Patricia Cornwell

[JSchmidt]

Jeff, stop harassing Dan Norder, it's rather unbecoming and immature.
We got your point like two weeks ago.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Jschmidt!

Hooray, finally someone saying, what I thought;

We are here to discuss in as open and moderate manner as possible!

All the best
Jukka

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff, stop harassing Dan Norder, it's rather unbecoming and immature.
We got your point like two weeks ago.

Hi Guys

yes, I'm sorry about this, however I'm not harassing anybody, I'm simply trying to get to the core of this problem.

If anybody is being harrassed, surely it is Peter Bower?

Surely he should be given the benefit of the doubt (given his record and un- tarnished reputation) until his findings are finally published.

Just because a number of casebook posters (well three) have a personal vendetta against Patricia Cornwell, what right have they to assume that Peter Bower is a 'yes man' who took money to prove an inocent man guilty?

It didn't happen. I beleive, right or wrong, that he gave an honest account, thats quite a simple position. As I know Keith Skinner will also give.

Eye spy no..yes men...what ships?

Perhaps you would just prefer the sort of immature name calling that started this thread in the first place?

I mean do you have anything new and sensible to add on the subject?

I'm all ears?

Jeff

PS. Shopping trip, not so good, however I'm a Pirate with a Kyake.

[JSchmidt]

I mean do you have anything new and sensible to add on the subject?

I'm all ears?

Jeff

Exactly the point I was making. Even if there was namecaling we aren't and were not playing "eye for an eye". So stop you own erroneous behaviour.

[Jeff Leahy]

Exactly the point I was making. Even if there was namecaling we aren't and were not playing "eye for an eye". So stop you own erroneous behaviour.

I'm sorry JSchidt, really you have my ears and I'm sincere when I say I'm listening to you..

But what exactly is your piont?

Mine is very clear. Dan Norder has not yet made a full appology for his unfounded, and liabolous, accusations against Peter Bower. So I'm waiting?

However, if anyone has anything new to add on this much debated Patricia Cornwall thread then I'm all ears and more than happy to join in the debate?

I'm not stopping anyone from doing exactly that, so please be my guest..

Is it really erroneous behavoiur to try and stop a respected and honourable man from being liabeled?

Yours Jeff

PS forgive my spelling I'm in quick reply mode.

Happy to talk

[denn034]

Sickert or Gangs

I'm still compelled by Patricia Cornwell's Sickert-Ripper Theory but, I'm also willing to acknowledge that the gangs that extorted money from the prostitutes may've been behind the murders as well. Like it or not, you have to explain the different descriptions of the Ripper like his hair being blonde and dark haired (the two photos of Sickert being blonde and dark haired as well as the possibility that two people, one blonde and the other dark haired, may've done it) (http://www.casebook.org/witnesses/).

[Jeff Leahy]

I'm still compelled by Patricia Cornwell's Sickert-Ripper Theory but, I'm also willing to acknowledge that the gangs that extorted money from the prostitutes may've been behind the murders as well. Like it or not, you have to explain the different descriptions of the Ripper like his hair being blonde and dark haired (the two photos of Sickert being blonde and dark haired as well as the possibility that two people, one blonde and the other dark haired, may've done it) (http://www.casebook.org/witnesses/).

Perhaps anyone who thought Jack The Ripper looked like Freddie Murcury simply got it wrong? I say this because apart from the night Jill Dandoe got murdered he had a very good alibi

[Christine]

Well, it was dark and it's probable that not all the sightings were of the same man. There's no agreement on which of the witnessed persons were the same person, let alone the Ripper. If you just mean that Sickert had the sort of hair which looked light sometimes and dark other times, then lots of people have hair like that. But the pictures of Sickert were taken years apart, so I assume his hair just changed. Who knows, he may have dyed it.

[Jeff Leahy]

Well, it was dark and it's probable that not all the sightings were of the same man. There's no agreement on which of the witnessed persons were the same person, let alone the Ripper. If you just mean that Sickert had the sort of hair which looked light sometimes and dark other times, then lots of people have hair like that. But the pictures of Sickert were taken years apart, so I assume his hair just changed. Who knows, he may have dyed it.

I'm sorry Patricia Cornwall's theory that the witness testomony was incorrect because they all saw the same man..but that same man was 'IN DISCUISE' is simply PANTS..it dont work..

The simple conclusion is: Witness testomony is at best poor..

Most of the Witness testomony was PANTS...so a decent Ripperologist needs to figure out who did or did not make reliable evidence?

So back to basics

[Flagg]

Cornwall stated that Sickert was deathly afraid of germs. Hmm, so this person who was supposedly paranoid of germs was also the man responsible for the Whitechapel Murders?

[joelhall]

patricia cornwell not only didnt produce any evidence to suppose that sickert was the killer, but also make several blunders in her book, which to be honest i believe was only ever written out of feminist sympathies and an attempt to further her name as a clever crime writer. the language used throughout smacks of one who is arguing as a lawyer or politician would, by phrasing a certain way to make the evidence more legitimate.

she also put too much emphasis on modern scientific practices for the same reasons, whilst not being the expert on this she would like people to think.

the trouble is, and i doubt many will argue, cornwell is a very talented authoress, knows how to use words to her own advantage, and is adept at transmitting passion through her work.

the layman, in ripperology terms, would find it difficult without much study to see through her writing to understand the arguement is baseless. which is precisely how she achieved her success with the book buying public(much as tony williams did, though he did include some circumstantial evidence before embarking on mere theorising, which again fools the uninitiated) - by simply omitting evidence to the contrary.

what we have here, the worst aspect being from someone who should know better, is an investigation beginning with the suspect and theory, without any prima facie evidence, then a case is built around their supposed personality and 'could haves'.

indeed for most of her scenarios she offers no real proof, and at times forgets the mantra 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and possibly, even invents 'facts' to suit her hypothesis.

of course minor annoying points include the need to inform the reader about crying to her publisher, and about her experience with sexual attacker, and of course over-emphasis on the plight of women, some parts seeming to be slightly exaggerated and one-sided. whilst this engrosses the reader (i myself enjoyed it immensely) it is of very little if any investigative value.

i feel sure if this had been formatted and published as a novel, it would have been hailed as one of the more exceptional works that she had written, even promoting its own 'da vinco code syndrome' where the reader ends up researching the facts just in case, and is very enveloped by to the story.

as it stands as a serious investigation into the whitechapel murders, it is inevitable that it should be seriously debunked by serious students of the case, and being public literature open to appraisal and criticism.

joel

[DVV]

she also put too much emphasis on modern scientific practices for the same reasons, whilst not being the expert on this she would like people to think.

the trouble is, and i doubt many will argue, cornwell is a very talented authoress, knows how to use words to her own advantage, and is adept at transmitting passion through her work.

joel

Salut Joel,
Cornwell may be an expert in modern forensic, she is completely mistaken about the murderer MO. Baxter and Phillips did better than her on this matter.
And I'm not sure she is a very talented writer. A talented book-seller, for sure.
Amitiés,
David.

[Jeff Leahy]

Salut Joel,
Cornwell may be an expert in modern forensic, she is completely mistaken about the murderer MO. Baxter and Phillips did better than her on this matter.
And I'm not sure she is a very talented writer. A talented book-seller, for sure.
Amitiés,
David.

I'm not certain Patricia is an expert in modern forensics. She's an author, and as you say, if we judge her by book sales, she's a good author.

However Sickert was in france at the time of the JtR murders.

Peter Bowers evidence suggests that there may be a connection between Sickert and some of the Hoax letters.

However as he has never published those findings, noone, even on casebook, knows what those findings were for sure..

So its all about waiting for the next book, unless anyone wants to indulge in guess work, which is always fun?

[joelhall]

I'm not certain Patricia is an expert in modern forensics. She's an author, and as you say, if we judge her by book sales, she's a good author.

However Sickert was in france at the time of the JtR murders.

Peter Bowers evidence suggests that there may be a connection between Sickert and some of the Hoax letters.

However as he has never published those findings, noone, even on casebook, knows what those findings were for sure..

So its all about waiting for the next book, unless anyone wants to indulge in guess work, which is always fun?

she is not an expert on forensic science, no.

as far as her literary skills, her sales and reputation speak for themselves.

[Jeff Leahy]

she is not an expert on forensic science, no.

as far as her literary skills, her sales and reputation speak for themselves.

Agreement on casebook is always such sweet hamony