What makes Patricia Cornwall so special?!?! How come SHE gets all the limelight?!?!

[Rosey O'Ryan]

I don't disagree that Sickertt may have written some letters, he does seem to have an interest in the case and a peverse sense of humour, but they way the she jumps around is ridiculous. She discovers that Sickertt was not in France when one of the murders happened, so he must have been in Whitechapple slaughtering some poor unfortunate. Its bad history if nothing else.

Hi Ms Bradshaw,
Can you provide an example of Mr Sickert's "perverse sense of humour"?
Rosey :-)

[Stephen Thomas]

Cheyenne,

You can keep insisting that Cornwell has "compelling arguments backed up with science" but that does not make it so. Scientific tests are not valid until they are repeated and confirmed by other scientists. The tests that have been done by other people contradict what Cornwell claims, and the experts who aren't on Cornwell's payroll consistently say that her claims are simply not supported by the evidence or science. You've been told this, examples have been provided, and yet you still insist on claiming otherwise. Is it a deliberate strategy of yours to just keep repeating something you know is false in the hopes that other people might buy into it if they hear it often enough, or are you just having problems admitting that you were wrong?

And as far as complaining about people insulting her, it's not like she's been singled out for special criticism. Anyone who makes arguments in this field should expect that any mistakes will be pointed out, and hers are so numerous and extreme, coupled with her complete disdain for anyone who disagrees with her, that she'll obviously get the same level of criticism in return. It's not like other authors have had a free ride either. The mistakes and deceptions of people like Stephen Knight, Tony Williams Jr. and many, many others have all been exposed. People routinely have heated debates about all sorts of other topics and disagree quite strongly with each other. The only difference with Cornwell is that she appears to attract fans who believe she is above criticism.

Great post, Dan

[Dan Norder]

Cheyenne,

You can keep insisting that Cornwell has "compelling arguments backed up with science" but that does not make it so. Scientific tests are not valid until they are repeated and confirmed by other scientists. The tests that have been done by other people contradict what Cornwell claims, and the experts who aren't on Cornwell's payroll consistently say that her claims are simply not supported by the evidence or science. You've been told this, examples have been provided, and yet you still insist on claiming otherwise. Is it a deliberate strategy of yours to just keep repeating something you know is false in the hopes that other people might buy into it if they hear it often enough, or are you just having problems admitting that you were wrong?

And as far as complaining about people insulting her, it's not like she's been singled out for special criticism. Anyone who makes arguments in this field should expect that any mistakes will be pointed out, and hers are so numerous and extreme, coupled with her complete disdain for anyone who disagrees with her, that she'll obviously get the same level of criticism in return. It's not like other authors have had a free ride either. The mistakes and deceptions of people like Stephen Knight, Tony Williams Jr. and many, many others have all been exposed. People routinely have heated debates about all sorts of other topics and disagree quite strongly with each other. The only difference with Cornwell is that she appears to attract fans who believe she is above criticism.

[Cheyenne]

Pirate, try as you might...

But surely Patricia Cornwell has more on her suspect than any other 'Suspect' proponant book to date?

And please dont go through the teird old 'Pirate' supports 'Cornwell' arguements, you know I dont

Hi to all,

Pirate, preface as you have (you've seen what they have done to me), it's of no use. I've been called names, ignorant, etc. And all because I believe that we cannot just call Patricia Cornwell "Patsy Corneywall" and other stupid, idiotic, childlike names and say she is crazy.

That's not scientific. Yet many people continue to dismiss her in this way then say (with complete authority) that she is wrong.

I never said that she has all of the answers (so please don't engage in personal attacks again, Dan...). Let me repeat that sentiment for the record: I am no Patricia Cornwell apologist. I see the limitations. I just think there is information in her book that is foolish to ignore. And despite the name of her book, she is careful to note that her research has limitations and presents yet unanswered questions.

I am simply saying that none of us have the definitive answer, and that she has some compelling arguments backed up with science that cannot be brushed aside. Yes, Pirate, I think she has put together an excellent suspect sketch... Not yet a "Case Closed," but Cornwell's evidence requires us to pause, think, and debate - not name call. We'll see what she does in the future.

Meantime, I think Cornwell has broadened the JTR world of knowledge, and is deserving of some credit. So are a lot of other authors. I am reading three fascinating JTR books right now (books that the Ripperology community would not crucify me for reading).

I've been at it for eight years and, like putting together a puzzle, it is a painstaking process. Sometimes pieces fit. Sometimes one must reconfigure. At times one puts together a puzzle only to realize that a few pieces are missing. It's a process...

[downonwhores]

The Diary

Thank you for the kind comments. The Ultimate is very much a textbook and reference work and is not intended as a 'sensational' read.

There are many good Ripper books around and the authors you have mentioned have much to offer and are recommended. There is a new Jack the Ripper A-Z by Begg Fido and Skinner in the pipeline (hopefully) and this will be a must.

I have no plans at present to write another Ripper book.

Hi Stewart,

How are u doing? I do have a couple of questions. Paul Begg has a book called Jack the Ripper: the victorian mystery. I have never seen it. Does he have a book by that title? Also, In Melvyn's book about the ripper and the royal family, there is a photo of Abberline's Diary. What ever happened with that as i never seen anyone else mention it?

[KatBradshaw]

And by accident Patricia appears to have uncovered something of genuine interest in Ripper terms..and again I'm not saying that Bower is correct, I'm not a Paper Expert, he could be wrong for all I know..but it is of interest

And given her continued research into the area, I for one will probably buy the next book, if only to see what Keith Skinner, if anything, has turned up..

As long as she genuinely believes Sickert was the Ripper, I just beleive she has the right to make that case if she so wishes, even if i think she is wrong.

Pirate

I agree it is interesting and would like to see more information on the letters.
However, and its a big however, if you are going to write a book with a theory in you should back it up properly. When I was reading history if I had submitted and essay the way that she had written her book I would have been torn to pieces! When she says things that are assumptions in my mind she totally devalues the small bits of truely intriguing information. I wonder if that book would have been published if it wasn't written by her. Sad thing is that this is one subject where people will publish anything as it will always make money!

[Jeff Leahy]

I don't disagree that Sickertt may have written some letters, he does seem to have an interest in the case and a peverse sense of humour, but they way the she jumps around is ridiculous. She discovers that Sickertt was not in France when one of the murders happened, so he must have been in Whitechapple slaughtering some poor unfortunate. Its bad history if nothing else.

I dont disagree with that Kat. My point is simply that, on the whole, this tends to be the nature of suspect focused books on Jack The Ripper. The knocking of square pegs into round holes.

And by accident Patricia appears to have uncovered something of genuine interest in Ripper terms..and again I'm not saying that Bower is correct, I'm not a Paper Expert, he could be wrong for all I know..but it is of interest

And given her continued research into the area, I for one will probably buy the next book, if only to see what Keith Skinner, if anything, has turned up..

As long as she genuinely believes Sickert was the Ripper, I just beleive she has the right to make that case if she so wishes, even if i think she is wrong.

And discussing the subject would appear to be justified as long as Bowers claims remain NOT DISPROVED.

Pirate

[KatBradshaw]

I don't disagree that Sickertt may have written some letters, he does seem to have an interest in the case and a peverse sense of humour, but they way the she jumps around is ridiculous. She discovers that Sickertt was not in France when one of the murders happened, so he must have been in Whitechapple slaughtering some poor unfortunate. Its bad history if nothing else.

[Jeff Leahy]

Johova

Hi Guys

yes i here all your mocking tones about patricia's book and on the whole I agree with you all. However surely you are all missing one very important piont. While nearly all the other suspect books can be dismissed as flights of fancy....(that of course because Rob House hasnt actually published his as yet)

Surely by some bizarre twist of fate..you are all faced with the basic truth, that what ever you say, and however you mock, that Peter Bowers findings about one letter, would seem to suggest, however improbable and unlikely that Sickert wrote one of the letters, tat claim to be from Jack the Ripper.

Of course we all know that Jack wrote no letters, so arnt we all faced with a possiblity, until Peter Bower publishes his findings in full..that Walter Sickert invoved himself in the case at some level.

And as far as I'm aware writing hoax letters about a murder is a criminal offence in this country.

I dont beleive either that Sickert was JtR.

But surely Patricia Cornwell has more on her suspect than any other 'Suspect' proponant book to date?

And please dont go through the teird old 'Pirate' supports 'Cornwell' arguements, you know I dont I only said 'Jahova'

[KatBradshaw]

Well I think that says it all.

[Mike Covell]

I saw a copy of the hard backed first edition of the book recently and noticed it was on sale for £1! I bought it in case I ever need a door stop!

[KatBradshaw]

I was a really big fan of her fictional books and was really looking forward to reading it. I read history at Uni and so I like things to be backed up and evidence given. What got to me was the way that she made statements which were just sooooooooo flimsy and then claimed to be able to deduce madness from it. I can't even read her fiction works anymore.

[downonwhores]

Hi

hi Khanada,

Love the name. I haven't read the Satanic team yet but have read the satanic rituals of jtr by edwards. it sucks too. as for one that is so bad you threw it across the room. I felt Caleb reuben knight's was so awful, I used it as toilet paper. HA HA. he argues that Mary Kelly with GH and JB were jack the ripper and then GH and JB decided to kill mary kelly. it's seriously ****ed up. Anyway, it's nice to meet you so sorry about misspelling your name.

[Khanada]

Someone had the gall to defend her book as the "most accurate of the jtr books. . ."

Maybe the only ones they've read are PC's, the Satanic team one (Karen Trenouth?), and that one I have that's so bad I can't finish it and have thrown it across the room so many times pages are coming out. (Abrahamsen??)

and that "all Ripper experts and Sickert experts were out to get her. . ."

That's certainly not so -- it was only the ones who actually know the facts that she glossed over, ignored, or passed over in favor of inaccuracies, that were out to refute and correct her. "Out to get" is a bit much, but if it lets the drama club sleep at night, perhaps it's best to let them get their rest.

[downonwhores]

PC

I"m recently on PC website about her book and after writing a post about how her book is wrong including the misspellings and misintrepretations of the DNA evidence. Someone had the gall to defend her book as the "most accurate of the jtr books. . ." and that "all Ripper experts and Sickert experts were out to get her. . ." HA HA HA.
I don't know who posted it but it just makes me pissed that her book has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it's a joke. I just wish she and her fans would have the courage to admit that they are wrong.
Any ideas on what's her problem? Anyone have any other stupid PC quotes about Ripperologists from the press.