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

[DVV]

Sorry again, Pirate, only an expert in the same field can challenge Bower's conclusions.
You and me have the right to doubt, even with no evidence since we are not experts in Bower's discipline, and as yourself put it, it's just about letters, so even if Bower is honest, Cornwell was not when she claimed to have "succeed", thanks to her team.
At last, much ado about nothing.

[DVV]

ps: in my view, no honest researcher would like (accept) to see his work used the way Cornwell used Bower's work -ie: to build a biased theory with "scientific" arguments that abuse the reader.

[Jeff Leahy]

Sorry again, Pirate, only an expert in the same field can challenge Bower's conclusions.

Is that not what I have been arguing?

You and me have the right to doubt, even with no evidence since we are not experts in Bower's discipline

Yes we do have the right to doubt his findings..indeed experts in the feild have found his finding surprising. I have NO problem with that..its my own position.

, and as yourself put it, it's just about letters, so even if Bower is honest, Cornwell was not when she claimed to have "succeed", thanks to her team. At last, much ado about nothing.

Yes what Patricia claims is what Patricia claims..

Certainly Peter Bower has NEVER claimed Sickert was Jack the Ripper.

Peter Bower made a specific claim about 24 sheets of paper..with the same watermark...thats all..

And I'm not claiming he's correct, I'm just saying that he is a respected expert of honest reputation and you a Norder have no right to accuse him of things you can NOT prove...

That is all...I'm not saying he's correct (i Dont know) I'm saying dont accuse him of giving Patricia results she wanted because she paid him..thats not nice, its not pleasent, and its NOT true..

If you and Norder have evidence that Peter Bower fabricated results to keep Patricia happy..THEN PRESENT EVIDENCE!

or Apologuise to him..on casebook..NOW!

This is Peter Bowers lively hood you are trying to destroy!!!!!

With what? HOT AIR

[DVV]

This is Peter Bowers lively hood you are trying to destroy!!!!!

Chill out, Pirate, I haven't this power, and I'm not bad-minded that much.
You're obsessed with Norder, and since he's not posting, you get angry anyway...
Funny enough!
About presenting evidence against Bower, I've already answered this, you even quoted it and proved that you agree...

[Cheyenne]

Dan my dear friend, this is turning into quite the debate!!! We simply have to stop meeting like this... lol

You are absolutely right on your first point. It has been long enough since the book’s release to debate it. Remember, I am no Cornwell apologist, nor do I necessarily believe that she is “right.” I simply think we should look at things critically. I have seen a lot of name calling with respect to Cornwell and far less critical thinking on the whole. This is where I disagree with many. We have to use an analytical eye before lambasting...

I have thought a lot about your analogy of finding 10 sets of different people's fingerprints on a ledge at a crime scene and assuming the least smudged is the robber. Perhaps a better analogy would be to find 10 sets of fingerprints on a ledge of a crime scene, one of which matches the fingerprints that the police have on file as a repeatedly convicted robber. It is only logical to start there. With respect to Cornwell’s research, she has a baseline comparison (the licked envelopes/stamps of personal Sickert correspondence). In my analogy, this is the “police file.” She then tests and finds mitochondrial DNA matching the baseline (police file), despite the presence of contamination occurring throughout the years. Back to my analogy, the contamination represents the other nine sets of fingerprints. Sure the other person’s fingerprints are there, and one may be important to the investigation, but why not start with the suspect who has a rap sheet? That is in essence what Cornwell did, to a 90%+ probability of certainty.

Occam’s razor: With all other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.

Thank you for the information on Professor Ian Findlay. I will look into those findings (and thanks to Pirate Jack for pointing me in the right direction as well). I absolutely despise when people speak from ignorance, and I refuse to do so. I will take a look at that research and let you know. Also, I take umbrage to your statement that I need to do “some reading on the topic from sources other than Cornwell.” This thread just happens to be about her. While I am in no way an expert Ripperologist in the way that some are (I have only been at it 8 years), I can debate issues from a position of intelligence, and when I cannot, I readily admit it. With respect to Findlay, I readily admit that you are speaking about something that at this time I cannot.

And then there is poor Peter Bower. His acceptance of money for work does not make him less credible. Anyone that had ever worked a day in his or her life has accepted money for some type of expertise. Every expert is paid for services, with perhaps the exception coming to mind of Henry Lee (of OJ Simpson fame), who is well off enough to often offer expert witness testimony for free or donate his fees to students attempting pay for their education. Yet people still question his motives... For the most part, we are all for hire, but many of us maintain our integrity. Where is the evidence Bower has failed to maintain his integrity? The “outside experts” you speak of will also be paid for their “more reliable” results, will they not??

I find it very, very interesting that when Peter Bower finds that the JTR diary is a fake, everyone is on board with his “expertise,” likely because Bower’s findings in that instance had the ancillary benefit of leaving the JTR mystery intact. However, Bower’s findings with respect to Cornwell’s book had the ancillary benefit of potentially narrowing the mystery. Suddenly now he is crucified, and is painted as a paid Cornwell hired-gun whore.

I think some Ripperologists are more interested in protecting the mystery.

And ouch when you said “we have to go with what the evidence says instead of just jumping aboard some fantasy trip of highly implausible maybes and could-haves just to protect your emotional investment in Cornwell's theory.” I have no emotional investment in Cornwell’s theory...I am invested in the critical analysis of all authors. I think in this respect that Cornwell has been cheated. Instead many find it easier to call her names and to make fun of her in a very “high school” fashion, usually coming up with some smoke and mirrors reason why she is crazy. I have problems with that on an intellectual, not emotional level, Dan.

Cheyenne

[Cheyenne]

Hey guys,

Pirate need not "chill out." He is coming to the defense of a man who's integrity is being challenged without so much as a thread of evidence that it should be. I almost feel sorry that I mentioned Bower in this whole thing, because he is more of a paper expert than any of us will ever be, he presented his expert conclusions (those that none of us are qualified to make, mind you), I repeat those conclusions, and now his integrity as a professional is up for debate??

Debate his findings by all means, but crucify the man's integrity without evidence? Come on... Is that not what many of you accuse Cornwell of doing - concluding without evidence? I smell irony...

[Jeff Leahy]

Thank you cheyenne for those kind words...I have often felt a lone vioce on casebook defending Patricia..and i dont even agree with anything she has to say....but I do beleive she has the right to make her case for Sickert..even if I dont agree with that case..

As for being obseesed with Dan Norder...I am NOT..

Norder has publicly accused me of Lying, fabricating and taking money from Patricia.

None of these claims are TRUE..and until he apologuise's I intent to point out his 'Porkies' wherer ever he paints them on casebook.

That is not obsession it is the QUEST for the TRUTH..

To the rest of you I have only respect...the Norder is just a 'Captain Mannering'

casebook should fit a button that plays 'the Dads Army' theme tune every time he makes a post...

Anyway welcome to the boards Cheyenne, I will look out for your posts on other threads..I'm tierd of Patricia and there are more interesting things to discuss...check the C.Eddows Kent thread soon

Good night all

Pirate

[needler]

Pirate and CW........

Dear Two of You........would suggest the name calling cease and desist. BOTH of you need to take a cold shower or, at least, take a loooooong walk and chill out. Neither will make a point under these circumstances and you both are looking fairly petty and foolish right now. GET A GRIP! And apologies might be in order, as well........but that's just me.........

Cheyenne...thanks for your thanks...I won't attack you, m'dear; frankly, since we both have a point of view and neither can conclusively PROVE it, we should try to make nice. After all, the Ripper won't escape our clutches if we wait a few more days........

Won't argue the "maybes', "what ifs", or "it's possibles". I suppose ANYTHING is possible, except MAYBE HRH Queen Elizabeth being the high jump champion at the Olympics. I wouldn't bet against the lady, though! Other than that, we can "yes, BUT..." this thing to death. Cornwell's desire to place Sickert in London during the murders is obvious and almost desperate, but certainly a VERY flimsy theory at best. There are too many sightings of the gent in France, and all are believable, so I'll stick with the people who knew him best and take a pass on Patsy's theories. I STILL think SO WHAT is the response to her "finding" Sickert's mDNA on ANY letter. That proves nothing....except possibly that he had a bit too much wine and fired off a taunt to the cops. That's it, and that's ALL.

NOW will someone please explain to me WHY the Ripper MUST have been someone famous and not just your typical schlub from the local brewery or slaughterhouse?? AND, parallel to that question, if you know anyone who has been reincarnated, WHY does he always claim to have been Cleopatra or Josephine or Nefertiri or Joan of Arc, and not......say, Mary Smith from Preston?? OR, for the girls...Caesar or Napoleon or Alexandar the Great rather than Joseph Mason from Toadsuck, Texas?????

SEE?? I GOTCHA....there really IS a Toadsuck, Texas and I can prove it, too!

Cheers; happy weekend to all and to all a good night...........

Judy

[Dan Norder]

Perhaps a better analogy would be to find 10 sets of fingerprints on a ledge of a crime scene, one of which matches the fingerprints that the police have on file as a repeatedly convicted robber.

That's not better, because it's completely at odds with what we are talking about here. There is no match in any of these tests, only something that does not rule out 10% of the population. Period. Nobody has any DNA of Sickert's on file. And he's nothing close to a repeatedly convicted killer either literally or figuratively in any way related to these tests..

That is in essence what Cornwell did, to a 90%+ probability of certainty.

Cheyenne, no offense, but you're just making numbers up out of thin air now. Nothing Cornwell did is anything even close to a 90% degree of certainty. The best she had was two samples that were 10% accurate as being from the same family line, and we don't know if either of those samples represent either Sickert or the Ripper letter writer. We do know, however, that one of those samples contained female indicators, which indicates that it's not Sickert. That's closer to 0% accuracy of a match.

Occam’s razor: With all other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.

And the simplest answer is that Sickert wrote hundreds of Ripper letters that he had mailed from ten or more different cities in completely different handwriting while he took a boat back and forth from France on multiple occasions all so that he could confuse forensic tests that wouldn't be invented for another 75 years?

Occam's razor is all about supporting the answer that requires the least complications to try to justify. Cornwell's work is the complete opposite.

I absolutely despise when people speak from ignorance, and I refuse to do so.

Too late.

And then there is poor Peter Bower. His acceptance of money for work does not make him less credible.

Cornwell certainly let people know what she was after before hiring them, which, as even one of her consultants (Paul B. Ferrara) later admitted, is not how science and forensics investigation is supposed to work. Confirmation bias is a widespread problem within science. That doesn't make someone a bad person, just human.

The “outside experts” you speak of will also be paid for their “more reliable” results, will they not??

As far as I know these outside experts (the several who reject Bower's claims as unscientific) were consulted without pay and were setting the record straight about their areas of expertise.

I find it very, very interesting that when Peter Bower finds that the JTR diary is a fake, everyone is on board with his “expertise,” likely because Bower’s findings in that instance had the ancillary benefit of leaving the JTR mystery intact.

It wasn't Bower who "found" that the diary was fake. He was one person out of several who discovered many, many problems with it. You are either misinformed about that topic as well or purposefully trying to make Bower sound more important than he is.

And, trust me, nobody wants the "mystery intact" -- we just don't want someone presenting a theory that's completely unsupported by the evidence as if it solved the case. Trying to claim that people just don't want it solved when they refuse to buy into a weak suspect is just sour grapes. It's used by a good portion of the authors who think they solved it and then are disgusted when nobody accepts their supposed genius. The Diary supporters use that tactic, someone who got caught forging documents to try to implicate his suspect tried to use that tactic, and Cornwell has raised it to an art form. It's just sheer denial at work. Other books out there have offered up suspects that are, while not necessarily endorsed as being the right solution, are far, far more respected than Cornwell's. The bottom line is the quality of the arguments and the evidence to support them, which Cornwell just does not have.

Suddenly now he is crucified, and is painted as a paid Cornwell hired-gun whore.

Well, he was, in fact, a paid Cornwell hired-gun, so I don't know why you get so emotional about it. The "whore" thing is over the top, especially I said no such thing.

I have no emotional investment in Cornwell’s theory...I am invested in the critical analysis of all authors.

You've certainly done nothing to demonstrate that. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Dan Norder]

Debate his findings by all means, but crucify the man's integrity without evidence?

His findings were debated, and the evidence is that no other experts have supported his claim and many outright ridicule it. That's not crucifying the man, it's just pointing out that his opinion is just his own opinion and surely affected by the fact that he was hired to try to incriminate Sickert and not to do an objective study where any results even if they were contradictory or inconclusive were encouraged. For you to try to present this as a personal attack on the man and try to set him up as the only expert in the field is a rather crass and deceptive debate strategy, and one that's all too common for Cornwell more rabid supporters.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Cheyenne

I’ve just got in from work ad I’ve got to be out again tomorrow..face rather sun burnt

Norder appears to have made at least three factual errors in his post but I need to check some Names dates and facts.

I’d be very careful with his last post..it may sound reasonable but it is Typical Norder loaded with insinuation and factual error..

You almost need to break it down a word at a time….because he cleverly twists the lies through the truth..see how he does it

HIS FINDINGS WERE DEBATED,…..true, largely by Mathew Sturgis but also leading Ripperologists..

AND THE EVIDENCE IS THAT NO OTHER EXPERTS HAVE SUPPORTED HIS CLAIM AND MANY OUTRIGHT RIDICULE IT….not True…Peter Bower has never published his findings …so no expert worth their salt would claim such a thing because they have not studied the letters he claims match…Mathew Sturgis consulted experts..all they claimed was that they found his finding ‘MOST SURPRISING’ I’m not certain which expert he believes are Ridiculing Peter Bower..perhaps he is talking about himself?

Ask him to name these experts and how they are qualified to ridicule Peter Bower..what is their reputation..are we talking about serious internationally recognised experts…or Norders mates down the pub?

THAT’S NOT CRUCIFYING THE MAN,..yes it is..this is Peters lively hood, what else is he doing?

ITS JUST PIONTIG OUT THAT HIS OPINIONIS JUST HIS OWN OPINION, correct Peter has given an expert opinion and he is the worlds leading expert on the subject..

AND SURELY AFFECTED BY THE FACT THAT HE WAS HIRED TO TRY TO INCRIMINATE SICKERT AND NOT TO DO AN OBJECTIVE STUDY WHERE ANY RESULTS EVEN IF THEY WERE CONTRADICTORY OR INCONCLUSIVE WERE ENCOURAGED…

Well this is the BIG lie isn’t it..the reason I’m getting so hot under the collar with this looney…what he is saying her4e is that Patricia Paid Petr Bower money to provide evidenance to support her book…and beaqr in ming that Peter Bower has never published his findings …so no expert has actually examined what he has said…yet Norder is basically accusing Peter Bower of FRAUD…

He is saying she paid money for Peter Bower to LIE…

That I not how hiring an expert works..when you hire an expert..as I do frequently…you get their opinion..thats what you pay for..you don’t tell experts what to say…

FOR YOU TO TRY TO REPRESENT THIS AS A PERSONAL ATTACK ON THE MAN…what else can it be but a personal attack..Norder is saying that the worlds leading expert was paid money to provide false information..

AND TO TRY AND SET HIM UP AS THE ONLY EXPERTIN THE FIELD..You have never done this to my knowledge when did you say he was the only expert in the field..you didn’t..you said NO expert has examined his findings because they have not been published..and that is true..

IS RATHER CRASS AND DECEPTIVE DEBATE STRATERGY,…some on which DAN NORDER is the worlds leading expert on..

AND ONE THAT’S ALL TOO COMMON FOR CORNWELL MORE RABID SUPPORTERS..

Again a back handed slight at me…despite the fact that I have never supported Patricia Cornwell…I have only pointed out to casebook readers that Dan Norder is making factually incorrect claims about Peter Bower…and trying to draw an untrue picture of what experts are and what information they provide to authors and TV producers….their opinion..

Must dash catch you later. Dont quote me

Pirate

[Bailey]

AND SURELY AFFECTED BY THE FACT THAT HE WAS HIRED TO TRY TO INCRIMINATE SICKERT AND NOT TO DO AN OBJECTIVE STUDY WHERE ANY RESULTS EVEN IF THEY WERE CONTRADICTORY OR INCONCLUSIVE WERE ENCOURAGED…

Well this is the BIG lie isn’t it..the reason I’m getting so hot under the collar with this looney…what he is saying her4e is that Patricia Paid Petr Bower money to provide evidenance to support her book…and beaqr in ming that Peter Bower has never published his findings …so no expert has actually examined what he has said…yet Norder is basically accusing Peter Bower of FRAUD…

He is saying she paid money for Peter Bower to LIE…

Jeff, mate, that's clearly NOT what he said. He pointed out that Bower was told in advance what he was looking for, which, by his argument, would inevitably influence his work and potentially introduce a bias into his results. While I'm not saying whether or not Bower, whom I don't in any way know, would be able to resist this bias, I see Dan's point that it is a potential problem.

Dan, are you able to supply any reference that backs up your assertion that Bower was told what he was looking for versus being given a more unbiased brief?

And while (if) I've got your attention, Mr Norder, I would comment on the frequency - often mentioned by Jeff - with which you do tend to mention experts and opinions without naming any names. If there are confidentiality issues in some of these cases fair enough, but otherwise generic terms like this do tend to fog issues and leave those of us who don't know who you're talking about bepuzzled. Also, it gives Jeff the perception that he has licence to let loose on you again...

AND ONE THAT’S ALL TOO COMMON FOR CORNWELL MORE RABID SUPPORTERS..

Again a back handed slight at me…

Or possibly an indication that your feud with him means more to you than it does to him

To paraphrase Dr Phil (Dear God, am I actually quoting Oprah's litte b**ch now? What have you reduced me to, Jeff?), "You'd be much less worried about what other people think of you if realised how rarely they do."

Must dash catch you later. Dont quote me

Can if I want.

Cheers,
B.

[Jeff Leahy]

Spoil Sport

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff, mate, that's clearly NOT what he said. He pointed out that Bower was told in advance what he was looking for, which, by his argument, would inevitably influence his work and potentially introduce a bias into his results.

Sorry Bailey..it would NOT...not if Bower was an expert of any worth...Patricia might 'wish' for something when she employs someone..but that is a long way from that expert..actually 'BEING INFLUENCED' it dosnt haqppen like that in real life...you employ an expert..you pay for their opinion..and hopefully you get their opinion....ask any expert on these boards who have appeared in a TV program? we should know.

[QUOTE=Bailey;35721]Dan, are you able to supply any reference that backs up your assertion that Bower was told what he was looking for versus being given a more unbiased brief?[QUOTE=Bailey;35721]

No he can NOT

And while (if) I've got your attention, Mr Norder, I would comment on the frequency - often mentioned by Jeff - with which you do tend to mention experts and opinions without naming any names. If there are confidentiality issues in some of these cases fair enough, but otherwise generic terms like this do tend to fog issues and leave those of us who don't know who you're talking about bepuzzled. Also, it gives Jeff the perception that he has licence to let loose on you again..

Checkout what I posted RE: Mathew Sturgis...thats what we have...hardly ridicule...

Or possibly an indication that your feud with him means more to you than it does to him

Dan Norder has accused me of being a 'LIAR' I have asked him to present evidence where I have 'LIED". Dan Norder has never presented that evidence..

How about it Norder..on which post on casebook has the Pirate 'LIED'?

Can if I want. Cheers, B.

I must bed nearly midnight..I have a job!

[Howard Brown]

Instead of lampooning Ms. Cornwell, we ought to be thankful that she has attracted many people to Ripperology,either by coming to Casebook or my digs...or by the interested parties buying books written by some of the same people who sneer at her privately or publicly. Suspect-based Ripperology is essentially finished and her preferred suspect is as bad as the next one. Do you really care?

Give her a break. Whatever attention she garners from her efforts brings new people into the field.

Be objective.

How Brown