|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1760
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 10:05 am: | 
|
Yes Dan,
Thats that.
...and Angie, you didnt cover her incompetencies and prejudice. An essential if you want to be a tip top ME.
Monty
I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.
|
Uriah Hexam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 11:36 am: |
|
Three points occur to me, all of them probably trivial, but for what it is worth...
My wife makes me watch CSI every night: does that qualify me as a criminalogist or a couch potato?
When it comes to Ms. Cornwell's credentials, I sometimes wonder if she hasn't confused herself with her own creation.
If Walter Sickert was indeed responsible for everything that Patricia Cornwell lays at his door step, he would rival Professor Moriarty in his evil genius. But, as we say in my part of Kentucky "That dog don't hunt..." |
Angie
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 4:18 pm: |
|
Monty, you are free to think whatever you want about JTR, but don't try to say that you know Cornwell just because you've glanced through an article or two about her on the Internet! She was never a secretary in the morgue, she didn't direct traffic and while she did start out at the "bottom" at the newspaper, she later advanced to being an awarded crime journalist.
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 710
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 8:11 pm: |
|
Angie.
Time for me to bail Montclair Bell out here...
You,my good woman,said..."I know very well that Cornwell isn't an educated medical examiner, but she did, as I pointed out, work in a morgue for six year and witnessed hundreds of autopsies. That gives experience, don't try to state otherwise. "
Angie...People can stand and watch from the sidelines the way numerous professions are performed and not have the hands on ability to perform the task they are watching...even after hundreds of times watching them. Transmission repair..fighting oil fires..eye surgery...teaching First Graders...dealing with belligerent convicts..people who argue against Stephenson as the Ripper....you name it.
Monty isn't wrong. Neither are the people who question her. She,more than anyone else, created this atmosphere of animus. Me ? I couldn't care less for her rah-rah approach. Sickert could well be the Ripper, part of a cadre that committed the crimes, watched the damned things,or be totally innocent. If he is culpable, it ain't gonna be because she proved it with the DNA tests....or because she "watched" a few hundred autopsies. People can stand and watch swimmers for a thousand years and....well,you know the rest.
You are making a mistake when you think that someone can watch autopsies 1,000 times and be "skilled' enough to perform them without hands on training. It doesn't work that way.
...and don't pick on Monty. We are a team in this life and the next. Be nice or be spanked....nicely.
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1771
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 9:57 am: |
|
Angie,
Am I free to accuse a person of murder with no credible evidence supporting my accusation?
No I dont know her but I know how to investigate, I know what is needed to make a case concrete and Patricia Cornwells investigation of Sickert and her conclusion that he was Jack The Ripper is far from concrete. Far from case closed. Her argument is flawed and incorrect. Evidence supports the notion that he may have written a few letters but does not support that he murdered women. So to state that he was an evil bastard, a murderer on the basis of nothing, absolutely nothing is, IMHO, shoddy, prejudiced and very unprofessional.
I dont speak as anti Patsy, Internet lurker, a person who is interested in these murders or as an Cornwell groupie but rather as a day in day out Criminal Investigator.
Regards,
Monty
Of course this land is dangerous!
All of the animals are capably murderous.
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3706
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 10:17 am: |
|
Angie,
Not that I think Monty needs to be bailed out of anything but I wholeheartedly supports his statements.
And as for myself, being a historical researcher, I know how good research is to be conducted, and Cornwell's so called research is sloppy and biased. She picks and chooses what suits her theories and then she leaves out other options. On several points she does not take her research further where she should have, and many of her so called evidence are over-interpretated in a distorted fashion and she just simply read too much personal stuff into them than they indicate.
It is actually one of worst research attempts I have ever seen, and she practically breaks every possible rule.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2674
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 10:52 am: |
|
I can only agree. I think there is a quite disturbing pattern emerging whereby it is ok to say the solution at last the case is closed, final chapter, without the evidence to back up such a claim.
I guess a lot of that is down to the publishing company.
they didn't need to in this case the market of Cornwall fans, who appear deeply loyal - was already there.
"By the power of Greyskull - I have the power!"
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 770
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 4:14 pm: |
|
Hi Angie,
What do you mean she was never a secretary at the morgue? That's exactly what she was. Oh, I realize that a lot of secretaries demand fancy titles instead (administrative assistant or what-have-you), but she made coffee and typed reports for the work other people did. That means she was a secretary. What do you think she did there?
And I don't know that she directed traffic, but I was trying to figure out what exactly a volunteer police officer would be allowed to do to not be a danger to herself and other people. Although, come to think of it, directing traffic might have been too dangerous a job for her in her position. Police officers aren't typically volunteer jobs, you realize? What do you think she did?
And, yes, she was an award-winning crime reporter because she was good at stringing words together about the work other people did, not that she actually knew (or, for that matter, currently knows) anything significant about doing any investigations herself.
If you want the word of someone with legitimate experience, Kathy Reichs, who has a Ph.D. in forensic anthropology and is one of less than 100 people with her level of accreditation in her field, says that Cornwell is good at writing fiction but should not be pretending to be an expert at forensic criminology or attempting to write nonfiction on the topic because she simply doesn't have the skills necessary.
So, rather than simply naysaying what I have said here, if you think she has actual experience (let alone "to the highest possible degree"), why don't you try explaining how she supposedly got this background you think she has? Because so far what you have said has either been monstrously exaggerated (akin to someone who worked at a concession stand at Sea World and then went scuba diving claiming to have marine biology experience "to the highest possible degree") or just plain incorrect.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2766
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 4:45 pm: |
|
Hi all
I agree with Mont and Jenni here!!.
To strip this to the bare bones............
For goodness sake why should a writer of very 'average' crime(!) novels suddenly turn her hand to solving the crime of the century..more to the point.....with VERY spurious fragile 'evidence'!????
OK Sickert is an intersting character, probably with more than a passing interest,(maybe to an extreme) on JTR, that doesnt make him a killer!
Suzi
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1782
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 6:12 pm: |
|
G'day,
Stephen Knight mentioned in his book in 1976 that Walter Sickert had 'Ripper periods' when he would play the killer in word and mood! That fact makes him an interesting character. 'Interesting' if one is studying the minds of artists during this period. Artists began to explore feelings and moods, so they could express these feelings in their paintings.
LEANNE
|
Judith A. Stock
Sergeant
Username: Needler
Post Number: 38
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 11:12 pm: |
|
Just as an aside, with NO desire to re-enter the fray, let me pass this on........there are six large bookstores in our area......ALL OF THEM placed Cornwell's Ripper book alongside her other fiction work. Marketing? Maybe...but just another of those things in life that make you go "hmmm".....
Cheers to all, and hope the summer hasn't melted anyone yet,
Judy
http://www.casebook.org/2006 |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 3:16 am: |
|
Hi all,
Angie, I do not think that anyone is picking on Cornwell. I am sure she is very smart, and we know she is a good writer. Her aproach to this case was wrong. She chose a suspect and then tried to make the pieces fit with a whole lot of speculation. Too many sentences start out with what if, or could have. Then she claims case closed. I think she made a good contribution. She convinced me that Sickert wrote a few Jack letters. This may ultimately help prove that Sickert could not have been the ripper. That would be ironic. She claimed that Sickert could not have children, or at least infered it strongly. If she could prove this then that would dismiss the modern day royal conspiracy theory, witch is based on the story told by a man, who claimed to be the son of Walter Sickert. She may very well end up making a great contribution to "ripperology". I would have liked to see her really work the case from A to Z, and seen what suspect she came up with, and what fresh ideas she could bring to the case. I imagine she would be very perceptive.
Your friend, Brad |
Autumn
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 10:21 am: |
|
Hi all...I'm just in the midst of reading this book...and so far, I'm pretty convinced. It's certainly an interesting read, and a lead I would never have explored. And, she makes osme VERY interesting points. It makes much more sense to me than Queen Victoria's grandson, anyway! |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2771
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 4:06 pm: |
|
Nice one Judy!!
Autumn-----keep reading and if you're still awake and interested in the case by the end....try Uncle Jack........that should finish you!!!
Cheers
Suzi |
Judith A. Stock
Sergeant
Username: Needler
Post Number: 40
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 11:41 pm: |
|
Thanks, Suzi, and good advice.....the bit about "keep reading". As almost any of us SHOULD admit, we have been suckered by some "new theory" at one time or another, i.e. Stephen Knight, the diary. I just hate it that a mediocre author, who is known for her fiction, makes a commercial for TV, which advertises her "solution" to the mystery, while standing hipshot, with arms crossed (see Body Language 101), and declaring she KNOWS the answer...... the implication being that all of us are idiots, and those who don't believe her should get in line for our very own custom fitted canvas blazers with the arms tied at the back! Why not just say "This is what I believe to be true", or "my investigations have revealed this evidence", or even "I have come across evidence which strongly suggests that Jack the Ripper was ________". If Ms Cornwell had been a bit less superior and condescending, and just a bit more approachable, she might have gotten her book in the True Crime section of the bookstores, instead of the fiction bins.
'Nuff said.....
Cheers to all, and have a grand Harry Potter weekend!!
Judy |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2772
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 6:17 am: |
|
Yep!!!! Its Potter Day here!!!!!! Got mine and off to the garden to read it!!!!! (well someones got to soak up these rays!!!!!)
Cheers Judith!!
Suzi x |
Judith A. Stock
Sergeant
Username: Needler
Post Number: 41
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 12:59 pm: |
|
OK, Suzi.......I just finished HALF-BLOOD, and this one will knock your socks off! You're gonna love it, and hate it at the same time!!
Cheers and enjoy the rays........
Judy |
Tel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 7:20 am: |
|
The thing that bothers me about Cornwell's book is her complete mis-interpretation of several commonly used English words and phrases and then trying to read some significance into them. Examples? 'Ha Ha' and 'Diggings' (for lodgings) she claims to be American expressions and thus must have been picked up by Sickert from Whistler. There are a lot more instances spread throughout the book. |
Angie
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 7:32 pm: |
|
Dan, for the last time...
I never tried to state that Cornwell has an education in this field but what I have been stating is that PC does have experience with non-fiction crime writing, to the highest possible degree! I was responding to Judith's message about PC not having any experience writing non-fiction, which she has!
|
Melissa Lynn Turcios
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 7:47 pm: |
|
<<quote>> For goodness sake why should a writer of very 'average' crime(!) novels suddenly turn her hand to solving the crime of the century..more to the point.....with VERY spurious fragile 'evidence'!????
I have to say that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle did the same thing. He was just successful and used logic.
Angie, when you say to the highest possible degree- you better mean that there is NO HIGHER degree of experience possible. And when you say “non-fiction crime writing”, you also mean “not and never was actually criminalist, forensic scientist, abnormal psychologist, or any of the multitude of occupations which would give her more credentials than non-fiction crime writer.”
Even so, Patricia Cornwall, even if she was the most well-researched and qualified of all Ripperologists, is not largely accepted by the scientific community because of her complete disregard for forensics as a SCIENCE based on FACT and NOT SUPPOSITION or INTUITION.
A quick review of the scientific method hammered into our heads in grade school will show you that you do not BEGIN with a CONCLUSION (i.e that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper) but that BASED ON THE EVIDENCE you DEVELOP a conclusion. Patricia Cornwall begins her awkwardly-titled tome with a conclusion and uses many other hypothesis’ to support her thesis. Her foundation is shaky and she builds little more than a house of cards upon it.
Her writing is not the writing of a scientist, enumerating facts and drawing reasonable and (largely) irrefutable conclusions, rather she uses elaborate legerdemain and acrobatic logic to CIRCUMVENT THE FACTS. This is not science and this is certainly NOT JUSTICE.
All persons, whether guilty or not, deserve to have their supposed crimes to be justly and, moreover, objectively evaluated. Walter Sickert, unfortunately, has Patricia Cornwall maligning his reputation with “if…” statements. Sure, Walter may have had a morbidity about him, he may have had a personality that desired attention, or he may have had a penchant for pretending for dressing like other people. However, (and you can check her book for this if you want) supposing that an artist is deranged because his artwork is macabre, believing that he was of a psychotic nature because he was an egotist, or placing him at the scene of the Martha Tabram murder as a sailor because he owned various costumes is not a fair way of condemning the reputation of a talented artist or of anyone for that matter. Moreover, Cornwall simply refuses to acknowledge alternative hypothesis or evidence that might disprove her tenuous claims. She asserts that Sickert’s paintings were of murder scenes he witnessed and yet fails to acknowledge the fact that many of his paintings were an experiment with mood and that the titles (that he constantly changed) varied from “Sleeping” to “Murder”. She says that he was divorced and yet laces the fact that Ellen was still quite devoted to Walter in the post-divorce years with an ominous tone: that somehow Sickert possessed some irresistible an inexplicable power over her. She never says that they might merely have maturely decided to remain friends upon realizing that they were not intended to be lovers. Furthermore, given his occupation, Cornwall doesn’t even say that owning various costumes for models was not unusual for a painter at that time or even to this day.
That is not science; it is not objective and, in my humble opinion, it undermines the whole wonderful concept of “innocent before proven guilty”.
This, along with destroying Walter Sickert’s artwork, is nothing less than a sacrilege.
I'm seventeen. Please, if I can recognize flawed methods, you can, too,
Melissa |
I M Crickflint
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 11:23 am: |
|
Re: In Search of the Ripper (2002) (TV)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Six million dollars worth of rubbish, 28 October 2005
Author: cricketman4 from United Kingdom
A six million dollar investigation into the possibility of Walter Sickert being Jack the Ripper? And what a load of drivel it was. Patricia Cornwell as the "Stalker" would have been better advised to spending her money elsewhere.
Her total evidence boiled down to paintings composed at least 10 years after the murders. She never once studied the police reports of the day (including the Camden Town Murders), the topography, other alternatives, even less the movements of the accused. Had she investigated the latter, she would have discovered that between 1885 and 1905 Walter Sickert was working and living in Dieppe and Venice. Admittedly he may have visited London to messily slaughter a few street girls, I really don't know, and the intrepid stalker did nothing to find out about such "visits".
Her so-called DNA "evidence" was flawed and proved nothing, and her number one suspect was not impotent, indeed probably sired several children.
Walter Sickert would have been 28 years old at the time of the Ripper murders and lived to a ripe old age of 82. Considering that serial killers usually continue their hobbies until either caught or dead, Mr Sickert must have been remarkably reserved in later years. As for her remarks on seeing him give a sidelong glance on an old movie, and coming to the conclusion that he exudes evil was shameful in the extreme, particularly as he couldn't answer for himself.
If this whole fiasco is her idea of an investigation it's little wonder that she turned from crime fact to crime fiction. Her final determinations on Jack the Ripper are most certainly the latter.
Of all the Ripper theories bandied about, this one must be the daftest of all, and must be placed at the bottom of the list. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page