|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 05 December 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects:
Patricia Cornwell/Walter Sickert:
Archive through 05 December 2002
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 02:25 pm |        | 'You actually read Radka's posts and take his antics seriously? Wow.'
Mr. Hacker,
Please specifically state what you consider my 'antics' to have been. Offer cogent rebuttals of my arguments, with reference to the case evidence, giving all of us a fair opportunity to consider their value.
And please don't use these boards as a mere schoolyard playground, if you wish to be taken seriously by intelligent people.
David |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 02:27 pm | | Hi David,
I do not wish to debate your diatribe - if anyone truly believes that my view of the outlandish, cruel, and unfortunate attacks on Ms. Cornwell is unjustified, I invite them to read your post on this thread dated 11/27/04 at 10:14am.
Your's are the kinds of remarks I find so irresponsible and irrational - but I do note you do have your defenders who suggest for me to dare disagree with your remarks is being arrogant and setting standards.
Ally and John's opposition to my critique of your remarks, in my opinion, is the kind of tribalism that Ms. Cornwell refers to. Unfortunately, with regard to that, she apparently is correct.
Your vicious insinuations are apparently acceptable commentary - but for someone like me to point out the cruelty and stupidity of such remarks, to people like Ally and John, is horribly inappropriate.
Apparently it is their opinion that disparaging attacks against Ms. Cornwell are appropriate. To oppose such remarks publically is not.
Rich |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 02:35 pm | | This is quite hilarious. Cornwell allegedly cancels an appearance on a radio talk show to avoid confrontation with 'Ripperologists' and then others chime in that this is her doom or that she no longer should be taken seriously.
I fear, Richard, you may have missed my point. Any author who publishes a book purporting to 'solve' the Whitechapel Murders cannot then sit back and say nothing or avoid confrontation when the conclusions are challenged by others who are knowledgeable in the field. Most especially when someone has a large publicity apparatus flogging the book and exposing it to a much larger audience than that usually reached by the smaller, more esoteric Ripperana. We would not expect an author who contended that Abraham Lincoln had a homosexual relationship with his law partner to avoid criticism and debate; why should we expect this with Patricia Cornwell?
I will grant you that it is at the moment only an allegation that Cornwell canceled her NPR appearance because she wished not to debate other Ripperologists; we have only Ally's interpretation that this was the case, though I have absolutely no reason to doubt her. You must admit, however, that in her reported public appearances chronicled on these boards as well as in her Primetime and Imus in the Morning appearances, she has been reported - in the first case - to be extremely unwilling to take questions and tries to obfuscate or dismiss those she does take, and - in the second case - she has never (to my knowledge) been interviewed by anyone who posesses a serious background in the Ripper crimes.
I do agree with you that a great deal of ad hominem vitriol has been directed at her. That is unfortunate and unprofessional. It is not, however, an excuse for failing to debate the serious objections to her theory. Don Rumbelow is not about to call Miss Cornwell 'Cornball.' Stewart Evans is not about to characterise her as a 'man hating lesbian.' No reputable scholar has posted on these boards insulting her, but she has - in all cases - refused to meet with or engage in extensive debate with these gentlemen or many of the other recognised authorities. This is not, I submit, the behaviour of someone who has floated an idea and wishes it subjected to careful scrutiny.
The general public doesn't take this case too seriously (and why should they?). . .they want a clever explanation and resolution.
It should be taken seriously because damning a man as Jack the Ripper without rock-solid proof (with, in fact, a great deal of circumstantial evidence to exonerate him) is character assasination of the worst kind. The reputation of Sir William Gull will always be smeared by the Ripper's tarnish. Charles Dodgson has now the colour of murder to add to the commonly accepted portrait of repressed paedophilia. James Maybrick is now and forever the arsenic addict who hated his wife and killed prostitutes. Prince Albert Victor is a half-witted, homosexual degenerate who slaughtered women. And now Walter Sickert, respected post-Impressionist, will forever have 'accused of being Jack the Ripper' attached to his CV. If this doesn't bother you, it should.
There are plenty of authors who have engaged in shoddy work and come up with outrageous theories. Yet because Ms Cornwell is commercially more successful there seems to be a hysterical reaction to her.
ANY author who engages in 'shoddy work' (and we all have our favourites) does the admittedly minor discipline of Ripperology no good. But it is precisely because Cornwell is 'commercially more successful' that her accusations need to be debated. I do not share your sanguine outlook that history will sort it all out. Knight's fictions are still being used by Hollywood and are the foundation of many wild theories. Clearing away that deadwood is a tiresome task which writers ought not be lumbered with, but they must because so many people believe Knight and have not been exposed to debunking of his work. The same applies with Portrait of a Killer. Any writer who approaches the subject now will have to spend countless hours treading over the same ground Cornwell has in order to lay the suppurating mess to one side.
Which brings up a final note (as I have been rabbiting on for quite a while). Cornwell has now made the task of the serious Ripper author that much more difficult. Will a publisher want to take on a new book now that the case has been 'solved?' And what about those publishers who will insist their prospective Ripper authors deal with the Sickert theory? Is this not wasted effort?
Bear in mind, I am not saying that Cornwell has stopped any new Ripper book from being published; only that she has, by her book, made the serious investigation of the case more difficult. And by refusing to engage in debate with the leading lights in the field, she continues to raise the suspicion that her case is not as air-tight as she would like us to believe.
Regards,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 02:54 pm | | Hi Christopher-Michael,
Thanks for your reasoned and sensible post. I certainly don't disagree with anything in your commentary.
I agree completely that if Ms. Cornwell had confidence in her theory she would welcome critical confrontation and that her dismissive approach to those interested in the field is more than likely a tactic rather than based on substance.
I think you are right about the challenges that Ms. Cornwell has left to others to correct the histories. This has been done by others, as you have appropriately noted, in the past.
I would disagree slightly with the proposition that because Cornwell cancelled an appearance with other scholars on the case that her position is in any way threatened. Indeed, the opposite is true. Ms Cornwell probably has more to lose by discussing the case publically with knowledgeable scholars - perhaps risking public humiliation before a public that now accepts her thesis.
I think most of us who gave a cursory glance at her work quickly came to the conclusion that her work is nonsense. Her refusing to debate Ripperologists, I believe, will change few opinions. Most informed opinion was already lined up against her (quite legitimately, I might add) and her strongest proponents are those not all that interested in the case.
You are absolutely right that Rumbelow, Evans, and other important researchers of the case have not and would not lower themselves to the base remarks posted on these boards. And it would be wonderful to see her attempt to discuss the case with people like that. No doubt she is avoiding such a confrontation.
I understand your lamentations about the distortions of history - I suppose I am a bit more resigned to the fact that the most appealing story will always trump the facts in the minds of the public.
Shakespeare did a number on Richard III, Oliver Stone did another to Lyndon Johnson in JFK, Knight did one to Gull, and now Cornwell has done the same to Sickert.
In my view those distortions are unfortunate but irreversable among a public not interested in reading what is regarded as the archaic.
Most serious students of this case never believed Knight's tale and certainly don't agree with Cornwell. That their stories are accepted as truth by the ignorant is lamentable but unavoidable.
The fact of the matter is, I believe, that an exasperated attempt to correct the record is doomed to failure. The public generally prefers a good story to the truth.
Again, thanks for your remarks!
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 02:54 pm | | Richard,
So someone referred to Miss Cornwell as "Cornball" did they? well in the words of Fats Domino, "Aint that a shame." Most authors on the subject have received a great deal more stick than that including myself. One must expect crititism or remarks to come in various forms from varying quarters. When you place your head over the parapet in this game you become a target and when that happens you keep low and shoot back.
Miss Cornwall has decided to throw down her gun and run like hell back home. I dont know what country you come from but it can't be Britain.In the eyes of people here her actions only mean one thing and she has lost what little credibility she had. Her cause cannot be that just or great if she chooses to run away in such a manner.
Of course her action will not affect book sales etc. But it will affect her credibility in the eyes of many and it will also do damage to the theory she proposes. She certainly never did herself any favours by resorting to such action. |
Author: Dan Norder
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 02:56 pm | | Peter,
Give me a break. You used the word "match" and then said you don't care if I don't like the term because you thought it was accurate, and now you try to claim you didn't use the term. At least be consistent.
And, for the upteen billionth time, proving that one person of many who touched something could be one in ten thousand people who could have touched somethig else is meaningless. It isn;t a question of refusing to believe there's significance, it's a question of understanding statistics and what mDNA is.
And "math" is the correct term -- "maths" is either some Britishism or something you made up. Criticizing my use of "math" would be like me saying you spell "color" wrong.
Lots of people used the term Nemo to mean "nobody" or as "anonymous." You've heard of Jules Verne's "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea" book, right? So did most everyone else by that time.
Dan |
Author: Vila
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 03:00 pm | | Rich, John,
I thought that Patsy wasn't reading the Message Boards of our little hobby in the first place. If she *is* ignoring our existence, then any name-calling that any of us indulge in is immaterial because she will never know about it. Which begs the question; "If she is ignoring the Boards on this website, why should anything we say be taken as evidence that she bowed out of the NPR show because of *our* actions?" The probability is higher that she simply does not wish to face anyone who actually *is* an authority on JTR in a debate wherein she does not have the ability to screen the questions first.
In the second place, do I mis-remember one of her earliest interviews in which she calls the professional Ripper writers "ghouls" and the online ripper community in general "bumpkins"? If so, then our insults are merely replies in kind. Please correct this impression if I have garbled my memories of reading her many interviews.
While I, myself, have found the online sample chapter of her book to be -um, not as high a quality of writing as Begg, Fido, et al. from a purely structural standpoint, it is her dismissal of the work of everyone who came before her that I find the most galling. (Her demonstrated attitude in the interviews that I have read stands alone as why I doubt that she will ever get *me* to pony up the cash for her book. Others are free to do as they will- I have yet to denigrate anyone for actually buying the book and reading it.) But I do believe that we as a group have been very mild in our insults against her. Most of us have the ability of generating much more harsh a form of verbal vitriol than we have heaped upon Ms. Cornwell.
Vila |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 03:17 pm | | Rich,
"If posters on these boards criticize Ms. Cornwell for her scholarship, her personal life, and her name, why is it not appropriate to critique or comment upon the quality of such criticism?"
If you had simply done that instead of going on like a broken record I wouldn't have as much of an issue with your poor behavior. Instead you keep rudely insisting that people lower themselves to your standard of behavior.
"How can you properly claim that I have no right to comment on appropriate standards while you proceed to comment upon mine?"
1) I didn't say that your didn't have the right to comment, merely that you you're being arrogant to believe that you should set the standards.
2) You're acting like a hypocrite which makes it easy. (It's pretty telling when you feel that you need to call someone names for calling someone names.)
3) Your arguments are just plain silly. To pretend that anything posted on these boards justifies PCs behavior to Ripperologists at large is simply rediculous.
4) We have a setter of standards here and she's doing a great job. When you attempt to lecture the hosts regarding "proper behavior", you cross a line. You are a guest Rich. You're not in charge. If you don't enjoy the free service that is provided go set up "Rich's World O'Jack".
You've voiced your opinion, now give it a rest.
"What you seem to be suggesting, John, is that anyone here should say anything they want about Ms. Cornwell because she is disliked - and they should not be criticized for whatever they say."
Er. No. I said that she started the poor behavior. I certainly understand why people feel hostility towards her. She's earned it. As far as what is appropriate to say about her, thats up to the moderator of this site to determine. Not for me or you to determine.
"My position is very clear and different from the two of you. I think criticism of Ms. Cornwell's work is entirely justified. I think criticism of her personal life, lifestyle, personality are childish and inappropriate."
Your position appears to be that you are the setter of standards and that is clearly not the case. I think that anyone who is a guest should show respect to their host, so obviously we do have different standards.
David,
By antics I mean the block of words that typically follow the phrase "Author: David Radka".
Ivor,
It's good to see that you're still kicking around! I received my copy of your book recently and I'm looking forward to reading it once I find a few spare moments. From the quick glance I've had so far it looks to be interesting stuff.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 03:19 pm | | "..if anyone truly believes that my view of the outlandish, cruel, and unfortunate attacks on Ms. Cornwell is unjustified, I invite them to read your post on this thread dated 11/27/04 at 10:14am."
Uh-uh, Mr. Dewar, this won't work. You do not justify your attacks on me by simply directing others to reread them--this is nothing more than a thuggish and cowardly attempt to convict me in the court of public opinion--you must demonstrate reasonably why they apply to me right here for all to see.
1. Please state specifically in what sense my critique of Cornwell is outlandish. Specifically why is it too purple or too green? Please refer to what I said word for word, to give we scholars a chance to understand your meaning.
2. How have I treated Cornwell cruelly, stupidly, and with insinuations? When you write and publish a book, don't you have to take what you get? Isn't that true of all authors? If criticism is logically valid and appropriate, why should it be considered cruel? Show specifically how my criticism is invalid or inappropriate, please.
Mr. DiGrazia,
I don't believe I refered to Ms Cornwell as a 'man-hating lesbian,' instead I spoke of her as a lesbian rather disoriented with respect to the meanings of life and civilization, and who is pursuing an agenda of empowering one grpoup of people in society at the expense of another. What's so unusual or suspicious about this assessment? Doesn't this sort of bullying happen all over the world, all the time? In Africa? Afghanistan? The deep South? 1938 Munich? 2084 BC Egypt? I don't know enough about her personally to attribute her behavior to any hatred of men on her part. Thuggishness breeds more thuggishness, it seems.
David |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 03:24 pm | | 'By antics I mean the block of words that typically follow the phrase "Author: David Radka"'.
Please be specific concerning what you mean concerning something I have written. Can't you see that you are merely reflexively repeating your puerile schoolyard name-calling when challenged? You are not defending yourself, but soiling yourself. Therefore, who is it who engages in 'antics' here?
David |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 03:32 pm | | David,
"Please be specific concerning what you mean concerning something I have written. Can't you see that you are merely reflexively repeating your puerile schoolyard name-calling when challenged? You are not defending yourself, but soiling yourself. Therefore, who is it who engages in 'antics' here?"
Uh huh. Considering that the first post of yours that brought you to my attention years ago was an idiotic little poem mocking my name, I don't feel the need to indulge you. If you wish to be taken seriously David, you really need to change your MO.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 03:52 pm | | Everyone,
I have kept out of this thread since I first sparked Rich's wrath.
I am writing now to remind everyone I am still here, and still keeping out of this thread.
I think we have beaten this horse into glue. But I am still reading the thread, so I'm either a masochist, or just stupid.
Happy flaming!
B |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 03:56 pm | | David -
I was not attributing the words man hating lesbian to you. I apologise if you believe I was. I have seen the epithet attributed to her on these boards, but truly did not remember who first used them. My point was that no reputable author has gratuitously insulted Patricia Cornwell and that the appearance of insults here, while lamentable, should not be used as an excuse for her refusing to debate Ripperologists in general.
CMD |
Author: Ally
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 04:08 pm | | Richard,
Here's a quote that might be familiarto you seeing as you wrote it:
"I find that usually people of limited intellectual capacities resort to name-calling when they cannot make a decent argument - a trait more common among children than adults."
Welcome to the playground dear.
Although if you are going to roll in the mud with us you really ought to spice up your vocabulary. Nitwit is so second grade.
If you want to know the critical difference between what we are doing to Cornball and what you are doing, I'll spell it out really clear and simple. We are criticizing, you are moralizing. We are saying we don't like her behavior and what she has done, you are telling us how we by-god ought to be behaving while behaving just as badly as we are.
We may be rude, we may be obnoxious, we may be nitwits, but at least we have the manners not to insult the host and house we are staying in.
Ally |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 04:15 pm | | Hi John,
You avoid the question. Let me try again.
If it is appropriate to critique Ms Cornwell's scholarship, her personal life, and her name, why is it inappropriate for me to comment upon the quality of such criticism?
Your reply, which really isn't a reply at all, says I have gone on and on like a broken record and that I am asking people to "lower" to my standard.
I am only critical of remarks I see as foolish personal attacks - sure my critique might be redundant but that is only because the personal attacks upon Ms. Cornwell are repeated over and over again. I am not sure about your definition of my lowering standards - you mean my saying that those who launch personal attacks are lowering debate contributes to lowering debate?
I never called anyone a name. I said "nitwits" resort to personal attacks. I see that that is a difference without a distinction to you. What you want to do is try to imply that my general remark is on the same level as those who publically malign the character of a specific person. Very well. I retract and apologize for stating those who hurl rude and obnoxious remarks as "nitwits."
My deepest condolences to the rude and obnoxious people offended by being called a nitwit. Now, will you apologize for defending the insulting remarks launched against Ms. Cornwell? Of course not. What you want is vicious personal attacks to be launched against someone you dislike with no criticism in return.
Quite frankly, John, your remark that 'she started it' is telling about your position on that matter. Most of us gave up that rationalization for poor behavior long ago.
I am not in charge - I am not a moderator or a censor. Nor do I claim to be. However the real question is this:
If someone makes the repeated criticism of Cornwell, why is it inappropriate for me to be critical of that criticism?
You seem to not understand that I am not challenging the moderator to banish certain criticisms of Cornwell. What I am challenging is the quality of such criticism.
Please stop misrepresenting my position that I am seeking to censor, moderate, or attempting to set standards. That is not true.
What I have stated, and only in response to the numerous personal attacks on Ms. Cornwell, is that such commentary is stupid and lends support to Cornwell's erroneous thesis about Ripperologists being weird neurotics incapable of reasoned debate.
The fact is, if your preferred method of communication is the personal attack, you should be prepared for certain segments to stand up and say they feel the remarks are inappropriate.
I understand your position as stated that if I do not like all of the commentary then I should leave - like the esteemed researchers and authors who used to post on this site and now refuse to do so simply because of the kind of behavior you endorse.
So, let us agree to disagree. You can support and defend and enjoy the posts that suggest she is a "cornball" a "man-hating lesbian" and a liar. Just afford me the same opportunity to say that some of us think such insults are stupid.
Rich |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 04:18 pm | | "Considering that the first post of yours that brought you to my attention years ago was an idiotic little poem mocking my name, I don't feel the need to indulge you."
Mr. Hacker,
This is pure cowardly baloney. Here you are saying that you don't need to explain specifically why my criticisms of Ms Cornwell are unjustified because of some poem I wrote years ago. That won't work on the level of discussion here. When you write cognitively dissonant garbage like that, you fully expose yourself as an unreliable and hypocritical poster.
I don't remember any such poem. Kindly reproduce it here specifically, citing where you found it on these boards. It may be rather interesting to have a look at it. Or don't you have anything to back yourself up with, again?
Once again, specifically, in what sense are my criticisms of Ms Cornwell unjustified?
C-M,
Okay, thanx.
David |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 04:27 pm | | Ally,
Your calling someone "cornball" is "criticizing"?
My saying "nitwits resort to personal attacks" is "moralizing"?
I am opposing personal attacks - by definition a personal attack is an insult directed at a specific person. I am not railing against all hyperbole.
Ally, my dear, and John, there is an important distinction that you are both missing. I will give an example.
I believe Al Gore was robbed of the 2000 Florida election. Now, assume the following remarks are made:
"Nitwits believe Bush didn't win Florida"
or, the criticism you defend,
"Blowhard is a woman-hating liar."
You two honestly cannot see a difference? Admittedly, neither is high brow debate. But one is a personal attack and the other is not.
Now, I don't quarrel with your defense of the right of anyone on the website to engage in personal attacks. I don't know why it is so upsetting to you that I merely critique them as childish and foolish.
Rich |
Author: Ally
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 04:40 pm | | Richie,
You win the award for the biggest hypocrite of the boards. An insult is an insult regardless of the severity. The fact that you are a pansy and can only come up with pansy insults doesn't mean you get to insult people for insulting people because yours are more mild. Since you have proven your only goal is to be a board troll and have done nothing on this thread but flame bait and criticize other posters, gloves off.
So why is so upsetting to you that we criticize PC? If you don't like it, don't read it. But quit your whiny bitching about how you want the boards run. I'm sick of it. So shut up. Period. Email all your little friends who also don't like the way the boards are and go have your own little slumber party elsewhere. Seriously, why haven't you followed their example and QUIT POSTING! I am tired of you bashing the boards while using them. So pick one or the other and stick to it, no more warnings, no more nice. I'll call Cornball whatever I want, and anyone else can as well. If you feel this lowers us, gee..I'll just have to live with your disapproval.
Ally |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 05:20 pm | | All,
What? I come back and everyone is still arguing about this? I thought I cleared the whole thing up this morning  Whoever said we were acting as a tribe, I have to disagree with you--look how we argue over everything and anything.
Makes for an entertaining thread, but I hope people won't harbor hard feelings against one another after they're done arguing.
It's not that serious, is it?
Friend to all,
Chief Sackashit of the Iwannaargue Tribe
PS
This was brought up earlier. . .since Stephen was to be a guest on The Connection with Ms. Cornwell, I think Ally would be in a position to know what the reasons were PBS gave for cancelling the show. So if Ally says Pat Cornwell backed out because she did not want to appear with guests who might intelligently question her claims, then I'm inclined to believe her.
Speaking only for myself and no one else, I don't see a need to attack Pat Cornwell on a personal level. I think her conclusions are so poorly drawn that such attacks are unnecessary. While Pat Cornwell may be a lovely person in everyday life, in the matter of Walter Sickert, I believe she's guilty of the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty--making wild claims, not backing them up, and avoiding situations where people who really know what they're talking about can question her.
And destroying a hundred year old piece of art. . .criminal, in my opinion. I don't care if she owned it, that's just wrong.
What Pat Cornwell is trying to do is serve us cat s**t on crackers while trying to convince us it's caviar. I wouldn't appreciate this at a cocktail party, nor do I appreciate it in my reading. I think that might be why people feel so strongly against her and feel entitled to take things to a personal level. From what I understand, the art world has been even more vocal in their condemnation of her than the worst of us here.
Just my views and I appreciate having the forum to express them! |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 05:35 pm | | Ally,
I have not criticized the boards or how they are run. I have disagreed with the personal attacks launched against Ms. Cornwell by various posters- if you consider this tantamount to criticism of the Casebook then you are mistaken.
Rich |
Author: Ally
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 05:36 pm | | To clarify:
the reason Stephen was given for the cancellation of the show was because PC found out there would be other guests on it and demanded that they not be allowed and for her to do it alone.
I theorized as to her reasons why. I tried to make that clear by separating the two paragraphs but may not have. She could have demanded they not be allowed on because she has a huge crush on Stephen and didn't trust herself to speak intelligently to him without drooling and calling him sweet love biscuit. |
Author: Ally
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 05:37 pm | | Richard,
Then you shouldn't have brought my moderating into in the last go round, should you have? You were certainly making a critical statement of it then weren't ya?
Ally |
Author: Keith Rogan
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 06:13 pm | | I've finally read the Cornwell book and can only agree that her premise is pretty weak. I won't go into specifics as they've been covered all too well already. I don't consider Sickert a credible suspect.
I would like to point out the book does add quite a bit to the story in the forensics area! She is an expert here (or certainly more expert than anyone else who has written on the subject) and makes a number of good points about how the murders were actually committed based on what is described by witnesses and surgeons.
I think it would be a waste if this good information is not culled out and applied when examining the case, no matter what you think of her Sickert theory.
I remember discussing some of these points a year or more ago and suggesting that simply cutting a throat does not make a person fall dead like a puppet with the strings cut - as seems to be the common belief - and that there must have been a struggle of some kind if the the attacker was facing the victim.
The fact that there is not much in the way of defensive wounds lends itself to the theory that the Ripper attacked from behind, very possibly while initiating sex with the victims.
Cornwell's forensic analysis bears that out to a great degree, which if nothing else tells us something about the perpetrator.
Is there any interest in discussing this, or is this just a Cornwell-bashing forum?
Keith in Kodiak |
Author: Dan Norder
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 06:24 pm | | Keith,
I don't think Cornwell counts as an expert in forensics, but I do think the logisitics of what happens when throats are cut and so forth is something that deserves more thorough investigation. It'd probably be handled better on a different thread though, so it doesn't get lost in all the schoolyard posturing here.
Dan |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 07:00 pm | | Keith,
While I wait for my library to receive their copy, I'd be interested in hearing more about Pat Cornwell's take on the wounds. Does she also discount the theory that the women were strangled into submission before having their throats cut? It seems that would account for the lack of a struggle, defensive wounds, etc. (I'm not including Mary Kelly).
There's also a thread in Ripper Victims, Gen. Discussion, Modus Operandi: Strangulation/Garroting where there's discussion about how the victims were attacked. I'm on my way to read it now.
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: judith stock
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 07:01 pm | | Rather than engage anyone specifically, I will repeat the gist of what about Cornwell has made me the most crazy. It may be that everyone THINKS they are saying different things, but I get the feeling that all of us feel the same way about this mess, and what we are saying is, at the heart of it, exactly the same.....only using different approaches. Here goes.....
While we have all read crappy books on the Ripper (actually too many to count), AND we have all condemned crappy research, AND we have all laughed at specious conclusions, AND every single one of us has said, at one time or another "I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT _______ REALLY BELIEVES THIS! OK, fair enough. So far, so good. The other crappy books, while they may be titled as "Final", "True", etc., were never promoted as Cornwell is promoting hers. Not one of those authors stood up in a TV commercial and said, "I am 100% certain I am right....case closed", and yes, she did say that: I saw the commercials. No other author wrote a book wherein NOT ONE Ripper authority was interviewed; Cornwell HAS. Not one of the other authors has said, basically, "prove me wrong; I'm smart and you're stupid, and after all, I spent six million dollars." OK, OK, so Cornwell is abrasive, but that doesn't make her a bad writer. She is a fiction writer... not a very good one, either....and it's obvious that serious research is not her forte; if people want to buy her books, fine...that's why we have bookstores! It's her crappy research and conclusions that make me totally crazy, as well as the way she presents herself and the book...."It's up to YOU to prove Sickert innocent (I believe I have already said that the Gestapo would LOVE her approach) because I KNOW I am right, and all of you are wrong." Her refusal to engage in ANY sort of meaningful debate also puts her in a category of knowing she is on tenuous ground, and not wanting to undermine her already shaky position.
FINE....now, where am I??? Oh, OK...Cornwell is a pain in the ass, and a supercilious person. Her fiction is less than good (try Kathy Reichs for this genre), and she is NOT a non-fiction writer. What we are left with is a woman who thinks she is her own main character in a freakin' BOOK! Because I collect Ripper books, I bought her trash,I read it, and dismissed it. NOW if you want to talk about a GOOD Ripper book..try Paul Begg's DEFINITIVE HISTORY.....THIS one is worth the money and the time to read it! GO GET IT NOW!
That's it, and that's all.
J |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 07:03 pm | | Ally,
I sincerely do not know what you are referring to - when, how, where did I critique your moderating?
Quite the contrary - I have specifically written that I am not calling on the moderator to take any action against the people whose remarks I oppose.
John suggesting that I am trying to stifle debate, seeking to moderate, or set standards.
That is not true - and I have written as such.
For example, I have vigorously opposed Peter Wood's defense of the legitimacy of the Maybrick diary. Because I think his position is nonsense doesn't mean that I oppose the Casebook for allowing him to make his remarks.
It is the same position I take with regard to the personal attacks on Ms. Cornwell. I think such remarks are nonsense and have stated as much. That does not mean that I am calling on people who make such charges to be punished or banned.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Ally
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 07:12 pm | | I am replying on the Whine and cheese thread.
Any replies regarding the Richard/me; Radka/John or whatever should be posted on WHine and Cheese. The PC people want their board back.
Ally |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 11:12 pm | | Hi Judith,
I do believe you are spot on about Miss Cornwell being the main character in her own book. A clue to this surfaced when she answered a question put to her by the interviewer at the TV show in London in November.She could also be suffering from what I term "BIG NOSE SYNDROME"
It works a bit like this,You walk down the street and a passerby tells you, "You have a big nose"
Being a lady you ignore this remark and proceed on and pass several other people and they also inform you in passing that you "have a very big nose." Because so many people have told you that you have a big nose you start to believe them and once at home you go so far as to look in the mirror at your nose.
The same is true of Patrica Cornwell. So many people have told her how good her character was as an investigator that she believed them.But how could she prove to them that she was indeed the greatest sleuth they believed her to be.What better for the greatest detective to catch the greatest prize of all, Jack the Ripper. So without further ado and to prove her fans correct in their estimation of her she decided to solve the Whitechapel Murders.16 months and six million dollars later the cry went up all over the Western World, "Pat has solved the ripper case " Pat confirms the news to be correct and adds she is now the undisputed world champion serial killer sleuth of all time. Now if Patricia states that she has solved the case then she has solved it.After all who are we mere mortals to argue with the greatest sleuth ever placed on planet Earth.I might remind you that this lady shook me by the hand (I have not washed it since and keep it placed in a white velvet glove ) and while finding myself being shaken I was not stirred.
PS, Nothing cynical about telling the truth so cynical you are not. |
Author: judith stock
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 12:27 am | | Oh, Ivor...should I curtsy when next we meet, or is kissing the hand required, as well?
And thanks for the good try, but cynical I well and truly AM! No worries, though; I'm not bothered a bit by it, and seem to have survived this long quite nicely. I don't mind being a cynic, but this Cornwell crap is just making me NUTS! I really DO think she believes she IS Scarpetta, so her foray into true crime investigations MUST make her a trained detective .....right? After all, she has observed autopsies; so what? I have, too, but that does NOT make me a detective....it just makes me a rather practical, cynical, eccentric loony who has observed autopsies. THAT and a quid will get ya' a cuppa!
After re-reading my rambling post, I see I missed my point entirely; it was that (here I will be much more succinct) Cornwell has presented herself, her book, and her crappy research in such a manner, and has hidden herself behind body guards (ask Tom Olson about THAT!) so well,that the only way she can appear is spot on. Since she will not engage anyone regarding her conclusions, she has no detractors and no inquisitors...see how easy it is to be right? AND, that was shorter and better than the post I wrote previously.
Besides, all this name calling, on both sides, seems like a waste of finger muscles to me...she wrote a bad book, very badly, and is pretty much of a fool for all that...a rich fool, but a fool, still. And YES, Virginia, there ARE rich fools!
Hope you have a brilliant weekend,
J |
Author: spaceyram
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 10:20 am | | Hi Judith,
This program is also listed here in Canada for
10:00pm, on TLC, the learning channel.
I thought it was quite appropriate that the
description listed in our TV Guild is as follows:
Ripper Murders
Patricia Cornwell tries to identify Jack the
ripper.
I found the tries to most interesting.
spaceyram |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 10:21 am | | | I think Chris George had it right. A certain 'mania' overtakes those that hunt for the identity of Jack the Ripper. It is a disease, and a horrible disease at that. Many have fallen ill to it, squandered fortunes &tc. The disease is evidently terminal. The end result is the delusion of having identified the murderer. I have it myself, and I suspect others here have it, too. Forbes Winslow was an early sufferer. As was a now forgotten reporter [an acquaintance of Albert Bachert] that hunted a sailor named Cornwall, being sure that he had 'got his man.' Ms. Cornwell is suffering from a particularly severe strain of the disease; as such, she deserves our sympathy. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 11:41 am | | Hi all,
I do not know if this site has been posted before - it is the publicity page for Cornwell's book.
For a good laugh, click on the section for "praise" - you might find hysterical the depth and breadth of praise for Cornwell's book cited by her publisher.
Rich
00.html?id=0399149325,http://www.penguinputnam.com/Book/BookFrame/0,1007,,00.html?id=0399149325 |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 11:56 am | | A small point. The Latin word ‘nemo' translates into English as ‘no one' not the English word ‘nobody.' Semantics? Yes, exactly, and anyone who had had the benefit of a Victorian classical education, as Sickert had, would have known the correct translation of the word. Some proof of this assertion can be seen when Sickert, attempting to obtain a job in the British Museum in 1878, asked for a letter of recommendation from his Headmaster at King's College School. He was described as "...a very fair Classical Scholar...." It is a stretch to suggest that Mr. Nemo, Sickert's sometime acting name, and Mr. Nobody are one and the same thing when looking at this man from this age.
Wolf. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 12:07 pm | | Hi All,
I agree with CMD when he criticised the ‘great deal of ad hominem vitriol’ that has been directed at Cornwell as ‘unfortunate and unprofessional’. I also agree that if she continues to refuse to ‘meet with or engage in extensive debate’ with reputable ripper scholars, who haven’t posted on these boards insulting her, she would only earn herself even more criticism if she tried to excuse or justify that refusal by blaming it on the ‘lamentable’ appearance of insults here. I totally agree that there is, can be, no excuse for ‘someone who has floated an idea’ not to expect it to be ‘subjected to careful scrutiny’. If Cornwell doesn’t think she has to defend her work on Sickert, or answer awkward questions that challenge her theory, that is always going to be her problem.
Yes, ‘damning a man as Jack the Ripper without rock-solid proof' may be character assassination of the worst kind. But it has been done before and no doubt it will be done again. Damning anyone for any kind of wrong-doing without rock-solid proof is a wrong-doing in itself, and those who indulge in it, whether the wrong-doing involves murder, forgery conspiracies, the dead or the living, must always be accountable to their critics or else withdraw their ‘damning’ allegations and admit that the evidence isn’t as rock-solid as they claimed. It makes no difference to the worth of the theorist’s work whether a critic of it is polite and constructive, sounds like a broken record, is rude and unscholarly, or is disliked, misunderstood or misinterpreted by other critics.
CMD is no doubt right, that writers ought not to be ‘lumbered’ with the tiresome task of clearing away the deadwood of a theory without merit, but seeing as there isn’t much choice, perhaps it should be treated as an occupational hazard of today's Ripperology. Someone somewhere, stirred up by the great Cornwell publicity machine, may come to the Ripper field fresh for the fight and will more than welcome the challenge of taking her theory to the cleaners. Her resistance to attempts to break through her wall of “I’m right, prove me wrong”, aided by her closest followers, may just add to the attraction and determination to tear her playhouse down, brick by brick - or card by card.
David O is right IMHO. If Cornwell makes wild claims, doesn’t try to back them up, and deliberately avoids situations where people who really know what they're talking about can question her, she will be accused of intellectual dishonesty. If she has knowingly misled her readers, she deserves to be criticised and challenged accordingly wherever and whenever possible – and for as long as it takes to get the message through to others, even if she ain’t listening, and even if her cronies defend her while she stays away and covers her ears.
Hi Ivor,
I love your "BIG NOSE SYNDROME". Maybe if enough people get to tell Cornwell she has a “BIG PROBLEM” with her case against Sickert, she will start to believe them too – or maybe not. 
Haven’t got your book yet but it is on my list for Santa, along with Paul Begg’s. Cornwell’s isn’t - yet.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 12:18 pm | | Hi Caz,
The reviews I have read of Cornwell's book have been universally critical and I know of no one of note defending her resolution of the case.
Indeed, even on this board which represents a diversity of views, I haven't seen anyone defend Cornwell's work.
The only people hospitable to her theory seems to be talk show hosts and some in the public familiar with her fiction work but totally ignorant about the Whitechapel murders. That is not surprising and is to be expected.
I don't see how she really does any damage to research in the field. Indeed, her work may attract the interest of neophytes who may one day have solid contributions to make.
Personally, I find more damaging to research when reputable scholars publish untruths on the case that eventually become accepted facts by people who seriously study the case.
Someone whose first and last reading on the case is Cornwell's book really have little impact on the study of the case. And those are likely to be the only people swayed to her position.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 12:56 pm | | Hi all,
I have two books in front of me and I quote:
1) "...and here presents the hard evidence that the perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders was..."
2) "Most importantly, ... reveals finally, and beyond doubt, the true identity of Jack the Ripper"
Where is the differnce between these two? There is none! Both are in the same line. Where one talks of "hard evidence" the other talks of "beyond doubt".
The diffence is that most of the posters here hated Mrs. Cornwalls guts even before the book was published and Mr Edwards is a regular poster here.
Every book published has claimed to have solved the crime, none of them have.
Another new book though (I quote)
"... is not yet another attempt to identify the culprit."
"Portait of a Killer" - entertaining, but bad
"JtR's Black Magic Rituals" - a load of rubbish (sorry Ivor)
"The definite History" - another timeless classic from Paul Begg
From Hell
Philip |
Author: Caroline Morris
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 12:59 pm | | Hi Rich,
When I referred to Cornwell's 'closest followers' and 'cronies', I really meant those who supported her on the BBC Omnibus programme recently, or those talk show hosts who, as you say, have been wowed by the way she argues her case because they know precious little about the subject, and probably care even less to do any serious reading or digging for themselves.
I tend to agree with you on the subject of general damage to research in the field. New people who are attracted enough by Cornwell to take a look below the surface will pretty soon realise she hasn't solved the case after all and, as you say, may one day have solid contributions to make to this case where facts will always be few and far between compared with theories.
I totally agree that reputable scholars who publish untruths that become accepted facts by serious students of the case do more damage. But of course, one could argue that this makes them disreputable scholars. Since serious students shouldn't be taken in by 'case closed' and suchlike nonsense, it does seem to me a bit over the top for other serious students to get so stressed out on behalf of those whose first and last reading will be Cornwell's effort.
I feel sorrier for the 'serious students' who are convinced by arguments for the 'legitimate' suspects - all of whom (expect for one at the most) are every bit as innocent as the most outlandish ripper you could name.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ally
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 01:23 pm | | Heya Philip,
I totally agree with you that there is no difference in those two statements. Many authors are arrogantly certain that they have solved the case and state it. That actuall doesn't bother me so much. What frothed me to the point of speechlessness was when she claimed that his family needed to prove that he didn't do it and that we needed to provide her with evidence of his innocence.
And let's face it, Ivor doesn't have the reputation or the prestige or the name-power to go on every national talk show and declare his theory the right one and Ivor didn't diss in national print all people who had studied or written on the case before him as whacks and kooks and freaks. She studies the murders and writes a book and it is because she high mindedly has decided to solve the case. We study the murders and we are bloodthirsty ghouls.
This I see as the essential difference and the source of the rancor. At least on my part.
Ally |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 01:27 pm | | Hi Philip,
I understand your frustration. As you have noted, Ms. Cornwell is not, as you have capably noted, the only author to claim to have solved or proved the case.
I don't give much credence to those who have claimed to solve the case. That is not to be dismissive of all who name a suspect. For example, Martin Fido and Stewart Evans have named men they think may have been Jack the Ripper. They have not engaged in the hyperbolic claim that they have proven or solved the case.
Cornwell appears to be arrogant, popular, and successful and engenders much resentment and more than little jealousy in some quarters - that is my explanation for the withering criticism she suffers.
I don't think it's necessarily fair - but I think Cornwell is criticized more harshly than others with equally flawed theories because she is commercially successful and this is a source of resentment.
I have little doubt that if some other author who has written a ridiculous theory as "fact" had soared to the top of the charts, they'd be receiving the same treatment Cornwell is now.
I don't believe that approach is fair but when envy gets mixed in with legitimate criticism, sometimes extreme reactions result.
Rich |
|
|
|
|
