Patricia Cornwell

[Jeff Leahy]

If you were aware of what I said, you'd be aware I never said she committed fraud so your straw man attempt to throw up the Oxford definition of fraud as if it anyway applied to anything I had complained is as deceitful and as blatant an attempt to manipulate truth for a dishonest purpose as Cornwell's attacks on Sickert.

At last....

I wont expect an appology. I didnt get one from Norder, I dont expect it from you, though of course YOU expect one from Patricia Cornwall..

Obviously you have nothing of any real substance to back up your wild and unsubstanciated claims...

Patricia book of course doesn't contain any lies or fraudulant information.

What she does is what we are all guilty of at times, all of us..

We are selective with the truth..which is a very diffferent thing from fraud.

We present the FACTS that suite our version of the truth.

And what is the Truth? we can all sleep on that one.

However to answer your question why am I supporting Patricia Cornwall the answer is very simple.,.I'm not a historian, I did my degree in Broadcasting. And when I attended college many years ago..my tutors came from a BBC Reithian background..

My training was always to see both sides of the arguement and find a middle way..yes I have been a lone vioce in support of Patricia..but at least your getting ballanced opinion not the ravings of Ally and Norder alone..

I beleive that is 2 v 0 in football terms..

Pirate

PS A wise choice there, I thought Ally, well done.

[Jeff Leahy]

Oh and Jeffy,

If this is all some pathetic and desperate attempt to get Patsy to take notice of your heroic defense of her to hopefully get her in your documentary, I will be the first to go on record and say, that if Patsy actually considers your lying, and fabricating information in your lame attempts to defend her is something she considers worthy of rewarding, she'll definitely lose any hope of being redeemed in my eyes.

It'll just be further proof that she values liars and believes that dishonest means and people are a valid tool.

But I can't really believe she'd appreciate you dredging up all this and having her "defenders" look to be as deceitful as she is accused of being. It doesn't help her case.

P.S. oh and you are a moron Jeff. Do you really think anyone who was recovering threads actually read every post they were attempting to recover from every thread and vetted it. Your pathetic attempt to whitewash your despicable actions is lame, and I doubt there's anyone who can't see through it. And that "horrible" passage you say I am so guilty for reposting, take note Jeffy. Every single sentence qualified with the posters OPINION. "I think" "I believe" "In my opinion" not a single assertion of fact like "Psychopaths like Sickert". So even if I am to be held accountable for the posts of others, a truly pathetic argument that I can't believe you are desperate enough to consider, I still win, because it was clearly expressed as opinion and therefore not a lie, or a deceitful misrepresentation of fiction as fact.

What are you raving about? cool down and go get some sleep...

[Ally]

Are you drunk or just severely mentally deficient? You claim I accused Patsy of fraud ( a lie) and then when I point out that's not what I said, you claim it as a victory for which an apology should be forthcoming? It would be amusing if you weren't so pathetic.


hey everyone here's how to have an argument Leahy style!

Leahy: Prove Cornwell committed fraud!
Everyone: We never said she committed fraud...
Leahy: So you admit you were wrong and there was no Fraud! I win!

Drunk or mental? You decide!

[Jeff Leahy]

Are you drunk or just severely mentally deficient? You claim I accused Patsy of fraud ( a lie) and then when I point out that's not what I said, you claim it as a victory for which an apology should be forthcoming? It would be amusing if you weren't so pathetic.


hey everyone here's how to have an argument Leahy style!

Leahy: Prove Cornwell committed fraud!
Everyone: We never said she committed fraud...
Leahy: So you admit you were wrong and there was no Fraud! I win!

Drunk or mental? You decide!

Go to bed!

[Magpie]

Just a passing comment.

Patricia Cornwell may well not have lied in her book, but she most definately lied about her book.

On her website and in interview after interview (print and television) prior to the book's release, she claimed that she had DNA evidence and that said DNA evidence supported her identification of Sickert as the Ripper.

When the book comes out, lo and behold she is forced to admit that the DNA evidence that pointed directly at Sickert was non-existent, and the best she had was mitochrondrial DNA, which at best includes Sickert in a suspect pool of tens of thousands.

And as for blatant hypocrisy, the book contains that in spades!

[Sasha]

Just a passing comment.

Patricia Cornwell may well not have lied in her book, but she most definately lied about her book.

On her website and in interview after interview (print and television) prior to the book's release, she claimed that she had DNA evidence and that said DNA evidence supported her identification of Sickert as the Ripper.

When the book comes out, lo and behold she is forced to admit that the DNA evidence that pointed directly at Sickert was non-existent, and the best she had was mitochrondrial DNA, which at best includes Sickert in a suspect pool of tens of thousands.

And as for blatant hypocrisy, the book contains that in spades!

I could be wrong here but my understanding of the mitochrondrial DNA is that there was no proof that it belonged to Sickett - just that it may have. Seems pretty weak to me.

Sasha

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Sasha!

I'd like to point out, that even Sickert's DNA had been connected to the letters, it wouldn't prove anything.

Like our friend, Glenn Andersson, said: no-one knows, which letters were written by Jack himself, if any!

All the best
Jukka

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Glenn I'm not trying to defend Patricia Cornwall's book...we are all aware of how many errors it contains..and her shameless use of providing selective facts to prove her case..which is what she does..and which many other ripper authors have also done..and lets be honest a large number of posters (actually interest in who JtR was), have also done.

However this is a totally different acusation from claiming that Patricia Cornwall has committed Fraud.

Please bear in mind that this is a public notice board and the world has ears.

That's why I said 'fraud not in the legal sense...'.
You can perform other types of fraud than those that are criminal in the court of law.
You must remember that the difference between Patsy's methods and others' is that she claimed to have solved it by providing scientific evidence. Once you use the word science - and don't live up to it - you are immediately subjected to another type of scrutiny and it is expected that you can live up to that in the quality of the evidence as well as being objective in your research. Cornwell fails in all that. This would be clear to you if you were a historian and not a broadcaster.

But I think what annoys most people is her arrogance IN SPITE of knowing very little about the case. If she had done her basic homework she would have known - as every six year old does - that none of the letters have been proven likely to come from the killer, and therefore are useless as evidence. The fact that she never have seen to understood this very simple problem is frustrating to say the least.

All the best

[Sasha]

Hello Sasha!

I'd like to point out, that even Sickert's DNA had been connected to the letters, it wouldn't prove anything.

Like our friend, Glenn Andersson, said: no-one knows, which letters were written by Jack himself, if any!

All the best
Jukka

Thanks Jukka. That's my view as well.

Best wishes.
Sasha

[Jeff Leahy]

That's why I said 'fraud not in the legal sense...'.
But I think what annoys most people is her arrogance IN SPITE of knowing very little about the case. If she had done her basic homework she would have known - as every six year old does - that none of the letters have been proven likely to come from the killer, and therefore are useless as evidence. The fact that she never have seen to understood this very simple problem is frustrating to say the least.
All the best

Good morning Glenn and all

Perhaps your correct and there was a certain amount of arogence on her part, but that claim could be laid at any new comer to almost anything..

I got dunked in the weir three times yesterday in my new kayak..arogance or keen fresh faced enthusiasm to get stuck in?...a little bit of stupidity? perhaps a mixture of a number of things..

Lets just remember the historical context at the end of 1999-2000. DNA was still new exciting stuff, none of us really new very much about it apart from the fact that some clever scientist chaps, waved test tubes about and proved things beyond doubt. I think we're all older and wiser about such things now, perhaps in part due to PC's claims, i dont think I'd heard of mitochondrial DNA before her book.

I think we all now realize DNA is not a mirracle fix and any results should be taken with caution.

Patricia came fresh to the case and I'm sure as Dan Norder suggested her original intent was to write a fictional novel. I bet with hine-site she wishes she'd done a Dan Brown.....more financially rewarding and less greif.

However at some piont I think she genuinely beleived, having done a little digging, that Sickert was the Ripper. She made the basic error of buying into her own story and propaganda. And of course banging square pegs into round holes.

Perhaps applying modern thinking or scientific methods to the case wasnt such a bad idea. Unfortunately she came about it all in a back to front manor.
As you say most experts recognise that the letters are all hoax.

If she has discovered anything its that Sickert wrote hoax letters. And again as has been discussed we will have to await her final findings on this before passing comment.

At the risk of repeating myself unless you fancy meeting me with a shovel in leyton High road next Saturday night, noones ever going to find DNA of any use.

However my whole reasoning for the deffence of Patricia is that we all make mistakes when we arrive new to something new...I've certainly changed and re-valued my veiw of the Ripper murders over that period..and I think if your honest Glenn so have also. Theres nothing wrong with changing or updating your veiw piont.

Perhaps Patricia has learned something and also changed her opinions.

This statement is guess work on my part. But saying we should cut her some slack and see what she has to say in her next book is hardly a radical or an outrageous position. And I find some of the intransient positions hear surprising.

"You are going to have to understand that many of the Truths that we cling to depend on our piont of veiw"....appologies to any Star War fans if I've got the wording slightly wrong on that quote. But you can follow the cut of me Gyb.

Catch you all later

Jeff

[Ally]

[QUOTE=Pirate Jack;28496]Good morning Glenn and all

Lets just remember the historical context at the end of 1999-2000.
DNA was still new exciting stuff, none of us really new very much about it apart from the fact that some clever scientist chaps, waved test tubes about and proved things beyond doubt. I think we're all older and wiser about such things now, perhaps in part due to PC's claims, i dont think I'd heard of mitochondrial DNA before her book.

Uh no. DNA evidence had been in use for over a dozen years at that time. It was hardly "new and exciting" or groundbreaking exploration. MtDNA had been studied for almost a decade at that time. The fact that you considered it new and exciting just shows your basic ignorance and lack of current knowledge on the subject you argue.

Perhaps Patricia has learned something and also changed her opinions.

Perhaps she has. Perhaps she hasn't. And until I hear it directly from her mouth, I am going to treat her based on the statements that I have heard come directly from her mouth. Not act based on the toadying bootlicking indulgences of someone who clearly has an agenda.

I have heard her directly make insulting, demeaning, derogatory, inflammatory and condescending statements towards Ripperology and Ripperology as a whole. I have heard her disparage people that she says are out to profit from the murders---meanwhile she has raked in more money on the subject that every other Ripperologist combined.

She's a hypocrite, she's a phony and she's a liar. Enthusiasm for a new subject doesn't condone her actions.

[Jeff Leahy]

[QUOTE=Ally;28514]

Good morning Glenn and all

I have heard her directly make insulting, demeaning, derogatory, inflammatory and condescending statements towards Ripperology and Ripperology as a whole. I have heard her disparage people that she says are out to profit from the murders---meanwhile she has raked in more money on the subject that every other Ripperologist combined.

She's a hypocrite, she's a phony and she's a liar. Enthusiasm for a new subject doesn't condone her actions.

Still spitting venom Queen of mean? well calmed down a little..

Yes there is a certain amount of irony in someone slagging off Ripperologists when they have quite clearly and gradually become one themselves..yes I can see that...she'll be attending Clingon conventions next

But as we've cover this ground again and again..its a question of 'piont of veiw'. This all happened years ago..the world has moved on..the book is now over five years old..

Shes employed serious ripperologists etc etc etc...

And what agenda exactly do you think I'm running?

And possible profit or motivation could I have for saying perhaps someone I've never met and have no dealings with what so ever, who lives in a different country, should be cut a little slack..

I felt the argument being put forward was some what one dementional and truied to balance out a veiw piont.

[Dan Norder]

As far as I'm aware, Patricia Cornwall has done nothing criminal in the legal sense.

If Ally and Norder can prove otherwise let them present their evidence.

WTF dude, what kind of sleazy scam are you trying to pull here? I certainly did not accuse Cornwell (get the name right for once) of any criminal acts. Stop making nonsense up and pretending that other people did it so you can find something to complain about.

You keep talking about libel (though yo never spell that right either) but fail to realize that your accusations are the closest thing on this thread to anything anyone could get sued for. Stop lying about what people said.

[Ally]

I don't know what your motivation is Jeff. Why don't you tell us? Or better yet tell us why exactly you think that Cornwell should be treated better and with more concern and respect than is given to anyone else, or that she gives to us?

If a newbie came on these boards, called us all profiteering bloodthirsty savages, who were exploiting the victims for our own profit, while they alone were champions of the case and capable of solving it, would you be posting endlessly, post after post after post saying they should be treated with more respect than they were showing to us? I doubt it sincerely. So really, what's your motive?

[Magpie]

Lets just remember the historical context at the end of 1999-2000. DNA was still new exciting stuff, none of us really new very much about it apart from the fact that some clever scientist chaps, waved test tubes about and proved things beyond doubt. I think we're all older and wiser about such things now, perhaps in part due to PC's claims, i dont think I'd heard of mitochondrial DNA before her book.

Hi Jeff.

With respect, that's a totally irrelevant argument. What the DNA proved or didnt' prove or what people knew about DNA is beside the point.

What Patricia Cornwell did know--when she did a plethora of interviews claiming to have DNA evidence supporting her case--was the content of her own book, which admitted the exact opposite (that the DNA tests were inconclusive at best).

Anyway you slice it, that's a lie.