|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 01:28 pm |        | Caz,
I agree completely.
Rich |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 01:41 pm | | Hi all,
This is a well-intentioned question. I have read bandied about quite frequently the charge that Ms. Cornwell has claimed that all people interested in the case other than her are some how disturbed or motivated by money in advancing pet theories.
However, I have not been able to find such remarks in print. Does anyone have an article quoting her as making such charges? I sincerely would enjoy reading it. Thus far, all I have seen are reconstructions of what people claim to have heard her say. . .I would like to see in print in a reputable journal such remarks. Admittedly, I don't watch her appearances on television - they are of little interest to me since I do not take her book seriously.
Certainly, there are some disturbed people or authors motivated primarily by money involved in this field - as there are in any field. That is quite different from the charge against her that she accused all in this field of being like that.
I have read a few times the view Cornwell insulted "us" and "we." To my knowledge, as a student of the case, she has never insulted me.
Or has she?
So, if the quote is there, where she says all people in the case are somehow defective, please provide it.
Rich |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 01:48 pm | | Philip, Ally, Rich
Please allow me to disagree with you. "Hard evidence" and "case closed, beyond a doubt" are two different things (to me).
Are the comparisons between Ivor and Pat Cornwell really fair? You may disagree with Ivor's theory, but Ivor supports his conclusions, and doesn't counter with "Well, prove Stephenson was innocent." From what I've read of Ivor's posts (and I'll admit I haven't read his book yet), there's a tremendous difference between the two.
Here's what I believe about Pat Cornwell, from reading and listening to interviews with her: she knows very well she hasn't proven her case, she's not stupid. While not a forensic expert, she does have a forensics background. She knows she hasn't proven the DNA case against Sickert. You will never see her debate any of the other Ripper authors. This is why I posted earlier that she's "intellectually dishonest." That she's rich has nothing to do with my dislike for her work. I view it as cynical and opportunistic, although she may not have started that way. She claims to care for the victims, but mispells their names. She mispells Stewart's name. She says she'd "feel terrible if I'm wrong" about Sickert. Unless she's dumb as bricks, she already knows, but won't ever admit it. She does not care for truth, only for a cover that says "Jack the Ripper: Case Closed."
Ivor, even if you believe he's mistaken, has a sincere belief in what he writes. The two are nowhere close, IMO.
Cheers,
Dave
Who doesn't believe in Black Magic |
Author: Ally
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 01:54 pm | | Richard,
No. Why should we do your homework for you? We watched the shows, we heard what she said, we arrived at an informed opinion of her. Something you aren't willing to do. If you doubt it, or don't believe the interpetation we have put on it, then call the stations and requests copies of the transcripts be sent to you. But dont tell us you deliberately keep yourself ignorant of the things she says and then demand that we go back and prove it. Watch her shows and argue intelligently rather than just relying on your opinion of what you think she wouldn't have said rather than those of us who listened and heard. |
Author: Ally
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 02:04 pm | | I don't know if anyone has already posted this article, but I liked it, so:
article |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 02:15 pm | | Ally,
Thanks for that. I hadn't seen that one. A couple of quotes I found interesting:
"I don't think you should ever theorize about someone being a criminal just because they're dead and you can get away with it. That's a terrible thing."
"The lack of seminal fluid in the Ripper lust-murders is consistent with the supposition that Sickert was incapable of sex."
Ally, the lack of a basketball in the Ripper lust-murders is consistent with the supposition that Michael Jordan did not commit the crimes.
Dave |
Author: Keith Rogan
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 03:01 pm | | David,
There is a lot of information on forensics in the book, too much to go into in depth in one post.
In each case she takes what hard evidence there is and examines it according to modern forensic theory. Sometimes the descriptions are vague (the investigations and post-mortems are shockingly bad by modern standards) and does her best with the material at hand. This is Cornwell at her best and she's worth listening to. When the information is poor (as in the very vague descriptions of blood splatters at scenes) she gives alternate theories - if the blood was like "A", it would mean thus, if like "B" it might indicate this...
In general she concludes (and I agree), that the Ripper attacked from behind and quite likely after negotiating for a sex act. Commonly, sex with this class of prostitute was performed from behind with the woman usually leaning against a wall or other support. A pretty helpless position that allowed the Ripper to simply reach around and cut the throat and carotid arteries. Or, in at least one case to choke the woman with her own neckerchief and then slash the throat.
The type of cuts on the neck support this theory very well. And of course, once the throat is cut, there will be no loud screaming. And since he is holding her from behind, there will be no defensive wounds and the attacker is going to be relatively blood free from the initial arterial spurts, etc. He would also be right handed (instead of left handed as at least one of the surgeons maintained under the assumption that the attacker cut the throat from in front).
This explains a lot and it also eliminates (in my mind), some of the suspects. For example, I don't picture the raving, dead-cat-eating fellow (Kosminsky?) successfully negotiating a sex act with even the lowest street prostitute. Certainly not at the height of the Ripper murder frenzy! It also tends to at least weaken the case against any of the Jewish and/or foreign suspects since the common belief among East-Enders was that the Ripper was a foreigner.
So, our man must be at least presentable (not a high standard considering the area), right handed and probably British.
Not a lot to go on, but it's something of value from that book.
Keith |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 03:14 pm | | Hi all,
Cornwell makes a charge against Sickert. When people demand Cornwell substantiate her claim, she replies you go find out for yourself and prove me wrong. She is then rightly criticized as being unwilling to substantiate her allegation.
Someone then makes an allegation about what Cornwell has said. Then another asks that person to substantiate their claim. The person making the allegation then says to go find it out themselves.
I have read her interviews and have never seen the quotations attributed to her (that she insulted "us" by saying all people interested in the case are somehow unstable or motivated by money).
I am not saying this is true or untrue - I honestly don't know. I am just wondering if anyone has any evidence of this?
What program, what date, what was the quote? Is it not a very simple request that those making allegations substantiate their claims?
Isn't that the same thing many on these boards are rightly asking of Ms. Cornwell?
If Cornwell make an allegation against Sickert, it certainly isn't the responsibility of the audience to verify her claims. Why is the standard any different for someone who makes an allegation against Cornwell?
Rich |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 03:21 pm | | Keith,
Thanks for your impressions, and I appreciate your posting them. I look forward to reading about the forensics when I put my hands on a copy (the waiting list at my library is currently 20 people deep!). I've always plumped for strangulation first, then the throat-cutting being done with the victim already on the ground, as in the case of Kate Eddowes, whose back and not front was drenched with blood.
Thanks again for the reply.
Best,
Dave |
Author: Ally
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 03:30 pm | | Richard,
Don't act like a bigger rats butt than you are. You are perfectly aware that there is a huge distinction between claiming a man was a murderer and then telling people to prove you wrong and people commenting on things they heard her say in interviews and telling you if you are so interested, you should have bothered to watch them. We bothered to listen to her and watch. You didn't feel it was worth your time. So now if you want to know what she actually said, do the work to find out.
Ally |
Author: Annie
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 03:34 pm | | Hello everyone...
I am new to the message boards and need I say somewhat afraid of all of you after reading this thread!
I have read only 3 books on Jack: A-Z, The Complete History and you guessed it Portrait of a Killer. I do not feel that Pat Cornwell proved that Sickert was the Ripper, but for those of you who have actually read the whole book, how accurate was Cornwell when she compared several ripper letters (considered at this time to be a hoax) to other non-ripper but ripper-like murders that happened in other locations... for example on pg. 292 of her book she states that the ripper wrote a letter saying "I am going to commit 3 more 2 girls and a boy about 7 years old this time I like ripping very much especially women because they don't make a lot of noise" this letter was dated November 14, 1888. Cornwell states that on Nov. 26, an 8 yr.old boy was killed, (throat cut) in Havant, near Portsmouth. Several more instances like this are mentioned in her book. Were the Police to quick to assume that most of the ripper correspondence was a hoax? Is there a better book besides Cornwell that discusses the ripper letters? Although I don't feel she "closed the case" and don't put much stock in her DNA testing I thought the book raised some good questions. Please be kind! |
Author: Ally
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 03:40 pm | | Annie,
You'll have to hang out here a lot longer if you want us to expend the energy to be nasty. It takes time to work up to true enmity towards a person. Newbies have it relatively easy. 
As for your question, I really couldn't say but I definitely don't hold with PC attempting to attribute every knife murder to Jack and therefore to Sickert. If the boy was Jacks, then where is two girls? She takes bits that fit her theory and ignores the gaping holes that don't.
Just My Opinion and Welcome to the boards,
Ally
Edited to add: You should try Stewart Evans Letters book for a better book discussing the letters. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 03:42 pm | | Hi Annie,
I don't share your opinion about Cornwell but respect your views - try not to feel intimidated.
With regard to the Ripper letters, I think a great book for you would be Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner's "Letters From Hell." It is a detailed analysis of the letters sent to the press and the police.
Richard |
Author: Kevin Braun
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 03:48 pm | | On Monday December 9, The Learning Channel(TLC) will present a one hour program, the title is Ripper Murders: Case Closed. Yesterday Ms. Cornwell was the featured quest on Imus in the Morning. After 20 minutes of her wit and charm, I came to the same conclusion as David O'Flaherty.
"She knows very well she hasn't proven her case, she's not stupid... That she's rich has nothing to do with my dislike for her work. I view it as cynical and opportunistic, although she may not have started that way".
My wife, of all people, has taken an interest in JtR after reading the Vanity Fair article. I have a shelf full of books on the subect in our library. There you go.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 03:50 pm | | Hi, Annie and welcome:
Let me echo the recommendations for "Jack the Ripper: Letters From Hell" by Evans/Skinner. It's got handsome reproductions of many of the letters and text for the rest. It's a must have if you're interested in the letters. I think you might find it an eye-opener.
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Annie
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 03:55 pm | | Hello,
Thank you all so much for the info. I will buy the book right away.
Annie |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 03:55 pm | | Philip,
Sometimes the author of a ripper book is not responsible for the statements made by the publisher.
Many publishers when bringing out a book on the ripper case state that the murder has now been solved.My publisher did the same thing as many others I might add.In fact my publisher placed a comment on the flyleaf of my book which I thought was wrong of them to place there. After I had made my point that it should be removed the editor decided to overule me and kept it in. Also when I appeared on television and in the Observer my suspect was deemed to be a new suspect.He was not a new suspect and while filming took place I stated that my suspect was not a new one. When I viewed this programme at a later date I found that my statement had been cut from the programme and that the suspect was being placed as a new face.Also I had to contact the Observer about mistakes they had made. Each case has i'ts own merits so before you go generalising and jumping to wrong conclusions you should really check the facts first.Also please do not feel the need to apologise for calling my book rubbish as it transpires you are the only person to my knowledge to have termed it so to date.As for putting me in the same mould as Miss Cornwell you amused me no end.In the case of Cornwell she has gone out of her way to declare to the world that she has solved the case 100% while her evidence remains the weakest I have ever seen.
For the record I have made myself available on these boards to answer any questions about my book which is more than can be said for Miss Cornwell. Anyone making any comparisons between myself and her must be barmy. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 04:02 pm | | | Dave, Thanks for the post and like you I do not believe in Black Magic either.Be that as it may thousands of people do and Black Magic ritual murders do take place even today. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 04:11 pm | | Let me understand this. . .the allegation is that Patricia Cornwell is a 'cornball' who insulted us all.
I, who does not even dispute the charge, merely asks where, when, and what was said by Cornwell that insults "us."
Instead of supporting the allegation, the attack is turned now to me. I now stand accused of laziness or irresponsiblity by choosing not to dedicate my time to watching and listening to every word spoken or written by a someone the critic herself labels a 'cornball.'
Rather than prolong this idle silly banter, why not back up the charge? There is time to write paragraph after paragraph of banter but not enough to post a simple one line source of these mystic quotations from Cornwell?
Rich |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 04:41 pm | | | Richard , Give it a rest for God's sake if not for mine.What do you want signed statements from everyone? contact the Cornwell camp if you are so interested in what she has said or at least do your own research into the matter. I find the ones who utter the rubbish and whine the most about this case are the ones who do the least research and expect others to do it for them. |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 04:53 pm | | Rich,
You might try Christopher-Michael and see if anyone has emailed him anything about what Pat Cornwell has said, or perhaps he'll post. I tried a quick search last night, but didn't find anything. Speaking for myself, I'm not bothered if she has said anything like that. It would be a curious thing for her to have said, knocking people who are interested in the case when she has written over 300 pages on the subject, and most of her career has been writing about murder (even a Kay Scarpetta cookbook).
But I wouldn't be surprised if she did. I remember her making a comment during one of the radio interviews (I believe it was the one Chris George called) that Sickert's interest in painting murder scenes was indicative that he was a murderer. Using her logic, where does that place people who write and read about murder? Maybe we should be careful how we argue here on the boards .
Ivor, sorry--I shouldn't have added that little coda about Black Magic. I didn't think you were a Crowley type.
Regards,
Dave |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 05:11 pm | | Ivor,
All I have done is asked that someone who makes a charge - that Cornwell insulted all those interested in the case - with some citation or fact. I have looked for it and have found nothing. I see in David's post that he has done the same.
Your suggestion that those who ask for evidence of the allegations against Cornwell are those who have done the least amount of evidence is the same argument many of Cornwell's detractors accuse her of making.
Cornwell makes allegations, with a bit of evidence though hardly sufficient, and critics correctly point out those failings.
Yet at the same time, some of Cornwell's critics make an allegation against her, while offering absolutely no supportable evidence, and ask others to accept their commentary at face value.
Those who have made this allegation against Ms. Cornwell are either unable or unwilling to share their evidence. Either way, they are engaged in the same stylistic approach for which they claim to loath Ms. Cornwell.
Rich |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 05:19 pm | | Hi David,
I hope CDM does post any relevant passage. Especially since he is one of the more respected, sober, and serious students of the case.
I really have no idea whether Cornwell made some outrageous remark that insulted all those interested in the case. If she did, I certainly think it damages her credibility. If she said nothing of the kind, then she has been done an injustice.
I have seen that allegation repeatedly made on the boards - but it is always vague and without quotations (ie, she insulted "us" all).
Well, rather than attacking me for asking the question (where, when, and what did she say?), why not just respond with facts.
I know that you are not doing that - and I applaud your efforts to find the quotes myself. I have been looking for them too. Thus far, I cannot see that they exist.
Rich |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 05:23 pm | | | Hi Dave, The problem I have with Crowley is that people try and push his beliefs onto my work. As you can see from a post by Rose she has concluded that I believe the killer was invisible by means of a spell.Such rubbish is due to Crowley and his beliefs and I have stressed time and time again that I do not agree with such statements.But alas people like Rose do not take note of the written word as they should and they become confused thus 2 and 2 becomes 9 to them. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 05:25 pm | | Ivor,
And on another remark. . .I am not whining. . .I am questioning the whine.
The whine is in fact the allegation that Cornwell insulted "us" and was mean to us.
I have looked for such information but found nothing. My simple question therefore was, what was said, when and where?
The reply has been "do your own research."
Seems to me, with that kind of logic, one could accuse anyone of anything whether true or not.
Rich |
Author: Ally
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 06:17 pm | | Gee Richard,
We're so terribly sorry that none of us thought to type up a transcript of every radio and tv interview she did, seeing as how you couldn't be bothered to tune in yourself. If you were actually interested in what she said and not simply trying to be a supercilious troll causing trouble, you would have listened to the programs in the first place wouldn't you?
You didn't bother to tune in the first go round. If you are interested in what she said, it is up to you to do the work to find it.
Ally |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 07:03 pm | | For those who care,
I believe I've found one of the articles in question. The unidentified writer of the piece says, "Cornwell's findings and conclusions have been challenged by established "Ripperologists" who have made a living out of the mini-industry surrounding the Ripper mystery."
Pat Cornwell is quoted, "'"These Ripper people are understandably very angry," Cornwell said. "They don't want somebody else to find out the suspect. It ruins their party.'"
article
I also found a Q&A over at Bookpage, which I think is much more interesting. Check out what Pat Cornwell thinks her most aggravating habit is (you'll have to cut and paste, sorry):
http://www.bookpage.com/9908bp/patricia_cornwell.html
Hope this helps,
Dave |
Author: Peter Wood
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 07:03 pm | | Dan
It's not a "Britishism" - we gave you the language for crying out loud, you can't hold us responsible if your ancestors screwed around with the spellings.
And what did you ever give us? McDonalds and New Kids on The Block.
Well thanks very much for that Dan.
You're either very clever or very stoopid (your pronunciation) - it doesn't matter how many people could have touched a particular letter, it matters only what percentage of the population that group of people form. It's 1% Dan. 1 in a hundred.
Oh by the way, something else you gave us - "Friends" with Jennifer Aniston and a bunch of clueless nerds. You're welcome to that back, whenever you care to come and pick it up.
Give me Morecambe and Wise, any day.
Bring me sunshine, bring me rain ...
Peter |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 07:27 pm | | Hi all
The defense of some of the enmity launched in Ms. Cornwell's direction has been repeatedly defended on these boards by people indicating "she started it" or she insulted "us" or she attacked our "community."
Yet when I have asked specifically what she said that constituted an insult to "us" all, when and where it was said, all I get in response is that it is my fault for not watching all of her interviews and reading everything she says. When I ask for a source I can go to on my own, the reply is, "do your own research/homework" or "figure it out for yourself."
Imagine if I announced to the room that Tom Clancy said those who post on these boards more than once a day are idiots. And then, when someone asked me, where and when did he make such a remark, I replied, "Hey, it's your fault for not paying attention to everything Clancy writes and says. I am not going to do your research for you - look it up yourself."
Many here have been critical of Ms. Cornwell, and rightly so, for failing to defend the allegations she has made. Yet it is ironic and somewhat hypocritical that some of those same critics are unwilling to do the same thing.
I have never been convinced by the "do your own research on the matter" remark. Admittedly, on this case I am a novice. Frequently, I have asked Stewart Evans, Paul Begg, Martin Fido and others questions on the case - they have either answered my inquiries or pointed me in the direction as to where I could get the information myself - since they know what they are talking about they don't reply "hey, do your own research."
Ivor's "do your own research" reply to my question as to the source of the allegation made against Cornwell, is a reason I would not consider reading his book. I disagree with his position that if someone puts in writing an allegation the responsibility for supporting that allegation belongs to the reader rather than the author.
"Do your own research" is short-hand for "Yeah, I made the allegation but I am not responsible for supporting it - it is up to you to prove me wrong."
Stan Russo on the boards posted the "fact" that Ms. Cornwell is a "man hater." Ally on Oct 19th quite properly asked Mr. Russo to cite his source. Mr. Russo conceded that his opinion was based on inference rather than any specific quotation. This allowed Ally to make the following remark:
Stan,
So basically, it's not a well-known fact that she is a man-hater. It's your opinion that she is. Thanks for clarifying.
Ally
I agree with Ally's comment. Yet, I wonder what Ally's reply to Stan would have been if he had simply copied her response to me regarding her allegation against Cornwell, "Do your own research"?
Well, I have done my own research. I have found no such quotation attributed to Ms. Cornwell as has been alleged but not cited by various posters. Therefore, I come to the following opinion:
"The myth that Cornwell attacked any and every person interested in Ripper studies is an untrue legend simliar to the oft-repeated invention that Jack the Ripper wore a dark cape and top hat and carried a Gladstone bag. Someone either deliberately or accidentally, distorted, exaggerated or invented this attack attributed to Ms Cornwell. Subsequently it has been repeated and now used as a convenient excuse for hurling epithets in the direction of Ms. Cornwell."
I will not employ the same tactic Ms. Cornwell and her critics employ : that factual representations can be made and it is up to the audience to disprove them. So I do not insist that anyone accept my construction as fact.
I admit that my position is simply based on the evidence thus provided by Ms. Cornwell's accusers - and that I am open to anyone who can supply facts.
I am very interested in this allegation, whether it is true or not, and welcome any knowledgeable response. But going forward, it is quite senseless for me to reply to people who insist on making charges yet refuse to substantiate them.
When you quote someone, it is not the responsibility of your audience to verify the remark. That is how this case is so often distorted and twisted. It is the responsibility of the person who writes down the allegation to substantiate their claim.
Rich |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 07:31 pm | | Petah, (British pronounciation)
First, good to have you back.
Second, 1% sounds a lot better than 33,000, doesn't it?
Third, I shall be over tomorrow to pick up Ms. Aniston. Pray she is unharmed, sir.
Cheers,
Dave
PS We gave you rock and roll, man! Blue jeans! The hula hoop! |
Author: Ally
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 07:33 pm | | Richard,
You said you don't bother to listen to her interviews or her appearances. I have actually read something about her life for years and have read every single book by her. Stan was making an opinion on something that she *is*-- an opinion and claiming it as a well known fact. We are commenting on something that several of us have heard or read her say. Something you can go and do the research on yourself.
And imagine if I had said to STan, "Stan, I of course have not bothered to listen to any of her interviews because I find it a blatant waste of time, now do the work for me and tell me where you got that from."
I don't care what your conclusions are about what she said..you've already stated you never bothered to listen, haven't you?
Trolls are so bothersome and getting dimmer. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 07:50 pm | | I don't speak for Stan - I only speak for me.
If I made an allegation against well-known figure and someone approached me who said they were unfamiliar with that figure but would like the source of my accusation, I would give it to them.
I wouldn't blame my audience for not knowing as much about a subject as I am interested in - or call them trolls.
Now, if I didn't know what I was talking about, I might be tempted to tell my audience to figure it out themselves. And if they pestered me to support my personal attack, I might even be tempted to resort to calling them trolls.
I would avoid such temptations. I would hope to have the character and dignity to admit, "Hey, I made the allegation but I really have no evidence to support it. I apologize."
Rich |
Author: Ally
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 07:55 pm | | Richard,
You are not merely uninformed on this subject. You chose to be uninformed, and deliberately stated that you did not plan to watch or listen to her interviews. Everyone had equal chance and knowledge of when those interviews would be on and you CHOSE to remain ignorant. Now that you don't like what our opinions are on those interviews, you suddenly want us to go back and give you a verbatim account of what was said. Too bad. No. You don't really care what she said or didn't say, you are just using this as a chance to stir up sh*t. Hence, you are a troll. You chose to not watch the shows. It is not our job to catch you up. You made the decision to remain ignorant and since you didn't do the homework, stay out of the argument.
Ally |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 07:57 pm | | Hi David,
Thanks for your quote from Cornwell. I think that's a long way off from starting personal attacks or insulting all of us. Indeed, there isn't much to disagree with her quote.
In context, the paragraph before her quote is as follows (which I think reflects more a negative opinion of those interested in the case by the author than Cornwell):
"Cornwell's findings and conclusions have been challenged by established "Ripperologists" who have made a living out of the mini-industry surrounding the Ripper mystery.
'These Ripper people are understandably very angry,' Cornwell said. "They don't want somebody else to find out the suspect. It ruins their party.'"
She is certainly right that she has made some people angry. I don't take her remarks as any kind of personal attack or affront - she is commenting on the people who have become highly emotional and upset with her.
Do you believe the quote is intended to attack everyone interested in the case or a reply to those who are attacking her?
Thanks for your reasoned and sensible post!
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 08:10 pm | | Ally,
How was I to know in advance of these shows that she was going to make the remarks you now claim she made?
For weeks before these shows aired, you were telling me and everyone else what a "cornball" and how ridiculous her ideas were - this is supposed to persuade me to watch her? If she is such a disreputable character why did you watch her?
I am legitimately interested in any quotes she has made that might be insulting to me and those I admire interested in the case. I do not lurk around my television set and radio listening to people I do not respect just waiting for them to say something harsh or untrue.
You claim to have done that. You have claimed she made derogatory remarks against "us" and those in our "community." You state those remarks justify the vitriol against Ms. Cornwell.
So, I ask you, what were the remarks? Where and when were they aired? I will look for them myself. Why resort to these silly "troll" remarks?
What seems apparent, by your desire to listen intently to everything a woman you despise says, and now your refusal to in one sentence to end this discussion by citing the quote and source rather than insulting me, is that you prefer insult to discussion.
Rich |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 08:12 pm | | Hi, Rich
I think plenty might be offended when she says nobody wants to find the killer, because it will ruin their party. Where's the party? Who is making more money than Pat Cornwell? Stewart Evans has publicly stated he hasn't made a year's wages from all his writings combined. Keith Skinner has yet to invite me to his home in the Hamptons.
However, as I read it, when Cornwell refers to 'these Ripper people' she refers to the community as a whole. It's the writer of the piece who refers to Ripperologists specifically, not Pat Cornwell.
However, I think we have an embarrassment of riches in Cornwall's research to object to. I think people are justifiably angry with her methodology, not with what she has said about 'Ripperologists' in general. Focusing on personal attacks is unnecessary--there are just so many levels to be dissatisfied on.
Rich, you're a writer, and I've had some limited experience in the area. Wouldn't you agree that writing is such an intimate act, that you must have much care for your reader? To serve them as Pat Cornwell has served her readers, that's what makes me angry.
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Ally
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 08:14 pm | | I'm sorry...What?
Are you now saying that my opinion on Cornwell is sufficient to persuade you to take my word for it and not verify the facts for yourself?
I call her Cornball so you don't watch her stuff? Because if that is what you are saying then shut up and accept what I tell you from here on out.
Ally |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 08:20 pm | | Ally,
You made allegations that Cornwell insulted "us" and the entire "community" and therefore she deserves the emnity she receives on these boards.
What did she say? What is your source?
I haven't seen any of the responsible folks on these boards make those charges.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Ally
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 08:22 pm | | Richard,
Call the shows, request copies of the tapes, watch it yourself. When a respectable person who has shown genuine interest in the case asks me, I'll answer.
Ally |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 08:31 pm | | Hi David,
I agree with just about everything in your last post. Certainly, from the excerpts and reviews I have read of Cornwell's book she makes some reckless leaps of logic and numerous factual errors. If her goal is to entertain her readers, I really couldn't comment or her success or failure. If her goal was to inform her readers, then I would have to agree with you that she has failed them badly.
I understand your position about her quote and it is defensible - I just disagree.
Your interpretation could be correct - that she is saying all people interested in the case are angry, making money off the case, and don't want the case solved.
My view is she is addressing the people so angry at her - many of which expressed their rage against her prior to her book even being published. She is opining why she believes some in the community are enraged with her.
I don't believe her comments address people like the ones you mention. Mr. Evans and Mr. Skinner, to my knowledge, have not engaged in the hysterical ad hominem attacks that have come from certain quarters.
So, I suppose her comment could be interpreted as a critique of all Ripperologists or simply those who have expressed their anger for her. It's an important distinction that I think is sufficiently ambiguous to be subject to varied interpretation.
However, thank you very much for reply with what you honestly feel is her attack on those interested in the case.
Rich |
|
|
|
|
