I was a Mr. Diddles fan from way back. And, no, I don't really think a cat did it, but at least makes more sense than suspects who can be proven to have been nowhere near London's East End on the nights of the murders.

Excuse me?

I stand for treating the case as history instead of fiction and/or wild, baseless speculation. I actively encourage and assist other researchers in finding new evidence and other potentially relevant information and present them as objectively as possible.

On top of that, I publish books for Ripper authors, round-aboutly contribute to the Casebook (though Stephen has turned down direct financial support when I've offered them), co-sponsored the recent UK conference, and stepped in with my own time and money to keep both Ripper Notes and the US conference going when the people who had been running them decided they needed a break. And I do all of that without expecting much of anything in return, which is lucky because it doesn't get me anything except an occasional thank you, not that others who contribute to the field get much more than that either.

So please don't try to sit there and pretend that Cornwell's attempt to buy herself a reputation as a crime historian has in any way has helped Ripperology... except occasionally in a completely accidental way, like when someone reads her book, realizes it's nonsense, and then goes looking for the real story.

This reads much better if you have the sound track of a violin playing behind you as you read it...give it a go

Has anyone seen the film amadeus?

...one hears such sounds and what can one say but Salliari....

[DVV]

Hi Pirate,
nice thought...
I think Mozart had some bad disease, but I can't remember whether it was in the anus, rectum or penis...
Got to email Patricia.

[anna]

A dark side to my answer...ohhhhhh.....perhaps I should start to write crime novels!
Ripperologist,Pirate Jack? Well,we dissect facts on a regular basis and generally speaking,I think it is fair to say of these boards,have some very informative discussions.
By the way,the clue is in the "ology"...like Biology,scientology(blindmy,let's scrap that one)cryptozoology....name gives you the clue that brainy people study the subject.
You do tend to stand up for her alone on these boards,I hope she appreciates your efforts.