|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Rick Paulas
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 05, 2003 - 3:26 am: |       |
I could tell that right away I am going to get shredded in this thread, but I only felt it was right to have at least one positive thread for the book since the overwhelming opinions on it have been negative. Here I go . . .
First off, I would like to say that I agree much of the research was shoddy and the conclusions that were drawn were probably not too accurate because it seemed as though she had a previous stance against Sickert, but it comes with the territory of a book which has one goal: to prove that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper.
Now some of the good things to come out of the book . . .
It is the first time that I have read anywhere that the Ripper could have been using multiple types of signatures and handwriting. It would make perfect sense that he would do such a thing, since it is my opinion that he was an educated man and might be capable of doing it. Also, because of the inconsistencies in the misspelled words and the consistent language used throughout different letters, long thought to be from different writers. It is a theory that definitely has its’ drawbacks, but is one I never even thought of before, and for that, she must be commended.
Also, I enjoyed the suggestion of the Ripper using a variety of costumes and disguises to go about the killing. Another theory that I never thought of before because it was never suggested, but one that makes a lot of sense considering the discrepancies between eye witnesses for the different murders.
The commonalities between the Ripper’s profiled mind and what is known of Sickert is also amazing. Much of it is speculation and not much could be proved in a court of law, but it brings to mind a suspect that has never been thought of before. The paintings and sketches of Sickert do look an awful lot like something the Ripper would paint, if he was an artist of course.
She has provided the best case for any suspect yet in any Ripper book that I have read. Nowhere else have I seen such a case made against a single suspect. Sure, all of the authors throw in a chapter or two dealing with their suspect, but this is the fullest examination that I have seen regarding one suspect.
The book might have overstepped its boundary by claiming ‘Case Closed’. It should be called ‘The Case Against Walter Sickert’ more than anything else. It really does not solve anything about the case, but does give an excellent theory and is a thought provoking work. The book is not a fact book or one devoted to the case history like so many others that have come out. It is simply a case against a suspect, and a good one at that. If any problems have come from the book, it’s that millions of readers are devouring this one simply because of the author without comparing it with many of the facts from the others books. If she was a no name author, this book would be commended instead of symbolically burned by so many Ripperologists.
Overall, I think Ms. Cornwall should be commended for her approach at solving the case. She could possibly have toned down her need for fame (the large pic on the back and the 50 pont font of her name across the front cover scream of narcissism) but it might have been the publisher’s way of selling books. Also, the TV special was one of the most horrendously put together pieces of documentary television I have ever seen (the shot of the investigators walking down the street like ‘Armageddon’ is priceless), but that should not detract from the qualities of the book.
‘Case Closed’? Probably not. But noble effect, nonetheless.
|
Richard Lawrence
Police Constable
Username: Rl0919
Post Number: 4
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 11:50 pm: | |
Cornwell's case is mostly smoke and mirrors. She makes Sickert appear to be a plausible candidate primarily by writing presumtively as if he were. Don't underestimate the psychological effect of a narrative, especially in the hands of a skilled fictioner -- which novelist Cornwell provably is. But from the perspective of finding historical truth, this approach is not a virtue. Balanced, historically-minded authors spend only a brief amount of time on any given suspect precisely because the reality is that very little good evidence can be marshalled against any of them, even the ones that are generally more plausible than Sickert.
I freely admit that she is not the first Ripper author to take this narrative approach. And I agree that the oversold title and jacket copy should not be held against her, as these are typically the publisher's doing. Nor is her theory the worst ever presented. But her not being any more culpable than other over-enthused Ripperologists doesn't make her theories any more plausible.
Based on an objective view of the evidence, the candidacy of Sickert is a stretch. The biographical evidence suggests that he was in France on key dates. He bore little resemblance to witness descriptions of men seen with the women very close to the probable times of the murders. Her speculations as to his supposed motives are undercut by evidence of mistresses and illegitimate children (remember, she claims that he was genitally deformed and probably impotent). The art she points to is often obscure, and even when clearly macabre it shows nothing that couldn't be culled from news reports.
Cornwell either ignores these difficulties or makes up unlikely excuses for them (Sickert commuted from distant places to commit murders, Sickert wore disguses, etc.). The handwriting claims are just another of these excuses to back the idea that Sickert wrote most or all of the Ripper letters, which hasn't been suggested before because it is wildly implausible even by the admittedly low standards of popular Ripperology.
Cornwell's effort to root out "hard" forensic evidence is commendable, but by latching on to Sickert so early in the process, she wasted a large amount of money that could have been more profitably spent on any number of other investigative areas of the case.
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 226
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 4:52 pm: | |
I respect cornwalls efforts to prove Sickerts guilt.
she was not afraid to invest considerable amounts of money to try and prove his involvement.
Hi Richard.
Apart from his painting 'A passing Funeral' painted in the early twentieth century, which depicts two women apparently observing a funeral through a window[ which could reflect on two women observing a spitting on Kellys grave. I can find no evidence apart from eccentric behaviour that can make him high on the lists of suspects. |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 107
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 8:37 am: | |
I can respect Cornwall's enthustiasm in her intentions to prove Sickert's guilt.
But I don't respect her methods and unscientific approach. It's all guesswork and should be regarded as such.
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 229
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 11:01 am: | |
Glenn,
I can respect Cornwall's enthustiasm in her intentions to prove Sickert's guilt.
Are you saying that Patsy went out to prove Walters guilt instead of looking at all the evidence and drawing the strongest suspect from that?
Cos if she did the latter she wouldnt have ended up with Sickert.
Monty
|
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 109
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 11:33 am: | |
Hi Monty,
Well, I probably should have written "understand" instead of respect. I meant that I could understand her enthusiasm -- as an author -- about the project, now that she had convinced herself that she "had caught Jack the Ripper".
Naturally, I think it's evident that she first decided that Sickert was the Ripper and then tried to manipulate -- and even disregard -- facts in order to make everything suit her conclusions. That's what I meant by "method", and that is absolutely disastrous. And yes, if she'd studied facts from a more objective point of view she would had even greater problems in defending her theory.
Still, her attempts to avoid scientific methods didn't save her from falling in the same pit of shame as the late Stephen Knight.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 233
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 12:23 pm: | |
Glenn,
Quite right.
If you're going to be a Grand Prix driver then you should learn how to drive first.
Monty
|
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 126
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 12:39 pm: | |
Monty,
Exactly.
Somehow I feel her book never leaves the starting block. I actually managed to finish it (hoping she in the end would summon up and display "proof" to her allegations against Sickert), only to find it ending up in a total anti-climax. 
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Cindy Collins Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 11:38 am: | |
If anybody's interested, I've recently posted 3 parts to an analysis of Cornwell's rhetorical and argumentative strategies in the first chapter of her book. I obviously think it's interesting/enlightening (or I wouldn't have drawn your attention to it!).
It's at http://www.hollywoodripper.com/blog/ripperlady.html
Cindy Collins Smith
Owner, Hollywood Ripper
(the large JtR film site) |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 313
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 10:25 am: | |
Hi, Cindy:
Thanks for alerting us to your blog on Patricia Cornwell's Jack the Ripper: Case Closed at http://www.hollywoodripper.com/blog/ripperlady.html. It is well worth reading and I recommend it to visitors to the Casebook. I believe you make a very good argument that Ms. Cornwell's case for post-Impressionist painter Walter Sickert as the Ripper is poorly reasoned and without real evidence.
All the best
Chris |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 237
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 11:35 am: | |
Chris,
Poorly reasoned ??
Really ???
Naughty Monty
|
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 316
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 2:09 pm: | |
Yes you are, Monty. It's behind the woodshed for you tonight at 9:00 pm on the dot. 
Chris |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 132
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 8:20 am: | |
Yes, Monty,
Really!
Being in your usual cunning mood, I see...
You little rascal, you... 
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 294
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 1:52 pm: | |
All,
Now that I have some more free time, I'm going to try and post more again.
So where else should I start my comeback than in a thread about Corny?
I'll be nice. She did a great job of making money with this book.
Anyway, I'm back. New job, no girlfriend and TONS of free time. So watch out.
B |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 134
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 3:08 pm: | |
Hi Brian,
"I'll be nice. She did a great job of making money with this book."
Yes, and spending them as well (several million US dollars) ...
Well, I guess she's in the economical position to gamble.
All the best 
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 299
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 8:07 am: | |
Hi All,
Actually, I thought Cornwell did a pretty lousy job of making money with this particular book, if that was her primary purpose. Had she spent the time on another of the books that made her famous, I believe (but do say if I've got this wrong) her advance may have been far greater, and her research costs a lot less, thus making her a lot more lovely cash for less effort, and, of course, keeping her reputation intact - instead of which she recklessly rubbed herself up against a resentment of Ripperologists and has paid the price.
Not a pretty sight - any of it.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 135
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 9:40 am: | |
Hi Caz,
You are quite right, really.
"Corny" (smart one, Brian!  ) has indeed taken serious risks by involving herself in a case that's been shred to pieces by a number of authorities during the last thirty years or so already. Every author in the Ripper field who sets out to reveal a certian suspect, claiming "This is the Ripper!", is taking great risks as prestige, respect and reputation is concerned -- not to mention the good chance of being ripped (hmmm...) apart by critics and experts from the Ripper "community". And Cornwell (who already is established in the fiction field) has certainly more to loose than most in that respect. And she most certainly have.
I wonder, though, if one should call it brave or foolhardy. I think I'll be nice for once and just settle for ... bad tactics. I have no reason to doubt that her intentions were genuine, but unfortunately she seem to have got carried away and then -- with so much money already spent on the project -- there was no turning back, even if the case against her Sickert theory became weaker and weaker.
I think she's done a terrible mistake, and as a publisher myself, I am very surprised that the editors on her publishing company didn't talk her out of the project on an early stage, considering the weak evidence presented (and especially as "Corny" already is a money making machine in other litterary areas). They indeed too have done a lousy job, and I think it's a loss of prestige for them as well. At least in Sweden the book has showed poor sales figures and pretty much could be considered a flop, although the reviews has been mixed.
Not a pretty sight -- indeed!
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 128
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 10:16 am: | |
Portrait of a Killer is number 9 on Publisher Weekly's Top 15 of 2002, with 683,340 copies sold (remember the book wasn't released until November). It came in just behind Bob Woodward's book, Bush At War.
HERE, see bottom of page
Cheers,
Dave
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 300
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 10:33 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
Bad tactics indeed.
Every author in the Ripper field who sets out to reveal the 'truth' is cruising for a bruising.
The truth is the real villain of the piece. People study unsolved mysteries for years and years and naughty old truth hides from them. Then along comes some upstart who believes the truth has climbed into bed with them after five minutes, when in fact they have been seduced by a pipe-dream, and truth is still behind the curtains giggling like a schoolgirl.
Occasionally, though, authors in the field of unsolved mysteries will acknowledge that it is/was beyond their powers of research (and possibly beyond anyone's) to find where the truth lurks.
Better tactics.
But I suppose the best tactic of all might be to avoid writing ripper-related books like the plague if you are of a remotely sensitive disposition. 
Love,
Caz
|
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 299
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 1:51 pm: | |
Glenn and Caz,
Hey - she wrote a hardback that had a wider audience than her previous ... work ... and she made some good money off of it.
Plus I think she got a bit more notoriety off of this one than the others.
As for the editors not catching it, hell - Tom Clancy won't even let an editor near his stuff anymore (and the typos are there to prove it). I'm sure if Harper gave Corny any crap, she'd walk over to Penguin or any other publishing company and they'd give her whatever she wanted.
Her fan base is so enslaved to her that she could write a book of gibberish, and if her name was in large enough letters, it'd make the NY Times list. (I can't make too much fun of her about that though...I'm a Clancy slave).
B |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 136
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 4:20 pm: | |
Hey Caz,
Yes I do agree with you indeed.
Well, as I've said before, the Ripper-related books dealing with a certain suspect can be an entertaining read, to study their arguments just for the fun of it.
However, it is the Ripper books that are relatively factual and objective in their analyses that contributes most to the development of the case, I think. Like Evans & Skinners "The Ultimate Casebook/Companion" and Sugden's book. They are, unfortunately, to be considered a minority in this context. I also think the books studying an isolated detail of the Ripper murders (like the lives of the victims, special documents such as news reports, diaries, letters, police material etc.) has their own important place among the Ripper media that is justified.
The quest for a special suspect in means to identify the Ripper mostly turns out pathetic, though. I do like Fido's book, but that has mostly to do with the fact that I like his language and his way of story-telling; the part about the search for the Ripper's identity was the litterary flaw of the book, as far as I am concerned, even though I found his theory interesting and innovating. But it is the historical and factual passages that I found most rewarding.
----------------------------
David,
I'm sure Cornwell's book has sold well internationally, in spite of the fact that the critics in the US have torn the book to shreds. After all, she is a star author, and her name is a reliable sales product. I was only referring to swedish sales, though. And I would say it has become somewhat of a flop here, considering the vast marketing and the high expectations. But it's true -- she does have a big audience and a loyal following.
----------------------------------------
Brian,
You are absolutely right; Cornwell is in the position to do almost anything, but -- as I myself work with books on a daily basis -- I also want to add, that the publishing business works a bit more complicated than that. The problem for the publishing company here, is that Cornwell with this book stakes her reputation and name on that her theories are the right one. When she fails, especially as the marketing machine has worked overtime and screamed out the message that she's solved the case (which by itself is the worst possible tactical approach I can think of for an author in this special field), it is also bad publicity for the publisher in the long run.
If Cornwell looses reputation and respect for failing to prove the Sickert connection (which she claims is the ultimate truth), then that hardly is good for her name or her reputation as an author in other contexts, since he has chosen to involve herself in a case that automatically draws extreme attention. There is a saying, that all marketing is good marketing, whether it's good or bad reviews -- that is unfortunately a falacy as well a complete fairy-tale.
If she had been a true tactic, then she wouldn't stake her reputation on that she'd solved the case -- the book would have sold anyway because of the fact that she is a big name. But let this be a lesson to others planning to do the same mistake.
My belief is that the publishing company gave her free hands, because the vast amount of money she invested in the project was her own, so their economical risks were minimal. However, if her reputation is effected by this book, then I think both she and the publisher will have to pay for it in the end.
The Ripper business is dangerous lurking ground for an author of her dignity, and Cornwell should have known better.
All the best 
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 6:36 pm: | |
Dignity schmignity. If she had any to start, she wouldn't have formulated such a ridiculous plan.
Research schmesearch. If research could solve the case, then it would have done so ages ago. What we need is a new perspective.
Saddam
|
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 300
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 10:55 pm: | |
Saddam,
Can you make up some more fake words? Those were fun.
And Glenn, I agree - but honestly, when it comes to Cornwell and reputation...she really couldn't hurt much.
B |
Brad McGinnis
Sergeant
Username: Brad
Post Number: 30
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 30, 2003 - 7:33 am: | |
Gentlemen,
You miss the point. Cornball spent 6 mil of her own money on "research". This includes purchasing 27 Sickert paintings. "Research" is a deduction for her. Her advance was 8 mil. The paintings she purchased have now trebled in value as her name is important in literary circles. (fiction only). Sickert is Englands most important Post Impressionist painter and indeed one of the most important British artists in the last 100 years. Do the math...6 mil. "deduction". 8 mil advance, 27 valuable paintings. As a ripperologist she sucks, as an astute woman she IS the ripper. |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 137
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 30, 2003 - 8:23 am: | |
Brad,
You're perspective is wrong. I'm not talking about loss of money here -- but loss of reputation as a writer.
---------------------------
Brian
I'm not sure what you mean here, but if you implicate that she doesn't have that much "serious" reputation in the first place, I just want to say that I don't want to be the one passing judgements on popular writers, especially since I haven't read any of her Scarpetta books, or much fiction books for that matter.
If you mean that her reputation couldn't hurt that much from her spell in "Ripper land", I'm not so sure. As I said, Jack the Ripper is a sinister intellectual mine field to set foot on.
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.
|
|
|
|
