|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 21 November 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects:
Patricia Cornwell/Walter Sickert:
Archive through 21 November 2002
Author: Stewart P Evans
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 01:02 pm |        | Chris,
Very interesting summary, thanks.
Peter Bower is a highly respected expert on old paper and watermarks. He was commissioned by the television company making the documentary on Tumblety to examine the Littlechild letter for authenticity. He came up from London to see me and declared the letter to be genuine.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 01:20 pm | | Hi, Stewart:
Many thanks for that clarification on who Peter Bower is, i.e., a highly respected expert on old paper and watermarks. I am glad to hear that he stated that the Littlechild letter was genuine following the request of the television company making the documentary on Tumblety that he authenticate the letter.
I wonder though, did Peter Bower work at all on the Maybrick Diary as Ms. Cornwell claimed last night? I do not see mention of his name in the indexes to Harrison's Diary of Jack the Ripper (Hyperion and Berkley editions -- could not locate my Blake edition to check) or Paul Feldman's Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter.
By the way, another thing Cornwell said last night, in addition to making cracks about people with British accents and that she had opposition from people "Across the Pond" was to say that even so, people who doubted her are coming round and agreeing with her findings. I take that as being part of the "hype" she was putting out for an uninformed audience, though I have seen people on these boards acknowledge that the DNA results, such as they are, might indicate Sickert wrote hoax letters. I believe most of the people in the audience last night were Smithsonian Residents Associates, i.e., people who regularly attend Smithsonian lectures, or Cornwell fans, and not Ripper or true crime buffs, who I sensed were a small percentage of last nights audience, represented by myself, Beth Bothe, Bob Dulaney, and others.
A little irony that I might throw in for your edification and that of other readers of this thread. There is an art gallery below Lisner Auditorium of George Washington University at 21st Street, N.W., in Washington, D.C., where Ms. Cornwell spoke last night. It is called the Dimock Gallery, and an attached room is called the Dimock Reception Room, which a plaque stated was "dedicated to Susan, the daughter of Henry Farnum and Susan Whitney Dimock." Beside the door to the reception room was a period portrait of "Susan Dimock, 1908" by Louise Lyons Heustis. As you well know, Walter Richard Sickert's painting "The Camden Town Murder" is about the 1907 murder of Emily aka Phyllis Dimmock in Camden Town, London. Can anyone spell "Serendipity"? 
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 02:06 pm | | Hello all,
I've almost finished Cornwell's book. It's perfectly awful, but a good reminder of what a fertile field this subject is for what I teach (critical thinking). Examinations into the Ripper case fall into two categories:
(a) The kind of patient historical inquiry pursued by Begg, Evans, etc. which offer an excellent model of careful thinking;
(b) Cornwell's brand of melodrama masquerading as inquiry, in which the "evidence" really consists of endless reciting of apparent "facts" (Sickert knew Whitechapel! Sickert used a dark lantern!) which offer an excellent example of completely worthless thinking;
(c) this kind of bulletin board discussion, full of articulate people who know the difference.
A final question: Am I mis-remembering, but haven't historicans always thought that Sickert may well have written a couple of the Ripper letters? Is that news? I seem to remember reading something along these lines. Since that's her only potential bit of "evidence", it would be a bit sad if it weren't even new.
Madeleine |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 02:57 pm | | Poor poor Monty? What's that Monty? Three long massages in Mitre Square? Looks like some things never change.
Oh well, looks like I'm going to have to play the voice of reason as you all, apart from Stewart, have ripped into Patricia Cornwell like a pack of rabid dogs rip into their prey.
Down boy!
I got the book yesterday (they say I sold my soul), and have read forty pages of it.
The first thing to come to mind is that Patricia claims to have the same mtDNA sequence from two ripper letters AND two Sickert letters AND a pair of overalls that Sickert used for painting.
What do you guys want? Jam on it?
She's making her point and the argument put forward that Sickert was in France is, I would say, on a par with the argument that said Stewart's suspect - Tumblety - was in custody when MJK was murdered. Stewart successfully overcame that obstacle, so much so that, as an ex police officer, Stewart has now convinced me that there is no way Tumblety was in custody at the time of the murder.
Thus Patricia: Sickert's father had a wanderlust, it seemed that Sickert inherited it.
I think the argument that he was in France at the time of some of the murders is a good one, but not an insurmountable one, after all - don't forget that Mrs Maybrick wrote that Michael and Edwin were in the house with her (letter to Brierley) when Michael was nowhere near the place!
Before you think I've gone barking, I haven't dropped poor James yet, but I do intend to give Patricia every courtesy that she is entitled to.
Her book is, so far, well written and interesting - it may or may not prove that Sickert was the Ripper, but at least it has provoked a damn good discussion.
IVOR: Can't comment on your posts, old chap. Save to say that Patricia will have a minder with her at the Old Connaught malarkey and they've marked your card my dear boy.
What do you drink Ivor? We've got to mark the occasion. Any chance of you giving me a tour of the ripper sites after the programme? It would be nice and dark then, very atmospheric ...
I'd go back to the diary boards, but it's very lonely there.
Regards
Peter |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 03:36 pm | | Christopher T, Can you remember the remark made by Cornwell about people with British accents ?
If Cornwall finds the ripper tours such a ghoulish exercise then why did she bother to take a personal tour with Grieves.The only difference being is that she got her tour free while others had to pay for theirs.
Her book from the BBC came in the post today and I am up to page 160. I have never read so much crap on the ripper and what I have read so far has really and truly bored the backside off me.
The people who are doing the TV show in London on the 27th want to know days in advance of the show the precise questions which will be put to Cornwell!!!!!! |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 04:02 pm | | Hi, Ivor:
I think the remark she made to the effect of, "Oh, no, not someone else with a British accent" was occasioned by me twice giving her a hard time yesterday combined with her acknowledgement of the fact that the greatest opposition to her ideas appears to be coming from England.
Yes the fact that Cornwell went on an exclusive "private tour" of the murder sites with John Grieve occurred to me too.
I should think that for all the reasons and indications given yesterday in her radio segment on WAMU and in her Smithsonian appearance, Ms. Cornwell is probably requesting that questions to her be screened beforehand, so that does not surprise me in the least.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 04:08 pm | | Hello Peter! Long time no post, or whatever people say in the electronic age....
Cornwell's opinions deserve exactly as much consideration as they earn, which is none at all. Not only does she not make a case, she is clearly not trying to *build* a case -- she doesn't explain her reasons for Sickert's being the killer, just tells us that he is, and pulls together 99% ridiculous "coincidences" to support it. The DNA partial match at best suggests that Sickert may have written a Ripper letter--which considering he also dressed as the Ripper and was obssessed with crime is hardly a big surprise.
And since I share her sanctimoniously-expressed disgust at the idea of blackening someone's name for sport or profit, I'm not inclined to show her much consideration.
Yours in rationalist rage!
Madeleine |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 04:09 pm | | Hi Peter,Madaleine has hit the nail on the head so take note.
So yer wanna tour of the sites do yer guv ? say no more mums the word.
You never got back to me about going to see Cornwell. Will you be going to the show dressed as a woman so that you will have a better chance of pulling her?
From what I have heard her minders are two bald females weighing in at 25 stones each who are ex Russian shot throwers.It would appear that she likes them big, butch, and bald. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 04:12 pm | | Chris, Many thanks for your reply.
P.Cornwall has fallen into the same old trap as many other people before her.Instead of firstly ascertaining the motive and how the murders were committed she has tried to weave a story around her suspect.We know from her own words that Mr Greives mentioned the name Sickert to her as a likely name to place in the frame.So off she went without further ado to weave her web around him.One would have thought that she would have known better. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 08:26 pm | | Hi Monty,
You asked what was that 6 million dollars spent on ?
That my friend is the 6 million dollar question !!! |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 08:55 pm | | Hi Ivor!
She may have known better. But then, she had already committed a hell of a lot of money to DNA testing etc. so doubtless the only way to recoup it was to write a sensational book.
But at least she could have taken a more reasonable, "Here's the evidence so far" approach.
madeleine |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 10:41 pm | | "P.Cornwall has fallen into the same old trap as many other people before her.Instead of firstly ascertaining the motive and how the murders were committed she has tried to weave a story around her suspect." -- Ivor Edwards
This is quite possibly the most baldly hypocritical statement ever posted to these boards. Let me go one step further--this is certainly the most baldly hypocritical statement written in English in the past 250 years. Let me go one final step--this is the most baldly hypocritical statement concocted by the mind of any sentient being in this or any other universe for all eternity in both directions of time/space warp at the same time.
Everybody knows, Ivor, that you yourself have written a book in the cottage industry of D'Onston studies. You absolutely, positively, 100%-straight-down-the-line wove your story around an existing suspect, in fact a suspect who had been the subject of previous books on the case. I could say more.
David |
Author: Howard Brown
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 11:32 pm | | | Dave.......as usual,you say NOTHING. D'Onston was of course known to the author,prior to his book. Instead of posting silly & nasty posts and waiting for me to respond,go purchase the book.......Mr.Edwards,like a few others,arrived at their conclusions through particular means. Some,like Mr.Wroe,ostensibly arrived at their conclusion,for their perception and evaluation of a b.s.eyewitness account. Even the gentlemen you profess to "love"( hmm.......) have had "change of hearts'...Ivor,like the other folks who have spent time enlightening posters,writing,researching,and sharing their opinions,shouldn't be hassled by people with nothing more to do than type with one hand free....get my drift? I cannot understand how anyone defends your persistent anal behavior and that goes for the ones who go into overdrive at the "uncivility" of certain posters,whenever you wax moronic !! I do not get it !!!!. Man,do I wish we were neighbors ! Sincerely !!!! The Anti-Nietzsche( like Roslyn,a VD victim...but from different genders !!!!! What a Superman !!! ) The Anti-Intellectual from Philly and proud of it |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 11:32 pm | | Hi Madeleine,
Could not agree more with you there on both counts. I looked at her book with dismay tonight and said aloud, "Jesus, 6 million dollars spent on writing THAT" I still find it hard to grasp. The bulk of her evidence is in relation to her interpretation of pictures painted by her suspect Sickert.Anyone can put any interpretation on most of those pictures. She does indeed appear to be clutching at straws to recoup her money.Furthermore for her to state that one person wrote most of the 250 ripper letters at the PRO is nothing short of crazy. Does she not know that those letters are but a sample of what is left out of thousands of such letters which were sent. In all fairness some of her so called experts are as bad if not worse than her.Cornwell has the cheek to accuse ripper authors of writing books for money and she has little or no time for them.I never wrote my book with the sole purpose of making money and neither did various other authors. That woman has double standards and does not practise what she preaches. She has also insulted people who go on the ripper tours for doing so yet she took a private tour herself. God only knows what she has to say about the posters on the casebook. Some of the foul words she used in her book I would never dream to place in print and in fact I do not believe I have ever seen such words used in a ripper book before. A lady she is not.In fact in future I will refer to her on the boards as 'foul mouth' |
Author: brad mcginnis
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 11:39 pm | | | David, David, David, you're doing it again. I really don't need to take up for Ivor as he's more than capable for standing up for himself. Most regulars here know him to be an ascerbic poster with a low B.S. tolerance. But if you really follow the boards David, you would know D'Onston was'nt Ivors suspect when he started his investigation. The facts he turned up during his study led him away from his originial theory to D'Onston. I haven't yet read Ivors book as a glitch with the publisher has made it unavailable in the U.S. so far. His book is one I shall buy when its available as I have found him to be an intelligent personable guy dispite the vitrole he has occasionally displayed on the boards. He and I share an interest in both archeology and the sea, and have coresponded on these topics. Your comment about his weaving a tale around a suspect was wrong David, as he is one of the few authors who changed horses midstream. Best wishes on your continued recovery, Brad. |
Author: Howard Brown
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 11:47 pm | | | Brad....Radka knows he is wrong. I have read 1/2 of Ivor's very good book and there is much to be said for the author !! What does it tell you about a college that would give this guy a degree? Oy !!! Uncivil H.B |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 12:01 am | | David Radka,
Get your facts right I did not find a likely suspect and then weave a story around him. I did a great deal of work on the planning of the murders before I had any suspect.Also if you have anything further to say then say it.Now get back into your cage. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 12:07 am | | Hi Howard,
Pray tell me who is this babbling Neanderthal who is such an affront to mankind ? |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 12:25 am | | | Hi Brad, Thank you for your kind words. It would appear by your last comment that Radka is far from well. If I had known that he was simply a nutter I would have refrained from calling him a Neanderthal.It is an easy mistake to make. |
Author: brad mcginnis
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 12:44 am | | Hi Ivor,
Hope things are great for you. David isnt a nutter but is someone who suffered a real medical crisis over a year ago. I dont know the details, but it was severe and life threatening. David takes some strong medication and as a result sometimes posts things that arent really in the spirit he would like. We all have our burdens. And David isnt all that evil. Best wishes to all,
Brad. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 01:46 am | | Hi Brad,
I am fine thanks and I hope things are just the same with you.Many thanks for explaining the situation to me it is not the first time this has happened.I shall just ignore it in the future. Take care, Ivor |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 02:08 am | | Hi Ivor,
[I see things are still feisty on the boards...!  ]
PC's claim about the letters, on which the scientific part of her claim rests (such as it is), is indeed completely bonkers. Their very variety she interprets as evidence of Sickert's guilt. Some theory.
And Christ--all that stuff about the paintings. I wonder she doesn't try to look for unsolved murders among Hieronymous Bosch's contemporaries.
madeleine |
Author: Dan Norder
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 04:42 am | | Cornwall's now claiming her theory is a "Scientific Fact" now, eh? That alone should prove that she doesn;t know the first thing about science nor how to support own's arguments with logical statements.
Dan |
Author: Harry Mann
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 05:08 am | | Now I havn't read Cornwell's book,never met or corresponded with the woman,do not envy her the money or notoriety she gets,and cannot understand the derision heaped on her by others.
So she writes a book about a notorious person of history,"Jack the Ripper",and about another well known person,Walter Sickert,a painter.She believes them to be the same person.If she believes that well and good.Many people have written on the same subject,and perhaps they believe their nominated identity to be the Ripper.
Good for them,and none need be derided.The simple truth is that,although much may be known about the suspects,practically nothing is known about the Ripper,except that he killed a number of women.Cornwell has failed,as has everyone else,in connecting a known identity with an unknown one,and in that respect she is ,in my opinion,no less a failure than others. |
Author: Kevin Braun
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 09:43 am | | I have just finished listening to the WAMU Cornwell segment. I found it interesting. Instead of "100% certain" or "I stake my reputation", she now says the reason I think Walter Sickert is Jack the Ripper.......
Chris was the only caller to ask good questions. I got the feeling she couldn't wait to get on to the next caller.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 10:27 am | | OPEN LETTER TO ATTENDEES AT THE NOV. 27 BBC FORUM WITH PATRICIA CORNWELL
Having had a couple of moments sparring with Patricia Cornwell about her book while she was in Washington, D.C. this past Tuesday, as reported on these boards, I have some advice to the attendees of the upcoming BBC 4 forum with the author.
The problems with Ms. Cornwell's book and her ideas about the case are pretty self-evident, and her book speaks for itself. There has already, moreover, been much discussion here on these boards, in Ripperologist, and in the British press about the shortcomings of her research. I believe therefore that it would be more productive to get her to talk about the ongoing investigation that she says she is conducting.
As I noted, she told the Smithsonian Resident Associates audience in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday evening that new findings had been made just in the last three weeks to match paper between Ripper and Sickert letters and stated that this information is not in her book. I believe this might involve the claim she made that evening that only 6,000 sheets of a particular paper were manufactured and that four of them match between Sickert and Ripper missives. She has also said that "fifty specimens" are still being analyzed, presumably for DNA but perhaps with other analyses. If I were to attend the BBC forum, I believe I would get her to talk in detail about these analyses and where she plans to go to with her research into the case from here onward.
In some ways, I wish I had done more of that type of questioning of her investigation in my two encounters with her rather than to fault her for what I see as possibly a misguided attempt to credit up to 150 Ripper letters to Walter Sickert, or as she said 90% of the letters in the British archives, the PRO and the City of London Record Office. This number of letters sounds like an incredible number for them to have been written by one person, considering the apparent (to me) handwriting and other discrepancies even within the Ripper archives. Such a claim appears to defy logic, but, who knows, she might really be onto something, and she really is, as she claims, finding things on the letters that only an artist such as Sickert would have or know about, such as the "etching ground" she says she has found on some of the Ripper letters.
I do hope the BBC 4 forum on November 27 in London goes well and everybody keeps their cool. I think it is a golden opportunity to question an author who at the least is carrying out a very unusual and innovative investigation on Ripper materials, and to touch bases with her in a polite and friendly manner rather than to accuse her of being on the wrong track. I truly wish I could be there for the show. I wish all involved in the event the absolute best.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 11:07 am | | Hello Harry,
You make a point that people often make--about Cornwell and others--that you don't understand the derision her attempts have inspired.
No one minds that she hasn't made a perfect case. Who has? They -- we -- mind that she has insulted pretty much everyone with a working interest in the Ripper case in a number of ways: presuming to have closed the case when she must know she hasn't, ignoring other people's work, sneering at people who are interested in the case (a bit rich given that she's written a fricking book on it), taking upon herself the mission to rescue the victims from the callous paws of historians, etc.
And she gets MY goat because any display of defiant irrationalism gets my Irish up. Drawing a conclusion from evidence that simply isn't warranted, that you must secretly really *know* isn't warranted, just because you *feel* like it--that's the Dark Side of the Force!
madeleine |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 11:23 am | | Hi all,
even before her book was published she was picked upon. She was not even given the credit any author would get. Her idea was rubbish! Peter Wood (How are you doing?) is giving her this credit, even though he has, as we know a pet suspect (another time, another thread). If she wanted to spend 6.000.000$ to do research, fine it was her money and she used it to find a suspect. The proof she uses is the proof anybody has used to build her suspect. She has not presented a new suspect, but on ethat has been around for some time now. I have been through the book again today and I may not like her idea, but I will give her some credit. Sickert is a better suspect than the one mentioned a couple of posts above. I have not read you book yet Ivor, but I will, even though I have always thought D'Onston to be a very weak suspect.
If your have it handy, grab Bruce Paleys book or check up the profile I made sometime ago on this board. Compare that to Sickert and thet compare it to D'Onston.
If this was happening now and these were two suspects I would have Sickert brought in for questioning.
Yours,
Philip |
Author: Dan Norder
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 11:31 am | | Chris,
I understand where you are coming from, but I'm afraid if people back off on all of her many obvious errors during the one major opportunity to confront her on them everyone will just take it as a sign that even the ripperologists know what she says is true.
Someone needs to say point blank that Sickert wasn't even in the country at the time, and back then it was a very long trip, not a leisurely few hour commute through the chunnel. Or that all the proof in the world that someone wrote one or a hundred ripper letters does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that they killed anyone. Or any of the other major logical objections that were brought up here.
Dan |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 11:43 am | | Hi, Dan:
I have heard that there is a possibility that Stewart Evans may be in attendance for the BBC forum on November 27. I am certain that if so, Stewart will quietly set the record straight from his standpoint as a veteran researcher and student of the case, so the point of view of top Ripper experts, and most probably that of the Sickert authorities who are in attendance as well, will come across to the national audience, all without having to denigrate Ms. Cornwell or her methods.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 11:45 am | | Hi Philip,
I would probably have Sickert in for questioning too. But I wouldn't convict him, which is what Cornwell has done, based on the evidence which consists of the following:
1. DNA testing hasn't precluded Sickert from having sent some of the Ripper letters.
2. Sickert was a weirdo who was horrible to his wife and painted crime scenes.
3. Sickert lived not far from some crimes.
4. Sickert doesn't have a cast-iron alibi for the nights of the murders.
Nos 2-4 aren't new, and no. 1 isn't compelling.
People didn't so much prejudge her theory as her *claim,* that she had solved the case, one she advanced about a year ago. Her suspicions aren't rubbish: Sickert isn't a totally unconvincing candidate. But her *claim* is. A world of logical difference.
madeleine |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 01:01 pm | | I have not had the chance to post this before, but I wanted to make a public show of thanks to all posters who have taken the time to listen to or question Patricia Cornwell. As someone who is, perforce, obligated to be on top of this new Ripper book, I appreciate all the effort made to ask questions, solicit responses and supply me with information on her various appearances. It is this dedication which makes my task as editor of Ripper Notes so much easier.
And this is a thanks in advance to all UK posters or reseachers who will be 'lying in wait' across the pond. Please feel free to contact me either personally or through these boards with your thoughts, questions or proposals for articles on the whole contremps.
Finally, a special thanks to RN co-editor Chris George, who has done the really heavy lifting here, including finishing to the bitter end a book I have thrown down a dozen times in disgust!
All the best,
CMD
nb - Ivor, I never received a review copy of your book, but I've gone ahead and ordered one from Amazon.co.uk, and hope to have a review in the January issue. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 01:26 pm | | | Hi Christopher, I have been in contact with Blake several times chasing them up to send you a copy. In fact I phoned again this morning but was informed that the guy I need to speak to is away for two days. |
Author: Peter Wood
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 01:42 pm | | Hi Chris T. G.
Fair points all round I consider.
For information, I had a very long chat with the researcher from the BBC and she told me pretty much the format that the show will take ...
The BBC are concerned that Patricia does NOT get the opinion that they have "set her up", although they are aware of both the volume of opposition to her theories and the strength of feeling of those opinions.
There won't be a cover up, some questions will be taken in advance - very much like they do on a programme like question time, but I was assured that there will be an 'open forum' during the show, however certain irate D'Onston - ologists may find themselves both edited out and carried out!
By the way, what is Radka drinking these days? Who'd have thought we'd see the day when half the contributors on the boards are leaping to Ivor's defence? For that we have Radka to thank, maybe one day he will be accepted too.
Ivor, how does it feel to be no longer a free radical - but part of the establishment? A bit like Mick Jagger, huh?
I do hope that we can take that tour of the sites, I would be especially delighted if Chris T. G. is correct and Stewart Evans is in attendance, then maybe I'll get the opportunity for a chat with three ripper authors on the same day.
Looking forward to the 27th, Ivor - I'll mail you with my phone numbers so we can have a chat beforehand, alternatively I can phone you if you let me know yours.
Regards
Peter. |
Author: Ally
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 02:41 pm | | Philip,
Long before her book was published, she was going on every interview she could get her mitts on and exploiting the JtR case for her own gain (rather ironic considering that is her chief beef with Ripperologists) and saying such wonderful stuff such as this:
When asked whether she was worried about Sickerts family suing her she replied:
I'd like to see them prove he didn't do it. Yet again showing her overwhelming arrogance and complete lack of understanding that as the accuser, she has the obligation to provide the proof of guilt, not the accused to provide proof of innocence. One did not have to read her book to take offence at her comments in interviews long preceding the books arrival. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 02:54 pm | | Hi, Ally:
I quite agree that a lot of Ms. Cornwell's remarks have not been appropriate. However, with the upcoming British forum looming, it is advisable that our side adopts a more moderate approach to her, much as wise politicians before an election adopt a centrist approach in order to improve their electability.
All the best
Chris |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 03:01 pm | | Hi Philip,
I think I am about the only one these boards who agrees with your general sentiment.
I am surprised at the amount of venom spewed in Ms Cornwell's direction. My view is that some are enraged that a novice in the case has dared write a book that covers their sacred terrain.
In the past few years, almost 20 books have been published or posted on the internet on this subject - and many of them share the same glaring weaknesses of shoddy research and bias that Cornwell's critics see in her book.
It is quite amusing to see some people who push their own nonsensical theories enraged that Cornwell has done the same.
Cornwell's contempt for many in the circles of Ripperology is well-founded. This is not to dismiss many of the serious, scholarly works on the case. But, quite frankly, this field has more hacks than historians, more rogues than researchers.
Yet, I would agree with the sentiment that Cornwell is no better than them - though apparently she claims otherwise. But the fact is, they are no better than her too.
With regard to the alleged Cornwell outrage, I have a hard time understanding what exactly is the big deal.
Rich |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 03:41 pm | | Hi Christopher,
I agree with your sentiments entirely - Ms. Cornwell, thus far, appears to be winning the "perception" battle. She has made all sorts of uncomplimentary remarks about devotees to the case. Instead of responding with measured and valid criticisms of Ms. Cornwell, which might mute her allegations, some have played into her hands by retaliating with vicious ad hominem attacks.
She has painted those interested in the case as all hysterical and weird nuerotics. By ridiculing her name, her personal life, and affectations we have given substance to her charges.
In my view, the best way to deal with someone who has made serious errors in research and analysis is to point out those errors and leave the character assessments to the public.
Rich |
Author: Ally
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 05:03 pm | | Rich,
Do you even know what you are talking about? Have you listened to or watched a single interview of hers? She isn't winning the perception battle because people are being mean and nasty when they ask her a question, she is winning because she cuts off anyone who attempts to present the flaws in her argument no matter how polite they are. Name one time in an interview where someon who has asked her a single question has been mean or nasty to her. You can't do it. The reason? There hasn't been one.
The interviewers are pukingly solicitous of her and so are the people asking her the questions. And she is mowing down all opposition without batting an eyelash.
For someone who doesn't understand what all the fuss is about, you sure spend an amazing amount of time posting on the subject.
Ally |
Author: Peter Wood
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 05:12 pm | | Why would Sickert's family be able to sue Patricia Cornwell? Surely you can't defame someone who is dead?
And if he has surviving family - great! Lets include them in the DNA tests.
Ivor: Include a tour of the pubs after the guided tour of the murder sites, ok?
Cheers
Peter |
|
|
|
|
