Archive through 27 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 27 November 2002

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects: Patricia Cornwell/Walter Sickert: Archive through 27 November 2002

Author: spaceyram Tuesday, 26 November 2002 - 10:08 am
Spryder, CNN- Can Sickert's Family sue for Defamation? I guess I wasn't totally off base when I suggested in a recent posting that this could be a possibility.I said that if I were a distant relative, I would certainly ,lodge a civil suit, as Brown's family did against the juice. I would assume that the illness would be on Cornwell to back up her writings with documented proof as well as the family of Sickert to show his innocense. I think Cornwell would lose the case, lose face, and part with some precious dollars. This would certainly create a great deal of interest, not only by the press, but could open some new legal doors. We could also learn more about Sickert, if indeed there are distant relatives of his ready to step forward. Certainly makes for an interesting topic for our board as well. spaceyram
Author: Vicki Tuesday, 26 November 2002 - 10:40 am
Hi all, The problem with proposing ANY suspect after their death is that we will never hear an important side to the story, or you may want to call it their defense. Also, for defamation to be defamation, it has to be proven to be malicious, if I'm not mistaken. And Cornwell is trying to use forensics and facts to prove Sickert is the Ripper. Her book isn't a personal vendetta. Vicki
Author: Spryder Tuesday, 26 November 2002 - 10:48 am
I think it would take someone with a fair amount of money and thirst for controversy to take up a legal case against Ms. Cornwell, and frankly I doubt it would be an easy victory. As Mr. Dean said in his article this is a fairly grey area of the law, and though it can be done, it is often only through various and risky legal maneuvering. The average Joe would likely not be willing to take the risk. In other news, Caleb Carr, author of The Alienist, will be reviewing Patricia Cornwell's book in the New York Times Book Review on December 15th. Some of you may remember he reviewed the Diary back in 1993 in the same publication, and was quite critical of it.
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 26 November 2002 - 11:40 am
Hi, all: It occurs to me that a way to defend Sickert might be if he was regarded as a celebrity with an image, much in the way people cannot now legally profit from the images of Elvis or Laurel and Hardy if they are not party to those persons' estates. As noted on a recent A&E broadcast, after the singer's death in 1977, Priscilla Presley won the rights to Elvis's image and won an important battle for the descendants and family of show business personalities. I should think it might be possible then for an artist's family to similarly protect the rights of that artist. Cornwell is on record as likening several of Sickert's art works to the Ripper murders as well as labeling him an "evil old man" due to her unproven assumption that he was a serial killer with the blood of up to forty victims on his hands. While her claims could have the effect of raising the value of his artworks, it might be argued by a lawyer that the opposite is true, that many persons in the public would be turned off by this perception of the artist and less likely to want to purchase his paintings. In any case, a case might be made that Sickert's reputation has been irreparably damaged by the rash statements made by Cornwell without the necessary proof to back them up. Best regards Chris George
Author: Richard P. Dewar Tuesday, 26 November 2002 - 12:15 pm
Hi all, I think we all should be wary of legal pursuits against Ms. Cornwell. Regardless of the inaccuracies of her work, I would be concerned about the stifling effect of such actions on future research. Next, will he have D'Onston and Maybrick descendants suing? I am not a lawyer, but I think there is a distinction between people who use a renown figure for promotional pursuits versus authoring a critical work - as has Cornwell. It would be illegal for me to profit from selling DVDs of famous movies. It is not illegal for me to make money by criticizing those same movies. Additionally, in any such suit the plaintiff must establish damages - and they must be demonstrable. If any thing, Cornwell has not damaged the Sickert family financially, but improved their situation. There is probably more interest in Sickert's work than any time in recent years - and more commercial value for his work. Personally, I think using legal action to attack a reseacher, whether novice or professional, is unwelcome. Rich
Author: Dan Norder Tuesday, 26 November 2002 - 01:21 pm
I don't think legal actions would be the best way to handle things, not only because of the uncertainty of the law but also because of the precedent. On the other hand, I am not a lawyer but I think Cornwell shows clear malice (in the strict legal definition) in her attacks on Sickert. She picked him as the killer before research started and now is willing to twist any evidence and throw any insult in an effort to boost her weak case. She also willfully ignores all evidence to the contrary and does not seek to verify claims she knows are weak. If Sickert were alive and the book were still written as it is currently, there'd be no doubt that Cornwell would be on the losing end of a lawsuit. I doubt her book would have even been allowed to go forward by the publishers. Dan
Author: spaceyram Tuesday, 26 November 2002 - 02:43 pm
Hi all! Dan I agree with your comment re the way in which Cornwell has presented her beliefs in Sickert's "GUILT". I do not suggest that all persons who write a story, book, do an interview or whatever else based on an opinion they have,should be open for lawsuits. On the contrary, the public should be made aware of findings such as these, especially in a case of solving a crime, and so on. But in most of the JtR books I have read, the authors have stated that in their opinion, the suspect they have written on was Jack the Ripper. Others have said, was this man Jack the Ripper? Cornwell on the other hand has done everything in her power and bankbook to challenge anyone to prove him innocent. If I were married to a direct Sickert descendent, who was still carrying on the Sickert name, this story would not go un-challenged.A smart person would go to the Press, who would eat it up,and I have no doubt that there would be lawyers coming out of the woodwork begging to sue on their behalf, on a pro bono agreement.(legal work for charity or Public Good)Not to mention the press exposure which would go a long way in making the lawyer as much a well known name as Cornwell With the hype created by the book, and Cornwell's money spent on research,and no doubt,money to be made on same, what Sickert or relative of same wouldn't go for the throat ? (so to speak)Regards
Author: Richard P. Dewar Tuesday, 26 November 2002 - 04:15 pm
Hi Dan, I understand your opinion and do not necessarily disagree with it. It is quite likely that Cornwell, aware that Sickert has been a suspect in the past, started with the presumption of his guilt and operated under that notion as she commenced her research and writing. I, personally, do not think that an uncommon approach. Many books written on the case have similiar biases. It becomes readily apparent when reading works regarding various suspects that the authors had an initial presumption of guilt. I think most writers who have tried to name the killer started with their suspect rather than conducted research and then came to a conclusion. They begin with a preconcieved notion of the killer's identity, then through research construct the facts of the case around that presumption. This is exactly what Ms. Cornwell has done, albeit more clumsily than others. One might critique Ms. Cornwell's scholarship, allege she has been reckless, or even suggest her interpretations are entirely wrong. It is quite another to demonstrate that she knowingly published something she believed to be untrue. In my view, Cornwell, like so many who advocate various theories of dubious pedigree, sincerely believes in her suspect. I just happen to think she is probably wrong. Rich
Author: Eliza Cline Tuesday, 26 November 2002 - 04:16 pm
It would be next to impossible to show that Cornwell was motivated by malice--her suspect died before she was born. She would have no motive to maliciously defame him. She may be leaping to all kinds of unwarranted conclusions based on flimsy evidence, but I don't see a legal case here.
Author: Richard P. Dewar Tuesday, 26 November 2002 - 04:47 pm
Hi Eliza, I agree. I don't quite understand the desire of those who wish to see Cornwell prosecuted for defaming Sickert. Obviously, the Whitechapel murderer was one man and there are literally dozens of suspects. If Cornwell is to be sued for falsely charging Sickert with being the murderer, should not all those other authors who have necessarily pointed the guilty finger at innocent people also be sued? Rich
Author: Dan Norder Tuesday, 26 November 2002 - 04:52 pm
Eliza- Malice for the purposes of libel laws is willfully damaging a person's reputation for financial or other gain. Whether the suspect is dead or not is irrelevant. She has a clear motive: to make money. Dan
Author: Richard P. Dewar Tuesday, 26 November 2002 - 05:31 pm
Eliza, Dan and I disagree, as you can see. If his postulation is correct - that anyone can be sued for writing damaging information to a person's reputation for financial gain, then most people who write critical history would be liable. Under Dan's formulation, since the murderer worked alone, at least two of the following authors committed libel: Melvyn Harris (D'Onston), Martin Fido (Cohen) and Stewart Evans (Tumblety). They all published damaging information toward their suspects in order to make money - and demonstrably since all three could not be right, two published false allegations. You are correct - that is not how it works and such a formulation is patently absurd. None of the above authors, or Cornwell, committed libel. The wronged party must demonstrate damages and prove that the author knowingly published something with a reckless disregard for the truth. An important component is whether the subject is a public figure. Sickert definitely is. That means what can be published is broader. I could write that I believed Oscar Wilde was Jack the Ripper and would not be liable - even if I knew it false. However, if I wrote that you were the Washington DC sniper, even if I believed it to be true, I would be liable. That is because you could experience real damage. Oscar Wilde could not. Many of the laws are complex and contradictory. I am aware of no circumstance when someone wrote an unflattering portrayal of a historic figure in the past who was successfully sued for libel. Perhaps those who seem to believe Cornwell is vulnerable, could provide some precedent. Rich
Author: Dan Norder Tuesday, 26 November 2002 - 05:48 pm
Rich, Please stop putting words into my mouth. That's not my postulation at all. Please pay attention. I did not say any other ripper authors could be sued for libel. In fact, quite the opposite. I have already said that dead people cannot be libeled, so unless someone out there says Jack is still alive, all ripperologists are automatically off the hook regardless of what they write. Only negligence has to be proven for private individuals. Malice has to be proven for public figures. Sickert was a public figure. Cornwell has shown reckless disregard for the truth for selfish purposes when she should have known better (and, as a previously published author with ties to law enforcement, can't just say she didn;t know better about the whole "innocent until proven guilty" concept), as she ignores whatever facts don't fit her theory (instead of negligently just not being aware of them). So I think we have Cornwell on malice pretty easily, but the whole can't libel the dead thing puts a kibosh on any attempted lawsuit, if I were saying there should be one, which I am definitely not. Dan
Author: Dan Norder Tuesday, 26 November 2002 - 06:04 pm
I'm posting a follow up in order to correct dangerously incorrect information about the law that Rich posted for fear that someone might stupidly believe it. Using Rich's example with Oscar Wilde, the only thing preventing it from being libel is the fact that Wilde is dead (and perhaps that it's not damaging because it couldn't be taken seriously). Regardless of whether Wilde is a public figure or not (as he obviously is), printing something you know is wrong about them (as in the example Rich provided) -- or even willfully not checking facts or misrepresenting evidence when you should know better -- is malice. Private individuals have an extra layer of protection in that even accidental misrepresentations of truth that cause damage can be libel. Now it might be best for everyone involved in the whole legal debate to back off on making claims about what the law says unless they really know. I am not a lawyer, but I have studied the law concerning libel quite actively as it concerns my work as an editor and publisher. If Sickert were alive there's no way in hell I would have printed Cornwell's book because of the inevitable libel lawsuit and damages that would have resulted. Dan
Author: Richard P. Dewar Tuesday, 26 November 2002 - 06:48 pm
Hi Dan, Your post of Tues 25 Nov 4:52 reads: "Malice for the purposes of libel laws is willfully damaging a person's reputation for financial or other gain. Whether the suspect is dead or not is irrelevant." Your post of Tues 25 Nov 6:04 reads: "the only thing preventing it from being libel is the fact that Wilde is dead." Rich
Author: spaceyram Tuesday, 26 November 2002 - 07:12 pm
Rich you obviously did not read my posting or chose to ignore it. I detailed the facts with respect to authors etc, not being subject to libel for their opinions. Cornwell is not voicing an opinion, she's stating what she deems to be a fact and blatently challenges all to prove that Walter Sickert is innocent. There's a difference in voicing an opinion and making an accusation. I am disappointed that my posting was not directly acknowledged. I am starting to feel as though I am an outsider. Is there any reason why my posts are ignored. Each time I do post a message and by some coincidence the topic becomes something of interest noted by others, I seem to be ignored or worse critised, while others bringing up the same topic , after my initial reference, are praised for their observation. Is it something I've said that has offended any person? Please let me know why I am treated like I forgot to get under the "dome" today. Thank you, spaceyram
Author: Dan Norder Tuesday, 26 November 2002 - 07:36 pm
Rich, There is no contradiction there. The first post was concerning malice (and malice as defined for libel cases, as it has different legal meanings in other types of cases) alone, the second for the overall current method of determining whether something is libelous. Eliza said Cornwell couldn't have been motivated by malice because Sickert is dead. Sickert being dead or not has nothing to do with malice. Libel laws exempt dead people on the basis of not being able to damage them any more. Lack of being alive prohibits a libel result as the current interpretations of the laws stand, but has nothing to do with malice. The article Spryder showed us talked about the possibility of testing the waters to legally make a case for libel with a dead client (thus breaking new ground). Sickert specifically, in fact. That's what we were talking about. Malice would then become of prime importance. You later went to try to make comments about libel as a whole, saying that Wilde can't be libeled in your example. No, as it stands, he wouldn't be. But, if the legal loopholes saying dead people can't be libeled were removed, per the conversation we were having here, your example would be a slam-dunk case of libel. Being a public figure doesn't give anyone the right to say anything they want against you, it just means that you would have to show malice (and the typical damages, publication and identification that are usually assumed but may not be straightforward in all cases) before you could win a lawsuit. If Sickert were alive, Cornwell couldn't have gotten away with that book. If being dead no longer meant you couldn't be libeled, Cornwell would still be in trouble. So basically she's only getting away with it because her target can't fight back. Yes, historical researchers should be able to present people in less than flattering light without fear of lawsuits. But they should do so with truth and fair handling of the facts as their defense and not be allowed to get away with whatever sloppy research and baseless accusations they want just because dead people can't press charges. Dan
Author: Madeleine Murphy Tuesday, 26 November 2002 - 07:43 pm
Hi all-- interesting, I just came across an article on CNN about whether or not Sickert's family might have a remedy at law: http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/25/findlaw.analysis.dean.ripper/ madeleine
Author: Richard P. Dewar Tuesday, 26 November 2002 - 07:45 pm
Spaceyram, I think you will find quite a few authors who have claimed to have solved the case - just read the titles of their books proclaiming just that. Certainly, they cannot all be right. As I have stated from the start, I do not see anything Cornwell has done being libel. Some have suggested on this post she be sued - it is my contention that she probably could not be successfully. A different strain in this post developed when Dan said she should not be prosecuted for libel. Yet, in his next paragraph he wrote, "On the otherhand. . .I think Cornwell shows clear malice (in the strict legal definition)." I interpreted his remarks to suggest that in some way Cornwell is legally at risk and I responded by opposing that position. He has replied that I misrepresented his position and he was not suggesting anything against Cornwell is actionable. That being the case, I regret the error. Rich
Author: Madeleine Murphy Tuesday, 26 November 2002 - 07:45 pm
DOH! That's what I get for not checking the archives properly. I see that this article inspired the whole conversation. I retire in shame! madeleine
Author: Dan Norder Tuesday, 26 November 2002 - 07:58 pm
Spaceyram, Actually, I think your posts above on this topic are dead on perfectly on target. I probably should have said so, but then it's human nature to respond more often to those you disagree with than just to agree with someone. And I think Rich and I are just more used to arguing with each other. You are very correct that the way Cornwell approaches the naming of her subject is substantially different than other Jack the Ripper authors have done. Others present the evidence and say that they believe their suspect is guilty. Very rarely do they come right out and say, no, it's solved, this guy was Jack the Ripper. When they do they do get grief about it later. (Who was it who falsely told some interviewer that the case was closed and the interviewer didn't know any better and was disappointed to think that it was all over and agreed to? One of the big name authors here anyway.) Cornwell goes one step beyond even that to saying that not only is it supposedly solved, but anyone who disagrees with her is an idiot and a ghoul and has to be the one to do all the legwork to prove it isn't possible. This is a whole new level of reckless conduct that is rarely seen in historical research. But then you said all of that already so I don't need to repeat it. Yeah, what Spaceyram said. Don't worry that you might have offended us. Quite the contrary. People who offend each other seem to get the most responses. If you haven't gotten a lot of replies don't be concerned. Sometimes it's hard to remember who is a new poster who needs extra encouragement and who is a longtime poster who already fits in. Dan
Author: Richard P. Dewar Tuesday, 26 November 2002 - 08:03 pm
Hi Dan, I understand your point of view - but I would strenously oppose such action. And I seriously believe that what we have here are people envious that Ms. Cornwell, a novice to these studies, has advanced commercially farther than those who consider themselves more serious researchers. Let us accept for the moment the postion you have advanced that Ms. Cornwell is guilty of "sloppy research and baseless accusations." In my opinion, in the field of Ripper studies, this happens regularly, continually, and in some instances even more grossly. There have been so many preposterous suspects propounded over the years, based on the most scurrilous falsehoods and innuendo, yet I have never seen such a hue and cry for punishment of the authors who advance such theories. The only reason other authors seem not to be under the same scrutiny is because they are not as commercially successful. This attitude of envy seems to be a new trend. Stephen Knight authored a book on the case that received much noteriety and was as sloppily done as Cornwell's book. It attacked Prince Eddy with all sorts of unproven allegations. Why have not people been demanding that he be sued for such work? I could list some other rather reckless charges - but some of the proponents of those theories are regular posters on these boards. Why are they not under consideration for being sued? Rich
Author: Dan Norder Tuesday, 26 November 2002 - 08:05 pm
Madeleine, Don't worry about the repost. It's a good reminder of what the recent part of the thread was referring to so that other readers didn't have to go back to the archives to make sense of it. Plus I was just looking for it but couldn't find it because there's so many archives to sort through. Anyway, no shame necessary. Thanks for the refresher. Dan
Author: Dan Norder Tuesday, 26 November 2002 - 08:20 pm
"The only reason other authors seem not to be under the same scrutiny is because they are not as commercially successful." Well, in a potential libel case, commercial success would more likely show that damages were done. No damages, no libel. Some of the wilder theories (Lewis Carroll) just were never taken seriously so couldn't cause damage. As far as Stephen Knight goes, I think he's at the same level of reckless disregard for the truth as Cornwell. He's kind of old news though. The whole Maybrick Diary nonsense is up there too, and also old news as far as I'm concerned. I don't think anyone else (especially anyone here) has gotten to anywhere near the same level of baseless accusations, sloppy research and disregard for fair debate. Dan
Author: Vila Tuesday, 26 November 2002 - 08:20 pm
Spacy, I read your posts with as much pleasure as I get from reading Dan & Rich debating each other. They do a fine job and provide differing viewpoints that I find enjoyable. As are your own posts and those of other newcomers to the Casebook. To all newcomers: Please don't take a lack of response to your posts to mean that you are unwelcome, or even unread. Many of us read every post on every thread. I, at least, read every post on those threads that I have found interesting, but don't respond as often as I would like to do so due to demands on my time online. Everyone posting has something valuable to say, in my opinion, even those people who tend to be a bit combative in their debate. Vila
Author: David Radka Tuesday, 26 November 2002 - 09:37 pm
'So I think we have Cornwell on malice pretty easily, but the whole can't libel the dead thing puts a kibosh on any attempted lawsuit, if I were saying there should be one, which I am definitely not.' What a frying pan full of scrambled eggs this is! Please let us know what you are the editor of, so we won't pain ourselves to read it. David
Author: spaceyram Tuesday, 26 November 2002 - 10:29 pm
Dan, Rich, Vila Thank you for responding to my post. I was starting to think my postings were very boring to say the least. I do appreciate your responses. Dan and Vila, thank you for your encouragement. I feel more like I fit in now. David, you posted a message after the others, not addressed to me, but seemed to be directed at my posting. If it is, why not direct it my way. If you really do not want to read what was posted then so be it. But don't beat around the bush, if it is meant for me. If, on the other hand, it concerns another posting, then my apologies. Regards spaceyram
Author: Stewart P Evans Wednesday, 27 November 2002 - 04:45 am
As a 'Ripper author' I feel that I have to make some comment here. Not least of all because other authors have been mentioned. First let me say that there is absolutely no likelihood whatsoever, in my opinion, of any legal action being taken against Ms. Cornwell. Also, so far as is known, no proven direct line of blood descendants of Walter Sickert exists. Many points have been raised in this thread including the fact that Ms. Cornwell may be receiving some unfair criticism and attacks. The following points should be noted and internalized before any debate on this subject is entered into:- 1. Sickert never was, and still isn't, a genuine suspect for the Whitechapel murders. 2. No evidence whatsoever has been adduced to connect him with any of the murders. 3. His name was never mentioned in print as being interested in 'Jack the Ripper' until 1941. Even then it was only in connection with the party of young girls in Copenhagen Street calling out 'Jack the Ripper' to him because of his eccentric appearance. 4. It was not until 1947 that the story he told of his landlady of his Mornington Crescent studio telling him that a previous tenant was the sickly veterinary student whom she believed was Jack the Ripper was published. 5. In 1961 this tale was repeated as a popular Ripper reference and repeated again later in that decade. 6. The Sickert reference was expanded upon and gilded in 1970 by our old, inventive friend Donald McCormick, who exaggerated it into the unfounded accusation that, "Yet another suggestion made is that Walter Sickert, the painter, was Jack the Ripper." This was pure McCormick invention based on the previous references and McCormick added the idea that Sickert was "believed to have made sketches and paintings of the Ripper crimes." 7. The idea was now established and it did not take long for Sickert to become absorbed into the Royal/Masonic conspiracy fantasy of the early to mid-70's and emerge as a fully fledged Ripper. From this it can be seen that Sickert's status as a 'Ripper suspect' stands on the flimsy foundation of McCormick and the Knight fantasy. I will enlarge further on this theme.
Author: Stewart P Evans Wednesday, 27 November 2002 - 05:11 am
Apropos Ms. Cornwell the following factors should be borne in mind in relation to her theory. 1. Her adoption of Sickert as her chosen suspect is easily sourced to Scotland Yard as she states in her book that her interest was sparked there and that she was given there 'a very short list of very weak suspects.' It was Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Grieve who suggested to her that, "There's one other interesting chap you might want to check out, as long as you're going to look into it. An artist named Walter Sickert. He painted some murder pictures...I've always wondered about him." [page 12] 2. As no physical evidence of the murderer has survived there is a problem for anyone wishing to apply modern scientific techniques to the case. Thus the letters, if they were genuinely from the killer, would provide the only surviving 'evidence'. Needless to say Ms. Cornwell 'latched' onto these. 3. There have been many 'suspects' proposed for the mantle of Jack the Ripper over the years but I have never heard the suggestion of anyone ever taking, or even considering, legal action against the theorists. My understanding is that, certainly in this country, no action for defamation of character of the dead can be taken. This is evidenced by the modern trend of TV programme makers to sully the memory of some of our better known heroic figures with often unfounded allegations and suppositions. 4. Surely Ms. Cornwell's, and her publisher's, main object is to produce a money-making book. She has certainly succeeded in that. 5. Ms. Cornwell has pursued her research by throwing huge amounts of cash at it with the idea that, as in other aspects in life, this should produce the goods. Unfortunately, in throwing most of that cash into research on Sickert, assuming his guilt, the Ripper side of things appears to have been rather neglected resulting in some basic errors of fact and misunderstanding. 6. Her aggressive and, some may say, arrogant approach has won her few friends. 7. Last but not least, I understand that originally she was going to write a novel in which Kay Scarpetta retrospectively investigated the Ripper case and solved it. After her visit to New Scotland Yard she decided to make it a factual retrospective investigation by herself. I will now consider some further aspects of the perceived 'attacks' on Ms. Cornwell.
Author: Stewart P Evans Wednesday, 27 November 2002 - 06:37 am
It has been suggested that Ms. Cornwell began her investigation with the idea that Sickert was guilty and built her case on this presumption of guilt. This would appear to be true. It has also been suggested that this is a not uncommon method used by writers setting out a case against a chosen 'suspect'. This, again, would appear to be true. Points to be borne in mind here, however, are significant in interpreting what can be made of this phenomenon. First it should be noted that if the writer restricts himself to only those named in the contemporary reports and accounts of the case then the list is finite and depends on the actual killer having been named in these sources. This obviates all later named 'suspects' and those whose names have been literally 'plucked out of thin air' or based on fantastic ideas. It should also be noted that the books that have reaped the greatest financial rewards are those that are of a 'sensational' nature and/or involve famous or well-known names. These are the books that appeal to the bigger commercially-minded publishers. They can be relied upon to appeal to 'Joe Public' and sell in heroic numbers. They are- 1. The Royal/Masonic fantasy. 2. The 'Maybrick diary' hoax. 3. Walter Sickert, the noted post-impressionist artist. None of these three is based on a contemporary or even plausible suspect. It is also notable that with the most successful 'suspect' books the authors tend to dogmatically claim to have solved the case and truly believe in their 'suspects' guilt. I can assure readers that the more plausible books that adhere to the known facts and contain minimal supposition and theorising, but more accurate information, sell in very low quantitites. The same is also true of the reference works that, although they may sell well for the type of book they are, they do not even approach the sales figures of the above listed 'sensational' books. Whether or not the individual authors actually believe in the guilt of their 'suspects' or not may only be answered by them. I would suggest that anyone who believes in the guilt of a person where no hard evidence against them exists should take a reality check. Rich has suggested above that Melvin Harris, Martin Fido and I have committed libel, under Dan's definition, in proposing our respective suspects. (I have no idea why he fails to include those who have proposed Druitt, Gull, Prince Eddy, J.K. Stephen, Maybrick etc. etc.) Speaking for my part I can merely say that by legal definition I have not committed libel. I investigated a suspect proposed by a contemporary senior detective, Chief Inspector Littlechild, as a 'very likely suspect'. In doing so I examined the evidence, presented a totally factual account of the murders and suggested various press stories that could be directly or indirectly linked to Tumblety or, by examination of the content, may have referred to him. Thus I presented a historical account to support the suggestion made by Littlechild. In doing so the book could hardly be called objective, no book presenting a single identifiable suspect can be anything but subjective. But, the facts I presented, both pro and con, were accurate. The interpretations and theorising were, of course, the authors'. No writer or publisher produces a book for the sheer hell of it or in order to lose money. There may be a few idealistic exceptions to this but in the world of commercial publishing the idea is, of course to make a profit - that's how people make a living. However, I can say that in my case the return for a lot of hard work, study and personal expense has been minimal and a mere drop in the ocean compared to the rewards Ms. Cornwell will receive. I would not be human if I did not feel this to be just a little unjustified. I have put many years of hard work into this subject. All my books put together are still almost at the starting post as Ms. Cornwell's races ahead. Good luck to her she is a gifted writer who has brought pleasure to thousands. The rights and wrongs involved in all this will be judged by others and it is not for me to judge. I merely comment upon the issue as I perceive it, and give my opinion. Malice, belief, blindness or selective vision? Only the person producing the material really knows I guess. But surely the combined elements of contemporary criticism and the historical record will place such efforts in their true context. Many authors are guilty of presenting their opinions as given fact, not just Ms. Cornwell. It is for those that know better to identify this when it happens. The arguments about interpretation of the law and guilty intent are surely not relevant to this situation and would only be so if any action in law was contemplated. Then the proper legal minds would be applied to it. So, as with any 'sensational' book on this case much criticism and aggressive counter-argument was to be expected. Those who have inhabited these boards for any amount of time will see that the hoax 'diary' and its proponents have sustained a huge amount of abuse and attack. Not at all dissimilar to that being heaped upon Ms. Cornwell. Add to this the fact that the readers and enthusiasts who follow this case, especially in North America, are now very well informed and in possession of the the relevant factual material. This excellent forum obviously adds to this high-profile reaction to the the audacious proponents of fantastic solutions to the case. As Dan rightly identifies, it is all to do with truth and fair handling of the facts as well as sloppy research and baseless accusations. It all makes for some pretty healthy debate.
Author: Caroline Morris Wednesday, 27 November 2002 - 09:07 am
Hi Stewart, No writer is ever forced to write anything against their will. But the vast majority, I'd guess, don't ever see a profit, let alone make a living, even if a book gets published and sells. So I would argue that there must be masses of writers who do produce books for the sheer hell of it, knowing from the outset that they can only lose money. I wouldn't call them 'idealistic exceptions' - as I say, it's their choice. Only a tiny minority of authors ever get rich churning out best-selling titles with minimum effort. The majority, even if they are unaware at the beginning that a part-time writing hobby could grow into a full-time and hellishly expensive labour of love, can never claim to be so unprepared the second time around! Regarding Cornwell, I don't know what anyone can do to burst her bubble or make her address legitimate criticisms concerning her 'sensational' book. (Is she already in profit, does anyone know, or is she likely to be in the foreseeable future?) Maybe in time, if ripper experts like yourself don't give up calmly and confidently repeating the facts that show Cornwell's (or any other theorist's) handling of the case to be unfair and conclusions unsupportable, the historical record won't be weighted towards whoever currently has the most time and money to spend on this mystery and publicise their own opinions, whether sincerely held or not. You usually have to win the war before you get to write the history books the way you think they ought to be written. Hard cash and ambition have never been easy to overthrow. That takes time, effort, care and sacrifice - and one or two 'idealistic exceptions' wouldn't go amiss either. Go to it! Love, Caz
Author: Philip C. Dowe Wednesday, 27 November 2002 - 10:01 am
Hi all, let me quote one of the best known Ripper authors: "The Ripper may have been a nodescript little man of whose existence nothing is known." If people like Mrs Cornwall want to go out and search for celebs, fine let them. I will stick to Stewart Evans, Donald Rumbelow et al. Yours, Philip PS I ordered Ivors book today. PPS And the new Begg and the new Evans. PPPS What would Christmas be without a good read!
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 27 November 2002 - 10:27 am
Hi, Stewart: Thank you so much for your exhaustive and interesting three-part post on the ins and outs of the situation in regard to the Cornwell book. Bravo for providing us with an objective and dispassionate look at the ramifications of her book and the Sickert candidacy. Hi, Philip: Which book, might I ask, is the "new Evans"??? There is a new Begg and a new Chisholm, DiGrazia, and Yost, as well as a new edition of Sugden. As far as I know, the only new book by Stewart Evans is Jack the Ripper: Letters from Hell co-authored with Keith Skinner, which came out over a year ago, unless you mean the portfolio of reproduction documents on the case put together by those authors and published not long ago by the Public Record Office? Best regards Chris George
Author: Esther Wilson Wednesday, 27 November 2002 - 11:49 am
Just saw this on Ebay..... Esther http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=925551899
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Wednesday, 27 November 2002 - 12:09 pm
Interesting sketch, Esther. I suppose we could say it's Mary Kelly taking her chamber pot outdoors to empty! In other events - I echo CGs compliments, Stewart; it's a pleasure to see you turn your expertise to this newest and most contentious theory, and I thank you for putting the 'talking points' in such a clear and concise manner. Philip - you'll enjoy Paul's new book; it's an excellent look at the sociology of the Ripper, and is a must-have (in a field that seems full of them recently). I'm expecting Ivor's book and the paperback Eddleston next week. I am also, at the moment, plowing through a new 'novel of Jack the Ripper' titled Curtains of Blood, where, after Henry Irving's (!) production of Jekyll & Hyde is closed by the police, the intrepid duo of Bram Stoker and John Harker go off in search of the Ripper in order to get the play back on the boards. A full review will be in the January RN. Sorry I can't tell you the author's name, but I've forgotten. Any good bookstore should be able to find it, though. CMD
Author: Philip C. Dowe Wednesday, 27 November 2002 - 12:39 pm
Hi Christopher, Hi Christopher living in Germany I have to wait till Amazon can deliver english books. On Saturday I saw four that are so far not in my colection: "Jack the Ripper: The Definitive History" by Paul Begg; "Jack the Ripper: An Encyclopaedia" by John Eddleston; "Jack the Ripper: And the Whitechapel Murders" by Stewart Evans and Skinner (Einleitung); "Jack the Ripper's Black Magic Rituals" by Ivor Edwards should keep me going over Christmas (at least two days :-)) Peace Philip
Author: Richard P. Dewar Wednesday, 27 November 2002 - 01:39 pm
Hi Stewart, Thank you for your reasonable and thoughtful remarks. I want to make it clear that in no way did I intend to suggest that Harris, Fido, or you have been irresponsible or unfair in your renderings on the case. The comment I made was in reply to Dan and was based on a misunderstanding between us. I thought he had suggested that Cornwell might be legally culpable because she made a false allegation against Sickert. I then replied that if making a false allegation for someone being the Whitechapel murderer were some standard, then necessarily two of the following three authors (Harris, Fido, Evans) who have propounded different suspects would be at risk. It was my position that was not true. And Dan later clarified that was his position all along as well. I did not mention some other authors who present other suspects because I was simply trying to use an example. I in no way was trying to single you or Harris, or Fido out as irresponsible. Quite the contrary, I have thoroughly enjoyed the works of all three authors - and have particularly enjoyed your reference book and your book on the letters. I think they are wonderfully fair and balanced. The point I was trying to make - and stand by - is that the notion Cornwell should be sued might put legitimate researchers (such as Harris, Fido and yourself) at risk. By no means do I think any such suit should be or would be entertained. My view is that when it comes to research or standards, the assessment of someone's work should be academic and not legal. The suggestion was made that Cornwell might be pursued legally because her work was careless and sloppy and she harmed an the reputation of an innocent man. It was suggested by one poster that those opposed to Cornwell might try to make some precedent by bringing action against her. I find that idea ludicrious, but I wanted to show that if such a precedent were set any legitimate researcher or author would be at risk for legal action. I tried to use your case (and Fido & Harris) as an example. If this new "precedent" were somehow developed, a mischevious individual might bring action against someone like you. Though their case would have no basis, as we all know your work is meticulous and exact, you would still be at risk having to defend against some actions. I also have no opposition to the legitimate criticisms against Ms. Cornwell that you and others have propounded. What I do oppose is the personal attacks launched by some on these boards - ridiculing her name and her personal life. I apologize for the length of this post but I need to make clear my position. I am not castigating the reputation or work product of Melvyn Harris, Martin Fido, or Stewart Evans - who has been so kind to me with his time and knowledge. My point is that if, as some on these boards suggest, that a new legal "precedent" should be pursed against Cornwell for writing a book that is speculative, filled with errors, and clumsily researched, all authors, both scholarly and foolish, will be asked to defend themselves as well in a court of law against anyone who opposes their work. That would be a negative development, indeed. Rich
Author: Stewart P Evans Wednesday, 27 November 2002 - 02:16 pm
Caz, Perhaps I should have made it clear that I was talking with regard to commercial publishers in relation to making money out of their books. I am fully aware that there are many writers, as may be seen in the 'Ripper field', who have produced books in the nature of 'vanity publishing' and who are out of pocket as a result. And some of these books are creditable offerings which add to the general knowledge of the case. As I say, in relation to commercial publishers I would venture to suggest that there are very few, if any, who actually end up making a loss. I know that the big best-selling authors are few and far between and that they are the ones gifted enough to write excellent fiction. However, there are a large number of hack or jobbing authors who make sufficient from their writing to earn a living. For my own part, I certainly could not make enough to live on from what I write. Also, from my own point of view, the writing of a Ripper book did start as a 'labour of love' and I had previously been interested in the case for over thirty years. It was not to make money, as I was in a full time occupation. The fact that I did make some money from the book was a welcome bonus. As far as Ms. Cornwell is concerned, she has repeatedly stated that her research ran to $6 million, has anyone asked her what her publishers advanced her? I think you will find that she is already in profit. Thanks to the others who have made kind comments and I am sure that there are some more fine Ripper books pending. Rich, I didn't think that you were singling me out for special attention and I realise the context of your remarks, I merely felt like adding my own half penn'orth and I took no offence. I think that the sort of legal actions spoken about are brought only by those with huge wealth or backing and I cannot imagine any such action being taken against Ms. Cornwell. But, she does have to expect a lot of flak over her unfounded allegations against Walter Sickert. Best Wishes to all, Stewart
Author: Spryder Wednesday, 27 November 2002 - 02:20 pm
According to the New York Times, Cornwell claims to have accepted "half" her usual fee of $9million as an advance for Portrait of a Killer. So I would assume she was advanced $4.5mil for the book, meaning in reality she only spent $1.5mil out of pocket (though still, nothing to sneeze at!) I do wonder, though, what percent of those millions went toward genuine research costs, and which percent went towards acquiring an astounding thirty-two original Sickert paintings. If she were to sell those on the open market, she stands to make a considerable profit.
Author: Brenda L. Conklin Wednesday, 27 November 2002 - 05:18 pm
Spryder, let me be so bold as to say that is probably just what she is trying to do! Smear the Sickert name, make him famous, then put the paintings on the market!!!! I'm ready to make my first million!