Archive through 25 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 25 November 2002

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects: Patricia Cornwell/Walter Sickert: Archive through 25 November 2002

Author: Richard P. Dewar Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 05:37 pm
Hi Ally, I am generally aware of her remarks suggesting that many "Ripperologists" are weird, strange, unbalanced lunatics. As I have stated, those who have resorted to childish immature name-calling and personal attacks, as witnessed on these boards, play into Ms Cornwell's insults. It is one thing to critique or dismiss Stephen Knight, "From Hell", the Michael Caine movie, diary enthusiasts, D'Onston black magic afficianados, Patricia Cornwell and all the other eclectic theories about the case. It's quite another to get almost hysterical about them to the point of making it some kind of weird personal vendetta. Quite frankly I have not watched any of her interviews - nor do I intend to. I don't think much of her work, do not take her conclusions seriously, so it is of little interest to me. Yes, I have posted on the subject, because, quite frankly, for those who don't take her work seriously I don't quite understand the hysteria. Some have made rather interesting and critical remarks on her case. Others have resorted to name-calling and personal insults. My question to the latter is why do you take this so seriously and so personally? If she has written a bad book, poorly researched, and clumsily documented, with false conclusions, why not leave it at that? What is the source of this anger? For me the case is interesting, but not so important to me that anyone else's opinions or views on the case that differ from mine should be considered some personal affront. Rich
Author: Bob Dulaney Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 06:26 pm
Ivor Edwards posed the rhetorical question, "God only knows what [Cornwell] has to say about the posters on the casebook." I was there at the Lisner on Tuesday night and can vouch for the excellent summary Chris has posted. Chris mentioned the vitriol heaped on Ripperologists and Ripper Walks, but Cornwell saved her best shot for Ripper websites. For starters, we all need to get a life. That's fair enough, but she went on to say that we naysayers simply don't want the case to be solved, and that's why we can't acknowledge the truth. Perhaps most revealing was when she said her greatest satisfaction will come when her closing of the case brings an end to such sites. (I'm not making this up.) Two other brief comments. Cornwell laid great emphasis on the unique batch of 6,000 sheets traced back to the same stationer from imperfections in the printing process. Apparently, the two Ripper and two Sickert letters her team has identified from this batch raise her "same author" argument to a level beyond reasonable doubt. One clarification to all this is that the Ripper letters in question are, in fact, torso letters. At one point in her exchange with Chris she issued a blanket challenge to her British detractors to debate her. She seemed sincere in believing her position irrefutable. And she's right, if, like with Chris, she controls the mike. Bob Dulaney
Author: Ally Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 06:28 pm
Rich, I think you are hypersensitive to anyone who displays emotion and who isn't lethargic to the point of being mentally comatose and confuse this with being angry at Cornwell. I doubt anyone here would say that they are angry at Cornwell. The fact that we like to ventilate here is not about anger...she is an idiot and we are poking fun at her. We like to poke fun at idiots and the joy of this board is we get to do it every day. No one here is hysterical about it ..again just because we aren't stick up the arse prim and proper, doesn't mean hysterical. We are mocking, we are having a good time, why can't you allow people to mock if they want to mock? Why do you feel it is your holy duty to jump in and tsk tsk them everytime? You are trying to claim that the way we behave here is influencing people's perception because you want us to change our behavior and yet you admit one humdred percent that you haven't seen a single interview with her and don't know what our perceptions of her are based on. I admire your bravado in preaching a subject that you are totally ignorant of and have determined to remain ignorant of. I don't however like you twisting the facts of the situation and attempting to quell posters here by saying that they are responsible for how Cornwell's theory is received. As long as you hammer away at the posters telling them you don't like the way they behave shame on them, I will post that it isn't your obligation to tell them how to post. In short, if you want to be a killjoy, it isn't going to be well received here.
Author: Stewart P Evans Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 06:41 pm
There has been much discussion on this thread about the content of Ms. Cornwell's book, the amount she spent on research and the flawed reasoning. Not much comment has been made about the glaring factual errors and omissions in the book. All books contain errors, but they are hopefully only minor ones. Now, with $6 million spent during research plus a team of experts one would hope that such errors would be truly minimal. But they are not. There are several examples but I will cite a couple that take up nearly five pages in her book. The first is the mention of the murder of 'Joan Boatmore' [sic - Jane Beetmore] near Gateshead on 22 September 1888. Ms. Cornwell links this murder to the Ripper series and Sickert. She states that 'it was decided the killer probably had committed suicide' and 'no body was recovered and the crime went unsolved.' She also links it to a 'Ripper' letter that mentions the murder. [pages 214-215 of her book]. She follows this up with a transcription of a letter to The Times [pages 267-269] from 'An Elderly Gentleman' which she thinks 'could be viewed as a taunting allusion to Joan Boatmore's murder'. The letter was from an anonymous gentleman who claimed that 'in an agricultural county' he had 'shared his umbrella during heavy rain with a maid servant' and that the girl had asked about the London murders. He also said that he had been 'in one of the mining districts' walking in the fields among the pits, when a party of seven collier lads had accosted him and suggested that he was Jack the Ripper. It is a lengthy letter and the writer concludes, "But I think them guilty of a serious and even dangerous error of judgment in not distinguishing between the appearance of Jack the Ripper and that of your obedient servant, AN ELDERLY GENTLEMAN" This is enough for Ms Cornwell, the 'Elderly Gentleman' must have been Sickert. Unfortunately for Ms. Cornwell her research is lacking, despite the money she spent. For she has reached the wrong conclusions on both of these points. First, Jane Beetmore was murdered by a man whose advances she had rebuffed. William Waddell, 22, a Gateshead iron worker, had murdered her. He was arrested a few days after the murder, tried at Durham and found guilty. He made a full confession to the murder, blaming drink, and was hanged by Berry at Durham on 18 December 1888. Secondly 'An Elderly Gentleman' was, in fact, the well-known barrister, poet and diarist, A. J. Munby. The account of his encounter with the mining lads, and the letter to The Times, is to be found on page 413 of his biography Munby Man of Two Worlds, by Derek Hudson, London, John Murray, 1972. So neither reference has anything at all to do with either the Ripper or Sickert. And this is merely two of the errors I found. With all the hype that this book has received such lengthy flawed reasoning and poor research leaves one bewildered.
Author: Richard P. Dewar Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 06:51 pm
Hi Stewart, Very cogent points as usual - I think the hype about her book has more to do with who she is rather than the quality of her work. I think the points you raise alone are devastating to the credibility of her production. Rich
Author: Ivor Edwards Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 07:03 pm
Hi Peter. I will drop you an e-mail.
Author: Richard P. Dewar Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 07:09 pm
Hi Ally, You said "we" like to poke fun at "idiots." I don't exactly know who the "we" are (I am wary of those who choose to speak of themselves in anything but first person). Many of the posters on the boards have done a good job of critiquing her work without being mean-spirited about it (see Christopher & Stewart's posts). Fortunately they are not afflicted with the "lethargic" attitude that anything written beyond the fourth grade level is boring. For all of Ms Cornwell's faults in her work, and no doubt there are many as outlined by people like Christopher and Stewart, her intellectual limitations are not to the point where she grows "lethargic" to any bit of communication laced with insults, ad hominem attacks, and childish name calling (ie Cornball, slag, man-hater). If one's preferred means of communication is the kind of dialogue that most of us left in the schoolyard, who, indeed, is the idiot? And, so, with that, with advice from more than one source, I am giving up this argument with you, Ally, because it is quite obvious to "us" that you just don't get it. Rich
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 07:09 pm
From reports...I read Walter Sickert was an extremely kind and generous man. Odd. Rosey :-)
Author: Ivor Edwards Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 07:28 pm
Ally, It is rather a pity that you are not attending on the 27th I would match you with her any day of the week and place a fair sized bet on the outcome.
Author: Ally Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 07:54 pm
Why thank you Ivor. I wish I could be there as well. Richard, Out of the many people posting here, how many didn't at some point poke the fun stick at Patricia? Two? So you basically just called everyone on this thread an immature idiot. And you say I am rude and lack manners...at least I limit my insults to individuals and not whole threads of posters. Ta ta, Ally
Author: Ivor Edwards Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 08:33 pm
Rosey, God knows what P Cornwall would have to say about Joseph Sickert if she ever laid eyes on him or saw any of his paintings!!!!! SICKERTS ALIBI. On page 217 of her book she states, " I could find nothing to suggest that Sickert spent anytime at all in France during the late summer,early autumn, or winter of 1888. Page 216 "The only indication I could find that he was in France at all during the autumn of 1888 is an undated note to Blanche that Sickert supposedly wrote" Page 215 " There is no evidence I could find that Sickert was in France at the end of Sept" Part of a newspaper article sent to me by Chris G relating to Matthew Sturgis Sickert's biographer "Cornwall makes no attempt to link Sickert to the murder scenes.In fact, for much of the late summer of 1888 he was staying with his mother and brother in France 20 miles from Dieepe. the exact dates of his holiday cannot be fixed but he probably left London in the middle of August- one drawing is dated August 4 and after that there are no references to his being in town. On Sept 6, six days after the murder of the ripper's first victim and two days before the murder of the second, Sickert's mother wrote to a friend about the happy time they were having.It seems Sickert may have stayed until early October as he painted a picture of a local butcher's shop flooded with late summer light, he titled it The October Sun. If so, he missed the murders of Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes in the early hours of Sept 30. Cornwall does not even acknowledge this pretty good alibi" I wonder why ? could it be that it was not in her interest to do so ?
Author: David Radka Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 08:39 pm
What is the problem? I'm not saying that people shouldn't buy Ivor's book, or that D'Onston was not the murderer. I'm not saying that Ivor didn't research his book well, or did not write a fine book. I am going to get his book myself as soon as it becomes available in the US, and use it for my paper. What is the problem with you folks? All I'm saying is that Ivor is puffing his book here using an exaggerated and hypocritical statement. Everybody needs to puff their book--I've got no problem with that in itself. All I'm saying is that Ivor should consider that he may be puffing too hard, and giving his readers a point to believe in that they really shouldn't believe in. That's as far as what I am saying goes. Once again, I wish Ivor best of luck on his book. What's the problem here? David
Author: Ivor Edwards Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 08:42 pm
Oh I forgot to add that P Cornwall does not have to prove that Sickert was in Whitechapel at the times of the murders he has to prove that he was not!!!!! :-)
Author: Ivor Edwards Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 08:59 pm
David, What are you on about now ?As far as I can remember I have not been talking about my book on this thread you just attacked me out of the blue like a kamikaze over Cornwell. I am talking about her book not my book.Get a grip mate and calm down.At least I have the guts to get on these boards and stand my ground and answer questions which is more than can be said for some authors on the subject. Furthermore I have never whined and turned tail and run like others have done because things got hot in the kitchen I have choosen my ground and have always stood firm in the face of adversity.Suffice to add I intend to defend my ground regardless of the odds and the sooner you and one or two others realize that the better.
Author: Harry Mann Friday, 22 November 2002 - 04:18 am
What Cornwell has done is to investigate a series of murders,and attempt to build a case against Walter Sickert as the murderer.That is no more than many others have done before her,and each has failed to establish a case agaist their particular suspect.What Ivor has done is to establish a reason for the murders,something no one else has convincingly achieved. It is not the responsibility of the investigator to judge or prosecute a suspected person,but to gather evidence that might lead to a conviction.She believes she has done that.There is no onus on the investigator to prove anything,the prosecutor does that,but there is a responsibility for the investigator to ensure beyond reasonable doubt,that the information they provide is true. She is not obliged to conform to any judges rules or court procedures,and in asking that opponents disprove her findings,she is asking no more than what any defence is prevailed to do. If she is wrong,prove she is wrong.Prove that Sickert was not a murderer.
Author: Philip C. Dowe Friday, 22 November 2002 - 04:46 am
Hi all, I have been thinking about Mrs. Cornwalls book. She makes a weak case in proving that Sickert was the murderer but in my eyes a stong case in proving that Sickert was inspired by the murders. If she had written a book claiming that Sickert was inspired by Jack nobody would have read let alone bought it. I think she has realized that she cannot prove Sickert to be Jack, but there is something there. If we forget about Sickert being Jack what remains is a sick painter who painted pictures based on the killings. Lets try a couple of what ifs: 1) What if he was really inspired by the killings? 2) What if somebody knew he was inspired? 3) What if he wrote letters claiming to be Jack, not to taunt the police but to make Jack continue? 4) What if there is a connection between the victims and Sickert? 5) What if Mary Jane Kelly was in France with Sickert and she was his lover? 6) What if Mary Jane Kelly was murdered as a signal to Sickert? 7) What if he knew who Jack was? We will never be able to ask Sickert these questions, but the more I think about it, the more I believe that Mrs. Cornwall may be wrong in her summary, but has openend a new way of looking at the crimes. Yours, Philip - not playing the Devils advocate, but trying to put the book in a new context.
Author: Dan Norder Friday, 22 November 2002 - 07:50 am
Phillip, No offense, but your "new context" and what ifs make even less sense than Cornwell's original screwed up theory. Why do so many people have to keep coming up with some whacky conspiracy linking everything together in some absurd manner instead of treating the investigation like any other serial killer case? Why does every serial killing have to be a message, or the victims have to know each other, or someone has to cover something up? It's ridiculous in the extreme. Dan
Author: Stuart Friday, 22 November 2002 - 07:57 am
Dan You got it. Well said. cheers stu
Author: Monty Friday, 22 November 2002 - 08:33 am
Wood, You're crucifying yourself man...you're crucifying yourself. Ripper + Sickert doesnt add up no matter how you fiddle the figures...... ....Letter writer + Sickert ??.....mmmmm, maybe. Fight for a worthy cause. Monty
Author: Christopher T George Friday, 22 November 2002 - 09:15 am
Hi, Phillip: I don't agree with you that Walter Sickert was, as you put it, a "sick painter" no more than Picasso was sick for painting the distorted faces of women. Picasso apparently was a macho pig in real life but the artwork does not necessarily reflect the man. Neither does Salvador Dali's paintings of floppy watches make him sick either. Similarly, Edgar Allan Poe wrote about murders and horror but that does not make him a murderer. We need to separate the man from his art, which is what Patricia Cornwell patently fails to do. Walter Sickert may have taken a deep interest in the murders, but then so did thousands of others in the months the murders occurred and since. Patricia Cornwell is also fascinated with murder and serial killers, as are we, but no one would think of digging up her back yard or ours to look for bodies. Best regards Chris George
Author: Madeleine Murphy Friday, 22 November 2002 - 11:51 am
Hi Philip, I think you make a good point about Cornwell's book: she has indeed made a good case that Sickert was interested in the Ripper. Unfortunately, that wasn't her goal. She set out to solve the crime, and I can't imagine that anything less than a dramatic "solution" will help her offset the considerable costs of her research. Like the Maybrick diary, I think this illustrates the difficulty of pursuing academic work in a commercial environment. Academic inquiry often gets you nowhere, which doesn't exactly make for a compelling read: "I searched and searched and found nothing in particular!" That's why they call it the "ivory tower:" If you're going to be honest about your conclusions, you need to be protected from the need to come up with a product. madeleine
Author: Billy Markland Friday, 22 November 2002 - 12:06 pm
I seem to have seen, from my perspective, one very positive outcome to Cornwell's book. That is the bookstores are stocking other books relating to the crimes. One example from last week when I went to see if my local Border's had Stewart's Ultimate JtR Sourcebook. They didn't have that but they did have: Sugden's 2002 revision of his Complete History of JtR; Evans & Gainey's JtR: First American Serial Killer (Ed. note: I bought those two!); Graham's book on Mrs. Maybrick; Begg, Fido, & Skinner's A-Z; and Feldman's JtR: Final Chapter. Of course, they only had one copy of each compared to a few dozen of Pat's book, but what the hey, this is from a store that a month or so previously only had A-Z! Granted the above is based on too small a sample to extrapolate for all bookstores but I am sure the larger stores will be following suit. Best of wishes, Billy the Optimist!
Author: Madeleine Murphy Friday, 22 November 2002 - 12:11 pm
Hello all-- Regarding the expressions of anger, recrimination etc. towards Cornwell that Rich and Philip remarked on, I think that's more a by-product of the medium than anything else. Posting to a board blurs boundaries that in real life are quite sharply marked. We are making informal, conversational remarks with no sense at all of the context in which the remarks will being read. Rich is right: as written text, many posts do seem unusually emotionally charged, including mine, I expect. But that's not unusual. All boards shared by enthusiasts are full of clashes, bursts of temper, recriminations, protests of innocence, apologies, etc. Even the English teachers' boards I've been on have had rather exaggerated blow-ups and reconciliations and expulsions--unlikely drama from a bunch of middle-aged women who are all mad about concensus building and honoring each other's perspectives.
Author: Spryder Friday, 22 November 2002 - 12:20 pm
"Pursuing academic work in a commercial environment..." Madeleine, that sums it up perfectly for me. The fact is that it was Cornwell's millions that financed the research. It was her name on the checks sent to the DNA/paper/handwriting experts. Much like "expert witnesses" at a trial, both sides of the case are going to find their own experts, paid out of their own funds, to voice in authoritative tones the words they want to hear. Patricia's experts may have been completely forthright. Or, they may have been influenced by the fat checks they were receiving with the Cornwell Inc. insignia on them... The point is, we don't know. What is needed is independent verification of her results. We need to see the raw data, all of it, put it into the hands of an independent analyst, and see what he/she says can be gleaned from it. What we also need - and what I was shocked to see was lacking from Cornwell's 'scientific' approach - are similar tests run against control groups. Select 10 other contemporary individuals at random, whose correspondence is known to still exist, of which there are at least as many examples to test as Cornwell had of Sickert's. See if any watermark/mtDNA/handwriting/ink-medium tests draw up any similar matches to those found in Cornwell's investigation into Sickert. If it turns out that in all 10 control groups, not a single watermark, mtDNA sequence, ink-medium, handwriting sample, etc. is to be matched to the Ripper correspondence, then I would be much more satisfied with Cornwell's results, having thus eliminated the rather large spectre of coincidence from her findings. But even in this, Cornwell is most likely safe. Who among us has the $$$ or £££ to bankroll tests of this nature? I'd venture to say, not a one. We're left to say, "Oh, well such-and-such tests need to be done still to verify your findings," and she can return with the ever-quotable soundbyte: "Sure, go ahead. You pay for it."
Author: Dan Norder Friday, 22 November 2002 - 01:02 pm
I think most of the hostility against Cornwell can be summed up to two reasons: First, that she started out by heaping abuse on ripperologists in general and also anyone who express interest in the case through books or the ripper walks and so forth. She began with a hugely confrontational manner before most of us even knew she was interested in the case, and manages to slur not only all of us but herself and her fans who buy her ripper book also. Loose cannons tend to get the most emotional responses. Second, this isn't your normal crank, but a millionaire crank who can use her money and notoriety to push a theory that otherwise wouldn't have been taken seriously. You don't see the people here lash out too strongly against the Art Bell wannabe ghost and UFO nut on BBC radio who says Jack was a practicing Satanist with military training who attacked with ninja-like stealth and escaped over rooftops. That's because most of us can't even recall his name or his suspect's name. (And considering I just posted about him yesterday he's obviously quite forgetable.) Cornwell comes in with just as little background in historical research and an equally implausible (if not quite as over the top) suspect, and she is on TV news shows and being taken seriously by major institutions who should know better. For crying out loud, the BBC is making the lifelong ripperologists take a backseat to her on a televised debate. If there were any fairness in the world there's be a panel of distinguished Ripper authors discussing the case and she'd be the one allowed to ask questions (that have to be preapproved beforehand) from the peanut gallery. Damn straight we are going to spend more time lashing out against a target who has probably already gotten more air time than all true ripperologists put together. Things would be completely different if Cornwell had solid research to back up her extraordinary claims, or presented this is as a new theory to be debated against others. But she's throwing innuendo and insults out in lieu of facts and has claimed that she has scientifically proven it, and everyone who disagrees is jealous, ghoulish, and stupid. People like this, regardless of what they are trying to sell, need to be exposed as the frauds they are. I do think people have to be polite about it and try not to fight fire with fire, because you can't out insult someone who is this spiteful and crazy, especially when she calls the shots with the news media. But then the attention to her is necessary, because if we just ignore her the public will basically accept this nonsense as fact. Dan
Author: Christopher T George Friday, 22 November 2002 - 01:27 pm
Hi, Dan: As you know, I have been suggesting moderation, particularly with the upcoming BBC forum looming, but you are right that Patricia Cornwell has, in a sense, "bought" a place at the Ripper table with her millions. It is interesting that in her Smithsonian lecture on Tuesday, she made the remark that she did not fully understand the tests that were being done at her behest, as if the scientific analyses stood by themselves. This could be part of her contention, of course, that her research is about science and not a theory. This morning I forwarded to Paul Begg a couple of URLs on "etching ground" that Ted Martin kindly supplied to me. If anyone else would like the websites I will send them. "Etching ground" is the substance Cornwell says she has found on some of the Ripper letters that she says only an artist would use. Ted remarked that with the amount of handling the letters have had in 114 years and the checkered history of the photographs that we know about, the substance could be anything. Ms. Cornwell's contention that Sickert could have written up to 150 Ripper letters or 90% of those in the archives seems absurd to me as it would to most people who have studied the case, not the least to Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner who have published the definitive book on the letters. However, as illogical as it seems, could she in fact be onto something? Or is this just a case of "smoke and mirrors" and more scientific data being trotted out to make a weak case seem stronger? All the best Chris George
Author: Richard P. Dewar Friday, 22 November 2002 - 01:39 pm
Hi Madeleine, I think you are right. Many of us have expressed in writing or via emails outbursts we would never in person. We get all kinds on the boards and I am sure you are correct. In most instances, people are expressing their emotions quickly and without much consideration (we have all done it in various venues). Sometimes I am expecting considered commentary but frequently forget that at times, for some, this is a more visceral form of expression. Rich
Author: Richard P. Dewar Friday, 22 November 2002 - 01:47 pm
Hi Dan & Chris, I agree with both of you. No doubt, Ms Cornwell's contemptuous remarks have contributed to the emnity that many interested in the case have directed at her. But, and I could be wrong, I sense a bit of frustration and envy by some in the community that this woman, with her reputation and riches, in one fell swoop has dominated the public debate on the topic. It seems that many who feel their work and interest in the subject is more considered and serious resent that a neophyte has surpassed them as an expert in the eyes of the general public based entirely on her unrelated works. It reminds me of some of the fury that certain American historians heap upon writers like Gore Vidal. Or the small independent film maker who is enraged at the colossally successful "commercial" film maker. Rich
Author: Dan Norder Friday, 22 November 2002 - 02:21 pm
Rich, Ummm, yeah. Of course people resent her pretending to be a serious researcher, and rightfully so. This surprises you? It's like when NASA astronauts train for years and never make it on a shuttle mission see some rich tourist buy his way onto the International Space Station through the Russian space program. Then imagine that that person had afterwards called all astronauts stupid idiots with an unhealthy obsession with science and called a press conference to explain why he knows the Big Bang never happened AND dismissed scientists who dared to argue with him as jealous cranks. My hope is that Cornwell will overexpose herself saying enough idiotic statements that others calmly debunk that even her current fans will realize what an arrogant ass she is. And if we are especially lucky they'll stop buying her fiction as well. Dan
Author: Christopher T George Friday, 22 November 2002 - 02:40 pm
Hi, Dan and Rich: Factoring into this is the timeline under which Ms. Cornwell produced her book. She was only given permission to analyze the Ripper letters at the PRO in September 2001. Barely two months after that she was on PrimeTime Live with the news that her investigation was ongoing but with the disappointing news that most of the Ripper letters had been put in plastic which made it impossible to get DNA off them. The exception was the Openshaw letter that had been temporarily in private hands. Then a year later under a multi-million dollar deal her book comes out, with the conclusions as we know them. I see a time crunch to produce and in which she did not get the full definitive results she thought she would. Now however she is saying there is more evidence that is not in her book, from recent analyses, and that more analyses are ongoing. How much of this is hype to sell the book and how much is news of actual research that might strengthen her case? Best regards Chris George
Author: Richard P. Dewar Friday, 22 November 2002 - 02:54 pm
Hi Chris, My own view of the matter is that Ms. Cornwell did not anticipate the level of knowledge of the case in certain sectors. It is only intuition, but I sincerely believe that Ms. Cornwell believes she has solved the case - but is disappointed herself that the evidence is not more definitive. I think her view was, as is the case in many circles, that the only people interested in the case are kooks espousing their own wacky theories. She felt that with her own evidence, no matter how slight, it would be accepted as definitive proof. That, certainly, has not been the case. I think it is probably stunning to her how much even novices have questioned her findings. Her only alternative, as she sees it now, is to say there is more proof as yet unpublished. She will now have to hunt for it. Rich
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Friday, 22 November 2002 - 06:12 pm
Dear Rich, I try to keep an open mind when confronted by the Great Unsolved Mysteries of Life...don't you think? And there is absolutely nothing new in Ms. Cornwell's contribution to THE CASE...but she has balls.We await further development with interest. Rosey :-) PS. I think our Pat has a ding-an-sich for Walt.
Author: David Radka Saturday, 23 November 2002 - 01:32 am
'PS. I think our Pat has a ding-an-sich for Walt.' This quite an interesting comment as a matter of fact, quite a rich text indeed. 1. 'ding-an-sich' is German for 'thing in itself.' It is a term coined by philosopher Immanuel Kant. It refers to the notion that there must be something entirely exterior to human perception in order to cause human perception to function. However, since whatever we know about a thing arises within our perception, then we can never know the thing as it is in itself; in effect our perception of it changes it for us into what we perceive of it, which is different from what it is all by itself. 2. 'Walt' refers to Walt Disney. 3. What Rosemary is saying is that Cornwell has concocted a story about JtR that is philosophically engineered to appeal to major movie studios. In other words, her purpose is not to solve the case, but to sell a solution for big profit. The movie studios will never be able to know who killed JtR--Cornwell has made that into the unknowable thing in itself--and therefore lacking real knowledge they will be duped into paying her. David
Author: Philip C. Dowe Saturday, 23 November 2002 - 02:21 am
Hi all, Dan: no offense taken :-). I am not looking for a cover-up, a black-magic ritual, a message or a weird connection between the victims. I even doubt if Jack was one person. I was just looking for explanation. Christopher: I did not mean sick in the way he painted or what he painted, but sick as ill, deranged or deformed. Perhaps weird would have been a better word to use. all: It would not surpise if Mrs. Cornwall is sitting in her kitchen at this moment with a cup of tea, a slice of toast and reading this forum, thinking "I have made a *&%$ing big mistake and should never have published that damn book". Apart from that I go with David (on this one), this book wil a great film... Peace to all, Philip
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Saturday, 23 November 2002 - 05:40 pm
Dear David, The medicine appears to be working! Teutonic humour is only a minor side-effect. Rosey :-) PS. Once again I exhort the Posters who currently confront the Abyss to shake a thimble-full of white rice in a dark corner before leaping.
Author: Philip C. Dowe Sunday, 24 November 2002 - 03:43 am
Dear Rosemary, Teutonic humour? Qu-est que c'est?
Author: Howard Brown Sunday, 24 November 2002 - 01:39 pm
Phil: Heres an example of a little Teutonic humor.....Heinrich: "My dog lost his nose in a fight"....Ulrich: "And how does he smell,my friend?".......Heinrich: "Terrible."
Author: Spryder Monday, 25 November 2002 - 01:59 pm
An excellent article just appeared today on CNN.com relating to Patricia Cornwell and what legal rights Sickert's surviving family may have to bring suit against her for defamation. Interesting in this context, but also in the larger context of all suspect-related Ripper books, particularly those that accuse well-known personnages of being the killer. -------------------------------------------------- Has writer Patricia Cornwell ID'd Jack the Ripper or defamed the dead? By John W. Dean FindLaw Columnist Special to CNN.com Monday, November 25, 2002 Posted: 11:35 AM EST (1635 GMT) (FindLaw) -- Before reading a recent New York Times editorial, I had never heard of the "19th-century Impressionist painter Walter Richard Sickert, a disciple of Whistler and friend of Degas, a frequenter of London's demimonde who painted prostitutes menaced by malevolent male figures." Sickert is the man who crime novelist Patricia Cornwell claims is the infamous Jack The Ripper. Nor am I a Ripperologist, as students of this subject call themselves. But I do have strong feelings about defaming defenseless dead people; there is a hole in American law, when it comes to this issue, that invites irresponsible history. Has Cornwell closed the case? Or defamed Sickert? It was with these thoughts in mind that I read Cornwell's new nonfiction work -- "Portrait of A Killer: Jack The Ripper Case Closed." It did not take long to find the answer. Cornwell's search was prompted by a chance visit to Scotland Yard in May 2001, she writes in her book. Her tour guide, Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Grieve, happened to be an expert in Jack the Ripper's crimes. When he offered a tour of the Ripper crime scenes, Cornwell couldn't resist. Had anyone ever employed modern forensic science to try to solve the Ripper mystery? she asked. When told they hadn't, she saw an opportunity. Her Scotland Yard guide suggested she check out Walter Sickert, for he had painted murder pictures -- one of them depicting a man sitting on the edge of a bed with the body of the nude prostitute he just murdered. Seven months later and a year before her book was published, on December 6, 2001, Cornwell told ABC in an interview, "I do believe 100 percent that Walter Richard Sickert committed those serial crimes." She added, "This is so serious to me that I am staking my reputation on this," she added. "Because if somebody literally proves me wrong not only will I feel horrible about it, but I will look terrible." During an ABC News chat room session that followed the next day, Cornwell said: "One thing that was not stated on 'Primetime' was that we have not finished testing for DNA. We're now in round two, and maybe we'll get lucky. But even if we don't, I stand firm in my belief that Walter Sickert brutally murdered these women and others." Only a few days after her statements to ABC News, according to her book, she expressed serious doubts to her agent: "It doesn't matter if he's dead. Every now and then this small voice asks me, what if you're wrong? I would never forgive myself for saying such a thing about somebody, and then finding out I'm wrong." But she assured her agent she did not think she was wrong. The reasons for her doubts are understandable. She thought science would close the case, but it didn't. In truth, her DNA testing did not solve the case. Thus, she has had to resort to building a circumstantial case on basically the same evidence everyone else has used for 113 years. The problems with Cornwell's argument Jack The Ripper was clearly a sexual psychopath. For Walter Sickert to be the Ripper, he, too, must be a sexual psychopath. Yet his received biography is entirely otherwise. Cornwell suggests that some of Sickert's childhood experiences could have provided the psychological backdrop for pathology, however. She discovered that as a child Sickert, had a fistula operation: "I must admit I was shocked when I asked John Lessore about his uncle's fistula and he told me -- as if it were common knowledge -- that the fistula was a 'hole in [Sickert's] penis,'" she writes. "I can't say exactly what Sickert's penile anomaly was," Cornwell adds. Yet she proceeds at great length, and considerable detail, to imagine primitive medical procedures (operations performed circa 1865 without anesthesia, though possibly with chloroform) that she believes turned the child Walter Sickert into a serial killing sexual psychopath. "Typically, in operations on ... the genitals," she explains, "the patient was virtually hog-tied, with arms straightened, legs arched, and wrist bound to ankles. Walter may have been restrained with cloth ligatures, and as an extra precaution, the nurse may have firmly held his legs in place" as the doctor cut him. In graphic detail, Cornwell creates a completely speculative account of Walter Sickert's surgery, and then forgives the child for hating the nurse and his mother for this traumatic experience -- an experience that she has no evidence ever occurred as she describes it. I looked for any sources cited by Cornwell in the book that might connect Sickert to such a procedure. There are none. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary. Frankly, the really brutal operation has been on the reputation of Walter Sickert. For me, Cornwell has not closed the Ripper case. Rather, I wondered if she had opened a case against herself -- a potential defamation, or defamation-related lawsuit by Sickert's relatives, perhaps? Can the Sickert family take legal action? During the ABC News interview, Diane Sawyer raised the question of defamation. Diane reported, "We also contacted Sickert's nephew (presumably John Lessore) who said Patricia Cornwell is attacking the reputation of a brilliant man with no hard evidence." Then she asked Cornwell: "Any chance his family will sue you?" Cornwell answered, "Well, I don't know. But if you can, I'll take my chances. I'd like them to prove he didn't do it." Proving innocence can be inherently difficult, but not in Sickert's case: He seems to have a strong alibi. Thus, if Michael Sturgis, Sickert's biographer is correct about Sickert's whereabouts, proving Cornwell wrong might not be as difficult as she suggests. The Ripper murders started on August 6, 1888. Sturgis has recently written in the Sunday Times (London) that Sickert was not in London at the time of two Ripper murders: In fact, for much of the late summer of 1888 he was staying with his mother and brother in France, 20 miles from Dieppe. The exact dates of his holiday cannot be fixed but he probably left London in the middle of August -- one drawing is dated August 4 and after that there are no references to his being in town. On September 6, six days after the murder of the Ripper's first victim and two days before the murder of the second, Sickert's mother wrote to a friend about the happy time they were having. It seems Sickert may have stayed until early October as he painted a picture of a local butcher's shop flooded with late summer light; he titled it "The October Sun." The possibility of criminal and civil defamation actions There is no indication that Sickert relative John Lessore, or his kin or children, if any, contemplate a lawsuit. Yet clearly and understandably Cornwell has struck a raw nerve -- and thus a suit against her would be unsurprising. For the sake of discussion, I've assumed (no doubt incorrectly) that her book is not being published in a country that recognizes civil actions for defamation of the dead. But, in any event, even in the U.S. and U.K., which do not recognize such actions, there may be legal remedies other than such an action. Most common-law countries do not recognize such suits. The reason is that plaintiffs can only bring a defamation action if their reputation has been damaged. Dead people can't be plaintiffs. And relatives of a defamed decedent cannot claim their reputations were damaged by defamation that targets the decedent, not them. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, in 1998 recognized that Americans at any rate have an interest in protecting their reputations after death. In Swidler & Berlin v. U.S., Chief Justice Rehnquist stated in the majority holding (relating to attorney-client privilege) that it was unreasonable to assume that a person's interest in his reputation ended with his death. Of course, Rehnquist's ruling is a long way from a cause of action for defamation for the dead. But it may suggest related actions could be tenable, as there is an interest there to vindicate. What civil action might a relative of a defamed deceased bring? One difficult but not impossible route might be to rely on one of the many state criminal statutes that make it a misdemeanor to defame the dead. Most of the statutes are relics of the pre-federal constitutionalization of the defamation law, but they are still on the books, and can still be invoked Though these are criminal statutes, there is a body of tort law that gives courts authority to prosecute an implied civil action when the criminal statute failed to provide a civil remedy. While the Restatement (Second) of Torts acknowledge such causes of actions, rest assured that courts are not looking for ways to create new civil actions. In short, while you won't be sanctioned for filing such a lawsuit, it will be very tough going, and it will only go forward if you present a compelling case and are assigned to an intelligent trial judge. I believe there should be such causes of action -- not to enrich relatives of decedents, but rather to keep history honest. Thus, I mention this route hoping others will use it. If I were Sickert's nephew, I would have been in court with such a cause of action after the ABC News broadcast of December 6, 2001, suggesting that Sickert was 100% certain to be found to be Jack the Ripper. Another route for aggrieved relatives of defamed decedents In digging about for anything new in this area, I found a note in the "Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal" by Raymond Iryami. He does a nice job of summarizing the law as of Spring 1999. I was unaware of an English case he cites, involving the son of British Prime Minster Gladstone. As he explains, a writer named Peter Wright claimed that the former and deceased PM was not as morally upright as he publicly pretended, for in fact he privately was most interested in prostitutes. To clear his father's good name, Gladstone Jr. proceeded to write letter after letter declaring Peter Wright a liar, and provoking Wright to sue him for defamation, since he could not -- in his father's name -- sue Wright. It worked. Wright sued. Gladstone Jr. relied on truth as a defense, claiming his father had nothing to do with prostitutes. The jury believed him. And he cleared his father's name. Of course, few lawyers would advise a client to peruse this high-risk route of inviting a suit. But it has been used by others. After Carroll O'Connor's much-loved son committed suicide, O'Connor provoked a man who he alleged had supplied his son with drugs into a lawsuit by calling him a "partner in murder." O'Connor survived his intemperate remark, and used the trial to leave behind a fonder memory of his son. We still don't know the identity of the man who mutilated London prostitutes and taunted police as Jack the Ripper. I do know that Patricia Cornwell has mutilated Walter Sickert's reputation -- convicting him in the public mind without enough supporting evidence to do so. It is too soon to tell if she's also mutilated her own reputation, and rather than closed the Ripper case, opened a new one involving herself. - John Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former Counsel to the President of the United States.
Author: Brian Schoeneman Monday, 25 November 2002 - 02:19 pm
In case any of you non-Americans wonder, John Dean was Counsel to President Nixon during the Watergate scandal. So he's a semi-celebrity over here. B
Author: Howard Brown Monday, 25 November 2002 - 04:46 pm
Dear Posters....In Stephen's post above,I believe Mrs.Cornwell says it all. Sickert has to be proven innocent. Take a second or two and contemplate all the battles to get things "right" that go on,on the boards...The amount of effort to check and recheck minutiae.....the details that the writers go to ( Take Ivor Edwards,for instance ) great length and time to try to be as exact as possible...This woman is outrageous !!..Had Mrs Cornwell not had the Great American Hype Machine and all those millions at her disposal,what real interest would this self-styled "non-Ripperologist" have in solving the case? Expanding her parameters? C'mon ! Its Great God Dollar....bottom line. Shame I don't have 6 million bucks laying around idly to start a protest against this jive time mama !!!!!!!!!