|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 20 November 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects:
Cornwell Archives:
Archive through 20 November 2002
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 11:54 am |        | Did I hear Stewart call long distance as well? Chris, I'm glad you got through--thanks very much for letting us know about the radio show.
Cheers,
Dave
PS Good questions, Chris, but you know "You can disagree with me, but you've got to show me the evidence. Where's the evidence?"  |
Author: Spryder
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 11:58 am | | | Straight from the horse's mouth: "I don't have to prove that Sickert committed a murder. You guys have to prove to me that he didn't." |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 11:58 am | | Hi, Spry:
Yes I was glad to call in and talk to Ms. Cornwell for a few minutes on WAMU radio. As you heard, I made the point that her finding that, as she put it, Sickert wrote 90% of the Jack the Ripper letters runs counter to the opinion of Evans and Skinner, authors of Jack the Ripper: Letters from Hell, who doubt that any of the letters were from the killer. Hopefully you and I will have a chance to question her some more at her appearance tonight at Lisner auditorium in Washington, D.C. when she speaks in the Smithsonian Resident Associate lecture series.
Best regards
Chris George
Co-Editor
Ripper Notes
P.S. I think I got cut off... possibly the radio people or Ms. Cornwell did not like the heat? |
Author: Ally
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 12:18 pm | | Please Please Please..someone anyone ask her this:
You claim that Sickert was mutilated and impotent but his loving wife divorced him for adultery. You then go and say that no one can prove (again we have to prove her lack of evidence to the contrary) he really had sex with anyone. Well wouldn't his wife know whether he was capable of sex or mutilated or not and if he wasn't (as Cornball claims) then why would his wife go through the hassle of divorce when an annulment for non-consumation would have been a lot easier. Seems like his wife figured he was good for it.
But no of course, Sickert married three times and managed to keep all three from finding out he was horribly mutilated and impotent.
[rolling the eyes] |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 12:43 pm | | Hi, Ally:
Good point about Sickert and his first marriage and the stated reasons for divorce. Her statement on WAMU radio this morning that Sickert's first wife, Ellen Cobden Sickert, continued to love the artist even after their divorce also runs counter to her own claim that he was an "evil" man with "evil eyes." I guess evil must be in the eye of the beholder. As you may have heard, I made the point that she has not tied Sickert to any murder. Ahem, that's when the phone line to the station went dead and I was cut off. 
All the best
Chris |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 12:44 pm | | Hi Spry,
That one is a hoot!
Rich |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 12:57 pm | | For anyone who missed today's interview, and would like to hear Pat Cornwall hang up on our own Chris George, it looks like they archive their shows (The Diane Rehm Show).
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 01:31 pm | | Game On......
"I don't have to prove that Sickert committed a murder. You guys have to prove to me that he didn't."
Evidently, Ms. Cornwell does not understand the philosophy that modern courts are founded on, The Presumption of Innocence. It is this presumption that forces the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. To the jury, and the defense, the person is innocent, in the eyes of the prosecution the suspect is already guilty or they would not go forward with the case. In other words, in the eyes of the prosecution, the suspect is guilty. In the eyes of the defense and the jury, the suspect is innocent, therefore; the full burden of proof falls on the shoulders of the prosecution.
So yes, Ms. Cornwell has to prove to the jury and the defense that Walter Sickert committed the crimes, not the other way around. But if she wishes to push and shove, then I will be more than happy to prove Walter Sickert is not responsible for the murders of at least the canonical five. I believe this can be done by proving he did not commit at least one of the five murders.
Peace,
Scott
(Ambassador of the Klingon Empire) |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 01:41 pm | | Scott,
Probably she would argue the her role is that of an investigator, not prosecutor. I think the title of her book "Case Closed" says otherwise, and I agree with you. It's up to her to prosecute her case, and for her to resort to the argument that Sickert's innocence must be proven is ridiculous.
Dave |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 01:52 pm | | Hi, Dave and Scott:
She has to prove he was at the murder scenes or even in Whitechapel, which she has failed to do. The best she could say, as heard on the radio broadcast, is that he lived six miles from Whitechapel. Her answer to Sickert authority claims that the painter was in France at the time of the murders was also cavalier -- that it only took four hours to get from Normandy to London. It might take four hours or less today by today's transport, but how long did it take by steam train and steamship???? You also note that she has been told that there is a Sickert letter that places the painter in France within two days of one of the murders. I think she said it is a September 6, 1888 letter, which is just before the murder of Annie Chapman, but that those who have spoken of the letter have not produced it. This morning I thought she sounded defensive yet is accusatory to those who contest her theory.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: judith stock
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 01:53 pm | | Dear Scott and Dave,
Can you prove to me that Jack the Ripper was NOT Queen Victoria in lifts and a false moustache??? Yeah, well, I thought not.... so there!! WITHOUT spending anything more than a bit of finger muscle energy, I have solved the case to a 100% certainty. Knocked HER into a cocked hat, didn't I?
You're both absolutely right, though; those who study the Ripper, his crimes and times have to prove nothing. Sickert STILL is innocent until she proves her case, and so far, she has proven OURS quite well, thank you very much!
Cheers,
J |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 02:00 pm | | | I do not like the sound of this carry on. Does this mean that when it comes to Cornwell's prerecorded show in London all parts detrimental to her cause will be edited out. If this is to be the case then the show which is to be broadcast at a later date will only include her. I am amazed to learn from the above posts that she is making such comments about the burden of proof in relation to her case.This woman apparently knows as much about the law as she does about Sickert. |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 02:01 pm | | Hi Chris,
I believe she also said it would not matter if the letter was produced, as she cited the four hour long journey. Thank you for pointing out this is how long the journey from France to England takes in modern times, that it would have taken longer in 1888--that point hadn't occured to me.
Judith, you joke about Queen Victoria, but by using my Cornwell logic alogorithm, I find that Queen Victoria would have had access to a fake moustache, and might have worn one. She also lived conveniently near Whitechapel. She also wrote letters. (laugh)
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: judith stock
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 02:17 pm | | SEE...you just proved me correct, and you didn't spend six million dollars doin' it, didja??? Next comes the 350 page book........
J |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 02:38 pm | | | I think Queen Vic at Buckingham Palace was marginally closer to Whitechapel than Sickert was, wasn't she? And we all know the Royal carriage was seen just before each murder. . . |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 02:47 pm | | Hi all,
I did not hear Cornwell's interview so I do not know the context of her remark.
There is a subtle but important difference between saying, "Unless Sickert is proved innocent he was Jack the Ripper" and "If you claim Sickert was not Jack the Ripper" you need to prove it.
Was her remark in answer to someone who insisted Sickert was innocent? If that is the case, her remark is logical and makes sense. If she generally was saying that anyone who is unconvinced of her theory needs to prove her wrong, I would not agree with that.
Rich |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 03:18 pm | | Hi, Rich:
As I recall the way the radio interview went, and I have not accessed the archive of this morning's broadcast, I was the only person who asked her pointed questions about her research, with the possible exception of the man who sounded a bit like Stewart who was asking what Scotland Yard thought of her investigation. The man though was, I think they said, calling from New Mexico, so it probably was not Stewart... although possibly Mr. Evans can be as clever as Walter Sickert at disguises and deception!
Most of the callers seemed interested in her book without taking a hard line, and the gentleman who was asking about the Yard just appeared to be gently asking what the Yard's view was. Of course she has a ready answer for this because it was Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Grieve of Scotland Yard who suggested Sickert to her as a possible suspect, and she makes a point of saying that he has said that with the evidence she has Sickert would have been put under surveillance and possibly arraigned.
In any case, I don't believe anybody insisted Sickert was innocent which led to her remark that her opponents needed to prove their case that Sickert was not Jack, or as quoted, "I don't have to prove that Sickert committed a murder. You guys have to prove to me that he didn't." It was though at the point I think later that I said, "You haven't proved that Sickert committed a murder," that I was cut off.
Rather, at several times in the show, she made allusion to the fact that Ripperologists and art experts likewise contest her findings, and I think it was in generally talking about this fact that her remark was made. I also believe, but stand open to be corrected, that her comment was made before I challenged her about the Ripper letters not having been proven to be from the killer or my point to her that she had not tied the artist to any murder.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 03:26 pm | | When Chris asked brought up the different handwriting styles of the Dear Boss and Openshaw letters, Ms. Cornwall countered that Sickert had five different handwriting styles. And while recommending "Jack the Ripper: Letters From Hell," she said that you could not tell much definitive from such copies of the letters, that you had to handle the originals, note the watermarks and the materials used to write them.
"People can disagree with me, but they have to show me the evidence. Where's the evidence?" I thought this was a rich statement coming from her. She claims Sickert has to be the Ripper, because who would write letters like that?
They've now archived this morning's interview. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 03:43 pm | | Hi, David:
I was momentarily flabbergasted when she said that it has been proven that Sickert was able to write in so many handwriting styles. I think it is more her theory that he wrote in so many styles of writing, not that such different penmanship on Sickert's part has been proven. The idea of the different penmanship goes along with her additional points that he was an actor and would effect disguises or that he would use different names for himself such as "Nemo." Unfortunately, that type of naive thinking is what characterizes her entire theory of the case, entirely consistent with her contention that Sickert may have written upwards of 150 Ripper letters. We do know that the Ripper letters tailed off in the mid-1890's though Sickert lived until 1942. Possibly I should ask her tonight at her lecture, "If Walter Sickert really was the Ripper, why did he stop writing his taunting letters, Ms. Cornwell?"
Best regards
Chris |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 03:55 pm | | I'd ask her to buy me a new pen That was a nice story, at least.
It was Mark from Phoenix, Arizona who sounded like Stewart. Now that I've listened again, the pops and hisses I thought I heard (which made me think this was someone calling from overseas) were just noises the caller made from holding the receiver a little too close to his mouth But when he started talking about Scotland Yard, I thought "Hey, is that Stewart?" Ah well--he did sound a lot like him, at least to my ear.
Dave |
Author: spaceyram
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 04:17 pm | | Hi Christopher,
What I find difficult to swallow,so to speak, is
how Sickert wrote all those letters, I believe
Corneywell said 75 - 80%(??)of all of them,which
I believe totalled in or around 600. (give or take) Not to mention sitting down and thinking up all the "sassy" things he wanted to relay in the
letters, in order to throw off the police not to
mention tease them, bragging, disclosures of
upcoming events and descriptions of his past nasty
deeds. Writing those letters alone must have taken
some time, since I do not believe that ball points
were around at that time, not the same conveniences as today for sure, his arm must have
been ready to drop off since there were one heck
of a pile of letters.
Then of course he had to fit in the murders, may
or may not have serviced the gals, he had to of
course keep up appearances at home, maybe had a
roll in the sheets with his Mrs and keep his
mistress happy and serviced.
He must have had quite the stamina!! Not bad at
all who had a problem with the family jewels.
And when, pray tell, did he ever find time to
paint?? This was after all his livelihood.
He was one busy dude.
julie |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 04:23 pm | | Does the book give a physical description of Walter Sickert? In particular Height, weight and body build? If so I can sink her theory.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 05:03 pm | | Just few thoughts on Patricia Cornwell and her theory written on a cold, dark rainy day in Toronto. I should first admit that I have not yet read her book.
Ms Cornwell has decided to stake out the moral high ground, it seems, in order to lesson the impact of any criticism to her or her theory from the Ripperological community. She has categorized those who are interested in the Whitechapel murders as either "ghouls" or, for those who have published books on the subject, people only interested in making money off of the victims.
She has claimed that we see the whole series of murders as some sort of "game" and she has stated that "Jack the Ripper has almost a fan club. These Ripperologists, and the people that go on Ripper walks – I don't think that's right..."
Ms Cornwell, for her part, stated in the Primetime Thursday television program that aired in October 2001 that she was going to sell all of her Sickert paintings and donate the money to some women's charity. Very altruistic of her I'm sure for, after all, she is no ghoul and the harmless interest shown by thousands of people who take part in such things as ‘Ripper walks' "is", morally, "not right."
As I said, the moral high ground. I, therefore, found it interesting to read Dinitia Smith's article that appeared in the New York Times, the one that describes Ms Cornwell's brand new 20,000 - square foot mansion. Ms Smith describes it as being
"largly unfurnished but for Cornwell's Ripper memorabilia. In the panelled library are facsimiles of Ripper letters and police reports....Hanging on the walls are strange paintings by Sickert...'This guy is a psycho,' she said staring at the paintings. ‘This is violent pornography.'...In Cornwell's study is a collection of 19th- century daggers and swords that she used to study how the Ripper might have disembowelled his victims."
Interesting that the house is largely unfurnished yet Ms Cornwell has found the time to unpack, and the place to display, her collection of ghoulish Ripper memorabilia and violently pornographic paintings. So much for the moral high ground. (On a personal note my own study could be described in much the same way, sans panelling and original works by Sickert, so I must be okay and not a ghoul like the rest of you people. Maybe Patricia is not so bad after all.)
One of the interesting things about the whole Sickert as suspect theory is that it has brought together two very separate groups of people with very separate areas of expertise. "Ripperologist's," (a term I truly hate), on the one hand and art experts on the other. Ms Cornwell has already charged Ripper experts with being ghouls but she has yet to attack the art community with some equally damning description.
It is also interesting that, in Britain, the attack on Cornwell's theory seems to be coming from the art world rather than from the true crime world. In North America there seems to be no attack what so ever but merely a credulous acceptance from the news media. Luckily the art world has done a wonderful job in poking gaping holes in Ms Cornwell's theory.
Like all Ripper theories, Ms Cornwell's is a house of cards. Pull out enough cards or the right one and the whole thing comes crashing to the ground. At least for those of us who are willing to acknowledge the fact.
Ms. Cornwell has stated that she will feel awful if she is proven wrong but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for her to admit the fact. Much like the diary believers she will merely pull a card or two from the fallen pile and cling tightly to them like a drowning sailor clings to a life preserver in a stormy sea. How else can one interpret her claim that her theory "only continues to get stronger," when it actually seems to have hit some major snags.
How to explain that Sickert was in France during the murders of Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes? Cornwell theorises that he must have slipped back across the Channel from Dieppe every so often in order to commit another murder but Sickert wasn't in Dieppe for much of the time as Cornwell has wrongly claimed. Undaunted, Cornwell claims that proof that Sickert had slipped back into London is shown by the September 17th Dear Boss letter, (even though there is solid evidence that he was at St Valéry-en-Caux in France on the 16th ), the letter "discovered" in 1988 and clearly a modern forgery and its use in her book is damning.
Even if there was some bizarre reason for Sickert to only murder in London how can one explain that the murders stopped once Sickert moved to France in 1898? Surely he still could have slipped across during the seven year time period that he was away? (Serial killers are on the hunt for victims every waking hour. When the right victim is found at the right time and in the right circumstances they will kill. If Sickert was the Ripper then he would have murdered women in France not travelled the distance back to London in order to look for the right opportunity to murder before slipping back into the bosom of his friends and family as if nothing had happened. There is no logical explanation for this bizarre belief.)
Cornwell states that the murders started up again when Sickert returned to London and offers the murder of Emily Dimmock, the Camden Town Murder, as proof. She claims that the murder had occurred near Sickert's lodgings where he had "recently" moved after his return from France. It is interesting to note that during the Primetime Thursday interview Cornwell had stated that this murder had happened "suddenly" after Sickert's return and that during the ABC on-line chat she claimed that the murder had happened "less than a year after he returned to London." In reality Sickert had returned to London and moved to Camden town some two and a half years before Emily Dimmock's murder.
Ms Cornwell has made the claim that she has found a link between Sickert and the murdered Dimmock and offered as evidence a newspaper clipping which claimed that Sickert had been allowed to sketch the body of Emily Dimmock while she lay dead in her bed at 29 St Paul's Road. Unfortunately for Ms Cornwell this newspaper clipping from The Evening Standard is not dated from the time of the murder in 1907 but from thirty years later, 29 November 1937. As no sketches of Emily Dimmock's body have ever been found and none of Sickert's series of paintings titled The Camden Town Murder actually depict Emily Dimmock or the circumstances surrounding her death and also considering the newspaper article was written thirty year after the event it is likely that both Cornwell and the newspaper clipping are wrong. We can strengthen this view by adding that Wendy Baron, the foremost expert on the life and works of Walter Sickert, has stated that Sickert was in France when Dimmock was murdered. Chock up another one for the art world.
Wolf. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 05:04 pm | | Seen ebay lately?
There's a watch for sale with a picture of Walter Sickert on the face with 'JACK THE RIPPER' written underneath it. A caption in the ad reads:-
"Calling all you crime buffs. The Ripper is finally discovered, and we've got his mug on this watch! Be the first on your block (cellblock?) to have one. His picture is in the center of the watch face. Too late for real justice, the only thing left for us to do is sully his memory." |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 05:46 pm | | Chris,
Scotland Yard do not enforce Cornwall's views on Sickert as the ripper.I was in contact with them ages ago on this matter when Cornwell toured Whitechapel with a senior police officer. His personal assistant wrote to me and explained that the officer in question John Grieve accompanied Cornwell in a private capacity only and that he was also a member of some historical group. His assistant went on to add that Scotland Yard had no interest in her story.It was made quite clear to me that John Grieve's comments in this matter are not shared by Scotland Yard he is simply speaking in the capacity of a private individual. |
Author: Timsta
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 06:00 pm | | Just listening to the WAMU show.
Oh my, she sounds like she is being interviewed by Young Mr Grace.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Ally
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 06:18 pm | | Here's another I wonder if anyone has asked her.
How come when she bases her absolutely proven fact (hah) that Sickert was impotent on the non-supported evidence of a relation who was repeating vague rumors Sickert might have had surgery on his penis, that is sufficient to prove he was malformed and impotent but when his wives who actually lived with the man charged him with adultery and his cohorts say he was quite the run around man, those are just rumors and there is no evidence to prove he actually had sex with anyone. Huh? Scuse me, come again? I think the glue fumes from those letters she examined fried her reasoning ability.
Ally |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 07:31 pm | | Dear Ally,
The woman is obviously haunted by Jack the Ripper.
Someone should tell her to get in the queue.
Rosey :-) |
Author: stephen miller
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 05:11 am | | Hi All have you noticed the number of votes her book has received in the book review section of this site
Maybe they are under the influence of some kind of subliminal urge
all the best
steve |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 09:58 am | | Hi, all:
First of all, a signed copy of Patricia Cornwell's Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper Case Closed sold yesterday on ebay for US $146.50, not including shipping and handling for which the seller was charging $8.00. I went to the Cornwell show at the Lisner Auditorium at George Washington University, and some people were walking up with armsful of books, one person with a whole cardboard box of books for her to sign. Previously signed copies were being sold in the lobby at a premium and those who wished her to sign a book in person were asked to stay behind in the auditorium to be summoned up to the stage, row by row, for her to sign. Neither were the books personalized, Ms. Cornwell signed them all with the same squiggles.
Ms. Cornwell was very combative both during her talk and during the question and answer period, downplaying every Ripper theory except her own. The Royal conspiracy theory "is just plain silly" she said. She said that it was human nature to want to look for conspiracies but that Jack the Ripper, in her judgement, was a serial killer plain and simple. In reference to her chosen suspect, artist Walter Sickert, she stated, "He was without doubt the most diabolic and cunning serial killer that I have come across in my twenty years of studying crime."
Thus, she said, the Prince of Wales was wrongly accused and was clearly involved with activities with Queen Victoria and so could not have been going round Whitechapel murdering prostitutes. She also said she wished to clear the name of Montague John Druitt whom she termed "poor Monty" for being wrongly impugned on Macnaghten's say-so with no real evidence. She said, "A letter that Druitt wrote while he was at Oxford University in 1876 is being analyzed as I speak." I do know that she has two letters from the Prince Albert Victor that she has said (per her book) are also being analyzed. In her book, she stated she thought that the prince licked his own envelopes. This is something that I doubt, in light of the recent revelation that Prince Charles does not squeeze the toothpaste onto his own toothbrush!
One questioner brought up the profilers' conclusion that Aaron Kosminski was the killer. While she said, "John Douglas is a friend of mine" she made the point that the killer could not have been someone like Kosminski because being an illiterate immigrant he could not have written the Ripper letters. She made it clear that she was receiving a lot of opposition from "across the pond" to her theory from "Ripperologists" and "Sickert afficianados" alike.
I believe I was only one of three people who asked a question. This was not as much because she did not allow questions but that her answers were so discursive that the allotted time was taken up with her lengthy answers. In fact, to the first young lady who asked the question about profiling, she had to eventually say, "Oh what was your question?" (Laughter)
While I was standing at the microphone to ask my question, she launched into what I would have to say was a tirade against all the people who have exploited the murders thus far, "Ripperologists" of course heading that list. She thought such people disgusting, remarking that no one would want there to be "Bundyologists" a reference of course to executed American serial killer Ted Bundy. She singled out the Ripper Walks as being a ghoulish exercise. No one would want there to be tours of the sites where the recent Washington D.C. area sniper shootings occurred, she declared.
I must confess that listening to her downgrade and even lampoon others who have worked on the case, I was getting worked up. I reminded her her that I had the opportunity to call in and talk to her in the morning on the Diane Reme Show on WAMA radio that morning. "Oh, I remember you," she said shading her eyes against the stage lights. (Laughter)
I made the same point that I made on the radio show that her conclusion that up to 150 of the Jack the Ripper letters were written by Sickert, or as she put it last night "90% of the letters" in the PRO and the City of London archives, ran contrary to the thinking of Keith Skinner and Stewart P. Evans and Keith Skinner in their Jack the Ripper: Letters from Hell, in which the authors make the point that there is no proof that any of the letters were written by the killer. She was good enough to say that the book is excellent and recommended it to anyone who wanted to study the letters. She made the point that she discovered the watermark in the Openshaw letter, a point that Stewart has publicly said is not so--that he had photographed the watermark before she even saw the letter. She also claimed that her investigators were the first to handle the letters but I countered by saying that Keith and Stewart had to do so to write their book. She had already in her talk made the point that "etching ground" a material only an artist would use was put on some of the letters by Sickert to look like blood and again cited his "cunning" in doing so.
I wanted to make the point that the Ripper letters tailed off in the 1890s and if Sickert, who lived until 1942, was the letter writer, why had he stopped writing such letters. But she said, "I don't like being interrupted." (Laughter) Then I was pretty much cut off and she turned to another questioner. Before she did so, however, she stated that unlike other people who have worked on the case her findings are NOT a theory but scientific fact. I told her that hers is a THEORY just like any other.
Part of the big news is that she is insisting that her investigation is ongoing. When I saw her on CNN a week last Monday I was not sure whether she said fifty or fifteen specimens (presumably Ripper and Sickert letters plus the Druitt and Prince Albert Victor letters) were being analyzed. When I eventually got up onstage to get my book signed, I said, "Hello, Pat." She replied, "Hello, how are you?" She probably did not recognize her opponent from the audience (she had also made a remark about people with British accents--and the guy who asked a question after me also had a British accent!). I said, "How many samples are still being analyzed--fifteen or fifty?" She said, "Oh more like fifty." She also made the point in her talk that in the past few weeks her team had discovered some Sickert and Ripper letters that were a batch of only 6,000 sheets of paper produced by one stationer and wasn't it an incredible that four samples out of the 6,000 were shared by Ripper and Sickert letters, closely matched by weave of the paper. This ought to be clarified more. I don't know whether to think that her supposed ongoing investigation is part of the hype to promote her book or whether such findings will be included in a later edition of her book. My understanding is that her book is already top of the best seller charts here in the United States, even despite a recent negative editorial in the New York Times, so a later edition seems probable. By the way, she named as part of her team a man named Peter Bower whom she said is an international expert on documents and paper specifically and who, she claimed, is the man who proved the Maybrick Diary to be a fake. This name is completely new to me, despite my studying the vicissitudes of the Maybrick Diary for the past nine years, and perhaps Shirley Harrison, Robert Smith, or Paul Begg could confirm if this man did examine the Maybrick Diary.
After the talk I was pleased to meet Bob Dulaney who has posted on these boards, I believe, and who attended the 2002 U.S. convention in Baltimore. Also several other visitors to this site came up and introduced themselves saying they did not post to the boards but were readers of the site. They had known about the talk through this website.
One last thing, she said she would be holding a forum with her critics in England, presumably meaning the planned BBC Radio 4 get together on November 27, and would also welcome anyone who doubted her findings to reanalyze her results. I would bring up the point that her combative stance last night against anyone who would dare to question her might bode ill for the November 27 BBC show unless the moderators keep a tight reign on the proceedings and everyone remains respectful. If she can start to get short with polite, unassuming Chris George, I can imagine how she will react to anyone who tries even more severely to take her to task.
All the best
Chris George |
Author: Esther Wilson
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 10:04 am | | I guess I am just one of thousands of "ghouls" then according to Cornball!
Esther |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 10:12 am | | | Yep, Esther, you qualify. I wanted to say to Ms. Cornwell that "You're the same" in exploiting the murders, if writing about the crimes is an exploitation of the events of 1888. Certainly the "Cornwell circus" as might term the event last night shows she is also making money off the murders and she could be viewed as just as sleazy as other Ripper writers. Another one-liner that also occurred to me is that the "proof" she is citing for Sickert's guilt is rather like the white box truck the D.C. Sniper investigators thought was involved, but turned out not to be. That is, she may be on the wrong track with her "evidence" just as they were -- particularly as she herself admits she does not have the "good DNA" i.e., nuclear DNA, and does not have the Holy Grail of Sickert's body to check whether the DNA she is finding on Sickert and Ripper letters is really his. |
Author: Ally
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 12:10 pm | | Me and PC in a room for 15 minutes, no question banned, no holds barred. I am sooo much more obnoxious than she could ever be, I'd murderize her.
I am sure someone from her circus is feeding her our arguments so come on...Double Dare you Cornwell.
(If someone can tell me what that's from .. in a growly voice.. "I'll murderize ya!" I'd appreciate it..dang quote has been stuck in my head for days.)
Ally |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 12:12 pm | | | Three Stooges, Ally |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 12:13 pm | | | Cowardly Lion from the Wizard of Oz? |
Author: Ally
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 12:18 pm | | I'm definitely going to have to go for the Cowardly Lion ..never made it through the two minutes of the Stooges. But I loove the Wizard of Oz. Anyone ever read Wicked? It's the story from the Witch's point of view.
Thanks Chris.
You too David. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 12:25 pm | | O'Jesus, Mother of Joseph!
Rosey :-) |
Author: Stan Russo
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 12:26 pm | | The Bowery Boys, Ally.
A la Satch |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 12:29 pm | | Ivor,
Your post....Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 02:00 pm,
Genius my good man...pure genius.
Patricia,
Reading your book at lunch.
Steward ?? How many times did you get that wrong ??
Phail ?? Thorough research ??? Its THAIN !! You just read the one report didnt you ??
What exactly was the $6m spent on ??
Cant even get the basics right.
See, you should have come me. I'd have told you for a pint and a packet of Cheese and onion crisps...much cheaper....and I'd have got it right too.....
.....3 long passages into Mitre sq indeed 
Monty
 |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 12:54 pm | | Hi all,
I have just finished Mrs. Cornwells book. The thing that worries me is the following. She has a big name and has written a book on a topic she knew nothing about, lets say 24 months ago. There is really nothing new in the book. Not even her suspect is new and a lot of the information she uses can be found in the books by Knight and Fuller. The DNA idea is rubish and does not prove anything! As Begg, Fido and Skinner wrote on Sickert: "Extreme caution is recommended". I read it for known reasons, but it did not keep me thinking as "The Lodger" did a few years back. The authors may not have been acclaimed but wrote a damn sight better book. In my opinion we are wasting our time with her.
Yours,
Philip |
|
|
|
|
