Patricia Cornwell

[Jeff Leahy]

I never accused her of fabricatng DNA evidence. I accused her of lying about what evidence she did have.

How is that less dishonest?

Hi Magpie

I dont want to get into a debate over samanyics with you but lying is a fairly strong word which implies deceit of some kind to me.

I'm not convinced Patricia has lied. Been economical with the truth. Only given one side of an arguement. Made things out to be more important than they are...yeah I can take this sort of arguement. But lying? Fabrication? I dont buy.

And like Glenn I beleive 100% that she genuinely beleives that Sickert is the Ripper. Her biggest crime, if there is one, is self delussion.

[Jeff Leahy]

I stumbled across this article by John Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former Counsel to the President of the United States, which seeks to clarify the legal aspects of this case. For full article go to http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20021122.html

Some relevant paragraphs are listed below.

"Proving innocence can be inherently difficult, but not in Sickert’s case: He seems to have a strong alibi. Thus, if Michael Sturgis, Sickert's biographer is correct about Sickert’s whereabouts, proving Cornwell wrong might not be as difficult as she suggests.

The Ripper murders started on August 6, 1888. Sturgis has recently written in the Sunday Times (London) that Sickert was not in London at the time of two Ripper murders:

In fact, for much of the late summer of 1888 he was staying with his mother and brother in France, 20 miles from Dieppe. The exact dates of his holiday cannot be fixed but he probably left London in the middle of August – one drawing is dated August 4 and after that there are no references to his being in town. On September 6, six days after the murder of the Ripper's first victim and two days before the murder of the second, Sickert's mother wrote to a friend about the happy time they were having. It seems Sickert may have stayed until early October as he painted a picture of a local butcher's shop flooded with late summer light; he titled it "The October Sun.""

......
"We still don't know the identity of the man who mutilated London prostitutes and taunted police as Jack the Ripper. I do know that Patricia Cornwell has mutilated Walter Sickert's reputation – convicting him in the public mind without enough supporting evidence to do so. It is too soon to tell if she's also mutilated her own reputation, and rather than closed the Ripper case, opened a new one involving herself."

And, for the really keen, you might want to check this out as well. http://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/archive/f0512_01.htm

Happy reading.
Sasha

Hi Sasha

This is correct. Sickert was in Deipe at the time of the murders. And I beleive from memory that Corwall claims this herself in her book.

She explains it away by trying to convince the reader that this was a delliberate ploy on Sickerts part inorder to create an alibi, while shooting around the counrty to post letters from differant places to fool the police.

Of course the argument is pants. Why leave London, go all the way to France to create an alibi, jump a ferry back to London comit a murder and head back to France while things cool off....It just doesnt make any sense.

Why not just go to Paris and commit the murder and head back to London?

In fact none of the commuting Jack the Ripper theories really make any sense what so ever. If I were you I would cross of anybody that did not at least live in walking distance to the crime scene. Jack opporated on foot not ferry.

However that said, Patricia has not told any lies. It is possible, however unlikely, that Sickert returned to London undettected and committed the murders. There is no Proof that what she says is incorrect. Even if logic would dictate that she is..

My piont is still that Patricia has done nothing illeagal and is only doing what many Ripperologist have done before her...conjecture and theorizing about what may or may not have happened.

Many thanks for the conections

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff,

I really have to disagree with that.
On the contrary, she has created an enormous damage, especially considering every newcomer to the case who comes along and thinks her rubbish is the truth (not to mention if they're already fans of her other books). And then the rest of us have to go through a lot of trouble with trying to explain all the numerous problems with her theory.

It was the same with Stephen Knight. Indeed, he managed to make a lot of people interested in the case, but there is a price to pay for it, because he became so influental (with the help of Hollywood), that we are still dealing with the horrible effects from his lies and factual manipulations. Still, over 20 years after his book was published, we are forced to explain to a lot of naive people that the Ripper had nothing to do with any Royal Conspiracy.

I am sorry, but I don't see any benefits coming from that. I would rather let the Ripper case be less popular and less commercially important rather than having to waste my time again and again with trying to tear apart myths etched in stone by dubious authors and researchers.

As for her genuinely believeing in her own suspect, I have no doubt that she really believes that Sickert was the Ripper and that actually makes it even worse because it shows that she has lost her sense of judgement.

To be frank: spending millions of dollars on purchase of original paintings and on hopeless DNA tests, is not particularly healthy for any researcher's objectivity or sense of judgement. That's not research - just plain obsession. And it creates more damage than benefits for Ripperology - personally I can do without that kind of popularity for the subject.

All the best

Good morning Glenn

I can only refer to my own dealing with commisioning editors in the UK. Like it or not the Jack the Ripper story is considered a perenial to them. I dont think they fully understand it but they know if they repeat an episode on Maybrick, or Tumbelty, or even that awful Atlantic effort that did DNA testing on a fake shawl, that they always get above average ratings. In short the mythology of Jack the Ripper has a life of its own.

And like it or not Patricia has become part of that story. Nuch in the way that a fake diary has. The public has a perception. it the more it is fed it would seem the more it is eager to consume. Sort of a reverse Suppy and Demand theory. The more they get the more is reqired..

Of course there could be a satuation piont. But as long as the case isnt solved and people keep comng forward with new theories you cant help thinking it will perpetuate itself. Which is why some critics have suggested that Ripperologists dont actually want a solution because it would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs...

I personally dont buy that...I've never particularly been convinced anyone is making a fortune out of JtR. More scaping a living.

i guess what I was getting at about Patricia is that she reaches a different audience, an audience that may not otherwise have any interest. And her book and the controversy that it creates gets those people interested in the case. So they tune in to the next program. Or they possible end up on casebook annoying you..or perhaps they buy a betyter informed book?

What i dont see is that people read Patricias book and say 'Hay case closed it was Walter Sickert all along we need never watch another TV program or read another book on the Subject' as I say quite the oppersite.

I've spoken to Richard Jones about this (who does the Ripper walks) obviously he deals with tourists on a daily basis who know little about the case. Maybrick, Cornwall and Royal conspiracies often come up as reasons for doing the walk...hopefully some at least go away questioning that perception.

At the end of the day surely we must give the majority of people the benefit of the doubt that they can reach their own solutions..

And lets not forget that dispite the fact that I admir your veiws on case book and respect your knowledge of the case and enjoy your banter...there are a number of crucial areas that we are in complete disageement on..for a Start I am convinced Tabram abd Stride were Ripper victims.

So i stand by my judgement that Patricai Corwall / Well advocacy of Sickert as a suspect does any harm what so ever...it simply generates interest and debate..

Like it or not a few days ago I posted a serious question about modern mental health treadment on the Kosminski thread..A subject I am seriously interested in...and a throw away post on the Patricia Cornwall thread which has receive reaction after reaction from posters....you go figure?

Still perhaps we are just veiwing this from a differant perspective. From were I'm sat she appears good business.

Yours Jeff

[needler]

Jack.......thanks?? I think?? But what you call a "personal attack" is founded on the truth of the way Cornwell lives now, and on the things she has said, in public, to cameras that happened to be running at the time. While I've been known to doubt the truth of what I see on camera, I usually don't doubt what I see in person. I've seen her in action, live and in person, and she really is a bit (or MORE than a bit) paranoid. She said she had chosen to leave Virginia for an estate that was planned for security because she felt it had become necessary. While not naming Ripper folks specifically, she did much more than imply that all the nutters on these boards were gonna get her someday and she was preparing or any eventuality. That sounds pretty freaky to me....

My calling the basis for her book "voo-doo science" was not a joke, nor does it mean I think she made it up as she went along, but since the folks she chose to verify her "findings" already worked for her in the states, I would think their results MIGHT have a bit to do with the continuation of their paychecks, and as a result, the findings could be interpreted many ways... the first of which was the direction in which the boss wanted the "findings" to point. Fair enough; if she pays for it, she gets what she wants. But it stops there. By putting all that rubbish into a book and saying "this is IT; I KNOW the answer; everyone else is wrong and I'm RIGHT" she's moved into the realm of voo-doo science. I NEVER said her employees were unreliable; I said she had interpreted things to suit herself and her "theory" and NOT as an independent, objective observer. And if I didn't say that in my first post, I'm sayin' it NOW! Apologies to all........

Actually, I THINK the letter verified by Mr Bower is the "Littlechild" letter, as in Inspector Littlechild.

And I think Cornwell has done great harm to this field of study, as Glenn has already pointed out.

"Unnecessary and personal attack"??? Get over yourself! The things she has said about some of my closest friends, some others that I've met but don't know well, along with a great number of posters to these boards, and contributors to this site are appallingly vicious. Since I consider myself a student of this case, I'm insulted for them, AND by painting with such a broad brush, she has insulted everyone who doesn't agree with her theory; that group includes me, so she's insulted me, as well. So if you think what I said was mean to her, go back and find some of the things she wrote right after her book came out...specifically what she said about the community of Ripperologists and some of the leaders in the field. When SHE apologises, I will, too.

J

[DVV]

I do know that Patricia Cornwell has mutilated Walter Sickert's reputation
Sasha

Hello Sasha,
I must confess that I did not know Sickert before reading the ridiculous book of Cornwell. Thanks to her for that - and for that only (personnally speaking, of course).

Amitiés,
David

[Sasha]

I stumbled across this article by John Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former Counsel to the President of the United States, which seeks to clarify the legal aspects of this case. For full article go to http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20021122.html

Some relevant paragraphs are listed below.

"Proving innocence can be inherently difficult, but not in Sickert’s case: He seems to have a strong alibi. Thus, if Michael Sturgis, Sickert's biographer is correct about Sickert’s whereabouts, proving Cornwell wrong might not be as difficult as she suggests.

The Ripper murders started on August 6, 1888. Sturgis has recently written in the Sunday Times (London) that Sickert was not in London at the time of two Ripper murders:

In fact, for much of the late summer of 1888 he was staying with his mother and brother in France, 20 miles from Dieppe. The exact dates of his holiday cannot be fixed but he probably left London in the middle of August – one drawing is dated August 4 and after that there are no references to his being in town. On September 6, six days after the murder of the Ripper's first victim and two days before the murder of the second, Sickert's mother wrote to a friend about the happy time they were having. It seems Sickert may have stayed until early October as he painted a picture of a local butcher's shop flooded with late summer light; he titled it "The October Sun.""

......
"We still don't know the identity of the man who mutilated London prostitutes and taunted police as Jack the Ripper. I do know that Patricia Cornwell has mutilated Walter Sickert's reputation – convicting him in the public mind without enough supporting evidence to do so. It is too soon to tell if she's also mutilated her own reputation, and rather than closed the Ripper case, opened a new one involving herself."

And, for the really keen, you might want to check this out as well. http://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/archive/f0512_01.htm

Happy reading.
Sasha

[Magpie]

I am sorry, but I don't see any benefits coming from that. I would rather let the Ripper case be less popular and less commercially important rather than having to waste my time again and again with trying to tear apart myths etched in stone by dubious authors and researchers.

You nailed it squarely, Glenn. Well said!

[Magpie]

but she can not be accused of fabrication as far as I can see..

I never accused her of fabricatng DNA evidence. I accused her of lying about what evidence she did have.

How is that less dishonest?

[Ally]

[QUOTE=Pirate Jack;28666]

I'm merely suggesting that we stop throwing personal abuse and yelling and screaming at people. I think thats quite reasonable.

Oh that's so sweet. You are trying to seem noble. Completely ignoring the fact that the person who is constantly perpetuating this never ending argument is you, yourself and oh yes, YOU. Not to mention that the holy saint of advocating not throwing personal abuse has thrown personal abuse at just about everyone on this thread. So you are not only a liar, but a hypocrite as well. If you are going to advocate a course of action, have the basic courage of your convictions to follow that course of action you are so sanctimonious in preaching to others. So if you want a quiet more peaceful atmosphere then it would seem the thing for you to do would be to shut it.

My motive...at this precise moment is to get some sleep...

And to of course dodge the question. Which is what's your real motive. You don't pop up every time some psychotic newbie comes on and defend them. So it would seem you have an agenda.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

However her fame and input into the field of ripperology has done nothing to hurt public interest in the story. Quite the opposite.

Hi Jeff,

I really have to disagree with that.
On the contrary, she has created an enormous damage, especially considering every newcomer to the case who comes along and thinks her rubbish is the truth (not to mention if they're already fans of her other books). And then the rest of us have to go through a lot of trouble with trying to explain all the numerous problems with her theory.

It was the same with Stephen Knight. Indeed, he managed to make a lot of people interested in the case, but there is a price to pay for it, because he became so influental (with the help of Hollywood), that we are still dealing with the horrible effects from his lies and factual manipulations. Still, over 20 years after his book was published, we are forced to explain to a lot of naive people that the Ripper had nothing to do with any Royal Conspiracy.

I am sorry, but I don't see any benefits coming from that. I would rather let the Ripper case be less popular and less commercially important rather than having to waste my time again and again with trying to tear apart myths etched in stone by dubious authors and researchers.

As for her genuinely believeing in her own suspect, I have no doubt that she really believes that Sickert was the Ripper and that actually makes it even worse because it shows that she has lost her sense of judgement.

To be frank: spending millions of dollars on purchase of original paintings and on hopeless DNA tests, is not particularly healthy for any researcher's objectivity or sense of judgement. That's not research - just plain obsession. And it creates more damage than benefits for Ripperology - personally I can do without that kind of popularity for the subject.

All the best

[Jeff Leahy]

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?

I'm merely suggesting that we stop throwing personal abuse and yelling and screaming at people. I think thats quite reasonable.

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?

My motive...at this precise moment is to get some sleep...

sorry about the delay in reply..i ended up watching the Wimbledon final (which was fantastic) and it went on a while and I'm now tierd.

Good night, dont let the bed bugs bite..

[Jeff Leahy]

Yes he did! He did right here on this very thread! And if I remember correctly, he even repeated it again on another post. I'm going out right now or I would go back and find the post #. You can't say he didn't apologize!

It doesn't seem like you really have an agenda other than raising peoples' blood pressures. Are you some kind of pharmaceutical salesman?

OK he did , but it was a pretty half baked effort, full of yeah buts..

Please dig it up and give us a laugh

would you like an asprin?

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff....at one point in ALL our years of reading about the Ripper, we ALL have decided FIRST who the Ripper is and why. We, for the most part, got over that approach and decided to find the killer the old fashioned way...by following a trail of evidence which stands up as proof in court. CornWELL, on the other hand, never progressed with her "thinking"....if you can call it that. Nope, she decided who the Ripper was, hired her own employees to prove her theory, found Sickert's blood evidence on the inside of one of his stretched canvasses (where the hell ELSE would you expect to find an artist's DNA?)

yes I agree

. Hers is voo-doo science,

I love that expression. Does it mean when I disagree with its findings?

.and performed in reverse. With as much money, and as few brains as she seems to have, she can TRY to prove William the Conqueror did it, and she could TRY to make a good case......but THAT case would have as many holes and specious arguments as her Sickert theory does.

i'm not certain we can draw any conclusion that the people she employed were unreliable. I dont know about her DNA experts but i would imagine she used people who new what they were doing. Certainly Peter Bower as a well respected expert who amoungst other items varified the 'Little Child' letter.

Give it up, Jeff; DNA is not a "new" thing, neither is the use of mitochondrial DNA, neither is fingerprinting or blood spatter analysis, but she uses these tools like clubs to make "her" argument, and almost implies that she invented the entire investigative process. Then again, the Wicked Witch of the West isn't new, either...but she's been seen when CornWELL is around. Don't think I'd hitch my wagon to her particular star, Jeff. There's a reason most bookstores have her book shelved with the rest of her fiction, AND that it's been remaindered for next to nothing.

If your saying she might have been better off sticking to what she does best, thats probably a fair comment. However her fame and input into the field of ripperology has done nothing to hurt public interest in the story. Quite the opposite.

I think I should leave Patsy alone on her walled, razor-wire-protected estate, safe from all those who "are out to get her because she KNOWS the truth". Nope, just pass by and wave whichever finger or fingers rise first, but do NOT stop or linger there.......it's been proven.....SHE IS CONTAGIOUS AND TOXIC! She has been known to melt brain cells........

Cheers.

Again this is an unnecessary personal attack. Someone of your intelligence can do better than this. She is after all a human being with feelings like you and I..

Luckily I am as thick skinned as they get...but thanks for the advice

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

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.

However Patricia did not fabricate any DNA evidence. The fact that it was so bad would suggest that...

I think it fair to say she exagerate the meaning of her results..

but she can not be accused of fabrication as far as I can see..

They are simply ****

Peter Bowers paper analysis was clearly much more interesting. We are simply awaiting further and specific results. Due I gather to copyright difficulties of one of the letters.

[Jeff Leahy]

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.

Good thats precisely what I was asking and seeking to clarify.

Are you accusing Patricia Cornwall of Fraud or criminal wrong doing?

I think this was a fairly reasonable question given the claims you have made about Peter Bower in the past and the words being used by Ally..

Let me remind you:

Ally said: unlike Cornwall people here don't fabricate evidence resort to lies and decceitful practices

Again: lie and fabricate evidence

Again: Patricia Cornwalls Fabrications, lies and inventions

These statements sound pretty explicit to me..I was simply seeking to clarify 'IF' by these comments it was meant that Patricia Cornwall had commited fraud?

its a reasonable question.

I now have assurances from you both that neither of you believe that she has comitted fraud or a criminal act...I hope I'm correct in that?

And precisely because you are not claiming that..all this debate is about really is a loud of rather childish name calling that happen between Patricia and yourselves about four or five years ago..

She said this, they said that...all rather play ground stuff, nothing of any substance. Sticks and stones may break my bones etc.

Patricia is simply guilty of writing a rather poor book. Nothing else.

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.

Sue me

Quiet obviously I have not lied, the suggestion is ridiculus..

The claims you made against Peter Bower were potentially liabel because they could potentially damage his ability to earn a living. Given that his reputation as an expert in the field of paper is how he makes a living..

So the claim would be loss of earnings. I don't think you have such a claim against me.

Whether that claim could be made across the Atlantic however I have no idea. Might be fun to find out. However my experience of courts and legal fee's are not on the whole very good..though I have won a couple of cases.

My advice for what its worth is stear clear. The only people who profit from such actions are the Rich and the lawyers.