| Author |
Message |
    
Buck Bannister
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 4:09 am: | 
|
Let's face it... the reason Patricia Cornwell gets such a treatment on this site is that no one here wants to really know who Jack the Ripper was.
The fact that this site exists is testimony to the rather morbid romance of this, the first internationally publicized serial killer.
Cornwell's work, which is the first to ever utilize anything more scientific than a bunch of enthusiasts sitting around gossiping and postulating, scares those enamored with Jack the Ripper because the possiblity exists that she is truly onto something.
Conspiracy? Not a royal one, but a modern one of would-be Sherlock Holmes who'd rather make a few bucks off the misfortune of long dead women than truly explore possible solutions to a century old crime spree.
Of all the possibilites out there, Sickert fits the profile of a serial killer most snugly. Maybe she wouldn't get a conviction, but she would get a search warrant and the guy hauled in for questioning which is more than any other "ripperologist" would get with their "evidence."
|
Ally
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ally
Post Number: 108
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 11:04 am: |
|
No, sweetie, the reaon P.C gets such a treatment on this site is because she invented facts and attributed a false history to man, and then used these fantasies to justify accusing him of murder without ever providing one shred of evidence to support her fiction.
Out of all the possibilities out there, Sickert does not fit the profile if you use his life and the facts that are known about him. If you include the fantasies P.C claims to be facts, then maybe. But fiction isn't fact no matter how much P.C--the biggest wanna-be Sherlockian out to make a few bucks there is (who else would think their fiction writing career qualified them to be a real detective!)-- desperately wishes it was. |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 10:30 am: |
|
You must be kidding, or just trying to wind us all up for your amusement. Patricia Cornwell is an insult to anyone who has studied Jack the Ripper. She has not bothered to study JTR at all and just breifly looked at the case, looked at someone who was around at the time, who jus so happened to paint some morbid paintings at the time. Once deciding who she wanted JTR to be she then found some very flimsy and questionable evidence and put it all together. To say she solved the case is an insult to Ripperoligists!! Obviously you also have to real knowledge of the case or you would not be defending Patricia Cornwell. |
Brad McGinnis
Detective Sergeant
Username: Brad
Post Number: 51
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 12:52 pm: |
|
Ms. Cornwell picked the wrong guy and her research is woeful. Sickert happened to be argubly the most important English artist of the last 150 years. To that end he has a number of biographers. If Ms. C would have bothered to look at the record she would have found Sickert was in France at the time of the murders. |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 530
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 1:26 pm: |
|
Sorry Brad
I can't agree with your assessment of Sickert as an artist.
As I said a long time ago the only thing poor old Sickert murdered was art.
I might write a poem about that. |
Brad McGinnis
Detective Sergeant
Username: Brad
Post Number: 52
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 3:26 pm: |
|
Well AP, art is in the eye of the beholder. I myself am not a big fan of Post Impressionism but then my idea of art can be found in "PLAYBOY".
Regards, Brad.
|
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 175
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 6:48 pm: |
|
Hi Buck
Patsy Cornball:
Shortly after the commotion began, a woman living several doors down at 36 Berner Street stepped outside and noticed a young man walking quickly towards Commercial Road. He glanced up at the lighted windows of the clubhouse , and the woman testified later that he was carrying a shiny black Gladstone case
And then of course in her usual way she follows up with a story of how Sickert owned such a case. No mention of the fact that this man was Leon Goldstein and that he presented himself at Leman Street police station a few days later. Not to mention that Fanny Mortimer actually saw him around half an hour before the murder and that he was walking away from Commercial Road not towards it. Because it makes it more exciting Cornball's way doesn't it, a nice suspicious character that she can pretend was Sickert even though there is absolutely conclusive evidence that he wasn't.
More Patsy Cornball, this time on the murder of Jane Boatmoor:
No helpful evidence was found and for some reason it was decided that the killer had committed suicide. Local people made extensive searches of mine shafts but no body was recovered and the crime went unsolved
Did it? That's probably news to William Waddel who was hanged at Durham Prison on 18th December for it. Oh, but if she'd mentioned that then she wouldn't have been able to talk about how Sickert travelled a lot and could easily have gone to Durham.
And more Cornball, now on the Westminster Torso:
Adhering to the remains were bits of newspapers that were fragments from an old Daily Chronicle, and a blood saturated six inch long, four inch wide section of the August 24, 1888 edition of the Echo
And of course now we have a lovely little story about how that particular newspaper included five answers to questions all signed WS so they must have been by Sickert because nobody else could have those initials, could they? Let's look at the facts. Or rather the inquest testimony. Or rather that of George Buddon who discovered the torso and was asked at the inquest if he saw any paper wrapped around the body and replied that he did not. But then, our Patsy probably thought nobody would notice that, and she needed to get her newspaper with the WS answers in somehow.
Us budding Sherlock Holmes's may not be perfect Buck, but we do try not to actually change the evidence when it doesn't suit us, or invent any new stuff just because we can't find any that we like. Maybe something for you to ponder on?
|
Philip A.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 2:25 am: |
|
Why are we picking on Cornwell? Why haven't other authors been picked on? No disrespect to Stephen Knight, but PC's theories aren't even close to absurd as Knights.
I'm sure she didn't take notice that the man with the black bag went to the police. I really don't think she did it on purpose. Even the best authors, make mistakes.
What you didn't mention was that later in that section, she tells us how many people owned Gladstone bags during that time.
Even though the majority of things contributed by both authors were bad, there still is of course many good things. Look at all the DNA testing she has done and who knows what can happen in the future.
If PC were English, would this much criticism be going against her?
|
Steven Atkins
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 3:56 am: |
|
Hi all,
Most of us reject most JTR theories so why should this one be any different?
Choosing a suspect then bending the facts around that suspect is not the way to go about things.
So the subject of this conversation..."We don't want it solved"....Just because some of us reject Patricia Cornwell's theory.That's like saying we don't want to be cured of a nasty illness because we refused treatment from Tumblety!
Best regards,
Steven
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 147
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 10:35 am: |
|
hi,
i think you'll find no one is picking on cornwell, she set herself up for criticism by boasting about how brilliant she was and producing a theory that was simultaneously very poor in my opinion. there are better theories.
we were dissing theories here long b4 cornwell even wrote her book, stephen knight springs to mind as someone who is often critises, at least he had a bit of evidence even if it was suspect.
we do want it solved (if by ourselves a little bit) that is exactly why re reject cornwell. we have been asking questions on here far to long to believe her!
jennifer
|
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 9:27 pm: |
|
I'd honestly be happy to solve the case--for Glenlivet. Anyone who'd care to keep setting me up could hear the whole thing, stem to stern.
Saddam
|
Jason Scott Mullins
Sergeant
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 16
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 1:26 pm: |
|
The Scotch? Where abouts in the world are you?
crix0r |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 179
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 8:12 pm: |
|
Philip, it's not as simple as just saying Cornwell made a mistake about the man with the bag. The three errors I pointed out were just the most obvious examples in a whole plethora of mistakes, half truths and wholesale ignoring of evidence that did not suit her purposes.
That said, for me the bag thing sums up everything that is wrong with her book. Yes, writers make mistakes, and I could forgive any of Cornwell's readers or anyone with only a passing interest in the case not being aware of Leon Goldstein. But this is information which can be found in Chief Inspector Swanson's report, it was reported by most of the newspapers of the day and is related in countless books on the subject. So no, somebody aiming to write a major and large selling book on the subject should not make this mistake.
I am going to give Cornwell the benefit of the doubt here and say that this one item shows just how laughably, pathetically inept her research was. Because there are only two possibilities, and the other is that she was deliberately dishonest. |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 141
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 8:45 pm: |
|
I have wondered what would happen if somebody actually solved it. Would it be dismissed as just another wacko theory? |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 153
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 5:38 am: |
|
not really,
there are over 100 people who have been named JTR and they can't all be him.
if we couldn't hack a theory to shreads (as apparently is pos with cornwell) we might give it serious thought.
i would place tumblty in this category. it is a respect theory even by those who don't think he did it
(Message edited by jdpegg on November 18, 2003)
jennifer
|
Stan Russo
Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 13
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 1:13 pm: |
|
All,
I think that everyone wants the case solved but nobody will be happy with the solution.
Cornwell's major mistake is not in her numerous errors, it is in her motive for why the murders took place. Her 'JTR' committed the murders because he was a 'BAD MAN' does not hold water. It is the equivalent of stating 'Jack the Ripper' was the murderer.
Rather than focusing on the who, perhaps the future should be on the why? Then the who might fall into place.
STAN RUSSO |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 905
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 3:29 pm: |
|
G'day,
Richard Nunweek and I have been closely researching this case for years, (Richard since the 1970s), and think we've come up with who should be the number one suspect. Joseph Barnett.
We don't hope to end the debate with this, but just to give our strong opinion. We can still debate about many things!
LEANNE |
Eduardo Zinna
Sergeant
Username: Eduardo
Post Number: 26
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 5:35 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne,
Long time no talk.
Joseph Barnett might be a strong suspect indeed. But there's a long way from strong suspect to established perpetrator (for want of a better word at this time in the early morn.) We might close the case down one day, and I, for one, hope we do. But unless evidence emerges showing that Joseph Barnett did in not only Mary Kelly but the other four women as well, he must remain a suspect; a strong suspect, maybe, but just a suspect among many.
Cheers,
Eduardo |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 376
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 9:02 am: |
|
LEANNE, Eduardo,
Sorry to disagree but I do not think Barnett can be considered as a strong suspect for being Jack the Ripper. Kellys murderer yes, but not Jack.....but this isnt the thread.
Of course a closure would be nice....but it aint going to happen on this evidence.
Monty
 |
Eduardo Zinna
Sergeant
Username: Eduardo
Post Number: 27
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 9:35 am: |
|
Monty, Leanne,
I'm afraid that I have not expressed myself clearly. Frankly, I don't even think Joseph Barnett is the number one suspect in Mary Kelly's murder.
We'd better keep looking.
Cheers,
Eduardo |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 699
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 11:53 am: |
|
Hi all,
I don't believe for a minute that that many of us here really want a closure or the case to be solved. Jack the Ripper is a mystery, or else we wouldn't be here or the subject gain so much interest. And a mystery I believe it will remain.
We will most probably never end up with more than more or less plausible theories, and that's fine with me, at least.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 911
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 5:19 pm: |
|
G'day,
There will never be a 'closure' to this case, because none of us were there and the Ripper wasn't caught in the act! There will always be things to debate!
LEANNE |
Brad McGinnis
Detective Sergeant
Username: Brad
Post Number: 55
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 7:04 am: |
|
Hi All,
I want it solved. I HATE loose ends and this case has been bugging me for more years than I like to admit.
We have some 90% suspects for both Black Dahlia and the Kingsbury murders. But when it comes to the Ripper, we aint got Jack.
Brad |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 432
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 11:58 am: |
|
Buck Bannister wrote in part:
"Let's face it... the reason Patricia Cornwell gets such a treatment on this site is that no one here wants to really know who Jack the Ripper was.
The fact that this site exists is testimony to the rather morbid romance of this, the first internationally publicized serial killer. . .
Conspiracy? Not a royal one, but a modern one of would-be Sherlock Holmes who'd rather make a few bucks off the misfortune of long dead women than truly explore possible solutions to a century old crime spree."
It is surprising how often this charge is made, usually by people who don't know much about Ripperology or who are new to this site. A lot of people seem to think we all have a vested interest in keeping the mystery going.
I would say in answer, Mr. Bannister, that instead of what you believe, we all have an overbearing and unflagging curiosity about the case, not for financial reasons as you seem to think but because we are genuinely interested in this 115-year-old mystery and its different aspects. And if you stick around here long enough you will see that the victims are honored by the people who post here, and that we value the work of Neal Shelden and Birgitte Leufstadius and others who illuminate the lives of the poor women who fell victim to the vicious killer of 1888.
Best regards
Chris George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 2:49 am: |
|
For Cornwell (and anyone silly enough to buy her argument) to claim that people don't want it solved for financial reasons assumes that there's good money to be made. Just because someone is selling a book or a magazine doesn't mean that they are making money hand over fist. The only people who seem to make any significant amount of money from the case are those people who make fictional works about it, like the producers and stars of From Hell and Cornwell herself.
You've got to be seriously clueless to think that the real researchers do this for the money, especially when it's been pretty well proven that it's far more easy to publish nonsense and sell it to the masses than it is to create solid reference works.
I want the case solved. I think I can see the same motivation in most everyone else who posts here. It's like reading a whodunnit and then finding the last chapters missing. It needs closure.
Of course I think that most people trying to do it are using bad logic, and doubt that there's enough evidence left to actually succeed, but that doesn't make me want the solution any less.
(Oh, and Brad, can you pop over into the Black Dahlia thread and say who you think the 90% suspect is? There seem to be three major current theories, discounting Orson Wells and the "recovered memory" woman's father, and I'd be interested in seeing who you think rates that highly.) |
Brad McGinnis
Detective Sergeant
Username: Brad
Post Number: 63
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 12:12 am: |
|
Dan, ok. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 944
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 1:59 am: |
|
G'day,
There will never be a closure with this case, because, (as I've said here before), the Ripper wasn't caught red-handed, and other than that you need a confession by the man himself. There will always be room for someone to say "YES, BUT...." All we can hope for is someone to come up with a number one suspect.
LEANNE |
Jim Page
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 11:51 pm: |
|
Does anyone have any theories about the WS initials from the newspaper mentioned above in the posts and from Cromwell's book? That is, what are your theories, other than Cromwell's? It would be interesting to hear from knowledgeable people on this site.  |
Jeff Flower
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 9:56 pm: |
|
Good point, Buck. I've said it all along. If Sickert is a "terrible" suspect, who exactly is a good one? Personally, I think the British were a little sensitive about the whole thing |
