Patricia Cornwell

[Jeff Leahy]

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.

Hello downonwhores

I assume that by the knife your reffering to Don Rumblow's knife currently being shown at the docklands exhibission?

I dont know if you know the history of the knife. But for many years it was kept as a gardening implement in someone's back garden..

I dont see what DNA you would hope to extract from it? The victims or Jacks?

And i dont know if for certain it actually connects to a specific suspect. Although I'm sure I read somewhere it 'MAY' have a connection to Druit.

I spent some time looking into DNA possiblity and came to the conclusion there is absolutely nothing of any use.

The only tiny outside chance is...if they could find Mary Jane Kelly's body.

Which is again a long shot. I dont think it would be as easy as going to her grave and digging, the earth and siol have moved much in the area over 120 years and I'm not totally convinced the current grave stone is an exact X marks the spot..

Then if they could retreive any MJK DNA after all this time, which is by know means certain. Then you might be able to geographically profile where she came from...thats about it..

The catholic church would never allow such an act and having given it some thought I believe she is better left in peace.

Yours Jeff

PS the shawl is probably Edwardian

[Jeff Leahy]

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.

Hello Anna

I'm sure Patricia Cornwall went on record at that time as having a drink problem. My understanding is that this is not the case at present however?

And I'm not always certain what is meant by drink problems not all acoholic's are the same, and lots of people drink and don't have a problem or think they don't.

Why Patricia choose Sickert is a matter of record. The suspect was pointed out by John Greive. Patricia seems aware that Sickert was in France at the time of the murders she uses it a reason alibi

Yours Jeff

[anna]

Hi Jeff,
Although there is a difference between the two drink related problems,obviously the severity of the addiction..many who even take to drink,sink into a spiralling downward turn in their lives.It is still to her credit that she got herself together enough to be able to write.
Good on you Pat an inspiration to others.
Anna.

[Jeff Leahy]

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.

Professor's Bower's most ridiculous claim perhaps was that he could scientifically prove that the paper used in a letter by Sickert and one of the many Ripper hoax letters came from the same batch of 24 sheets of paper and thus both had to be written the same person... this despite the watermarks on the paper clearly having dates on them proving they had come from batches years apart from each other

Hello Stewart

Still eight out of nine wasn’t to bad.

The above statement is the one I was reffering to which disputes Peter Bowers claim.

Clearly I have become worried by the use of the word ‘FABRICATION’ by Ally, which I felt implied some sort of criminal dishonesty on Patricia’s part.

Thank you for setting the record straight and your input.

Yours Jeff

[Dan Norder]

Cornwell was informed by FBI friends that Ripperologists were laying in wait for her in England, Cornwell believed her FBI friends

I sincerely doubt anyone in the FBI ever said any such thing.

6. Despite the many flaws in her book there are still some interesting claims that would seem to require further attention

Not really, no.

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.

Wow. You're either living in a fantasy world or blatantly lying through your teeth.

I never accused Bower of fraud or criminal practices in the first place, so I never would have had to apologize for making a statement like that. I apologized for saying Bower looked at a certain letter when he had in fact looked at a different letter. I did not apologize for disputing Bower's claims that the papers in question could be linked together and to Sickert. I still strongly dispute that, as does Stewart Evans as well as recognized experts in the field of document examination. Bower simply does not have the evidence to make such a conclusion based upon science, and it was a conclusion clearly made solely to support Cornwell's claims. Try as you might you cannot weasel out of that simple fact.

This attempt to make it appear like I had accused Bower of breaking the law and that I now agree with his conclusions is just pathetic.

Patricia has employed the best, a perfectly respectable Ripperologist with an impeccable provenance, to do further research for her

I guess when you saw people here talk about the "impeccable provenance" of certain documents you knew it sounded impressive and decided to work it into your conversation. Too bad that you clearly have no understanding of what the words mean.

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

You don't have to physically meet someone to know whether they are likable or trustworthy.

My MOTIVATION as Ally has asked is simply to find rational argument and considered debate.

Clearly not.

[Dan Norder]

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.

Thanks for that, Stewart. Sometimes I see posts that I feel the need to respond to before checking the replies other people made. I'm glad to see Jeff's claim did not go unchallenged.

[Jeff Leahy]

I sincerely doubt anyone in the FBI ever said any such thing.
Not really, no.

Both comments are personal opinion.

Wow. You're either living in a fantasy world or blatantly lying through your teeth.

Neither of these comments are True.

I never accused Bower of fraud or criminal practices in the first place, so I never would have had to apologize for making a statement like that. I apologized for saying Bower looked at a certain letter when he had in fact looked at a different letter. I did not apologize for disputing Bower's claims that the papers in question could be linked together and to Sickert. I still strongly dispute that, as does Stewart Evans as well as recognized experts in the field of document examination. Bower simply does not have the evidence to make such a conclusion based upon science, and it was a conclusion clearly made solely to support Cornwell's claims. Try as you might you cannot weasel out of that simple fact.

Professor's Bower's most ridiculous claim perhaps was that he and one of the many Ripper hoax letters came from the same batch of 24 sheets of paper and thus both had to be written the same person... this despite the watermarks on the paper clearly having dates on them proving they had come from batches years apart from each other

This is your claim, which is obviously, as you well know, incorrect. Unless you wish to rewrite history, I suggest you read it carefully. You even use the wording ‘ridiculous claim.’

I said. ‘This claim was originally disputed by Dan Norder.’

Please note that this sentence is followed by a full stop.

That is the mistake you made and the one for which you apologized.

Peter Bower is a respected expert and any claims of Fraud or criminal practice against him are totally unjustified.

Again note the full stop. Clearly this statement is True. No one is disagreeing with it.

And Dan rightly saw the error of his ways.

Obviously not true but still followed by a full stop.

You are clearly entitled to your opinion about Bowers results. However I would point out that he is an internationally respected Expert on paper, which clearly you are not.

This attempt to make it appear like I had accused Bower of breaking the law and that I now agree with his conclusions is just pathetic.

Again I have been seeking to clarify whether this was what was being said..Not 'accusing' either you or Ally..

I think this justified given terms like ‘Fabrication’

As clearly neither of you appear to be accusing Patricia of criminal activity. We are all in agreement..

I said we were getting somewhere. Well done.

I guess when you saw people here talk about the "impeccable provenance" of certain documents you knew it sounded impressive and decided to work it into your conversation. Too bad that you clearly have no understanding of what the words mean.

No Dan, clearly I’m dyslexic not stupid. I know what the words mean. It is a strange phenomena we in Britain call.... HUMOUR.
We really should export the Black Adder series to you guys you might learn something .

You don't have to physically meet someone to know whether they are likable or trustworthy.

This is rather off subject. I would dispute this statement. I think you do..Its one of the problems with chat rooms..for instance you would have seen my comment on provenance was clearly meant as humour if you’d gage my voice and expression.

Anyway there it is.

Pirate

[Ally]

Jeff Leahy,

All the jovial bonhomie and "well done's" in the world isn't going to get around this basic fundamental truth. The vast majority of posters now recognize you as a toadying bootlicker who is willing to sell your reputation, willing to lie about people and and willing to continue ad infinitum in some inane argument to support a woman who has slandered the best of us, fabricated and lied to sell a book for profit and is no better in the opinion of most of than a two-bit whore willing to do whatever it takes to get some fame and money. You have sold your self to her and I hope she rewards you properly since it's clearly what you are after.

And while I don't have any moral objections to prostitution in general, or the type of whoring of self you are doing in this case, it doesn't mean we should all sit around and watch while you do it.

So, bye.

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff Leahy,

All the jovial bonhomie and "well done's" in the world isn't going to get around this basic fundamental truth. The vast majority of posters now recognize you as a toadying bootlicker who is willing to sell your reputation, willing to lie about people and and willing to continue ad infinitum in some inane argument to support a woman who has slandered the best of us, fabricated and lied to sell a book for profit and is no better in the opinion of most of than a two-bit whore willing to do whatever it takes to get some fame and money. You have sold your self to her and I hope she rewards you properly since it's clearly what you are after.

And while I don't have any moral objections to prostitution in general, or the type of whoring of self you are doing in this case, it doesn't mean we should all sit around and watch while you do it.

So, bye.

Ally Ryder

All idol rhetoric, hot air and unsubstantiated comment, as usual.

Its just name calling, which has been precisely my point about your dispute with Patricia all along.

Pray tell where I have lied once?

Exactly what is being fabricated?

And are you suggesting by the term ‘prostitution’ that I am receiving money in any way?

Again completely untrue..

Do you have anything of any substance to add?

[Jeff Leahy]

And while I don't have any moral objections to prostitution in general,

and bye the way you do. I quite clearly remember having an arguement about the morality of prostitution on the Suffolk Murders thread a few years ago..

Try and keep your story straight..

byee

[joelhall]

to be fair jack there was one big stinking turd of a lie in cornwells book. that sickert murdered up to 40 women.

pity he has no descendants, bet theyd love to drag her through the courts for that one

anyway thought this link would be valid on this thread...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4190572.stm

'In Saturday's Guardian and Independent, Cornwell stands by her claim and calls on others to disprove it.'

... i think that paragraph pretty much sums up what were dealing with here.

seems that oprahs book clubs gain was the f.b.i.s... gain!

joel

[DVV]

She's obviously insane.
Seems like her successful novels are not enough...She may have a dream of going down in history by solving the most famous mystery.
Ancient Greeks called this hubris...

[Magpie]

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.

You say you don't want to get into a debate over semantics, and then you immediate start debating semantics.

In interviews Patricia repeatedly said: "I have DNA evidence that connects Sickert to the Ripper"

In her book, she says: "There was not enough DNA to prove Sickert was the Ripper. A less definitive, totally inconclusive test at best didn't eliminate Sickert from a pool of at least 10,000 other people in London at the time".

What about that is not lying? They are 180 degrees opposite to each other.

An analogy:

You are talking to a guy in a bar and mention that you would really like a blue marble. "How fortunate!", he exclaims, removing a small cardboard box from his pocket, "for in this box I happen to have just such a blue marble."

You pay the kind man for the box and you take it home. When you open the box to remove your blue marble, you find instead that the box contains a brass disc. What is your reaction:

1) Heavens! That chap was economical with the truth!
2) Gracious! That fellow only gave me one side of the story!

or

3) That rotten S.O.B. lied to me!


Take your time. Mull it over if you have to.


Because that's exactly what Cornwell did.

[downonwhores]

Hello downonwhores

I assume that by the knife your reffering to Don Rumblow's knife currently being shown at the docklands exhibission?

I dont know if you know the history of the knife. But for many years it was kept as a gardening implement in someone's back garden..

I dont see what DNA you would hope to extract from it? The victims or Jacks?

And i dont know if for certain it actually connects to a specific suspect. Although I'm sure I read somewhere it 'MAY' have a connection to Druit.

I spent some time looking into DNA possiblity and came to the conclusion there is absolutely nothing of any use.

The only tiny outside chance is...if they could find Mary Jane Kelly's body.

Which is again a long shot. I dont think it would be as easy as going to her grave and digging, the earth and siol have moved much in the area over 120 years and I'm not totally convinced the current grave stone is an exact X marks the spot..

Then if they could retreive any MJK DNA after all this time, which is by know means certain. Then you might be able to geographically profile where she came from...thats about it..

The catholic church would never allow such an act and having given it some thought I believe she is better left in peace.

Yours Jeff

PS the shawl is probably Edwardian

Hi Pirate jack,

Thanks for the information. Although I may not find anything of use considering the time frame. It would be worthwhile experiment to see what is found or not found. I would be trying for the victim's DNA and comparing the samples to living descendants of the victims. If I find nothing, then no harm no foul, but if I do find something. then who knows? I really have no theory to prove but would like more information on the knife. Do u know where I can find the info? I read about where Don got the knife but I don't know the history of it since Don got it but either way it would be a legitimate experiment and if turns out to be nothing then I can live with that and I won't make excuses unlike Patricia Cornwell when it does fail. But it still would be interesting wouldn't?

[downonwhores]

Patricia

I heard she is doing another Ripper book. Any word on that? I can't wait for it to suck and we get to again condemn her lack of research and misintrepretation of the facts. I bet she feels stupid. I wondered if she sold enough copies of her first ripper book to make up for the 6 million dollars she lost. I just feel sorry that her fans who will buy anything she writes had to buy such a shitty book. I think she should give everyone who bought it a refund. Same goes for Caleb Knight's end of a legend. That's a really horrible book as well.