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

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Patricia Cornwell gets the limelight [and residuals] because fools like us waste our time discussing her book.

Let's get over it and move on.

Regards,

Simon

[Dan Norder]

Mac,

Of course it makes a difference for someone looking at documents to see if they came from the same hand to see the originals if they can, but that's not the point here.

You can't make snap decisions about what one person appealing to authority says and then ignore all the other authorities have to say. The only expert who makes the claims Cornwell wants to hear about matching papers is the same person she paid, and the outside experts say he doesn't know what he's talking about and that his claims make no sense. It's not like personally seeing the documents myself is going to change one way or another what other document examiners say about Bower and his bizarre claims... or what experts on Sickert say about Cornwell's shoddy research into his life, or what Ripper experts have to say about her bumbling mistakes about the Ripper crimes.

You can claim that Cornwell admits her mistakes in private, but I don't understand how you can think her acknowledging mistakes but refusing to admit them publicly can at all be considered a point in her favor. If anything that means she is purposefully trying to cover up errors to make herself look better... that coupled with her having bought full page ads in newspapers to try to argue that she wasn't wrong and her history of lashing out at experts in this field shows a rather callous disregard for truth in general. I would hope that you are either wrong about your claims or that Cornwell makes a very open and honest acknowledgment of her mistakes and works to try to earn people's respect instead of just insisting that everyone has to respect her despite her history.

[miss marple]

Ihe point is Mac the kipper, that Cornwall,who has had admitted mental problems, has issues with her father.[ I saw a very disturbing interview with once, where all her hatred for her father was transposed onto Sickert,] has used her influence and money to destroy the the reputation of a great artist, a humorous, worldly, interesting man [ just read his writings} who was much loved by his friends and pupils. Sickert was a positive life force, a creative energy, but unfortunately you cannot google him without reference to the ripper. The real Sickert has got lost in her invention. She has libelled him. Just because some one is dead doe's not make it ok. Miss Marple

[mac-the-kipper]

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've not read it either but I know she spent more on it than she earned from it.

I've met Patricia, she acknowledges her mistakes but she's never in a million years going to come into the bear pit to apologise to you lot and why should she? Have none of you made a mistake?

Some of you need to chill a bit and remember that this case is unlikely ever to be solved.

I've also met Peter and Sally Bower and not for one second do I think they would reach any conclusion regarding tests that would be anything but their own.

And Dan, regarding whether it makes any difference if someone has seen original documents. Ask any papyroligist if original or photo's are best.
You talk rubbish man. Just 'cos you have a fancy signature don't make you 'the man'

[Jeff Leahy]

I see from a quoted portion of Jeff's rants that he's now trying to read some special meaning into my having called Bower "Professor Bower" in the past. Anyone looking at the old thread will note that it was Jeff who started out calling him a professor, and I assumed he'd looked that title up and knew what he was talking about. By now I've realized I shouldn't treate anything Jeff claims as if it were real, even if it's something innocuous and irrelevant to the discussion like a professional title. I mean, really... I'm being attacked because I followed someone else's lead in crediting Bower with more expertise than he is apparently due?

It just goes to show that there's always someone willing to jump on any minor thing to try to make a big deal out of it, even if the error was one they themselves started.

OK DAN how about we do a deal. You provide your evidence that Bower is a ‘YES MAN’ who produced the results Cornwell paid him to produce. You provide the names of your supposed experts in paper analysis who have ridiculed Peter Bower. And I leave you alone. And everybody can breath a sigh of relief.

And just incase anybody is in doubt. Peter Bower is a distinguished paper historian employed by various institutions including the Tate Modern and is an accredited expert witness who has appeared in courts of law to testify about the authenticity of works of art. He’s a distinguished authority widely respected in his field.

Dan Norder has publicly questioned his ‘integrity’ and seriously maligned his reputation, stating on KNOW KNOWN EVIDENCE that Bower produces the results he’s paid to produce rather than producing the results the evidence dictates.

Is that clear casebook?

I’d say this is a vary serious accusation for someone to make, NOT A MINOR THING AT ALL. And casebook has the right to know the answer to a very serious charge about a man who has been an expert witness on many Ripper related documents.

I have repeatedly asked Dan to supply the names of these supposed experts. He has continuously dodged the question..

who cares about minor things like Prof? You have made a major, huge, gigantic claim, which I am stating, AS A MATTER OF FACT, is UNTRUE.

I gather that you have made this sort of claim to other posters in the past about expert witnesses and failed to back up your claims with names..

So its very simple. Stop pretending you cant see me. Stop pretending that if you avoid the question your some how in the right..because you are NOT, if you were you would do the honorable thing and supply those names…

The names Norder?

WHO ARE THE EXPERTS WHO HAVE RIDICULED PETER BOWER?

(NOTE: the above Norder post is a responce. I just require one more responce..Who are your Names?)

Pirate

[dmcdonald@onwight.net]

Hi Caz

I didn't realise that was you there! Have you had a chance to read my book yet? Shame the publishers made it so expensive. Still at least they published it which was quite a feat.

Regards
Debbie

[caz]

Hi, first time here. I am a Ripper author. Had my book 'The Prince, His Tutor and the Ripper' published last year. I had good reviews from many of the same people who slated Patricia Cornwell. So how come she has sold thousands of copies of her book and I have sold very few? Because she is Patricia Cornwell I suppose.

Deborah McDonald

I guess so, Debbie. It's a cruel world and a very unfair one.

More evidence (if anyone needed it) of an imperfect Mother Nature, and not some supernatural, all powerful deity at work. (Can you tell I was watching The Genius of Charles Darwin last night? )

By the way, it's good to see you here. I still can't get over what a small world it is, both invited to that wedding reception, you as a family friend and me as an employee of the groom.

Love,

Caz
X

[dmcdonald@onwight.net]

Patricia Cornwell v other authors

Hi, first time here. I am a Ripper author. Had my book 'The Prince, His Tutor and the Ripper' published last year. I had good reviews from many of the same people who slated Patricia Cornwell. So how come she has sold thousands of copies of her book and I have sold very few? Because she is Patricia Cornwell I suppose.

Deborah McDonald

[caz]

Hi DOW,

If you start out lacking objectivity, as Feldman did, it's not going to get any better towards the end, when you are desperate to put your final nails into a pet suspect's coffin. Feldman's is a cautionary tale that ought to demonstrate to all subsequent ripper theorists, including Cornwell, precisely how not to proceed.

Hi Jeff,

I only mentioned the M and D words because Cheyenne brought them up in connection with Bower and the other strings he is meant to have to his bow apart from being a paper expert. As you say, how the heck he is meant to have determined 'fraud' - eventually, long after he had checked out the diary paper and given Shirley a very different impression, is something that has yet to be explained. Assuming that Bower knows Cornwell misrepresented his position in her book, he must have swallowed his pride and swallowed it. He had the opportunity to admit to me at the Tate that she had made a faux pas (and to put things right, but that's another story and I'm holding back because I'd like to think he will do that some day) but he didn't take it. He was onto bigger and better things by then and hasn't looked back since.

Love,

Caz
X

[downonwhores]

Hi 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

When I first read it, Paul seemed to be open minded and listening to the critics or that is what he appeared to me to write. I wasn't there so I don't know how much was discussed and argued over his researchers but his writing was flowing, and down tempered until I got til the last. I hated the last 3 chapters of that book. he should have know better than to stay all that stupid crap about Sudgen, Paul and others.
Even with all the errors in his book, Paul Feldman should have known that writing those 3 chapters didn't show to me that he was more objective than shirley but that he was just as stubborn and pig-headed as Cornball, and Knight.
It was such a shame to see that style of tabloid absolute authorship still included in Ripper studies. It just makes the solution more convoluted and now that Im' at the point where if you can not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt then the theory is very questionable.
It was such a shame that Paul was not objective.

[Khanada]

Stewart, I haven't read all of your books, but I have deeply enjoyed the ones I have read, and I always enjoy reading your posts.


Regarding CornwEll... For me, what it really comes down to is that the whole problem with the mtDNA 'evidence' is that there are too many ifs and too many variables. (Disclaimer: I have not read Cornwell's book recently, and do not have my copy here at hand to refer to. I have in the past read it through several times.)

So, okay, I'm not saying anything new here about the doubts of whose DNA it is. Still, it's one of the things about her book that always make me shake my head and go "nah". If I'm remembering correctly (and if I'm not, tell me gently), Cornwell's Sickert DNA came from a set of coveralls that were (or were supposed to have been) Sickert's. I feel certain that I've read somewhere that they had been dry-cleaned, and even if they hadn't been, or even if dry-cleaning would be a non-issue, I have to wonder about who all else handled the coveralls?? Who else has left DNA (mtDNA or otherwise) on them? Whose DNA did Cornwell's tests actually pick up, and then compare to Ripper letters that are known to have been handled by multiple people over the years?

Before I would be able to even consider the notion that Cornwell had possibly linked Sickert to the letters, I'd have to know for sure that the DNA said to be Sickert's really was Sickert's. She doesn't offer any kind of proof there -- just an assumption, a leap to conclusion. There are a great many ifs, ands, buts, and weak circumstances, and no smoking gun.


steje73 wrote:

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.

I'm not so much upset about how much money she's made with her 'facts' and bad research -- she's hardly the only person guilty of that, on any subject. What bugs me the most is that every time I'm sitting anywhere in public in the college town in which I work, reading any Ripper book at all, there is always someone to wander up to ask if I've read Cornwell and to tell me how great her book is, how she nailed the case, blah blah blah. Gosh, kids, don't just read one book and go kazoo -- read several! On the flip side, even I have to admit that it has sometimes led to some good conversations, and I do sometimes get a person who asks me to write down other authors' names.

Cheyenne wrote:

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.

True, but consider that that 10% is made up of something like a couple hundred thousand people, among them (maybe) Sickert -- assuming the DNA that was supposed to be Sickert's actually was in the first place. That's not really narrowing it all down much, and that's why I can't get very excited.

Cheyenne wrote:

So...quacks write letters. So do legitimate killers. I would argue that this is why we should not rush to judgment re: Cornwell. We should, however, leave open the possibility that Sickert is not just a quack letter writer but a serial killer letter writer.

Perhaps so -- perhaps not. The proof offered thus far that Sickert was a quack letter writer just isn't compelling, and the proof that he was JtR is even less so. What has happened is that mtDNA that may or may not be Sickert's has been linked to letter(s) that have been handled by a cast of known and unknown people. This is not conclusive of anything. And, as has aready been said, it's hard to rush to judgement on a book that's been out as long as hers. Boiling it down, it seems that her entire case rests on first assuming that the actual murderer wrote one or more of these letters, and then trying to pin authorship on a pre-selected suspect. I cannot help but see that as deeply flawed from the beginning.

As for Peter Bower, I merely have a question. Who is reporting his (partial) findings on these things? Is he himself speaking, or is it Patricia?

[Jeff Leahy]

I see from a quoted portion of Jeff's rants that he's now trying to read some special meaning into my having called Bower "Professor Bower" in the past. Anyone looking at the old thread will note that it was Jeff who started out calling him a professor, and I assumed he'd looked that title up and knew what he was talking about. By now I've realized I shouldn't treate anything Jeff claims as if it were real, even if it's something innocuous and irrelevant to the discussion like a professional title. I mean, really... I'm being attacked because I followed someone else's lead in crediting Bower with more expertise than he is apparently due?

It just goes to show that there's always someone willing to jump on any minor thing to try to make a big deal out of it, even if the error was one they themselves started.

YOU CAN FOOL SOME OF THE PEOPLE, SOME OF THE TIME

YOU CAN FOOL MOST OF THE PEOPLE MOST OF THE TIME

BUT YOU CANT FOOL ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME

'Sir you are drunk" 'Madam you are ugly, but in the morning, I , will be sobber"

[Dan Norder]

I see from a quoted portion of Jeff's rants that he's now trying to read some special meaning into my having called Bower "Professor Bower" in the past. Anyone looking at the old thread will note that it was Jeff who started out calling him a professor, and I assumed he'd looked that title up and knew what he was talking about. By now I've realized I shouldn't treate anything Jeff claims as if it were real, even if it's something innocuous and irrelevant to the discussion like a professional title. I mean, really... I'm being attacked because I followed someone else's lead in crediting Bower with more expertise than he is apparently due?

It just goes to show that there's always someone willing to jump on any minor thing to try to make a big deal out of it, even if the error was one they themselves started.

[Jeff Leahy]

Maybrick Diary opt out

Hi Caz

Clearly I skirted around references to the Maybrick Diary.

I was clearly trying to stay on track with the specific point that to my knowledge no one has studied Bowers findings RE: Patricia Cornwells Claims. Therefore it is unlikely anyone has 'Ridiculed' Bowers findings...certainly Matthew Sturgis has NOT.

You yourelf must know that if you allow yourself to be distracted and go off on tangents then you can tie yourself in all sorts of Knots..So I am trying to stay focused on a specific piont, because I have been critisized in the past for wandering off on tangents...

You see your damned if you do and damned if you dont..apparently I am now fixed on my conclussions

However dispite letting the point go I must agree with you. It did seem rather odd that Bower could have given any sort of an opinion on a 'Victorian photo album' that is almost certainly 'a Victorian Photo Album'.

What exactly was he going to say? Unless he formed his opinion on the hand writing or something? the answer therefore is I don't know what opinion Bower could or could not have given in relation to the Diary. But any such claims by anybody about anything, is well extremely odd

I am therefore sticking to the claims I have made and which I know to be factually correct as I have spoken to the person who wrote the forward to Matthew Sturgis book.

As to a scientific opinion. Peter Bower is an expert on paper, he is not a scientist. Noone to my knowledge has ever claimed that he is?

He has given an opinion. It may be a surprising opinion but there it is, and accusing him of taking money to provide results Patricia wanted without any evidence for this, is in my book libelous.

As there's lots of cowardly 'opting out' going on, I think I'll opt out of any discussion on the Maybrick Diary

"Their he goes...making jokes again"

"Your only making things worse for yourself"

"Maybrick Diary, I only said Johova"

Pirate

[caz]

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.”

Hi Cheyenne,

Unfortunately the part I have emphasised above is merely Cornwellian spin, and if anything does her own paid paper expert a disservice. Cornwell is the only person I am aware of who has ‘credited’ Bower with this remarkable achievement, and she is known in Ripperology as a person who has the utmost contempt for Ripperologists and their opinions - all a bit ironic when you think about it.

I call it ‘remarkable’ because Bower has only looked at the Maybrick diary once, in the presence of Shirley Harrison (and incidentally I don’t know if he charged for his trouble), and he asked her not to publish his name or the opinion he offered her at that time regarding the possible age range of the guard book containing the diary text. The fact that Shirley dearly wanted to publish this information, but honoured the ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ she had made with him and left it out of her book, ought to indicate to you the way he was leaning - until, that is, Cornwell announced in her book that he was now apparently leaning the other way entirely, and without seeing the diary again had somehow managed to determine it was a ‘fraud’ after all.

Fraud is also a very different animal from ‘hoax’ or ‘fake’, and in a diary context implies a recent effort created and published for profit, which Bower certainly hasn’t the expertise to determine, and which nobody has determined. Scotland Yard investigated the early allegations back in 1993 and failed to find any evidence of fraud having been committed by anyone at any level.

...I'm not certain paper analysis is a science...certainly Peter Bower is not a professor as Norder sometimes alludes to. He forms his opinions through years of experience and study. He examins things in fine detail under a micro scope...he does not use chemicals and the like…

…I have met Peter Bower, he is a gentleman and a man of honour. Its what he does for a living and he gets paid..are you going to say all his other work is useless because he got paid...are you going to say I'm a bad Cameraman because I like to be PAID for what I do?

And again I remind you all that Peter Bowers results have never been published in full and no expert has ever studied his results....

Hi Jeff,

I don’t recall Shirley, or Bower himself when I spoke to him at the Tate, mentioning anything about having examined the diary under a microscope, on the one occasion he honoured an agreement to look at it. If he was having second thoughts about the age of the guard book itself, by the time he began working for Cornwell, then this change of opinion, like his initial impressions, (and just like his Sickert results), has never been published in full, and no expert has yet been able to study the work, the features or the reasoning that led him to a specific conclusion.

Moreover, I can't recall any of the numerous experts on Victorian paper, manuscripts, book binding and so on claiming in print (not even Bower himself) that the diary was not written on genuine Victorian paper. The book was described by an expert book binder friend of Don Rumbelow's as 'a typical medium to lower quality Victorian guard book' which showed 'no signs of any tampering'. And back in 1992, both the curator of 19th century manuscripts at the British Museum and the owner of Jarndyce, an antiquarian bookshop opposite the museum, confirmed their initial expert opinions in writing that they saw nothing to indicate that the book wasn't of the right period. If Bower wants to step up and be the first expert to suggest otherwise in writing, he will also have to explain, with evidence, how he was able to arrive at this point of view. At present all we have is from Cornwell herself, and that amounts to precious little.

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.

I’m afraid I can’t recall much about this Getty Museum letter. But I do remember at least one articulate person in the audience expressing scepticism about Bower’s claim to have narrowed down the sheets involved to such a small number. It did stick in my mind as something that was very much unresolved.

It’s very difficult to judge how lightly Bower makes his various claims without being able to see the basis upon which he arrives at any of them. It’s a bit like the old maths exams at school when you got no points if you failed to show your workings. But it’s infinitely worse when we have no workings and no answer sheet telling us if any of Bower’s claims have been right yet.

Time to remind a few people what Dan posted on the Crippen Documentary thread:

I think you fail to understand how science works. One test on one object (and especially one performed by people who have a demonstrated bias) does not a scientific finding make. An inherent and essential part of the scientific process is independent verification. These results have not been verified, so right now they have just as much scientific validity as some random guy off the street arguing that Abraham Lincoln was a black man wearing white make up and that's why he wanted to set the slaves free has historical validity.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=939&page=7

Just as Melvin Harris paid AFI (another husband and wife team I believe, although the sums of money involved pale into insignificance next to Cornwell’s DNA and paper bills) to look for a certain preservative in the diary ink, of which no other expert has ever found the least indication while conducting their own chemical analyses, Bower is currently lacking this vital independent verification of his own work, that stands in the way of ‘determining’ that any of Cornwell’s claims are more than wishful thinking.

Love,

Caz
X