Patricia Cornwell

[Jeff Leahy]

Good Morning Vietnam!

Wow I didnt realize this time existed. It isn't that Patricia didn't say
nasty things about Ripperologists - she unquestionably did - but some
pretty nasty things had been said by Ripperologists and Sickertists to her at the time of her first book release.

Okay, she wrote a pretty crap book which unfortunately received a lot
of media attention and got piled high in almost every bookstore everywhere
and had a 'Case Closed' title and Patricia and her publicists behaved a bit
gung-ho in their claims to have solved the mystery, and as she didn't
consult or really acknowledge any Ripper authors or authorities she
incurred some enmity basically for walking into the field and claiming to have shown us how to play our game.

So, sure, she got mauled. And she reacted by cat-scratching back.

Okay, so time has moved on. Patricia has acknowledged she made
mistakes. She's met with a few Ripperologists, she's said her revised edition isn't going to be called 'Case Closed', she's hired a number of solid
experts,among them Keith Skinner, to undertake research for her, and she has done it in the full knowledge that they will not remain silent in the event that she tries to suppress anything.

Dan Norder to my knowledge was fully aware of this.

It's the Ripperologists - or a small number of them, like Norder - who
haven't moved on. His attack on Professor Bower is shameless..he has nothing to back up his claims.

where is Norders Scientific evidence? His claims that Prof Bower falsified results? How much is he saying Prof Bower took in hand outs from PC?

Must dash, I have a meeting but lets go over these claims...find out what the current PC position is....and if there is any truth in what Norder claims about Patricia Cornwall paying people to falsify results...

lots to do....see you at the Exhibision later taiters

[Limehouse]

Hello Pirate Jack,

I respect your points completely but I do feel that If Cornwell had not been so arrogant to start with, and if she had just done a little research into the artistic movement that Sickert belonged, and if she had looked at more of Sickert's work - carefully - she may not have reached the conclusions she did. She was deconstructing a few pictures that dealt with a contemporary topic of huge interest - and she tried to build her evidence around that instead digging a bit deeper to find out such things as - where was Sickert and the time of the killings?

[anna]

Mornin' Pirate Jack!
Actually I did read through the posts previous to my last one to you...
Of course you are entitled to support whatever theory and whoever you wish to support on this site without people attacking your ideas,if you feel I did that,I apologise.My suprise that PC had support here, was because usually when Cornwell/Sickert is mentioned there is little response except for a short discussion.Because of Sickert being in France at the time of the murders,he is not a popular JTR suspect,and has little to do with the murders,so the subject is briefly delt with,and we get on to more relevant issues.
I didn't realise that your posts were about people attacking your beliefs when I posted..now you can see they were because of your support for someone who insulted people who study the murders quite seriously.Bit of a stupid move for an author who has wrote a series of books,and who is by no means of limited intelligence.Which leads me to your statement that she NOW realises putting "case closed" was an unwise thing to do.Are you seriously trying to say that she didn't realise what she was doing.What about her publishers,would they not have thought it an unwise move and challenged her decision.
I saw the documentary she put out on UK telly..and presumed you had too...including you as a Ripperologist,I was suprised you supported her unwise comments on your level of knowledge.
I am a supporter of Joseph Merrick and the book I picked up to read was the one I considered at the time interesting and then found to my horror the references to deformity connected to murder.I have now read the post explaining where that came from.I STILL find it disgusting, knowing the background of what Joseph went through,but survived it with dignity.Others of the time were no doubt not so lucky as he was,and it was unneccessary to include it when it could have so easily been omitted.
I have nothing against PC,but because of her opionions aimed at us,and others not so fortunate as she is,I must admit,I did gladly include my references to her being launched into outter space.Perhaps that might have been to do with our UFO files being opened yesterday,which made fascinating reading and may have influenced my mode of thinking, or perhaps it was to do with the above.
I live on Planet sensible, pity Ms Cornwell doesn't do the same.
Hope you enjoy the exhibition today,I'm looking forward to reading the comments of all who attend.

[Ally]

Wow I didnt realize this time existed. It isn't that Patricia didn't say nasty things about Ripperologists - she unquestionably did - but some pretty nasty things had been said by Ripperologists and Sickertists to her at the time of her first book release.

Wow...so now you are an apologist AND a re-writer of history. First you try to imply that people are lying when they say Cornwell was slandering Ripperologists left and right, then shown proof that she was in fact slandering them left and right, you say "'well gee she was just responding to what we called her." No dear. Since you obviously weren't paying attention the first time around the timeline went like this: Cornwell's book came out. The BOOK was reviewed negatively and scathingly because of its fictional qualities and outright inventions and fantasies. Cornwell responded by calling Ripperologist money grubbing arseholes making "big bucks"' off the back of the murdered dead, while her Jack the Ripper book was making her millions. Faced with her hypocrisy and her vitriole, the rest of Ripperology responded negatively to HER.

incurred some enmity basically for walking into the field and claiming to have shown us how to play our game.

No she incurred my 'enmity' for going on Primetime and saying "just because you run a jack the ripper website doesn't mean you know anything about jack the ripper" This after she'd studied the case for all of 6 months, while the owner of this website had put YEARS into it.

"So, sure, she got mauled. And she reacted by cat-scratching back."

Nope, it's the opposite.

"

Okay, so time has moved on. Patricia has acknowledged she made
mistakes. She's met with a few Ripperologists, she's said her revised edition isn't going to be called 'Case Closed', she's hired a number of solid
experts,among them Keith Skinner, to undertake research for her, and she has done it in the full knowledge that they will not remain silent in the event that she tries to suppress anything."

Yes time has moved on, and she hasn't apologised to any of the people she slandered in her nationally publicized interviews, she has never taken back her comments about making a buck off the back of the murdered dead. I don't really care what her next edition is called it's irrelevant to the overall point. And as for researchers paid to find out info that proves her point and disregards facts... you have no idea what Keith Skinner's research contract says and it may very well say that he must remain silent no matter what he finds. That actually tends to be how research goes. Confidentiality clauses are standard riff. You aren't allowed to go about broadcasting what you find when you are being paid to find it for someone else.

So in all likelihood even if Keith finds something that proves her wrong, we will NEVER know about it.

[Sam Flynn]

You know, I got verbally abused when I made this point [about serial killers and deformity] in the past, but the truth is that it can be traced back to John Douglas and other FBI “profilers”

Indeed, RP - one could argue that it can be traced back to any iconic literary/historical figure portrayed as twisted in mind and body. Take Shakespeare's Richard III, for example:

"I that am rudely stamp'd, and want Love's majesty; to strut before a wanton, ambling nymph! I, that am curtailed of this fair proportion - cheated of feature by dissembling Nature! Deformed, unfinished, sent before my time into this breathing world, scarce half made-up - and that so lamely and unfashionable that dogs bark at me as I halt [i.e. "limp"] by them. Why I, in this weak piping-time of Peace, have no delight to pass away the time, unless to spy my shadow in the sun, and descant upon mine own deformity. And, therefore, since I cannot prove a lover... I am determined to prove a villein..."

...sounds like a serial killer's charter! Nothing new in Douglas or Cornwell, it seems. On the contrary, the deformed outcast, full of spite and vengeance, is a stereotype of some considerable pedigree.

[anna]

Hi peeps!
With regard to Pat Cornwell.Anything she writes comes from a mind used to calculating the entent of the impact her words will have in relation to a statement or storyline.An author fully aware of her actions.
We have discussed disability controlling mindset in relation to JTR on this site.It is treated correctly by sensible individuals who can debate in relation to their interest in crime.I'm not sure if it can be used safely with society as it is nowadays in crime fiction or tv documentaries.
Sorry my post is a bit serious....no aliens in this one....so can't brighten it up..days a bit gloomy 'n all...never mind,it's Saturday!!!..curry night!

[Cap'n Jack]

'So in all likelihood even if Keith finds something that proves her wrong, we will NEVER know about it.'

I will.

[Dan Norder]

I'm not sure why, but for whatever reason Jeff here shows up once every other year or two to make a very aggressive defense of Cornwell. He does this not by supporting anything she says but by trying to claim other people have no evidence that she ever did anything wrong, despite all the previous threads he already participated in that showed all those things he claims nobody ever showed. This time he claimed that Cornwell first never attacked anyone and then claimed it was only after she had already been attacked, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. He also acts like it's some huge offense to point out that some supposed paper esxpert on Cornwell's payroll magically came to conclusions that would support her suspect but which no other expert has supported (Professor's Bower's most ridiculous claim perhaps was that he could scientifically prove that the paper used in a letter by Sickert and one of the many Ripper hoax letters came from the same batch of 24 sheets of paper and thus both had to be written the same person... this despite the watermarks on the paper clearly having dates on them proving they had come from batches years apart from each other).

Jeff either has a bad memory or was choosing to ignore what he already knew about Cornwell... and even if he hadn't already participated in these threads in the past (but you can Google his name and Cornwell's to see him there posting them on archived Casebook threads), it would take no time at all for him to look for threads and old dissertations about Cornwell and see all that for himself before accusing the rest of us of lying. Instead for some reason he just launches into more and more vindictive personal attacks.

Whatever game Jeff is playing, it's not worth wasting much time with. Cornwell's history is pretty well known. If he refuses to accept that and instead invents up fantasies in his head (such as the idea that I am somehow attacking Keith Skinner when I mention things Cornwell did long before Keith had ever had any business relationship with her), there's obviously no convincing him of anything.

[Mike Covell]

At lectures, Ripper fans watched in bemusement as Cornwell's paranoia grew --she hired armed guards to protect her from possible attacks from Ripperologists, she called anyone who cast doubts on her theories part of the 'Klingon brigade'.


Yeah because Stewart Evans and Rumbelow, real thug-like Klingons liable to go hunt her down and kill her.

Anyone have a spare set of Camo and spock ears? I really cannot be bothered to dress as a Klingon!

[Jeff Leahy]

"Captains Log Star date 18.5.2008'

Afraid i have an exam this afternoon, but given the serious nature of the accusations pointed at me by Dan Norder I just thought I'd make a quick posts stating my intension to answer in detail soon..

i did take the trouble to drive to London yesterday evening and seek advice from Paul Begg with regards to Ally's comments on Keith Skinner and will also make a detailed post on this soon.

As regards to the comments made about Peter Bower, I believe these to be not only Shameless but potentially LIABLE.

I trust Dan Norder has his scientific research and experts ready to back up his claims..

"Live long and prosper..."

[Cap'n Jack]

Oh, a bun fight!
I do love a bun fight.

[anna]

Pirate Jack,
Anyone who also thinks British Rock 'n Roll is the best in the world,is OK by me
I'm just wondering if the old seadog's concealing a treasure chest full of heart shaped trinket's for Ms Cornwell?....
Have to agree with the Captain...this is turning into quite a bunfight.....
and over Pat Cornwell.....priceless!!!!!

[Dan Norder]

As regards to the comments made about Peter Bower, I believe these to be not only Shameless but potentially LIABLE.

You can believe whatever you like, but it's not going to change facts or what the law has to say about such matters.

[Jeff Leahy]

Ok lets get straight to business.

I really feel there is a lot of ground to cover, and my apologies in the delay to my reply. Firstly let me state that I'm not really spoiling for a bun fight, on the whole i have tried to avoid casebook confrontation for the last couple of years because it tends to be time consuming and provide little result, apart from ego massage, which doesn't really interest me..however hear I am, so lets get on with it...

"You can believe whatever you like, but it's not going to change facts or what the law has to say about such matters". DN

Its good to know that Dan Norder and I are both starting from a statement that we can both totally agree on...because much of this interaction is about precisely what he states: The right for people to BELIEVE as they wish. The difference between FACT and opinion (fiction) and finally the LAW..which I understand may differ from whichever part of the world your reading this from.

Lets take this statement: "I'm not sure why, but for whatever reason Jeff here shows up once every other year or two to make a very aggressive defense of Cornwell. He does this not by supporting anything she says but by trying to claim other people have no evidence that she ever did anything wrong, despite all the previous threads he already participated in that showed all those things he claims nobody ever showed. This time he claimed that Cornwell first never attacked anyone and then claimed it was only after she had already been attacked, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary".

Well obviously I need to make no defense of the first statement: Admittedly I have posted less over the last year, I make no bones of the fact that I do my Ripperology with a camera and edit suite, not through the pen...However I continue to follow threads and various new 'Ripper' finds with avid (excuse pun) anticipation, I'm sure that just because I'd rather not get bogged down with day to day chit chat, that I have a record as a regular casebook poster over the last seven years, I contribute to discussion where i believe relevant...and at NO other point in the past have I ever support Patricia Cornwall...The idea that I regularly appear on casebook telling people Patricia Cornwall is 'Great' is simple 'Fabrication' on Norder's part...who are you really trying to kid?

In fact quite the opposite, I believe, I have in the past criticized Patricia's original book (and stand by any criticism I made about the content of that book), in fact I've just plucked that book from my book shelf and placed it in front of me...just to remind me what an interesting work of fiction it was..but then I liked the Film 'From Hell'..it does not mean I think Sir William Gull was Jack the Ripper (he was interesting however..I digress)

The point is that this statement would have anybody not familiar with casebook believing that I am a rare contributor to casebook (not true I believe I was of Inspector status when the great crash happened) and that I only talk about PC. Again NOt true, my main interests have always been with Druit, Kosminski Eddows, testing the Diary and the Hammersmith Nude Murders..check my history.

So what is This 'BUN FIGHT ACTUALLY ABOUT?" well its quite simply about this statement made by Dan Norder..

"Her claims about science in her books misrepresent the actual scientific conclusions her own experts reached, but they are hesitant to contradict her in public because of the money she keeps donating... and one of the people she cites as an expert who publicly agrees with her is actually now her life-partner. She surrounds herself with yes men (or, more often, yes women) to stoke her own ego. She's basically bought an undeserved reputation as an expert and uses it to fool her target audience into thinking they are getting the real thing."

There's no conspiracy, I'm not in the pay of PC, I don't answer to anyone but myself...However as chance would have it the evening that Dan Norder made this statement, I had been sitting in a pub having an interesting conversation about 'McCormick and casebook' with Keith Skinner.I gathered from Keith (and I believe this has been a matter of public record for some time..) that he is undertaking research for Patricia Cornwell. Let me say that throughout that conversation I have never met anyone with more, honor ,conviction and integrity. It was obvious from that exchange that Keith is his own man and has a deep passion for Ripperology. He is obviously well respected by people that I have respect for..and that says everything to me.

So in context..that is why I objected to this statement..because it is evident to me that Keith Skinner is clearly not a 'yes' man and is currently doing work for PC. Indeed the whole thrust of this statement appears to be sweeping, generalized and lacking any proof or solid foundation except basic vindictiveness against PC.

It then occurred to me that Patricia Corwall was being placed in an almost impossible position, in a no-win situation, if she hires the best and they provide her with information supporting her theory then they are 'yes people' and the information can be ignored or dismissed, and
if they don't come up with supportive information then she's just a wally brain....

In fact the more I considered the situation the more I realized how unfair some of the criticism I had made about PC actually was: For instance I had been in the general belief that PC had destroyed some of Walter Sickerts paintings to obtain DNA evidence, a myth that had been touted around these message boards (forgive me I simply dont remember by who or when but i do remember posting about this) This was not the case however, one of PC's paintings were damaged in transportation..thats it... that is all that happened.

Then Ally' makes some links to PC conference article...

http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...-cornwell.html

Ye Ok its all rather Play ground stuff isn't it...I mean PC dosnt actually mention Don by name (Its well known that Richard Jones and I after a couple of pints are the JtR Trekies) she spells Stewarts name wrong, PC makes some silly claims and she thinks people are out to get her...

...well news flash..this happened seven years ago! Is this the most recent examples? Has Patricia been on tele attacking Ripperologists within the last three years?

‘she started it. No he started it. No, she started it. No, he started it….’ It’s all a bit childish? But for the record, (Perhaps this is different in the USA), in the UK the timeline goes something like this: Cornwell was criticized personally in the press, a TV program was broadcast, Cornwell was critically mauled, her book came out, Cornwell was critically mauled, Cornwell was informed by FBI friends that Ripperologists were laying in wait for her in England (what ever that madness means), Cornwell believed her FBI friends (even to the extent of having bodyguards when she filmed a UK TV program at which Ripperologists were present), Cornwell made comments about Ripperologists…

I believe there is a long editorial in Ripperologist (no.44 December 2002) which I am still trying to track down, but yes there appears at that time to have been animosity between the PC camp and the Ripper elite so Ally is correct. So maybe at that time some of this criticism was justified. Maybe it was, but I don’t think accusing her of paranoia, of being obsessive, out of control, a man-hater, on a looney-tunes mission, and so on, help to generate rational debate about Walter sickert as a JtR suspect. So maybe the disagreement all boils down to what one does or doesn’t find acceptable criticism. Maybe it’s okay to write that someone is ‘anorexic, bulimic, drunk at the wheel and out of control…difficult, obsessive, driven. Her head full of fear…’ (The Independent, 20 October 2002), but not okay to say that ripper website owner doesn’t necessarily know ALL about Jack the Ripper?

Whatever your view, Time has simply moved on and six years worth of water has flowed under the bridge and Patricia Cornwell is apparently making efforts to correct as many of the mistakes she’s made as she can, even unto meeting with Ripperologists and hiring Keith to undertake research for her. In fact as i understand the situation it was Keith That originally approached PC. Of course neither Ally or I actually know the exact details of KS and PC's agreement. Or indeed what research is being undertaken..

I feel that I can therefore only judge KS by his actions in the past and on the recommendation of people who know Keith Skinner and have worked with him and also his work. What i do know is that good Ripperologists undertaking research don't always release there findings the moment they are discovered..they hold on, check things, double check things and make sure there findings are good (well the ones I know anyway) But I don't believe Keith would put his employment with PC before his reputation as a Ripperologist...which is huge.

Dan Norder then comes up with this statement:

"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".

Can Dan please produce some very good evidence right here and now on the Casebook to support his claims, I think it is an offense in every sense of the word to say, as Norder has said, that Peter and Sally Bower took money to produce the results Patricia Cornwell paid them to produce and that their research was inadequate and not performed to acceptable standards.

Even allowing that Peter Bower’s conclusions may be wrong – and I'm not saying they are – that doesn’t mean that he intentionally produced the results required by the person paying them, and to say otherwise without solid supporting evidence is libelous.

(I trust that PC lawyers arnt reading this)

Quote Dan Norder: ‘Professor's Bower's most ridiculous claim perhaps was that he could scientifically prove that the paper used in a letter by Sickert and one of the many Ripper hoax letters came from the same batch of 24 sheets of paper and thus both had to be written the same person... this despite the watermarks on the paper clearly having dates on them proving they had come from batches years apart from each other.’

Peter Bower, it would seem, is an idiot who can’t see dated watermarks on the paper which show the paper to have come from batches manufactured years apart? Is Dan Norder really serious? Norder really is saying that Peter Bower, a noted paper historian, an accredited expert witness who gives evidence in courts around the world, who is a consultant to assorted institutions like the Tate Modern, is so inept that that he thinks paper came from the same batch even though they have dated watermarks showing that they couldn’t have done?

Peter Bower is a re-noun world wide expert who regularly gives evidence in court...Is Dan Norder suggesting that hundreds of people have been sent to jail based on false forensics?

Is Dan Norder questioning the authenticity of the LittleChilde letter? (partly authenticated by Peter Bower I believe)

I really do think he must provide us with the evidence he has for saying this, and if what he says is true then Peter and Sally Bower’s credibility will be in a black trash bag awaiting collection with the rest of the garbage, and if Dan Norder can’t provide his evidence then we’ll know where his credibility will also be .

I did actually meet Peter Bower a few years ago at the Tate modern when he gave a speech about his discoveries..that evening also included an Expert on Sickert painting called Anna Guetzner Robins, who was convinced at this time that Sickert wrote most of the 'JtR' letters, so Peter Bowers was not the only person who believed the possibility existed that Sickert was connected to the case.

Well I think I've had my reply:

1. I would like Dan Norder to provide evidence of the claims he has laid against Peter Bower. Or simply make a public apology

2. I would like posters on casebook to ask themselves what is served by harking back to comments made by PC seven years ago..is it not time to bury the hatchet (excuse pun). Is she not much like many other Ripperologists with their theory, it was MrX or MrY. Whatever else you say about PC, i believe she genuinely believes that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper. The claim that she is obsessive..well I've been accused of that, people do see Ripperologists as strange.

I may not believe that Walter Sickert is JtR, but lets stick to the fACTS and avoid personal attacks. Who knows perhaps she will turn up something of interest..People read her book and what to find out more they buy more books..they watch TV programs..they generate interest in JtR and that harms noone. At least listen to what she has to say before dismissing her out of hand.. I beleive that is fair

Jeff

[JSchmidt]

Well, regarding Peter Bower, even a short and rather brutish web search reveals that he is indeed a well regarded expert who both is and has been a speaker at international paper history conferences.
And I think the position as general editor of the British Paper History Association does neither speak for a general lack of expertise nor that he is a yes man.

Are the original statements of Peter Bower included in the Cornwell book? I sadly can't remember, it's been a while and I don't have the book here.
And where were his statements refuted? I'd like to look it up if possible.

When in doubt about the dating of paper you might also refer to the International Association of Paper Historians. Which lists the BAPH and also Peter Bower on their website by the way.