Patricia Cornwell

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Michael

Sorry for the delay in replying to your question. i realise that this thread is quite a long thread and may appear confusing to some people...and I refer you back to our original posts on page 2 of the general discussion, which were at that point quite cordial, informative, and might, I add, hopefully well
mannered.

"Ive stayed out of this since early on because I could see that you had some agenda with this area of discussion. I can see by the resulting pages that you do, but I admit I cant figure the core here."

Believe it or Not, the core of that agenda was simply sticking up for someone I have alot of respect for and I'd had a drink with at that time. ie Keith Skinner. I have no particular interest in Patricia Cornwell,
apart from the fact that I read her book a few years ago 2003 and attended a lecture at the Tate Gallery given by Peter Bower, Paul Begg, Mattew
Sturgis, and Dr Anna Gruuetzner Robins. At which time I had the privilege of speaking to Peter Bower for some time about his discoveries, and at that point formed the opinion that there might be something of a connection between Sickert and the letters (though I have never been of the opinion that Sickert was JtR). and dont know fore-sure Bower is correct.

My interest at that time was I was working on a series proposal on Hoax and Forged documents (Salamanda, Maybrick, Casement, Vinland, Voynich and Protocols EZ) So I was talking to a number of experts in that area/
Field. In fact I even remember being introduced to Caz on that evening so she may recall the conversation? However dont ever remember supporting Patricia Cornwalls book/theory, to the contrary.

However, the opening question to this thread was not only 'loaded', but a simple invitation to take the 'piss'. And I think that's somewhat unfair, perhaps even the language of play ground 'bullying'

At times the general level of this debate was like a Newman and Baddeil comedy sketch were two learn-ed professors discuss history:

" See that pile of cornball that dog did..that is you that is..." "see that... thats your theory"

(actually Glenn does look a little like Newman? only kidding )

Pretty obvious stuff, and based on arguments I believe I confirmed as dating back years ago when the book 'Pof a S K' was originally released...hardly the latest Internet update on the subject.

As I had been talking about this subject at that time with Keith Skinner and other well known Ripperologists. My perception was that Patricia
Cornwell had actually 'back tracked' from some of her claims and had employed a serious Ripperologist to do some serious research...surely addressing some of the criticism laid by 'ripperologists' at her door.

To my legal knowledge (Which is largely TV based) you can't employ a researcher and put in there contract they have to 'Lie" for you. Its not possible and it wouldnt stand up in court. It might even be an infringement of their human rights, here in Europe, to make them sign such a document.

"Do you have some relationship to this author, or to this authors marketing plans, some relationship to a suggestion that Sickert wrote some Ripper letters, or is this just standing up for a complete stranger with no other motives than clearing her name in this field of study."

Let me make this absolutely clear. NO on both accounts. i am simply a ripperologist with an interest in the Truth rather than mythology. If she's proved wrong then I will be with everyone else, with regards to her work (but not the personal attacks).

"I am curious since you have been hostile towards almost every poster, including the worlds leading authority on the Ripper crimes. Who I may say posted a fine explanation of his position, and not in a way to disparage anyone".

I'm sorry if I have at any time appeared hostile to you or any other poster on casebook (apart from Dan Norder). I do admit that i get rather hot under the collar when I feel that I am being attacked for my disability (dyslexia/word blindness). I beleive that my record on casebook for good manners is relatively good and I understand that my sense of humour (based from my Blackadder background) may appear at times, rather 'Strange', especially to the non-Brits.

If I'm concluding that your reference to: 'the worlds leading authority' is reference to Stewart Evens, which I'm sure he would not claim himself,

"who I may say posted a fine explanation of his position", I dont believe that at any point, I disagreed with any of Stewart Evans factual references, on the contrary, my objection was only to his personal attacks on my character and his assertion that i dont understand the finer points being discussed?. When quite clearly I had....

Dan Norder had attacked me with regard to Patricia Cornawall's " YES " men on the fourth part of this thread..which is largely what this disagreement was about: Thats because the people I have met connected to Patricia Cornwell dont appear to be 'Yes' men (ie Keith Skinner and Peter Bower). I have never met anyone else working for PC so I can not comment,
clearly Stewart suggested that people working for people 'in Power' can be 'yes men', I just felt that this was a hopeless generalisation, and that I could
only deal with 'my personal experience in this matter' not generalisations (although I except there may be some historical president towards 'yes men' working for people in power, but I dont think we can 'tar and feather' every expert who ever got paid for doing a job with that brush...other wise I'd be out of a job.

My Upset with Stewart Evans had absolutely nothing to do with the factual information he provided on this thread, which was, as always, up to his masterful standards..

I'm not certain about you or other posters but my TV/journalistic background, has installed into me, CHECK YOUR SOURCE, DOUBLE CHECK YOUR SOURCE, before printing a Story. And when I did my broadcasting
Degree our tutors still believed in Reithian ethic. So giving both sides of a story and getting two contrasting experts...well to me this is all Good
TV...and that's what i do..I've never claimed to be a historian or researcher (well by hobby a little). My logic was that I was proving balanced opinion...thats all.

The fact is that Dan Made a mistake..nobody except me appeared to notice...I therefore, as a I clearly posted, sort clarification on a number of points raised by Dan Norder, who quite clearly, reading back on this thread, also made a series of personal attacks against me. I was attacked from three fronts by the Norder Gang.

I beleived Dan Norder was mistaken in his claims about Peter Bower,I drove to London, and asked Paul Begg's advice, which he gave...(You may not like Patricia, jenni..but hopefully you will confirm that I appeared in London that evening, had dinner and drove Paul home)

Quite clearly that advice was correct (As proved on this thread), which is why I have been quite exasperated with some of the response I was given to
that factual information, which then appears to have been outrageously spread to another thread and a personal attack against Paul Beggs book ('so go figure' as you Americans would say).

Paul simply told me that Peter Bower has never published his findings, thought due to copyright problems. He also informed me that he had written
information for a book by M. Sturgis, who had questioned Peter Bowers findings, and gave some details... As far as I'm aware all the information
Paul Begg provided proved correct. Its that simple really.... and I quote:

"Sturgis acknowledged that Bower’s workings ‘need to be properly scrutinised", which they haven’t been because Bower hasn’t published. Why Bower hasn’t published is not known, but is believed to have something to do with copyright... But nobody is saying that we can’t discuss and draw conclusions from what is already known, so I’m personally in full and total
agreement with Stewart that we can debate what Cornwell and Sturgis have already published"

I therefore never had any problems with Stewarts position until he started laying into my 'word blindness' disability. And REMEMBER that despite
Stewarts personal criticism of me, he clearly hadnt noticed Dan Norders error when he posted the Open Shaw letter on thread No16. So who didnt understand what about this topic? However I quote:

"You are paddling in deep waters Jeff and I hope that you have your water wings with you - there is always a danger of drowning". "Please do not presume to tell me what Ripperology is all about"."Jeff, you are a nice
guy but there are times when you really don't do yourself any favours". "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." "So, if the 'Cornwell camp' aren't happy about Bower's findings being questioned (as you seem not to be)""Anyway prior to your eminence grise appearing you didn't really KNOW OR UNDERSTAND much
about this anyway - did you? A mere glance back over your past disjointed posts reveals that fact. I actually have no mind to indulge in vicarious debates so I shall keep this short." "I have not been guessing, I have been quoting what others have written - CANT YOU READ? I have never claimed to have first-hand knowledge nor expertise in this area. So please adhere to the fact of the matter." "my advice to you is don't get involved in COMPLEX arguments until you are competent enough to conduct them off your own bat". "Yes, what you have posted really does not impress me at all and you do need to take a close look at your manners. Perhaps a cold shower might
help, or a little THOUGHT before posting."

So let me make this clear to everyone " I have a word blindness disability" which means that I can not see 'letter errors' when I view, what I have written back. I check my posts constantly..I can even see these mistakes when I view them back at a later date..I find it extremely frustrating that I can not express myself properly in written form..I apologise...I therefore
have several different types of posts I create on casebook.

A. replies (quick responces).
B. Replies through TEXT (which I do spell check)
C. Posts with external check (spell checks dont always
help someone with my disability)
D. Essay posts (posts like this one were I have taken
sometime to check spelling and meaning, and
references/quotes before publication. (but it is to
time consuming for everyday use)

In short if i published something as i had written it,
it would be almost illegible to you.

But yes Stewart clearly I can read.

Unfortunately much to my personal shame these errors are becoming increasingly worse over the past two years and I'm not certain that there is any medical help that can help or deal with this problem.

If I was in a wheel chair or had hearing problems, perhaps my disability would be more obvious..however my brain is simply wired differently to your brain. thought processes travel through different parts of my
brain...words get jumbled up when I write or Type them.

So I admit much of Stewart Evans criticism is true, however, his claims that i am unable to understand the intricate nuances of this thread are, like him, in Factual error. In fact people suffering from Dyslexia/word blindness have a very good understanding of the 'Bigger Picture" their brains are wired to
actually deal better with large creative ideas than smaller detail thoughts such as spelling.

So if Stewart Evens believes that because I seek expert opinion other than his own and that I have difficulty expressing that information in written
form, that I am in anyway unable to use a bat..then I challenge him to a game to "Cricket". I may not be as young as I once was but I can still hit the odd metaphorical six when required.

The simple fact of this thread is that Dan Norder made a series of outragious claims that he has been unable to substantiate. I have simply called those claims into dispute..and I believe the information I provided
to demonstrate that was correct..FACT.

That is all Michael. Its very simple.

Dan Norder, I quote:

‘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.’

Anyone can question what Peter Bower has claimed (or, perhaps to be more precise, as Paul would say, what Patricia Cornwell has reported that he claimed), but that is very different from claiming that Peter and Sally Bower, knowingly and wittingly provided evidence, that they knew Patricia Cornwell wanted in return for the money that she paid them. THAT is a
very serious accusation and one that, if true, tosses Peter Bower’s credibility in fundamental question.

And when asked to provide the evidence upon which this outrageous claim of dishonesty was based, Norder replied:

‘Let's just go with Bower's most important claim’

and he proceeded to argue that Bower’s claim that some Sickert and Ripper letters came from the same batch of 24-sheets was a load of TOSH. He asserted that Bower was so inept that he did not realise that the
watermarks showed that the paper had been manufactured a year apart.

I demonstrated that the watermarks posted were the wrong water marks. Fact.

Dan Norder wanted people to think that his error was simply misleading, causing some specific details to be confused, but his claims are far more serious than that.

I demonstrated, Dan Norder’s misunderstanding led him to accuse Peter Bower of "extraordinary ineptitude", and this in turn was part of the evidence on which he further accused Peter Bower of being a ‘yes-man’ who
took money to produce the results Patricia Cornwell wanted.

But as I have clearly shown, Dan Norder was wrong, very badly wrong, and Peter Bower was not guilty of the ineptitude Dan Norder had accused him of and we are still awaiting the evidence on which Norder accuses Peter and Sally Bower of taking money to produce the results Patricia Cornwell paid them to produce and that their research was inadequate and not performed
to acceptable standards. Which he obviously can not produce because as Stewart Evans has pointed out..Bower has not - as yet - published his findings in full.

Just to remind every body (cheers Paul), Matthew Sturgis says of Peter Bower:

"is a respected paper historian’ with an ‘extensive knowledge of paper manufacture’ . He’s a ‘registered ‘expert witness’’, used by the police to authenticate drawings and documents, and employed for the same
purpose by the Tate Gallery, where incidentally I met both Peter Bower and Matthew sturgis ( I must admit I only really remember talking to Peter Bower and some lady called Caz in the pub afterwards)

Is it likely that Petr Bower, knowing that his conclusions will be scrutinised very closely, would have intentionally taken money from Patricia Cornwell
to produce conclusions which he knew to be wrong and which he knows could ruin his career?

That, Michael, dosnt seem very likely to me? But I’m NOT saying that Peter Bower is correct, or even arguing that he could be correct, but, as Matthew
Sturgis states, ‘Bower is very confident in his assertions, and certainly they are not to be dismissed lightly.’

It seems to me that Dan Norder had dismissed them lightly and he’s being asked for substantiation that Peter Bower is a ‘yes-man.’ Because I can't see any evidence for that.

Lets remember stewert Evans Caveat: Shall we list the points he makes even with the caveat that 'Bower has not - as yet - published his findings in full.' (i think we are in agreement here)

Which does sound to me a little like adding the caveat: can I have my cake and eat it? Or in other words, lots of experts find Peter Bowers claims
'surprising', however they can not make specific claims against Peter Bowers work because non of them have actually seen it.

Although as Paul Begg points out you are all free to discuss these eleven points in general terms if you wish, fore that is what we are dealing with 'educated' guess work, is it not?

Some of these eleven even seem to be creating more
problems than they solve:

Q.10. The handwriting of the two compared 'Ripper letters' looks nothing like Sickert's handwriting.

If we havn't actually seen which letters Bower has studied how can we know this or can any body claim it? Besides are you making the claim that hand writing analysis is a science? I've looked into this with some detail and I dont believe that it is?

However I guess that its possible that Stewart has actually worked out which two letters we are actually talking about here, and done his own hand writing analysis, so perhaps he would like to enlighten us?

Caz adds: I don't know why Jeff thinks he would not have been free to say so. It would have done wonders for his case and Cornwell's cause.

As i've stated: I believe that the letters Bower studied in America were subject to copyright restriction, this restriction was about to be lifted
(2yrs) so my guess is that the new book will be timed for that restriction being lifted. But that is a complete guess on Jeff's part, I dont claim to know.

My point all along Michael has been very simple:

Lets wait for the facts to be published, so that they can be studied and judged properly.

That Peter Bower should be judged on his work and without personal and unsubstantiated attacks to his character.

That Patricia Cornwell should be given a chance to present her Ripper theory in the same way that any other Ripperologist should be aloud to present their 'Ripper Theory.', free from personal attack.

I understand that this concept may appear strange in the USA, however for those of us educated in a Reithian sense of fair play and balanced opinion (ie
born in the sound of BBC television) I think we can at least listen to what Patricaia has to say and pass informed comment and criticism.

Bugger that was a long post..

Yours Jeff

[Jenni Shelden]

Jeff,

its not that I dislike Ms Cornwell - I've never met the woman - Im sure she means well. I actually look forward to the newly researched edition of her book that is due out soon, because i think it will be quite interesting.

Sometimes we all forget everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I have no reason to question Peter Bower's findings - maybe thogh they have been misinterpreted. And of course then again, I am not a forensic document examiner.

I think people are taking things on this thread far too seriously. Much of what I have posted has been tongue in check. I don't think Ms Cornwell needs defendeing because i hope her new edition will redress the balance and look forward to it and its publicity as i said with baited breath. That's just me I guess...

Jenni

[Dan Norder]

Oh for God's sake, Jeff, get a grip.

My point about yes men had nothing to do with Keith Skinner, so if you jumped into this thread half-cocked in an attempt to defend his reputation you were just wasting everyone's time.

As far as my claims against Professor Bower supposedly being outrageous and whatever else you invent up, my point about him providing conclusions not backed up by science to support Cornwell's favored theory has been documented quite overwhelmingly. I explained why his claims can't be taken seriously, Stewart Evans provided additional information, and there's also the information provided in the book by Sturgis and the experts he found that directly demonstrate that Bower's claims are simply not supported. Trying to ignore all that with the strange claim that some phony baloney copyright claims means he can't publish the results so allegedly nobody can criticize him over what he has already said is just a desperate attempt to derail the conversation from the fact that his claims aren't taken seriously by the experts, just as I said, and as you wandered in blindly to try to fight about.

Furthermore, Stewart did not make fun of your alleged disability. He just pointed out, as others have, that your dyslexia has a tendency to disappear completely in some of your posts... when you are simply copying and pasting what others have typed up for you to say but which they themselves are too cowardly to post themselves. (I further note that even a full on case of severe dyslexia wouldn't explain your inability to describe the content of your own previous posts, let alone the posts of others, with any accuracy.)

And, of course, no amount of rationalization here can justify your over the top personal attacks on several different people on this thread, especially not when the only attempt at any justification you give is that you thought other people were being attacked. Even if we were to be quite generous and accept you at your own word, you'd be a major hypocrite for taking the very actions you claimed you were here to argue against. It's odd how you feel no qualms about attacking the integrity of authors and others who point out the errors of Cornwell, Bower and Begg while insisting that Bower and Begg could do no wrong and that to even suggest otherwise is a grievous attack on them.

[Stewart P Evans]

Wasting My Time

I may be wasting my time in answering the various points raised in the tedious post above by 'Pirate Jack'. It amazes me how in Ripperworld honest criticism and dispute are regarded as 'personal attacks' and used in attempts to turn popular support to the poor maligned victim of such criticism.

Yes, I did state that people in a position to pay large sums to those who work for them do tend to attract "a certain following of 'yes people'." This is a statement of fact, it is true, and it really cannot be gainsaid. However it is not 'a hopeless generalisation' - it is a fact to be borne in mind when considering any employer such as Ms Cornwell. I am sure that she is aware of this fact of life herself and would not deny it. I am not saying, however, that it is the case here for I do not know. It is a caveat.

It was also pretty obvious that certain parts of replies I was receiving from 'Pirate Jack' were the work of Paul Begg and 'PJ' confirmed this. If I wanted to debate with Paul Begg I would contact him. If I debate with 'Pirate Jack' I don't expect to receive answers from Paul Begg.

I normally don't get involved in pointless debates such as this (it is much along 'diary' lines) and I merely posted an image of the Openshaw letter that Dan Norder mentioned (which I had posted in the past) and it was not my place to correct him about watermarks, which I was obviously fully aware of and was certain that someone else would leap in with the correction, which indeed they did.

As regards 'Pirate Jack's' weird idea of what a 'personal attack' is, I suggest he re-reads the earlier posts to see just who became abusive and made a totally uncalled for innuendo in a response to me. For my part I would never attack someone for a genuine disability and I haven't here. What I did respond to was ignorance and abuse of a high order. 'Pirate Jack' was also patently 'unable to understand the intricate nuances of this thread' otherwise why would he be seeking advice from his mentor, Paul Begg, and then be posting the answers of Paul Begg instead of words of his own?

I am now getting quite annoyed with all this and for those able to read between the lines I suggest that they 'give it a rest.' I personally don't care a damn who 'PJ' seeks 'expert advice' from and I'm glad that it isn't me as I am no expert anyway. We now see 'PJ' quoting PB yet again as saying "what Patricia Cornwell has reported that he [Peter Bower] claimed". Whatever is that supposed to mean? - did she not report accurately what Bower was claiming? Is there some sort of doubt? I am sure that Ms Cornwell's published words are accurate here.

Also a word here on experts and expert opinion. Any forensic expert is well used to appearing in court and giving evidence of opinion. He/she will also be well used to having that opinion questioned and challenged. Does that 'toss their credibilty in fundamental question'? No, of course it does not, it is par for the course for the expert witness.

As for Dan Norder's error earlier in this debate, it was an easy one to make as this is a complex subject and is argued on many fronts. It is human to err and very many do so on these boards, including the likes of me and Paul Begg. So whilst it is fine to correct Dan here and to accept the apology that he has given it is not fine to gloat and drag the point out ad infinitum. 'Pirate Jack' is like a dog with a bone and just won't let it drop, will he?

Finally I should like to thank Paul Begg, via 'Pirate Jack', for his gracious concession to us - "you are all free to discuss these eleven points in general terms if you wish", that must make everyone here feel a lot better when posting.

[Jeff Leahy]

Oh for God's sake, Jeff, get a grip.

My point about yes men had nothing to do with Keith Skinner, so if you jumped into this thread half-cocked in an attempt to defend his reputation you were just wasting everyone's time.

So you admit to your usually Dan Norder sweeping generalization? good.

As far as my claims against Professor Bower supposedly being outrageous and whatever else you invent up, my point about him providing conclusions not backed up by science to support Cornwell's favored theory has been documented quite overwhelmingly.

Well know it hasnt because Bower, as we are all agreed hasnt published anything yet. And I havnt invented anything, I've just pionted out the facts to you. And whose science are yuou refering to? All you have are sweeping generalizations, as always.

I explained why his claims can't be taken seriously, Stewart Evans provided additional information, and there's also the information provided in the book by Sturgis and the experts he found that directly demonstrate that Bower's claims are simply not supported. Trying to ignore all that with the strange claim that some phony baloney copyright claims means he can't publish the results so allegedly nobody can criticize him over what he has already said is just a desperate attempt to derail the conversation from the fact that his claims aren't taken seriously by the experts, just as I said, and as you wandered in blindly to try to fight about.

Derail the conversation? Shall we list the points he makes even with the caveat that 'Bower has not - as yet - published his findings in full.'

(I further note that even a full on case of severe dyslexia wouldn't explain your inability to describe the content of your own previous posts, let alone the posts of others, with any accuracy.)

I'm sorry? you have me here. What are you talking about?

And, of course, no amount of rationalization here can justify your over the top personal attacks on several different people on this thread, especially not when the only attempt at any justification you give is that you thought other people were being attacked. Even if we were to be quite generous and accept you at your own word, you'd be a major hypocrite for taking the very actions you claimed you were here to argue against. It's odd how you feel no qualms about attacking the integrity of authors and others who point out the errors of Cornwell, Bower and Begg while insisting that Bower and Begg could do no wrong and that to even suggest otherwise is a grievous attack on them.

No Dan, I have attacked only one person here..YOU. I have not attached the integrity of any other author, apart from Dan Norder..Fact. And trying to make a conection between Cornwell and Begg..again..is simply laughable..are you really that stupid? Do you work on a 'If I through enough mud some will stick theory?"

And dispite all this huffing and puffing..I still am rather curious about the eleven claims made against Peter Bower.

I say again..If Bower hasnt published his findings..

ie I dont know which letters he is refering to...

How can someone, anyone make the claim that the hand writing does not match Sickerts?

I mean I'm obviously the dunce around here that dosnt understand the arguements..but scientific evidence..against what?

and is Handwriting analysis, scientific evidence?

No obviously people who suffer from dyslexia cant grasp expert analysis can they

[Jeff Leahy]

I normally don't get involved in pointless debates such as this (it is much along 'diary' lines) and I merely posted an image of the Openshaw letter that Dan Norder mentioned (which I had posted in the past) and it was not my place to correct him about watermarks, which I was obviously fully aware of and was certain that someone else would leap in with the correction, which indeed they did.

Really Stewart? Just aswell I did then.

Let me make this clear, I have no argument with you or the information you provided throughout this thread. Many thanks.

However to make the claim that some of your comments were not personal is at best disingenuous..."I have been quoting what others have writen..cant you read?"

Clearly 'cant you read' that is how that comment was interpreted by myself.

Aside however, I am interested in your claims..ie piont ten, that hand writing analysis disproves Bowers findings..are you serious about this?

Do you know which letters Bower is refering too?

Yours Jeff

[perrymason]

I appreciate the time and effort it took to answer my questions Pirate, you were quite sincere as was my inquiry.

I shall step back from the fray now.

My great grandfather was Welsh, an old scrapper too...and he always told me when I was young to watch out getting hurt in a fracus. I thought it was a bone.

Best regards.

[Stewart P Evans]

Read

Really Stewart? Just aswell I did then.
Let me make this clear, I have no argument with you or the information you provided throughout this thread. Many thanks.
However to make the claim that some of your comments were not personal is at best disingenuous..."I have been quoting what others have writen..cant you read?"
Clearly 'cant you read' that is how that comment was interpreted by myself.
Aside however, I am interested in your claims..ie piont ten, that hand writing analysis disproves Bowers findings..are you serious about this?
Do you know which letters Bower is refering too?
Yours Jeff

To intimate that I was not aware of the error made re- the watermarked letters is a nonsense as I have debated that point in the past and, indeed, the 'Openshaw letter' was in my possession for a long period of time and I pointed out then that it might even have a DNA trace of mine on it. Dan's error was actually pointed out by Paul Begg, you being his mouthpiece.

My comment 'Can't you read' to you was because you seemed to be under the impression that I was making statements about Peter Bower's conclusions myself when they were actually all points raised in the response to be found in the Sturgis book. And you are still doing it! The quote comes directly from the Sturgis book, page 640, - "The handwriting of the two 'Ripper' letters bears no relation to Sickert's script; and the Sickert letters all date from late 1889 or ealy 1890, well after the Ripper crimes." But if you had properly read my initial posting listing all the points you would have know that as I preceded it with the words "Shall we list the points he [Sturgis] makes..."

When you make the basic error of failing to read something properly it is hardly a 'personal attack' to ask you if you can read. And, of course, my responses have been mild when compared with the unmitigated venom that you yourself have displayed here. Again I recommend a re-reading of the earlier posts.

As regards the letters being used for comparison I suggest that you write to Matthew Sturgis and ask him which ones Bower is referring to as the quote is in his book.

[Monty]

Just when you think its safe to go back in to the water....

Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

So Why?

Just when you think its safe to go back in to the water....

Monty

So why dip your feet in then?

[Monty]

To test the water Stewart, and its rather cold.

Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

Right...

To test the water Stewart, and its rather cold.

Monty

Right, I am pleased to hear that it wasn't a mischievous comment.

[Monty]

Stewart,

I think, having read the previous posts on this thread, my own post was mild.

Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

Admission?

Stewart,

I think, having read the previous posts on this thread, my own post was mild.

Monty

Is that an admission that it was mischievous?

[Monty]

Peace

Stewart,

It seems you are spoiling for a dust up with me, I hope I am wrong.

If Ive offended you, I apologise.

Monty