Patricia Cornwell

[Jeff Leahy]

Tom i will reply to you, however I am in the middle of an edit that requires finishing and Manchester United are play Chelsea at seven...

[JSchmidt]

The 'A. Pirie & Sons' letters still appear in the paperback edition together with the unconvincing mitochondrial DNA claims. The guillotine marked Gurney Ivory Laid letters are a new and different set of letters about which claims of identification are made.

Thank you Mr. Evans, I really felt a bit lost there.

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff,

Since we all agree that Sickert was not Jack and did not write any of the potentially significant Ripper letters - if he wrote any at all - then why is this so important to you, and how does it qualify as Ripperology?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Yo so Manchester United win! I'm sorry Sceptic if you are lissening but it was desserved if in the end lucky..poor John Terry..

WHy is this so important to ME..am I aloud to answer after drinking...Am i suzzi? bo**ocks OK..

well I could ask why is it so important to you? why spend hours on a Maybrick thread arguing about a fake diary?..at least I've been pitching a TV series based on Forgeries..Salamanda,Maybrick,casement,voynich,vin eland,and the mother of all forgeries...the protocols of teh Elders of Zion...and have a consistant interest in the area over a number of threads, years..

So i'm interested in paper,ink, provenance and hot air!

I am simply questioning the statement that experts hired by Patricia Cornwell are 'YES-people' who produce the results Patricia Cornwell wants.

Its that blo*dy simple really...largely because its bo**ocks...and I wonder what other motives lay behind such a statement. And I wonder how many other generalized statements Norder gets away with? So lets just clarify what this is all about, my position:

Dan Norder stated that Peter Bower was a yes-man and stated that Peter Bower was so inept that he failed to notice that documents he believed to come from the same batch of 24 sheets bore watermarks which showed that they had been manufactured a year apart...

I ask Dan to prove this or apologuise...

Peter Bower is a distinguished forensic paper examiner who has written several papers about watermarks and it seemed unlikely to me, he would have made such a fundamental mistake...

When I suggested this I was attack by yourself and Ally...on a variety of unrelated topics

I dont know if I've missed something hear but the honess is now upon Norder to provided more evidence..(which he does not have)..about Peter Bowers findings, or to apologuise..which he has not yet done..!!!!

I mean thats actually quite simple isnt it...Dan Makes mistake..Jeff Pionts out Dans mistake..Dan Apologuises for mistake..

I'm fairly certain I would have done so in his posistion.

Given his attacks on this thread and on other threads about people that I greatly admire and respect. I beleive that this would be the honerable thing to do....dont you Tom?

So how about it Norder, is Sorry in your extensive vocabluary?

Pirate Jack

Admittedly a little tipsy but a Brilliant game..no the cup final

[Jeff Leahy]

You know it always amazed, and worried, me as a police officer that as soon as one expert witness was found to swear his opinion to one 'fact' another expert was found to swear to the opposite opinion. And experts, of course, work for money, usually a lot of it.

As someone who has worked in television for twenty years its strange what paralels can be draw

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff,

Since we all agree that Sickert was not Jack and did not write any of the potentially significant Ripper letters - if he wrote any at all - then why is this so important to you, and how does it qualify as Ripperology?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

PS. Can you clarify what you mean by 'potencially significant' ?

Surely any letter proved to be writen by Walter Sickert, in relation to JtR, is potentially Significant?

or am I just pi**ed?

[Stewart P Evans]

Nice Guy

Jeff, you are a nice guy but there are times when you really don't do yourself any favours.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

PS. Can you clarify what you mean by 'potencially significant' ?

Surely any letter proved to be writen by Walter Sickert, in relation to JtR, is potentially Significant?

or am I just pi**ed?

No, not really Jeff, because as most people today would agree, none of the so called Ripper letters can be proven being authored by the killer anyway. A point that Cornwell herself clearly missed.
So what's the point in trying to prove if Sickert wrote any of the letters, when none of them most likely came from the murderer in the first place?

if it could be proven that Sickert wrote any of the Ripper letters, then it's interesting for reasons of pure curiousity, nothing more.

All the best

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

I think, that; mrs. Cornwell may have prove mr. Sickert to have written some prank letter.

But, but... one has to remember, that it's very possible, that she hired those investigators to please her!

There are other examples of this in another fields of documentary litterature; for example, Albert Goldman gathered his material for his book about John Lennon from fired staff, etc.

All the best
Jukka

[anna]

Just a thought,Pirate Jack,but......

Perhaps,being in TV, Pirate Jack could explain part of this for me.
I didn't read the book,but I did see a TV documentary fronted by PC.
It explained how she came about her conclusions that Sickert was JTR.It did touch upon the fact that he made trips back and forth to France during 1888but obviously failed to mention he was there at the time of the murders.
Now,you are aware from being in the industry how many authors would love to get their work aired on primetime TV,could you explain to me how she managed to achieve this?
TV companies and book publishers have researchers to check everything is correct,for legal reasons.
Surely such a major error should have been picked up on before book and Tv deals were signed?
Think I remember that it was a member of Sickert's family who suggested he was JTR in the 70's?Then announced it as a fraud on his part,when challenged,a short time later.

[JSchmidt]

Literary Tropes?

I think the problem with Sickert is that Mrs. Cornwell made him out to be a criminal genius and jack of all trades in the style of a novel character or better yet a novel villain.
We are made to believe that he was a master at disguising both himself and his writing.
We are also made to believe that a physical deformation led to psychological trauma and resentment against women that mock him for that deformation.
We are made to believe that he had secret lairs in the East End.
We are also made to believe he both mocked the public and the Police by writing Ripper letters under a nom de plume that could be linked to his stage perfomances. If he goes as far as to masterfully disguise his handwriting, why should he use his normal stationery and why should he use Nemo?
And why should he write/doodle a pictorial confession in a guestbook that would not have the public impact of the letters?

[Jeff Leahy]

No, not really Jeff, because as most people today would agree, none of the so called Ripper letters can be proven being authored by the killer anyway. A point that Cornwell herself clearly missed.
So what's the point in trying to prove if Sickert wrote any of the letters, when none of them most likely came from the murderer in the first place?

if it could be proven that Sickert wrote any of the Ripper letters, then it's interesting for reasons of pure curiousity, nothing more.

All the best

Yo Glenn

Glad to have you on board..and yes I agree with your comments about hoax letters 100%. Infact I'd even go a little further because I peronally dont beleive JtR wrote the Graffitti either. As far as I know there is no president for schitzophrenic serial killers writing or leaving messages.

I said it’s a loaded question because Tom begins by saying that everyone is agreed that Sickert didn’t write any ‘potentially significant’ letters. Well, since neither he, nor I know which Ripper letters Sickert allegedly wrote, we are unable to say whether they are ‘potentially significant’ or not, and anyway I’m uncertain what Tom means by ‘potentially significant’ because I guess that if Sickert did write letters claiming to be Jack the Ripper then those letters would assume a significance, because he wrote them.

Also, we are not ‘all agreed’ that Sickert did not write letters, ‘potentially significant’ or otherwise, because Peter Bower apparently believes otherwise and since he is an accredited forensic paper examiner of note and has not yet published details of his work for peer review, and since none of us are in any case forensic paper examiners and able to make informed comment, we cannot as yet state with any certainty that he’s wrong.

Which is why I have stated that we will have to wait for the next book to make informed comment on Peter Bowers findings.

Which is what this disagreement is ALL about. Dan Norder making wild accussation that he can not substanciate and I have shown to be incorrct...whuch is fair game, and I think Norder should appologuise.
*
I am simply questioning the statement that experts hired by Patricia Cornwell are yes-people who produce the results Patricia Cornwell wants, and the implication that this applied to people like Peter Bower and Keith Skinner whom I have met and have utmost respect for....Thats it, nothing else.

Of course I was joshing with Stewart about his comments on experts..because from my piont of veiw as a Producer Stewart is an 'expert'...and a very good one i might add, so i'm sorry I appear to have upset him.

I am currently working on a project that requires the use of experts in the area of Psychology...now theres a controversial subject...will everyone asume that I'm paying them to make things up? I think we should be extremely careful how we 'tar and feather' people, especially as their livelyhoods depend on their reputations.

Peter Bower is a distinguished forensic paper examiner who has written several papers about watermarks and it seemed unlikely he would have made such a fundamental mistake. It therefore seemed only right that Norder be required to substantiate what he’d claimed.

As we’ve seen, he had in fact, misunderstood the facts and wrongly maligned Peter Bower. Its simple apologuise.

Jeff

[Victor]

No, not really Jeff, because as most people today would agree, none of the so called Ripper letters can be proven being authored by the killer anyway. A point that Cornwell herself clearly missed.
So what's the point in trying to prove if Sickert wrote any of the letters, when none of them most likely came from the murderer in the first place?

if it could be proven that Sickert wrote any of the Ripper letters, then it's interesting for reasons of pure curiousity, nothing more.

All the best

Glenn,

Wearside Jack was imprisoned for 8 years though http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6079462.stm

Admittedly Sickert is long dead but the priniciple remains.

[Sox]

Ask yourself some questions:

How many people here are obsessed with Jack the Ripper?

How many people here have painted images based on these crimes?

I leave you to the obvious conclusion.

[Stewart P Evans]

A Few Thoughts

Jeff, You appear to have calmed down a bit from some of your earlier (apparently) excited posts. I also detect that you may have been given some advice about what you are saying (my feeling only).

With such a controversial book as that written by Patricia Cornwell, and given the many sweeping claims that she makes, there are bound to be some aggressive responses. Especially in view of some of the earlier comments she has made. She has a swathe of experts following in her wake that no normal author could possibly hope for - let alone pay for! When these experts give their opinion they should expect to be challenged - especially if their statements are very specific and apparently do not expect to be contradicted. It is par for the course in areas of expertise for there to be great contention and dispute over opinion. And, bear in mind, an expert isn't always right. I do not intend to argue on Dan Norder's behalf for I know that he is perfectly capable of doing so himself - and I am not an acolyte of his as he would quickly tell you. Unfortunately people of great wealth, who are able to pay sums that others may only dream of, do tend to attract a certain following of 'yes people'. This is an undisputed fact and I am not naming or suggesting any names here.

You have specifically raised the case of Peter Bower here and have suggested that we are uninformed and that we 'have to wait for the next book to make informed comment on Peter Bower's findings.' Sorry - wrong. Peter Bower's findings and opinions have already been published by Patricia Cornwell and those published findings and opinions may, correctly, be commented upon. If they weren't ready to publish what he has to say then they should have waited for the final book (which I don't think was even envisaged at the time the last one was published). Hence we find the greatest questioning and doubt over Peter Bower's opinion is to be found in Walter Sickert A Life by Matthew Sturgis, 2005, pages 639-640. And these are serious doubts raised by his peers, people who are informed on the subject and who do question the published claims of Bower. And I have already quoted what they say in a previous post.

All that said, I have the greatest respect for Peter Bower, whom I have met, and it is not me who has published the doubts over his work - please do read the Sturgis book, you will find it educational. You see Jeff, when someone has their opinion published then they will find that, if those opinions are controversial, which they certainly are here, they will find themselves challenged. No it is not wrong for Peter Bower to be paid by Patricia Cornwell, it's his living and the same applies to Keith. However, there is a subtle difference with Keith, he is a researcher and not an expert giving his opinion. Keith is careful not to make public claims or publish any opinion on the research work he is doing for Patricia Cornwell. Therefore he really cannot be legitimately attacked and his honesty and capabilities are beyond question here. I too respect Keith, both as an old and dear friend as well as admiring his research skills.

As far as your 'beef' with Dan Norder, well that is none of my business. But when you make comments such as you have to me, joking or not, then you will upset me. As a police officer my integrity was never questioned and I have a long service and good conduct medal, a certificate of merit and a retirement certificate that states my conduct was exemplary.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Glenn,

Wearside Jack was imprisoned for 8 years though http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6079462.stm

Admittedly Sickert is long dead but the priniciple remains.

Sorry, but your point is lost on me. Please elaborate.

All the best