Patricia Cornwell

[Jeff Leahy]

Considering that you put that line in your message about her reposting the thread after attacking her over words she did not say, it's clear that you knew she didn't say them and attacked her for them anyway.

Precicely, At least Pratricia has the conviction of actually beleiving Sickert did it...

Ally clearly doesnt care wether someone did it or not.

She's still happy to pass on the accusations about an inocent man, in my book thats worse..

[Jeff Leahy]

If you are supposedly against misleading people and libeling them and so forth, again, why is it that you are the only one engaging in such behavior here? Every action you've taken has been in complete disagreement with the principles you said you were here to defend. It's clear that you are only interesting in rabidly defending some authors who, no doubt, wouldn't want to be associated with you in anyway if they saw what you are up to.

PS..the only person who has liabled anyone on this thread is YOU.

Clearly this is what you did to Peter Bower..

Ally clearly stated that neither she nor anybody else she new on casebook had ever made an accusation against an innocent person.

I would estimate that at least 5 to 10 percent of traffic on casebook is doing pricely that...not that I'm critisising anybody for doing so. As I've said I fully support people who have trhe guts to come out and nail their flag to the mast..good on them..we need a few more Stan Rosso's in my book.

The piont I am clearly making is that Patricia is doing nothing differant from many other Ripperologists by making the case for her favoured suspect.

She may be misguided, lacking in insite and not a very good Ripperologist.

But to aqccuse her of being Fruedulant is completely unfair, and neither you or Ally have any evidence for this..

SO I SAY EITHER PUT UP...OR SHUT UP

Patricia may be many things but I see no evidence of dishonesty

just poor theorizing and badly thought through arguement. Something you must be very familiar with.

[Suzi]

Well Patricia did!!!!.........without liabelling or critissing anyone!!!
Just making a piont!

[Jeff Leahy]

Well Patricia did!!!!.........without libel!

Did what Suzi? Change Results?, forge signatures? Create paintings?

Poor research is not the same as criminal intent.

[Suzi]

Hi Jeff - Patsy in my mind is responsible for giving a great artist seriously bad press and also for writing 2nd rate 'literature' (IMHO)
Actually I think poor research comes pretty close!!!

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff - Patsy in my mind is responsible for giving a great artist seriously bad press and also for writing 2nd rate 'literature' (IMHO)
Actually I think poor research comes pretty close!!!

Thats fair enough Suzi, I have no problem with that..

But Ally and Norder are arguing something completely differant...

Yes Cornwall has given Sickert some pritty bad press, as you put it..

But what about poor old Maybrick? or Barnett? or any of the other 139 suspects..what about poor old Booker Thornton, did he deserve his grandson accusin him of being Jack the Ripper?

Ripperologists accuse inocent people..

I've accused Aaron Kosminski..

I could be wrong..even if he was identified..

As far as I'm aware, Patricia Cornwall has done nothing criminal in the legal sense.

If Ally and Norder can prove otherwise let them present their evidence.

[Ally]

I have realized why Pirate Jack likes Cornwell so much. They are cut from the same deceitful cloth. He takes a thread that I recovered after the crash, when many of us were trying to save what we could, and attempts to represent words that were not my own as being my own. Dishonest, false deceitful and slimy. But others have called him on that already and I thank them.

Then he says this:

Ally clearly stated that neither she nor anybody else she new on casebook had ever made an accusation against an innocent person.

No what Ally said was that unlike cornwell, people here dont' fabricate evidence against their suspect or resort to lies and deceitful practices, and if they do, they get called on it pretty damn quick, just like your pal Cornwell did.

Then he posts the above about Cornwell not doing anything illegal. It's so cute that unethical people think that because something is not illegal, that doesn't make it wrong. People like Pirate who apparently judge the rightness or wrongness of an action based solely on its legality are probably a very good indicator of why the world is in the crappy cesspool that it is currently in.

I don't do suspect Ripperology. Many people here do and I have no problem with them. But the difference between Cornwell/ Leahy and the rest of the posters here, is the rest of us aren't willing to lie, fabricate evidence, and distort the truth just to be proven "right".

Thanks to those who pointed out Jeff's lies and distortions about "my post". It was appreciated.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

As far as I'm aware, Patricia Cornwall has done nothing criminal in the legal sense.

Maybe not in a criminal sense - I don't know, I am not an expert on legal matters - but that is not the point. Personally, I don't think it's OK when you as an author falsify or fabricate evidence deliberately in order to suit your suspect theories or for commecrial reasons, That is not research. It may not be fraud in a legal sense, but it sure as hell is fraud from a research/scientific point of view. Then, of course,turning into an arrogant bitch when people who have studied the case for many years (in contrast to Cornwell who wrote her book as a complete newbie and hadn't read a single title) dare to question her 'findings' just makes matters worse.

Stephen Knight did it, and now Cornwell. And the main rub is that they both said they had solved the case, and attacked serious people who saw through their nonsense and found them out.

All the best

[Graham]

PS..the only person who has liabled anyone on this thread is YOU.

Clearly this is what you did to Peter Bower..

Ally clearly stated that neither she nor anybody else she new on casebook had ever made an accusation against an innocent person.

I would estimate that at least 5 to 10 percent of traffic on casebook is doing pricely that...not that I'm critisising anybody for doing so. As I've said I fully support people who have trhe guts to come out and nail their flag to the mast..good on them..we need a few more Stan Rosso's in my book.

The piont I am clearly making is that Patricia is doing nothing differant from many other Ripperologists by making the case for her favoured suspect.

She may be misguided, lacking in insite and not a very good Ripperologist.

But to aqccuse her of being Fruedulant is completely unfair, and neither you or Ally have any evidence for this..

SO I SAY EITHER PUT UP...OR SHUT UP

Patricia may be many things but I see no evidence of dishonesty

just poor theorizing and badly thought through arguement. Something you must be very familiar with.

Jeff,

The thing about trying to nail just who the Ripper was is that you, me and the whole world are free to select whoever we think are possible, if not probable, candidates. Along the way, many names come up, names of people who it is 99.99% certain, were not the Ripper. As it is not legally possible to libel the dead, we are fairly free to suggest the names of just about whoever we like. Some names are serious, some are totally frivolous. It's the way it is.
The thing about Cornwell is that she took the name and identity of a particular person and then went about fitting 'facts' to support her 'theory'.
This is not the first time, nor the last, that it's happened in the study of the Ripper, but in the view of the majority of people who are serious about the case, it is not the way to proceed. Personally, I don't see her as fraudulent; I see her as misguided and manipulative.

She has all the money in the world to pursue her 'theory'; so did Paul Feldman apropos the Ripper 'Diary'. He came unstuck; and so has she.

Cheers,

Graham

[Jeff Leahy]

[QUOTE=Ally;28231][QUOTE=Pirate Jack;28212][QUOTE=Ally;28203]

Actually that' not what I do at all because I don't do suspect Ripperology. And it's not what anyone here does

I'm quite aware what you said Ally..

And let me give you an Oxford english dictionary diffinition of fraud.

CRIMINAL deception: the use of false representation to gain an unjust advantage. Dishonest artiface or trick. person or thing not fulfiling what is claimed or expected of it.

I would like to thank Graham for pionting out that it is not possible to liable the dead..so clearly there is nothing printed in Portrait of a Serial killer that the word fraud can be applied to..

Unless of course of are implying that Patricia Cornwall has falsified evidence inorder to deceive the public..

Are you claiming this???? or Not??

its a very simple question

And I state again... Put up or shut up

Where is your evidence?

[Jeff Leahy]

Maybe not in a criminal sense - I don't know, I am not an expert on legal matters - but that is not the point. Personally, I don't think it's OK when you as an author falsify or fabricate evidence deliberately in order to suit your suspect theories or for commecrial reasons, That is not research. It may not be fraud in a legal sense, but it sure as hell is fraud from a research/scientific point of view. Then, of course,turning into an arrogant bitch when people who have studied the case for many years (in contrast to Cornwell who wrote her book as a complete newbie and hadn't read a single title) dare to question her 'findings' just makes matters worse.

Stephen Knight did it, and now Cornwell. And the main rub is that they both said they had solved the case, and attacked serious people who saw through their nonsense and found them out.

All the best

Glenn I'm not trying to defend Patricia Cornwall's book...we are all aware of how many errors it contains..and her shameless use of providing selective facts to prove her case..which is what she does..and which many other ripper authors have also done..and lets be honest a large number of posters (actually interest in who JtR was), have also done.

However this is a totally different acusation from claiming that Patricia Cornwall has committed Fraud.

Please bear in mind that this is a public notice board and the world has ears.

[Jeff Leahy]

[QUOTE=Ally;28231][QUOTE=Pirate Jack;28212][QUOTE=Ally;28203]

Patricia Cornwell's fabrications, lies and inventions

Are you accusing Patricia Cornwall of fraud????????

[Ally]

Frankly, Jeff, you are lying little sycophant and I don't really feel there is much of a need to reply to you any more because everyone here can clearly see you are a liar with an agenda, but what the hell.

If you were aware of what I said, you'd be aware I never said she committed fraud so your straw man attempt to throw up the Oxford definition of fraud as if it anyway applied to anything I had complained is as deceitful and as blatant an attempt to manipulate truth for a dishonest purpose as Cornwell's attacks on Sickert.

What I have claimed is that cornwell lied and distorted truth and that she passed off fiction of her own invention as fact for deceitful ends. And if you have actually read the book you are so keen to defend, you'd be aware of that from her labeling him from the very beginning as a psychopath with absolutely NO evidence other than her own fantasy to her absolutely ridiculous assertions that he was impotent, this despite his multiple marriages and being divorced on the grounds of his own marital infidelity. But I suppose Pats knows more about what went on in Sickert's bedroom than his wives did.

And since you are so concerned for evidence, where's Patsys? Or is she exempt from the rule of backing up what she says. Doesn't your tongue get tired from all that bootlicking you do?

[Jeff Leahy]

I have realized why Pirate Jack likes Cornwell so much. They are cut from the same deceitful cloth. He takes a thread that I recovered after the crash, when many of us were trying to save what we could, and attempts to represent words that were not my own as being my own.

And this gets me...clearly I went to some trouble not to imply this..please read my post carefully...

Clearly I said that you were implicit in publishing the accusation..

You may not do the dirty yourself, but clearly you have no moral objectrion when other people accuse innocent people.

YOU JUST DONT LIKE GETTING YOUR OWN HANDS DIRTY...thats what it says on the tin...

[Ally]

Oh and Jeffy,

If this is all some pathetic and desperate attempt to get Patsy to take notice of your heroic defense of her to hopefully get her in your documentary, I will be the first to go on record and say, that if Patsy actually considers your lying, and fabricating information in your lame attempts to defend her is something she considers worthy of rewarding, she'll definitely lose any hope of being redeemed in my eyes.

It'll just be further proof that she values liars and believes that dishonest means and people are a valid tool.

But I can't really believe she'd appreciate you dredging up all this and having her "defenders" look to be as deceitful as she is accused of being. It doesn't help her case.

P.S. oh and you are a moron Jeff. Do you really think anyone who was recovering threads actually read every post they were attempting to recover from every thread and vetted it. Your pathetic attempt to whitewash your despicable actions is lame, and I doubt there's anyone who can't see through it. And that "horrible" passage you say I am so guilty for reposting, take note Jeffy. Every single sentence qualified with the posters OPINION. "I think" "I believe" "In my opinion" not a single assertion of fact like "Psychopaths like Sickert". So even if I am to be held accountable for the posts of others, a truly pathetic argument that I can't believe you are desperate enough to consider, I still win, because it was clearly expressed as opinion and therefore not a lie, or a deceitful misrepresentation of fiction as fact.