Archive through 19 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 19 November 2002

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects: Cornwell Archives: Archive through 19 November 2002

Author: Ivor Edwards Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 06:07 pm
Hi Peter, So you are also going to the BBC show on Patricia Cornwall.I was not aware that the programme was going to turn into a copper's convention !!!! In answer to your question, "Who else is going?" The bad news is ( for you ) that I also had an invite from the BBC and took them up on their offer to attend so our paths may cross.What did I hear you mutter," Not if I have anything to do with it ". It is not a question of Patricia Cornwell being crucified for her opinion on the identity of JTR as you appear to think.The situation relates to the methods she has utilized to con the public into believing Sickert was the killer.Suffice to add that Stewart Evans was quite correct in his comments regarding the methods she has adopted.In my opinion certain avenues of her investigation into this case have been so shoddy that they defy all description. In fact I would go so far as to state that many aspects of her investigation into the case have been the worst that I have ever seen.Also a word to the wise think twice before you have a curry in Brick Lane.
Author: Eliza Cline Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 07:11 pm
I'm still mulling over the mDNA evidence in Cornwall's book. Scott Medine made the point that the mDNA found on the Openshaw letter could not exclude 30,000 of the population. However, by the time we eliminated all the children from that 30,000 (and arguably the women); all those who would be too elderly or infirm to write the letter; then all the illiterates; then all those who did not use stationary with A Pirie watermark; we would have significantly fewer than 30,000. I still say the odds Sickert wrote that letter are pretty high. And I am troubled by the idea that he would write it--the disguised handwriting, the cruel and mocking quality of it all, evidence a rather disturbed personality. I think the reason Cornwell's book is offensive is not that she puts forth Sickert as a suspect, but that she heaps so much vitriol on him. Her evidence is not strong enough for her to engage in such vitriolic attacks.
Author: Dan Norder Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 08:35 pm
Eliza, You still aren't accounting for the fact that Cornwell admits there was DNA from at least five different people on that letter, and there's no way to know which of them wrote it, if any. So there's at least an 80% chance that she's barking up the wrong family tree completely. And then we don't even know that the sample she claims must be from Sickert that was used to test the letter against was his either. Even giving her the benefit of the doubt it's looking more likely that she'll be struck by lightning than that she found a true link between Sickert and the writer of the Oppenshaw letter. Dan
Author: judith stock Sunday, 17 November 2002 - 12:58 am
Dear Eliza and all, Regarding the 1% "magic number" that has been floating around, a good friend and author/researcher has been visiting this weekend, and we began wondering if 30,000 was the magic number, or if it was accurate at all. We found several sources that say the population of London in 1889 was 4 million; we found one source that says the population in 1901 was 6 million. If 3 million is the number for 1888, then 30,000 would be the 1%...but if 4 million is correct, the figure jumps to 40,000. A jump from 3 to 6 million in a mere thirteen years seems a bit high, even for the capital of the Empire, so we are both inclined to believe the larger number for 1888. Taking all this into consideration, I would be inclined to err on the high side of the estimates. BUT EVEN if the number is LESS than 30,000...let's be VERY conservative and call it 20,000, AND let's drop out Eliza's children, women, and infirm, we are still looking at a group that is larger than many towns; I can think of NO police department, when faced with a target group of, say, 9,000 men, would point to one, using only the flimsy bits that Cornwell presents as evidence. I, for one, am not willing to hang a man on the guesswork, "MUST be's" and "QUITE POSSIBLY's" that Cornwell uses. She has NOT proven that Sickert ever wrote ANY of the letters; no graphologist says that without doubt Sickert's handwriting is in one of those letters; no "inkologist" says that letter ink matches Sickert's ink; no chemist says that only Sickert's paint smudges match those found on a letter or envelope. In short, not one of her experts (employed by her, by the way, at her forensic institute here in Virginia) could say that any particular piece of "evidence" is tied to Sickert, and Sickert ALONE. Just because she wants Sickert to have written a letter, does not make it so. Her mtDNA does not isolate Sickert (and granted, does not exlude him, either), but she had better do some fancy tap dancing to cover herself on this one. She simply has not presented a case for Sickert, and Sickert ONLY. There are simply too many other options, and far too many explanations for every one of her "MUST be's". Cornwell has, of course, put herself in the same position that Det. Mark Fuhrman did when she says "case closed" and "100% certain". Every good attorney will tell his witnesses to NEVER say NEVER or ALWAYS. Those very words leave one wide open to impeachment, as she has done to herself in this case. Oh, well.....you know, if she had written this as "I have a strong suspicion", "a very viable suspect", or even "I'll bet" she could have carried this off without half as many slurs and insults. She has well and truly hung herself out to dry on this one; now she has to blow in the wind like the rest of the laundry. Cheers, J
Author: Peter Wood Sunday, 17 November 2002 - 08:10 am
Ivor Great news! Shall we meet up before or afterwards or both? Seeing as filming is in the afternoon we could have a quiet coffee somewhere, then I could serve you with an outstanding arrest warrant. Right then - statistics. Patricia Cornwell has evidence that someone who matched the same mtDNA profile as her suspect handled the Openshaw letter. Is that fair enough? The statistics are basically saying: if you put Sickert in a room with 99 other people then he's the only one with that mtDNA match. To me, that's pretty damn good odds that Sickert had something to do with the Openshaw letter. I'd love to see odds like that discovered against any other known suspect. Cappucino, not Espresso. Peter.
Author: Spryder Sunday, 17 November 2002 - 08:58 am
Lets do some statistics. Let's say there were 250 Ripper letters studied, since I've seen Cornwell use that number elsewhere (though there are in fact around 600 'Ripper letters' extant). If the 'Sickert mtDNA' was to be found only in 1 percentile of the general population, then statistically speaking, assuming the Ripper letters were from various portions of the population, equally spread out, 2.5 of those 250 Ripper letters (1/100th of the total number) would be expected to have mtDNA in the same 1% population as the 'Sickert mtDNA'. Cornwell herself claims to have found two Ripper sources (Openshaw and an unspecified envelope with blood on it) that share the same 16294-73-263 sequence. Her findings (2 matches) remain well within the bounds of what we would expect from a 1% statisical coincidence (2.5 matches). Of course this ignores the fact that there were likely dozens if not hundreds of other mtDNA sequences found on Sickert's correspondence, perhaps from family, friends, and 60 years worth of students, archivists and researchers. With this level of possible contamination there's no way to match the 16294-73-263 sequence to Sickert himself. Indeed, considering the number of Ripper scholars who have examined both the Ripper letters and Sickert's correspondence in person over the past three decades, it is not outside the realms of possibility that this 16294-73-263 sequence came from one of them (Stephen Knight, Jean Overton Fuller, Frank Spiering, David Abrahamsen, etc. etc.). It also ignores the fact that mtDNA sequences, as was mentioned here earlier, are shared along racial/ethnic lines. If the 16294-73-263 sequence is to be found only in caucasians, the numbers change quite a bit. What percent of the world's population in 1888 were black, hispanic, asian, middle-eastern, native-American or indian (i.e. non-donors)? A quick glance at http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/20c-pop1.htm indicates that in 1900 there were approximately 500 million people in North America and Europe, and 1.1 billion people in South America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. So, roughly, about 31% of the world population was caucasian around 1888. So now its no longer a matter of 1 in 100 people, but rather one out of every thirty-one caucasians who could have been a match. In the end, you can use statistics to 'prove' anything. Thirty-two percent of all people know that.
Author: Ivor Edwards Sunday, 17 November 2002 - 02:24 pm
Hi Peter, Good idea for "both".They do not know where it is to be held at the moment so once we know we can make plans.I will need to read her book before being drawn on the DNA debate. One thing I do know though even IF Sickert sent a ripper letter that in itself is not proof he was the killer because over one hundred people sent dodgy letters.If Cormwell or anyone else has stated that most if not all of the letters were sent by the same person then they are as mad as a hatter. Even at this stage I would put money down to state Sickert never sent the Openshaw letter.If Cornwall tries to take advantage of public ignorance by her Bulls**t baffles brains attitude over mtDNA etc then she will come unstuck.From what I saw on TV of her and her crew performing at the public records office and elsewhere they are onto a loser anyway.She and her team have been opening their mouths making stupid bloody remarks without thinking about the implications.She has been very careful but not careful enough in relation to whom she has approached on this matter and many of these "Yes Patricia" people were already known to her.Miss Cornwall must have heard the saying. "If you can't win over people with facts then baffle them with science" PS, Just make sure that outstanding arrest warrant is backed for bail.
Author: Peter Wood Sunday, 17 November 2002 - 04:56 pm
Ivor If you and Patricia get into a fracas, you may find yourself staying at one of her majesty's hotels for the evening - on a charge of breaching the peace. In for a penny, in for a pound! I will, of course, have to play the part of uncommitted observer whilst you and Patricia bat Ripper suspects back and forth. Where will you be staying in London? Cheers Peter
Author: Ivor Edwards Sunday, 17 November 2002 - 07:59 pm
Peter, The first thing I might say to her, "My God your a stunner Pat, can you see your way clear to lend me a few quid for research purposes. Also my cat needs an operation on his ding dong 80 grand should cover my needs. Perhaps we can go back to your pad after the show where you can tell me all about Sickert and your childhood" She would probably inform me that if my cat had the operation on it's ding dong it would start killing other cats 15 years later. As yet I had only made plans to pop up for the day but if I score with Pat then who knows perhaps her place!!! Perhaps she might take us both back to her place.
Author: Neale Carter Monday, 18 November 2002 - 02:44 am
Ivor's comment above "It is not a question of Patricia Cornwell being crucified for her opinion on the identity of JTR as you appear to think.The situation relates to the methods she has utilized to con the public into believing Sickert was the killer", echoed by many others, is most apt. Only a cursory knowledge of JtR scholarship is enough to see the ludicrous gaps in her logic in categorically declaring Sickert JtR. Unfortunately the wider public doesn't have the same context in which to examine her claims, ie. most peoples understanding of JtR extends to "slashed and killed prostitutes on foggy nights in Victorian London". The essence of the hoodwinking she is perpetrating is to use her fame in the field of crime fiction to claim unwarranted status as a historian. In an age where a thoughtful, well researched news item consists of anything longer than a 30 second sound bite, any critical analysis of what is presented as fact is lost in the hype and spin of the media. Although I don't profess to know her motives in developing her theory,creating hype in order to sell a book can't be far from the mark. If this book becomes a bestseller, which is likely, I await her next non-fiction effort "Portrait of an Assassin" proposing Andy Warhol shot JFK from the grassy knoll! If serious, informed scholarship is supplanted by bull**** infotainment as produced by Ms Cornwell we are all the worse for it.
Author: Christopher T George Monday, 18 November 2002 - 09:21 am
Hi, Neale et al.: Unfortunately the scenario with Cornwell's book becoming a best seller advancing a possibly bogus suspect has been in the makings for a long time. Ever since Prince Eddy was advanced as a suspect in the 1970s wilder and wilder suspects have been suggested. You might say that the public's appetite was whetted after a prince of the realm had been publicly named: Jack the Ripper henceforth could be anybody. It only needed a "name" author with a big publicity machine at their disposal to set up the present situation. This is quite apart from the strength or weakness of her case against the suspect. To be realistic about it, this is not necessarily Patricia Cornwell's fault. She is just in the situation that any author is who names a suspect and is promoting their book, be they Stewart Evans or Ivor Edwards (apologies to those two gentemen) or whomever -- it's just that her name is bigger and her international publishers' have greater resources for publicity. Surely any author, again no matter the nature of their case against their suspect, would be glad of that publicity and would use it, if they had it to hand. Just look at the cover of her book, shown below, and see whose name is larger, Patricia Cornwell's or Jack the Ripper's. As I noted in my review of her book in the latest issue of Ripperologist, this is possibly the first time with a non-fiction book that the name of the author is given on the cover of the book in bigger type than the name given to the killer of 1888. Best regards Chris George
Author: Stewart P Evans Monday, 18 November 2002 - 11:50 am
Patricia Cornwell is certainly the biggest-name author to write on the subject and probably the best writer. I just wish that I had half her talent for writing. However, she has strayed from the realms of fictional works into factual writing, which may not be compatible with her talents. It must not be overlooked, whatever the cons, that her interest in the subject will result in a massive boost to the general interest in the case. As 'Ripper writers', as opposed to historians, we should, perhaps, be grateful for that. She is certainly getting a roasting from both the Ripper and Sickert aficionados which, I think, she rather expected would be the case. But, remember what they say, no publicity is bad publicity and I am sure that her book will be a best-seller. I have a copy of the UK edition, Little Brown, and I think it's a handsomely produced book. And just look at all that great ephemera she has bought.
Author: Timsta Monday, 18 November 2002 - 11:54 am
Hi all. I notice Cornwell's book is doing a roaring trade on Ebay. Regards Timsta
Author: Ally Monday, 18 November 2002 - 12:06 pm
Hi Stewart, I think you are right when you say that despite the quality of her work, her book is going to be a best seller. I was having a little discussion with someone else who was just dumbfounded by the fact that her book was at #2 by the first day. I had tried to explain to him that Cornwell had a built in audience and it didn't matter if she wrote a book saying that George Washington was the Ripper, there was no theory so improbable or impossible to keep people from buying her book because it is not about what is inside her book, it's the name on the cover. She has a built in audience and therefore, the muscle to send it over the top. Regards, Ally
Author: Monty Monday, 18 November 2002 - 12:19 pm
Stewart, As ever you have produced a polite and flattering post........ BUT, as someone who has studied this case for most of his adult life, her theory would rank where ? Im just curious on your views on this piece of work, especially as this piece of work is by someone who is openly critical of our kind, informs us that the case is solved and denounces the work of others. Would you, being given $6m, have used this money so unwisely ? Monty PS Chris T, I understand your point, its just that I have never read in any of Stewarts works that he has 'solved the case' or totally dis-regarded the work of people who have studied the case for many years. Stewart has respect for others which, because of this and his excellent work, is returned by others. Thats the difference between the two in my eyes.
Author: Timsta Monday, 18 November 2002 - 12:39 pm
Stewart: "No publicity is bad publicity"? Try telling that to Frank Bough. Regards Timsta
Author: Dan Norder Monday, 18 November 2002 - 01:17 pm
The best writer? Judging from the column she wrote for the New York Times about the Beltway Sniper(s) and the excerpt of her ripper book printed here, I think she's a horrible writer. Now, having not ever read any of her fiction, it's possible that she is good at developing fictional characters or advancing a plot, or something along those lines that would show up in fiction but not elsewhere. I wouldn't bet on it though.
Author: David O'Flaherty Monday, 18 November 2002 - 01:21 pm
Stewart, After all your work with the offical records and letters, you don't consider yourself a historian? Like Monty, I also wonder what use you would find for six million dollars. I suppose I'd use it to preserve what documents we have, and maybe track down and purchase some of the ones we don't. I'd also throw some Neal Shelden's way to help with his victim photograph search. Also, do you have any opinions about the use of modern technology in the case? Can it be helpful to us at all? Six million dollars--in today's economy, that's about five hundred English pounds Dave
Author: Christopher T George Monday, 18 November 2002 - 01:25 pm
Hi, Stewart et al.: Let us just say, shall we, that Patricia Cornwell is a more commercially successful writer? Let us not forget that, according to what I heard last year, highly successful American fiction (and nonfiction) author and fellow Marylander, Tom Clancy, also reportedly has a Jack the Ripper project that he is working on. Possibly we can expect before long another Frankenstein-like jolt to the field of Ripper studies with the launch of Mr. Clancy's book on the Whitechapel murders. Welcome to the Twenty-First Century, Jack! Best regards Chris George
Author: Dan Norder Monday, 18 November 2002 - 02:04 pm
Tom Clancy wants to get into the act also? Grrreat. Heck, Dean Koontz, Anne Rice and Tim LaHaye all ought to take a shot at it too. We wouldn't want any overrated bestselling hack writer feeling left out, now would we? Going from their previous work: Clancy will probably have it be a Fenian plot, with secret bombing threats and such that get foiled by Scotland Yard and hushed up to avoid a larger panic. Koontz will point to a group of Jewish mystics harvesting organs to graft onto their own in a twisted bid for immortality, and one of his main characters will break into a long monologue about how none of this would have happened if people just followed his personal conservative political agenda. Rice, well, will have it so filled with neogothic romantic claptrap that she will forget it was supposed to be about Jack the Ripper and have to come up with a sequel just to get the character back in the picture. And LaHaye obviously will blame it on Jews, Masons and Satanists (not that he thinks there's a difference) and will explain that the reason the killings stopped so suddenly is that Jack got smacked down by the Hand of God, literally. Some of the blood and guts in Mary Kelly's apartment were all that remained of Jack on this mortal plane. Ah, yes, the world of Jack the Ripper nonfiction will soon be turned on its ear. Maybe all the current ripperologists could write nonfiction works and sell them as massmarket fiction novels to try to balance the whole system out. Dan
Author: Peter Wood Monday, 18 November 2002 - 02:14 pm
Excellent comments from Stewart, who has managed to calm stormy waters Game on Timsta! Cool joke about Boughy, why don't you start on Angus Deayton next? Chris, isn't it habitual for "name" writers such as Cornwell, Archer, Grisham to have their names larger than the title of the book? After all, when I know JG or JA has got a new book out I'm drawn to anything with their name on, I don't necessarily need to know the title. As a confirmed Maybrickite it may surprise you to know that I like Patricia Cornwell's approach. I just wish she could be British and be our Prime Minister. Ivor, do you take sugar in your coffee? Peter
Author: Garen Ewing Monday, 18 November 2002 - 02:16 pm
I just wanted to voice my opinions on Miss Cornwell's book. I found the Omnibus programme very interesting but was disturbed by Cornwell's pre-bias to her suibject - particularly the film footage at the end with a close up of the old Sickert's eyes, her use of the word's 'evil old man' and music being played in the background just so no one had any doubts about it! I'm reading the book because I want to know her arguments. It's difficult not to read it and keep asking 'where are the facts!?' To base so much on her (unsound) reasoning that Sickert wrote nearly all the letters (ergo he is Jack) is fairly amazing. She also springs from the idea of Sickert's childhood operation very strongly - but no evidence. She even keeps alluding to the lack of evidence. I haven't got onto the stuff about DNA yet, but I've learnt a lot of interesting stuff from what others have to say on these boards (thank you for the voices of informed people!). One thing that worries me also is the artistic evidence. I am a professional illustrator and I had to 'fake' letters in several scripts for a theatre prop once. I found it hugely difficult to keep from gong back to my usual lettering throughout just a short letter, let alone keep a script I was inventing consistent throughout just a short note (though I'm sure better artists than I with that talent could do it). Those handwriting styles are so different on the 'Ripper letters'. As for Sickert's supposed art subject matter of murder etc.. well, I'd hate to think what henious crimes were carried out by Goya, to name just one. Most artists will at some point in their career draw someone lying down, it doesn't mean it's been based on a corpse or a mortuary photograph, but its got a good chance of resembling a dead person, as lying prone is all the rage amongst the deceased. That Sickert's faces look mutilated - that's impressionism for you. Again, look at Goya, look at Manet, even. Some of these figures have no faces! I also find the early sketch of the so-called stabbing interesting. To me it looks more bawdy than murderous. Cornwell mentions a knife in the 'stabbing' figure's hand. For the life of me I can't see it! Deciding on a suspect first is surely not the way to follow a case. Did she decide on Sickert solely based on John Grieve's comment of 'There's one interesting chap you might want to check out...' - as I say, I'm only part way through the book. I must also say I think Cornwell has a perfect right to investigate Sickert, but its a shame she's been so callous about it. Part of me can't help but admire her single-mindedness, but it is terribly flawed, and that's a shame. Thanks for reading my over-long ramble! Sorry to take up so much space... Best wishes - Garen.
Author: Peter Wood Monday, 18 November 2002 - 02:22 pm
We've sussed it! JtR" was JR Ewing! Sorry Garen, but it's not a common name over here and still evokes memories of Saturday nights in front of the tv with a mug of ovaltine in one hand and a copy of the beano in t'other, watching those oil millionaires compete for airtime with Dynasty. Peter
Author: Garen Ewing Monday, 18 November 2002 - 02:34 pm
<??for reminding me about Dallas, Peter! When you say 'over here' I assume you mean the UK. I live in Sussex and the Ewing name is Scottish, not Texan. But JR being 'Jack Ripper' is a new possibility, and surely worthy of a book... ? - Garen :-)
Author: Stewart P Evans Monday, 18 November 2002 - 02:46 pm
Interesting comments. It was to be expected that Patricia Cornwell's name alone would ensure fantastic sales. That is why she commands a publisher's advance far in excess of anything an average Ripper author would ever expect to see. The publicity for her book must be good for Ivor and Paul with their new Ripper books coinciding so well with the release of hers. It's this plus side of things that we should appreciate I guess. The quality of her writing is, I think, very good, and I'm not talking content here in respect of this Ripper book. Her status and sales as an author must indicate that she is very good at what she does and I don't think that can be gainsaid. But her forte is in writing fiction, which is creative writing and, in my opinion, the sort of writing that requires the greatest talent and imagination. And I think that she is wrong to stray into the realms of true crime writing. There can be no doubt that she would have written an excellent novel on the case, had she chosen to. Unfortunately, she didn't. Her novels enjoy such a huge following, however, that any book she writes will be guaranteed excellent sales figures. And the publishers know this. I have previously commented on the Sickert theory and my opinions on it are well known. He ranks alongside all the other 'non-suspects' at zero. As regards spending $6 million on research, most of it must have been spent on the Sickert side of the story, and I have failed to find one new fact about the Whitechapel murders in the whole book. Frankly I would not know where to start spending that sort of money in order to discover new material on the Ripper. Certainly someone like Neal Shelden would be a good start with his excellent talent for genealogical research. Plenty of food for thought has been provided by Ms. Cornwell, whatever way you look at it. There is certainly some fierce rivalry and differing opinions in the Ripper world as we have seen with exchanges on these boards. It is unfortunate if they become too personal sometimes, and they shouldn't - we all have the same basic interest. P.S. That's why I avoid the 'diary' debates. :-)
Author: Christopher T George Monday, 18 November 2002 - 03:00 pm
Hi, all: To clarify, I believe Tom Clancy's book might be a fictional approach to the case, rather than nonfiction, and also to write about about the Ripper in a modern-day context rather than the killer in the original 1888 setting. As many of you may know, one of Clancy's fortés in his books is high tech equipment, which he would not be able to use if, in a fictional portrayal, he wrote about the case as it took place in 1888. Best regards Chris George
Author: Richard P. Dewar Monday, 18 November 2002 - 03:31 pm
Hi Stewart, I agree with your post entirely. I think many of us are initially brought to the case by the works of people like Knight or Cornwell. There are those who simply accept their theories and move on - others of us investigate further. Those of us in the latter category, tend to become dissuaded from our initial beliefs once we learn more facts of the case. My own view is that someone whose interest is sparked by Cornwell indeed one day, after they have spent time and energy researching the case themselves, may discover valuable information that will benefit "Ripper research." That is why I may disbelieve the theories propounded by diary enthusiasts or Patricia Cornwell, but I am loath to engage in ad hominem personal attacks. Why risk alienating or dissuading someone who may one day provide information that might be of interest to us all? Regards, Rich PS - I agree with your assessment of Cornwell as a writer. Her advance is actually richly deserved - since advances are based upon a publisher's belief in the anticipated success of the work - not on the accuracy of any theory.
Author: Richard P. Dewar Monday, 18 November 2002 - 03:39 pm
Hi all, As long as the subject of fiction writers venturing into nonfiction is concerned, one author went in the reverse direction with regard to this case and was quite successful. "The Alienist" by Caleb Carr is very loosely based on the Ripper crimes. Set in New York at the turn of the century, a serial killer is murdering young male prostitutes. Mr. Carr is a military historian who did quite a lot of research on the Ripper case and tried, I think successfully, to write a book that depicts the kind of person who might have committed this kind of crime. He has appeared on television documentaries of the case. The book was commercially very successful and critically acclaimed. I would have to agree with Stewart that had Cornwell written a fictional version of the case, based upon her research, it might have been a wonderful work. Regards, Rich
Author: Stewart P Evans Monday, 18 November 2002 - 03:41 pm
Thanks Rich, however I should say that I have in the past been very critical of the fantasy theories, whereas others have always advocated that there is always the benefit of attracting new interest. I have thus modified my opinion somewhat as I do see that we all stand to benefit a bit from what may at first be viewed as an abuse of history.
Author: David O'Flaherty Monday, 18 November 2002 - 03:57 pm
Off-topic: I couldn't agree with Rich more about Caleb Carr. Another great book he did was "The Angel of Darkness," the sequel to "The Alienist." I think anyone with an interest in the Ripper, serial killers, or history in general will enjoy both books. His writing is provocative (I especially liked what he had to say about women and motherhood in "Angel of Darkness"--the story revolves around a female serial killer) and he does a fine job recreating late nineteenth century New York City. Cheers, Dave
Author: Howard Brown Monday, 18 November 2002 - 04:38 pm
Mr.Evans.......I understand your opinion about Mrs.Cornwell's book bringing more people into the study of the Ripper. However,to use an analogy,its better to bring a date to the dance,whom can actually dance, than one who you find out later who has two left feet. From cookbooks to the Case of All-time.....sheesh ! Mr.Two Right Feet
Author: Ivor Edwards Monday, 18 November 2002 - 06:06 pm
Hi Peter, I do not drink coffee neither do I take sugar with my tea. Just had some rather disturbing news Peter which may effect our chances of pulling Pat.Suffice to state that I now have a back up plan worked out. How do you feel about going to the show dressed up as a woman ?
Author: Kevin Braun Monday, 18 November 2002 - 06:49 pm
Tom Clancy does seem to have an interest in JtR. For a picture of Stewart, another retired FBI boss with nothing to do, and little info on Clancy see link. Take care, Kevin
Author: Esther Wilson Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 10:10 am
I have read both of Caleb Carr's books and I really enjoyed them. If you want something completely fantastical try finding a copy of a book which I bought some years ago called "Anno Dracula" by Kim Newman. Here's a little of what you will find... "It is 1888 and the Widow of Windsor has remarried, taking as her new consort the Wallachian Prince infamously known as Count Dracula. London is awash with vampires who are sucking the capital into a frenzy of terror. But deep in Whitechapel, a murderer who signs himself 'Jack The Ripper' is viciously cutting down vampire girls and threatening the very stability of the new regime.." Esther
Author: Richard P. Dewar Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 10:47 am
Hi all, I cannot help but read, with some amusement, the ambitions of those who wish to confront Ms. Cornwell and prove her wrong. The fact is that her theory, like most, is based on a little bit of fact and a whole lot of faith. And those who find her construction compelling are unlikely are to be dissuaded. I have not read her book, but the reviews of it, from what I have seen, seem pretty much on the mark. Her writing style is praised, she is rightly complimented for some of her attempts at scientific research, but most seem to doubt her theory. I get the sense that some are very concerned that Cornwell will be believed and her resolution will become accepted fact. I doubt that can happen at this point. Most people don't really care or follow this case. Those who have a mild interest, in my opinion, are more likely to be swayed by the fiction they see in film than any movie. The Royal conspiracy is still quite popular among those who are not ardent followers of the case. In my view, their position was not arrived at by their reading of Knight or Faircloth but by 3 major motion pictures over the past 25 years which have promoted the royal conspiracy (Murder by Decree, Michael Caine's TV movie, and From Hell). Cornwell's work may one day be the basis of a major film - perhaps then people will be swayed to her opinion. Rich
Author: judith stock Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 10:55 am
Dear Garen, You forgot Hogarth!! Now THERE'S one I would NOT want to meet in a dark alley!! If paintin' 'em, sketchin' 'em/etc means you killed 'em, I would bet Hogarth is your man...and I don't give a rat's behind WHEN he died...you get to say that when you propose suspects these days...tee, hee, hee. Besides, as we have seen of late, where the suspect was at the time of the murders obviously has no bearing on the case whatever. So much for alibis, me hearties!!! Cheers, J
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 11:05 am
CORNWELL Watch Ms. Cornwell is about to come on WAMU in Washington, D.C., this hour (11:00 am)-- http://www.wamu.org/real/index.html Chris
Author: Spryder Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 11:15 am
1.800.433.8850 if you want to make any comments w/Pat on the line. The interviewer sounds to me like she's on her last legs.... poor girl.
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 11:24 am
The venue for the Cornwell taping on the 27th November is the New Connaught Rooms, a place redolent of Freemasonry. Is this a coincidence or is it a devious plot to dispose of Ripper researchers in order to conceal once and for all the awful truth that the Duke of Clarence ordered Maybrick (a 33rd degree Mason according to Liverpool records) to destroy a small coterie of Wallachian spies disguised as common street women who were intent on performing the Rites of Great Cthulhu with the aid of D'Onston Stephenson. This bestial ritual would have opened the gates of hell, forced the English to dig the Channel Tunnel, introduced the Great-grandparents of Anthont Charles St. Sulpice Blair to each other, caused the Welsh to rebel against their natural leaders and made the end of the World certain by June 15th 1973. Fortunately that peerless paragon of Englishness, M.J. Druitt foiled the whole ghastly plot, losing his own life in the process. Across the road from the venue are some pretty good restaurants if anyone wants dinner afterwards but they need to be booked early.
Author: Spryder Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 11:48 am
That Liverpudlian voice sounds awfully familiar.... :-)