Archive through 14 November 2002

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Archive through 14 November 2002

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects: Cornwell Archives: Archive through 14 November 2002

Author: judith stock Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 09:16 pm
Timsta, I've been snickering all afternoon over PC's brown eyes, and NOW she becomes Queen of the stock yards.....my gawd, she is playing right into our hands, and my bad jokes!! Cheers, J
Author: Ivor Edwards Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 09:17 pm
Hi Judith, You had me in stitches over "Cow Town" It just goes to show what sort of coverage one can get by throwing the bucks around even if the story is utter bull**it. Some of these people selling her crap would sell their own mother for a buck or two. You will note that Patricia Cornwall has been keeping well clear of most folk who can blow her little theory out of the water.A few well known ripperologists should throw down the gauntlet and put her in a position where she cannot worm her way out of a public debate.It would appear that the public are about to be conned yet again over the ripper case.
Author: judith stock Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 10:14 pm
Hey, Ivor baby! How are you keeping these days? Hope all is well with you and yours. As a few of the posters on these boards know me in person, you being one, I can say with all honesty that once my mind begins working along the "moo poo" line, I can't very well pull back until I have run the course. Sorry about the gutter humour, but I'm glad you got a giggle or two out of it. Since Cornwell IS going to several cities where a few of our smarter members reside, I would bet she might run into more than a bit of questioning, or downright derision. She has been disinclined to engage anyone about this, except, of course, the talking heads on news shows; the interviewers are already proving themselves to be singularly uneducated in the crimes, so Cornwell sounds like a bleedin' genius! I hope she has her armour on, though....she is going to need it. 100% certain the case is closed, my arse! Cheers, J
Author: Ivor Edwards Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 11:55 pm
Hi Judith, We are both very well thanks and I hope the same can be said of you and hubby.No doubt the next move will be a film about her book or a film about her!!!! God forbid.All the very best, Ivor
Author: Monty Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 08:24 am
13th Nov 1:30pm. Monty will back at work and answering any questions on why he hasnt filled out that Risk report yet. 13th Nov. 6:30pm. Monty shall be visiting Ex's home inorder to partake in daughters birthday party (being kicked and climbed on by a gang of thug 5 year old girls ODed on Tweenies cake and cherryade) 13th Nov. 10:00pm. Monty shall be in the Coach and Horses recovering from said party with a swift half....honest !! Readers of the above may feel that this may have nothing to do with Ms Cornwell or her book and readers may well be right. The only connection is that I have NO idea about the identity of Jack the Ripper as has (so it seems) Ms Cornwell and I am quite willing to name Walter Sickert if (like Ms Cornwell again) the price is write....oh, sorry, I mean right !! Monty
Author: Spryder Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 09:04 am
The BBC is looking for 6-8 knowledgeable people to attend a Patricia Cornwell taping at the end of November in London. First come, first served. (Oh, and you get a free copy of her book, for those who don't want to pay for one...) Quote: BBC 4 Readers & Writers Roadshow Patricia Cornwell The BBC�s biggest literature show needs YOUR participation for an intimate audience with world famous crime author, Patricia Cornwell! Readers & Writers Roadshow is a panel book show from BBC television. We need 25 people to listen to our author discuss her work. There will also be opportunities to ask questions. The show will film in London SW1 on Wednesday 27th November at around 2pm . Call Holly Wallace or Gerry Costello on 0141 331 0450 or email to hollyw@liontv6.demon.co.uk if you would like to reserve a place. ALL PARTICIPANTS WILL RECEIVE ONE OF THE AUTHOR�S BOOKS WITH OUR COMPLIMENTS Patricia Cornwell Wed. 27th Nov, Arrival Time, 1.45-2pm Readers & Writers is proud to welcome American literary star, Patricia Cornwell. Famed for her Kay Scarpetta books, Cornwell is arguably the most successful crime author in the world. Her latest book, Portrait of a Killer, outlines her search for the true identity of Jack the Ripper, an enigma that has fascinated crime enthusiasts for over a century. Crime novel enthusiasts, keen readers and those interested in the mystery of Jack the Ripper should not miss this opportunity to see one of the world�s most successful living authors. If you would like to take part in the show, or for further information, please call Holly Wallace or Gerry Costello on 0141 331 0450 or email, with telephone contact details, to gerryc@liontv6.demon.co.uk or hollyw@liontv6.demon.co.uk
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 09:09 am
Hi, Spry: Many thanks for the rundown of the media blitz and appearances attendant to the launch of Patricia Cornwell's book. Note that Ms. Cornwell's appearance at the Smithsonian is Tuesday, November 19 not November 18 as you reported, i.e., the details are as in your message of Saturday, 09 November 2002 - 03:00 pm, just so everyone is clear when she will be appearing at Lisner auditorium. As you reported then, the link to book for the appeance ($15 per seat to non-members of the Smithsonian) is http://residentassociates.org/rap/otonov/cornwell.asp All the best Chris
Author: Brian Schoeneman Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 10:16 am
Anybody else coming to the DC Cornwell (Edited to make Dan and Rich happy) show? If so, Chris and I are going to get dinner at 5:30 ahead of time at the Red Lion, a great bar/hamburger place, down the street from Lisner Auditorium. If you are interested, email me at bsykes@gwu.edu for directions. I'd love to meet any of you who are in the area, especially since I can't go see PC get grilled myself (got class that night). B
Author: David Radka Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 11:36 am
It should be kept in mind that what the BBC is primarily interested in doing concerning its Cornwell presentation is the demeaning of American efforts to solve the great British mystery. Criticism directed to Cornwell on this broadcast likely will have the typical feel of British criticism of Americans, and will therefore not necessarily get into detail concerning exactly why her attribution of the crimes to Sickert doesn't hold water. What will be said is more likely that she is very wealthy, that she uses a great deal of PR, that she surrounded herself with hired experts that were mainly interested in telling her what she wanted to hear to earn their money, and so on. She will be presented as a kind of Madonna, an assertive and very successful American singer of relatively small talent, but large of payroll. What happens to Cornwell on the BBC basically represents what would happen to any American in the forefront of efforts to solve the case on the BBC. If you don't like what I'm saying, tune your PC into the BBC NewsHour programme each day for about a month, and get a perspective for yourself concerning what is said there. In sum, I feel that what the BBC will likely play is not what is wrong with her theory, but rather what is wrong with Americans. This is, of course, not to say that there is nothing wrong with Americans. David
Author: Billy Markland Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 12:09 pm
Stephen, thanks for the info regarding PC's appearances. I was just able to catch some of the WOR/Hamburg show over the internet. Why doesn't some interviewer get smart and ask WHERE THE LINKAGE BETWEEN THE LETTERS & JtR IS!! If I remember the various comments, all she has proven is that Sickert was a one in a million suspect to have written a letter, not committed the crime! The damnable thing is that the U.S. taxpayers will pay for a large part of her "research" due to business expense deductions! Oh, WtH!!! Off to the archives to do some real research, Billy
Author: Jim Jenkinson Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 02:59 pm
David, If this BBC program to be broadcast on 13th December is the same one shown in the UK earlier, than I can assure you, there is a minimal amount of criticism of Ms Cornwell in it. What there is, comes from an art expert and Mr Rumbelow. What they say in the program, doesn't involve the nationality of the author, she was given a free reign, the background narration was quite favourable to her case. That aside, it suprises me you are reviewing a TV program, criticising the BBC's ulterior agenda, when you haven't seen it yet. Can I just point out anyone who is anti-american is a boring fart. Also anyone who is anti-british is a boring fart. Jim
Author: Jim Jenkinson Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 03:04 pm
Also Madonna lives in England with her British husband and is very welcome to. Jim
Author: Tony Rutherford Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 03:12 pm
For some bizarre reason I bought Ms Cornwell's book yesterday. The arrogance of the woman is astounding. Almost every page has made me twitch and wince. It's one thing to put someone forward as a suspect, but quite another to drag his name through the dirt. If I was in any way related to Walter Sickert I'd be sorely tempted to see if there was a way I could sue her for slander. eg. Page 14 ..." Sickert was a serial killer, a damaged, diabolical man driven by megalomania and hate." As for Ms Cornwell the art critic.....gawd save us all... I quote.. " He was a talented artist whose work is respected but not necessarily enjoyed. His art shows no whimsy, no tender touches, no dreams....." Has she never seen a Sickert? Sorry, I'm on a rant but I need to vent my frustration somewhere and I haven't had a reply from here website yet. Oh, and by the way does anyone know who Martha Tabran is?
Author: Richard P. Dewar Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 03:13 pm
Hi all, I know it is quite popular to speak derisively about Ms. Cornwell right now, and by no means is what I write meant to be a defense of her theory or research methods, but it is important to consider some things objectively. That she chooses not to engage in debate with so called experts on the case in no way should reflect necessarily that she is unable to defend her theory. There is quite possibly another reason. As we all know, some of the respected researchers on the case choose not to participate in message boards such as this because some of the participants are, quite frankly, obnoxious louts with little understanding of the case who masquerade as experts. Some choose not to participate in the exchanges here. Additionally, many regulars on this board may be completely unaware of the general public's feelings about so-called Ripperologists. I would suggest you read Slate.com's article on Cornwell which not only ridicules her, but makes rather telling jibes at those interested in the case. Indeed, no less an expert as Philip Sugden in his landmark book makes the observation that the general populace sometimes thinks those interested in the crime are mysoginists. The suggestion here seems to be that Ms Cornwell is fearful that those more knowledgeable can easily refute the thesis of her book. That, indeed, may be true. But an alternate reason is just as possible: that she simply does not take the bulk of researchers and authors on this case seriously. That is an opinion shared by much of the general public. Rich
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 03:32 pm
Hi, Rich: I think you are letting Ms. Cornwell off too lightly. She has chosen to come into the investigation, to set herself up as "The Expert" on the case while totally ignoring the opinions of such long-standing authorities on the case as Donald Rumbelow and Stewart P. Evans. And that is quite apart from any opinion she or you or the general public have of this website or of Ripperologists in general. Ms. Cornwell has chose purposely to take a broad brush approach to the case, to blithely brush aside the scholarship that has been done. She thus, for example, has knowingly ignored opinions of persons who have studied this case that the majority of the Ripper letters if not all of them are not genuine, and likewise taken absolutely no account whatsoever of the learned opinion of Sickert experts that the artist was in France at the time of the murders. In short, her theory that Walter Sickert was the Ripper is extremely shaky at best. I should say that it is deserving of the opprobrium that is being heaped on it on both sides of the Atlantic if not indeed worldwide. Best regards Chris George
Author: Richard P. Dewar Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 04:30 pm
Hi Chris, I quite agree that the critiques of her work are well deserved and I in no way endorse her opinions. I do not support some of the name calling and personal insults occuring on this board because I think it actually cheapens the legitimate criticism of her methodology and results. What I was trying to suggest in my previous post is that Ms. Cromwell, ignorant as she appears to be of the varying levels of discourse on this case, may be dismissive of those who are so-called experts under the misapprehension that all those afficianados are weird, ghoulish people. I certainly do not agree that those interested in the case all fall in that category - though I do think it likely there are more than many of us would like to admit. There is no doubt that Mr Rumbelow and Mr Evans, among others, have rendered legitimate, serious, thoughtful, and scholarly works on the case. That Ms. Cornwell's work is more fiction than truth, I do not dispute. Then again, I believe that what lured most of us into studying the case was the fiction behind it - not the reality. I am sure, ten or fifteen years from now, many of the renown experts of the case will be people whose interest was raised by Ms. Cornwell's book. Just as many of us were lured by the fictional melodrama of a top-hatted, caped man carrying a Gladstone bag who writes jeering letters to the police, some may be intrigued by the painter gone mad, resulting in a homicidal frenzy. No doubt, such people, one day will look back and wonder how they were seduced by such nonsense. Regards, Rich
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 04:37 pm
Hi, Rich: Thanks for your polite reply. I still think that Cornwell's approach though is one of arrogance with a big "A." I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the matter. Best regards Chris George
Author: Brian Schoeneman Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 04:42 pm
Rich, The article in Slate has only one quote that I think could be considered a jibe at Ripperologists: Like other Ripperologists, Patricia Cornwell disdains the genre she has joined. From the first drop of blood in the East End gutter, the murders have compelled ghoulish public fascination, but Cornwell's book, a nearly 400-page study with a 13-page bibliography (but no footnotes or appendices) is unencumbered by reference to the shelves of previous speculative literature. "I have avoided the recycled inaccuracies that have metastasized from one book to another," Cornwell grandly claims�and she has done no such thing. True, she discards the royalist/Masonic explanation favored in movies such as From Hell. But her idée fixe about Sickert derives from facts and fantasies abundant in the Ripper literature. Sickert's name appears in the annals of Ripperdom only because of wacko theorizing by predecessors Cornwell brushes aside. " (Slate, David Cohen, 6 Nov 2002) I think what he means by us "disdain[ing] the genre we have joined" is that we all lament that there was such poor scholarship upon which much theory was based. I don't think it's a jibe, more of a pragmatic truth. The reason why I don't like Cornwell is not because I think her theory is wrong. There are a lot of people who have theories I disagree with. I don't like her because she is arrogant, she makes incorrect assumptions and bases conclusions on them, she refuses to give credence to others work, she refuses to admit the possibility that she is wrong, and she is bound and determined to make as much money off her shoddy research as she can. I HATE the fact that I am going to buy that book, just so I can read how wrong she is. I'd rather give the 20 bucks to Paul Begg or Stewart Evans, when I know I'll get honest research unclouded by the overactive ego of a fiction writer. Cornwell is doing more damage to our cause (that of honest research into solving the case) than Stephen Knight, and all the other "final solution" fiction writers have done combined. B
Author: David O'Flaherty Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 05:01 pm
Hi, Brian Why support her research by buying the book? You can always check it out from the library, or borrow a copy from someone who already has it. Like mine, I'm sure your dollars are hard-earned--why not put them towards someone whose work you think is worthwhile? I've posted before about the importance of supporting writers you enjoy and respect--I think it's equally important to keep your money out of the hands of writers doing shoddy research. Great sales will only encourage more of the same. Sure, Pat Cornwell's fan base is probably big enough to propel this book into the best seller's list, but at least you know you haven't helped her get there. By the way, I wish I could join you and Chris George for your dinner--it's bound to be interesting conversation. Best, Dave
Author: Richard P. Dewar Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 05:01 pm
Hi Brian, Thanks for reproducing the quote - I was more referring to the reference to the murders evoking a ghoulish fascination. I think that is a prevailing opinion of Ripperologists by many of those who do not find the case compelling. I would concur with many of your views of Cornwell's credibility and scholarship. I would depart from you, and many others on the board who condemn her for her alleged arrogance. There is a specific author, who sometimes appears on these boards, who is frequently referred to as arrogant - and with just cause. He is often as contemptuous of others as Cornwell may appear to be. However, he has produced some excellent works and is a respected and noted figure for the quality of his research. So, I don't really think it matters whether the author is or is not arrogant when it comes to evaluating their work. Some of the remarks on the boards are very personal - addressing Ms Cornwell's motives and making savage critiques of her personally. To me, those items don't matter. Her work and scholarship will rise and fall based on the quality of what she has produced - not whatever personal shortcomings she has - real or imagined. As to your comparison of Ms Cornwell to Stephen Knight that may be an apt comparison. I think both provide an interesting resolution of the case to those who do not wish to probe deeper. But for those whose curiousity is peaked, I believe they will look more closely and come to their own conclusions. So, I guess we disagree somewhat. While Ms Cornwell and Mr Knight, I believe, provide an entertaining yet fictional conclusion to the case, I dont think they dissuade serious research. Regards, Rich
Author: Brian Schoeneman Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 05:16 pm
Rich, I think we agree more than disagree, but my characterization of Cornwell's arrogance is more based on the way she characterizes her own opinions, as opposed to how she characterizes others' opinions. She ignores all other research except her own, which I consider to be arrogant. Just my opinion. Maybe I can start a new thread here - what got you interested in Ripperology? I know you mentioned Knight's and Cornwell's books as being a catalyst for producing more ripperologists, what got you interested? Mine was when I read John Douglas's book "Anatomy of Motive" about serial killers. It sparked my interest in the FBI, and it got me thinking about this case. That led me to this site, which led me to Sugden, and the rest is history. B
Author: Ivor Edwards Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 05:17 pm
Hi Christoper T, Do you know the source of the information that Sickert was in France during the murders.Any info relating to this will be most welcome.
Author: Brian Schoeneman Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 05:17 pm
David, Good point. I guess my American need for instant gratification makes it hard for me to wait for the library to pick it up. Ivor, Here's the link to an article in the Spectator that provides Sickert's alibi info: Sickert's Alibi
Author: Esther Wilson Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 05:36 pm
Brian, thanks for the link to the Spectator article. Esther
Author: Howard Brown Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 06:37 pm
I'm still trying to figure out how this Cornwell got to write off 6 Million clams for writing the book !!!! Does anyone know how someone with minimal knowledge of the case ( me,for instance...) could write off 40 grand for what they know ? Maybe we ain't giving Mrs.Cornwell enough credit....As the posters and researchers discuss the merits of her theory,mostly in the negative,she's crying all the way to the bank !!!
Author: Brian Schoeneman Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 06:42 pm
Howard, I'm sure that all those first class airline tickets, five star hotel stays, and all of that backbreaking check writing to the forensic guys she hired was worth 6 mill. I mean, c'mon...she had to do all of the research on the Ripper herself...it's not like anyone else has ever looked into this crime before. Right? B
Author: Dan Norder Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 11:16 pm
I think calling Cornwell "Cornholio" and similar names is uncalled for. Well, not exactly uncalled for, more detrimental. It just gives her more ammunition to try to paint everyone who disagrees with her theory (i.e. anyone who knows anyhing about the case or the logical deduction process in general) as people who are out to get her personally. We have the facts on our side, we don't need to resort to the same personal insults and innuendo that she has based her book around. Dan
Author: Brian Schoeneman Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 11:32 pm
Dan, Trying to be funny, my friend. A little humor keeps the boards a fun, happy place to be. And I'm happy that someone got the reference. B
Author: judith stock Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 11:32 pm
Good evening all, I must agree with Tony in the post waaaaaay back there that Cornwell has obviously never seen a Sickert, OR she is blind..I don't know which is the truth. While he did paint some gruesome subjects, Sickert also did charming sketches and beautiful paintings. I was immeasurably pleased to see his lovely sketch which hangs in the living room at Chartwell; Sickert was an artist.. full stop. Anyone who can create something from nothing, and stir emotion with that creation is an artist, and this, Sickert did; whether the subject evokes wonder, disgust, fear, curiosity, or a smile, the intent is the same.....and I believe Sickert has stirred all these emotions in those who have viewed his work. For Cornwell to denigrate his work is consistent with the way she seems to view EVERYONE. I have been slogging through the first chapters of her "book" this afternoon, and get the distinct impression that she thinks everyone is a bit less than she; we got the first hints of that in chapter 2 where she tells her agent that she does NOT want to write about this, but she MUST, as SHE KNOWS THE NAME OF THE KILLER, and that it is her job to take pen in hand and reveal all. Codswollop! As noted above, she uses NO footnotes, and the names of Stewart Evan and Keith Skinner are cited as the authors of the ONLY two Ripper books she consulted...one the ULTIMATE GUIDE and the other LETTERS FROM HELL..... both are listed in the SECONDARY SOURCES bib. The entire tone, so far, has been in the same vein as her pre-release appearances......"DO NOT QUESTION ME....I AM 100% RIGHT." Quite nervy, actually, for someone who admits she knew nothing at all of the case until Mr Grieve mentions it to her. Apparently, she got to be perfect very quickly. AND, I apologise to all who think I should not buy her book; I am a Ripper book collector and I no more could pass on this thing than I could ignore Patricia Cory's rubbish....that's on my shelf, too. YUCK! Back to the grind...I'm TRYING to get through this thing before I die!! Cheers, J
Author: Richard P. Dewar Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 11:46 pm
Hi Dan, You are absolutely right. I understand why many people don't take her seriously. But the personal and derisive comments are unnecessary and counter-productive and, as you wisely say, irrelevant to the credibility of her work. There are many questionable aspects to her research - to put it kindly. They should be the focus of the critiques - not her personality or motivations. Regards, Rich
Author: Ally Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 07:15 am
Oh please. If one more person says "oh we shouldn't call her names it's lowering to her level and doesn't win the argument" I'm going to puke on my pretty new floor. We aren't having an argument with her. She doesn't care what we think of her, she isn't reading the boards, she isn't responding back, and quite frankly, this is a forum for opinion and discussion not a dissertation where every single thing needs to be reasoned and well balanced. People are not just irritated by her "facts" they are offended by what she wrote and the manner in which she wrote it. If the worst they do is call her arrogant and mock her name, who cares. It's no way to win an argument, but as I have pointed out, people aren't arguing their venting and mocking. No matter whether we are the epitome of reasoned debate or vulgar insulting trash or any level in between, what difference does it make? If she ever does post here even once, then she will be accorded the same respect that every other poster to these boards is afforded, once her foot hits the floor. But until then, fire away. If people get offended by the tone and stomp off in a huff, don't let the figurative door hit you on the way out. But stop moralizing about how the tone of these boards is just soo darn mean, gosh darn it all. She and her theory in my opinion is and always will be, Cornball. JMO, Ally
Author: Scott E. Medine Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 08:56 am
Howard, Thanks to the tax laws, it is all considered business expenses. What is even more sickening is the fact that if the book does not do well she can claim a business loss for the year and stretch that over a five year period. Peace, Scott
Author: Christopher T George Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 08:57 am
Hi, all: I actually admire Patricia Cornwell for the strong woman that she is, as I also admire Hillary Clinton. I will now duck while the brickbats come in my direction. I would therefore love nothing more than to be able to endorse Patricia Cornwell's work on the case as being a solid contribution to the field and to be able to applaud her efforts. I do credit her for bringing science to the study of the case. Unfortunately though her investigation and its reported findings are not what she claims they are. My own suspicion is that she was caught in a time crunch with a book to deliver, i.e., a Primetime Live appearance to make and a multi-million dollar book project to complete a year later, and she did not have the goods she thought she would have. Thus in some ways the arrogance we now see is a result of her defending what has turned out to be a very weak case but that she is forced to defend because of the moneys both she and her publisher have expended. Best regards Chris George
Author: Caroline Morris Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 09:56 am
Hi All, 'No matter whether we are the epitome of reasoned debate or vulgar insulting trash or any level in between, what difference does it make?' Well, it might just make a difference to the kind of readers the Casebook attracts and keeps - in the same way that the quality or otherwise of Cornwell's work will determine the type and number of converts she retains in the long run, after the initial hype and hysteria die down, and when she has managed to scrape back a percentage of the percentage of her considerable fortune which she invested in this project. Certainly I agree that if people get offended by the tone here and stomp off in a huff, that's entirely their problem. They would do far better changing it from within by adding their own posts and diluting the offending tone. Whether or not Cornwell is aware of all the holes in her case against Sickert, if she could choose the kind of criticism that takes attention off those holes the most effectively, I think she would go for the 'vulgar insulting trash' every time. It's the kind of thing the public picks up on, and rightly or wrongly sees as an inability to dismantle her case in a cool, calm and courteous way, by people who claim they could do it with their figurative hands tied behind their figurative backs. Love, Caz
Author: David Radka Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 10:24 am
"I do credit her for bringing science to the study of the case." I don't believe this statement can fairly be made of Ms Cornwell. Just because she studies DNA doesn't mean she brings science to the study of the case. In order to do that, she would have to study DNA by a methodology which relates to the case evidence in a valid, demonstrable way. But she does not show that her DNA sample is related to the case evidence. First, there is no conclusive evidence that it is Sickert's DNA, and second, even it it were Sickert's DNA, there is no reason to believe the author of the letter was the murderer. Therefore Cornwell does not bring science to the case. To think she does is to think prematurely and badly, together with her. The case has no more science in it with Cornwell than it had pre-Cornwell. David
Author: Richard P. Dewar Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 10:31 am
Hi Caz, I agree with your position entirely. I think that a person seriously interested in the case might visit here, see the highly personal insults directed at Ms. Cornwell, and come to the conclusion that this site, and the people affiliated with it, are bunch of idiots. This case and the website attracts all kinds - some very thoughtful and reasonable people. Obviously, some are not. What I find amusing is that some of the people who have uttered the most venomous attacks upon Ms. Cornwell's scholarship and personal attributes frequently on these boards demonstrate the same qualities they publically claim to loath. It is quite a hoot to see people bashing Ms. Cornwell for being arrogant, misinterpreting the facts, and ignoring facts that contradict suspicion against her suspect. Some of these same people openly proclaim their own pet theories, based on selective interpretations of evidence, and claim that those who do not agree with their positions are idiots! To me, Cornwell is the category of those who in the past have proposed the Royal Conspiracy, Maybrick, D'Onston, et al. She, and they, want an interesting fanciful resolution of the case. Their theories aside, they heighten interest in the case and those who want to learn more can do so and quickly dispose of those notions. Those who choose to believe those theories may be misguided, but thankfully, unharmed. Rich
Author: Caroline Morris Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 10:51 am
Hi Rich, I agree. And I don't really see any genuine concern or pity for the education and welfare of those who will choose to believe certain theories regardless of the lack of evidence. The people who are 'taken in' are usually subject to the same ridicule and loathing that the theorists get heaped upon them. Oh, by the way, Ally, as it's ok with you now to 'fire away' at Cornwell because she 'doesn't care what we think of her', 'isn't reading the boards' and 'isn't responding back', why did you whinge about the desperate unfairness of my past criticism of certain aspects of Melvin Harris's work, on the basis that he was only reading/responding infrequently to posts on the boards? What makes Cornwell fair game and Melvin out of bounds? Personal opinion regarding the quality of their work, or something else? No doubt, as usual, there's a huge and obvious difference coming up that I have not thought of yet, that neatly gets around what initially appears like a contradiction, so I'll brace myself shall I? Love, Caz
Author: David Radka Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 11:18 am
"To me, Cornwell is the category of those who in the past have proposed the Royal Conspiracy, Maybrick, D'Onston, et al. She, and they, want an interesting fanciful resolution of the case. Their theories aside, they heighten interest in the case and those who want to learn more can do so and quickly dispose of those notions. Those who choose to believe those theories may be misguided, but thankfully, unharmed." What is the basis here of placing "...their theories aside?" Cornwell, Knight, Feldman, etc. wrote their books to sell to people who would read and believe their theories. These books name names, explain methodologies of the murderer, and otherwise fix blame on real, particular people! Feldman doesn't say an incorporeal cartoon character killed the women, he says James Maybrick did! I agree that IF the theories of these people are "placed aside," THEN "...misguided readers are thankfully unharmed," but there are millions of people out there who buy these books believing them to contain truth, and thus are not protected from the harm of false beliefs. What about them? Doesn't anybody care about the truth? Doesn't anybody realize that falacious books cause harm? This would seem an elementary principle of conscience. David
Author: Ally Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 11:27 am
No but you could possibly read the past explanation I gave you when you asked this same question before though on a different subject. Is Mel a poster here? Yes. Is Patricia? No. Were you insulting aspects of his books or his prior posts? His posts. You weren't taking issue with anything in his books you were attacking past posts, ad nauseum. As a poster, he gets harassment protection. Cornwell isn't a poster, isn't ever going to be a poster and isn't in all likelyhood ever to read these posts, she doesn't. See the difference? No I am sure not. And also as I have said, your snide insulting of Melvin has gone on for years. Patty hasn't even had two weeks. There is a limit. And while I am glad that you feel that you are superior in tone and word and deed to the rest of us mean louts, your hypocrisy is just as evident as you accuse mine of being and as predictable in your argument. I actually expected your first post to raise this issue..take you a while to think of it or did you get help? Ally
Author: Scott E. Medine Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 11:32 am
David, I have to disagree with you. Cornwell did bring science to the case. She did study DNA in a methodology which relates to the case evidence in a valid, demonstrable way. The only problem is that the results were not positive. Just because a scientific approach fails does not mean that science was not applied. Peace, Scott