|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 28
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 6:46 pm: |       |
Hallo everyone
Re Cornwell, I suppose one of the merits of trying to apply modern forensic methods to the Ripper case, is that these things seem capable of continued refinement and improvement. A test that's inconclusive today might yield different results some time in the future. The deductions made from the results are of course a separate issue.
Paul, re charming/not charming : yes, that's what I was saying. The Ripper may for all I know have been extremely charming, but I don't see why we need to assume it. Beside the general background desperation of the women, there are also Nichols's drunken state, Chapman's possible focus on a "Leather Apron" type attacker (when the real Ripper may have looked nothing like this), and the uncertainties about what happened to Kelly and Stride. That just leaves Eddowes, and I'm not sure how much we can infer from this one example. Certainly she seems to have been sober when she left the station, and she would have been wary of a "Leather Apron" figure. On the other hand, she may have felt a bit safer in Mitre Square, at a little distance from Spitalfields where the other murders had taken place. Whether or not she'd have trusted Aaron Kosminski, I can't say, since I don't know how he would have appeared in 1888.
Marie, you have raised the dreadful prospect of Kelly's door, which I call a revolving door because it makes my head spin! I will try to answer later.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 29
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 7:51 pm: | |
Hi Marie
If Kelly brought Jack back to her room, I just can't see him hanging around waiting while she got undressed and folded her clothes neatly on a chair, before attacking. I think there's a chance that he entered her room while she was asleep. The door would have knocked against the bedside table, awakening her and giving her a chance to utter a brief cry. Then he would have panicked, shoved the sheets over her face to muffle her, and stabbed her through them. I only offer it as a possibility.
If I understand correctly the type of door you're describing, then why couldn't the police have reached through the window and opened it? The door seems to have been lockable from the outside, because McCarthy had to break it down.
But that also seems to present problems, because I find it difficult to believe that McCarthy wouldn't have had a duplicate key. Surely these slum landlords would have wanted to get into their places from time to time, if only to evict their tenants? Then again, surely lots of tenants must have lost their keys. Would they have had to break their windows each time to get in?
In his "Jack the Ripper, The Uncensored Facts" Paul Begg describes Bowyer's visit to Kelly's room : "He knocked at the door, but did not get a reply. He tried the door, but it was locked." This makes it sound as if there was a door knob on the outside of the door. Unfortunately I can't tell you where Paul got this from. All the accounts I've read seem to have Bowyer just knocking, and then going round to the window.
As far as I'm concerned, this is a very confusing door.
Robert |
JPR
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 7:19 pm: | |
One thing I didn't understand before my most recent reading is that in typing mitochondrial DNA, artefacts are very common. That is, unlike the fact corrupted nuclear DNA will yeild only garbage instead of sensible results, mitochondrial DNA will product types even when the input is not enough to actually prove a type. You have to run the results many times, and even then you get to choose between "types" kicked out by the analysis or nonsense that you get on other tries. This is why I say I don't see any interest or contribution through Cornwell's use of DNA "science" in her book. She hasn't provided any real information about this forensic technique, only a lot of voodoo talk and bad science.
But here is something that really suprised me about the book. In other JtR books I have read, the author first tries to establish which of the murders are real JtR murders and which might be copycats or have a random resemblance. Usually this seems to be done to show the author's basic theory about the case, or maybe just to try to work with the most persuasive database. Cornwell just starts in on a hand-me-down list of the five murders. She narrates other murders without saying whether they are or not parts of the series (I had the impression that she thinks most of them are). This seems to me that she didn't even think critically about what a definition of the JtR series would be. It was just whatever she felt like making it at any point in the book. I was surprised that she didn't bother to establish which murders she thought were in the set and which weren't. To me it meant that she couldn't work critically at even the most basic level of the case.
I see Maybrick is drawing close in the competition. That boggles my mind too. Do those people all think the diary is real? How come the two most handily disproved suspects are at the top of the hit parade? |
Thomas C. Wescott
Police Constable
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 1
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 12:31 am: | |
I haven't paid attention to the suspect poll in years, because it's a joke. Personally, I think it should be wiped cleaned and started over, made available ONLY to those who are authorized to post on the site. Then, non-suspects like Sickert wouldn't top the list.
Oh, and when writing of Eddowes and Tabram on a Cornwell thread, you have to spell their names "Edowes" and "Tabran", as that is how Cornwell rewrote them into history. She had $4 million to spare, but purchased only TWO Ripper books (and by the same authors), and contacted NO Ripper authorities to bounce her theories off of. Yeah, she's a real criminologist.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Paul Gibson
Police Constable
Username: Rupertbear
Post Number: 7
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 4:33 am: | |
Hi Tom,
I spotted the spelling mistakes too. She probably should have invested in an editor - somewhat cheaper than a Sickert painting and much more useful!!
However, I found other parts of the book more irritating...
Why on earth does she waste a line by telling us that she can run quite fast?!!! It raises the question as to whether there is room enough in the book for Sickert and her ego!
The bit where she writes about questioning whether she is right to go on, but convinces herself that she has solved the case and the world deserves to know, was about as enjoyable as listening to somebody scrape their fingernails down a blackboard.
However, I have to repeat the gist of one of my previous posts...it is truly arrogant to come to London and visit Scotland Yard but not spend time walking the streets of Whitechapel, so that you know the geography of the crimes that you are talking about.
Anyway, the Cornwell case is closed for me...I've got it all off my chest and am just delighted to see that other people empathise with me.
Paul |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 85
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 4:38 pm: | |
Hello all,
Robert, you posted: "If Kelly brought Jack back to her room, I just can't see him hanging around waiting while she got undressed and folded her clothes neatly on a chair, before attacking"
Honestly speaking, why not? They could have been drinking together. To my mind, it makes more sense to wait until she's semi-naked, drunk, and laying on the bed waiting for him to come over. It doesn't make sense to lay into her as soon as she shuts the door, because it's more likely she'll kick up a fuss, try and fight back.
No, better to wait until she's laying down. And she would undress before laying down, because she's expecting intercourse.
Also, it's as easy to fold your clothes as it is to just chuck them on the chair. I know I do it without thinking about it (so I've been told), even when I'm incredibly...err....tipsy. It's as simple as putting two edges of fabric together, and folding- doesn't take above a second. It's habit, and sometimes that doesn't vary, even when a woman has company.
The door. You posted: "In his "Jack the Ripper, The Uncensored Facts" Paul Begg describes Bowyer's visit to Kelly's room : "He knocked at the door, but did not get a reply. He tried the door, but it was locked."
I'm sure that the Police, or McCarthy would have thought to reach in through the window, to unlock the door- but I can't find anything that says this. I'm thinking it might be the type of door that automatically locks when you close it, but you can also lock it again from the outside. If someone locks it from the outside, you cannot unlock it, by reaching in through the window. You have to have the key. Perhaps the Police had to break down the door, because it was locked from the outside? But who would have the key?
I can't understand why McCarthy didn't have a key? That just doesn't make sense. I really think the door might hold the key to this mystery (sorry, couldn't resist the pun......).
|
Dawn Leach
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 1:11 pm: | |
I'll tell you, as a long time enthusiast of the Ripper Crimes (that sounds very wrong somehow), and Ms. Cornwell's writing, I was greatly looking forward to her book. I already knew the premise, having seen a lecture she gave that was televised. It seemed like a plausable theory from what she was stating . . .Unfortunately, upon reading the book I found that more than ever I do not really feel that Walter Sickert could have been Jack the Ripper. There are too many questions that have no answers in this case. I will concede that he seemed to have a somewhat warped personality, and I fully believe he would have enjoyed getting in on the "frenzy" by sending out some anonymous Ripper letters.
Ms. Cornwell's book was merely a case of having a theory, deciding it's true, and then manipulating information to make it support your theory. As she progressed through the book, it became increasingly clear that her theories had taken over and she no longer required evidence to back them up. |
Robert Charles Linford
Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 33
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 6:45 pm: | |
Hi Dawn
I'm fairly new to this site, but I don't get the impression that Ms Cornwell's theory has an awful lot of support here.
I too have a long-standing interest in the Ripper mystery, but I'd better keep quiet about that because that's one of the things which got Sickert into hot water!
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 34
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 7:03 pm: | |
Hi all
Marie, you may well be right. I suppose it boils down to what kind of man you think Jack was. I tend to think that if Kelly had indeed taken him home, he'd have barely been able to wait for the door to close before starting. But other people imagine him differently and I'm prepared to have my mind changed.
I think it would have taken a wee while for Kelly to get undressed, especially if she was tipsy or groggy. If she had as much on underneath as Eddowes, with all those petticoats and stuff, I think Jack would have had a fair wait - something like 200 choruses of "Only a Violet".
By the way, I don't understand why, on a rainy night, she put her boots in front of the fire and her clothes on a chair beside the bed. Strange.
On the mind-boggling complexities of Kelly's door, I've just had a brilliant idea, namely : please could I be excused Kelly's door for tonight? I promise I'll return to it, honest!
Robert |
Thomas C. Wescott
Police Constable
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 2
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 9:46 pm: | |
Hello all,
I've known a number of women like Cornwell. Fortunately, very few of them have such a public forum for their mania.
As for why McCarthy didn't suggest reaching in through the window, if the idea even occured to him, it was probably because he was taken aside for questioning at the time the door was broken down.
As for Mary Kelly's folded clothes, I don't think it's much of a mystery why the Ripper let her get undressed. What is a mystery is why her clothes didn't end up in the fire like all the others, if the Ripper was the one who started the fire. This leads me to believe that perhaps he wasn't. And if this is the case, then the famous red handkerchief Hutchinson claimed to have seen the Ripper hand Kelly would've been in one of her pockets. If there indeed WAS such an item in her pockets, that would explain why Abberline and others put temporary faith in his testimony. But if that's the case, why is it that months later only Lawende would be recognized as a Ripper witness? Hmmm...the plot just gets thicker!
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Jim DiPalma
Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 12
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 12:25 pm: | |
Hi All,
Tom, good to see that you made it over to the other side. :-)
As to the breaking down of the door, the Nov 13 Daily Telegraph reports this testimony from Dr. Phillips at the inquest:
"Having ascertained that probably it was advisable that no entrance should be made into the room at that time, I remained until about 1.30p.m., when the door was broken open by McCarthy, under the direction of Superintendent Arnold."
So according to Dr. Phillips, McCarthy himself broke the door open, which only further begs the question of why he didn't have a spare key to his own property. How expensive was it to have duplicate keys made in 1888? Would this have been considered a needless extravagance, given the nature of Kelly's room?
Best to all,
Jim |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 89
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 4:48 pm: | |
Hello all,
Robert: yes, I guess it does all boil down to what kind of man we individually think Jack was.
I think he could well have gotten drunk with Mary, and I certainly think he could have waited for her to get undressed and lay down on the bed, before killing her. Many serial killers have a very active fantasy life, and I think the preliminaries of this murder may have played into his fantasies.
OK, I'll let you off the subject of the door. But just this once, mind...
Thomas Wescott: I don't trust George Hutchinson at all. As far as I'm concerned, he's my number two suspect. If the Police had found a red handkerchief in her clothes, I'd suspect that George gave it to her himself. But there's no mention of this in her belongings, is there?
Jim DiPalma: I can't believe that McCarthy didn't have a key. Although that seems like the only scenario possible, given the facts. Unless there's something fishy going on with McCarthy.
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 109
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 5:11 pm: | |
Hi Everyone,
If hutchinson was telling the truth their has to be a red Hanky amongst her belongings , of course she may have returned the item between Dorset Street and her room.
With reference to the famous door, i think we can safely assume that Kelly did not have a key , and proberly left her room with her door unlocked , at least on her last night, for I believe Mrs Cox followed her into the court, and it would appear from her testomony that she went straight into her room, without going through the procedure that Barnett describes ie.. reaching through the window to slip the bolt..
If the door was locked with a key then it is obvious to me that her killer had the key. therefore another mark against Mr Barnett.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 37
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 7:21 pm: | |
Hi all
Curse this Long and Winding Road that leads to Kelly's door!
The way I see it, it's possible - only possible - that Jack entered Mary's room while she was asleep, either by a) reaching through the window, which would imply some familiarity with the Court b)simply opening the door because it wasn't locked or bolted c)using a key to open the door. Afterwards, he would have locked the door either with his own key, or with Kelly's, if she'd found her key and he'd come across it in her room.
In the afternoon, surely McCarthy or Bowyer or one of the Court's residents would have known how to open the door by reaching through the window. Plus, McCarthy wouldn't have wanted his door damaged unnecessarily. So from the fact that it had to be broken open, I assume it had been locked on the outside. Either McCarthy didn't have a duplicate key (which seems unlikely) or he preferred sacrificing his door to admitting he had a key and possibly coming under suspicion for the murder.
It sounds as if Elizabeth Prater had also lost her key, else why would she have put two tables against her door before going to sleep, as she testified at the inquest? This suggests to me that these doors could be opened from the outside
provided they weren't locked - they probably had a doorknob on the outside.
That's interesting, Tom, about the red handkerchief being a possible confirmation of Hutchinson's story. And even if the police didn't find it, they may have surmised that it had been burnt, or taken away by Jack so as not to leave a clue.
Maybe Jack didn't burn Mary's clothes because they were damp from the rain. Unfortunately we don't know whether he felt them - whether there were any bloody fingermarks on them.
Robert |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 96
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 6:13 am: | |
Hi Robert,
I like your idea that maybe the Ripper didn't burn Mary's clothes, because they were damp.
I honestly think that Hutchinson was making up stories, either to make himself important- or to sheild himself, or someone else.
Elizabeth Prater's door may have had a different lock, or her lock may have been broken.
It doesn't make sense that Kelly's door could be opened from the outside, by just turning a doorknob. Why then would Joe and Mary have to reach through the window, to open the door?
I've never much liked the sound of McCarthy, and it wouldn't surprise me if he pretended not to have a spare key, to avoid suspicion.
But I agree that *someone* should have thought to reach through the window. So perhaps the door was locked from the outside. Did Barnett turn up at the scene, or was he contacted later?
I think we need a 'Kelly's door' thread. I'll have to do some research on Victorian locks, see if I can find some diagrams. |
Robert Charles Linford
Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 40
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 8:28 am: | |
Hi Marie
Kelly would have been obliged to reach through the window, even though there may have been a doorknob on the outside of the door, if the door had a bolt on it.
Bruce Paley says that Barnett identified Kelly through the window before the door was forced. So I suppose he also could have told the police about the window, if it was really that simple to get in. But of course, he may have been in a state of severe shock (though I know Leanne doesn't think so!)
I too don't like the sound of McCarthy, for a number of reasons. But maybe I'm being unfair to him.
I think I'll try to consult Bob Hinton's book, which I read a while ago. I seem to remember his going into terrific detail about windows and doors, not all of which I understood (my fault, not his).
Robert |
Jim DiPalma
Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 14
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 11:01 am: | |
Hi All,
Marie, yeah, I'd agree it somewhat beggars belief, doesn't it? What sort of landlord does not have a key to his own property?
McCarthy does seem to be something of a shady character in the Miller's Court drama. It has been suggested that he was pimping for some of the women who resided there, that the term "McCarthy's Rents" referred to the inhabitants of Miller's Court and not the rooms. He did leave an estate valued at well over 20,000 pounds, a small fortune for the time, and seemingly beyond the reach of a proprietor of a humble chandler's shop.
Bob Hinton did examine the issue of Kelly's door in his book, well worth a read.
Best to all,
Jim |
Maura
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 5:10 pm: | |
This Cornwell book is a first for me. A first..in that I have totally resisted buying as I do most books with the Ripper as subject matter, just as my small protest against Cornwell's arrogance and gross incompetence, that I refuse to reward with cash.
Even though Cornwell does not seem to have fans here, one may well ask..how can I state the above ignominious judgment of her book, without having read it? My opinion is based on the tv report I saw about her book [with her full participation] that earlier on I was interested in seeing, till in watching I realized how little she seemed to know of the case and how incredibly specious Ms. Cornwell's reasoning was.
I did buy the Maybrick book "diary" when it came out, even though I thought it was probably a hoax, but I'm standing firm on this new maxim for my Ripper library...No Cornwell Aloud!
How many people here have actually bought and read this travesty of justice, if they're willing to spill the beans?
Dawn, I really appreciated your comments on how you felt Cornwell made her information fit her theory, instead of vice versa. |
Belladonna
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 9:49 pm: | |
It's interesting to see people discount an author and all her work merely because they dislike the way she presents her case. Certainly she has seen and touched a hell of a lot more evidence in this case than any previous Ripper author. And certainly more than any person on this board one would assume.
As for her case. There is something truely distressing about Sickert. I studied his art long before I became aware of any accusations against him and there is something decidedly upsetting about the majority of his work. After reading "Case Closed" I was largely inclined to believe that this could perhaps be true. Sickert was not a pleasant person nor a pleasant artist when in his dark phases.
As for forensic evidence, she DOES state that none of the tests performed by the time the book was published were conclusive nor damning. She merely states that such tests have taken place, these are the results so far, and tests will be ongoing in the future.
As for spelling errors, I have read Ripper accounts in which Mary Kelly is refered to as Marie Jeanette Kelly. So which was it? Quibbles over spelling errors (which might not be errors at all considering the aforementioned fact that Cornwell has actually touched and read the original police reports herself) merely suggest to me that you are scambleing to find some way to discount her work. It stands just as secure, if not more so, than some of the rot that has been printed in the past.
But this is merely my own opinion and surely many of you will discount it as quickly as I discounted your comments. C'est la vie. |
Thomas C. Wescott
Police Constable
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 4
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 10:57 pm: | |
Belladonna,
You should not be so liberal in your usage of the word "certainly", such as in "Certainly she has seen and touched a hell of a lot more evidence in this case than any previous Ripper author." What evidence are you referring to? The letters? Who says they're evidence? And just for the record, Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner handled each letter for their important work "Letters From Hell". Simply put, Cornwell is a crank, and anyone who buys into her loony toons theories, bad journalism, and lies, is ignorant.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 213
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 19, 2003 - 4:41 am: | |
G'day All,
As soon as I heard that Patricia Cornwell was going to write a non-fiction book about the Whitechapel murders, I began reading a few of her fiction novels and loved them. With fiction, she is great!
Then I bought and read '..Case Closed', so I could join any debates and was very disappointed in the case that she presents. For a start, it has long been thought that all bar one or two letters that claimed to be from the Whitechapel Murderer, were hoaxed. It became a national and international passtime. The police in 1888 deemed only two of the letters authentic enough to reproduce on handbills, hoping that someone would recognize the handwriting, but Ms Cornwell failed to even mention this, and in fact wrote: 'Generations have been misled to think that the Ripper letters are pranks.'
If Walter Sickert really was the author of many letters and wanted to tease the police without being caught, why on earth would he use the tools of his trade like paint, when the police just had to narrow their search for the author down to those who could afford it?
Also, why did he feel the need to disguise his true handwriting, so many differnt ways? All he needed was a style different to his own? Then the communications would have been treated more seriously, instead of being stamped 'HOAX'.
A book that Stephen Knight published in 1976, 'Jack the Ripper. The Final Solution', makes it clear that Walter Sickert was fascinated with the mystery of the 'Ripper', and would in fact have 'Ripper periods', playing the killer in word and mood. He was probably so fascinated with the mystery, that he could have hoaxed a few of the letters!
'Impressionist' artists created a sensation when they painted their impressions of life around them, instead of what the world was used to seeing in paint like historical figures, religious monuments, realistic buildings of grandure etc. As the murder of prostitutes was in the news so much at the time and shocked so many people, this was 'life around him', and he was fascinated!
Bella: As for Mary Jane Kelly being referred to as 'Marie Jeanette Kelly': She was known locally by her friends as 'Mary Jane', but her common-law husband said that she preferred the French version of her name. The French version is the one that appears on her grave.
Cornwell may be right in that he may have hoaxed a few letters, but there remains no concrete evidence that connects Walter Richard Sicket to the one and only 'Jack the Ripper'!
LEANNE |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 100
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 19, 2003 - 9:26 am: | |
Hi all,
Robert, you posted: "Kelly would have been obliged to reach through the window, even though there may have been a doorknob on the outside of the door, if the door had a bolt on it."
In that case, she would have also reached through the window to lock it, when she left. Someone could have seen her do this, I guess.
But- if Barnett was at the scene, I think he would have remembered how to get into the room he lived in for quite a while. Even if he was upset.
Especially if he identified Mary through the window.
Perhaps he had a reason to delay the investigation. Or perhaps the door really was locked from the outside, and couldn't be opened by simply reaching through the window.
Jim DiPalma: I read somewher that John McCarthy may have been a pimp, and an East End gangster of sorts, which would explain why he amassed such a fortune by the time of his death.
And I simply can't believe he didn't have a key. I just wonder why it was in his interest to delay the police entry into Mary's room. I just wonder what his angle was.
I wonder if he, or his employee had already been in Mary's room, and if they removed evidence of any kind? I'm not really linking him to the murder, but he seems to be comlicit in something quite shady.
I desperately want to read Bruce Paley's book, and Bob Hinton's book- but I maxed out my credit card on extra college books, so unfortunately it'll have to wait awhile. Man, I wish people would just give me books for free!
I read what Bob Hinton wrote in another thread (about following an erroneous Hutchinson), but I still think his book would be a very valuable resource, and I completely agree with him in that I *really* don't like the sound of George Hutchinson.
*Sigh*. Spoilt for choice as far as shady characters go. |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 101
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 19, 2003 - 9:36 am: | |
Belladonna: I don't think that it's fair, or accurate to assume that a person's artwork determines whether they are a killer, or not.
My own work is darker than Sickert's by far, and reflects my fascination with serial killers, and horror movies. Yet I am certainly not a killer, nor am I a woman- hater.
I think we need to stick to facts as far as the Ripper murders are concerned, and sources point to the fact that Sickert was in France, during some of the murders.
Didn't Cornwell state that he was hopping the ferry to come and carve women up in England, and then returning to France? (I think I remember reading that....) I mean, how likely is that? |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 216
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 19, 2003 - 5:09 pm: | |
G'day Marie,
As I mentioned before about Bruce Paley's 'The Simple Truth', I have owned two paperbacks and have been flicking through them so much that both had fallen appart, pages were lost etc.
I couldn't find a new one in my bookshops, so I tried 'Amazon.com' and saw that there were no hard-covers published. I tried to order my third paperback, but none were available. So I ordered a 2nd-hand copy, through 'Amazon'.
When it arrived via a second-hand bookshop, there were no marks that showed it was 2nd-hand. It could've been brand new!
What I'm saying is that it appears to be out of print, so as soon as you get the chance, order a used copy and you wont be disappointed.
LEANNE |
JPR
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 19, 2003 - 10:06 am: | |
Belladonna wrote: "It's interesting to see people discount an author and all her work merely because they dislike the way she presents her case."
If that were the reason Cornwell's work is rejected, that would be true. Personally I was an admirer of Cornwell's fiction. When I read Case Closed I was perplexed. I had read many JtR books before. Some were good, some obviously bad. This seemed far worse than any. I can't imagine why you say Cornwell held and examined more "evidence" than anybody else. She just considered everything she happened to handle as relevant "evidence," which I guess any of us could do. Still I was kind of swayed by Cornwell's confidence. How could she do so many public appearances and claim to have spent so much money doing this what she said was the most comprehensive, most "scientific" study of the case and write something so unconvincing?
I read many reviews by JtR scholars, some of the very good ones posted here at this site. But what finally did it for me was one I read on the outside, by a historian, that completely burned this book down and also had me laughing my head off. It was very long and pointed out so many errors that shorter reviews didn't bother with. I though when I read it that the comment in it about Sickert being the leading suspect here was a joke, but I guess not! I'm sorry Bella, but the woman didn't just make a lot of mistakes. The promotion she has put into this book is just fraudulant.
I'm stil mystified about what could be motivating her. I think she must have some kind of psych problem, really. It's a shame, but it doesn't do anything but making an understanding of JtR (or modern forensic techniques) any clearer. The book is a real disservice, to Cornwell as well as the rest of us. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
