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

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Bailey

Clearly you are entitled to your conclusions. The Information that I have provided however, is factually correct to the best of my knowledge, as are the references I have made to Matthew Sturgis book.

I have taken your advice and refreshed my memory on the link Norder provided. I can not see anything that contradicts the basic premise that ‘Peter Bower’ has not published his findings in full for peer inspection” therefore No expert has been able to express an opinion on his specific findings either way, right or wrong. FACT.

The only expert I can find any reference to (and at least I’m providing names and information here unlike Norder) is Kim Hughs of Documentary Evidence LtD. And again Hughs is paraphrased by Matthew Sturgis, who is the person I am QUOTING in the first place! All Hughs has expressed in general terms ‘doubt that Bower can be as precise and definite as apparently he is…

A long long way from Norders claim. ‘ An expert who ridicules Bower’

So I ask again:

SO WHO ARE THE ‘MANY’ EXPERTS WHO RIDICULED BOWER?

Yes its very convenient that you are ignoring me Norder that way you don’t have to answer difficult questions…which is after all what I do for a living Bailey.

My comments that NO ‘expert in ‘paper analysis’ has ridiculed Peter Bower would appear to be Correct. Unless someone can provide the name of that expert and exactly what they said…I have No argument with anybody…this is just fact..I know because I have checked my sources.

And I stand by my claim that any suggestion that Peter Bower produced results that Patricia Cornwell wanted..’becuase she paid him’.are ridiculous and have NO founding or basis in Reality. Indeed I feel these claims to be LIABEL.

It is completely unexcitable for someone to make these claims, Not support their claims, and NOT provide any evidence

Whether Norder has opted in or out of that debate is irrelevant. The fact is that he is incorrect in his statements about Peter Bower and it is perfectly reasonable for me to point this out to any poster he is attacking or addressing on the subject…which is what I have done and will continue t do.

If you believe that it is exceptable that Norder calls me a ‘liar’ when quite clearly I am NOT..then you should take a hard look at yourself Bailey, clearly I have always endeavoured to be as frank, as open and as honest as possible at all times in my postings on casebook. I have always sought to check that the information that I have provided is factually correct. Which I have again done.

You are correct in your anticipation of my response..that is because I feel that response is a reasonable thing to request. (as I have said I have refreshed my memory).

‘If you feel I have not been honest, then please provide the quotes were you feel I have not been so that I might at least answer to that CHARGE. Clearly I can not defend myself against generalizations and non specifics.

HOWEVER I STATE AS A MATTER OF FACT THAT NO PAPER EXPERT KNOWN TO ME HAS EVER RIDICULED PETER BOWER.

AND DAN NORDER IS UNABLE TO SUPPLY THE NAMES AND COMMENTS OF GENUINE EXPERTS ON PAPER ANALYSIS WHO HAVE DONE SO.

Its been nice having you aboard Bailey, I look forward to discussing JtR with you on further threads..but sorry this time you appear to have backed the wrong horse.

Dan Norder has gotten it wrong again. I’m simply stating this as a matter of FACT.

Any suggestion that I have lied is pure fantasy.

Nothing more. Nothing less. Its nothing personal. Them there just are the facts.

All the best Pirate

[Bailey]

Well, he did provide links there, tho I've yet to read them as yet, so I'll reserve judgement. This could be the moment we've all been waiting for, Jeff, ol' boy - Mr Norder has provided links to times when he says you've lied. Perhaps you should go an re-read those threads and see what you think? I'm going to catch up with the rest of the day's new posts then do that myself.

Well, it took some wading through, but I have read all 48 pages of the Cornwell thread during three or four sessions over the last 24 hours.

Jeff, with all due respect, I must say I can't in good conscience fall on your side on this one. I can see why you might wish to speak up in Cornwell's favour, in that your methods of argument seem to have a lot in common. You decide in advance what conclusion you wish to draw, based on your incorrect interpretation of something someone else has said. Facts that suit you are waved about triumphantly, suppositions are built on them which are then taken as facts upon which to build more suppositions to then present as facts. If someone points out something that contradicts, it is quickly dismissed or shot down with a remark before you leap back to your previous train of thought. However, much like Cornwell, I believe you have worked hard to convince yourself as much as others, and therefore I suspect that you are not ultimately lying per se, simply falling for your own misleading conclusions. Perhaps to some degree I am generalising or over-simplifying, but for the most part I believe that over the course of this thread I'm fairly spot on.

Furthermore, throughout that lengthy thread you do backpedal or contradict yourself at times, not to mention falling back on the "I was joking" excuse when shot down at least once each by Stewart Evans and Ally.

I do not know what your relationship to Paul Begg is, but as to the accusations made that he had a hand in penning some of your posts, I must observe - with no wish to accuse or or express any prejudice - that your dyslexia does seem to come and go with some frequency. Indeed, there were times when I felt quite sure I was reading material written by someone else, not just in terms of spelling and punctuation, but also grammar, style and the general tone. I would hope that, as you say, this comes down to how much time you put into a more serious post versus a quick one when you are tired or have had a few drinkies! I would also be very disappointed and surprised to find that someone as respectable as Paul Begg is involved in anything so ludicrous as using someone else to post on his behalf.

I would anticipate that your first response to this, Jeff, will be to ask me to provide quotes and references to support what I've said. I therefore will pre-empt that by suggesting you go back to the post from Dan above, follow the link to the thread to which he refers, go to page one and read from there to the end in as short a time as possible. If you can't see it from doing that, then you're never going to, regardless of anything I or anyone else can say.

By no means do I wish to insult you, and I have no intention of putting you on ignore. I believe that there were times during the above thread and on others that you have had valuable contributions to make and made good points or asked valid questions - albeit you are not always gracious in victory, nor always actually victorious in victory - and I also believe that you're ultimately a decent bloke who is simply prone to forget that one should ensure foot is nowhere in the vicinity of mouth before speaking. As someone frequently prone to same - and with a mild streak of dyslexia in the mix, plus a quite likely hint of Asperger's for luck, although this is not diagnosed, simply inferred from reading on the syndrome after finding out my son has it - I sympathise. However, those of us who are blessed with such challenges in life can chose to make them into a reason to strive more carefully for success than as an excuse for failure.

Well, that's all I have to say about that. My apologies if I've caused you any upset, Jeff, but I would hope that on the contrary I've given you some food for thought and a little introspection. I shall now opt out of further involvment in any debates between yourself and Mr Norder - as it seems Mr Norder has done, therefore leaving you somewhat on your own in this matter. However, I look forward to speaking with both or either of you on other matters in these forums.

Cheers,
Bailey

[Jeff Leahy]

Peter Bower

Originally Posted by Dan Norder
Incorrect... in fact the opposite of true. Hundreds of thousands of sheets or more would have had the same watermark. I mean, think about it, a paper manufacturer isn't going to make a "precious few sheets" with one watermark and then stop everything to put a brand new one in there and repeat that every few sheets.

Matthew Sturgis says, Peter Bower ‘is a respected paper historian’ with an ‘extensive knowledge of paper manufacture’. He’s a ‘registered ‘expert witness’’, used by the police to authenticate drawings and documents, and employed for the same purpose by the Tate Gallery. It is very unlikely that this man, knowing that his conclusions will be scrutinized very closely, would have intentionally taken money from Patricia Cornwell to produce conclusions which he knew to be wrong and which he knows could ruin his career?

Matthew Sturgis states, ‘Bower is very confident in his assertions, and certainly they are not to be dismissed lightly.’

Matthew Sturgis says, Peter Bower’s conclusions cannot be properly assessed ‘without fuller information about Bower's workings’ and other forensic examiners will indeed ‘remain skeptical’.


Stewart Evans: All that said, I have the greatest respect for Peter Bower, whom I have met, and it is not me who has published the doubts over his work - please do read the Sturgis book, you will find it educational.

Good Morning Casebook

I do apologize for my hurried posts over the weekend. So let me try and explain my position with more clarity.

I re-entered this thread because Dan Norder was passing factually incorrect information about Peter Bower to a new poster….I did not come here to discuss Patricia Cornwall.

So lets stick to the ‘facts’ in hand. The first POST I made intentionally started by quoting Matthew Sturgis on the subject.

Let me state this again for anyone slightly unclear:
“IT IS VERY UNLIKELY THAT THIS MAN (i.e. PETER BOWER), KNOWING THAT HIS THAT HIS CONCLUSIONS WILL BE SCRUTINIZED VERY CLOSELY, WOULD HAVE INTENTIONALLY TAKEN MONEY FROM PATRICIA CORWALL TO PRODUCE CONCLUSIONS WHICH HE KNEW TO BE WRONG AND WHICH HE KNOWS COULD RUIN HIS CARREER?

These are Matthew Sturgis’s words NOT mine.

DAN NORDER: Whether he's a hired gun saying ridiculously implausible things just to get a big paycheck or if he's a well-meaning guy who convinced himself he could conclude something not supported by the evidence based upon wishful thinking and confirmation bias, who am I to say? But I do know that no other expert has agreed with him and several disagree, which is all I need to know.

So let me clarify, The reason no other expert has agreed with Peter Bower (or indeed specifically disagreed with Peter Bower) on his finds is because PETER BOWER has never published his findings for peer scrutiny. FACT.

Some experts (on paper analysis) have expressed surprise at the claims (made by Patricia Cornwell) about Peter Bowers’s findings. FACT.

DAN NORDER: 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 have requested that Norder supplies the names and the exact quotes of THESE PEOPLE.

NORDER: His findings were debated, and the evidence is that no other experts have supported his claim and many outright ridicule it.

What I would like to know is which EXPERTS have ‘outright ridicule’ Peter Bowers findings?


The two links Dan Norder gave, are to posts made to ME by Stewart Evans with reference to MATTHEW STURGIS BOOK.

And let me say that I have NO problem with Stewart’s position on Matthew Sturgis, and have agreed that he has every right to discuss the various points raised on the subject in Mathew Sturgis book. Despite some heated exchanges on the subject I have only admiration of Stewarts work and his learned opinions, and have taken what he has said onboard.

DAN NORDER: 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.

NOT CRUSIFING THE MAN? Either Norder is saying that Peter Bower provided Patricia Cornwell with results that she expected and paid money for?

Or he is saying that he did NOT..its very simple.

If Norder is saying that Peter Bower ‘falsified’ information in order to take money…’That is a very serious charge Indeed’

And I am very worried that some of you appear to be taking such a claim so lightly…

For a start that would be a criminal offence which could potentially cost Patricia Cornwell millions of Dollars in law suites.

Clearly Matthew Sturgis book does state that some experts have stated that they find Peter Bowers findings most surprising. However these experts have never studied Peter Bowers’s findings in full..ie under a microscope. Because Peter Bower has never published. and the letters he examined are still subject to copyright..

With regards to how experts are used I can only state how I employ them. Lets say I’m doing a TV program on the ‘Gun Powder plot’ and a need quotes from an ‘Expert’ to make my program credible. I phone up ‘Prof Hutton’ at Bristol Uni and say “ Hi prof, I’m making a program about guy Fawkes and I require an expert to give comment” “ Hutton says sure, but that will involve my time” I say ‘no problem I will compensate you for that time, can I ask you some questions” Hutton says ‘Sure I charge X” Hutton comes along and says “what you want to talk about?” I say ‘Who wrote the Monteagle letter?”
Hutton gives his opinion and three possible suspects. in my program I edit in two of his answers answers…This is lagit.

What I do NOT do is say “ prof Hutton I would like you to say that Alexander the Great wrote the Monteagle letter”
If I did Hutton would tell me ‘to bu**er off’ as it would destroy his reputation and he would get no more work. It’s very simple.

So Peter Bower would be used to being asked to give his opinion on specific letters, books or works of art for specific clients, its what he does all the time, he often appears in court.

What he does NOT do is give answers that he has been paid to give that support what his client wants him to say, he gives a professional opinion as an expert on Paper Analysis. If you wish to express surprise at his findings you are welcome to do so, however I must remind you that Peter Bower is the worlds leading authority on the subject and as Matthew Sturgis says:

“IT IS VERY UNLIKELY THAT THIS MAN (ie PETER BOWER), KNOWING THAT HIS THAT HIS CONCLUSIONS WILL BE SCRUTINIZED VERY CLOSELY, WOULD HAVE INTENTIONALLY TAKEN MONEY FROM PATRICIA CORWALL TO PRODUCE CONCLUSIONS WHICH HE KNEW TO BE WRONG AND WHICH HE KNOWS COULD RUIN HIS CARREER?”

I hope that has clarified the situation.

With regards to Peter Bowers claim of ’24 sheets’ I believe that it was Dr Anna Geutzner Robins who made the discovery of a letter at the Getty museum and Peter Bower was flown out to examine her discovery. That’s the story as I have it..

As Caz was the only other poster who attended the lecture at the Tate modern with Mathew Sturgis, Peter Bower, Anna Geutzner Robins and Paul Begg. Perhaps she could correct me if I’m wrong. But I don’t think that letter was discovered until Peter's encial work had been done.

OK

Now will Dan Norder please provide the names of ‘Paper Experts’ who have ‘Ridiculed’ Peter Bower’s findings? Clearly neither Matthew Sturgis or Stewart Evans have done so. And it is unlikely that anyone worth there ‘salt’ will until Peter Bowers findings are published in FULL. Until that time they appear to be expressing surprise at his findings and questioning whether or not he is correct. Which is fair enough, I’ve never claimed to be an expert on paper Analysis. Peter bower could be wrong for all I know..

However having also met the man I find it extremely unlikely that he would have made his claims lightly, and I am positive he would not have participated in anything fraudulent.

Pirate

PS DVV. I am not, nor have ever been, a supporter of Patricia Cornwell. I'd much rather see paid research being done into Kosminski and Druit..but its not my money its Patricia's and she is free to spend it as she likes..

[Howard Brown]

I think there's at least an outside chance that some newbies might raise the topic as a way of beginning to engage in some debate about all things Ripper, and to start to gauge their own positions with regard to the subject(s).-Claire

Thats what I meant, but not as succintly put.

Judy...I'm not surprised that you agree with that "point" I was trying to make.

Ripperology,and this is just my humble opinion here, is the sort of avocation that needs its apple cart upset from time to time. Most Ripperologists have ceased and desisted from "making" suspects more "suspicious" and are now concentrating on details and facts within scenarios,reevaluation of testimonies,inquest reports, in short...focusing on fact... This current "worldview" is largely in part due to efforts of SPE in "evidentiary" materials...and Mr. Begg in areas which require more focus, such as "why' did the three Macnaghten "suspects" ever become suspects,to give but one example. As Claire mentioned, the initial interest created by Mrs. Cornwell could launch someone into years of research and hopefully,contributions to the field.

I appreciate your agreement with my views Judy. Hope you and Leroy are doing well.

How

P.S.

[downonwhores]

Hi Caz

When I first read it, he seemed to be more open than when I read Shirley's book but then at the end. I realized he is just as close-minded as she was. I was slightly disappointed by his ending chapters and reaction to criticism. He pulled a melvin Harris by personally attacking other and more objective authors and I thought after reading the opeing chapters that he wouldn't stoop that low. Not the first time I have been wrong.
Anyway, nothing new here. how about you.

[claire]

Hmm. Setting the quality (or otherwise) of Ms Cornwell's book aside for a moment, I think there's at least an outside chance that some newbies might raise the topic as a way of beginning to engage in some debate about all things Ripper, and to start to gauge their own positions with regard to the subject(s). Many of the debates here are utterly fascinating, but given the high level of expertise (and passion) shown here, might it be possible that newcomers cut their teeth on one of the few things they feel they can contribute to?

Could always introduce a 'Go On, Get It Out Of Your System: Half-Baked Theories For Newbies' thread...

As a complete aside about Ms Cornwell, I did two death investigation courses several years back in Virginia which were started with a big chunk of change from her. (It was great!) She may have been misguided on the Ripper research, but she does put her money where her mouth is.

[needler]

Hiya, Howard!!

Good to see you back, kiddo; it's been AGES. Hope you're keeping well and, if not staying out of trouble, at least NOT GETTING CAUGHT!

I really have to chime in here and agree with Howard COMPLETELY about the sort of interest the Ripper might excite. If any of you remember, and if you are as old as I am you probably CAN'T remember, we'll dredge up some VERY old Ripper rubbish here. While the case was relatively quiet in the 50's and 60's, the s**t really hit the fan in the 70's with Knight's "solution", and the subsequent "doc" about his book. BLAH! It STILL surfaces now and then, but ONLY when a newbie has picked up his FINAL SOLUTION and swallowed it hook, line and sinker. There have been many others in that same vein, with the exact same aftermath, and we all SHOULD remember the endless "discussions" as each side says "yes, BUT......" so many times we should have put it on tape and let the loop run. Then along comes Pastie with her Sickert crap and we're off to the races once more. If anyone is doing serious work........ and I really DO mean serious, not just meandering through another bin of waste....... then that work is stalled until you can either walk away from yet another "proven theory" or engage until your eyes hang out on stems. Neither is acceptable, and we have all been down the road before. Why not just NOT engage? If anyone can read the Pastie pudding and really believe it has any validity, why do we think we can alter that view? AND WHY DO WE CARE? I really would rather NOT get all tied up in knots over this. It's NOT worth my time or my finger muscles, so I quit. BUT to return to what Howard said......and those of you who know me KNOW I'm getting back to my point fairly quickly.......this kind of attention is NOT what we need...and by that I mean MORE arguments over whether or not yet another cuckoo bird has landed, never mind the unwelcome attention from those who are not familiar with the case and just want to stir the pot a bit more. To those newbies who really do want to learn more and contribute, then "welcome and we're glad you're here" but to those who just want to post and declare that they have "read the book" and KNOW "the solution is final, incontrovertible and unarguable" will someone PLEASE deliver me???????

Glad to hear from you again, Howard.....long time, no see. And can you believe we actually agree on something??

Cheers,

Judy

[Mike Covell]

Now my only thought is how to get her to loan ME a million so I can go to Hull and the PRO

Don't waste your time here Howard!

[Howard Brown]

Thanks for the nice remarks ( Grave Mo,Damon,Anna). I haven't been ill,although not for a lack of tryin'....the concern is appreciated.

I look at it this way and of course no one else has to:

Cornwell appears on a program ( such as the infomercial-documentary with Grieve where she winds up doing her Emeril imitation on a perfectly good roast, waxing about being lonely, her dad's a bummer come Christmas, and schpritzing around the globe in a Lear, reminding one and all how much she's spent on the subject of Sickert & the WM)....and gets some additional notoriety. So does Jack the Ripper.

Phil Sugden could appear naked with a bottle of gin and a bullwhip on prime time television and even that couldn't attract the volume of people...literate people,since she's an author, not the spokesperson for the American Hillbilly Foundation, that Cornwell attracts to the field...or to this site.

Whats next? Very simply, the "newcomer" comes here...sees that there's more to Sugden than just a splendid nude figure and decides to buy a book & get a re-education based on facts and not the basis that her theory rests on that he had something wrong with his pee-pee and was a misogynist and may have written letters.

It takes money to keep Ripperology going. Time and money...and interest on the part of new people, simply because as the years roll by, its going to be a little harder to attract younger people to Ripperology without programs which the visual media appears to be providing in even greater quantity : The upcoming "Whitechapel" series in the U.K., the three part series, "Being Jack The Ripper" slated to appear on one of the History channels over here...a recent Law and Order t.v. program which mentioned Ripperologists...the "Is It Real?" which appeared just a year and a half ago...and so on. Ms. Cornwell is not averse to dropping a chunk of change down and putting her money where her ideas are. How can we fault her for that ? I can't remember the last time I spent a million bucks on anything.

Again, all suspect based Ripperology is based on a mild or extreme form of character assassination of the subject at hand. She went overboard. She made him appear to be suspicious. No one has to make Deeming & Chapman look suspicious. She also was famous before she made her bones in this field and did not spend countless hours like SPE or Mr. Begg ( two examples out of many) did in researching archives, going to the PRO, hunting down a single bit of information that might take months to locate, and other acts, aside from their passion for the field, which made them their bones.

Then its up to the individual who makes the sojourn to this site or elsewhere to become involved and contribute. One might get involved with newspaper transcription or bringing up old or occasionally new points which get lost in the ether, tumblin' down the old Memory Hole.

Now my only thought is how to get her to loan ME a million so I can go to Hull and the PRO

[anna]

.....oh,Howard's great!...Hey,How...I didn't know you hadn't been feelin' so good,or I'd have sent you some" Best Wishes" before now.Nice to see you back.

....good point on PC...I expect she does attract some new interest in JTR.

only problem is..over the last few months,we seem to have drawn some pretty strange characters to this site.They post 4 or so,then come out with what Suz calls "toot"!!!

Another point to ponder....
Has PC secretly slipped into our ranks on this campus.We seem to have continual PC threads lately.Hmmmmmmm.

[Bailey]

A few extra thoughts for Jeff after re-reading the posts before my last one. No offence intended here, Mr Pirate, just a few observations...

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.

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, of course. However, if you are presented with a set of documents which can only possibly have one potential goal - i.e. Sicket letter and Ripper letter - then obviously you're going to have an entirely different perspective than if you were handed letters by Sickert, JTR, Lewis Carrol, Queen Victoria and some bloke called Nigel and asked if you could see any connections. Certainly someone who is creditable would do their best to avoid bias, and I would think they would be a poor expert if they could not.

As I said, I do not know Mr Bower and cannot speak to his character, but simply being an expert in a particular field does not ensure integrity or correctness. Look at the medical experts employed, for example, by tobacco companies to defend them in court cases. Are these men dishonest and simply taking a payday, or do they believe what they say? Could it be that they're right and the rest of us don't know it? (As a smoker, I kinda hope so...)


[QUOTE=Pirate Jack;35739]
[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/]

No he can NOT

And yet it seems he did, or at least a reference to other experts in Cornwell's employ being given leading material, from which is is not unreasonable to assume that Bower was too. As I said, whether he let it influence him is beside the point to some degree - I asked, Dan answered.

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'?

Well, he did provide links there, tho I've yet to read them as yet, so I'll reserve judgement. This could be the moment we've all been waiting for, Jeff, ol' boy - Mr Norder has provided links to times when he says you've lied. Perhaps you should go an re-read those threads and see what you think? I'm going to catch up with the rest of the day's new posts then do that myself.

B.

[Bailey]

Quick non-quoting reply to several above all at once for the sake of expedience;

Dan,

Many thanks for your answer, which was prompt and to the point. Thanks also for the links to what looks to be yet another extremely long thread that I don't think I've seen as yet and will now have to read in it's entirety

Jeff,

I think we see here that Mr Norder is willing and able to answer any fair question he is presented with, but clearly his responses are limited to those questions posed by people who have not driven him put them on the ignore list. His reasons for doing this are his own and I shall not comment or offer judgement as to whether he is right or wrong to do so. I think it becomes ever clearer, however, that this battle is distinctly one-sided.

How,

Firstly, many thanks, sir, for your contributions to Rippercast - I've very much enjoyed them, and your presence of late has been missed, though I understand this is to be rectified soon. I also understand that this has been a result of ill health, and therefore my heartiest wishes that you are now recovered, or at least well on the road to being so!

I certainly don't disagree that high profile works by the likes of Ms Cornwell, Tony Williams, et al, do indeed draw people into the field, albeit possibly rather useless ones (such as myself) who are happy to absorb rather than contribute! However, I suspect that they also do a certain amount of harm in as much as they are ultimately flawed works - in the two cases mentioned above I would think that would be transparently obvious to a halfway intelligent reader - and I wonder if they impact negatively on the credibility of a field which is already regarded by many as somewhat dubious a subject to begin with.

Righto, I've got 48-odd pages of a Cornwell thread to wade through, it seems...

Cheers,
B.

[DVV]

Hi Pirate,
Bower's work leads nowhere, anyway... Can't you see that the whole purpose is to give a scientific packaging to Cornwell's theory, and abuse the naive readers?

Amitiés,
David

[Jeff Leahy]

All the experts hired by Cornwell were told what to look for beforehand. Paul Ferrara, who headed up the forensics end of things for her, in a 2004 interview said that they were told "to look at material that still existed in the case, primarily letters purportedly written by the Ripper, for evidence that might link the killer to Sickert." Bower was undoubtedly told the same thing when he was brought on, but even if he hadn't been explicitly told that it would have been obvious based upon the nature of the documents he was given and told to compare: Sickert letters, alleged Ripper letters, and nothing else. An objective scientific test would have including writings by other period authors and no indication of which ones Cornwell wanted linked together.

The problem is that these experts have already been named in previous posts. Jeff just ignores it and then lies and says it never happened. If you haven't seen the older posts I can see where you'd be confused about the actual situation, so let's clear that up... Let me do a quick Google search on the posts on this site for "Bower"...

That was easy. Here you go:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=21082#post21082

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=21103#post21103

Note that those were posted by Stewart Evans, who is one of the most well respected authors in the field of Ripper studies, directly in response to posts made by Jeff, who is, well, just the opposite.

That's just two posts out of a long thread. Reading through that will give you all the info you need to know. If you follow it along you can see how every couple of pages Jeff starts lying about what other people said in an effort to try to make himself look better.

I beleive I have already quoted Mathew Sturgis Norder..

You are being asked What experts 'in the world of paper' have ridiculed Peter Bower...answer the question....stop tyrying to hide behind stewart Evans...

Stewart Evans does not claim to be an expert in Paper anlysis..

Who are your experts?

Wilson, Walker, Pike, and Hodges?

Pirate

[Dan Norder]

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?

All the experts hired by Cornwell were told what to look for beforehand. Paul Ferrara, who headed up the forensics end of things for her, in a 2004 interview said that they were told "to look at material that still existed in the case, primarily letters purportedly written by the Ripper, for evidence that might link the killer to Sickert." Bower was undoubtedly told the same thing when he was brought on, but even if he hadn't been explicitly told that it would have been obvious based upon the nature of the documents he was given and told to compare: Sickert letters, alleged Ripper letters, and nothing else. An objective scientific test would have including writings by other period authors and no indication of which ones Cornwell wanted linked together.

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.

The problem is that these experts have already been named in previous posts. Jeff just ignores it and then lies and says it never happened. If you haven't seen the older posts I can see where you'd be confused about the actual situation, so let's clear that up... Let me do a quick Google search on the posts on this site for "Bower"...

That was easy. Here you go:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=21082#post21082

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=21103#post21103

Note that those were posted by Stewart Evans, who is one of the most well respected authors in the field of Ripper studies, directly in response to posts made by Jeff, who is, well, just the opposite.

That's just two posts out of a long thread. Reading through that will give you all the info you need to know. If you follow it along you can see how every couple of pages Jeff starts lying about what other people said in an effort to try to make himself look better.