Patricia Cornwell

[Dan Norder]

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.

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. 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.

Furthermore, Stewart did not make fun of your alleged disability. He just pointed out, as others have, that your dyslexia has a tendency to disappear completely in some of your posts... when you are simply copying and pasting what others have typed up for you to say but which they themselves are too cowardly to post themselves. (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.)

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.

[Jenni Shelden]

Jeff,

its not that I dislike Ms Cornwell - I've never met the woman - Im sure she means well. I actually look forward to the newly researched edition of her book that is due out soon, because i think it will be quite interesting.

Sometimes we all forget everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I have no reason to question Peter Bower's findings - maybe thogh they have been misinterpreted. And of course then again, I am not a forensic document examiner.

I think people are taking things on this thread far too seriously. Much of what I have posted has been tongue in check. I don't think Ms Cornwell needs defendeing because i hope her new edition will redress the balance and look forward to it and its publicity as i said with baited breath. That's just me I guess...

Jenni

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Michael

Sorry for the delay in replying to your question. i realise that this thread is quite a long thread and may appear confusing to some people...and I refer you back to our original posts on page 2 of the general discussion, which were at that point quite cordial, informative, and might, I add, hopefully well
mannered.

"Ive stayed out of this since early on because I could see that you had some agenda with this area of discussion. I can see by the resulting pages that you do, but I admit I cant figure the core here."

Believe it or Not, the core of that agenda was simply sticking up for someone I have alot of respect for and I'd had a drink with at that time. ie Keith Skinner. I have no particular interest in Patricia Cornwell,
apart from the fact that I read her book a few years ago 2003 and attended a lecture at the Tate Gallery given by Peter Bower, Paul Begg, Mattew
Sturgis, and Dr Anna Gruuetzner Robins. At which time I had the privilege of speaking to Peter Bower for some time about his discoveries, and at that point formed the opinion that there might be something of a connection between Sickert and the letters (though I have never been of the opinion that Sickert was JtR). and dont know fore-sure Bower is correct.

My interest at that time was I was working on a series proposal on Hoax and Forged documents (Salamanda, Maybrick, Casement, Vinland, Voynich and Protocols EZ) So I was talking to a number of experts in that area/
Field. In fact I even remember being introduced to Caz on that evening so she may recall the conversation? However dont ever remember supporting Patricia Cornwalls book/theory, to the contrary.

However, the opening question to this thread was not only 'loaded', but a simple invitation to take the 'piss'. And I think that's somewhat unfair, perhaps even the language of play ground 'bullying'

At times the general level of this debate was like a Newman and Baddeil comedy sketch were two learn-ed professors discuss history:

" See that pile of cornball that dog did..that is you that is..." "see that... thats your theory"

(actually Glenn does look a little like Newman? only kidding )

Pretty obvious stuff, and based on arguments I believe I confirmed as dating back years ago when the book 'Pof a S K' was originally released...hardly the latest Internet update on the subject.

As I had been talking about this subject at that time with Keith Skinner and other well known Ripperologists. My perception was that Patricia
Cornwell had actually 'back tracked' from some of her claims and had employed a serious Ripperologist to do some serious research...surely addressing some of the criticism laid by 'ripperologists' at her door.

To my legal knowledge (Which is largely TV based) you can't employ a researcher and put in there contract they have to 'Lie" for you. Its not possible and it wouldnt stand up in court. It might even be an infringement of their human rights, here in Europe, to make them sign such a document.

"Do you have some relationship to this author, or to this authors marketing plans, some relationship to a suggestion that Sickert wrote some Ripper letters, or is this just standing up for a complete stranger with no other motives than clearing her name in this field of study."

Let me make this absolutely clear. NO on both accounts. i am simply a ripperologist with an interest in the Truth rather than mythology. If she's proved wrong then I will be with everyone else, with regards to her work (but not the personal attacks).

"I am curious since you have been hostile towards almost every poster, including the worlds leading authority on the Ripper crimes. Who I may say posted a fine explanation of his position, and not in a way to disparage anyone".

I'm sorry if I have at any time appeared hostile to you or any other poster on casebook (apart from Dan Norder). I do admit that i get rather hot under the collar when I feel that I am being attacked for my disability (dyslexia/word blindness). I beleive that my record on casebook for good manners is relatively good and I understand that my sense of humour (based from my Blackadder background) may appear at times, rather 'Strange', especially to the non-Brits.

If I'm concluding that your reference to: 'the worlds leading authority' is reference to Stewart Evens, which I'm sure he would not claim himself,

"who I may say posted a fine explanation of his position", I dont believe that at any point, I disagreed with any of Stewart Evans factual references, on the contrary, my objection was only to his personal attacks on my character and his assertion that i dont understand the finer points being discussed?. When quite clearly I had....

Dan Norder had attacked me with regard to Patricia Cornawall's " YES " men on the fourth part of this thread..which is largely what this disagreement was about: Thats because the people I have met connected to Patricia Cornwell dont appear to be 'Yes' men (ie Keith Skinner and Peter Bower). I have never met anyone else working for PC so I can not comment,
clearly Stewart suggested that people working for people 'in Power' can be 'yes men', I just felt that this was a hopeless generalisation, and that I could
only deal with 'my personal experience in this matter' not generalisations (although I except there may be some historical president towards 'yes men' working for people in power, but I dont think we can 'tar and feather' every expert who ever got paid for doing a job with that brush...other wise I'd be out of a job.

My Upset with Stewart Evans had absolutely nothing to do with the factual information he provided on this thread, which was, as always, up to his masterful standards..

I'm not certain about you or other posters but my TV/journalistic background, has installed into me, CHECK YOUR SOURCE, DOUBLE CHECK YOUR SOURCE, before printing a Story. And when I did my broadcasting
Degree our tutors still believed in Reithian ethic. So giving both sides of a story and getting two contrasting experts...well to me this is all Good
TV...and that's what i do..I've never claimed to be a historian or researcher (well by hobby a little). My logic was that I was proving balanced opinion...thats all.

The fact is that Dan Made a mistake..nobody except me appeared to notice...I therefore, as a I clearly posted, sort clarification on a number of points raised by Dan Norder, who quite clearly, reading back on this thread, also made a series of personal attacks against me. I was attacked from three fronts by the Norder Gang.

I beleived Dan Norder was mistaken in his claims about Peter Bower,I drove to London, and asked Paul Begg's advice, which he gave...(You may not like Patricia, jenni..but hopefully you will confirm that I appeared in London that evening, had dinner and drove Paul home)

Quite clearly that advice was correct (As proved on this thread), which is why I have been quite exasperated with some of the response I was given to
that factual information, which then appears to have been outrageously spread to another thread and a personal attack against Paul Beggs book ('so go figure' as you Americans would say).

Paul simply told me that Peter Bower has never published his findings, thought due to copyright problems. He also informed me that he had written
information for a book by M. Sturgis, who had questioned Peter Bowers findings, and gave some details... As far as I'm aware all the information
Paul Begg provided proved correct. Its that simple really.... and I quote:

"Sturgis acknowledged that Bower’s workings ‘need to be properly scrutinised", which they haven’t been because Bower hasn’t published. Why Bower hasn’t published is not known, but is believed to have something to do with copyright... But nobody is saying that we can’t discuss and draw conclusions from what is already known, so I’m personally in full and total
agreement with Stewart that we can debate what Cornwell and Sturgis have already published"

I therefore never had any problems with Stewarts position until he started laying into my 'word blindness' disability. And REMEMBER that despite
Stewarts personal criticism of me, he clearly hadnt noticed Dan Norders error when he posted the Open Shaw letter on thread No16. So who didnt understand what about this topic? However I quote:

"You are paddling in deep waters Jeff and I hope that you have your water wings with you - there is always a danger of drowning". "Please do not presume to tell me what Ripperology is all about"."Jeff, you are a nice
guy but there are times when you really don't do yourself any favours". "As far as your 'beef' with Dan Norder, well that is none of my business. But when you make comments such as you have to me, joking or not,
then you will upset me. As a police officer my integrity was never questioned and I have a long service and good conduct medal, a certificate of merit and a retirement certificate that states my conduct
was exemplary." "So, if the 'Cornwell camp' aren't happy about Bower's findings being questioned (as you seem not to be)""Anyway prior to your eminence grise appearing you didn't really KNOW OR UNDERSTAND much
about this anyway - did you? A mere glance back over your past disjointed posts reveals that fact. I actually have no mind to indulge in vicarious debates so I shall keep this short." "I have not been guessing, I have been quoting what others have written - CANT YOU READ? I have never claimed to have first-hand knowledge nor expertise in this area. So please adhere to the fact of the matter." "my advice to you is don't get involved in COMPLEX arguments until you are competent enough to conduct them off your own bat". "Yes, what you have posted really does not impress me at all and you do need to take a close look at your manners. Perhaps a cold shower might
help, or a little THOUGHT before posting."

So let me make this clear to everyone " I have a word blindness disability" which means that I can not see 'letter errors' when I view, what I have written back. I check my posts constantly..I can even see these mistakes when I view them back at a later date..I find it extremely frustrating that I can not express myself properly in written form..I apologise...I therefore
have several different types of posts I create on casebook.

A. replies (quick responces).
B. Replies through TEXT (which I do spell check)
C. Posts with external check (spell checks dont always
help someone with my disability)
D. Essay posts (posts like this one were I have taken
sometime to check spelling and meaning, and
references/quotes before publication. (but it is to
time consuming for everyday use)

In short if i published something as i had written it,
it would be almost illegible to you.

But yes Stewart clearly I can read.

Unfortunately much to my personal shame these errors are becoming increasingly worse over the past two years and I'm not certain that there is any medical help that can help or deal with this problem.

If I was in a wheel chair or had hearing problems, perhaps my disability would be more obvious..however my brain is simply wired differently to your brain. thought processes travel through different parts of my
brain...words get jumbled up when I write or Type them.

So I admit much of Stewart Evans criticism is true, however, his claims that i am unable to understand the intricate nuances of this thread are, like him, in Factual error. In fact people suffering from Dyslexia/word blindness have a very good understanding of the 'Bigger Picture" their brains are wired to
actually deal better with large creative ideas than smaller detail thoughts such as spelling.

So if Stewart Evens believes that because I seek expert opinion other than his own and that I have difficulty expressing that information in written
form, that I am in anyway unable to use a bat..then I challenge him to a game to "Cricket". I may not be as young as I once was but I can still hit the odd metaphorical six when required.

The simple fact of this thread is that Dan Norder made a series of outragious claims that he has been unable to substantiate. I have simply called those claims into dispute..and I believe the information I provided
to demonstrate that was correct..FACT.

That is all Michael. Its very simple.

Dan Norder, I quote:

‘Yes, Peter and Sally Bower are yes-people, in that they were hired guns given money by Cornwell with the expectation of coming up with answers specifically intended to support Cornwell's case instead of performing adequate research under scientific double blind procedures and so forth. The kind of conclusions they reached about the letters are simply ridiculous,
and not at all supported by anyone else. The difference there being that these other people are not on Cornwell's payroll. That should say something to you.’

Anyone can question what Peter Bower has claimed (or, perhaps to be more precise, as Paul would say, what Patricia Cornwell has reported that he claimed), but that is very different from claiming that Peter and Sally Bower, knowingly and wittingly provided evidence, that they knew Patricia Cornwell wanted in return for the money that she paid them. THAT is a
very serious accusation and one that, if true, tosses Peter Bower’s credibility in fundamental question.

And when asked to provide the evidence upon which this outrageous claim of dishonesty was based, Norder replied:

‘Let's just go with Bower's most important claim’

and he proceeded to argue that Bower’s claim that some Sickert and Ripper letters came from the same batch of 24-sheets was a load of TOSH. He asserted that Bower was so inept that he did not realise that the
watermarks showed that the paper had been manufactured a year apart.

I demonstrated that the watermarks posted were the wrong water marks. Fact.

Dan Norder wanted people to think that his error was simply misleading, causing some specific details to be confused, but his claims are far more serious than that.

I demonstrated, Dan Norder’s misunderstanding led him to accuse Peter Bower of "extraordinary ineptitude", and this in turn was part of the evidence on which he further accused Peter Bower of being a ‘yes-man’ who
took money to produce the results Patricia Cornwell wanted.

But as I have clearly shown, Dan Norder was wrong, very badly wrong, and Peter Bower was not guilty of the ineptitude Dan Norder had accused him of and we are still awaiting the evidence on which Norder accuses Peter and Sally Bower of taking money to produce the results Patricia Cornwell paid them to produce and that their research was inadequate and not performed
to acceptable standards. Which he obviously can not produce because as Stewart Evans has pointed out..Bower has not - as yet - published his findings in full.

Just to remind every body (cheers Paul), Matthew Sturgis says of Peter Bower:

"is a respected paper historian’ with an ‘extensive knowledge of paper manufacture’ . He’s a ‘registered ‘expert witness’’, used by the police to authenticate drawings and documents, and employed for the same
purpose by the Tate Gallery, where incidentally I met both Peter Bower and Matthew sturgis ( I must admit I only really remember talking to Peter Bower and some lady called Caz in the pub afterwards)

Is it likely that Petr Bower, knowing that his conclusions will be scrutinised very closely, would have intentionally taken money from Patricia Cornwell
to produce conclusions which he knew to be wrong and which he knows could ruin his career?

That, Michael, dosnt seem very likely to me? But I’m NOT saying that Peter Bower is correct, or even arguing that he could be correct, but, as Matthew
Sturgis states, ‘Bower is very confident in his assertions, and certainly they are not to be dismissed lightly.’

It seems to me that Dan Norder had dismissed them lightly and he’s being asked for substantiation that Peter Bower is a ‘yes-man.’ Because I can't see any evidence for that.

Lets remember stewert Evans Caveat: Shall we list the points he makes even with the caveat that 'Bower has not - as yet - published his findings in full.' (i think we are in agreement here)

Which does sound to me a little like adding the caveat: can I have my cake and eat it? Or in other words, lots of experts find Peter Bowers claims
'surprising', however they can not make specific claims against Peter Bowers work because non of them have actually seen it.

Although as Paul Begg points out you are all free to discuss these eleven points in general terms if you wish, fore that is what we are dealing with 'educated' guess work, is it not?

Some of these eleven even seem to be creating more
problems than they solve:

Q.10. The handwriting of the two compared 'Ripper letters' looks nothing like Sickert's handwriting.

If we havn't actually seen which letters Bower has studied how can we know this or can any body claim it? Besides are you making the claim that hand writing analysis is a science? I've looked into this with some detail and I dont believe that it is?

However I guess that its possible that Stewart has actually worked out which two letters we are actually talking about here, and done his own hand writing analysis, so perhaps he would like to enlighten us?

Caz adds: I don't know why Jeff thinks he would not have been free to say so. It would have done wonders for his case and Cornwell's cause.

As i've stated: I believe that the letters Bower studied in America were subject to copyright restriction, this restriction was about to be lifted
(2yrs) so my guess is that the new book will be timed for that restriction being lifted. But that is a complete guess on Jeff's part, I dont claim to know.

My point all along Michael has been very simple:

Lets wait for the facts to be published, so that they can be studied and judged properly.

That Peter Bower should be judged on his work and without personal and unsubstantiated attacks to his character.

That Patricia Cornwell should be given a chance to present her Ripper theory in the same way that any other Ripperologist should be aloud to present their 'Ripper Theory.', free from personal attack.

I understand that this concept may appear strange in the USA, however for those of us educated in a Reithian sense of fair play and balanced opinion (ie
born in the sound of BBC television) I think we can at least listen to what Patricaia has to say and pass informed comment and criticism.

Bugger that was a long post..

Yours Jeff

[Jenni Shelden]

Caroline,

i think we are far beyond any point whereby i would expect you to profess understanding anything i say by now arent we?

So dont worry, blue dadda de dadda do dadda de dadda doo

Love as always

Jenni

[caz]

Hi Jenni,

Could I ask who or what you were actually addressing in your post? You began as if you were addressing the wish I expressed in the final sentence of my post (which I would love to come true, and expect it will one day). But the rest became a complete non sequitur as far as I could make out, especially this bit of sarcasm which didn't seem to make any sense in the context of the latest posts:

i am glad we have cleared this up and now we can get on with our lives whilst avoiding ever returning to this nonsense.

So I'm more than a bit confused, although it wouldn't be the first time.

Love,

Caz
X

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all in this discussion!

I just couldn't help making an analogy with Pete Best and our Pats... Ooh, sorry, Patricia Cornwell!

What, a former Beatle-drummer and a detective-story writer/self-claimed ripperologist?!

I think they have the same thing in common;

if they would admit some hard-boiled facts about their claims, they would make themselves non-convincing...


All the best
Jukka

[Jenni Shelden]

Be careful what you wish for - it might come true.

anyway, Patricia Cornwell is a dear lady who never did anything wrong ever, and her books are a teastament to how good she is at everything she has ever done concerning jack the ripper and she has admitted to all her mistakes publically and corrected them because her book is about a famous dead man who did nothing wrong and she is an angel. And it would only be because we were homophobic woman haters that we might even be vaguely inclined to say otherwise

And Peter Bower is a god among men

i am glad we have cleared this up and now we can get on with our lives whilst avoiding ever returning to this nonsense.
Because no one ever has had any agenda in ripperology

Jenni

[caz]

It's certainly possible. I was honestly surprised that she even bothered to hire Keith Skinner to do any fact checking based upon her previous history. I do consider that to be a great step forward, and I've said as much on these boards in the past and at the Whitechapel Society meeting I was at last October. But it's certainly not enough to undo all of her past actions yet, especially not when we have yet to know what the end result will be. I doubt she has him trying to find evidence proving beyond a shadow of a doubt he was in France on the night of a key Ripper murder.

Hi Dan,

To be fair, she shouldn’t have him doing that, any more than she should have him trying to find evidence proving beyond a shadow of a doubt he was not in France on any of the murder nights. Researchers, paid or otherwise, should ideally be totally free - nay, actively encouraged - to go where the evidence takes them, wherever that may turn out to be. They shouldn’t be trying to prove or disprove someone's hunches. Nor should they be expected to ignore any evidence that leads in directions that may be unpalatable to people with other ideas.

If, in the course of the research, Sickert’s precise whereabouts were to be established, making it physically impossible for him to have been murdering unfortunates or posting certain ripper letters on the relevant dates, I can’t see Keith being contract-bound, duty-bound, or even egg-bound , to keep quiet if Cornwell were to carry on with her claims regardless.

Yes, I know what Sturgis says. Shall we list the points he makes even with the caveat that 'Bower has not - as yet - published his findings in full.'

1. The brands used for both Sickert's and the 'Ripper' letters were common enough.

2. His [Bower's] claims, however, tend to raise rather more questions than they answer.

3. That all these sheets [Gurney Ivory Laid] should have been trimmed down with the same guillotine blade seems scarcely surprising as they were all produced by the same small manufacturer.

4. Regarding the 'cut pattern' of the guillotine blade any variance from uniformity can only have been within a relatively narrow span - five degrees of error perhaps, maybe ten?

5. Without the evidence of the whole batch it is simply impossible to tell.

6. There would not though, surely, have been [3,000 to] 4,480 [the number of quires] different positions of blade and paper. Neither each cut nor each quire would have been unique, as Bower seems to assert.

7. 'Most would have been pretty much the same. And given the difficulties involved in micro-measuring a friable organic material such as 100-year-old paper, it is legitimate to wonder just how accurately it is possible to measure even the limited differences that did occur.'

8. 'Other forensic examiners remain sceptical of his very emphatic conclusions.'

9. 'Kim Hughes of Documentary Evidence Ltd, discussing the case in general terms, felt that it would be very difficult for any expert to go beyond a statement that separate sheets of paper came from the same batch and had been cut by the same blade. Allowing for the division of the batch into quires, such a finding would leave the chance of direct connection between Sickert's 'Gurney Ivory Laid' letters and those in the PRO [Ripper letters] at around 1 in 3,000: a very long way from Bower's assurance of an exact match.'

10. The handwriting of the two compared 'Ripper letters' looks nothing like Sickert's handwriting.

11. The Sickert letters date to late 1889 or early 1890.

Hi Stewart,

Many thanks for this. It certainly helps to confirm my own impressions from the Tate, where I listened to Bower’s claims and then heard the objections from the floor. I came away with more questions than answers as to how he managed to narrow the letters down so finely. If he had many more sheets from the same batch for comparison purposes, and could demonstrate that the cut edge of each set of 24 sheets was measurably different from that of every other set of 24, I don't know why Jeff thinks he would not have been free to say so. It would have done wonders for his case and Cornwell's cause.

Failing that, Bower could presumably have conducted experiments of his own using a guillotine, to ascertain whether or not the cut edges of one small set of sheets could be readily distinguished from the next.

I’m always wary of experts who reach a ‘very emphatic’ conclusion without caveats, and without explaining to us non-scientists, in simple terms, what measures they took to rule out anything that could invalidate it. So I too remain to be convinced that Sickert was responsible for a single ripper missive.

I'd also love to see a time line which includes the dates of Sickert's known whereabouts and the posting details of every ripper letter Cornwell claims he sent.

Love,

Caz
X

Jeff,

Ive stayed out of this since early on because I could see that you had some agenda with this area of discussion. I can see by the resulting pages that you do, but I admit I cant figure the core here.

Do you have some relationship to this author, or to this authors marketing plans, some relationship to a suggestion that Sickert wrote some Ripper letters, or is this just standing up for a complete stranger with no other motives than clearing her name in this field of study.

I am curious since you have been hostile towards almost every poster, including the worlds leading authority on the Ripper crimes. Who I may say posted a fine explanation of his position, and not in a way to disparage anyone.

Im not challenging you, just wondering if you felt like addressing your motives.

Regards.

[Christine]

I certainly don't think she's a psychomaniac...I'm not even sure what that means. I do think she's rather proud of herself, perhaps even to the point of narcissism. I think perhaps you have to be a bit over the top to be a successful writer. It takes a lot to get started, and now that she's made it, she gets a lot of people telling her how amazing she is and how profound are her insights into murders and murderers.

I was looking at the "Abberline in the Movies" thread and it was noted how many crummy Ripper movies have been made on the royal conspiracy theory. As plot lines go, I have never been that impressed by the royal conspiracy. Sure, it's got old Queen Vicky, and she's always good for a laugh. And everybody loves a secret message in a picture.

But it's got too many characters, the victims are not sympathetic (Why blackmail Eddy? I thought he was their friend? Why not help Annie if they have some power over Eddy?), the plot is incredibly convoluted and hard to follow, there are about a million places where you find yourself saying "JUST LEAVE TOWN YOU IDIOT!" or one of many other easy solutions, and it takes an awful lot of disbelief to believe that the Masons casually put on their aprons and kill and mutilate just to summon up Jah-bel-on. And ANY plot that needs a psychic revelation, no matter how obtuse or indirect the author makes it, should be hung by the neck until dead.

And of course there are many lesser problems.

Cornwell's mistake, as I see it, is to see this whole thing as a plot, not as a true crime. If she were writing this story, you can bet that the oddball painter would turn out to be the one whodunit. He'd manage to disguise his handwriting and post all those cool letters, and he'd leave not only clues, but DNA on his painting, and some would-be collector would test it without his permission. He'd have a malformed penis, not an ordinary ucky anal fistula. And finally the lady cop would buy some dignity for the homeless streetwalkers at last.

Whatever else you say about it, I think it would make a better movie than From Hell.

[dazz78]

Oh, ok, my mistake then on that part.

[Jeff Leahy]

Plus the fact she bought up some of his paintings and then cut them up.

No she did not. This is simply a myth. One of the paintings she bought was damaged in transportation...she made an insurance claim...she was hardly likely to have caused that damage herself and made that claim...it would be fraud.

Jeff

[dazz78]

The problem with Cornwell wasn't much so the book itself, though it was a load of cobblers in my humble opnion, but the BBC documnetary (think it was the BBC) that was made to help promote it, or was made shortly after it. The hatred for that man that she spewed was alarming.

Especially at the very end as she is watching a projection of the aged Sickert with children and family gathered around him and she is sitting there in a darkened room shaking her head in disgust. Its a classic example of 'lucky the dead can't sue!'

Plus the fact she bought up some of his paintings and then cut them up.

[Dan Norder]

"Psychomaniac" is overly harsh, but otherwise, yeah, definitely A.

[anna]

I vote........A......also.