Patricia Cornwell

[JSchmidt]

This script, does it have anything to do with Sickert? Just curious.

[Stewart P Evans]

Whatever?

If I was taking advice that was incorrect then you would have an arguement.
Clearly, as I supposed, Dan had made an error. I was fairly certain he had. But I am simply not stupid enough to make that claim on a public message board without being certain...I therefore traveled to London, which was witnessed by a number of people who post on these boards, and asked if this information was correct..?
Which quite clearly it was NOT. I think we have established that.
So yes I have been quite aware that Dan Norder was incorrect all along..as he is obviously incorrect with his critisisms about Paul Beggs Book on another thread.
However you are making alot of asumptions that are incorrect....
Whatever you think of me, I have a burning passion, that passion (strangely like Mr Frogs) goes back to the 1970's when barlow and watts made their television series about Jack the Ripper. That was the first program I watched..but I'd grown up with the stories from source...my nan was a Parnell..ironic really...)
I am working with Paul Begg on a script...I'm very excited about it..a script that actually has something to say about Jack the Ripper, not the bollocks that you've seen on TV before...even those productions that were taken from MY ideas and destroyed....
There has never been a proper television series on JtR never..I have a burning ambission to make that series stewart and i dont suggest you patronize me because I may be many things but I'm not stupid.
If making that series requires me to interveiw Dan Norder, I will do that, because good journalism is abouyt putting both arguements..
Which I intend to do..
That because as far as I am concerned this story is bigger than any individual. I intend to get it right. If you'd sooner back Ruggie Media or Atlantic thats up to you. But I will take you seriously and I actually understand what is being talked about..
Do you really think any other TV producer does..??
Bollocks I guess I've blown it with you, and that hurts because I really do care...and a program without your input, wont be as good...that hurts
I stand by my right to get things straight and I give that commitment to casebook that if I do get it together, it will be the best ....
Jeff

Whatever is all this about?

My posts have nothing whatsoever to do with your perceived dispute with Dan Norder and it is none of my business. I have been trying to bring some clarity and received a totally uncalled for response from you. Nor has it anything to do with criticisms of Paul Begg's book - again none of my business - unless you wish me to comment on it.

I have made no assumptions that are incorrect here. Your 'burning passion' whatever it may be is no concern of mine. Mr. Frog - who he? If you are working on a script with Paul Begg that is your business, not mine and I really do not wish to know about it. I don't think that I have stated that you are stupid, merely that you are arguing about things that you really don't understand. And that is true as a reading of what you post will show. Whatever do the references to Ruggie Media and Atlantic mean???

Yes, what you have posted really does not impress me at all and you do need to take a close look at your manners. Perhaps a cold shower might help, or a little thought before posting.

[Tom_Wescott]

I am working with Paul Begg on a script

Somebody pinch me.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

It wasn't intended as a compliment.

I didn't realise that Paul Begg was an expert on watermarks.

Don't try to kid me.

And as you are into taking advice, my advice to you is don't get involved in complex arguments until you are competent enough to conduct them off your own bat.

If I was taking advice that was incorrect then you would have an arguement.

Clearly, as I supposed, Dan had made an error. I was fairly certain he had. But I am simply not stupid enough to make that claim on a public message board without being certain...I therefore traveled to London, which was witnessed by a number of people who post on these boards, and asked if this information was correct..?

Which quite clearly it was NOT. I think we have established that.

So yes I have been quite aware that Dan Norder was incorrect all along..as he is obviously incorrect with his critisisms about Paul Beggs Book on another thread.

However you are making alot of asumptions that are incorrect....

Whatever you think of me, I have a burning passion, that passion (strangely like Mr Frogs) goes back to the 1970's when barlow and watts made their television series about Jack the Ripper. That was the first program I watched..but I'd grown up with the stories from source...my nan was a Parnell..ironic really...)

I am working with Paul Begg on a script...I'm very excited about it..a script that actually has something to say about Jack the Ripper, not the bollocks that you've seen on TV before...even those productions that were taken from MY ideas and destroyed....

There has never been a proper television series on JtR never..I have a burning ambission to make that series stewart and i dont suggest you patronize me because I may be many things but I'm not stupid.

If making that series requires me to interveiw Dan Norder, I will do that, because good journalism is abouyt putting both arguements..

Which I intend to do..

That because as far as I am concerned this story is bigger than any individual. I intend to get it right. If you'd sooner back Ruggie Media or Atlantic thats up to you. But I will take you seriously and I actually understand what is being talked about..

Do you really think any other TV producer does..??

Bollocks I guess I've blown it with you, and that hurts because I really do care...and a program without your input, wont be as good...that hurts

I stand by my right to get things straight and I give that commitment to casebook that if I do get it together, it will be the best ....

Jeff

[Stewart P Evans]

Advice

I'll take that as a complement Stewart, though I'm dont certain Paul will.
I make no bones about the fact that I asked Pauls advice on the Water mark..I dont see that seeking expert advise on a subject is breaking any rules on casebook..clearly I even stated in an earlier post that I was travelling to London to seek that advice..
Pritty good advice it was But your wrong about the last post so I must be getting better

It wasn't intended as a compliment.

I didn't realise that Paul Begg was an expert on watermarks.

Don't try to kid me.

And as you are into taking advice, my advice to you is don't get involved in complex arguments until you are competent enough to conduct them off your own bat.

[anna]

Thanks for your answer Christine.
My son is a tv researcher,and I know the sort of lengths they have to go to in order to check out a subject before it is aired.
Kindest Regards.

[Jeff Leahy]

There you go, sounding just like Paul Begg again...

I'll take that as a complement Stewart, though I'm dont certain Paul will.

I make no bones about the fact that I asked Pauls advice on the Water mark..I dont see that seeking expert advise on a subject is breaking any rules on casebook..clearly I even stated in an earlier post that I was travelling to London to seek that advice..

Pritty good advice it was But your wrong about the last post so I must be getting better

[Stewart P Evans]

Facts

It has nothing to do with not being happy about asking questions, when have I ever shrunk from That?
for reasons beyond Peter Bower’s control he has been unable to publish his study of these documents in detail for peer review, so a full and proper assessment has yet to be made. Until that time, all anyone can do is make a guess.
It is my understanding that this is due to copyright restrictions on some of these papers, which has meant a delay of a couple of years. As I understand that this restriction will be lifted soon it just seemed to me that waiting a little more time might be better than trying to pre-guess what those findings actually are?.
At which piont a more informed discussion might ensue... That is a very differant position to not wanting Bowers conclussions examined. As to whether she should or should not have published..I'm damned if I know...or is it publish and be..
If you wish to make a guess in the mean time, i guess thats your right to do so..
As we know that a new book is on its way...my guess, for what its worth, is that they will come together...but I dont know for certain, its not public information..and it all seems like alot of guessing....which wouldnt stand up in court as you well know.
It does not change the basic facts however..Dan Norder made a mistake about the watrmark and should admit that mistake...

There you go, sounding just like Paul Begg again...

I didn't know that you had a hotline direct to Peter Bower. Don't give me the 'peer review' hogwash. The comments have been published and are in the public domain. Ergo they may be discussed and opinion passed, as indeed it has been. Since when have guillotine cut patterns been copyright anyway, and that is what is under discussion here - a claimed identification by matching cut patterns. No one is pre-guessing - they are debating what has already been published in Cornwell's book and in Sturgis's book.

Further discussions undoubtedly will follow if and when further information on the matter is published. But sufficient has already been published for other forensic paper and document examiners to pass comment. Anyway prior to your eminence grise appearing you didn't really know or understand much about this anyway - did you? A mere glance back over your past disjointed posts reveals that fact. I actually have no mind to indulge in vicarious debates so I shall keep this short.

I have not been guessing, I have been quoting what others have written - can't you read? I have never claimed to have first-hand knowledge nor expertise in this area. So please adhere to the fact of the matter. A lot of 'background emailing and prompting' goes on, and has done for many years. It is no way to have a sensible, flowing exchange of ideas and opinions - and frankly I find it distasteful. I certainly don't want or need you or your organ grinder giving me advice.

[Christine]

Perhaps,being in TV, Pirate Jack could explain part of this for me.
I didn't read the book,but I did see a TV documentary fronted by PC.
It explained how she came about her conclusions that Sickert was JTR.It did touch upon the fact that he made trips back and forth to France during 1888but obviously failed to mention he was there at the time of the murders.
Now,you are aware from being in the industry how many authors would love to get their work aired on primetime TV,could you explain to me how she managed to achieve this?
TV companies and book publishers have researchers to check everything is correct,for legal reasons.
Surely such a major error should have been picked up on before book and Tv deals were signed?
Think I remember that it was a member of Sickert's family who suggested he was JTR in the 70's?Then announced it as a fraud on his part,when challenged,a short time later.

The only person Cornwell slandered was long dead. There was actually some discussion as to whether his heirs could sue on his behalf, but the answer appears to be no.

There was a woman named Linda Mineer who tried to sue "psychic" Sylvia Browne after her son committed suicide after being named by Browne as a murderer on a US talk show. Like Sickert, the unfortunate Christopher Mineer, the victim's boyfriend, had an alibi for the crime, and the police checked it out.

The courts ruled that his mother had no standing to sue.

[Jeff Leahy]

I thought I already had apologized, but if you want me to be more explicit about it:

I'm sorry for misleading anyone here about which watermark argument was linked to the ridiculous argument that the paper used in unrelated letter came from the same 24 sheets. Clearly working off my memory of the previous discussion of this issue and using Cornwell's hardback version of the book instead of the slightly updated paperback version (which I suppose I'll have to break down and buy, but so many of that were made and unsold that I can get a remaindered copy for a dime in a local used bookstore, I'm sure) ended up causing some of the specific details to be confused.

All other evidence of Professor Bower and his wife making claims that are unscientific and unrealistic, as posted by Stewart and myself to this thread and elsewhere by others, still stands. All the other evidence of Cornwell and her hired gun experts making ridiculous claims that have been presented here (and a bunch that hasn't been posted) still stands. All the evidence of you having misrepresented the interaction between Cornwell and the respected members of this field still stands. All the evidence of you running around making outrageous personal attacks on others while at the same time trying to falsely accuse others of bullying still stands.

Touched a nerve there me thinks

[Dan Norder]

So how about it Norder, is Sorry in your extensive vocabluary?

I thought I already had apologized, but if you want me to be more explicit about it:

I'm sorry for misleading anyone here about which watermark argument was linked to the ridiculous argument that the paper used in unrelated letter came from the same 24 sheets. Clearly working off my memory of the previous discussion of this issue and using Cornwell's hardback version of the book instead of the slightly updated paperback version (which I suppose I'll have to break down and buy, but so many of that were made and unsold that I can get a remaindered copy for a dime in a local used bookstore, I'm sure) ended up causing some of the specific details to be confused.

All other evidence of Professor Bower and his wife making claims that are unscientific and unrealistic, as posted by Stewart and myself to this thread and elsewhere by others, still stands. All the other evidence of Cornwell and her hired gun experts making ridiculous claims that have been presented here (and a bunch that hasn't been posted) still stands. All the evidence of you having misrepresented the interaction between Cornwell and the respected members of this field still stands. All the evidence of you running around making outrageous personal attacks on others while at the same time trying to falsely accuse others of bullying still stands.

[Jeff Leahy]

So, if the 'Cornwell camp' aren't happy about Bower's findings being questioned (as you seem not to be) then perhaps they should have held off publishing until they were ready to publish all? - Where have I heard this sort of debate before I wonder?

It has nothing to do with not being happy about asking questions, when have I ever shrunk from That?

for reasons beyond Peter Bower’s control he has been unable to publish his study of these documents in detail for peer review, so a full and proper assessment has yet to be made. Until that time, all anyone can do is make a guess.

It is my understanding that this is due to copyright restrictions on some of these papers, which has meant a delay of a couple of years. As I understand that this restriction will be lifted soon it just seemed to me that waiting a little more time might be better than trying to pre-guess what those findings actually are?.

At which piont a more informed discussion might ensue... That is a very differant position to not wanting Bowers conclussions examined. As to whether she should or should not have published..I'm damned if I know...or is it publish and be..

If you wish to make a guess in the mean time, i guess thats your right to do so..

As we know that a new book is on its way...my guess, for what its worth, is that they will come together...but I dont know for certain, its not public information..and it all seems like alot of guessing....which wouldnt stand up in court as you well know.

It does not change the basic facts however..Dan Norder made a mistake about the watrmark and should admit that mistake...

[Tom_Wescott]

well I could ask why is it so important to you? why spend hours on a Maybrick thread arguing about a fake diary?..

Yes, I'm a slave to the Diary threads. And that John Omlor just won't shut up about Stride. I guess we all have our obsessions.

PS. Can you clarify what you mean by 'potencially significant' ?

Surely any letter proved to be writen by Walter Sickert, in relation to JtR, is potentially Significant?

By potentially significant I mean the handful of missives that fit under the 'Dear Boss' banner, along with the Lusk missives. Sickert wrote none of these and probably wrote none of the others either.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Glenn,

Your question was "So what's the point in trying to prove if Sickert wrote any of the letters, when none of them most likely came from the murderer in the first place?"

I was comparing Sickert to Wearside Jack in that WJ was convicted of writing hoax letters and imprisoned for 8 years, therefore if Sickert wrote a hoax letter then he committed a crime - "Peverting the course of justice" and that should be recognised.

No, Victor, it is completely uninteresting if Sickert wrote some fake Ripper latters.
Firstly, the claims have been made as an argument for Sickert being the Ripper - meaning it has been taken for granted byCornwell et al that the killer wrote some or most of the letters.The idea has not been to prove Sickert as a fake letter writer, but to identify Sickert as the Ripper through the letters.
Since many today hold serious doubts about the killer writing any of the letters, the whole excercise therefore becomes pointless. It is really quite simple.

Secondly, we know that hundreds of people wrote fake Ripper letters, and we know of three by name. If Sickert belonged to any of these, what's the big deal? Sure, in that case he committed a crime, but that type of crime is hardly what the controversy is all about here.

All the best

[Stewart P Evans]

Questioned

As far as i know there isnt a crime yet for being drunk incharge of a keyboard....but perhaps thre should be
Sturgis says, Peter Bower’s conclusions cannot be properly assessed ‘without fuller information about Bower's workings’ and other forensic examiners will indeed ‘remain sceptical’.

Yes, I know what Sturgis says. Shall we list the points he makes even with the caveat that 'Bower has not - as yet - published his findings in full.'

1. The brands used for both Sickert's and the 'Ripper' letters were common enough.

2. His [Bower's] claims, however, tend to raise rather more questions than they answer.

3. That all these sheets [Gurney Ivory Laid] should have been trimmed down with the same guillotine blade seems scarcely surprising as they were all produced by the same small manufacturer.

4. Regarding the 'cut pattern' of the guillotine blade any variance from uniformity can only have been within a relatively narrow span - five degrees of error perhaps, maybe ten?

5. Without the evidence of the whole batch it is simply impossible to tell.

6. There would not though, surely, have been [3,000 to] 4,480 [the number of quires] different positions of blade and paper. Neither each cut nor each quire would have been unique, as Bower seems to assert.

7. 'Most would have been pretty much the same. And given the difficulties involved in micro-measuring a friable organic material such as 100-year-old paper, it is legitimate to wonder just how accurately it is possible to measure even the limited differences that did occur.'

8. 'Other forensic examiners remain sceptical of his very emphatic conclusions.'

9. 'Kim Hughes of Documentary Evidence Ltd, discussing the case in general terms, 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 [Ripper letters] at around 1 in 3,000: a very long way from Bower's assurance of an exact match.'

10. The handwriting of the two compared 'Ripper letters' looks nothing like Sickert's handwriting.

11. The Sickert letters date to late 1889 or early 1890.

So, if the 'Cornwell camp' aren't happy about Bower's findings being questioned (as you seem not to be) then perhaps they should have held off publishing until they were ready to publish all? - Where have I heard this sort of debate before I wonder?