|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 02 December 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects:
Patricia Cornwell/Walter Sickert:
Archive through 02 December 2002
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 27 November 2002 - 06:07 pm |        | | Brenda, Now that does make sense. |
Author: alex chisholm
Wednesday, 27 November 2002 - 09:51 pm | | Hi Christopher-Michael
I was intrigued to see your mention of “Curtains of Blood,” as it seems to touch upon an area of particular interest to me.
I realise the work in question is a novel, but they do say it’s always best to write about what you know, and, from your brief description, I’m not sure this maxim has been followed in the case of “Curtains of Blood.”
To my knowledge the legendary Henry Irving never performed “Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde." He did, in 1893, secure the sole rights from Stevenson’s publishers, Longmans, Green & Co., to perform the play in the UK. But this seems to have been motivated more by a desire to irritate his erstwhile friend, Richard Mansfield, than any intention to stage the play.
An Irving did appear in the title roles of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde, but this was Henry Irving’s son, H. B. Irving, in Comyns Carr’s adaptation of Stevenson’s tale, performed at the Queen’s Theatre, London in 1910.
To further muddy the waters, I don’t believe Whitechapel murder had any real influence on the withdrawal of Richard Mansfield’s staging of Jekyll & Hyde at the Lyceum during the Autumn of 1888, and the police certainly had nothing to do with it. The timing of withdrawal, reintroduction, and final closing of the play, together with other sundry details of Mansfield’s Lyceum season, suggest that financial considerations were more important to tricky Dickie, than anything Jack the Ripper did.
But then, I suppose, when allegedly seriously researched, ‘factual’ best-selling works on JtR are so far divorced from reality, what hope can there be for acknowledged fiction?
All the Best
alex |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 27 November 2002 - 10:14 pm | | When will you folks get the idea about what Cornwell wants to do? Just about every motive but the right one is discussed above. So it seems that once again it is up to me to explain basic principles to you.
Cornwell wants to confer upon women the social legitimacy of blaming a man without proof. For writing a book that does this, she gets paid by the women. They pay her money for her book, and they repay her valuable social credits for semiotically structuring mass audiences to entitle women to blame men based on arbitrary criteria. Remember when Joni Mitchell sang about how she was "...stokin' the star-maker machinery behind the popular song"? Cornwell is stoking the feminine-empowerment machinery behind the best-selling book.
Half the junk they sell in emporia like Borders Books is of the same calibre. If you're qualified, meaning if you're willing to compromise facts in order to flatter females, you can make money in authorship no matter how mediocre a writer you are. All you need do is find one or two tiny chicken scratches of empirical data in favor of your cynically-determined pretext, then just pour on the feminine ego-inflating schmaltz. On a recent trip to Borders of Farmington (I go there for the nice latte), I browsed a book written to puncture the age-old myth of male/female sterotypes and let women feel good about themselves. Its author claimed evidence that in historical primitive tribes it certainly had not been true that the male role had been one of hunting, deciding, protecting the family and carrying-out war, and the female role one of childrearing, sewing and homemaking. Uh-uh, no way! The women were shown to have been every bit as dedicated to hunting the ibex as the men, no matter what has been traditionally believed for lo these millenia. On the cover of this book was a commisioned drawing crafted to look like it had been photographed from an ancient cave wall. It showed a naked female figure heaving a javelin. But the body was drawn all out of proper design for doing this effectively--she was short and stocky, with thin, two-dimensional shoulders unable to properly torque the elongate projectile, and with big, wide hips. Women buy this stuff--large numbers of professional women with money to burn for a feel-good do. They believe what they read because they concretely experience an increase of joy as they read it, just as the purveyors do when the work is sold.
The very fact that Cornwell FAILS to establish reasonable proof that Sickert committed the murders ALL THE MORE pleases and powers her readers. They marvel at the example of what she has been able to accomplish in this world, and scheme to find ways to apply her techniques in their own lives. She has now led millions of women to blame a man for blamable acts without having satisfactorily connected him to those acts, and for the reinforcement of our core social values to boot! Just think what could be done to everywoman's husband or boss in this respect! Knock him flat and better society in the bargain!
Cornwell is like an aerobics instructor. She stands in front in her designer leotard and demonstrates exercises the class members are to perform. She raises her right arm high, then lowers it to horizontal with the elbow locked and the finger pointing. "Blame the man!" she intones, and repeats the exercise again and again. And the class follows with enthusiasm.
David |
Author: spaceyram
Thursday, 28 November 2002 - 01:30 am | | David
Your post is by far the most sexist I've ever read. You are no doubt a woman hater or a man who
is jealous of the fact that women can do a job as
well as a man, better in some cases, and have
always been able to do this. It has not been too
many years that finally "women" showed our talents
by fighting for our rights that egotistical males
like yourself tried to take from us over the yrs.
You seem to think that women should be bare-foot
and pregnant, you are in the wrong century.
How dare you stereo-type all women as if they are
so gullible & unintelligent that they are incapable of determining facts from fiction.
There is a hugh population of women,in highly paid
positions that have a greater set of balls than men who are egotists. And to top it all off they
did not have to jump in the sack with the boss to
get there, they earned it all through hard work.
As a matter a fact women have had to fight harder
through the years for such positions because
too many "egotists" have considered women incapable of these positions that men at one time
exclusively held. And to add insult to injury we
were paid less for doing the same job as a male
because of our gender. Today it's a whole new ball
game.
So lay off the female bashing.If you don't agree
with her posts, than voice that, whether or not
she is female has didley squat to do with . I
strongly suspect that most of her readers will be
male not female for a variety of reasons that do
not need to be expressed here.
Whether or not the author goes to the washroom
designated as "SETTERS" or "POINTERS" hasn't any
bearing on the quality of that author's work. Nor
does their color,sexual orientation,religion or
otherwise. Take a "MIDOL" spaceyram |
Author: Peter Wood
Thursday, 28 November 2002 - 07:46 am | | THE PEOPLE I MET IN HOLBORN ...
...at the filming of the BBC4 programme for the Readers and Writers roadshow:
Paul Begg, a true legend and an absoute star.
Andy Aliffe, an amazingly funny man.
Claudia (Andy's intended) - stunning and v. good company.
Shirley Harrison, the first lady of ripperology.
Don Rumbelow, very pleasant and without any signs of an ego.
Peter Birchwood, a most interesting and entertaining man.
Ivor Edwards, nothing like I thought he would look - but very interesting, remarkably reserved and a gentleman.
Maria Birchwood, Peter should wrap her up in cotton wool - she's beautiful and a joy to spend time with.
Interesting to observe that all egos were checked in at the door, at least until filming started. The assembled throng seemed to have Patricia Cornwell in their sights, but ...
...I can report that Patricia Cornwell conducted herself with a calm and grace that belied the enormity of the pressure she must have felt.
I haven't got a bad word to say about any of them - but Maria, if you publish that photo of me - I'll sue, I'm still very much alive!
Final word: I was delighted to see Andy Aliffe and Ivor Edwards enjoying a chat together, any differences they may once have had seem to have been put well and truly behind them. |
Author: Peter Wood
Thursday, 28 November 2002 - 07:56 am | | Just to add my opinions on Patricia's theory.
I admire the way she has gone about her research.
I think she has made a healthy link between Sickert and (some of) the ripper letters.
It is then a big leap to say that Sickert was the ripper just because he wrote some letters ...and PC admitted as much to Paul Begg.
Peter Birchwood refused to let her off the hook over the question of Sickert's mother's letter which has been widely said to place him in France at the time of some of the murders.
PC fielded that question very well, she questioned the reliability of the source of that information.
The guest book from the small Cornwall hotel is quite damning against Sickert when compared to some of the JTR letters.
Interestingly though, she doesn't appear to make a connection between him and the 25 September letter - which is good for me, because Maybrick wrote that one!
I think that when the dust settles, Patricia Cornwell's place in the ranks of the ripperologists will be acknowledged. She has contributed much to the investigation - the DNA testing is ongoing and I firmly believe that if she came across evidence to rule WS out of the race then she would say so.
At risk of being ridiculed ...I'm prepared to admit that Sickert may have written some of the letters. Any more than that is pure speculation, I think.
Regards to all who were there, I know you're reading even if you don't contribute.
Peter |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 28 November 2002 - 08:32 am | | Hi, Peter:
Thanks for the rundown of the BBC 4 forum with Patricia Cornwell. I am pleased that you had the chance to meet a number of the luminaries in Ripperology. I am glad particularly that you found Don Rumbelow a delight. He certainly is, as we discovered at the U.S. convention last spring, where he was our guest of honor.
I am heartened to hear you say that the audience and Ms. Cornwell comported themselves with grace and politeness. As for the matter of the Lizard guest book, I believe Ms. Cornwell herself states that it has not been proven that Sickert did the sketches in the guest book so this has to be, doesn't it, one more piece of "iffy" evidence that she uses against her suspect?
Cornwell's lack of reference to the original Dear Boss letter of September 25, 1888, the Lusk letter, and other key Ripper missives is indeed curious, but of course because of the fact that her investigation was keyed to those Ripper letters where she could get DNA or artist's chemicals such as etching ground that she says she has found on some of the letters and which she ties to Sickert.
I have also been told by one source that at the forum Peter Birchwood brought up the possibility of legal action against Patricia Cornwell for her, as most of us think, unfounded sullying of Walter Sickert's reputation, even if any such legal action might be considered unlikely. Is that so?
All the best
Chris |
Author: Howard Brown
Thursday, 28 November 2002 - 10:05 am | | | Dear Peter....Thanks for filling us in on Holborn ! I count Ivor as being a very good friend and find it no surprise that you "dug' him too...Spaceyram: I have a bone to pick with you,my dear....I am supposed to be the Anti-Radka on these here boards !!! Dave is just "kidding" when he waxes misogynistic...but,of course,the women are out to "get" us men..Mrs.Cornwell IS at this very moment,leading a parade of women down your street in Anytown,USA/UK,with a giant uterus on a flag,exhorting her testerosterone/challenged followers to RISE up and SMASH the male half of the species....Clasping a copy of "Case Closed" and a ripped photo of Stewart Evans,she can be heard bleating,"Men are sick...Jack was Sickert !..." Or don't you share the same reality as Dave,Spaceyram? |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Thursday, 28 November 2002 - 11:32 am | | | Giant uterus flag....*collapses into laughter, unable to type anymore....* |
Author: spaceyram
Thursday, 28 November 2002 - 11:47 am | | Howard,
The bone is now bare!! Besides, I don't want to
bash all men, you guys are useful at times. I am
not an overly sensitive person with no sense of
humor, on the contrary, I like a laugh too. But I
doubt that David was joking, he doesn't seem to
have a sense of humor, aside from thinking he is
right all the time, I guess that's funny though.
So he must have a sense of humor.
I am not under any circumstances a fan of Pat.
Cornwell, or her theory, but I will not sit by
and ignore arrogant comments about women by a
self-proclaimed authority on women. I'd rather
march down the street with the picture of a small
uterus, not large, I wouldn't want the studs in
this world to think that they would need a
two-by-four to keep from falling in.(so to speak)
Luv your humor though!!
Bone Picked!
spaceyram |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Thursday, 28 November 2002 - 03:18 pm | | Peter -
Thanks for filling us in on Holborn. Yes, Andy and Claudia are a wonderful couple, and I wish them many long, happy years together. Unfortunately, I have not had the pleasure of meeting Peter Birchwood, but he has been a valued e-mail correspondent over the years.
I was most heartened to see your perception that PC was more reasonable than she has been presented to be in past encounters here in the States. Now, whether that is a result of her being in a room with true experts on the case rather than a gathering of 'fans' with the occasional Ripperologist, I don't know. But that she at least admits to the long jump of probability in turning Sickert's paintbrush into a knife is gratifying.
I have never had difficulty in accepting that Sickert may have written one or more of the Ripper letters, or even pretended to be the killer while sketching in a guestbook. That certainly seems in line with what we know of his eccentricity of character. But the case against him in Portrait of a Killer is far too speculative for my taste.
Additionally, having read the press and television comments she has made about Ripperology and its cadre as a whole, I doubt she would wish to be considered as one of us; her tone (at least publicly recorded) has always been one of sneering contempt. But I shall look forward to her paperback version to see how this develops.
Alex - as you can imagine, Curtains of Blood is entirely speculative. It opens, in fact, on September 1 with Inspector Swanson going to the Lyceum to inform Irving that he must (under police order) close down J&H, as it is feared the play is inflaming the Ripper (who already has Emma Smith, Martha Tabram and Polly Nichols under his belt by this time). It a cracking good read and a page-turner, but not overly concerned with the facts of the case. Still, that's the prerogative of fiction, eh?
CMD |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 28 November 2002 - 04:17 pm | | Hi Peter,The people at the show made more of an impression on me than the actual show itself.I was expecting more cut and thrust or should I say a more lively debate but time I suppose was of the essence which was rather a shame.It was a pity Don and some others did not get the chance to ask a question after the trouble they took to get there.If they had not required Miss Cornwall to read from her book like a teacher to pupils more time could have been given to questions. After all we had all read her book ( supplied for that purpose ) and knew the content.I thought you were joking when you informed us that Patrica Cornwell would have her minders with her.Did you see them close in on each side of her when I approached her after the show was over to ask her a question?
My intention was simply to get an answer to my question and not to kill her!!!!It is a pity she did not mix with those involved after the show was over for a short while at least to answer some questions.It would have been in her interest to do so for several reasons.
It was indeed a pleasure to meet with you at long last and suffice to state I found you to be a most charming and likable person.All in all it was well worth the trip just to meet the people involved but I feel it should have lasted longer when one takes into concideration the distance some people like yourself travelled to get there.I think you should get value for your money after all it is people like you (who buy her books ) who are Cornwell's bread and butter and without the likes of you she would be nowhere. |
Author: Peter Wood
Thursday, 28 November 2002 - 04:22 pm | | Hi Chris
Well yes, as far as I remember, Peter B did mention the possibility of legal action being taken against PC because of her book - but he was only saying what a lot of other people had been murmuring beforehand - myself NOT included, I hasten to add.
I think much of the "You could be sued" stuff is actually quite petty and just a knee jerk reaction to one who is not an accepted ripperologist publishing such a forthright book.
PC quite rightly asked PB "What about those guys who put forth other suspects?", then she mentioned a few, I can't be sure which but take for example Kosminski, Prince Eddy, Maybrick etc.
If people don't like her style - that's fine, but threatening someone who is obviously not scared with silly taunts like "You'll get sued" only serves to distance her from us even further.
Well, that was my take on it.
Peter |
Author: Garen Ewing
Friday, 29 November 2002 - 11:46 am | | I just wanted to air my views on Patricia Cornwell's book now I'm about two-thirds of the way through.
I have softened a bit towards her, mainly because I think she does bring an interesting viewpoint to the Ripper case. Quite a number of her more logical thoughts and summations are very interesting indeed. If only she didn't have such a bee in her bonnet about Walter Sickert! If Cornwell had used her insightful knowledge to write a book on Jack the Ripper before deciding who the culprit was, then it could have been a genuinely brilliant book.
The worrying bits are still worrying me a lot though - I keep getting annoyed at her huge leaps in the dark concerning her wild interpretations of Sickert's artwork, which I still think are very off the mark, and constitute no kind of evidence whatsoever. Using Cornwell's approach I revisited a page in my own sketchbook - what I thought was merely me practising drawing legs and leg muscles for a football comic strip I once had to draw for DC Thomson, I now see are sketches of 'severed legs', some of them flayed of their skin revealing the glistening exposed muscles underneath. I must have had a blackout, as I can't remember the night I went out and committed this atrocity! (Sorry - I know her case rests on an accumulation of links, not just the art... couldn't resist!)
Some of her ideas about the letters are interesting, but again, her blind faith that they were nearly all written by Sickert is astonishing and generally baseless.
One telling bit (on page 184) in which her theory nearly looks like being deflated by a possible blow to her 'Sickert and the watermark' theory has her saying "For a moment I was completely unnerved and thought my life might disintegrate before my eyes." With this kind of statement I find it hard to believe she'd admit she could be wrong about Walter Sickert.
But at a previous point (page 180), the veil may drop slightly. Concerning more watermarked letters she says "Certainly, I wouldn't dare claim that these letters were written by Sickert, or even Jack the Ripper..." clearly separating the two as different people, though this is a rarity in the book!
Sometimes she tries to connect the tiniest little flakes of stories, as on page 228 - "[a local constable] described the knife as 'smothered' with dried blood and the sort a baker or chef might use. Sickert was an excellent cook and often dressed as a chef to entertain his friends." Well, case closed!
I'm returning to my harshness now, but I do go back and say she also has a lot to offer with the book.
Nice to hear reports of those at the BBC4 thing recently - thanks chaps!
And thanks for reading my ramblings!
- Garen. |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 29 November 2002 - 01:16 pm | | Ivor - hello my friend, our last posts must have crossed when I was replying to Chris. I think that those of us who live in Blighty (I know you don't, but near enough as damn it) should make more of an effort to meet up every so often - that way we can avoid the misunderstandings that sometimes appear to be made on here.
Garen - I understand and agree with most of your points. Patricia backed down quite a lot at the BBC4 programme, at least she backed down from what she had been reported to say.
For instance she said she couldn't say what made someone a psychopath and didn't think the fistula would have done it - other people have said that was the main crux of her argument before now.
She also accepted, out of hand, Paul Begg's argument that even if she had proven Sickert wrote some of the letters then that didn't make Sickert the ripper.
Maybe she's backtracking a little, I still think her research, on the whole, has been positive and when I spoke to her she assured me that the DNA testing was ongoing and the mtDNA results would be tested against other suspects.
Let's go and dig D'Onston up!
Respect
Peter |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 29 November 2002 - 08:12 pm | | Hi Peter,
The main problems I have with Patrica Cornwell's book are as follows,
In my humble opinion JTR did not write most of those letters as Cornwell states and the truth of the matter is that no one can prove that the killer wrote a single letter signed Jack the Ripper.
Cornwell has Sickert writing letters in batches and flying all over the country to various locations posting them.
She has the ripper killing dozens of victims including children !!! Yet she has shown no evidence as such that this was indeed the case.Such a conclusion is merely her ill founded opinion and nothing more.
She believes Sickert was the killer simply because she places her own vivid interpretations upon his paintings.
Her book is more like a novel and a bad one at that. I do not view it as a serious work of non fiction.
The only serious investigation in her case is the DNA tests and from what I understand they have a large question mark hanging over them.
What this lady views as evidence has nothing to do with the realms of reality. She has spent far too long using her imagination in writing about fantasy and appears to be confused between fiction and non fiction.
Mr Grieves planted a name in the frame for Patricia Cornwell and without further ado she committed a serious mistake and one I may add that others have made before her. She proceeded to weave a story around a weak suspect she deemed as likely and as the saying goes fools rush in. She never made any attempt to ascertain the motive or how the murders were committed prior to her investigation into Sickert. This is one of the worst investigations I have ever seen relating to these crimes.
I know you were smitten by her Peter but don't let your heart rule your head !!!!
PS If I knew where D'Onston was buried I would dig him up myself!!!
Just one other thing I forgot to mention according to Cornwell 2 events turned him into a killer.
No 1. Sickert had an operation on his penis when he was six
No 2. 26 or so years later his friend Whistler got married and Sickert flipped over this situation and it was the same time of the year that he had the operation on his penis when he was 6. So therefore he decided to kill prostitutes and children bringing his tally to maybe 30 or 40 etc
If anyone is mug enough to believe in such twaddle then they will believe in anything. |
Author: Eliza Cline
Friday, 29 November 2002 - 09:33 pm | | A lot of men are smitted by Cornwell. I think my own boyfriend has a crush on her, in fact. I told him about her sexual preference but it only seemed to add to his interest.
At any rate, there is no denying that Cornwell has contributed a lot to Ripper research. Why didn't anyone think of DNA testing before? The DNA on the Openshaw letter is a remarkable find. That alone should entitle her to a certain amount of respect, even if she does leap to unwarranted conclusions. |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 29 November 2002 - 10:15 pm | | Eliza-
People thought of DNA testing before, there's just nothing left to test! The fact that DNA was found on a letter considered by most people to be a hoax is not a significant find, as it has nothing to do with discovering a killer. And, as has been pointed out several times on this long thread, that DNA has not been linked to anyone -- not Sickert and definitely not Jack the Ripper.
Some men find Cornwell attractive? Hmmm, I can't see it, but OK, whatever floats their boat.
Dan |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 29 November 2002 - 10:47 pm | | Hi Eliza,
The only thing she has contributed is a greater interest in the case. Early days yet on the DNA her full case has not yet been placed on the table and at best it is confusing at the moment.The reason why no one has botherd with DNA on the letters is because it was ( and still is ) believed the killer never wrote any letters signed JTR.Let me recap NO EVIDENCE EXISTS THAT THE KILLER EVER WROTE A SINGLE LETTER SIGNED JTR AND THAT IS A FACT. Sickert was cremated so where is she going to find a sample of his DNA ? At the moment she is clutching at straws.Have you not heard the old dictum "If you can't find hard facts then baffle them with science or bulls**t." Those letters have been handled by too many people after they reached the yard and Sickert for all we know could have been one of many to handle them.She can pull anyone's DNA from any of those letters and it does not prove a thing.Hence another reason why they have never been tested. |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 30 November 2002 - 09:03 am | | Ivor, guys,
You're missing the point.
If you forget Patricia's argument that Sickert was the ripper and just look at her research on the letters - then I'm fairly sure she's made good connections between Sickert and some of the letters.
He was a prolific letter writer, that's for sure. I too baulked at the idea of Sickert writing letters in batches and travelling all over the place to post them - but I think it is Patricia's inexperience in this field that has led her to suggest such things.
Interestingly I still go for Maybrick, with Kosminski a close second. And contrary to what you think Ivor, I do believe that Paul Feldman proved that the ripper sent the 25 September letter - that is independent of his identity.
So, Feldman proves that the ripper sent the 25 September letter, Cornwell proves a connection between Sickert and other ripper letters. She doesn't, however, try to prove that he wrote the 25 September letter ...
It is entirely possible that any of our suspects were the ripper and still we could leave Patricia enough rope to hang Sickert for maliciously penning false ripper letters.
Regards
Peter |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 30 November 2002 - 12:08 pm | | Hi, all:
Patricia Cornwell has called for independent verification of her test results. I believe that someone should test her DNA and that of her team, on the chance that they themselves might have inadvertently contaminated the Ripper letters and the Sickert letters that they tested, which would explain why the same DNA sequences were found on both sets of correspondence. If that should turn out to be the case, it would seriously detract from her contention that Sickert wrote Ripper letters -- let alone that he could have been Jack the Ripper.
All the best
Chris George |
Author: Dan Norder
Saturday, 30 November 2002 - 12:10 pm | | Actually, Peter, if you forget Cornwell's arguments and look at the facts there's nothing to link Sickert to the Ripper letters.
The mitochondrial DNA showing that one person who touched a hoaxed ripper letter might be one of 10,000 people who could have touched a Sickert letter is not a connection.
Really rough amateurish sketches in some of the ripper letters and saying the writer must be an artist (?!) is not a connection.
The fact that one or two hoax letters use the same sort of paper that hundreds of other people in the area could have used is not a connection.
Only someone with a preconceived notion of who the letter writer (or, more to the point, the killer) was -- or someone assuming that Cornwell must know what she's talking about -- could find any of this meaningful in the slightest.
Dan |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Saturday, 30 November 2002 - 01:43 pm | | I always enjoyed the little picture from the letter dated November 12, 1888...includes the captions "This is my photo of Jack the Ripper" and "10 more and up goes the sponge".
This is a well done sketch (shading and such) depicting a very angry looking, thick-headed, bug-eyed dude who may or may not be constipated. This wasn't your average doodle and gets my vote for a possible Sickert sketch!!!! |
Author: David Radka
Saturday, 30 November 2002 - 07:18 pm | | I've found that the notion of being ill-equipped to understand the logic of normal life is typical of gay and lesbian persons, even bright ones. The novelist Christopher Isherwood is an example. Such people lack the ability to follow the scent trail of meanings left throughout culture by its builders. I presume this accounts for the simplisticism of Cornwell's book. It is also symptomatic of the reflections of certain individuals posting these boards who I could name.
David |
Author: Howard Brown
Saturday, 30 November 2002 - 07:25 pm | | | Dave...you have outdone yourself this time ! This is by far the silliest post ever ! I won't tarnish your "gem",but I just wanted to point out that had you NOT known Mrs.Cornwell was a "woman in comfortable shoes",( meaning a Daughter of Sappho),you would have had to invent another reason to dislike her. I'm still laughing at your post !! You're the goods !!! |
Author: spaceyram
Saturday, 30 November 2002 - 09:31 pm | | David
I read your posting re gay & lesbian persons being
ill equiped to follow normal da,da,da,da. I find
it annoying that when you are not bashing women
you pick on other groups, as gays, etc. Personally
speaking, I thought you were gay since you have such little respect for women.Do you have any
liking for anyone else but yourself?
If you are referring to me, as the poster you
could name, then cough it up, don't beat around
the bush.
I hate to disappoint you but I am very much a man
loving chick. Heterosexual all the way!!
But David, who gives a damm which way a person
swings, that's their business. You don't have to
approve of that type of lifestyle, but how can
you knock it, if you haven't tried it, or have
you?
spaceyram
President of David Radka fanclub. |
Author: Howard Brown
Saturday, 30 November 2002 - 10:39 pm | | | Dear Spaceyram....Whoa,there,woman !!! You gotta EARN that title of DRFC President ! I'll wrestle you for it ! HB,Dave Radka Fan Club President in exile.... |
Author: Vicki
Sunday, 01 December 2002 - 09:02 am | | Brenda,
Look at the mouth of the man in the Ripper letter you are speaking of and compare it to Sickert's mouth in the photo plate, "When the mood struck, he shaved his head." They look exactly the same, including the chin.
The picture in the letter is called a "photo." An ascot is worn in both the picture and the letter "photo."
Vicki |
Author: Vicki
Sunday, 01 December 2002 - 10:00 am | | A riddle left by the Ripper:
>A.Pirie & Sons watermark
>Ripper
>"You would say anything but your prayers." Elizabeth Stride murder. (P.185,Evans and Skinner)
Take out the letters common to both the company name and Ripper. What you have left is "A. PriSons" A. could be "answer." Prisoners wouldn't say prayers.
Now take out the letters common with "prayers." You have "yerions" or "y, I snore." Y could be "Why" the answer to why Catherine Eddowes nose was cut almost off.
Also, if you use the word "prisoners," what is left is "ysion" or "i nosy."
The definition of nosy is according to Webster, "given to prying." Rearrange praying and you get "A. prying." A. would be "answer."
The riddle follows the order of the "double event."
Vicki |
Author: Billy Markland
Sunday, 01 December 2002 - 10:14 am | | David,
Having read your posts re: females & homosexuality with "interest" I have only one question:
Where were you in the autumn of 1888????
Billy
(who doesn't give a rat's *** what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom. |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 01 December 2002 - 10:28 am | | "It is also symptomatic of the reflections of certain individuals posting these boards who I could name".
Go on then. |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 01 December 2002 - 10:33 am | | Chris T, Dan
You bring welcome news - Shirley Harrison was going to ask for a "control" test on the DNA, it looks like Patricia has already decided to do it.
Dan, the odds are a lot better than that when you consider that the mtDNA match that Patricia has found came from TWO Sickert letters, TWO ripper letters and Sickert's overalls.
And I tend to agree with others that the sketches, especially in the guest house signing in book, are fairly conclusive in themselves that Sickert recorded his views on the ripper.
I'm not supporting Patricia Cornwell's view that Sickert was the ripper, but I think she's proven he wrote some of the letters - surely that can only be a good thing?
For instance if she could prove he'd written a letter that the Maybrick diarist claims to have written then I would have to hold my hands up and find another suspect, right?
So far she hasn't done that and JM is still the leading candidate for the ripper.
By the way Chris, hope you enjoyed the football this afternoon. Who would've suspected that Diego Forlan would choose Anfield for his first Man Utd double?
Peter |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Sunday, 01 December 2002 - 01:08 pm | | Vicki, you are right, I do see the resemblance. I do believe Sickert may have drawn that picture, if so I think he must have quite the sense of humor. I made a small card to hang up at work using that picture and the caption "THE COMPUTER IS DOWN AGAIN??????"
Also Vicki good job on the riddle. I didn't follow the whole thing but you are pretty good at seeing things where others might not. Its that kind of thinking that may solve this murder one day.
Can anyone explain the term "up goes the sponge?"
If I am one of the "simplistic posters", well, so be it. I'm just pursuing a hobby and having fun in the process. Who's going to be impressed with the great knowledge of the scholars if we simplistics aren't here to "oooh" and "aaah". Who's gonna feed the egos, hmmm? |
Author: Howard Brown
Sunday, 01 December 2002 - 01:38 pm | | | Dear Billy and my Man from Manchester,Peter: I like it when Dave Radka makes comments like,"What low men post here..",and the above slam at homosexuals.....It makes me glad that I harbor no dislikes for people different than myself who had no choice in their makeup. I know you guys do too. See,there is a cult of Nietzschean wannabes that are floating around the Universe,trying to emulate the great philosopher( one of my favorites,along with the cranky assed Schopenhauer )but fail to do so,because they are basically insecure with themselves. Its been my experience that everyone,not just Herr D.R.,project their negativity upon others because they can't come to grips with "cleaning up their act"...Its easy,safe,and WEAK....So,keep posting your inner feelings and we will be a big analysts couch for you,free of charge,okay Dave ? Howie Freud |
Author: Dan Norder
Sunday, 01 December 2002 - 02:18 pm | | Alright, I've let these strange "riddles" pass without comment before but now that someone other than the poster thinks they make sense, let's take a look at them. For the sake of argument let's accept the totally wild theory that the ripper was creating word puzzles by part of his invented name, the company name of paper supplies he bought, and words removed from larger phrases that some witness near a crime scene claims someone who may not even be a killer said.
Vicki: "Take out the letters common to both the company name [A.Pirie & Sons] and Ripper. What you have left is "A. PriSons""
Uh, no, no you don't. What you would have left is actually "A.i & Sons". Or are you trying to tell us that the letters P and R don't show up in the word "Ripper" anywhere?
Vicki: "Now take out the letters common with "prayers." You have "yerions" or "y, I snore.""
And I can't for the life of me figure out how you came up with that. You'd actually get ".ii & ons" -- the "y" wouldn't be there because you said you are taking out, not putting in, and the e and the r are common to both so those would get yanked also...
You aren't even following your own rules.
Vicki: "Y could be "Why" the answer to why Catherine Eddowes nose was cut almost off."
The ripper cut off Eddowes nose because he snores..? In what twisted reality would that make sense, even if that really were the correct anwser (assuming that there even are "answers" to spontaneously invented word games)?
The problem here is that anyone can take unrelated words and phrases that show up in some way in relation to the case, come up with some whacky rule for twisting the letters around, and then make some other unrelated word or phrase -- especially when they drop or add letters as needed to make things spell what they want.
If this is your strategy for trying to solve the case, then you should pick Lewis Carroll (the most farfetched suspect in a long history of farfetched suspects) and be done with it.
Dan |
Author: Dan Norder
Sunday, 01 December 2002 - 02:34 pm | | Peter,
No, there is no match at all in the mDNA. That kind of DNA *can't* be matched, it can only being used to narrow things down to part of an ethnic group.
The fact that all those things that were tested were touched by a (presumably) white person of European descent tells us nothing, especially since there's no telling who that particular mDNA came from. The Oppenshaw letter has 5 different mDNAs on it, straight odds say that it's 80% likely the person they "can't rule out as a match" (not the same thing at all as a match) isn't even the letter writer.
Speaking straight odds here, if they test everyone who touched both of those ripper letters (including Cornwell and her team, previous researchers, the people storing the letters. etc.) there is a good likelihood that someone in those groups will have a mDNA "match." The number of people who came in contact are generally all of similar ethnic backgrounds, and they touched the letters more recently than whoever all touched them 100+ years ago. With the kind of statistics we are talking about it wouldn't surprise me if there is more than one "match" among the modern groups of people who came in contact. When the numbers are as loose as they are when using mDNA you are bound to run into accidental "matches."
But then I seriously doubt they are really going to test *everyone* who came into contact the letters in question.
The only way Cornwell's DNA tests make any sense for linking anyone to anything is if you don't have a clue about the science behind it and take her at her word when she says what she thinks it means.
Dan |
Author: David Radka
Sunday, 01 December 2002 - 08:41 pm | | WHAT WE CAN EXPECT FROM MS CORNWELL
The purpose of writing the book is to publicly strike a pose to encourage mass numbers of people to unconsciously grant her the queenly privilege of determining for them what evidence solves the case. This in turn grants her the related status of determining who is guilty and blaming him for the crimes. Accordingly, what we are about to see are prolonged back-and-fill operations with respect to her presented evidence. When her position that Sickert wrote 150 letters becomes untenable, she'll say that 23 are proven and forget about the other 127. New DNA studies will generate new claims, and the previous claims becoming increasingly disputable will be merged into the new claims and thus forgotten. This will continue until great revenue figures are reached, and her position is honed to nothing but the most likely few suggestive possibilities. At that point she'll retire from the case, planting behind her a few diehards to execute a rear-guard action attesting to her "value," if not her success in resolving the case.
Perhaps there will be a movie. Then, that will basically be that. Her book will wind up on the dusty shelf next to the Diary, next to Knight, next to McCormick, and other similar volumes.
David |
Author: Vicki
Sunday, 01 December 2002 - 11:24 pm | | Dan,
I'm sorry. What I should have said is cancel out common letters to each word, but only one letter per match, not all the common letters.
Letters common to prayers and "A. prisons" would be pras; take them out. What is left is yerison, rearranged is "Y, I snore."
Letters common to prayers and "A. prisoners" would be praers; take them out. What is left is yison, rearranged is "I nosy."
The ampersand in the A. Pirie & Sons could be Kate's nose.
The Ripper may have been familiar with Lewis Carroll's word games.
Vicki |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 02 December 2002 - 10:52 am | | Hi Brenda:
"Up goes the sponge" is rather like an expression such as "the game is up." That, the Ripper (or more probably the hoaxer that wrote the letter and drew the sketch) was saying they would commit a few more murders then give up that pursuit.
A similar expression is "throw in the sponge" or "throw in the towel" -- both of them being prize fighting expressions when the boxer's corner indicates that their fighter is not going to continue with the bout.
A manager whose prize fighter is being badly beaten signifies that he wants to stop the fight, and concede defeat, by actually throwing a towel or sponge into the ring--two items readily at hand since they are used to sponge and dry perspiration off the fighter between rounds.
The earliest form of the expression appears to have been "to throw up the sponge" (occasionally "to throw in the sponge"), which dates from sometime before the middle of the nineteenth century. A good example is in the Australian classic Robbery Under Arms: A Story Of Life and Adventure in the Bush and in the Goldfields of Australia by Rolf Boldrewood, dated 1888: "But it's no use giving in, Jim. We must stand up to our fight now, or throw up the sponge"
You can read more about these expressions at the web site where I found the last-named information:
http://www.quinion.com/words/qa/qa-thr2.htm
The fact that the cited Australian book by Boldrewood was published in 1888 is rather interesting, although the internet source appears to indicate the expression dates from earlier in the century, so the date of publication may not be too significant after all. It may be telling, though, the rather brutal looking portrait of "Jack" that accompanies the use of the expression looks like a boxer!
All the best
Chris George |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Monday, 02 December 2002 - 01:56 pm | | Thank you Chris. I had heard "towel" before but "sponge" was completely new to me. Maybe our letter writer was interested in boxing after all.
David - are there any sales figures yet available for Ms. Cornwell's book? It will be interesting to see just how well this book does. Maybe it will end up that Ms. Cornwell would have done better just to stick with Kay Scarpetta. |
|
|
|
|
