|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 16 November 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects:
Cornwell Archives:
Archive through 16 November 2002
Author: Caroline Morris
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 11:39 am |        | Hi David,
I really think you are underestimating the intelligence of the vast majority of people who are literate enough to want to buy and read at least one ripper book that claims to have solved the mystery and names the culprit.
Don't you think that once they see a second book arrive on the shelves, and then a third, and a fourth, and so on, each naming a different individual, and each claiming that the case is now closed, even the most dense of readers must eventually come to realise that all the solutions except one at the most have to be wrong! From there they can be trusted to work out for themselves that each latest effort will no doubt one day be overtaken by yet another.
In any case, harmful or not, I'm not sure what anyone can do about it, prevention or cure, all the while there are millionaires out there with bees in their bonnet.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Eliza Cline
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 12:07 pm | | I find Cornwell's book engrossing but only because Sickert is a very interesting, complex man, and Cornwell has convinced me that quite possibly he did pen some Ripper hoax letters. Sickert was an eccentric with a macabre sense of humor and the Ripper murders attracted this type. But there is absolutely no evidence in the entire book, that Sickert is the killer.
Cornwell skips over the fact that the Ripper witnesses described a short, foreign-looking man, while Sickert was above average in height. This is one of so many problems with her theory...still, Sickert's personality is intriguing enough to keep me reading. |
Author: judith stock
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 12:08 pm | | OK, here's a post that does not call Cornwell any names. As I said last night, I was going back to TRY to slog through her book. I know it has been mentioned before, but I will repeat, she calls Martha TABRAN, not TABRAM. If this is an editor's boo-boo, fine.....but I get the feeling it isn't. If she cannot get the spelling of a proposed Ripper victim's name correct, what ELSE has she missed, altered, or simply ignored?
As Scott has said, Ms Cornwell (Queen of Cow Town) did use some science in this....she did employ the investigation of DNA evidence, but the results didn't fit her theory, so she created reasons for that.
What ELSE has she created from whole cloth?
I have read the first couple of her books, but stopped when the shameless padding became so evident and blatant; they were readable and fairly interesting (Kathy Reichs is still better in this genre...maybe because she really IS a forensic pathologist), but this one is slow, pedantic, filled with "obviously" and "it can be assumed". This one is going to take forever to read because it is so badly written. Besides her penchant for skipping, ignoring, and dismissing that which does not fit her theory, Cornwell is NOT a non-fiction writer. Maybe she should return to her first job: that of writing unbelievable fiction.
NOW, how was that for NOT calling names? That's about as fair a review of the first four chapters as I can give.
More news at 11:00.
Cheers,
J |
Author: Dan Norder
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 12:30 pm | | Actually, I think the person we now know as Martha Tabram shows up in the 1881 census as Martha Tabran. Spellings on last names were quite fluid back then, especially in areas of rampant illiteracy. I think I also remember people looking for a Tabrun and even a Tabrum as other spellings of the same name. I'm not sure we can be sure that one is more correct than any other.
I understand from mentions here that Cornwall calls the person we know as Eddowes "Eddows." I'm not aware of any census or document that would justify that particular spelling.
Dan |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 12:35 pm | | Rich, Caz, et. al.
I admit that I am feeling a bit defensive here, as I was the only person who's specific post about Cornwell was called out here. I have since gone back and removed the offending name I called her. I am happy to see that some people got my pop-culture reference. To reiterate why I said it again, I was making a joke - an attempt to strike some levity to these boards that is desperately needed.
I personally think, being the newest frequent poster here, that people who come on the boards are less likely to think us all "a bunch of idiots" if we are using humor (albeit namecalling, immature humor) in our posts - especially when those posts are juxtaposed to the vitriolic posts that we all read in the "MJK Is She a Victim" threads. Seeing two or three seasoned researchers fighting is much more likely to scare off a newbie than my poking fun at Cornwell.
As to giving Cornwell her due for bringing science, etc. into the investigations - I'll grant that she did do that. But the damage she is doing is greater than the good. We, as Ripperologists, need to police ourselves. Many of the serious researchers on the case, like Begg, Fido, Skinner, Evans, Rumbelow (and some of the less familiar ones on here, like Scott Medine and Chris George) make us all look good. They seriosly look at evidence and provide it to people in a way that lets them form their own opinions. This is how it should be done.
Others, like Stephen Knight and Patricia Cornwell, do the opposite. They seek to profit from their works, and they use shoddy reasoning and inaccurate research to come to a conclusion that sells books. But because their books have to deal with this subject, they ARE Ripperologists, like the rest of us. And this damages the field as a whole - people base their own research on their elders in the field. If you can't assume that the work your elders have done is accurate, you have to reinvent the wheel each time and this is a pain in the butt. We need to call these people out for what they are - charlatans.
If Patricia Cornwell claimed in her book that Sickert hoaxed a ripper letter, I'd think she'd done a good job of proving her case. If she simply claimed she had discovered new and exciting biographical data about Sickert, I would be impressed by her research abilities. But she is claiming to have solved this case, and her evidence is not compelling, and she has not made any attempt to explain the multiple inconsistencies in facts and logic - which any good researcher would and should do.
So, I'm sorry to Rich, Dan and anyone else I offended with my Beavis and Butthead humor. I'll try and keep in mind that some people don't appreciate it.
But lets not give the benefit of the doubt to authors or researchers who print lies, falsehoods and skewed research knowingly - it makes us ALL look bad.
B |
Author: Timsta
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 12:48 pm | | Dan:
As I'm sure you know, her grave marker spells her name "Eddows". But I think you are right in that this spelling does not appear in any 'official' documents relating to her life.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Caroline Morris
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 01:12 pm | | Hi Brian,
Well said, but I don't see anyone here giving Cornwell the benefit of the doubt, so I don't think you have much to worry about! I don't have a problem with humour when it's directed at someone like Cornwell who should know enough and be realistic enough to expect and accept it. If she doesn't, and isn't, that's too bad. I just think the real nasty stuff is counter-productive - it could give her an excuse to delay or avoid facing the real holes in her case, and could also mislead the public into giving her the sympathy vote or worse, thinking there must be something in it because we protest too much and in the wrong way.
Hi Ally,
You may not consider Melvin's posts part of his ongoing 'work', but I do, since they are presumably written in support of his published theories. And what you might consider ‘insults’ and ‘attacks’, I consider to have been fair questioning and criticism of the content of his posts and any unresolved aspects of same. But your previous argument, I thought, was that my criticism was particularly out of order because it continued when Melvin didn't appear to be around to defend himself. I must have misunderstood you.
You are now admitting that Cornwell has had two weeks of 'snide insulting' and you think that's ok on account of the fact that she doesn't read or contribute to the boards. Glad to hear there is a limit!
I'm also quite pleasantly surprised to hear that you now don't believe those who, like Melvin, do read the boards and post here, should have to put up with snide insults. Long may you express such an opinion, and long may every poster here benefit from it.
I hope you can forgive me for getting your position completely wrong when it comes to who qualifies to be freely insulted here and for how long.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 01:30 pm | | Hi, Dan, Timsta, et al.:
Yes, Ms. Cornwell does spell victim Catherine Eddowes's name as "Eddows" throughout her text and in the illustration captions. This runs contrary to the spelling given at the inquest on her death as well as contrary to the way her name is spelled in the books on the case other than Cornwell's. Point taken though, Timsta, about Eddowes's name being given as "Eddows" on her grave marker -- a marker put there though many decades after the victim's death and burial. Also good point, Dan, that Tabram's family appear to be given as "Tabran" in the 1881 British census.
All the best
Chris |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 01:34 pm | | Hi Brian,
Thanks for your polite and responsible remarks. I in no way was isolating you or anyone else for that matter in critiques of Ms. Cornwell.
I was addressing the broader comments about her on these boards suggesting she is arrogant, a man-hater, and ridiculing her name. All that is irrelevant to the quality of her work.
To address Ally's point about Cornwell being fair game for ridicule since she doesn't come to these boards, I am concerned that the level of discourse here might alienate some of the more sensible and respected researchers.
If Cornwell wants to blunt the criticism against her, those posting such inflammatory insults have certainly given her ammunition.
If one of the more respected researchers who comes to these boards disputes Cornwell's findings, she might very well dismiss such an author as a an unreliable source who posts on websites featuring ghoulish, sociopathic characters who attack people over the spelling of their name, their personal sex lives, and their personalities.
That is not my opinion of the great majority of people who come here - but with the quotes she has been armed with from a few posters she now has a great excuse not to allow knowledgeable people to confront her views.
Can you not hear her now, on interviews, with people who know nothing of this case or this website, saying, "Well, I really don't take ______ too seriously. He is a regular on a website that makes fun of my name, accuses me of hating men, and launches personal assaults against my character."
It's my view that is one of the reasons many experts who have freely posted here in the past are less willing to do so today.
Rich |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 01:54 pm | | Chris,
If I recall correctly, the London Times of 24 August 1888 also misspelled Tabram's name as Tabran during their reporting on the inquest.
So if Cornwell used this source for her inquest data, she may well have spelled it wrong. It could be worse - she could've called her Emma Turner. 
My research into the Met files for my project show that people were pretty fast and loose with spelling of names, not just of witnesses, etc, but also of place names.
Is it safe to assume that this is idiosyncratic of the time period? Did these papers ever print corrections?
B |
Author: Dan Norder
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 02:04 pm | | Brian,
Don't take my mention of what you said personally. A fair number of people had similar statements, yours was just the one I remembered first.
There's a huge difference between humor that people off the street (especially fans of Cornwell's fiction who are looking to see if she really knows what she's talking about when it comes to Jack) would find enjoyable and what you refer to as "namecalling, immature humor" that makes people look, well, immature and unable to support their side with facts.
I certainly don't defend Cornwell's thoroughly shoddy research and arrogant refusal to admit that she's got nothing to justify her accusations against a painter with a pretty solid alibi. Nor do I defend Stephen Knight and others who fabricate details in order to sell books containing absurd theories. Just keep in mind that those authors have a fair number of supporters who would be much more likely to start paying attention to the truth if shown facts instead of only schoolyard level insults.
Dan |
Author: Peter Wood
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 02:08 pm | | Whatever the rights or wrongs of Patricia Cornwell's book, she's got you lot talking again - I haven't seen so many posts under one strand since John Omlor and I used to battle it out on the diary board.
One thing that most of you seem to agree with (though you word it differently) is that Patricia Cornwell is a strong character, she strikes me as being similar to Margaret Thatcher in that respect.
What would you prefer? A ripper author who brings out a book called "A possible solution, though there are others you should consider" or one who champions her cause 100%?
Surely all that Patricia Cornwell is so far guilty of is believing in her baby??? What's wrong with that?
As at least one of you rightly pointed out - of all the ripper suspects ever named it's highly likely that only ONE could have been JTR (unless Walter held James' and Roslyn's hands) - but which one?
Doesn't Patricia Cornwell therefore enjoy the same freedom of speech that we all do here?
Give the girl a break! She's invested a lot of time into her research, written her book and she has every right to be proud of it.
Why am I being so reasonable? Because I am going to meet her for the BBC4 programme later on this month! Thanks for that info Stephen, it also means I get the book for free - so I can take it off my Christmas list and reinstate the David Blaine DVD instead.
Are there any others of you, who quite cheerfully give your views on Patricia Cornwell without having ever met her, likely to make the trip to London? Ok, I don't mean the guys in the states, but c'mon Caz, Monty, RJ etc... you contribute to these boards regularly - whether or not you agree with Patricia Cornwell this is a fascinating opportunity for you to meet a real life author (ok Caz, we know you've got Keith) and discuss the subject FACE TO FACE instead of just slagging her off on some boards you think she doesn't read.
She MAY not read the boards, but the guy at the BBC does - you have been warned.
Regards to all
Peter Not Susan. |
Author: judith stock
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 02:13 pm | | Hello again....
Regarding the spelling of Martha's name, I agree that names (see the archived information on how Eddowes spelled her FIRST name!!...remember THAT discussion, Chris?) were recorded loosely. My family name, for instance, goes through as many as 14 alterations over the years, and the immigrants coming through Ellis Island, and the other POE's, often had their names changed entirely when they were found to be unintelligible or indecipherable by Customs clerks. So the name thing is NOT a huge issue, but it does point to the huge issue: it does not appear that Ms Cornwell has checked or referenced much of anything, except that which supports her theory.
Let us all remember, too, that the "Case Closed" portion of her book title is not unusual...we have the "Final Solution", "The True Face", "The Bloody Truth", "The Final Chapter" and "Finally Solved".....any others I missed? It really sounds good, though......right?
Cheers,
J |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 02:53 pm | | Guys,
I'm not taking anything personally, don't worry. I have determined to be cordial to all on here, as I think everyone has something useful to contribute.
And now I'm in trouble - my girlfriend keeps getting on me about my immature humor, and now my colleagues are. Guess I need to grow up a bit.
Getting this back the main point of this thread, are there any USEFUL points that Cornwell's book brings up?
The only thing that I can think of is the use of the mtDNA...is there any place where the use of this would be helpful besides the letters? I can't think of any, but maybe someone else can.
B |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 03:19 pm | | Hi, Brian, Judy et al:
And let's not forget that at the time the name of the killer was often styled "Jack-the-ripper", the places as "White-chapel" and "Mitre-square" and so on, and yes, Judy, I do well remember the Catharine versus Catherine debate from the boards some time back. Other examples of variations in spelling in the press and in the police reports and memoranda are the ways "Lawende" is spelled in different iterations, Maurice versus Morris Eagle, etc
Brian, I will be interested to hear about your research using the Met files when we get together.
All the best
Chris |
Author: Ally
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 04:54 pm | | Darling Caz,
I'll use small simple words this time. (Oh dear, was that snide?)
When a poster hasn't posted here in quite some time and you resort to picking posts from two years ago in order to insult him (..and if you like I can throw some quotes in of that constructive criticism where you call him a liar and hold him accountable for other people's actions and things he never said) then the snide insults have gone too far. When you are attacking him repeatedly based on his words on this board and he hasn't actually posted in months, that has gone too far. I said several times, when he comes back and can argue the points, then by all means go ahead. As a poster, he is protected from unwarranted harassment of subjects he is no longer posting about. If you consider his posts to be part of an ongoing published work, well that is just foolish as neither he nor the 'publisher' are making any money out of it and therefore it is not a professional offering and therefore not subject to the same standards.
As for the time limit for snide comments, you can always rest assure that my snide comments will always be based on your most recent action and the frequency will insure that I need never have to deride your past ones.
Ally |
Author: Mark Andrew Pardoe
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 07:05 pm | | Whatho Ally and Caz,
Is this argument relevant to Patsy's ramblings?
Whoops, mustn't be insulting! That should be Patricia Cornwell's remarkabley well thought and boundary breaking theory.
Cheers, Mark |
Author: Bob Hinton
Friday, 15 November 2002 - 05:45 am | | Desr Everyone,
I think what has particularly irritated people generally is that Ms Cornwell puts herself up as a serious invesigator willing to use all the advances in forensic science that have evolved since 1888. Nothing wrong with that.
But then she makes a mistake that even the greenest rooky cop would not make - forgetting the chain of evidence.
Each piece of evidence is like a link in a chain, one piece fits to the next and so on until you have sufficient to remove all reasonable doubt. Normally this starts with the victim and moves backwards - Ms Cornwell starts with a suspect and moves forward - nothing wron with that as long as the basic rules are followed. So her chain should be:
Sickert - letters- written by killer- bingo.
Unfortunately she has failed to link Sickert to the letters, and more importantly failed to link the letters to the killer - and yet this is the main plank of her theory. A plank I should not want to walk!
Sickert may be the killer ( I don't personally think so) but to condemn him we would like some sort of believable evidence!
all the best
Bob Hinton
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Spryder
Friday, 15 November 2002 - 09:09 am | |
Quote:
PW: Have you gotten feedback from Ripperologists?
Patricia Cornwell: The word I get from England is that the Ripperologists
are "laying in wait for me," that they are "furious" with me. But this is
simply a criminal investigation, and I recruited and hired the very best
people in the business to help me with this, knowing that, at any step along
the way, they might give me news that I didn't want to hear. Because even at
the end of the day, $6 million later, if something were discovered that
definitively ruled Sickert out, I would have to live with that. But that has
not happened. In fact, the case only continues to get stronger.
http://publishersweekly.reviewsnews.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleId=CA258573&display=searchResults
(Thanks to PB for pointing out this link...) |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 15 November 2002 - 09:48 am | | Hi Ally,
Thanks for the ancient history lesson and advice on what is ‘going too far’ in current insult etiquette.
No I don’t consider Melvin’s posts ‘to be part of an ongoing published work’ – that’s not what I said or meant. I do assume that Melvin ‘works’ at supporting his position whenever he posts. I don’t think he’s just playing at it. But if he comes here and posts something that doesn’t appear to be supported or supportable, he must expect that post to be challenged. If he responds weeks later, with something that fails to address the point satisfactorily, or with something entirely unrelated, or fails to respond at all, he can’t expect it to end there. And the readers will judge the situation accordingly and form their own opinions.
If Melvin objects to the tone or content of any of my posts, I can’t imagine anyone less likely to require encouragement from you or anyone else to tell him to put his objections in writing! It’s very nice of you to protect him from the kind of scandalous insults and attacks you accuse me of slinging around. But in fact, whenever he has responded to me directly or indirectly, he has been far less rude than he is towards others, and infinitely less insulting to me than you habitually are - either on his behalf, or on behalf of all the principles you hold dear and over which I ride roughshod. I recall Ivor telling me once that Melvin referred to ‘Caz’ privately as a ‘waste of space’ – a disarmingly mild remark and, it has to be said, astonishingly accurate. 
Anyway, back to my confusion over who may be subjected to personal insults and by whom, depending on whether they are around or not - or, put another way, whether it's to their face or behind their back. (See why I'm confused?) Wouldn’t it be easier for everyone, and on everyone, and possibly encourage a few more good researchers and authors to contribute - or return – to the boards, if no insults or attacks of a personal nature were seen to be tolerated, actively encouraged or engaged in?
I'm game to give it a go.
Have a good weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ally
Friday, 15 November 2002 - 10:02 am | | Caz,
Apparently simple words aren't enough, I'll try to lower it one more step:
Posters get protection, non-posters don't.
And no, we aren't going to outlaw all insults because this isn't sesame street, we're all adults and sometimes adults like to argue and sometimes people need to be told that they are acting like a great big ole hypocritical slag. As you are so game to give it a go, why don't you just do it instead of constantly preaching about why we ought to do it? Lead by your actions and not your mouth for a change.
I'm sure we'll all follow.
Ally |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 15 November 2002 - 10:11 am | | Latest on the Cornwell Watch:
I understand that Patricia Cornwell is expected to appear this morning on CNN. |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 15 November 2002 - 10:15 am | | | Sorry double post. |
Author: Eliza Cline
Friday, 15 November 2002 - 10:39 am | | Patricia has taken a lot of heat from the people on this board and I am one of those who have been very skeptical of her suspect. But now the lawyer in me wants to play devil's advocate and look at the stronger parts of her argument. So here are some of Cornwell's stronger arguments:
Cornwell has made a strong circumstantial case for Sickert being the author of the Openshaw letter. This in itself is pretty remarkable. Her mDNA evidence, while not conclusive, has to be considered convincing. This evidence eliminates 99% of the London population but does not eliminate Sickert.
There are other links between Sickert and the letter. The watermark on the Openshaw letter is the same as on some of Sickert's letters. The letter contains a rhyme that can be traced to an old Cornish song--Cornwell shows that Sickert was familiar with the area of Cornwall. THe odds that someone besides Sickert had his mDNA, his link with Cornwall, and his particular stationary, are pretty long.
If Sickert indeed wrote the letter, which is probable, then this was no ordinary hoax--Sickert took pains to disguise his handwriting, and to write in a lower-class Cockney slang. I find it odd that he would take such precautions, unless there was a lot at stake for him if the letter were traced to him. What did he have to hide? The fact that he would write such a letter at all shows he had a pretty disturbing and macabre side to his personality.
Other letters allegedly from the Ripper show traces of ochre and other paint of a kind that a professional artist would use.
Add that to the violent paintings of Sickert and his well-known fascination with the Ripper murders; his interest in lower-class prostitutes; the fact that he painted a picture called "Jack the Ripper's Bedroom," which was in fact his own bedroom at the time; his well-known ability to disguise his handwriting; these things do raise some doubts about Sicker's innocence. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 15 November 2002 - 11:27 am | | "If Sickert indeed wrote the letter, which is probable, then
this was no ordinary hoax--Sickert took pains to disguise
his handwriting, and to write in a lower-class Cockney
slang."
Why would he disguise his handwriting if he was sending an anonymous letter to a press agency or any other place where his handwriting would self-evidentally be unknown. He wasn't particularly prominent in 1888.
Chris George:
Does Pat Cornwell mention our old friend Joseph Gorman Sickert in her book? I have suggested that he be invited to the TV taping on the 27th November. That should be fun! |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 15 November 2002 - 11:39 am | | Hi Ally,
I simply suggested it might be 'easier'. Whatever was I thinking?
If you find it easier to repeat words like 'hypocritical slag' (makes an edifying and refreshing change from 'Cornball is a nutter'), than to ever consider that an alternative viewpoint to your own could possibly have any merit, then so be it.
I thought you might want to try something a little more demanding, but then I'm no judge of what others don't want or need to read on these boards.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Monty
Friday, 15 November 2002 - 12:07 pm | | Susan...are you sure your not Peter ??,
Dont care if she believes in her case 100% or not.
You know its nonsense. There is no case. Ask Scott E or Bob. Nada, zilch, feck all.
I didnt think you would pander so low just for a free book  .
She tells me that she has solved it....can you see it ?? Can anyone ?? can you spot the direct link between Walter Sickert and the Murder of women in Whitechapel 1888 ?
Yeah ?? Well tell me cos its just flying by.
A few letters and paintings and thats all.
But hey, who am I ? Ive not poored in $6m into a lame, half assed theory/extremely sucessful writer on crime.
What gives her the authority anyway ??? Is she a trained investigator or doctor??
Its being given the same hype the diary had though, in my eyes, the diary has more credence.
I'll come on your jolly, but I shant meet her because I dislike lies, I dislike being lied to.
'This case is now solved' is the bragg.
Like I said, hate lies me.
Monty
 |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Friday, 15 November 2002 - 12:15 pm | | The mtDNA does eliminate 99% of the London population, however; that leaves an estimated 30,000 plus suspects along with Sickert. That is roughly the student population of the University of Georgia, LSU, Tennessee, Florida, Florida State, USC, Notre Dame or any other large American University. That is also approximately 10,000 more than the sell out capacity of any indoor professional sporting facility, ie Basketball, Hockey or Indoor Soccer. In other words, just watch the Los Angeles Lakers next time they play in front of a sell out crowd. That is still a lot of people.
Several posts have been made here in reference to the water mark. In fact, Cornwell even admits that the watermark is unique to just Sickert. The watermark could have been obtained by almost anybody in the remaining 30,000.
I do not know anything about the Cornish rhyme.
As far as the Cockney slag and tone of the Oppenshaw letter, our British counterparts can better address that issue. But, in my opinion, it seems that the writer of the Oppenshaw Letter seems to go in and out of the Cockney slang/tone, much like Dennis Quaid goes in and out of his Cajun accent throughout the movie “The Big Easy.”
Sickert’s interest in lower class women and prostitutes is not out of the normal for painters in that era. As far as the paint traces are concerned, how many of the remaining 30,000 people painted? During the Victorian Period, painting and music were common ways for people to pass the time as hobbies and entertainment.
As far as the painting concerning the bedroom.....I’ll let Monty address that.
Even a bad District Attorney would want the numbers thinned out a bit more.
Even if Sickert did write the Oppenshaw Letter, I still do not see the evidence linking him to the murders. If I had brought this evidence against a suspect to my Captain, she would have laughed and thrown it and me out of her office and I would have been back to running radar before I hit the bottom of the steps.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Friday, 15 November 2002 - 12:16 pm | | MONTY!! COME HERE AND RELATE THE STORY OF YOU AND THE RIPPER'S BEDROOM PAINTING.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 15 November 2002 - 12:23 pm | | Hi, Peter:
No mention of Joseph Sickert in the Cornwell book. As mentioned previously, there is no reliance on the Royal Conspiracy theory, and Joe was not consulted, it seems. What is the line-up for the BBC show? I believe Ivor Edwards and Monty are appearing, is that right? What about Paul Begg, Stewart Evans, or Don Rumbelow?
Certainly of the initial Ripper letters, the initial 25 September 1888 "Dear Boss" letter has very neat, clerkish writing which is radically different to the almost illegible scrawl that Sickert letters show was his normal hand. Yet of course she is saying he wrote scores of such "Ripper" letters -- perhaps as many as 150 such letters.
During her live appearance on CNN this morning, she was asked what evidence she had "to tie Sickert to the crimes" and of course she talked about the evidence linking him to the letters which have not been proven to be from the killer. She also said, I believe, that "fifty more samples" are still being tested by Bode Laboratories -- I played the videotape I made several times and she may have said "fifteen" so perhaps this can be clarified. While admitting that she did not have the nuclear DNA that is used in court to assess guilt she said they had the mitochondrial DNA matches between Sickert letters and Ripper letters that, as she said, form a "compass needle" pointing in Sickert's direction. At the least, she claimed, this was the oldest DNA used in a forensic investigation. I wonder if that is true? I would guess that DNA sampling has been done on Egyptian mummies.
All the best
Chris |
Author: Eliza Cline
Friday, 15 November 2002 - 01:30 pm | | Scott, I don't want to go too far out on a limb defending Cornwall, but you are stretching it if you think it is plausible that anyone but Sickert wrote the Openshaw letter. The odds are heavily in favor that he did. Through the mDNA alone, you can eliminate 99% of the population. How many more can you eliminate when you consider the expensive stationary, which had the same Watermark used by Sickert (and used by the upper classes exclusively, virtually unknown in the East End), the link with Cornwall, and the paint residue. There is too much pointing to Sickert.
I agree that there would not be enough to convict Sickert, probably not even enough to bring him to trial. But that can be said of the other major suspects too. But I'm sure that if police had had the DNA and other evidence in 1888, they would certainly look into Sickert and keep him under surveillance. |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 15 November 2002 - 02:23 pm | | Eliza,
Like I've said before - Cornwell has a fairly convincing case that Sickert hoaxed a Ripper letter. But the police received thousands of Ripper letters, and probably only one of them came from the killer. So this really only proves that Sickert had a sick sense of humor.
And I am 100% certain that if the Met had any reason to suspect Sickert they would've kept an eye on him - but considering the fact that he wasn't in London for at least two of the five canonical murders, they would've cleared him as fast as they cleared John "Leather Apron" Pizer.
B |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Friday, 15 November 2002 - 02:27 pm | | Eliza, I agree that Sickert may be considered a suspect, but to suggest that he should swing from the gallows is another thing. As I said, even if he wrote the Oppenshaw Letter or even all of the letters, that does not link him to the murders.
As far as the letters go, they tell us nothing. None of them offer any viable future prediction of a murder, and none of them offer any information to the killings that could not have been easily found out by reading the papers or through hearsay on the streets. In the letters Zodiac sent to the police and the newspapers, he at least spoke of details that only the killer would know. These details went far beyond what was reported in the local papers or could be heard on the street.
The case against Walter Sickert is flimsy, in fact, the only case in recent years that comes close to being as flimsy is the Atlanta Murder Trial of NFL Linebacker Ray Lewis. The DA chose to go to trial with no evidence, beyond circumstantial, that put the knife in Lewis' hand, let alone, any evidence that would prove that Lewis was the actual killer. This could be considered legal malpractice on the D.A.'s part and sheer stupidity on the part of the police. The only thing Lewis was guilty of , and found guilty of, was obstructing a police investigation.
Getting back to Patricia Cornwell, she has no criminal investigative credentials that she boast of. If she did, then she would know the leagl pitfalls of mtDNA in a criminal investigation. Like any attorney, Defense or Prosecution, she is relying on the general public's ignorance of DNA. She is relying on throwing the term Deoxyribonucleic Acid at the public and hoping that they swallow it when they gasp in wide wonder. In her own words, she states there is a problem with the DNA but refuses to give into the possibility that she has named the wrong person as the killer. In fact, the only thing she can say about the Oppenshaw Letter is that it was written by a white person of Euro descent, who may have been Walter Sickert. May is the key word. The key word that would cause a big hurdle for any Prosecutor.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: judith stock
Friday, 15 November 2002 - 02:38 pm | | Dear Eliza,
Actually, the stationery wasn't all that expensive, as compared to the high-end papers sold out of the same shop, and made by the same manufacturer, so your argument about the paper is not based very solidly.
I'm also not certain the Cornwall rhyme means anything at all. This strikes me as one of those things that makes the rounds, everyone says "how cute", remembers it for a bit, and then forgets it. Also, Cornwell has no way of proving how many of the 1% had spent time in Cornwall. Just because Sickert HAD does not mean he was the only one of the 1% who had done so.
Regarding the paint residue, I'm also of the opinion that there was more than painter in the fabled 1%.
Nothing so far, has narrowed the focus onto Sickert alone; paper, a rhyme, and paint residue. .....none of the above make a definitive case for Sickert ONLY. And no one has yet proved that ANY of the letters was written by the killer; to the contrary, the majority of proof rests with all the letters being hoaxes from nutters, serial confessers, or those who wanted the news glut to continue.
Sorry, the case doesn't hold water yet...
Cheers,
J |
Author: Ally
Friday, 15 November 2002 - 02:51 pm | | Caz,
You're what..a homemaker? Plenty of time on your hands? I'll tell you what, you pay me two hundred dollars a week to read every single post and vet it for people being naughty and we'll go with something more demanding, until then, zip it.
Ally |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Friday, 15 November 2002 - 05:49 pm | | Regarding the DNA tests, Ms. Cornwell's own expert Dr. Paul Ferrara made the following comment about the tests:-
"It's not definitive at this point, it's iffy. But it's tantalisingly iffy, again, in terms of, um, we can't eliminate Walter Sickert."
It has also been published in an article by David Cohen, which has a link on this site, that:-
"The available sequence could be found in anywhere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the population."
The population of London at the time was over three million, but that does not include the transient and visiting populace.
The paper was of common manufacture and used by thousands. Then the following has to be taken into consideration. 'The Openshaw letter' is almost certainly a hoax. We do not know the origin of the mitochondrial DNA that came from the Sickert correspondence, two letters, it has not been proven to be from Sickert.
'The Openshaw Letter' was in my possession for many months two years ago, before Ms. Cornwell had even heard of it. At that time I photographed the watermark in the letter, a long time before Ms. Cornwell had it done:-
(Photograph Copyright S P Evans). |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 15 November 2002 - 09:09 pm | | Eliza,
Multiple pieces of DNA were found on the letter, only one of which couldn't be ruled out to be the same as the one they think was Sickert's. So if we accept that the match to the DNA they did make rules out 99% of the population... what about the other DNA on the letter? Since there was other DNA that could just have easily been that of the writer, that 99% pointer means nothing at all.
The best we can say is that one of several unknown people who touched the letter isn't completely genetically different from some other unknown person who touched something Sickert had touched.
That's not a compass needle, that's a snow job.
Regarding the supposed Cornish song link... if it's the same one suggested earlier as a possible link by someone else here, keep in mind that that song was printed in several books that were distributed in London and around the world by that time. That era was in a midst of a renaissance of sorts when it comes to collecting and printing fairy tales, folklore and folk songs from countries all over the world. And the song could have been sung by someone (either picked up from the book or from having coming from Cornwall) who passed it on to the person who wrote the letter. And, not knowing for sure what song is being referenced by Cornwell, it's also possible that the words only coincidentally look like they were based upon the song.
Time after time Cornwell has taken the most unlikeliest of possible connections to things far removed from finding the killer and tried to connect them all into some sort of case. These are the tactics of a con man, not a serious researcher.
Dan |
Author: Scott Nelson
Friday, 15 November 2002 - 10:49 pm | | | Here's an interesting question: Why does Alegeria see fit to insult someone with the term "slag"? Not once, but twice. It's incredible. More incredible is that noboby voices any objection. What are all of you afraid of? Being banned? |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 01:13 am | | The postscript of the Openshaw letter reads-
O have you seen the devle
with his mikerscope and scalpul
a lookin at a kidney
with a slide cocked up
The rhyme in 'Duffy and the Devil' reads-
Here's to the devil
with his wooden pick and shovel
Digging tin by the bushel
With his tail c*ck'd up!
The rhyme was printed in Popular Romances of the West of England, London, John Camden Hotten, 1871, which was a popular and easily obtainable book of the time. To suggest that having based the Openshaw letter rhyme on the folk tale in this book provides a link to Sickert is baseless. It is another example of Ms. Cornwell desperately trying to provide Sickert links in everything she finds. |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 09:41 am | | Scott, One word: Yes.
Chris T. George: Hi Chris, we haven't spoken in a while, partly because I'm seething that Houllier's men are on top of the pile. Did you say something about Ms Cornwell having a watch? Shades of Maybrick ...? (N.B. To anyone still reading at this point: I fully understood what Chris was saying in his post, this is a light hearted good old English attempt at humour. Sue me a la David Brent).
Monty: You're right - of course the lure of a free book was too good to miss, but as I've made plain here many times before I'm more than happy to meet with people who's views I don't agree with, in order to assess all the evidence you first have to have all the evidence. I'll listen to what Patricia has to say and let's see if she can convince me. Then I'll give her a solid four hour lecture on why it was really James Maybrick ...
Apart from which, she's a writer and I aspire to be a writer - so we have two things in common, writing and JTR.
I think it's quite amazing that someone can be crucified for voicing her opinion on the identity of Jack The Ripper.
Many people talk about what they would and wouldn't do regarding DNA testing etc etc, but Patricia Cornwell has put the money up and gone and done it. For that at least she deserves some respect.
I find the whole mtDNA thing quite exasperating, not least of which is because I hadn't heard of it before watching the BBC documentary a week or so back. But we have to give it a chance, right?
Anyway, who else is going to the TV recording? More importantly - would any of you be interested in sharing a pint and some jellied eels afterwards?
Monty: That ruby we're going to have ...does that mean I've got a bunk up for the night?
Only half in jest ...
Susan not Peter |
|
|
|
|
