Patricia Cornwell

[Ally]

Dan,

While I truly appreciate the defense, please don't feel the need to do it anymore on my behalf. Jeff is a troll. He continually references you and me and tells whopping lies in order to hopefully incite us into responding. As long as anyone responds, he gets what he needs. I have chosen to opt out of his pathetic whoring and trolling, he can mention my name and tell as many whoppers as he wants about me, and it isn't necessary for me to defend myself nor for anyone else to do so. He's pathetic and not worth it. At this point it's more entertainment value than anything to see how desperate he becomes in trying to provoke a response.

If you all want to feed the troll, feel free. I am opting out. I did want to acknowledge Dan's defense of my statements but I want to say for the future:

It's not necessary to defend against trolls.

[Dan Norder]

Fair point, Ally. He's very clearly just an attention whore, so there's no need to make him feel significant by responding to his drivel.

And of course I don't feel the need to defend you, Ally, as you're more than capable of it yourself, but Jeff just was going way over the top in his lies about what other people said. It's one thing for him to think people won't remember what Cornwell said some five years back, but it's another thing completely for him to think people don't know what the other posters here just got done saying on this very thread and won't be able to tell when he's lying about it.

[Suzi]

Is that it then??? Case/Thread closed??

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff is a troll. He continually references you and me and tells whopping lies in order to hopefully incite us into responding. As long as anyone responds, he gets what he needs.

No Jeff does NOT. I have asked you demonstrate exactly where, if ever, I have lied. You have failed to do so. Reminder:

the word LIE taken from the Oxford English Dictionary: An INTENSIONALLY false statement.

Jeff has never LIED. You have never demonstrated or bothered to give examples. You just scream and throw around unjustified abusive language, without explaining what it is your actually referring to or talking about. As for RESPONDING, clearly I am RESPONDING to you, not the other way around.

If you choose not to respond, to your clearly indefensible position, that is your right. What Jeff does or does not NEED is purely wild, unsubstantiated, speculative opinion on your part. More mud slinging that has no basis in any known reality.

In the words of Newman and Baddeal, more, "See that, that’s you that is" Ally debate.

I have chosen to opt out of his pathetic whoring and trolling,

Again NOT true. You have come back on this thread to do exactly what you are accusing me of. Clearly you have not chosen to 'OPT' out, or you would not have made this post.

he can mention my name and tell as many whoppers as he wants about me, and it isn't necessary for me to defend myself nor for anyone else to do so. He's pathetic and not worth it. At this point it's more entertainment value than anything to see how desperate he becomes in trying to provoke a response.

Again this is all wild Ranting. Telling Whoppers about what exactly? You give no examples because you have NONE. And when I point out that I have never told a lie, and you cannot demonstrate otherwise, I am provoking a response?

No, I am NOT provoking a response. I am clearly stating to anyone who reads this as a matter of FACT " I have never lied' and "Ally is unable to prove that I have lied."

Whether you choose to respond or not is up to you. I am simply stating FACT.

If you all want to feed the troll, feel free. I am opting out. I did want to acknowledge Dan's defense of my statements but I want to say for the future: It's not necessary to defend against trolls.

I'm not certain whether Ally has been reading to much JR Tolkein or whether there is another meaning to her term 'Troll" and frankly I don't care.

Lets remind ourselves of the level of debate you contributed to this thread when here and the mindless unsubstantiated level of abuse you chosen to hurl at me:

"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."

"So you are not only a liar, but a hypocrite as well."

"Not act based on the toadying bootlicking indulgences of someone who clearly has an agenda."

"Stop lying about what people said."

"Are you drunk or just severely mentally deficient?"

"They are cut from the same deceitful cloth."

"just like your pal Cornwell did."

"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."

"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"."

"Frankly, Jeff, you are lying little sycophant"

"Doesn't your tongue get tired from all that bootlicking you do?"

"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."

"P.S. oh and you are a moron Jeff.
“is Jeffy hoping she'll take notice of his heroic efforts on her behalf and throw some of that fat stack his way?”
“Until then, she and all her apologist lap boys can stick it up their backsides.”"

NICE ALLY, and you wonder why Patricia used the term ‘clingons”.

So let me make this perfectly clear to anybody reading this post. I do not, have Not and never will, Agree with Patricia Cornwall that:

Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper.

My position is clear. Read posts.358 thread 25.

Patricia's Original Position: http://www.theartnewspaper.com/inclu...int.asp?id=404

Patricia’s Current position (thanks Joel)

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

Clearly I have suggested that Patricia’s position may have changed over recent years. Which I believe is born out by the above links. And stated that ‘if Patricia genuinely believes Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper we should be careful of using words like ‘LIED’ because from 'her point of view' she is NOT necessarily lying”

I have never taken any money or expected any money from, or had dealings with Patricia Cornwall, which I take Ally to suggest with abusive terms such as prostitute and whore. Both these words mean taking money.

My disagreement with Ally has nothing to do with Patricia Cornwall directly.

It is because I stated that;

“the nature of Ripperology is accusing innocent people”

Something which I am not lying about, but I believe, is Self- evident. Given the number of suspects and the blatantly obvious FACT that only one (possibly two) suspects can be guilty of committing the crime.

I therefore said that stating Patricia was wrong for accusing an innocent man was “a little unfair’ given that that is what Ripperology is about. (Of course what is exactly meant by the term ‘Ripperology” is still subject to debate and I’m still working on that idea..For me however, it means trying to discover the identity of Jack the Ripper.)

May I quote Dan Norder who it would appear agrees with me.
“Certainly there is a LARGE group of authors who try to pin the blame on their favored suspect by twisting whatever evidence they can, and she isn't too different from many of these.”

(I can just about live with twisting; again it’s a matter of point of view)

Ally pointed out that she was not a suspect based Ripperologist.

I pointed out that she had never raised any moral objections to other suspects being discussed on suspect threads. Which I believe is true. If you go through Ally’s posts she has clearly made posts on threads about Druit, Stephenson and Kidney. (My comments on poor old Joe Barnett were intended with a certain amount of ‘IRONIC HUMOUR’ she did however retreive and publish them) If she has not made posts accusing suspects she has been happy to be involved in, discuss suspect theories…that’s my point..I believe its fair, I have never LIED.

Well that’s about it for now. I do apologies for the delay in this reply; my mother was in an accident.

Clearly if any body wishes to discuss any of the points I have raised I’m happy to do so, in a respectful and calm manor.

I simply do not understand the need to reduce argument to personal abuse. Hopefully I have always treated posters here with courtesy and respect. Clearly I have a personal grievance with one person and one person only. And he clearly returned to this post and Started it. His sad attempt to drag other posters into that argument is pathetic and I wont stoop to that level. I will of course respond to him in good time. Unfortunately unlike Ally’s insinuations I do have something better to do with my time so it will have to wait for now.

As it would appear this thread is running its course for now. (As I indicated in my 9 points of agreement post). We are largely awaiting the publication of her next book and Peter Bowers findings in greater detail. Of course there could well be relevant PC posts in the means time.

http://www.theartnewspaper.com/includes/common/print.asp?id=404

Clearly Patricia appears to have completed her test on Sickerts paintings. I wonder if she ever bothered to test the paint mixtures used on the letters and his canvases…she doesn’t ever appear to have mentioned a match of any kind?

Anyway this week I’m off paragliding…life in Kent is fab..I hope to post ordinance survey maps of farms in Hunton 1888 fairly soon.

Yours the Pirate

Live long and prosper

[denn034]

Cornwell Competent

Lesbian or not, Cornwell has repeatedly shown her forensic and intellectual skills. No amount of rhetoric can change that!

[Dan Norder]

Cornwell has repeatedly shown her forensic and intellectual skills.

Or complete lack thereof....

[stevebaker25]

My memory could be a little fuzzy here but I'm sure I saw the documentary where she bought a massive slab of meat, stuffed some sausages into it (I think it was sausages...could be wrong...it was meant to be in place of intestines) and then proceeded to show that it wasn't ritual he was just pulling them out and throwing them in no particular direction...they just happened to land over the left shoulder...sorry but it just disturbed and tickled me a little....I'll shut up lol

[Jeff Leahy]

My memory could be a little fuzzy here but I'm sure I saw the documentary where she bought a massive slab of meat, stuffed some sausages into it (I think it was sausages...could be wrong...it was meant to be in place of intestines) and then proceeded to show that it wasn't ritual he was just pulling them out and throwing them in no particular direction...they just happened to land over the left shoulder...sorry but it just disturbed and tickled me a little....I'll shut up lol

I would Steve ..head of the Clingons is about

[stevebaker25]

Point taken...never the less I thought I'd add my two pennies...Walter Sickert...Jack The Ripper? How ridiculous

[AdamWalsh]

I just finished Patricias book and whilst I must commend her for her effort - as one person said she has taken the investigation further than most people ever have - I dont see really what she sees - so OK MAYBE he wrote some of the letters which most presume were not from the killer anyway - thats about all she comes up with - other than a lot of circumstantial evidence (he lived in the area, he maybe had a mutilated penis and therefore a hatred of women, liked to paint dark themed images) there is not a whole lot else to it.

[Uncle Jack]

I have the greatest respect for Patricia. Her Walter Sickert theory is probably the most criticised yet it is a lot stronger than others I have come across. All the evidence is circumstancial, yes, but so is every other theory. Why should her theory get targeted in such a bad way? I don't think she deserved the treatment she got. I do not agree with her theory at all but I have the greatest respect for her and her dedicated work on the case, especially her trying to use DNA as a way of identifying the killer. Cornwall is, in my opinion, a lovely woman and an amazing writer.

[needler]

is ANYONE ready for this???????

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! For those of you who know me, get ready to be stunned, gobsmacked, amazed, thunderstruck, and generally astonished. Regarding the following posted by Uncle Jack:

"I have the greatest respect for Patricia. Her Walter Sickert theory is probably the most criticised yet it is a lot stronger than others I have come across. All the evidence is circumstancial, yes, but so is every other theory. Why should her theory get targeted in such a bad way? I don't think she deserved the treatment she got. I do not agree with her theory at all but I have the greatest respect for her and her dedicated work on the case, especially her trying to use DNA as a way of identifying the killer. Cornwall is, in my opinion, a lovely woman and an amazing writer."

I AM RENDERED SPEECHLESS, and for THAT you should all be grateful!! So please send a "thank you" to Uncle Jack for his ability to shut me up.

Cheers to each and every poster and reader of posts; methinks this thread is now truly a dead soldier.

Judy

[downonwhores]

Uncle Jack

Of course, every theory is circumstansial but her theory is so wrong that she can't even spell the names of the victims correctly and didn't even know that Sickert's "supposed" rooms were demolished in 1886 and He wasn't even in London during the time of the murders. Letters from his mom prove this.
Her lack of research means and her holier than thou attitude about being correct means she did this to herself and deserves all the criticism that is harped upon her.
Stop defending a fraud.

[Sam Flynn]

Her Walter Sickert theory...

...it wasn't her theory to begin with.

[perrymason]

Pardon the intrusion.....but is Ms Cornwell's book or ideas worthy of a 48 page thread here? Where serious students research?

Its a good piece of fiction, the only kind of literature she engages in, if Im not mistaken.

Best regards all.