Patricia Cornwell - Walter Sickert - BOOK 2

[TomTomKent]

Calling anyone Jack the Ripper is doing exactly the same thing. What's the diference?

Does she apologise for any of the dubious statements made previously? Allegations of other murders, unprovable or supportable claims about his sex life, transmuting an anal fissure into a deformed "Little Walter"?

[PaulB]

Would tying a letter to any suspect prove anything other than that they wrote letters? (This would be interesting in itself).

You would need the weight of something substantial to add to the suspicion. To a contemporary suspect, it might explain why they were placed under suspicion, which would be something of interest, even if they were not generally considered the viable as the murderer.

I am sure those advocating one suspect or other might fall foul of confirmation bias, and assume that solid evidence of a letter becomes solid evidence of a Ripper, but at most I would suggest it becomes interesting and indicative, rather than being a direct piece of evidence.

You are spot on, of course. Tying a letter to a suspect doesn't prove anything other than that the suspect wrote a letter. But I read Patricia's book in ms, so maybe she changed the text for publication; can you show me where Patricia says the letter alone proves Sickert was the Ripper?

[TomTomKent]

You are spot on, of course. Tying a letter to a suspect doesn't prove anything other than that the suspect wrote a letter. But I read Patricia's book in ms, so maybe she changed the text for publication; can you show me where Patricia says the letter alone proves Sickert was the Ripper?

I have not suggested she said any such thing, but I suspect the misunderstanding comes from my reading of your post, and the way I responded.
I responded to your comment: "But I wonder whether people be as quick to say 'writing a couple of letters doesn't prove he was the Ripper though' as they have about Patricia's book?" (Bolding mine). Sorry if I have misread something in that, but you seemed to be suggesting it would be considered significant to other cases, which by and large, I don't think would convince anybody except those as invested as Cornwell seems to be, in the way she promotes her work.

[TomTomKent]

Come to think of it, reading back some of my posts, I can see they can be read in a more confrontational tone, or argumentative, than they were meant. I think I will step back to being a spectator again, before I end up arguing myself out of an interest I was hoping to foster for the subject. Sorry about that.

[PaulB]

Does she apologise for any of the dubious statements made previously? Allegations of other murders, unprovable or supportable claims about his sex life, transmuting an anal fissure into a deformed "Little Walter"?

I wonder why you ask. I could ask the same of any number of people who had made and continue to make dubious and even downrigt flat out wrong things on this subject. Why single Patricia Cornwell out?

However, she has publicly stated that she made mistakes with her first book and she has acknowledged that she had the wrong attitude, both in the book and out of it.

As for allegations about other murders and uproveable or unsupported claims about Walter's sex life, I regret to say that that sort of thing is part and parcel of Ripperology. Theorists indulge in what ifs. They're never asked to apologise for them. Is Patricia being singled out for some special reason?

As for the penile fistula, she was told about this by John Lessore and she believed him. She has the original notes that were made of her conversation with him and they include him saying it.

But I'm not defending Patricia Cornwell. I don't believe that any of the suspects was Jack the Ripper and I actually don't give a toss who Jack the Ripper was, but I think a book should be considered on its merits and that this one could contain some material that it might be interesting to follow up.

[PaulB]

I have not suggested she said any such thing, but I suspect the misunderstanding comes from my reading of your post, and the way I responded.
I responded to your comment: "But I wonder whether people be as quick to say 'writing a couple of letters doesn't prove he was the Ripper though' as they have about Patricia's book?" (Bolding mine). Sorry if I have misread something in that, but you seemed to be suggesting it would be considered significant to other cases, which by and large, I don't think would convince anybody except those as invested as Cornwell seems to be, in the way she promotes her work.

I know you haven't suggested that Patricia had said any such thing. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. As for my own words, yes, I can see how my meaning could have been misunderstood, I'm sorry about that. I think differently to you, however, in that I think there is a montain of prejudice against Patricia Cornwell, not all of it unjustified, as she has publicly acknowledged.

And you didn't come across as confrontational to me. You asked some fair questions as far as I am concerned. Surely asking fair questions is a good thing? No need to return to being a 'watcher'. Not before I do anyway :-)

[Harry D]

You're starting to sound like her publicist, Paul. What's the crack here?

[GUT]

Hi,
All this Sickert, may possibly have written letters,but so what, is alarming.
Would any better regarded suspect, such as Druitt,Kosminski, James Kelly, Joseph Fleming, have a ''So what'' affixed to them, if they were believed to have written letters
Regards Richard.

For me,,, YES.

And I'm not sure they are better regarded suspects, most dismiss any of those as quickly as Walter.

[Fisherman]

For me,,, YES.

And I'm not sure they are better regarded suspects, most dismiss any of those as quickly as Walter.

Thing is, none of them CAN be dismissed. But I agree that regardless of who is suggested as a letter writer, that somebody will be pooh-pooh´d out here anyway. By many posters.

Nevertheless, Richard has a point - the canonical suspects (now THERE´S a term I am going to find use for in the future) will be regarded as superior probable killers to those of no canonical fame.

That´s the way it goes.

[TomTomKent]

Thing is, none of them CAN be dismissed. But I agree that regardless of who is suggested as a letter writer, that somebody will be pooh-pooh´d out here anyway. By many posters.

Nevertheless, Richard has a point - the canonical suspects (now THERE´S a term I am going to find use for in the future) will be regarded as superior probable killers to those of no canonical fame.

That´s the way it goes.

Sorry, one last post, then (as dammit I cant resist this one):

The way I see it is this, it is not about finding the one true suspect, it is about deciding which is the most probable suspect and discussing them in terms of likelihood rather than making great claims about the case being closed, or that you have unmasked or identified the killer.

There is a sliding scale of suspects. The more evidence you get, the closer you nudge them towards a probability. The more evidence against them, the further they slide the other way.

At one end you have the suspects that were being considered by the Police at the time. They might be a lot further from certainty than we would like, and there is only so far they can be pushed when we simply don't have all the information the police had.

At the other is Queen Victoria and Theodore Roosevelt. We know where they were at the time, and you would have to argue yourself around so much evidence it is not worth giving them credence.

In the middle is the pivot point. The benchmark for being considered a serious suspect. Most celebrity suspects will never make it past the pivot, too many of them are based on picture puzzles, and conspiracy innuendo.

So, the question is: If you discovered somebody was responsible for writing one of the letters, would it push them up the scale, would it push them down the scale, or it would they remain exactly where they are. Context will make a difference, but...in a lot of cases it won't move the suspect towards a probability, unless you can show there is something from the letter in question that means it could only come from the killer.

[Abby Normal]

The thing for me and I may be echoing points others are making is this: if a modern suspect is not tied to the case in any direct way ie, a witness, a contemporary suspect, or even a person of interest then I think if you are going to put forth a non contemporary suspect at a bare minimum you have to at least establish that your suspect was probably in London at the time of the ripper murders.

If you can't even do that then well you can pretty much dress anyone up for the ripper murders. And if there's money or any other type of personal gain you can pretty much get any "expert" to come down on your side, so I take that with a huge grain of salt.

[Phil Carter]

The thing for me and I may be echoing points others are making is this: if a modern suspect is not tied to the case in any direct way ie, a witness, a contemporary suspect, or even a person of interest then I think if you are going to put forth a non contemporary suspect at a bare minimum you have to at least establish that your suspect was probably in London at the time of the ripper murders.

If you can't even do that then well you can pretty much dress anyone up for the ripper murders. And if there's money or any other type of personal gain you can pretty much get any "expert" to come down on your side, so I take that with a huge grain of salt.

Hello Abby,

I agree. Money persuades. Well said.


Phil

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

I agree. Money persuades. Well said.


Phil

Thanks Phil
Actually all this talk about letter writing has got me thinking. Why isn't news man Bulling a ripper suspect? We have contemporary accounts that accuses him as the letter writer of dear boss. Dear boss has some clues that perhaps only the ripper would know. He also was obviously there at the time and he's tied to the case. It seems he has motive for the murders also.


Hmmm need to think about this a little more. LOL!

[PaulB]

You're starting to sound like her publicist, Paul. What's the crack here?

Maybe I am sounding like that. I just think there are interesting things in Patricia's book which prejudice against her is going to cause people to miss. I think the best thing for me to do is leave that to happen. It's no skin off my nose.

Cheers
Paul

[GUT]

Thanks Phil
Actually all this talk about letter writing has got me thinking. Why isn't news man Bulling a ripper suspect? We have contemporary accounts that accuses him as the letter writer of dear boss. Dear boss has some clues that perhaps only the ripper would know. He also was obviously there at the time and he's tied to the case. It seems he has motive for the murders also.


Hmmm need to think about this a little more. LOL!

What clues would only Jack know?