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

[downonwhores]

Caz

hi Caz,

I'm sorry. I didn't know he was dead and this was the 2005 updated version and It's hard for me to keep up with what is new as I am in Thailand now and have been reading other books, plus studying, plus working so excuse me if I'm a little behind the times plus there are over 400 books just on amazon about jack the ripper so i have to balance my budget to what books I can buy and what books I can not.
Thanks Stewart for your kind words and keep up the good work. It's refreshing to know that facts never change although theories do.

[caz]

Please don't apologise for anything (apart from perhaps your choice of username ). That should be me apologising, for not being on the ball. I didn't realise there was a 2005 updated version of Feldman's book. Saints preserve us. How did I miss that? He died in the first half of 2005, so did he miss it too?? Hope it wasn't as full of wishful thinking as the original.

Love,

Caz
X

[Dan Norder]

We now have mitochondrial DNA linking Sickert to Ripper letters.

No, we don't. Not at all. All the scientists were able to do was not rule out Sickert, which is completely different. That means the mDNA in question was similar to tens of thousands of other people... and we don't even know if any of the mDNA tested was, in fact, Sickert's OR anyone who wrote any Ripper letter.

(production of such watermarked paper was limited to precious few sheets)

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.

the handwriting analysis Cornwell commissioned, conducted by top forensic specialists matching JTR correspondence to Sickert’s hand, art experts’ conclusions that sketches on JTR correspondence match Sickert’s

Except more experts with better credentials and who are not on Cornwell's payroll say just the opposite.

Has anyone else offered mitochondrial DNA linking any suspect to any JTR letter?

No, nobody else has spent the money to go on such a wild goose chase. But, a more recent mitochondrial DNA test on the exact same Ripper letter Cornwell tested that used more advanced technology concluded that the DNA found on that letter was from a female.

So if you want to assume that the mDNA in question was from the letter's author, then we know it wasn't Sickert (unless he was a woman pretending to be a man all his life, which would make Cornwell's claims about him supposedly being a woman-hater and having a disfigured penis even more ludicrous). And if you conclude instead that the mDNA on the letter was not from the letter's writer then any tests Cornwell did are completely pointless. Either way Sickert is a highly unlikely author of those letters, especially the ones written and mailed in England during the time he was known to have been in France.

While many may consider Cornwell a cheesy fiction author, can we so readily discount her in-your-face evidence?

If she ever gets real evidence of anything significant it will be treated with just as much respect as evidence offered up by other authors.

[DarkPassenger]

Anybody considered that the reason Cornwell got all the publicity is because...

she's a famous author? She's got like a dozen books in print, before she even typed one word on "Portrait of a Killer."

[Jeff Leahy]

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 scrutinised 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 sceptical’.

Peter Bower’s 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 available.

Paper at the time was hand cut by a guillotine and the guillotine would have had nicks and blemishes in the blade which left marks on the edges of the paper. There would also have been minor differences caused by each cut because of the positioning of the paper. Under magnification these show up, enabling an expert to say whether the paper came from the same batch or not, and it is even possible to reassemble to paper in the original page order.

By examining the nicks and blemish marks and so forth Peter Bower has established that letters written by Sickert and letters claiming to be from the Ripper came from the same batch and therefore almost certainly from the same person. As far as other experts not agreeing with Bower, I’m not certain other experts have examined his evidence and I would be very cautious of Norder if he starts claiming that they have.

Certainly when it comes to ‘Watermarks’ Norder has a poor record on the ‘Facts’

I think we can agree on his conclusions about DNA evidence however. Jack the Ripper didn’t write any letters.

If she ever gets real evidence of anything significant it will be treated with just as much respect as evidence offered up by other authors.

Thats very reasonable. Well done.

Pirate

[needler]

To Caz.......

Caz, m'dear....... I've decided to take my portion of the Sooty/Doody theory to the grave. Since I have a Sooty on my bookshelf, I've become rather fond of the little stinker and have decided to protect his alter ego. And the Howdy Doody disguise theory is damned difficult to prove as he was, after all, a marionette and SURELY someone would have noticed a puppeteer walking the streets of Whitechapel?? Or, maybe not! On the other hand, he does so closely resemble the present occupant of our White House, who might as well be the Ripper.........so maybe the Doody theory wouldn't be all that hard to prove.

You'll have to suffer in silence over the Diddles thing. Sorry, but there it is.

Seriously, though, I must admit, in print, online, and with my bare face showing that I don't think we will ever know the identity of the Ripper, nor do I really much care. We have mined, excavated, dug, and sifted and still are no closer to knowing his name...if we would even recognise it! The angels-on-the-head-of-the-pin discussions are really beginning to wear a bit thin and that's why I rarely post here. I don't like arguing for the sake of argument, even though I've been known to be pretty bitchy when the RIGHT argument presents! The chase is the attraction for me. That and getting to know some of the finest people anywhere...... The friendships I've made over the years are far more important than knowing who the Ripper was, but I thank Jack for bringing us together, both online and at conferences. As to WHO he is?? WHO CARES?? It's been a fairly long time since he did his nasty work, and I would bet a fiver that he is dead......well, maybe a £.

SO, rather than start a heated discussion on THAT, I will close with a final shot at Patsy (NOT pastie, but it really IS a dreadful image, isn't it??), since this thread is about her. She writes fiction.....not very well lately....that's it. Her JtR book is STILL filed with her fiction titles in bookstores for a reason. The rubbish she put in her book is just that, but it really is NO different from the other multitude of rubbishy Ripper books, and you KNOW the ones I mean!! I don't think she could write anything that would make me change my mind; she has proven herself to be a sloppy researcher, willing to spend a ton of money on an old, unworkable, already disproved theory. NAH, not worth any more words.......

Cheers, m'dear. Why not try a REALLY good book this summer.....go get Val McDermid's PLACE OF EXECUTION?? SMASHING! AND, to close, a pic of my small friend on my bookshelf.

Judy

[downonwhores]

Hi Caz,

I'll think i'll change my name since it offends you. Well, the copyright date is 2005 in it and it's the nth printing so I don know how much is new. I really though he was open minded until I read the end and he was the same as Melvin Harris and just insulting everybody. What a shame.

[caz]

Hi there DOW,

No need to change your name on my account - I'm not that easily offended.

What you have seems to be just a reprint and not an update - quite a difference!

Feldman, open minded??? You sure we are talking about the same book and same author?

Hi Judy,

Many thanks. I looked up that book and it sounds like a great read. Just the fact that the events are set in England in 1963 looks like a winner for me personally.

Have a great weekend all.

I'm off to Wilton's Music Hall tomorrow night and can't wait. Will report back next week.

Love,

Caz
X

[mac-the-kipper]

I detect an awful lot of jealousy in this thread.

[steje73]

I don't think there's any jealousy. I think that people are genuinely upset that she's made her money with poorly researched 'facts' and badly thought out theories. Misspelling victims names is especially unforgivable.
I've never read her book and I don't plan to. I don't need to know any more than she thinks Sickert did it, and I don't.

[caz]

I don't think there's any jealousy. I think that people are genuinely upset that she's made her money with poorly researched 'facts' and badly thought out theories. Misspelling victims names is especially unforgivable.
I've never read her book and I don't plan to. I don't need to know any more than she thinks Sickert did it, and I don't.

I don't know the ins and outs of Cornwell's bank balance but I thought she 'made her money' from writing all those crime stories that the public seem to lap up (while the same public may see true crime buffs as the perverts ), and I could swear I read somewhere that she actually lost money in real terms, because she invested her advance and her time investigating Sickert, when she could have been churning out new novels instead, which would have made her far easier and fatter profits.

Hi mac,

You won't detect any coming from me. I don't do jealousy - never have. Ditto envy. If I wished for someone else's money or fame or whatever, I'd have to imagine having the whole package thrust on me, and that tends to have a remarkably sobering effect on the negative emotions.

I have no desire to be Cornwell, or to be like her in any way, therefore I can't get too worked up about what she does to make her money or what she does with that money, as long as it's legal. They say you can't con an honest person. And while there are libraries, nobody is forced to buy her book either.

Love,

Caz
X

[needler]

To mac-the-kipper and Caz.......

First to mac- .....please see Caz's response to your "jealousy" remarks. I feel exactly the same way, and wouldn't be Cornwell's paranoid self for any amount of money......I already have more than enough paranoia to go around. FULL STOP.

Caz......please say "hello" to Wilton's for me, and I DO ENVY your being there, so enjoy twice for me, OK??

The McDermid is a one-off (as opposed to her Wire In The Blood series) with characters that really resonate. AND being set just to the east of the Moors in 1963 makes it doubly interesting. Of course, Myra and Ian come up, but are not named. Truly one of my favorite fiction books, and I read it about once every year or so. She really puts you in the North, and the story is beautifully written, as opposed to another fictional crime writer who will remain nameless. I can see this one as a great film, too. Read it and then tell me I'm nuts! Of course, you can say that anyway, but wait until you read this one before calling me nuts IN THIS INSTANCE!

Have fun at Wilton's, and I'll pass on your best to Sooty!

Cheers to all,

Judy

[steje73]

[Cheyenne]

Hi Dan,

I have a few questions/comments about your responses to my post. Hopefully, you can enlighten me once more...

First, you challenged my assertion that we now have mitochondrial DNA linking Sickert to Ripper letters. You are right, that “all the scientists were able to do was not rule out Sickert.” Perhaps I was unclear insofar as pointing out that mitochondrial DNA analysis is a test of inclusion/exclusion, and Sickert could not be excluded. Sure, others are also not excluded, but 90%+ of individuals are excluded, leaving Sickert among less than 10% of the population that is included. Read in concert with other Sickert links (some discussed below), I believe this evidence cannot be ignored.

You also stated that “we don't even know if any of the mDNA tested was, in fact, Sickert's OR anyone who wrote any Ripper letter.” True enough, and Cornwell states this herself in Chapter 14 of her book, even going so far as stating that the only way we can be sure that the sample is Sickert’s is to exhume relatives for comparison. However, the mitochondrial DNA tested was from the licked portions of the stamp or envelope of letters. And it can be readily assumed that the Sickert envelopes from personal correspondence with which the JTR letters were tested against have been handled by relatively few individuals, so the baseline comparison is relatively consistent. And yet Sickert cannot be excluded.

Second, you challenged my assertion that the production of watermarked paper (on which JTR correspondence and Sickert correspondence are both written) was limited to precious few sheets. You stated that my assertion is “the opposite of true.” You further state that “hundreds of thousands of sheets or more would have had the same watermark” because “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.”

Again, my shorthand in my first post is likely a bit misleading. You stated that there are “more experts with better credentials and who are not on Cornwell's payroll” who “say just the opposite” of what she says. Well then, I guess that Peter Bower, recommended to Cornwell by the Tate Britain, one of the most respected paper experts in the world, known for his work on papers used by Michelangelo, J.M.W. Turner, Constable, known in Ripperology as the person credited for determining that the Ripper diary is a fraud, is one of those experts “on Cornwell’s payroll.” He determined by studying the Y profile of paper containing correspondence of JTR and Sickert (See Cornwell chapter 15 for detailed explanation of this process by Mr. “payroll” Peter Bower), as just one example, that three Sickert letters (personal correspondence) written on his mother’s stationary and two JTR letters come from the same cut batch of 24 sheets of Gurney Ivory Laid paper (again see Ch. 15). Twenty four sheets, not “hundreds of thousands,” but hey, take that issue up with the “payroll” induced Peter Bower. Bower’s other conclusions are also in Ch. 15...

With respect to the Cornwell “payroll” expert who looked at handwriting, the renowned letterer Sally Bower (Peter’s wife) is one in the same. She saw similarities in how the hand made JTR correspondence and Sickert correspondence. She must be spending the “payroll” with Peter in the Bahamas, right?

Third, you responded to my question (Has anyone else offered mitochondrial DNA linking any suspect to any JTR letter?) by stating that “nobody else has spent the money to go on such a wild goose chase.” Then, in the very next sentence, you state that “a more recent mitochondrial DNA test on the exact same Ripper letter [oops, Dan, she tested letters] Cornwell tested that used more advanced technology concluded that the DNA found on that letter was from a female.” Which is it?? Are there no other wild goose chasers, or did someone wild goose chase and retest Cornwell’s results? Were these new results published? Where are they? What is the name of the wild goose chaser who did such a test? Cornwell’s results are published, and are open for debate. I’d like to see the wild goose chaser’s results so I can make a logical, well thought out conclusion, or debate the merits intelligently with you. Dan, you may be right, I may be wrong. Please let me know on what you are basing your conclusion, and we can look at the results to see...

You also state that “Sickert is a highly unlikely author of those letters, especially the ones written and mailed in England during the time he was known to have been in France.” One question, how can any of us know when a letter was written? I, myself, have written a letter on one day, and not sent it till the next day or after. Can anyone timestamp the exact day 120 years ago when a letter was written?? Sickert could have written a letter on a Saturday, for example, gone away, returned, then mailed it on a Tuesday. It happens all of the time.

Or, if he were in France when a letter was mailed, Sickert could have written a letter on a Sunday, for example, and given it to any number of people to mail it out on, say, a Tuesday. Gives a pretty good alibi in the days of no DNA, fingerprint, etc, to link him to the letter – when the only way to show the letter came from Sickert was to show that he mailed it...

Finally, Dan, you may not think Cornwell has “real evidence of anything significant,” but I do. She may not have all of the answers, but who among us does? I certainly do not. She just may have a thread that is part of the woven tapestry that is the answer to JTR. Maybe not, but why rush to judgment?

[DVV]

Because Sickert was in France most of September 1888, and in any case at the time of Nichols and Chapman's murders.
But this trifling detail has nothing to bother the Bowers, I suppose...

Amitiés,
David