Patricia Cornwell

[Stewart P Evans]

Not at all...

Stewart,

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

If Ive offended you, I apologise.

Monty

Not at all, to either point above. Nothing to apologise for, I was merely being playful with you. There is only one person on this thread who has offended me.

[Monty]

No worries

Stewart,

Yeah, Ive noticed.

Monty

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Stewart

"The handwriting of the two 'Ripper' letters bears no relation to Sickert's script."

How can Surgis state this if Peter Bower has not released his findings?..and to my knowledge no-one knows which two letters Bower is actually referring to?

Although, as clearly Bower States Gurney Ivory Laid, I dont suppose it beyond the world of possibility that someone has figured it out. If it was the case that Mattthew Sturgis had, surely he would have made his comments with reference to those specific letters?

Or perhaps Matthew Sturgis is making the general point that none of the letters bare any resemblance to Sickerts script, so by default neither can the two studied by Peter Bower bare any resemblance?

And I guess Patricia Cornwell's argument would be that Sickert was a master artist capable to discuising his hand writing in a number of differant ways...

You are hardly likely to write a letter to the authorities claiming to be Jack the Ripper and put it in a fully recognisable script/handwriting?

and as I said in my previous post, I'm not convinced that hand writing analysis is actually a science anyway?

"and the Sickert letters all date from late 1889 or Early 1890, well after the Ripper crimes."

Surely this is irrelevant? The only importance is to identify that the letters actually came from Walter Sickert, the content and timing can have little baring given the suggested time frame.

Yours Jeff

RE:..unmitigated venom that you yourself have displayed here.

What planet does this comment come from? I took issue with a number of comments you posted aimed at me personally. I have never directed any 'unmitigated' venom in your direction..indeed quite the contrary. My posts have consistently stated my admiration for you personally and your work...

That does not however make me a 'Yes Man' (not that I'm suggesting I'm in anybodies pay) and I stand by my claim that until we actually know the precise content of Peter Bowers 'Findings' any speculation given about it, regardless of its 'educated' opinion, is still basically guess work.

[Stewart P Evans]

Apologist

Hello Stewart
"The handwriting of the two 'Ripper' letters bears no relation to Sickert's script."
How can Surgis state this if Peter Bower has not released his findings?..and to my knowledge no-one knows which two letters Bower is actually referring to?
Although, as clearly Bower States Gurney Ivory Laid, I dont suppose it beyond the world of possibility that someone has figured it out. If it was the case that Mattthew Sturgis had, surely he would have made his comments with reference to those specific letters?
Or perhaps Matthew Sturgis is making the general point that none of the letters bare any resemblance to Sickerts script, so by default neither can the two studied by Peter Bower bare any resemblance?
And I guess Patricia Cornwell's argument would be that Sickert was a master artist capable to discuising his hand writing in a number of differant ways...
You are hardly likely to write a letter to the authorities claiming to be Jack the Ripper and put it in a fully recognisable script/handwriting?
and as I said in my previous post, I'm not convinced that hand writing analysis is actually a science anyway?
"and the Sickert letters all date from late 1889 or Early 1890, well after the Ripper crimes."
Surely this is irrelevant? The only importance is to identify that the letters actually came from Walter Sickert, the content and timing can have little baring given the suggested time frame.
Yours Jeff
RE:..unmitigated venom that you yourself have displayed here.
What planet does this comment come from? I took issue with a number of comments you posted aimed at me personally. I have never directed any 'unmitigated' venom in your direction..indeed quite the contrary. My posts have consistently stated my admiration for you personally and your work...
That does not however make me a 'Yes Man' (not that I'm suggesting I'm in anybodies pay) and I stand by my claim that until we actually know the precise content of Peter Bowers 'Findings' any speculation given about it, regardless of its 'educated' opinion, is still basically guess work.

You ask how Sturgis can state that the handwriting of the two 'Ripper' letters bears no relation to Sickert's script. Don't ask me - I suggest that you ask Sturgis himself. I seem to recall that Patricia Cornwell appeared on a TV piece with the two letters in question making the comparison. This I have on disc somewhere but I have not been able yet to locate it. Certainly I will have photographs of the letters in question.

Regarding handwriting, and its identification and analysis, I do not need lessons from you. As a police officer I was involved in several cases where the authorship of handwriting came into question and I have an extensive Home Office instruction which gives all the requirements for such analysis. Ergo I am aware that handwrting analysis and identification is, largely, a question of expertise and is at times liable to serious questioning. It is the nature of such evidence. But the mere fact that a questioned document does not at all resemble the handwriting of the person alleged to have written it must weigh heavily in the assessment of that document. Anyone familiar with the seemingly endless 'diary' debates must be aware of the counter arguments that may be made. The point of the dates of the Sickert letters is another raised by Sturgis so, again, ask him the relevance.

You are obviously taking the role of apologist here but certainly I haven't remotely suggested that you are in anybody's pay, but we all know whose song sheet you are singing from.

The unmitigated venom is in the innuendo you made regarding the police, and, by implication, myself.

[perrymason]

I would just like to say to Stewart that your aptitude for such discussions or your background are well known among us and need no defense, and I hope that you wont waste the enthusiasm and interest you still have for discussing this subject on anyone who doesnt appreciate the sources perspective.

I certainly do, and the people I respect most here aside from yourself do too.

My best regards.

[Jeff Leahy]

QUOTE=Stewart P Evans;22327]You ask how Sturgis can state that the handwriting of the two 'Ripper' letters bears no relation to Sickert's script. Don't ask me - I suggest that you ask Sturgis himself. I seem to recall that Patricia Cornwell appeared on a TV piece with the two letters in question making the comparison. This I have on disc somewhere but I have not been able yet to locate it. Certainly I will have photographs of the letters in question.[/QUOTE]

Strangely I have been looking for these TV appearances myself, as I stated in an earlier post, I missed these appearances at the time. I dont beleive she could have had the comparison from the Getti Museum however.

Regarding handwriting, and its identification and analysis, I do not need lessons from you. As a police officer I was involved in several cases where the authorship of handwriting came into question and I have an extensive Home Office instruction which gives all the requirements for such analysis. Ergo I am aware that handwrting analysis and identification is, largely, a question of expertise and is at times liable to serious questioning. It is the nature of such evidence. But the mere fact that a questioned document does not at all resemble the handwriting of the person alleged to have written it must weigh heavily in the assessment of that document. Anyone familiar with the seemingly endless 'diary' debates must be aware of the counter arguments that may be made. The point of the dates of the Sickert letters is another raised by Sturgis so, again, ask him the relevance.

As I stated, I spent some time putting together a television program on this vary subject, however I dont beleive I was giving a lesson, simply raising a valid piont, there are people who follow threads who do not have your vast knowledge on the subject.. Like you I should have my research somewhere and am happy to share, if it thought relivant.

You are obviously taking the role of apologist here but certainly I haven't remotely suggested that you are in anybody's pay, but we all know whose song sheet you are singing from.

You may think that, they may think that, I could not possibly comment

The unmitigated venom is in the innuendo you made regarding the police, and, by implication, myself.

I'm sorry Stewart, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I have read back through this thread..I made a joke about 'Experts'.

Clearly anyone making a program on anything is going to have to rely on 'experts'.....that's what I do. So infact I was symphathizing with your position in that instance.

I have never vented any venom at the Police..indeed my step father was a police officer durring the war and my brother in law, is an Essex Cheif Inspector. I have several vary good freinds in the police force.

Why would I have any anamocity towards our Boys in Blue?

[caz]

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.

Hi Jeff,

Just to clarify my point, since you appear to have misunderstood...

The fact that Bower was free to claim, at the Tate, that the Sickert/Ripper letters in question all came from the same quire of 24 sheets, means that he would have been equally free (regardless of any copyright restrictions regarding individual documents) to go into greater detail about how he had arrived at such a conclusion, and what measures he had taken to ascertain that each and every quire of 24 sheets within one batch (of 3,000 sheets or more) would be individually identifiable from discernible differences in the cut edges.

If Bower was able to ascertain this before reaching his conclusion, he was perfectly free to say so, and to explain how, without needing any copyright restrictions to be lifted first. It would indeed have done wonders for his case had he done as much at the Tate.

On the other hand, if he wasn't able to ascertain this, then his conclusion was premature, and may prove invalid. Matching the cut edges of just the letters in question would not prove anything if the guillotine used could have produced more than one quire with similarly matching edges.

In short, Bower has yet to explain to other experts why this would be a physical impossibility. Since they need convincing on that score, it has to be more than a simple matter of common sense. He didn't need any restricted documents to offer some sort of verbal explanation - that's all I'm trying to say.

As for the dates of the letters, I suspect the problem may be that one might reasonably expect considerably more than 24 sheets of writing paper to have been used between the date of the Ripper correspondence in question and when Sickert wrote the letters that are claimed to be from the same quire.

Love,

Caz
X

[Stewart P Evans]

Pleased To Hear It

I'm sorry Stewart, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I have read back through this thread..I made a joke about 'Experts'.

Clearly anyone making a program on anything is going to have to rely on 'experts'.....that's what I do. So infact I was symphathizing with your position in that instance.

I have never vented any venom at the Police..indeed my step father was a police officer durring the war and my brother in law, is an Essex Cheif Inspector. I have several vary good freinds in the police force.

Why would I have any anamocity towards our Boys in Blue?

Well if that is the case and you were not referring to the police I am pleased to hear it. I shall put it down to being badly worded and over-sensitivity on my part. However, I do seem to recall that some of your comments about the police on the 'Jack the Stripper' thread have been less than complimentary.

[Stewart P Evans]

Thanks

Hi Jeff,

Just to clarify my point, since you appear to have misunderstood...

The fact that Bower was free to claim, at the Tate, that the Sickert/Ripper letters in question all came from the same quire of 24 sheets, means that he would have been equally free (regardless of any copyright restrictions regarding individual documents) to go into greater detail about how he had arrived at such a conclusion, and what measures he had taken to ascertain that each and every quire of 24 sheets within one batch (of 3,000 sheets or more) would be individually identifiable from discernible differences in the cut edges.

If Bower was able to ascertain this before reaching his conclusion, he was perfectly free to say so, and to explain how, without needing any copyright restrictions to be lifted first. It would indeed have done wonders for his case had he done as much at the Tate.

On the other hand, if he wasn't able to ascertain this, then his conclusion was premature, and may prove invalid. Matching the cut edges of just the letters in question would not prove anything if the guillotine used could have produced more than one quire with similarly matching edges.

In short, Bower has yet to explain to other experts why this would be a physical impossibility. Since they need convincing on that score, it has to be more than a simple matter of common sense. He didn't need any restricted documents to offer some sort of verbal explanation - that's all I'm trying to say.

As for the dates of the letters, I suspect the problem may be that one might reasonably expect considerably more than 24 sheets of writing paper to have been used between the date of the Ripper correspondence in question and when Sickert wrote the letters that are claimed to be from the same quire.

Love,

Caz
X

Thanks for that useful post Caz, I wasn't at the Tate event, but wish I had been. Most interesting.

[Dan Norder]

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

When you start right off in a reply with nonsense like this there's not even any point to bothering responding to anything else you say. You're obviously just here to make personal attacks and to try to misrepresent what people said to try to prevail in an argument that you already know you lost on and just won't let go of.

[Jeff Leahy]

Well if that is the case and you were not referring to the police I am pleased to hear it. I shall put it down to being badly worded and over-sensitivity on my part. However, I do seem to recall that some of your comments about the police on the 'Jack the Stripper' thread have been less than complimentary.

Just a quick reply on this Stewart because I thought that the Stripper thread might have something to do with some of these 'edgy' posts.

Yes i confess I was very unhappy when you made the claim that you new the identity of the 'Stripper' but couldnt disclose that name..

Largely because I was so unhappy with David Seabrook's accusation against Cushway. (incidentally an ex-police officer) and favoured Mungo Irland..(who may or may not have had police connections depending on whose account you read)

However David Seabrook does make the case that the bodies were all discovered in specific and different patrol areas..therefore the killer could possibly have had some inside knowledge..however it could just be co-incidence. (Seabook did have access to the files)

As you well know a number of police suspects have been put forward in this case, I felt it legitimate to discuss these suspects, however I simply have NO personal grievance with the police per say. In fact my record on casebook has always been to give plenty of credence to police opinion particularly in reference to the JtR murders.

You made a request that I did not push you on this matter and you would talk privately, as and when..I have respected this position and made no further comment on casebook with regard.

However I stand by my opinion that the victims families have a right to know what happened to their mothers. And hopefully someone will eventually produce a factual account of these crimes.

Must get on with some work...however if I have also been 'edgy' 'I apologuise to you unreservedly'

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

When you start right off in a reply with nonsense like this there's not even any point to bothering responding to anything else you say. You're obviously just here to make personal attacks and to try to misrepresent what people said to try to prevail in an argument that you already know you lost on and just won't let go of.

Get a grip Norder..you made a mistake..you lost..its that simple.

Do you really need me to cover the ground again..your accusations against Peter Bower were liabelous..and you seem intent on digging that hole further.

I will respond in greater detail later

[Stewart P Evans]

Information

...Yes i confess I was very unhappy when you made the claim that you new the identity of the 'Stripper' but couldnt disclose that name..
You made a request that I did not push you on this matter and you would talk privately, as and when..I have respected this position and made no further comment on casebook with regard.
However I stand by my opinion that the victims families have a right to know what happened to their mothers. And hopefully someone will eventually produce a factual account of these crimes.
Must get on with some work...however if I have also been 'edgy' 'I apologuise to you unreservedly'
Yours Jeff

Information that I had as a serving police officer was subject to strict regulation as to confidentiality. I think I explained that I had the name from two different and unconnected police sources, years apart, and that according to both sources the name was the same. Some years later a third source, Jonathan Goodman, confirmed the same name from yet another police source, a high ranking police officer known to him. Now personally I cannot prove that the name given was the murderer, but with the same name given from three different police sources I have to believe that it is correct. I agree that it would be nice to see the definitive book written on this infamous case of the 1960s which I remember well. Thank you for the apology, perhaps we should all be a bit less 'edgy', or not post at all.

[Dan Norder]

Get a grip Norder..you made a mistake..you lost..its that simple.

If making a single mistake means someone loses all arguments from then on, then you and Cornwell lost even before this thread started. My single mistake was about which letters Professor Bower was saying ridiculous, unscientific things about. It doesn't suddenly doesn't change the fact that other experts (ones not on Cornwell's payroll) say that he doesn't have good reasons to make the kinds of claims he has been making.

[Jeff Leahy]

My single mistake was about which letters Professor Bower was saying ridiculous, unscientific things about. It doesn't suddenly doesn't change the fact that other experts (ones not on Cornwell's payroll) say that he doesn't have good reasons to make the kinds of claims he has been making.

We simply dont know whether Peter Bowers claims are ridiculous and unscientific, thats guess work on your part, and lets remember that Peter Bower is one of the worlds leading experts on the subject, where as you are Dan Norder..

However we finally seem to be getting somewhere, with regards to your last statement

I must dash the Mrs' is incisting on going shopping...