Patricia Cornwell

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Stewart

"The handwriting of the two 'Ripper' letters bears no relation to Sickert's script."

How can Surgis state this if Peter Bower has not released his findings?..and to my knowledge no-one knows which two letters Bower is actually referring to?

Although, as clearly Bower States Gurney Ivory Laid, I dont suppose it beyond the world of possibility that someone has figured it out. If it was the case that Mattthew Sturgis had, surely he would have made his comments with reference to those specific letters?

Or perhaps Matthew Sturgis is making the general point that none of the letters bare any resemblance to Sickerts script, so by default neither can the two studied by Peter Bower bare any resemblance?

And I guess Patricia Cornwell's argument would be that Sickert was a master artist capable to discuising his hand writing in a number of differant ways...

You are hardly likely to write a letter to the authorities claiming to be Jack the Ripper and put it in a fully recognisable script/handwriting?

and as I said in my previous post, I'm not convinced that hand writing analysis is actually a science anyway?

"and the Sickert letters all date from late 1889 or Early 1890, well after the Ripper crimes."

Surely this is irrelevant? The only importance is to identify that the letters actually came from Walter Sickert, the content and timing can have little baring given the suggested time frame.

Yours Jeff

RE:..unmitigated venom that you yourself have displayed here.

What planet does this comment come from? I took issue with a number of comments you posted aimed at me personally. I have never directed any 'unmitigated' venom in your direction..indeed quite the contrary. My posts have consistently stated my admiration for you personally and your work...

That does not however make me a 'Yes Man' (not that I'm suggesting I'm in anybodies pay) and I stand by my claim that until we actually know the precise content of Peter Bowers 'Findings' any speculation given about it, regardless of its 'educated' opinion, is still basically guess work.

[Monty]

No worries

Stewart,

Yeah, Ive noticed.

Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

Not at all...

Stewart,

It seems you are spoiling for a dust up with me, I hope I am wrong.

If Ive offended you, I apologise.

Monty

Not at all, to either point above. Nothing to apologise for, I was merely being playful with you. There is only one person on this thread who has offended me.

[Monty]

Peace

Stewart,

It seems you are spoiling for a dust up with me, I hope I am wrong.

If Ive offended you, I apologise.

Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

Admission?

Stewart,

I think, having read the previous posts on this thread, my own post was mild.

Monty

Is that an admission that it was mischievous?

[Monty]

Stewart,

I think, having read the previous posts on this thread, my own post was mild.

Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

Right...

To test the water Stewart, and its rather cold.

Monty

Right, I am pleased to hear that it wasn't a mischievous comment.

[Monty]

To test the water Stewart, and its rather cold.

Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

So Why?

Just when you think its safe to go back in to the water....

Monty

So why dip your feet in then?

[Monty]

Just when you think its safe to go back in to the water....

Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

Read

Really Stewart? Just aswell I did then.
Let me make this clear, I have no argument with you or the information you provided throughout this thread. Many thanks.
However to make the claim that some of your comments were not personal is at best disingenuous..."I have been quoting what others have writen..cant you read?"
Clearly 'cant you read' that is how that comment was interpreted by myself.
Aside however, I am interested in your claims..ie piont ten, that hand writing analysis disproves Bowers findings..are you serious about this?
Do you know which letters Bower is refering too?
Yours Jeff

To intimate that I was not aware of the error made re- the watermarked letters is a nonsense as I have debated that point in the past and, indeed, the 'Openshaw letter' was in my possession for a long period of time and I pointed out then that it might even have a DNA trace of mine on it. Dan's error was actually pointed out by Paul Begg, you being his mouthpiece.

My comment 'Can't you read' to you was because you seemed to be under the impression that I was making statements about Peter Bower's conclusions myself when they were actually all points raised in the response to be found in the Sturgis book. And you are still doing it! The quote comes directly from the Sturgis book, page 640, - "The handwriting of the two 'Ripper' letters bears no relation to Sickert's script; and the Sickert letters all date from late 1889 or ealy 1890, well after the Ripper crimes." But if you had properly read my initial posting listing all the points you would have know that as I preceded it with the words "Shall we list the points he [Sturgis] makes..."

When you make the basic error of failing to read something properly it is hardly a 'personal attack' to ask you if you can read. And, of course, my responses have been mild when compared with the unmitigated venom that you yourself have displayed here. Again I recommend a re-reading of the earlier posts.

As regards the letters being used for comparison I suggest that you write to Matthew Sturgis and ask him which ones Bower is referring to as the quote is in his book.

I appreciate the time and effort it took to answer my questions Pirate, you were quite sincere as was my inquiry.

I shall step back from the fray now.

My great grandfather was Welsh, an old scrapper too...and he always told me when I was young to watch out getting hurt in a fracus. I thought it was a bone.

Best regards.

[Jeff Leahy]

I normally don't get involved in pointless debates such as this (it is much along 'diary' lines) and I merely posted an image of the Openshaw letter that Dan Norder mentioned (which I had posted in the past) and it was not my place to correct him about watermarks, which I was obviously fully aware of and was certain that someone else would leap in with the correction, which indeed they did.

Really Stewart? Just aswell I did then.

Let me make this clear, I have no argument with you or the information you provided throughout this thread. Many thanks.

However to make the claim that some of your comments were not personal is at best disingenuous..."I have been quoting what others have writen..cant you read?"

Clearly 'cant you read' that is how that comment was interpreted by myself.

Aside however, I am interested in your claims..ie piont ten, that hand writing analysis disproves Bowers findings..are you serious about this?

Do you know which letters Bower is refering too?

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Oh for God's sake, Jeff, get a grip.

My point about yes men had nothing to do with Keith Skinner, so if you jumped into this thread half-cocked in an attempt to defend his reputation you were just wasting everyone's time.

So you admit to your usually Dan Norder sweeping generalization? good.

As far as my claims against Professor Bower supposedly being outrageous and whatever else you invent up, my point about him providing conclusions not backed up by science to support Cornwell's favored theory has been documented quite overwhelmingly.

Well know it hasnt because Bower, as we are all agreed hasnt published anything yet. And I havnt invented anything, I've just pionted out the facts to you. And whose science are yuou refering to? All you have are sweeping generalizations, as always.

I explained why his claims can't be taken seriously, Stewart Evans provided additional information, and there's also the information provided in the book by Sturgis and the experts he found that directly demonstrate that Bower's claims are simply not supported. Trying to ignore all that with the strange claim that some phony baloney copyright claims means he can't publish the results so allegedly nobody can criticize him over what he has already said is just a desperate attempt to derail the conversation from the fact that his claims aren't taken seriously by the experts, just as I said, and as you wandered in blindly to try to fight about.

Derail the conversation? Shall we list the points he makes even with the caveat that 'Bower has not - as yet - published his findings in full.'

(I further note that even a full on case of severe dyslexia wouldn't explain your inability to describe the content of your own previous posts, let alone the posts of others, with any accuracy.)

I'm sorry? you have me here. What are you talking about?

And, of course, no amount of rationalization here can justify your over the top personal attacks on several different people on this thread, especially not when the only attempt at any justification you give is that you thought other people were being attacked. Even if we were to be quite generous and accept you at your own word, you'd be a major hypocrite for taking the very actions you claimed you were here to argue against. It's odd how you feel no qualms about attacking the integrity of authors and others who point out the errors of Cornwell, Bower and Begg while insisting that Bower and Begg could do no wrong and that to even suggest otherwise is a grievous attack on them.

No Dan, I have attacked only one person here..YOU. I have not attached the integrity of any other author, apart from Dan Norder..Fact. And trying to make a conection between Cornwell and Begg..again..is simply laughable..are you really that stupid? Do you work on a 'If I through enough mud some will stick theory?"

And dispite all this huffing and puffing..I still am rather curious about the eleven claims made against Peter Bower.

I say again..If Bower hasnt published his findings..

ie I dont know which letters he is refering to...

How can someone, anyone make the claim that the hand writing does not match Sickerts?

I mean I'm obviously the dunce around here that dosnt understand the arguements..but scientific evidence..against what?

and is Handwriting analysis, scientific evidence?

No obviously people who suffer from dyslexia cant grasp expert analysis can they

[Stewart P Evans]

Wasting My Time

I may be wasting my time in answering the various points raised in the tedious post above by 'Pirate Jack'. It amazes me how in Ripperworld honest criticism and dispute are regarded as 'personal attacks' and used in attempts to turn popular support to the poor maligned victim of such criticism.

Yes, I did state that people in a position to pay large sums to those who work for them do tend to attract "a certain following of 'yes people'." This is a statement of fact, it is true, and it really cannot be gainsaid. However it is not 'a hopeless generalisation' - it is a fact to be borne in mind when considering any employer such as Ms Cornwell. I am sure that she is aware of this fact of life herself and would not deny it. I am not saying, however, that it is the case here for I do not know. It is a caveat.

It was also pretty obvious that certain parts of replies I was receiving from 'Pirate Jack' were the work of Paul Begg and 'PJ' confirmed this. If I wanted to debate with Paul Begg I would contact him. If I debate with 'Pirate Jack' I don't expect to receive answers from Paul Begg.

I normally don't get involved in pointless debates such as this (it is much along 'diary' lines) and I merely posted an image of the Openshaw letter that Dan Norder mentioned (which I had posted in the past) and it was not my place to correct him about watermarks, which I was obviously fully aware of and was certain that someone else would leap in with the correction, which indeed they did.

As regards 'Pirate Jack's' weird idea of what a 'personal attack' is, I suggest he re-reads the earlier posts to see just who became abusive and made a totally uncalled for innuendo in a response to me. For my part I would never attack someone for a genuine disability and I haven't here. What I did respond to was ignorance and abuse of a high order. 'Pirate Jack' was also patently 'unable to understand the intricate nuances of this thread' otherwise why would he be seeking advice from his mentor, Paul Begg, and then be posting the answers of Paul Begg instead of words of his own?

I am now getting quite annoyed with all this and for those able to read between the lines I suggest that they 'give it a rest.' I personally don't care a damn who 'PJ' seeks 'expert advice' from and I'm glad that it isn't me as I am no expert anyway. We now see 'PJ' quoting PB yet again as saying "what Patricia Cornwell has reported that he [Peter Bower] claimed". Whatever is that supposed to mean? - did she not report accurately what Bower was claiming? Is there some sort of doubt? I am sure that Ms Cornwell's published words are accurate here.

Also a word here on experts and expert opinion. Any forensic expert is well used to appearing in court and giving evidence of opinion. He/she will also be well used to having that opinion questioned and challenged. Does that 'toss their credibilty in fundamental question'? No, of course it does not, it is par for the course for the expert witness.

As for Dan Norder's error earlier in this debate, it was an easy one to make as this is a complex subject and is argued on many fronts. It is human to err and very many do so on these boards, including the likes of me and Paul Begg. So whilst it is fine to correct Dan here and to accept the apology that he has given it is not fine to gloat and drag the point out ad infinitum. 'Pirate Jack' is like a dog with a bone and just won't let it drop, will he?

Finally I should like to thank Paul Begg, via 'Pirate Jack', for his gracious concession to us - "you are all free to discuss these eleven points in general terms if you wish", that must make everyone here feel a lot better when posting.