Patricia Cornwell

[anna]

Wish I could get him to buy the Patricia Cornwell book that I have on my bootstall at the moment....nobody wants it at 20p!!!!!!!

[DVV]

I want it!
But I'm poor like Jack.

[Ally]

[QUOTE=Pirate Jack;28212][QUOTE=Ally;28203][QUOTE=Pirate Jack;28050]

As I've said repeatedly, the very nature of Ripperology is accusing innocent people..its what you and I do every day...be it Druit, Maybrick, Chapman, Tumbelty..etc etc..take your pick theres enough suspects

Actually that' not what I do at all because I don't do suspect Ripperology. And it's not what anyone here does because not a single person that I know of on the Casebook has EVER invented false information to promote their suspect. So your attempt to equate Patricia Cornwell's fabrications, lies and inventions with business as usual in the Ripper world is a lie, a fabrication and quite frankly shows that you are of the same cloth that she is. Inventing "evidence" is NOT what we do here. So don't try the fake "argument" that it is.

Whats with the crocadile tears?

That' s what I was asking you. And you are noticeably not answering.


Glenn,

AP Wolf has long been proven to be a hypocrite on the whole subject. Who's really surprised?

[DVV]

Bonsoir Ally,
you're right, agreed all round, but why don't you take it easy?
It's nothing important. At last, may be something good will come out from Cornwell...
You certainly know more than me about ripperology. Remember: 1975: Don Rumbelow's book. One year after, Stephen Knight.
Nothing to compare, but both stimulated research...
And if all hypocrits had the talent of AP, well, maybe I will change my mind about hypocrits...
Wish you a sweet night,

Amitiés,
David (broken-English poster and bloody Corsican)

[Ally]

you're right, agreed all round, but why don't you take it easy?

No. Why don't you not make suggestions to people you don't know about how they ought to behave.


.....See how offensive it is for people to tell you how you ought to act or how you ought to post? Don't make condescending suggestions regarding my actions to me and I won't make them to you.

Kisses and hugs, mon ami.

[DVV]

No condescendance at all, Ally.
Sorry if you get this impression, maybe I have not enough english to express myself.
All this e-@-agressivity surprises me! I believe in smartness and I just sent you a mail that you may find very stupid.
Sorry, if so.
Amitiés,
DVV

[Ally]

Nope, got it and replied. I understood your email and agree with much of what you say.

Cheers and best wishes.

[Sasha]

In defense of Cornwell, her earlier fiction books (eg the Kay Scarpetta ones) were a very good read. But in the mid 1990s, these started to go down hill - at least in my opinion and then she wrote her JTR thesis. Not only was I surprised at her arrogance about allegedly closing the case (after many, better informed scholars had failed) but her "evidence", such as it was, was at best circumstancial but for the most part it was only speculative, lacking in any substance that would hold up now or even then. There may have been enough to question the man perhaps but not enough to make an arrest - in my view - and certainly not enough to convict the man. To make things worse, her thesis was poorly written. I found myself re-reading paragraphs several times in an attempt to work out what she was trying to say or prove but I still found myself struggling with what she deemed to be evidence of Sickett's guilt. Perhaps better editing would have held her "story" together better - but I doubt it. The only thing she has really achieved with this book, in my mind, is to exonerate Sickett. So I suppose that's something. Someone to cross off your list - if he had made it there in the first place. Obviously, this is just my view of the book but from the sounds of other bloggers, my view is not unique.

Sasha

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

[Glenn,

AP Wolf has long been proven to be a hypocrite on the whole subject. Who's really surprised?

True indeed. Fair point.
But I just couldn't let that one pass anyway. You know me.

All the best

[Suzi]

I want it!
But I'm poor like Jack.

If you're THAT desparate David!! I'm prepared to put it in a jiffy bag and mail it to you for a read .......... (The book!)

[Jeff Leahy]

[QUOTE=Ally;28231][QUOTE=Pirate Jack;28212][QUOTE=Ally;28203]

Actually that' not what I do at all because I don't do suspect Ripperology. And it's not what anyone here does because not a single person that I know of on the Casebook has EVER invented false information to promote their suspect. So your attempt to equate Patricia Cornwell's fabrications, lies and inventions with business as usual in the Ripper world is a lie, a fabrication and quite frankly shows that you are of the same cloth that she is. Inventing "evidence" is NOT what we do here. So don't try the fake "argument" that it is.

The Queen of mean?

No the Queen of weaseled words and Hyperbole.

So Ally has never accused an innocent Ripper suspect in her life?

Ally, unlike Patricia Cornwall is squeaky clean and never told a Porky in her life. Yet simple reference to the Suspect thread, look at the first suspect in line. Open the one marked ALLY..and what do we get? And I Quote:

ALLY
Here is my take on Barnett:
Joseph Barnett was in love with Mary Kelly and did not want her working the streets. He felt he should be the one to support them. When he lost his job in June 1888, Mary took to the streets. I think he started killing prostitutes in an effort to scare Mary off the streets. I believe the mutilations got worse and worse with every failed attempt at keeping Mary off the streets. Once he realized that Mary didn’t return his feelings and would not stop prostituting herself, he killed her mad with anger.

So Patricia Cornwall. Who at least has a suspect on which there may be (however unlikely) some evidence against…is an evil liar who fabricates evidence against the innocent..

While ALLY is perfectly entitled To Slander a completely innocent man against whom there is no evidence what so ever.
Poor old Joe Barrnet, who can not defend himself, never did any wrong, tried to help Mary Kelly and I believe sincerely loved her..

Poor old Joe Barnet who never wrote any letters and never acted as a brutal misogynist.

Yet that’s OK is it Ally? Or perhaps you’ll just claim you didnt write this you were simply re-posting the thread, not that anybody on casebook has ever accused an innocent man of being Jack the Ripper..
In Fact I cant think who is worse. Patricia who at least totally believes Sickert is the Ripper and is trying to prove her case.

Or a person who knows that Joe Barnet is completely innocent of the crime yet is still implicit in making wild, fabricated and unjustified accusation against an innocent man..Poor Little Joe who never hurt a fly..Why would you do this ALLY if you know Joe is innocent? Why would you try and frame him for something he obviously has not done?

Sickert didn’t do it Ally..Joe Didn’t do it either..

If I was giving odds however Sickert would (and Has) come above Joe in may top ten list of suspects…

Are you still claiming you have never made or been involved with someone who has accused an innocent man?

Cause you look to me as guilty as a puppy by a pile of pooh.

[Ben]

Hi PirateJack,

The Barnett post you quoted was originally written by someone called Bobaas1.

Surely you don't really believe that Sickert is a better suspect than Barnett?

[Dan Norder]

Or perhaps you’ll just claim you didnt write this you were simply re-posting the thread

She didn't write that. She just reposted it. There are tons of threads here reposted from earlier messages, and the fact that someone reposted it certainly in no way means that the person who did so agreed with the opinions that someone posted earlier.

Considering that you put that line in your message about her reposting the thread after attacking her over words she did not say, it's clear that you knew she didn't say them and attacked her for them anyway.

If you are supposedly against misleading people and libeling them and so forth, again, why is it that you are the only one engaging in such behavior here? Every action you've taken has been in complete disagreement with the principles you said you were here to defend. It's clear that you are only interesting in rabidly defending some authors who, no doubt, wouldn't want to be associated with you in anyway if they saw what you are up to.

[anna]

Notice to potential customers.

Hi all,
I have noticed that there has been interest shown on the Pat Cornwell book that I have on sale on my bootstall tomorrow(wether permitting) for 20p!
My answer is..you can't have it!
Ive now polished the cover with the "vague picture" on it,and placed a large note on the front saying..."Chick Lit"...well,....I'm not lying,she's female and a writer.....so I think it'll sell.There is of course,the possibility that I shall have to reduce the price to 15p,because of the credit crunch,but we'll see.
Anna.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi PirateJack,

The Barnett post you quoted was originally written by someone called Bobaas1.

Surely you don't really believe that Sickert is a better suspect than Barnett?

Yes I do think Sickert is a better suspect than Barnet. To be honest I think Gull is a better Suspect than Barnett..

Barnett is clearly inocent and there is no evidence what so ever on Barnett..

I guess Barnett beats Maybrick