|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 242
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 12:29 pm: |       |
Jerry,
So you have respect for a person who gets off their arse, picks a suspect and sets up a case around them (though I'd argue against that), brands them as 'a sadistic, cruel man' without any creditable evidence. Accuses them of being a murderer on the basis that he may have wrote a few crank letters and then claims that the 'mystery is now solved' ? Sits back and rakes in the cash from a book that, if their suspect was still around, would be classed as libleous.
That kind of person gets your respect ???
I dont want your respect.
Monty
 |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 166
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 12:49 pm: | |
Hi Jerry,
"I have some measure of respect for anyone who clearly identifies their suspect and then goes about setting up the case against them."
Absolutely not! That is definitely the worst way to attack the subject when you're writing a book! That being said, we must remember that Cornwell isn't the first one who've done this mistake, and will certainly not be the last...
"I have less respect for people who exist merely to dismiss the work of others."
Welcome to the real world...
Don't you think an author who claims with big letters on the book's cover, that the "case is closed" should be critizised when she fails to prove such a bold statement and also manipulates facts in order to get the aquired result?
Just a question...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jerry Only
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 3:06 pm: | |
Thanks to you both for taking the bait. I hope you don't take any of my words too personally, at least not so much that you feel insulted.
Glenn, I concede that the "case closed" blurb on the cover was misleading and even deceptive. But to say that identifying a subject and then building up the case against them is a bad idea is foolish. That's generally how police work is done. You identify a suspect and then see if there is evidence to convict them. That's just how it works. In science, you would start with a theory and set about proving it. Same thing.
And that brings up the objection some people had that Cornwell STARTED OUT absolutely sure that Sickert was the killer and then set about proving that he was. Folks, you got it backwards because you don't know how to read; the stuff at the beginning that she wrote about being certain that it was Sickert was written after the research was done. Just because she put it in the beginning of the book doesn't mean she wrote it FIRST.
Monty, you do a disservice to the practice of ratiocination by tossing aside "a few letters" as if they meant nothing. Guilty parties have been convicted on less. And not to burst your bubble, but simply claiming that there isn't ANY creditable evidence (in bold letters, no less!) doesn't mean a thing. In fact, it means a lot less than Cornwell's conclusions.
I agree with many of the people who read this book and came to the conclusion that the case had NOT been closed. As I was reading it, I found myself always expecting that "the good stuff" was right around the corner, in the next chapter. As most of you know, that chapter never comes. I finished the book with the conclusion that, for me, the case had not been closed and was still very much open, but I could see how Ms. Cornwell might have become wrapped up in her research and made an error in judgment. So what then? So I move on to the next book, taking the possible guilt of Sickert with me.
Then I come to an online community that I hope will teach me more about the Ripper case. I hope to find knowledgable people who have objective views on the identity of JtR (not really knowing until I came here that his identity would, in all likelihood, never be known). Instead, I find a catty group of trash-talkers who can't add anything to the debate.
(Remember, I'm not defending Ms. Cornwell's book; I take issue with its treatment HERE)
I browsed through a couple dozen of the profiles here, and I found that the vast majority of them do not list a "Favorite Ripper Suspect," something I was hoping would point me in a more fruitful direction. Since I've not read and memorized every single profile here, take my experience with a grain of salt. But isn't it curious that so many people who are so eager to dismiss someone else's research haven't even got the cojones to posit their OWN theory? It's actually laughable. Most of the profiles choose not to post a favorite suspect, and those who do either post "None" or more than one. There are exceptions, but that's the rule.
More importantly, I couldn't find much in the way of scholarly criticism of Ms. Cornwell's book, save for the objections that I already had. As I said, my response to these objections was to pretty much forget the book and move on. My problems with Portrait did not lead me to spew out the kind of bitchy venom that I have been surprised to find here.
For instance, a problem someone had with the book was Cornwell's name in big letters and her photo on the back. Kids, I hate to break it to you, but if you were to read more books by bestselling authors, you'd find that their photos are almost always on the back, and a name in big letters means name recognition. As someone else has already pointed out, this was most likely a publisher's decision. Cornwell probably couldn't have had the size of her name reduced if she tried.
Someone else called her research "sloppy." Oh really? If YOU had access to the original police records and the original letters and modern investigative methods, would YOU concede that your research was "sloppy" simply because you didn't reference other books on the topic? Of course you wouldn't. In fact, you would point out that YOUR research may even have been better than if you HAD read other works because your bias would have been untainted by the theories of others.
Ms. Cornwell also does not answer many questions posted by members of this online community. Questions are fine, but to imply that because she didn't address them when she wrote the book is proof of her faulty conclusion is stupid; she wasn't trying to compile an encyclopedic volume, after all. Again, some questions deserve to be answered, and she missed the boat on a few. But I see a mentality here that suggests that, because you are able to raise an objection, that means that the book is worthless.
Another objection (seriously) was Cornwell's claim that she can "run fast." Do I even need to mention this? The quote is taken out of context, and when it's in the proper context, it doesn't sound egotistical at all. It sounds like a fiction writer's mind at work.
And that is probably at the root of the problem. Again, I must point out that I don't believe with all my heart and soul that Sickert was JtR. But Ms. Cornwell did a fair job of researching her topic, and for that she should be given credit, even if her conclusion doesn't ring true with every single Ripperologist.
What I suspect is that the majority of the objectors are wanna-bes. You don't have books out, do ya? But someone comes along and publishes a volume about a possible suspect (one that you may have already discarded in your own research), and all you can do is throw stones.
Objective students DO NOT THROW STONES. We look at evidence and make judgments based on what we KNOW to be true. The "objections" (if you can call them that) that I listed above were more like the kind of thing you'd hear in a cheerleaders' locker room, not the scholarly halls of academia.
If I've stepped on your toes, I apologize, but then maybe you needed to have your toes stepped on, if only to encourage you to back up your trash-talking if you intend to put someone else down. In other words, tell everyone why the research was sloppy. In other words, tell everyone why a big ego (as yet unproven) makes a conclusion incomplete.
In other words, put up or shut up. |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 181
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 05, 2003 - 5:35 pm: | |
Hi Jerry,
Don't worry, no offense taken -- at least not by me. Actually I like your style, although some remarks maybe were a bit over the top ("put up or shut up" -- a bit juvenile, I think). But it's always great with new fresh people to debate with, who are not afraid to speak from the heart. My toes has been chrushed so many times during my academic years, that I just don't care, but I love a good fight.
Firstly,
"Glenn, I concede that the "case closed" blurb on the cover was misleading and even deceptive. But to say that identifying a subject and then building up the case against them is a bad idea is foolish. That's generally how police work is done. You identify a suspect and then see if there is evidence to convict them. That's just how it works."
Nonono, Jerry. That is totally wrong!!! A police investigator who wants to keep his job starts by looking objective at all the facts and circumstances around the case, and even if he finds a likely candidate he have to keep the door open to other alternatives. All persons involved -- victims, suspected perpetrators, witnesses and relatives to them all -- has to be studied and valued in a completely unprejudiced manner, and "evidence" against someone particular is done in a relatively late stage of the investigation. No way a serious criminal investigation starts with the police picking up a suspect and then without clear indications of guilt builds up a case around him or her. That is NOT how it works, instead -- that is how injustice is done.
Yes, it is true that academic dissertations or experiments can be based upon a certain theory one tries to prove, but that is not a general approach in all cases. And it's not an approach I've used during my years in university, not ever. And there is a slight difference between these conditions and those you run into during a criminal police investigation -- in the latter you take the risk of collecting "evidence" to nail a person you think is guilty of a crime; the approach you refer to is quite dangerous and immoral, since it can lead to harassment and conviction of innocent individuals.
So, NO! A police investigation doesen't start with finding a suspect, it starts with looking at facts, conditions and at persons involved in an objective manner. That is certainly not what Patricia Cornwell has done!
"I browsed through a couple dozen of the profiles here, and I found that the vast majority of them do not list a "Favorite Ripper Suspect."
Exactly. And why do you think that is, Jerry? It's because the conditions of the case are such, that pointing out a certain suspect would be unscholarly. We have here a serial murder case (remember that these are hard to solve even with today's methods) with crimes committed over a hundred years ago, with no existing knowledge of crime scene investigation or how to keep or interpret physical artefacts or clues from the murder sites. The only way to catch the killer was by taking him by surprise as he's committing a crime or leaving a crime scene. Or to get a full confession from a suspect, revealing details only the police and the murderer could know about. Then we have the "Blitz" during the second world war, which destroyed most of the important documents and files, leaving us with fragments of informations to piece together.
What do you think, Jerry? Who has the most intellectual and serious academic approach: those who claim to believe strongly in a suspect or those who looks at the material objective and keeping doors open to different alternatives? I think most of us here have some suspects we prefer before others, but hardly anyone we can establish for sure being Jack or to claim that the case is closed.
Regarding her name and the title in big letters: as a publisher and author myself I'm very well aware of the commercial conditions, so I never had any views on that, besides that I think the subtitle "Case Closed" was a mistake.
"Someone else called her research 'sloppy.' Oh really? If YOU had access to the original police records and the original letters and modern investigative methods, would YOU concede that your research was "sloppy" simply because you didn't reference other books on the topic? Of course you wouldn't."
Uuups! That would be me -- I declare myself guilty!
Yes, actually I would concede it sloppy (I'll get back to this below). Leaving out the discussions about other theories and views on the subject is highly unscientific and I would never have done that -- and I never have! I think it's a highly essential part of an investigation in litterary form to take other people's finds and theories in consideration and discuss these in relation to your own -- this is an academic corner stone that was hammered into me during university, and quite something that should be expected in a litterary work of this kind. I really don't understand your reasoning; haven't you heard about source critizism and source handling?. That is just as important as studying the original material! Other authors may have fallen into the same subjective trap as Cornwell, but at least they try to set up their arguments against other theories than their own and have the courage to challenge them, whatever the result.
I actually didn't know that Cornwell answered any questions at all. I have never expected her to do so and I don't care.
"In other words, tell everyone why the research was sloppy."
OK, I've already done this several times but I'll list my objections regarding Cornwell's investigation as follows:
1) The things I mentioned earlier - the disregarding of other theories and second-hand sources and the unwillingness to discuss these in connection with her own findings (I think she only does this on one or two pages).
2) The way she manipulates facts to suit her own theories. Such examples are the argumets based on the studying of Sickert's art. As originally an art historian, I had a big problem with her reading things into the paitnings that she really couldn't prove was there. This was all a result of subjective interpretation, as all studying of art is. To build a case on this is totally disastrous and unacceptable.
3) I have no problem with speculations and assumptions in connection with the Ripper case, but I have a problem with that she treats these speculations as "facts" or truths, when they're not. There are numerous passages where she takes circumstances for granted and some are very far fetched. How about the passage where she's referring to a telegram, signed Jack the Ripper, and automatically draws the conclusion that Sickert has sent it, because he "loved sendig telegrams"!?? Like sending telegrams was an unusual habit in the 19th century...
That is NOT serious work!
She also assumes that just because Sickert may have sent a vast amount of the Ripper letters, he had to BE Jack the Ripper. This is a very strange conclusion to make and not valid at all.
4) The way she "convicts" a man -- with the relatives still alive -- without evidence to support the allegations. Quite serious.
That is all I can think of at the moment, but I can return later with more if you'd like.
"What I suspect is that the majority of the objectors are wanna-bes. You don't have books out, do ya?"
I actually have, Jerry (altough not concerning the Ripper but about other similar cases), and so does others on the board, among them Caroline Anne Morris. So I think we're entitled to our views, even though we don't sell a million copies.
"Objective students DO NOT THROW STONES."
That is just an incredibly silly statement. In a moral sense, this message board is a clerical convent compared to the personal attacks and back-stabbing in the academic world. We may take our liberties occasionally (although mostly along the rules of the web-site), but we also have serious discussions -- if you don't agree with that, you haven't read the board as thoroughly as you say you have.
There are actually things in Cornwell's book that are quite good and some passages that are well written, and I'd love to come to those in a later message, but as an investigation it is rubbish.
I'm not saying that Sickert isn't the Ripper (even though I find him a less likely suspect), I'm just troubled by the way she has performed her investigation. We are not doing this to heave ourselves in any way or crush her as a person, we are simply discussing a book and its methods -- and I do think the criticism is in true proportion to the wild statements that Cornwall's making and the expectations they bring. If you've actually tried to read most of the message threads on the subject (and there you can read more specific and detailed arguments concerning her methods -- no need to repeat them here), you would find that neither of us has said anything that most American critics already hasn't.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 308
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 06, 2003 - 1:13 pm: | |
Jerry,
You have an interesting style - "don't take my words personally, but you are all idiots."
Perhaps it would be a good start if you were to officially join the Casebook and put up your own profile - at least that way you could put up your own theory in your profile. What is your theory, by the way? Or are you one of the unwashed masses like the rest of us?
"Glenn, I concede that the "case closed" blurb on the cover was misleading and even deceptive. But to say that identifying a subject and then building up the case against them is a bad idea is foolish. That's generally how police work is done. You identify a suspect and then see if there is evidence to convict them. That's just how it works. In science, you would start with a theory and set about proving it. Same thing."
Death investigation isn't a science - it's an art. And you NEVER start out a criminal investigation by identifying a suspect and then building your case around them. You start by examining the evidence and the information at the scene, and then identifying suspects. You work both lists over until you've eliminated all but the actual perpetrator (if possible). Remember the Holmesian adage: Once you've eliminated the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, is the truth. When you start out with a suspect in mind, you will invariable bend the facts to fit your suspect, or ignore inconvenient facts all together. This is what Cornwell did. It's shoddy investigating
"And that brings up the objection some people had that Cornwell STARTED OUT absolutely sure that Sickert was the killer and then set about proving that he was. Folks, you got it backwards because you don't know how to read;"
This is presumptious, and a bit arrogant. We all know how to read, or else we couldn't use a computer.
"the stuff at the beginning that she wrote about being certain that it was Sickert was written after the research was done. Just because she put it in the beginning of the book doesn't mean she wrote it FIRST."
No, it doesn't, but its a poor way to lay out a book like this. Look at Phil Sugden's book. He starts out by giving a brief overview of the case, and then gives you all of the evidence that's out there, as well as commentary on its veracity. ONLY after he does that does he start talking about suspects. Cornwell laid her book out like a crime novel, and it just doesn't work like that when you're writing non-fiction, especially with a fact intensive subject like this one. If she had waited to throw out the Sickert theory after she'd laid down her facts, she would have had us all nodding along, and at least understanding how she came to her conclusions.
"Monty, you do a disservice to the practice of ratiocination by tossing aside "a few letters" as if they meant nothing. Guilty parties have been convicted on less. And not to burst your bubble, but simply claiming that there isn't ANY creditable evidence (in bold letters, no less!) doesn't mean a thing. In fact, it means a lot less than Cornwell's conclusions."
Bonus on using the word "ratiocination" in a sentence. I would've just said "deduction", but I'm a politician, and we learn quickly not to use big words. While it is true that guilty parties have been convicted on less than a few letters, so have innocent parties, as well. Cornwell builds a deck of cards on a foundation of sand with her argument about the letters. She does not (and cannot) prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that Sickert faked a single Ripper letter, much less ALL of them, as she claims. Second, even if she could do so, we have absolutely no evidence that any of the letters originated with the killer. So at best, giving her the benefit of all doubts, she's proven that Sickert faked a letter. Great. So what?
"I agree with many of the people who read this book and came to the conclusion that the case had NOT been closed. As I was reading it, I found myself always expecting that "the good stuff" was right around the corner, in the next chapter. As most of you know, that chapter never comes. I finished the book with the conclusion that, for me, the case had not been closed and was still very much open, but I could see how Ms. Cornwell might have become wrapped up in her research and made an error in judgment. So what then? So I move on to the next book, taking the possible guilt of Sickert with me."
You took more away from it than I did. Thank god I didn't pay for it.
"Then I come to an online community that I hope will teach me more about the Ripper case. I hope to find knowledgable people who have objective views on the identity of JtR (not really knowing until I came here that his identity would, in all likelihood, never be known). Instead, I find a catty group of trash-talkers who can't add anything to the debate."
Then you're reading the wrong threads. We've got a number of people here, including Stephen, Chris Scott, Chris George, Martin Fido, Stewart Evans, etc. who have all written and discovered more things about the Ripper case than Cornwell and her millions did. But what you are seeing is the dirty laundry of a very close knit, small community where everyone knows everyone else, if not by name and face, than by reputation and by pet theory. Everyone knows I'm big on the police aspect of he case. I know Martin pushes the Cohen theory. I know Chris Scott is the man when it comes to digging up old newspaper records. I know Stewart's the main Tumblety guy. I know Leanne will never let go of Barnett. But I didn't know these things by just reading a months worth of the boards. Do yourself a favor and buy the Casebook CD-ROM and see how the community has evolved over the last coupla years. We're catty and trash talkers because we're a family.
(Remember, I'm not defending Ms. Cornwell's book; I take issue with its treatment HERE)
That's fine. I've been one of Corny's biggest critics, because I take her slight to the Ripperology community personally. I've always said that. But I am objective enough to be able to judge her work with the disinterested eye of a scholar. And I found it wanting.
I browsed through a couple dozen of the profiles here, and I found that the vast majority of them do not list a "Favorite Ripper Suspect," something I was hoping would point me in a more fruitful direction. Since I've not read and memorized every single profile here, take my experience with a grain of salt. But isn't it curious that so many people who are so eager to dismiss someone else's research haven't even got the cojones to posit their OWN theory? It's actually laughable. Most of the profiles choose not to post a favorite suspect, and those who do either post "None" or more than one. There are exceptions, but that's the rule.
When I first came here, I had Tumblety and Kosminski on as my favorite suspects. Then I took them down after I'd read and written about the case for a while. I did this not because I didn't have the balls to post my own theory, but because I simply don't believe that any of the current suspects fits well. I've read and digested a multitude of arguments for and against every suspect. Once you've been reading for a while, you'll reach the same conclusion. But, in an effort to make you a bit happy, I've changed my profile to reflect my current beliefs on the identity of the Ripper.
Oh, and the ones of us who have taken the time to fill out our profiles have been here the longest, and have altered our perceptions of the case as time has gone on. Most of us don't have a single suspect, because we don't think any of them are "more likely" than any of the other ones.
"More importantly, I couldn't find much in the way of scholarly criticism of Ms. Cornwell's book, save for the objections that I already had. As I said, my response to these objections was to pretty much forget the book and move on. My problems with Portrait did not lead me to spew out the kind of bitchy venom that I have been surprised to find here."
Spryder's refutation of Corny
That's the scholarly response to her book.
We debated the book on its merits for a while on the old Casebook message boards, and basically threw it out. So what you've read on the new boards is simply us bashing a theory that has already been discredited.
For instance, a problem someone had with the book was Cornwell's name in big letters and her photo on the back. Kids, I hate to break it to you, but if you were to read more books by bestselling authors, you'd find that their photos are almost always on the back, and a name in big letters means name recognition. As someone else has already pointed out, this was most likely a publisher's decision. Cornwell probably couldn't have had the size of her name reduced if she tried.
True, but this is one of the rare books, as Stephen has pointed out, where the author's name was larger than the Rippers. Just an interesting tidbit.
Someone else called her research "sloppy." Oh really? If YOU had access to the original police records and the original letters and modern investigative methods, would YOU concede that your research was "sloppy" simply because you didn't reference other books on the topic? Of course you wouldn't. In fact, you would point out that YOUR research may even have been better than if you HAD read other works because your bias would have been untainted by the theories of others.
We do have access to the original police records - in Stewart Evan's book. And we have access to most of the original letters, through Stewart's other book. And I would consider ANY "scholarly" work that didn't include a "literature review" to be sloppy. While you could claim that your work may be better as you wouldn't have any bias, you would also be prone to making the same exact mistakes that others had made along the way. And you'd better be an expert in a lot of different things to be able to ignore the current research. You'd have to be an expert on the Victorian Age, the Metropolitan Police and it's inner workings, Victorian Politics, the Whitechapel Area, the state of forensic science at the time, etc. etc. etc. All of these things have already been well researched and documented in a multitude of other Ripper books, by experts on those subjects. Most of those facts aren't controversial - they're simply facts. So there's no possibility of bias.
And how about the major typos? Misspelling Tabram's name (Tabran), misspelling Stewart Evan's name (Steward) - these are all things that her editors (or better yet, she) should have caught. They are merely errors, but they are the worst kind of errors - the kind that destroy your credability.
What is even more condemning about her failure to use current research is that while she didn't use the work of the other scholar's in the case, she did reference the newspapers of the time (where do you think she got the Tabran typo?). This is almost laugable in its level of naivety. The London papers of the time are notorious for their slant and bias, their poor fact checking, and their complete lack of first hand knowledge. She assumed that the papers back then operated along the lines of the papers of today, where they are reliable (although this is arguable) as reporters of fact. They weren't back then. But these are better to use than the hard work of others? This is a novice's mistake - one that would have been easily caught and corrected if she'd just bothered to read anything besides the numbers on her advance check.
Ms. Cornwell also does not answer many questions posted by members of this online community. Questions are fine, but to imply that because she didn't address them when she wrote the book is proof of her faulty conclusion is stupid; she wasn't trying to compile an encyclopedic volume, after all. Again, some questions deserve to be answered, and she missed the boat on a few. But I see a mentality here that suggests that, because you are able to raise an objection, that means that the book is worthless.
She doesn't answer our questions, because she doesn't want the criticism. We've seen her disparage Stephen on television. We've been to her book lectures and been talked down to because we post here. Why should we give her respect when she doesn't give it to us? She's already claimed in interviews that the others who have written or who research this topic as a hobby are all either in it to make names for themselves off the deaths of these women, or get some perverse pleasure in the case. If she thinks this about us, why should we be the ones to take the moral high ground? And no one here has said the book is worthless. The book isn't worthless at all - it's great when you run out of toilet paper.
"Another objection (seriously) was Cornwell's claim that she can "run fast." Do I even need to mention this? The quote is taken out of context, and when it's in the proper context, it doesn't sound egotistical at all. It sounds like a fiction writer's mind at work."
Um, where did you see this one? I've been gone for a while, so maybe I missed that.
And that is probably at the root of the problem. Again, I must point out that I don't believe with all my heart and soul that Sickert was JtR. But Ms. Cornwell did a fair job of researching her topic, and for that she should be given credit, even if her conclusion doesn't ring true with every single Ripperologist.
How about ANY Ripperologist?
She didn't do a fair job of researching her topic. She made major errors, and she based her conclusions off of hastily assembled bits of facts. Her mDNA theories are a perfect example of that. She did a very poor job of fact checking.
What she did well was in marketing the book and spending money.
What I suspect is that the majority of the objectors are wanna-bes. You don't have books out, do ya? But someone comes along and publishes a volume about a possible suspect (one that you may have already discarded in your own research), and all you can do is throw stones.
I love this argument. "You've not written a book, so you're nothing". I don't need to have to have played in the majors to know how to hit a baseball. How come I can't get away with using this argument when you all start bashing politicians? We didn't start this pissing contest, Jerry. She did. When she comes in here, ignores all of the previous works, calls us weirdos, claims to have solved the case, and dismisses any scholarly responses to her work as "sour grapes", what do you expect? That we'll just roll over and say "Thank you, oh great writer of fiction, for solving this case for us, as we, the unwashed troglodytes are too stupid to be able to string together more than a sentence or an idea without falling down in a puddle of our own drool." We've given her the credit she deserves - her research on Sickert is excellent, and those in the art community should be happy to have more biographical information on him. She's done an okay job in showing that it's possible that Sickert could have faked a Ripper letter, but so could 800,000 other people in London at the time. For the students of Ripperology, her contribution has been nil.
Objective students DO NOT THROW STONES. We look at evidence and make judgments based on what we KNOW to be true. The "objections" (if you can call them that) that I listed above were more like the kind of thing you'd hear in a cheerleaders' locker room, not the scholarly halls of academia.
Have you ever BEEN to academia? You've got to be kidding! I've been in and around academics (and still am) for almost a decade now, and you have NEVER seen a more catty, whiny, back-stabbing bunch of people ever. Stephen told me last week that he had two anthropology professors in college that were heavy hitters in the field, but had differing theories and conclusions, and wouldn't even acknowledge the other Professor even EXISTED. They wouldn't even say hi in the halls. Science and academia, especially amongst the higher level, more well knowns in any field is always contentious.
Lively debate, as Aristotle would tell you if he were writing this response and not me, is the only way we truly learn anything. Not firing back when someone says something that's wrong, or you disagree with is just stupid. Why shouldn't we try to correct the lapses in her work? She's the one who doesn't want to hear it - not us.
If I've stepped on your toes, I apologize, but then maybe you needed to have your toes stepped on, if only to encourage you to back up your trash-talking if you intend to put someone else down. In other words, tell everyone why the research was sloppy. In other words, tell everyone why a big ego (as yet unproven) makes a conclusion incomplete.
Once I've made a few millions, and retire from whatever high level elected office I can get for myself, I'll do my own version of Cornwell's book. But unfortunately, few of us here has the kind of money or time to devote to the research needed and the marketing needed to successfully get a book published. But there ARE many who are working on books, and there ARE many who've gotten works published. My dissertation on the Met is published here, for instance.
In other words, put up or shut up.
Right back at ya. I hope to see your profile and your book soon. |
BAPearce
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 1:38 pm: | |
I found this book VERY BIZARRE to say the least......I paid way to much for it |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 244
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 12:10 pm: | |
Jerry,
Instead, I find a catty group of trash-talkers who can't add anything to the debate.
I guess one more makes no difference then.
I pays my money son, so I have a right to complain when I see a dire game.
As I mentioned before, I dont want nor seek your respect. You have your opinion and I mine.
I also really dont want to enter this debate as my boredom threshold is extremely low and I have no wish to churn up points so excellently made by Brian and Glenn.
You want to be taught more about the Ripper case ? So why the hell did you read......Mmmmmmm, nah, Im not going to ask.
Though if I may ask this, what exactly have you added to the debate ??
Unbowed Monty
|
Holger Haase
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2003 - 2:56 pm: | |
All very interesting posts, folks.
What also amazes me about her book is that Sickert - on very flimsy evidence - is now not only responsible for the canonical Ripper victims but for up to a few dozen other ones as well. In actual fact she often spends more time describing other murders than the most famous proper Ripper one (Mary Kelly).
Very strange book. Pity that most readers will now take her word for it.
All the best
Holger |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 383
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 12:29 pm: | |
Hi Holger,
What makes you think 'most' readers will now take Cornwell's word for it? If readers can be seduced so easily by this particular unproven theory, surely a goodly number of them will go on to be seduced by the next, and the next? I can't see anything that sets Cornwell's theory apart.
An old school friend I met again on Saturday for the first time in 32 years brought up the subject of Cornwell's book, referring to it as 'silly', before I'd even said a word. So I wouldn't worry too much about the general public's ability to think for themselves. 
Love,
Caz |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 303
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 6:29 pm: | |
Hi Jerry
You don't offend me if that is your intent. I must say you have an interesting style, ambush and insult. You are not by any chance a politician?
I'm sure everyone must respect the amount of time and thought you put into your posts in order to educate the ignorant people who waste their time putting in time and thought into their own posts on these boards.
You put yourself in somewhat of a conundrum my friend.
All The Best
Gary |
Holger Haase
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 1:40 pm: | |
I just have this feeling that Cromwell's book is now going to become something of THE FINAL SOLUTION for the 21st century, i.e. a Ripper Bestseller read by a whole bunch of people that have never read another book on the subject, and more likely than not never will again and as such may take her word for gospel.
Let's face it: No matter how ludicrous, you will still come across a huge number of people who conspiratorially will tell you that "It was Royalty!" or "It was the Freemasons that done'em!"
Just check how many people voted for the book so far on this site: 829! (And it was only released a few months ago) No other book is more familiar to the readers. The closest is the Complete History (408 votes) and the Diary (403 votes), and all of these have been out for years!
In all fairness, though: Cromwell's book still only lingers at place 97 of 121 books voted for, so maybe you're right and the public is not as gullible as I feared. Or maybe the voting public here are not your most dedicated die-hard Cromwell aficionados. :-)
Then again: The Diary is still at Number 8. ;-)
All the best
Holger |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 306
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 3:57 am: | |
Hi Holger
I'm getting tired of going around to the local booksellers and in response to my question as to whether they have anything new on Ol' Jacky, being told that Miss Cromwell's book is the latest word on the subject. I don't bother to argue anymore and just head for the internet to place another order for books that I can't find elsewhere. You are right, Miss Cromwell and her reputation as a crime fiction author seem to bestow some sort of authority on her authorship of a true crime book in the minds of the public that is without any foundation.
It seems to be a fact of life we will have to live with for some time.
All The Best
Gary |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 900
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 4:58 am: | |
Hi Gary
Have you read "Jack the Ripper, Crime Scene Investigation" that popped up on Casebook recently? I was wondering whether to buy it. I'd like to know whether Dr Speare is an academic doctor or a medical doctor, though.
Robert |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 307
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 10:29 pm: | |
Hi Robert
I haven't read the "Crime Scene Investigation" book yet. I plan to buy it since I believe it has become available Stateside and it sounds like it might be be useful if it is a forensic type investigation like the name implies. Before I buy it I would like to hear something about it, much as you would, from someone who has read it. There are so many books I can't keep up with them. I have four new books including Alex Chisholm's "News from WhiteChapel that I haven't even had a chance to open.
All The Best
Gary |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 906
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 05, 2003 - 3:25 pm: | |
Hi Gary
Re books and how long they take to read :
I think it would be a nice idea if someone published a book consisting only of pictures, i.e. all the newspaper sketches of the murder sites, victims, etc. Maybe they could be arranged in chronological order for each murder site. I know these sketches are by and large inaccurate, but having them all set out in book form might allow us to see how a site struck the majority of the artists, for example. It might help us learn a little more about the crimes.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 371
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 05, 2003 - 7:58 pm: | |
Hi Robert, Gary
Great idea, Robert. Such a project is really something I as an author and publisher would like to sink my teeth in.
Regarding all the books on the subject: yes, it is indeed an incredible deluge of book on the subject. And in November "The First Jack the Ripper Victim Photographs" is due to be published.
There's a lot to dig into, guys... 
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 8:05 am: | |
Hi Folks,
Been trying to download a copy of a finished drawing by Sickert, titled, "Mon Dieu!" (on reverse,"Jack The Ripper's Bedroom. Study for "X""
dated, 1888), but without success. The drawing (in the collection of Baroness Rosemarie Rosenthal-MacDonald. Scotland.)was brought to my attention by that mysterious intrepid researcher
who first discovered the painting, "Jack the Ripper's Bedroom" (included in the "A-Z"), and which was 'rediscovered' by Pat Cornwell a decade later!
2004 will be an exciting year for Ripperology :-))
and we hope all newbies hang around for the prophecied apocalypse!
As ever, Rosey :-) |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 311
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 6:28 pm: | |
Hi GLenn, Robert and All
I am also looking forward to the "Photographs" book. I wouldn't mind a fully illustrated book on Jacky as well. I go from book to book and many of the drawings force you to re-orient yourself to different angles and perspectives.
A contemporary artist could also prove useful by drawing the bodies and detailing the injuries in true situ and from differnt angles as this does not appear to have been done by the newspaper artists or the police except in the case of Kate Eddowes.
Perhaps the new forensics book will satisfy some of these desires. I would like to read a review if anyone has read the new release or been given a preview copy.
Best
Gary |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1004
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 6:50 pm: | |
Hi Gary
If you mean the Speare book, there's a review in the latest "Ripperologist" (No. 49).
I'll just type out the last paragraph : "Overall, though, a very heavy reliance on secondary sources, and little or no original research, doesn't distinguish the book, which would make a good present to someone who doesn't know about the subject and would welcome a short, uncomplicated introduction."
The author is a veterinary pathologist, by the way.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 482
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 8:18 pm: | |
Hi Robert, Gary
Interesting. Not that good reviews, then - at least if we are to believe the Ripperogo... Rippegoligo... Ripperologist!! (will I ever learn to spell that correctly...?).
But what about the use and treatment of the picture material, then?
Regarding illustrations, I get the impression that there seem to be a very distinct line in England between beautifully done illustrated coffee-table books and general non-fiction books (where the latter category - like the majority of the Ripper books - are manufactured as paper-backs containing cheap paper and some occasional sheets of glossy pages with a very small number of pictures).
In Scandinavia, non-fiction books are in nearly all cases produced as lavish hardbacks (also in second and third editions), richly illustrated and containg high-quality paper with the pictures mixing with the text, not on separate sheets (although that do exists as well on lower budget books). The exception may be strictly academic litterature, intended for university dissertations or cheap books published by authors with less financial means. So here the coffe-table book concept is not that relevant, since many non fictions books look like that anyway, especially those who deal with history. They are indeed just as expensive to produce as everywhere else, but the fact is, that if books don't look attractive here in Sweden - they just don't sell!
I've learnt that paper-backs and pockets are a very popular form in England and USA, but I hate them in connection with non-fiction books!
Unforunately most of the Ripper books on the market are to me a great dissapointment in that respect, especially as I myself work with book graphic design and typography and therefore have become a bit spoiled - it wouldn't be that hard, for example, to find a great number of interesting photos or schetches showing the streets and inhabitants of Whitechapel to insert - and I'm not just talking about one or two as mostly is the case. In Fido's book that would have had a nice impact on the reading, since he discusses very much from a local geographical point of view, but the only picture material that book was illustrated with was -- six or seven maps!
As I said, I would gladly take up - or be helpful with - a project regarding a richly illustrated book on Jack, if there really is a shortage of such (I haven't seen them all, I must add). I believe there would be use for it. I agree, Gary.
I'm not saying that the above said applies on English books in general and it may be that I am judgemental here and a victim of ignorance - if that is the case, then please forgive me... However, the history periodicals looks more expensive and exclusive in Britain and USA than they do here at home.
Gary or Robert, while we're talking about illustrated books on the Ripper subject, what about the book called "Illustrated Guide to Jack the Ripper"? What is that one like? Have anybody read or seen it?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 312
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 1:20 am: | |
Thanks Robert
An introductory book and speaking of introductory books...
Hi Glenn
I'm holding AN ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO JACK THE RIPPER, by Peter Fisher, in my hands and I will quote from the introduction by Robin Odell. "Peter Fisher's AN ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO JACK THE RIPPER reminds us of the essentials of the Whitechapel Murders. It is not intended to be all-encompassing. It sets out to give a flavour of the streets, a picture of daily life and insights into the character of the people. It is a modest, but nonetheless rich, visual history of long-remembered infamous crimes and their social setting." Published by P.& D. Riley, 1996. (pg 8)
I can't add a whole lot to that except to say it has a great many illustrations, many of which have been published by previous and/or subsequent books. The book has a number of pictures of streets and churches which I have not seen elsewhere. It introduces the new reader to the main participants and suspects. There is no index and Mr. Fisher identifies a J.M. Eppstein who "preached sermons at Christ Church, Spitalfields, at a number of dates close to the murders." (pg 94) as his prime suspect. This is based on his comparison of the From Hell letter with Eppstein's signature. Mr. Fisher does not give his credentials as a handwriting analyst, however he intends this 'lead' to be a starting off point for further research.
All The Best
Gary |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1006
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 7:07 am: | |
Hi Glenn, Gary
Well I must confess to being a bit of a philistine here. I prefer paperbacks, because they're cheaper! (unless the hardbacks are second-hand).
I'll buy books about anything that interests me, really. As someone who is short-sighted, gets eyestrain and headaches, it's a bonus if the print isn't too small. I just wish I could get an enlargement of an old map of the murder area, showing all the sites - by enlargement I mean, to cover the wall.
Re pictures, I hope you two don't get what we get here - library books are often vanadalised by someone tearing out the pictures.
I buy lots of second-hand books - not antiquarian or anything like that. I get them from charity shops, church halls, library sales...I like it when I find a message like "To Jim, for winning the tennis tournament 1929. From Uncle Fred and Auntie Dora." Or someone's used a newspaper cutting as a bookmark : "Come and see the wonderful new film, 'Casablanca'".
At one church sale I bought a German dictionary issued to a British soldier in 1945 to facilitate the Occupation, and a book of poems by servicemen who'd taken part in an armed forces poetry competition.
Just before the Millennium I bought a Greek New Testament from the 1890s. Every few lines someone had put in dates : 23rd September 1899, 2nd October 1899...and I realised that probably some young curate or theology student had been painfully reading it in Greek a bit at a time, exactly 100 years before I bought it.
These books only cost me 10 or 20p.
"That's enough boring book talk, mate!"
Sorry, Gary's gorilla has just shut me up.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 483
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 10:26 am: | |
Robert! What is Gary's gorilla doing over at your place? I was about to ask him over for tea!
Regarding vandalised library books, yes it happens here as well, but I don't think to such an extent that it is a major problem (although every such case naturally is appauling and also quite costly when it occurs).
I do agree with you on small prints, but then on the other hand I think it is hard to find a book with deasent typography anyway these days, although things have improved recently. We have a lot of fine possibilities to buy second-hand books here as well, but I must admit I don't do it as often as I really ought to. During my university years I was quite an active book-hunter, though. My Ripper books are for the most part bought second-hand through Amazon, by the way. One can get quite a good deal and in many cases they are quite like new.
Yes, paper-backs are a lot cheaper (not to mention cheaper to produce), but to me books are works of art - not something you put in your pocket and wears out. Paper-backs therefore has a sort of cheap, low budget appearence that I find difficult to feel comfortable with -- actually they get me really depressed. My feelings and opinions on this matter could be a result of my work as a layouter and typographer, though. I don't think it's a coincidence that a book's look and appearence is as important to my reading experience as it's content...
All the best
Don't forget to load up with a lot of bananas, Robert!
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 484
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 10:35 am: | |
Interesting, Gary. Thank you.
So there is such an illustrated Ripper book on the market after all.
What is your personal opinion of it then? Do you consider it to be a "beginner's book" or has it depth enough to have some value even for those who have studied the case for some time? Do you considered it worth bying?
Interesting with a new suspect, by the way.
For the record: Who the heck is "Fogelma, Norwegian sailor"? I don't have the "A-Z" book, but I can't find anything about the fellow no matter where I look. I though he maybe could have been mentioned in The Ultimate Companion, but he doesen't seem to be...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1010
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 3:04 pm: | |
Glenn, I did get some bananas for the gorilla, but Frost scoffed the lot!
Robert |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
