|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John Yule
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 4:20 pm: |       |
To chime in once again. My background is 30 years in Military Intelligence. As in police work, I was taught to deal in demostratable facts and build my case logically. Cornwell was easily demostrated to have either been unaware of available evidence, or to have suppressed facts that weakened her case; fatal flaws either way. She repeatedly asserts things she cannot prove; that Sickert had multiple studios in the East End, that there is no evidence for his being out of the country at the time of the murder, that he was sexually disfigured, that he wrote some or many of the JtR letters, etc.
Having caught her out on basics; for example, that few of his father's writings had been translated because of the difficulty of translating from High German to Low German and then into English. High German is proper German. Low German is regional dialect. To have translated from High German to Low German as an intermidiate step to translating into English is to say a translator had to go from BBC English to broad Yorkshire in order to translate into French. Complete nonsense!
Once an author is caught in that sort of error, it is perfectly reasonable to demand that ALL assertions be proved by original sources. This she fails to do. |
Julie Lambert
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 12:13 pm: | |
John,
I am not in the least offended. I enjoy the banter in an open forum very much. Cornwell annoys me more than anything because, as people have pointed out, she spoils her case against Sickert by presenting her 'evidence' as fact.
You make some very good points about the way heros can turn out to be less than satisfying when their motives and actions are more closely explored.
I also agree with your point about the Ripper perhaps not being any of those men/women proposed on the website. I am almost sure the Ripper was a 'nobody', a Peter Sutcliffe type who was cunning and intelligent but had low self-esteem.
Like you, I favour Tumblety somewhat and think that Druitt is rather unlikely as a suspect on the evidence we currently have.
I stick to my assertion that, just because a person's art or literature is sinister, it does not follow that they are disturbed in any way. I feel strongly that art is a forum for the expression of the obsured and the dark and that this is actually quite healthy. |
John Feaster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2003 - 5:12 am: | |
Sorry for not responding sooner.
>>>The difference is that most on this board and in their various books will tell you "I think Druitt/Chapman/Cohen/Tumblety etc was the Ripper". Patricia Cornwell did not do this, she said "Walter Sickert WAS the Ripper<<<
Alan Sharp...that's a very good point. I thought of it myself while listening to the book, then forgot it untill you pointed it out.
Actualy, while I favor Tumblety, I also understand that it might not be him. I suppose he could have been the "Batty Lodger", but still not have had much to do with the killings. Still...he just FEELS right.
I personaly believe that the Rippers identity will never be found. I think Miss Cornwall (is she married?) is a good person who truly believes that Sickert's the Ripper and honestly want's to put the ghosts of his (her?) victems to rest, but I think she got so emotionaly involved with the case that she started to see connections where none were. Like the guy who swore he saw canals on Mars. The mind plays tricks on us when we're at our weakest.
But there's a difference between being wrong (which I think she is) and being a liar.
I think she's correct about the nature of the murders themselves (she was a medical examiner), but I'm almost certain that being a writer of detective fiction and knowing many detectives will not actualy MAKE YOU A DETECTIVE!!!
The best example I can give is that I own many books about art, know several artists, but can't paint or sketch to save my life.
Heck, after looking this over...I've decided I also can't write ;>)
Thanks.
|
Opal Elaine Small (Moyer)
Police Constable
Username: Bonedigger
Post Number: 1
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2003 - 10:48 pm: | |
I agree that Cornwell had truly good intentions and was clouded by this in her judgement. I do notice that there are points that I have read in the past, which she fails to mention. She makes no mention of Joseph Sickert (the alleged son of Walter Sickert and Alice Crook). There are points that she does bring up that I feel support my belief that there may have been a Royal consiracy. She concedes that Prince Albert Victor was being black mailed. She makes mention that when Catherine Eddows left the jail, she used the name Mary Kelly, which would support Joseph Sickert's story of Eddows being a mistake. It seems ironic that she used this name on the very night of her murder.
I think that the whole watermark thing is shaky, though the finding of etching ground is interesting. My thought on this is that if Sickert did write any of these letters, it may perhaps have been his contribution to a conspiracy.
One other thing, that Cornwell seems to skip over. Sickert's third wife, Therese Lessore. She included information about the first two wives, with regards to their families and childhoods. This was not done with Lessore. In fact, I have been finding it difficult to find any biographical information about her; I've tried searching everything that I can think of on the computer and have come up with nothing. I am beginning to wonder if this could be Alice Crook under another name? Does anyone know anything about Lessore? That's something that's piqued my curiousity, but I don't know where else to look.
I just finished reading Cornwell's book, last week. She does seem to have had preconceptions of Sickert, from the very beginning. I agree that as he lived during all of this, naturally, his art might reflect these crimes in some way.
Her evidence is all circumstancial and would not hold up in court, I'm sure.
Bonedigger
|
Julie Lambert
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 28, 2003 - 7:18 am: | |
Hmm, well the conspiricy theory is certainly interesting but has several flaws. Are you saying that there was a sex killer who disposed of a few women, but several of the victims were made to look like Ripper victims because they knew too much about a wedding between Eddie and Miss Crook?
Or are you suggesting all of the women were disposed of because of their knowledge of the wedding? If so, wasn't this a rather dramatic and risky way of getting rid of them?
Surely all the features of the murders point to a random sex killer who used slashing partly as a metaphor for intercourse but also as an expression of anger and fear directed towards women? Given the scant knowledge that would have been available about this type of murderer at the time it seems highly unlikely that the Government and its servants would have chosen such a method to keep a few poor, shabby prostitutes quiet?
No, I still feel we are looking at a lone killer. There was no cover-up, no famous person lurking in the shadows and no connection to the Royal family. The killer was not caught because the detective force at the time was in its infancy, had little experience of such crimes, no understanding of the mind of such a murderer, little or no forensic examination of the scene or the bodies and very distorted notions of the type of person that could commit such crimes, so that every type of poor, deluded individual was arrested on the basis of his odd behaviour or even his ethnicity.
What happened after the death of Kelly? Well, surely Druitt could not have been the only known suicide during that winter? |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 301
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 28, 2003 - 11:04 am: | |
Hi Bonedigger,
I agree with Julie; of course we are looking at a lone killer.
I'm sorry, Bonedigger, but the Royal Conspiracy theory is complete bogus and is not taken seriously by that many in the Ripper field today. Even if we disregard the fact that the man who delivered the story to Stephen Knight -- Joseph Sickert -- later confessed that it was a hoax, it is still a very far-fetched invention and an incredible fairy-tale, like most conspiracy themes are. The reality is less glamourus and intriguing. It has also, like Julie points out, several factual flaws that doesen't add up.
Regarding Cornwell's book (which I hate) I think you're right, though, that it is possible that Sickert could have written some of the letters and I also think the etching ground is more interesting than the watermark arguments, which I find particulary thin.
The using of the name Mary Kelly shouldn't be that much of a mystery, I think. It was common among low-class prostitutes to borrow names from other people or use false aliases. One woman I investigated used 15 different names (all very common name forms), to confuse the police (which she succeeded in doing so during several years)!
Yes, Cornwall seen to have a preconception about Sickert in this context and the evidence is indeed circumstancial (if there are any at all...).
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Colin G Davis
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 5:00 pm: | |
A minor piece of hilarity nobody seems to have mentioned. Cornwell, speaking of the postmortem photograph of Liz Stride, says "Her photograph after death may have been the only one taken in her life." What was that again?
Another minor point, but one which highlights the superficial nature of Cornwell's research. When she brought in the Elephant Man, I thought oh, no, he's become obligatory Victorian local colour. Anyway, she says he suffered from von Recklinghausen's disease. This is now more usually known as multiple neurofibromatosis. Furthermore, recent research has suggested quite strongly that he in fact suffered from something else: Proteus syndrome. What these two small points suggest to me is, that she bothered to read only one or two of the earlier sources concerning Joseph Merrick. As for her statement that it was rumoured at the time of the Ripper murders that Merrick was the killer, well... Apart from the daftness of the idea, where did she get this "fact" from? I've read a lot about Merrick, but I never saw him referred to as a Ripper suspect.
Finally, concerning artists fascinated by violence, how about the grisly murder pictures painted by the superb Otto Dix, who, surprise surprise, doesn't seem to have been a sadistic killer! |
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 96
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 7:26 pm: | |
Colin, the only problem with your hypothesis of her only bothering to read one of two sources concerning Merrick is the idea that in this case she bothered to even read one, seeing as she apparently failed to anywhere else. The sheer staggering weight of the things she reports wrongly in the book, if placed on your roof, would cause your house to collapse!  |
Phil A.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 11:04 pm: | |
Colin
I think you and many others are reading "in between the lines" too much. These are mistakes made by Cornwell.
Every Ripper author makes mistakes in their books. Why are we exclusively laughing and criticizing Cornwell?
I'm sure even the top experts like Sudgen and Skinner will admit they have made mistakes.
Besides her odd theory, she did a lot of positive things in her research.
|
Opal Elaine Small (Moyer)
Police Constable
Username: Bonedigger
Post Number: 4
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 11:56 pm: | |
Hi!
I think we are all guilty of doing too much reading "between the lines"; I'll admit that I do it myself. I think that we all feel that in order to prove our own points, we need to be meticulous in our research to not miss anything. I think it all comes from that meticulousness, that we sometimes stretch what we find in our readings and research; Cornwell is no different. I think she's being criticized at the moment, because she's merely the most recent Ripper author and generated so much publicity. When the next one comes along, we'll move on to him (or her), I'm sure.
I agree that her research did bring out some positive things. I disagree with her outcome, but that doesn't diminish her talent as a writer. Maybe our criticism is proof of her talent. Her book's gotten people talking and that's every writer's dream.
}}}
PS: I had read on a John Merrick website, that there had been some who rumors that he was the Ripper; it was just an allegation that was never taken seriously. Merrick would never have been able to overtake a prostitute, much less a drunken one, in his condition. I doubt that this had ever been publicized too much; no one, who had contact with Merrick, would have subscribed to such a notion.
Bonedigger
|
louise ceridwen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2003 - 5:40 pm: | |
ahoy,yes i am also particularly amused at patrica cornwell's book,the fact thats its been best seller in the times review for several weeks has taken the biscuit,the really good biscuit not just the rich tea ones,i saw the programme where she made this accusation and i thought i was rather humourous, yeah but if ppl are buying the book,what for? i'm hoping for kindle. |
sally philp
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 12:41 pm: | |
I am reading Patricia Cornwall's book at the moment and am disappointed to say that for all she makes of the similarity of "JtR's" DNA and Sickert's DNA she does not approach the idea that Sickert may well have written some of the letters but not committed the murders. As a man of reported intelligence and prone, from what we can tell from reports, to somewhat eccentric behaviour and speech is it not a likelihood that Sickert would have gained considerable pleasure from confusing the Met with his self believed wit and intelligence?} |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 689
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 12:15 pm: | |
Phil, you can't be serious,
Of course there are a lot of flaws and errors (and indeed assumptions) in other authors' books, but you can't compare Sugden to Corwell! Cornwell hasn't done a research worth mentioning on the case (compared to Sugden, Rumbelow, Fido, Evans et.al.) -- she is not even in the same league -- and with the exception of Stephen Knight, I think it is harder to find an author who to that extent have tried to fit "facts" into theory. I believe the book speaks for itself, without any "words between the lines" necessary ...
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dustin Gould
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 12:44 am: | |
Based on what I've read, and observed in interviews, Cornwell seems to flip-flop on what is the crux of her proof that Sickert was the Ripper. When it suits her fancy, it's the DNA "evidence". Other times, it's the disturbing nature of Sickert's work, from which she draws her definitive conclusions regarding his guilt. The fact that the majority of the evidence points to others as the Ripper (specifically Tumblety) seems to mean nothing to her. The fact that she is slandering a man's reputation on circumstantial evidence, at best, doesn't seem to agitate her in the slightest. I don't know how she sleeps at night. I could never do what she has done, and sleep with a clear concious. Granted, we all have our own opinions on the most probable suspect, but have any of us declared with blind ignorance, that definitively , "so-and-so" is indeed the "Ripper"? Of course not. That's just bad practice. Of which she is guilty of. And I might add, being paid handsomely for at that. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 704
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 6:17 pm: | |
In a nut shell, Dustin. 
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dustin Gould
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 11:17 pm: | |
Thank you, Mr. Andersson!
All the best to you as well! |
Neil K. MacMillan
Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 36
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 5:06 pm: | |
Well said Dustin!  I just finished the book having borrowed it from the local library.
While she amassed evidence she totally disregards any that doesn't fit her theory. I was appalled that her major evidentiary theories: (Don't have the book in front of me) "I found no evidence that Sickert wasn't in London when the murders took place. Therefore he must have been." The woman worked in a medical examiner's office and should know better!
She also attaches several murders to JtR that are demonstrabley not his. Starting with Emma Smith. Smith was assaulted and robbed by three men possibly four. One of the reasons Jack wasn't caught in my opinion is because he was not tied to an accomplice. She also has him killing children of both sexes. Usually (Or at least my understanding is)serial killers may change their m.o. but they stick to the same type of victim.
In short her research is faulty at best.
By the way, Glenn and all I enjoy reading all of your posts. Have a good weekend. Neil
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 724
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 8:21 pm: | |
And a good weekend to you as well, Neil. And Dustin et al, of course.
Go easy on the pints, now...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
jeff leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 8:02 pm: | |
Hi Guy's
While I'm in total agreement with you about Patricia Cronwells book. Like many things in the Ripper case there are some strange coincendents. I cault the end of the lecture on Walter Sickert at the Tate yesterday. Despite the holes in her case, Bower, the paper man, still maintains that many of the letters, dispite being in apparently differant hand writing were writen by the same person. An expert on Sickert claimed she beleived that some of the letters were writen by him. If Sickert is not the Ripper (which seems likely) it still leaves some strange questions about the letters. Who wrote them, how many hoaxers where there? Bower staights there is still much testing to be done and much to discover, who will pay for this? Perhaps the case that perhaps all the Ripper artifacts should be under one roof and the sought of tests Patricia Cornwell tried, be done under more imparcial circumstance. Perhaps her methods weren't totally wrong. Paul Begg beleives there is still much out there to discover and many clues to be found and this is only the beginning of the search. I'm not an expert but I beleive that we should all keep an open mind.
Yours Jeff |
samantha stringer
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 6:16 am: | |
Just finished reading the Cornwell book today. Found it very interesting but unbelievably "American" in the way she insists that because SHE thinks he did it, it must mean that its true. Some of her findings are very interesting like the Lizard Hotel Guest Book and the watermarks but I think that Walter Sickert was just a bored and eccentric artist who got thrills from writing hoax Ripper letters to the Poilce - he boasted of his many disguises and different styles of handwriting. I admit I do not know much about Walter Sickert (I have always been a Tumbelty supporter) but if I was a relation of his I would probably sue Patricia Cornwell for libel!! |
Ally
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ally
Post Number: 118
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 12:14 pm: | |
How absolutely "English" to claim that arrogance is an American trait, while one is in the process of exhibiting it. |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 9:51 pm: | |
Per usual, what Ally says is correct.
Saddam |
sam stringer
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 12:51 pm: | |
I didnt mean to exhibit arrogance at all - I am quite new to all of this and just reading as many books as I can get my hands on to make a good start to a subject I am extremely interestd in. I would never mean to sound arrogant about something I dont know that much about. I just meant that her theories all sound very "Murder she Wrote" to me and that (in my opinion as I am allowed to have one) she should stick to fiction in the future. Thats all I meant and nothing else - no offense intended. |
Opal Elaine Small (Moyer)
Police Constable
Username: Bonedigger
Post Number: 5
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 8:30 pm: | |
Samantha,
I am at the same place that you are at with all of this. I am just reading and taking everything in that I can find about JtR, because I am very interested in the subject, too. I have my own theories, which alter and change, with each new thing that I read. I think the message boards are for the purpose of all of us sharing our ideas and thoughts, testing them for validity. I am American, myself, and I was not offended by the comment. Her backround aside, I feel that Cornwell was being arrogant in publishing her theories as fact, with such vague evidence to back her theories up.
The evidence of the etching ground on some of the Ripper letter is interesting, but how many artists or aspiring artists lived in the area during this time? She seems to have been attempting to pound a large peg into a small hole; she wanted so badly to prove her theories, that she made them fit. Unfortunately, no matter how hard she pushed and pounded, they still do not quite fit. Even as a beginner, I can see that. I am just surprised that a well-known author and forensic detective would have not seen this, herself.
Bonedigger
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 795
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 9:34 pm: | |
Couldn't agree more, "Bonedigger". Indeed.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
