Patricia Cornwell

[Suzi]

Is that it then??? Case/Thread closed??

[Dan Norder]

Fair point, Ally. He's very clearly just an attention whore, so there's no need to make him feel significant by responding to his drivel.

And of course I don't feel the need to defend you, Ally, as you're more than capable of it yourself, but Jeff just was going way over the top in his lies about what other people said. It's one thing for him to think people won't remember what Cornwell said some five years back, but it's another thing completely for him to think people don't know what the other posters here just got done saying on this very thread and won't be able to tell when he's lying about it.

[Ally]

Dan,

While I truly appreciate the defense, please don't feel the need to do it anymore on my behalf. Jeff is a troll. He continually references you and me and tells whopping lies in order to hopefully incite us into responding. As long as anyone responds, he gets what he needs. I have chosen to opt out of his pathetic whoring and trolling, he can mention my name and tell as many whoppers as he wants about me, and it isn't necessary for me to defend myself nor for anyone else to do so. He's pathetic and not worth it. At this point it's more entertainment value than anything to see how desperate he becomes in trying to provoke a response.

If you all want to feed the troll, feel free. I am opting out. I did want to acknowledge Dan's defense of my statements but I want to say for the future:

It's not necessary to defend against trolls.

[Jeff Leahy]

Sorry Joel your correct. I do apologise.

My grievance is only with the Norder not you chaps.

[joelhall]

Exactly. I don’t believe that I have ever called Joel or Victor or Needler any names. Indeed I have always treated their posts with common courtesy, which is more than can be said for the current abuse they are aiming at me.

im not aiming abuse at you dude

[Jeff Leahy]

Here you go again, lying to try to make yourself sound better. I never suggested any such thing. Ally only suggested that you might be stupid enough to think Cornwell would start to pay you if you became known as her defender. She never said Cornwell was paying you. Cornwell would have to be a complete idiot to hire you in any way, as it'd just make her look stupid by association. In fact she and/or Paul Begg might consider paying you to shut up and stop dragging their names through the dirt.

Prostitute: Woman who engages in sexual activity for payment.

What fantasy world are you living in where you think that Stewart, Ally, Magpie, Victor, Lyn, Judy and me (and probably with some others earlier in the thread that I forgot) are all telling you that you are wrong and providing the facts to prove it means that you've won?

What are you on about have you finaly lost it?

By the way, it's "parameters," and they've never been changed. You just want to pretend you were right from the beginning and hope that nobody notices the deception. It didn't work.

Right about what exactly. That you had got your water marks mixed up ???

Well, it is probably the most attention anyone has paid to you in years... which of course is the main reason you're posting.

Again you through around a lot of dirt hoping something will stick somewhere.

You forget that you reappeared on this thread started an arguement and now seem to be complaining that I am defending myself and responding to claims that I support Patricia..

Just grow up Norder.

[Dan Norder]

What highly insulting like you and Ally's suggestion I'm in cornwalls pay?

Here you go again, lying to try to make yourself sound better. I never suggested any such thing. Ally only suggested that you might be stupid enough to think Cornwell would start to pay you if you became known as her defender. She never said Cornwell was paying you. Cornwell would have to be a complete idiot to hire you in any way, as it'd just make her look stupid by association. In fact she and/or Paul Begg might consider paying you to shut up and stop dragging their names through the dirt.

This is classic Norder..He makes a claim loses and then tries to change the paramitors by back peddling..if it wasnt so funny it would be laughable..

What fantasy world are you living in where you think that Stewart, Ally, Magpie, Victor, Lyn, Judy and me (and probably with some others earlier in the thread that I forgot) are all telling you that you are wrong and providing the facts to prove it means that you've won?

By the way, it's "parameters," and they've never been changed. You just want to pretend you were right from the beginning and hope that nobody notices the deception. It didn't work.

Still I'm enjoying this..

Well, it is probably the most attention anyone has paid to you in years... which of course is the main reason you're posting.

[Jeff Leahy]

I must be the only one on these boards reading Pirate Jack's posts differently. I'm not getting that he's actually supporting Cornwell, as such.

Thank you Sasha for taking the time and care to read my posts. Quite clearly I have never supported Patricia Cornwall's book or position on Walter Sickert.

It's more that he objects to the childish name-calling that's going on - and I assume that includes Cornwell's name-calling as well.

Exactly. I don’t believe that I have ever called Joel or Victor or Needler any names. Indeed I have always treated their posts with common courtesy, which is more than can be said for the current abuse they are aiming at me.

I agree that name-calling is childish and hardly forms the basis of an argument. Even if Pirate Jack was a supporter of Cornwalls, so what?

Yes precisely, my argument is clear, I believe that the differences between Patricia Cornwall and 'Ripperologist' largely boil down to old-fashioned name-calling. Demonstrated here on a regular basis.

I believe she used the name 'Clingons' which to be honest I find amusing not offensive (but that’s my point of view). I think shes moved on from that name calling position. It appears to me she's laid down a challenge.

Can't we have room for more than one opinion on these boards? I, personally, found her book lacking in foundation but hey, if someone has the same opinion as her, great. Let's face it, she's not the first person who has fingered Sickett as a suspect in these crimes. Some have him as aiding and abetting Sir William Gull in some kind of royal conspiracy.

indeed correct. There are a number of Ripperologists who would hate to be connected with anything Patricia says, who believe Sickert was connected in some way. I believe to JK Stephen. I however do not beleive sickert was the ripper.

I am however interested in Peter Bowers findings and look forward to his published findings when they happen.

Of course as has been pointed out..he could have made a mistake. But I think it highly unlikely that any deliberate deception on his behalf was carried out.

Whether I believe this or not is irrelevant. The point is I believe in freedom of speech. As the great Voltaire said "I disagree with what you have to say but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it!" But I think even Voltaire would object to the extent of name-calling and belittling that has gone on on this thread. Anyway, such expression is against the rules of this board. In view of this, I too hope that Stephen deletes the entire thread.
Sasha

I share your passion for freedom of speech. It is very important. As for name-calling I would like to make two points...

Firstly I have only ever directed names at someone who has firstly done so to me. If i have called anyone anything it is in pure responce..never first strike....and even then only seriously at one particular poster who started it.

Secondly as the calling of names at Patricia Cornwall is to some extent what this thread boils down to, it would appear to be on thread

I think there’s also been a sense of humour bi-pass at times.

Thanks for your comments Sasha. Until such time as this thread is closed down...which I'm sure Patricia Cornwall would appreciate. I will continue to maintain my position which is true and fair.

Yours Pirate

PS Anna, again I can only point out that I am responding to other peoples posts..that seems like good manners.

[anna]

This could rival War and Peace!!!

Blindmy...is this thread still going.

For people who have a gripe with PC,you're sure giving her some pages to her thread!...
You can imaging the comment: "They couldn't stop talking about me on one Jack the Ripper site."

[Jeff Leahy]

You say you don't want to get into a debate over semantics, and then you immediate start debating semantics.

In interviews Patricia repeatedly said: "I have DNA evidence that connects Sickert to the Ripper"

In her book, she says: "There was not enough DNA to prove Sickert was the Ripper. A less definitive, totally inconclusive test at best didn't eliminate Sickert from a pool of at least 10,000 other people in London at the time".

What about that is not lying? They are 180 degrees opposite to each other.

An analogy:

You are talking to a guy in a bar and mention that you would really like a blue marble. "How fortunate!", he exclaims, removing a small cardboard box from his pocket, "for in this box I happen to have just such a blue marble."

You pay the kind man for the box and you take it home. When you open the box to remove your blue marble, you find instead that the box contains a brass disc. What is your reaction:

1) Heavens! That chap was economical with the truth!
2) Gracious! That fellow only gave me one side of the story!

or

3) That rotten S.O.B. lied to me!


Take your time. Mull it over if you have to.


Because that's exactly what Cornwell did.

Hello Magpie

I hope you dont mind if a took a little time to consider your reply words like 'LiE' and 'TRUTH' always need careful consideration. And yes your probably correct, as soon as you lay the claim of SAMANTIC'S your almost enevitably in a debate about it..fair point.

The first part is fairly easy the word LIE taken from the Oxford English Dictionary: An INTENSIONALLY false statement.

where as the TRUTH is a far more difficult thing to track down WIKI:

The meaning of the word truth extends from honesty, good faith, and sincerity in general, to agreement with fact or reality in particular.[1] The term has no single definition about which the majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree. Various theories of truth continue to be debated. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute.

I believe even Jesus had problems with this question when Pilot directed it at him.

I'm fond of the Star Wars quote I've used before by Obewon:

'Your going to have to remember that many of the Truths we cling to depend on our point of view."

Obviously given your blue box sinario I would be annoyed.

I wanted a blue marble, I was sold a blue marble, but when I got home I had a disc in the box.

I would of course be annoyed. Because I had been conned and deceived. Clearly the man in the bar was committing a criminal act of deseption.

(Although my nan might say 'I'd bought a good lesson in life..never by a box from a man in a bar.)

So back to your point about Patricia: In interviews Patricia repeatedly said: "I have DNA evidence that connects Sickert to the Ripper"

This is the part where i became a little stuck because I couldn't find any direct quotes by Patricia, and the exact wording of these quotes. I'm NOT saying they don't exist, just that i'm unable to find them and quote directly and therefore feel i can not comment without the exact wording.

Clearly such a claim would be a wild jump of faith. As I've pionted out repeatedly I dont beleive that there is any DNA evidence that can be found connected to the case, even if say the original Lusk letter reappeared.

But that is my OPINION or point of view.

Getting back to Patricia (ie on thread) I think the relivant claim that I have made, and some other posters have agreed with, Is that I believe, that Patricia Cornwall genuinely believes that Walter Sickert is Jack the Ripper.

This again is her point of view.

So if she claims 'Jack the Ripper' wrote the letters at the national archives.

I might not agree with that position but i cant prove 100% that that is the case. Its my opinion.

If Patricia genuinely believes that they were. She might be many things. Self delussional, miss informed. But she is not necessarily giving an INTENSIONALLY false statement.

Again she did find a very thin and week MtDNA connection. One that could have connected almost anyone. But I think I'd have to see the exact wording of any claim to be reasonably expected to give comment.

If you have these, I'm sure someone has, then please post them. They would appear relevant.

Clearly at the time of the books Publication Patricia Cornwall did make some very wild claims..I dont beleive I have ever said otherwise..

My position has been clear that time has moved on in the last five years and Patricias position has clearly changed to the piont that she now clearly excepts that the phrase 'Case closed' was incorrect, which clearly it is.

And clearly she still appears to genuinely believe that Walter Sickert is Jack the Ripper.

Anyway magpie, I've try to answer your question as clearly and honestly as possible.

Yours Jeff

[Victor]

This is classic Norder..He makes a claim loses and then tries to change the paramitors by back peddling..if it wasnt so funny it would be laughable..

This is classic PirateJack... Someone makes a claim, he replies, someone points out that his response doesn't logically follow and is on a similar but different subject, he then claims this as a victory, and resorts to petty name calling in some weird attempt to bolster his position and drum up support!

[joelhall]

freedom of speech is one thing but these boards arent regulated by the us constitution, when it comes to arguing the toss. nor does this lie solely at the feet of pirate jack. point is when the thread resorts to a slanging match its moved from topical debate to useless posts.

this really should be locked, and hopefully everyone will learn from it, shake hands and get on with what we all come here for

joel

[Sasha]

I must be the only one on these boards reading Pirate Jack's posts differently. I'm not getting that he's actually supporting Cornwell, as such. It's more that he objects to the childish name-calling that's going on - and I assume that includes Cornwell's name-calling as well. I agree that name-calling is childish and hardly forms the basis of an argument. Even if Pirate Jack was a supporter of Cornwells, so what? Can't we have room for more than one opinion on these boards? I, personally, found her book lacking in foundation but hey, if someone has the same opinion as her, great. Let's face it, she's not the first person who has fingered Sickett as a suspect in these crimes. Some have him as aiding and abetting Sir William Gull in some kind of royal conspiracy. Whether I believe this or not is irrelevant. The point is I believe in freedom of speech. As the great Voltaire said "I disagree with what you have to say but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it!" But I think even Voltaire would object to the extent of name-calling and belittling that has gone on on this thread. Anyway, such expression is against the rules of this board. In view of this, I too hope that Stephen deletes the entire thread.

Sasha

[needler]

What's Goofy??

Joelhall.........GOOFY IS THIS THREAD!!

Hiya, Lyn......good to see you again, but we've ALL been here before and know how this should end. I really lost it when Pirate Whoozy said he had never defended CornWELL, except when people lied about her??????? Lied about HER? GET OVER YOURSELF! She, who supposedly researched the hell out of this subject, got a non-fiction book (and I use the term VERY loosely) in print by the autumn of the same year she spoke to Mr Grieve.....which, as any decent author will tell you, is damn near impossible. RESEARCH? NAH, she decided Sickert was the Ripper and set out to create the proof out of whole cloth. John Grieve (hope I got the spelling right) did not say that Sickert was the Ripper; he said Sickert had been suggested as a suspect. Cornwell says what serves herself best; she slanders others, and uses tiny snips of information to prove an entire case, then puffs up like a bullfrog when questioned.

Nope, I'm not gonna engage any more; this is too much work for my poor fingers. And the worst of all this is that Pirate Whoozy has said NOTHING. His posts are rubbish with no point, and they go slip sliding away into the ether, because they make no sense....WHY ARE WE ENCOURAGING THIS BEHAVIOR? I'd rather have both lungs removed without benefit of anaesthesia than post here again, because (and this REALLY is my last gasp) EVERY TIME WE ANSWER ONE OF THESE ABSURD POSTS, WE ENCOURAGE THIS IDIOCY TO GO ON AD NAUSEUM.

Ally, tell Stephen to erase all this rubbish and save the space for something important....say UFO sightings.

Cheers, and adieu.

[joelhall]

perhaps its time this thread was closed?

i cannot see it aiding anyones research anymore.

oh as a footnote however, when someone claims something that is not true its generally known as a lie.

anyway, lets move on shall we...

joel