Patricia Cornwell

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff,

I really have to disagree with that.
On the contrary, she has created an enormous damage, especially considering every newcomer to the case who comes along and thinks her rubbish is the truth (not to mention if they're already fans of her other books). And then the rest of us have to go through a lot of trouble with trying to explain all the numerous problems with her theory.

It was the same with Stephen Knight. Indeed, he managed to make a lot of people interested in the case, but there is a price to pay for it, because he became so influental (with the help of Hollywood), that we are still dealing with the horrible effects from his lies and factual manipulations. Still, over 20 years after his book was published, we are forced to explain to a lot of naive people that the Ripper had nothing to do with any Royal Conspiracy.

I am sorry, but I don't see any benefits coming from that. I would rather let the Ripper case be less popular and less commercially important rather than having to waste my time again and again with trying to tear apart myths etched in stone by dubious authors and researchers.

As for her genuinely believeing in her own suspect, I have no doubt that she really believes that Sickert was the Ripper and that actually makes it even worse because it shows that she has lost her sense of judgement.

To be frank: spending millions of dollars on purchase of original paintings and on hopeless DNA tests, is not particularly healthy for any researcher's objectivity or sense of judgement. That's not research - just plain obsession. And it creates more damage than benefits for Ripperology - personally I can do without that kind of popularity for the subject.

All the best

Good morning Glenn

I can only refer to my own dealing with commisioning editors in the UK. Like it or not the Jack the Ripper story is considered a perenial to them. I dont think they fully understand it but they know if they repeat an episode on Maybrick, or Tumbelty, or even that awful Atlantic effort that did DNA testing on a fake shawl, that they always get above average ratings. In short the mythology of Jack the Ripper has a life of its own.

And like it or not Patricia has become part of that story. Nuch in the way that a fake diary has. The public has a perception. it the more it is fed it would seem the more it is eager to consume. Sort of a reverse Suppy and Demand theory. The more they get the more is reqired..

Of course there could be a satuation piont. But as long as the case isnt solved and people keep comng forward with new theories you cant help thinking it will perpetuate itself. Which is why some critics have suggested that Ripperologists dont actually want a solution because it would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs...

I personally dont buy that...I've never particularly been convinced anyone is making a fortune out of JtR. More scaping a living.

i guess what I was getting at about Patricia is that she reaches a different audience, an audience that may not otherwise have any interest. And her book and the controversy that it creates gets those people interested in the case. So they tune in to the next program. Or they possible end up on casebook annoying you..or perhaps they buy a betyter informed book?

What i dont see is that people read Patricias book and say 'Hay case closed it was Walter Sickert all along we need never watch another TV program or read another book on the Subject' as I say quite the oppersite.

I've spoken to Richard Jones about this (who does the Ripper walks) obviously he deals with tourists on a daily basis who know little about the case. Maybrick, Cornwall and Royal conspiracies often come up as reasons for doing the walk...hopefully some at least go away questioning that perception.

At the end of the day surely we must give the majority of people the benefit of the doubt that they can reach their own solutions..

And lets not forget that dispite the fact that I admir your veiws on case book and respect your knowledge of the case and enjoy your banter...there are a number of crucial areas that we are in complete disageement on..for a Start I am convinced Tabram abd Stride were Ripper victims.

So i stand by my judgement that Patricai Corwall / Well advocacy of Sickert as a suspect does any harm what so ever...it simply generates interest and debate..

Like it or not a few days ago I posted a serious question about modern mental health treadment on the Kosminski thread..A subject I am seriously interested in...and a throw away post on the Patricia Cornwall thread which has receive reaction after reaction from posters....you go figure?

Still perhaps we are just veiwing this from a differant perspective. From were I'm sat she appears good business.

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

I stumbled across this article by John Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former Counsel to the President of the United States, which seeks to clarify the legal aspects of this case. For full article go to http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20021122.html

Some relevant paragraphs are listed below.

"Proving innocence can be inherently difficult, but not in Sickert’s case: He seems to have a strong alibi. Thus, if Michael Sturgis, Sickert's biographer is correct about Sickert’s whereabouts, proving Cornwell wrong might not be as difficult as she suggests.

The Ripper murders started on August 6, 1888. Sturgis has recently written in the Sunday Times (London) that Sickert was not in London at the time of two Ripper murders:

In fact, for much of the late summer of 1888 he was staying with his mother and brother in France, 20 miles from Dieppe. The exact dates of his holiday cannot be fixed but he probably left London in the middle of August – one drawing is dated August 4 and after that there are no references to his being in town. On September 6, six days after the murder of the Ripper's first victim and two days before the murder of the second, Sickert's mother wrote to a friend about the happy time they were having. It seems Sickert may have stayed until early October as he painted a picture of a local butcher's shop flooded with late summer light; he titled it "The October Sun.""

......
"We still don't know the identity of the man who mutilated London prostitutes and taunted police as Jack the Ripper. I do know that Patricia Cornwell has mutilated Walter Sickert's reputation – convicting him in the public mind without enough supporting evidence to do so. It is too soon to tell if she's also mutilated her own reputation, and rather than closed the Ripper case, opened a new one involving herself."

And, for the really keen, you might want to check this out as well. http://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/archive/f0512_01.htm

Happy reading.
Sasha

Hi Sasha

This is correct. Sickert was in Deipe at the time of the murders. And I beleive from memory that Corwall claims this herself in her book.

She explains it away by trying to convince the reader that this was a delliberate ploy on Sickerts part inorder to create an alibi, while shooting around the counrty to post letters from differant places to fool the police.

Of course the argument is pants. Why leave London, go all the way to France to create an alibi, jump a ferry back to London comit a murder and head back to France while things cool off....It just doesnt make any sense.

Why not just go to Paris and commit the murder and head back to London?

In fact none of the commuting Jack the Ripper theories really make any sense what so ever. If I were you I would cross of anybody that did not at least live in walking distance to the crime scene. Jack opporated on foot not ferry.

However that said, Patricia has not told any lies. It is possible, however unlikely, that Sickert returned to London undettected and committed the murders. There is no Proof that what she says is incorrect. Even if logic would dictate that she is..

My piont is still that Patricia has done nothing illeagal and is only doing what many Ripperologist have done before her...conjecture and theorizing about what may or may not have happened.

Many thanks for the conections

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

I never accused her of fabricatng DNA evidence. I accused her of lying about what evidence she did have.

How is that less dishonest?

Hi Magpie

I dont want to get into a debate over samanyics with you but lying is a fairly strong word which implies deceit of some kind to me.

I'm not convinced Patricia has lied. Been economical with the truth. Only given one side of an arguement. Made things out to be more important than they are...yeah I can take this sort of arguement. But lying? Fabrication? I dont buy.

And like Glenn I beleive 100% that she genuinely beleives that Sickert is the Ripper. Her biggest crime, if there is one, is self delussion.

[Jeff Leahy]

Sorry Magpie

I'm having a very bad Word blindness day..its stormy hear and it causes headaches...

Should read: SAMANTICS. sorry

PS everyone please forgive spellings

[Jeff Leahy]

Jack.......thanks?? I think?? But what you call a "personal attack" is founded on the truth of the way Cornwell lives now, and on the things she has said, in public, to cameras that happened to be running at the time. While I've been known to doubt the truth of what I see on camera, I usually don't doubt what I see in person. I've seen her in action, live and in person, and she really is a bit (or MORE than a bit) paranoid. She said she had chosen to leave Virginia for an estate that was planned for security because she felt it had become necessary. While not naming Ripper folks specifically, she did much more than imply that all the nutters on these boards were gonna get her someday and she was preparing or any eventuality. That sounds pretty freaky to me....
J

It sounds pretty freaky to me also. But then neither you or I are famous. And there are plenty of examples of famous people being storked and killed. John lennon, jill Dando etc etc.

Yours Jeff

PS I have no personal quawells with you or any other poster hear. And what I said was meant in genuine spirit. Beleive it or not I even enjoy the Queen of Mean when she's Podcasting. I have a personal greivance with one person and one person only..he knows who he is. So please do not confuse my distaste for one poticular poster to colour your veiws of me personally.

Even if we differ of our opinion of Patricia Corwall/well

[Jeff Leahy]

All Quiet On The Western Front

All quiet on the western Front.

Excellent it would appear finally this debate is drawing to a close. And I wont have to waste any more time on it.

I thought I’d take the liberty of just confirming a position on which we can agree:

1. The first bit is easy, I think everyone here agrees that on almost every level Portrait of a serial killer..is a poorly written, poorly researched book, that contains wild theorizing, wild speculation, and gross exaggeration of the known facts.

2. I think that we can also agree that despite what is said of Patricia personally, the consensus here is that she almost certainly believes (rightly or wrongly) that Sickert is Jack the Ripper.

3. I think we are agreed, Her book originally received a lot of media attention and had a 'Case Closed' on the cover. Patricia and her publicists behaved ‘gung-ho’ in their claims to have solved the mystery, which clearly she had not. She didn't consult or really acknowledge any Ripper authors. And She incurred some enmity for walking into the field and claiming to have shown ripperologists how to play the ripperologist game.

3. We are all agreed that the arguments between Patricia and others (i.e. ripperologists?) took place at least four to five years ago. (I don’t think anyone has come up with a more recent date? But I’m happy to take any contradictions on board.

4. Events in the UK at that time. Cornwell was criticized personally in the press. A TV programme was broadcast (which I missed) Cornwell was critically mauled, her book came out, Cornwell was again critically mauled. Cornwell was informed by FBI friends that Ripperologists were laying in wait for her in England, Cornwell believed her FBI friends, to the extent of having bodyguards when she filmed a UK TV programme. Cornwell made comments about Ripperologists… Ref: editorial in Ripperologist no.44 December 2002. She clearly believed she was threatened.

5. Some pretty personal stuff was said about Patricia: ‘anorexic, bulimic, drunk at the wheel and out of control…difficult, obsessive, driven. Her head full of fear…’ (The Independent, 20 October 2002), Some of which at that time (her drinking for instance) may have been justified. However I think we are all agreed this happen Four to five years ago.

6. Despite the many flaws in her book there are still some interesting claims that would seem to require further attention ie:
There are letters written by Walter Sickert and letters claiming to be from Jack the Ripper which Peter Bower claims come from the same batch of 24-sheets and which, if Peter Bower is correct, makes it highly probable that Walter Sickert wrote letters claiming to be from Jack the Ripper.

This claim was originally disputed by Dan Norder. However as pointed out by Brenda he has since apologized for disputing these claims. Peter Bower is a respected expert and any claims of Fraud or criminal practice against him are totally unjustified. And Dan rightly saw the error of his ways. I hope we agree on that it took a long time to establish.

7. Despite the fact that we agree that Patricia’s book is not very good. for lots of stated reasons above Ally has admitted that there is nothing fabricated, fraudulent or criminal in its content....which sort of means its much like any other wildly theorized JtR book.

8. It is agreed that since the disagreement that took place at least four or five years ago, Patricia has employed the best, a perfectly respectable Ripperologist with an impeccable provenance, to do further research for her, which he is currently doing. And Keith Skinners character is not in question by anyone hear…(I Hope?)

9. Patricia has agreed that ‘Case closed’ was not justified and has agreed to change this statement on her next book.

10. Well I’m not certain there is a ten apart from the fact that personally a lot of people on these threads do not seem to like or trust Patricia Cornwall despite the fact that they have never met her (I Gather one or two have and may have more personal disputes), however the majority have not and incidentally I have not met her either, so its difficult to form a personal perspective.

Well there it is as it stands.

I would just like to add that I have been called various names, which are untrue. And perhaps have had a flavour of what Patricia may have experienced. My MOTIVATION as Ally has asked is simply to find rational argument and considered debate. If I had been accused personally by Patricia of course I might feel differently. but that argument works just as well in both directions.

My claim is simply that none of the animosity that exists between the two parties really boils down to anything more than simple name calling..all of which happened some time ago. All of which is rather childish.

So I’m saying if we continue to carry the baggage from four years ago, and ignore the olive branches totally, we are in danger of approaching anything Patricia says through jaundiced and biased eye…

Which I do not believe is good for rational debate.

Anyway its good we’re finally getting somewhere. Lots more love about. Well done.

Good night all

Pirate

[Ally]

i think we can all agree one one thing:

Patricia Cornwell is a deceitful, lying media sucking whore. She lied to promote her book. She lied about this entire community of people. She is paranoid, probably delusional and above all a liar.

She has never apologized to the people she lied about. She never will. Until such time as she does apologize, debate is fruitless because it is pointless to talk of forgiving a person for their actions when they haven't asked for it.

In summation: Patricia Cornwell--media sucking whore.


Jeff Leahy--deceitful attention seeking (insert noun here). Also lies and misrepresents what posters have said or claimed to further his agenda. Motivations=murky, tactics=duplicitous and underhanded. Also pointless to debate further.

[Jeff Leahy]

i think we can all agree one one thing:

Patricia Cornwell is a deceitful, lying media sucking whore. She lied to promote her book. She lied about this entire community of people. She is paranoid, probably delusional and above all a liar.

She has never apologized to the people she lied about. She never will. Until such time as she does apologize, debate is fruitless because it is pointless to talk of forgiving a person for their actions when they haven't asked for it.

In summation: Patricia Cornwell--media sucking whore.


Jeff Leahy--deceitful attention seeking (insert noun here). Also lies and misrepresents what posters have said or claimed to further his agenda. Motivations=murky, tactics=duplicitous and underhanded. Also pointless to debate further.

Yes clearly a step in the right direction, but still lots of work to do

[Jeff Leahy]

Seriously Ally

Your post is interesting by what it doesn’t say..

We know that lying is often simply a point of view..

As I said, Tit or Tat name calling..

But you don’t appear to have any criticism of any real substance? The big issues.

Could you be finally warming to Patricia?

I’m serious about this, though it may appear ridiculous.

There's not really any substance in your criticism is there?

Its still just insult and name calling at the end of the day?

Nothing more?

Yours Jeff

PS I was being truthful about your podcast appearances, call me what you like, which I’m sure you will..ya much better on the radio even enjoyable..I should know.

[Sasha]

I believe most people here think that Cornwell's book was a baseless prosecution of Sickett rather than a serious investigation into Jack the Ripper's identity. I personally think she would have spent her time better using her "studies" into the case as fodder for her crime novels. Such a (fiction) novel might even have made a good movie. But the arrogance of the title "case closed", complete absence of evidence or deductive reasoning and the obsequious flattery of "we have done it together" can only do two things: exonerate Sickett and render any serious scholar of the case suspicious of her thesis before they have even opened the book.

Sasha

[Stewart P Evans]

Misleading

6. Despite the many flaws in her book there are still some interesting claims that would seem to require further attention ie:
There are letters written by Walter Sickert and letters claiming to be from Jack the Ripper which Peter Bower claims come from the same batch of 24-sheets and which, if Peter Bower is correct, makes it highly probable that Walter Sickert wrote letters claiming to be from Jack the Ripper.
This claim was originally disputed by Dan Norder. However as pointed out by Brenda he has since apologized for disputing these claims. Peter Bower is a respected expert and any claims of Fraud or criminal practice against him are totally unjustified. And Dan rightly saw the error of his ways. I hope we agree on that it took a long time to establish.

This statement is misleading. This claim was not originally disputed by Dan Norder - he merely pointed out and confirmed that the claim had been disputed. It was originally disputed by another document/paper expert and author and Sickert biographer Matthew Sturgis in his 2005 book, Walter Sickert: A Life, see pages 239-240. Sturgis did state the caveat that Bower has not yet published his findings in full. Anyone not au fait with the full debate here might read the above paragraph and be misled into believing that it was a false claim by Dan Norder. There has never been any suggestion of fraud or criminal practice made by Sturgis.

[downonwhores]

Dna

some of the descendants are still alive. Could compare blood on the knife to their dna.

[downonwhores]

Dna

PS Can you all foreget the DNA evidence...

The only minute chance you have..and it is a long shot..is digging up Mary Kelly and seeing if you could get a geographical location for her birth place..

There is no DNA on Jack the Ripper"


That is true of course. But the descendants of the victims are still alive. And their dna CAN be tested against the knife. Plus why would Jack's DNA be on the knife? That's kind of stupid don't u think. Test the living descendants like they did with George Washington and John Adams.

[downonwhores]

Loved your book on Tumblety as all your books. Keep up the good work Mr. Skinner and thanks to you and Mr. Rumbelow for copying the original police reports and such and putting them together. That was a real inspiration and help to me. What do you think of By Eyes and Ears?

[anna]

All quiet on the Western Front.

Hi Pirate Jack,
Nice Post No 396....
Taught me something I didn't know about PC,and that is that she has a drink problem.
I think everyone should take this into account,I have worked with a guy who had a drink problem,who couldn't get himself together enough to even put on his shirt before he got to work of a morning,his hands shook so much,he couldn't do up the buttons,until a few hours after he'd woken up.So let's take that fact about her into consideration.
If she can achieve writing books,which take discipline and determination,with this condition,then I admire her,just for that alone.
A true fact,that you cannot be biased for rational debate.I think people here would have liked just a little more consideration on her part,for those who have superior knowledge than her on their chosen subject.Perhaps with an addiction,she might feel more defensive than most.
The only thing that is puzzling,is why as an experience author who surely has to weigh up the credibility of the main character in one of her books,to protect her reputation,should pick Sickert.Just starting research on him would have turned up the fact that he was in France.Even if he did write the letters,he wasn't JTR.Shaky ground.Wouldn't you just move on,and pick another?
Anna.