Patricia Cornwell

[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

[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]

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...

[Stewart P Evans]

Unconvincing

I have to admit to some confusion. I have only the 2002 book available, are the letters with the "A Pirie & Sons" left out in the 2003 paperback?
I have also become a bit confused on what kind of paper Peter Bower identified as samples from the same batch. The GIL?

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.

[Tom_Wescott]

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

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Schmidt

The first addition does not carry this claim..it was updated and released in paper back...Dan Norder simply made a mistake about which letters were being discussed....

In my copy..P224: His amazing discovery is this: three Sickert letters written on his mothers stationery and two Ripper letters come from a batch of twenty-four sheets of stationary with the watermark GURNEY IVORY LAID

The Openshaw letter has the A Pirie watermark and is thius Not the letter Bower makes his claims about.

trust this helps

Yours Jeff

[JSchmidt]

I have to admit to some confusion. I have only the 2002 book available, are the letters with the "A Pirie & Sons" left out in the 2003 paperback?
I have also become a bit confused on what kind of paper Peter Bower identified as samples from the same batch. The GIL?

[Stewart P Evans]

?

No worries Pirate Jack.....you are entitled believe in whatever you choose and defend it on these boards.

Did anyone say that he wasn't?

[Stewart P Evans]

Contradict

Please can you give names of these experts you claim contradict Peter Bower?

Peter Bower's claims to positive identification of the said correspondence by reference to the guillotine cut marks have been called into question and are discussed at length in the excellent book Walter Sickert A Life by Matthew Sturgis (2005). Sturgis states (page 640) that "...without fuller information about Bower's workings, other forensic examiners remain sceptical of his very emphatic conclusions." He also states that Kim Hughes of Documentary Evidence Ltd felt that it would be very difficult for any expert to go beyond a statement that separate sheets of paper came from the same batch and had been cut by the same blade. "Allowing for the division of the batch into quires, such a finding would leave the chance of direct connection between Sickert's 'Gurney Ivory Laid' letters and those in the PRO at around 1 in 3,000: a very long way from Bower's assurance of an exact match. Sturges also points out that the handwriting of the two 'Ripper' letters bears no relation to Sickert's script and the Sickert letters all date from late 1889 or early 1890 much later than the Ripper crimes.

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.

[anna]

No worries Pirate Jack.....you are entitled believe in whatever you choose and defend it on these boards.

[Jeff Leahy]

I have repeatedly stated that I do not think that Sickert ever wrote a 'Jack the Ripper' letter. I stand by that opinion and I have yet to be shown any evidence that convinces me otherwise. 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.

I dont beleive that I have stated that Sickert wrote the letters either. Simply that Peter Bowers findings are interesting and justify further research..

I wouldn't presume....

[Stewart P Evans]

Ripperology

Possibly Jen

But it still seems to be a justifiable area of research..its what Ripperology is about.

Please do not presume to tell me what Ripperology is all about.

[Stewart P Evans]

What Eaxactly...?

Absolutely Stewart many thanks...

I would imagine that this is the area Keith Skinner is researching but I guess you would have a better idea than I.

We will have to wait for the Next Addition of PC's book..which will not have the title 'case closed' on the cover.

Lets at least give Keith the courtesy of finding out....

If Sickert did Hoax letters that would open up a big can of worms.

Jeff

What exactly do you mean Jeff when you say that "we will have to wait for the Next Addition of PC's book?" Surely you cannot be suggesting that no one should discuss the claims made in Cornwell's books until she has had the chance to publish a third edition? (Whenever that may be).

I have repeatedly stated that I do not think that Sickert ever wrote a 'Jack the Ripper' letter. I stand by that opinion and I have yet to be shown any evidence that convinces me otherwise. 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.

[Jeff Leahy]

Possibly Jen

But it still seems to be a justifiable area of research..its what Ripperology is about.

[Jenni Shelden]

Jeff,

i dont see what can of worms that would open mate. but anyway, i doubt its true...

Jenni