Archive through 06 December 2002

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Archive through 06 December 2002

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects: Patricia Cornwell/Walter Sickert: Archive through 06 December 2002

Author: Ivor Edwards Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 08:33 pm
Richard, I have some good news and some bad news. The bad news is that since I have learnt of your decision not to buy my book over a remark I made to you my life is now quite pointless. Many sleepless nights lay before me while I ponder this dire situation.What am I to do ? The good news is, if you dont buy a copy of my book I wont have to answer any questions about it from you.
Author: Richard P. Dewar Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 08:34 pm
Ally, Which show? Which air date? Rich
Author: Ally Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 08:37 pm
Rich, The key word was "respectable person with genuine interest gets answers." You are a troll. Go comb your beard. Ivor, I'm afraid that that won't even save you. You see Richard hasn't read Cornwell's book or seen anyting on her but he still shoots his mouth off about it. You're doomed pal. It seems the stuff he is most ignorant about is what he argues most. Doomed. Ally
Author: Richard P. Dewar Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 08:46 pm
Hi Ivor, I know that you are a far more well versed on this case than I am. My statement that I am unlikely to read your book is more a reflection upon me than of you. I am a novice in this case. Your stated documentary process is intended for people with a firmer knowledge of the case then mine. You chastized me for asking a the author of an allegation their source. Your reply was that it is the reader's responsibility to source the comments of an author. That is fine for someone who is writing to an audience of researchers. However, I am not. That's why I prefer the more elementary works of people like Evans, Rumbelow, and Sugden. They write for those of us who may not be as familiar with the case as you. If they put something in the text, they list sources for the remarks. They do not expect the reader to have knowledge of the information in advance. Nothing personal against you - but you just write for a different audience. Richard
Author: David O'Flaherty Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 08:52 pm
Hi, Rich Many thanks for the kind words. I think just about everybody on the thread shares some kind of common ground regarding this research. I can also see how you arrive at your interpretation of Ms. Cornwell's comment. I can also see where Ally's coming from. Just different styles, guys. Hope you work it out. Ally, I'm not very respectable, but I do have a genuine interest. Any chance of you putting up a link for me? I did give you Big Cup (laugh). Best regards, Dave
Author: Richard P. Dewar Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 08:55 pm
Ally, Just because you think you hear things doesn't mean they actually happened. Psst, I once heard Michael Jackson commenting about you. I don't know exactly what he said, but it was pretty awful. I can't remember where I heard it or when, but it really did happen. But, you, have been too lazy to listen to and read everything ever written by Michael Jackson. So, please don't ask me to tell you the source. Do your own research. Rich
Author: Ally Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 08:57 pm
Okay Richard, I won't. Ally
Author: Richard P. Dewar Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 09:03 pm
Hi David, Thanks for your reply. I always enjoy your posts. I don't even doubt the possibility that Cornwell did make some vicious remark vaguely attributed by some of the posters here - if I could find them myself it would go a long way to convincing me that Cornwell is not only irresponsible in her charges but has negative motivations. I hope that Ally does respond to your request and provides a quote, a source, a link, or anything. Ally can quickly put an end to the question of whether Cornwell really made such remarks or whether they are deliberate or accidental inventions by some of her detractors. Rich
Author: Ivor Edwards Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 09:05 pm
Ally, Oh dear what a turn up for the book so to speak. There was a time when I thought he was such a nice boy but just look at how the little troll has turned out to be. Quite the little doubting Thomas who thinks everyone has made everything up.
Author: Richard P. Dewar Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 09:12 pm
Casebook readers, A definition for this thread: A Troll - a person who asks the attacker of an author to source their quote. So, if you read someone make an outlandish charge against someone, dare not ask that person to give evidence of their accusation. . .unless you are willing to be called. . . (gasp). . .a troll! Rich
Author: Christopher T George Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 09:20 pm
Hi, all: Richard P. Dewar wrote: "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." Well, Richard, I unfortunately do not have a transcript of her remarks but I was as you I think know in the audience when she spoke in the Smithsonian Residents' program at Lisner Auditorium on November 19. I was up and ready to ask a question at the end of her talk, and while answering at length the first questioner who had asked her about profiling in the case, she launched into a tirade about Ripperologists and everyone who exploits the case, leads Ripper Walks which she termed ghoulish, etc., etc. She stated that no one would want there to be "Bundyologists" and nor would anyone want there to be "walks" to visit the scenes of the recent sniper shootings. So it is very clear that she has set up a "me" and "them" situation in which she is making a clear line between herself and anyone else who has had anything to do with the case. In this context, it is entirely in character that she cancelled the planned NPR program that would feature herself and others who know about the case. Clearly she wants to be the authority. In regard to Cornwell's characterization of the Ripper Walks the way she has, Paul Begg expressed some interesting thoughts on this matter in a private e-mail to me that I don't think he would mind me sharing with you: "What is in fact revealing is that Patricia Cornwell's statement completely misses the fact that Jack the Ripper has an iconic status that few if any other murderer possesses. As I said before, nobody has inspired so many works of fiction, fact, music, plays, dramas, and so on, or has such an instantly recognisable - if almost certainly historically inaccurate - image. It's that iconic status that causes people to go on the tours, as they go on Dracula walks in Whitby. Ripper walks don't celebrate serial killing anymore than the Dracula walk celebrates vampirism, the Tower of London celebrates beheadings, Marble Arch memorialises public executions or Menin Gate glorifies war." Best regards Chris George
Author: John Hacker Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 09:24 pm
The correct definition of Troll: from www.dictionary.com: 1. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. 2. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll."
Author: Ivor Edwards Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 09:27 pm
Richard, My book is about an investigation I undertook and the conclusions which were made from that investigation.When the day came to put pen to paper I was told to make it very simple so that a monkey could understand it. This I did but I was soon to learn with dismay that some humans never even had the brains of a monkey.
Author: Richard P. Dewar Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 09:51 pm
Hi Christopher, Thank you for your response. I appreciate your time in making clear what you find objectionable. Of course, I was not in attendance so I am in no position to assess her cadence and tone. Seeing her remarks on the written page may not convey the attitude she expressed. Respectfully, and sincerely, and I want to express my opinion and avoid the allegation made against me by John Hacker, I do somewhat disagree with your remark. I personally am uncomfortable with the Ripper Walks and the phrase "Ripperologist." I think there is an element of truth in what Cornwell says. This is not intended by me to be a critique or attack on people who enjoy that tour or the phraseology "ripperologist." Indeed, there are some notable figures who have been somewhat critical of the infatuary nature some have for the case. John Ross has been somewhat dismissive of the walking tours and Donald Rumbelow in his book has a disturbing reference to the strange people he has encountered who were interested in the case. I do note, that Rumbelow is a tour guide himself so presumably does not share Ross's opinion of the tours. I respect both you and Paul Begg enormously and I understand the view of the Ripper as an icon. However, I think there is a side to the case which is macabre and there are certainly some whose interests and attitudes in the case are unhealthy. I have been interested in the case for over 25 years - though admittedly I do not devote as much time to it as many do on these boards. I do not find anything insulting in Ms. Cornwell's remarks. However, perhaps if I were a tour afficianado or a self-proclaimed Ripperologist that I might feel insulted. I didn't understand the references to Cornwell insulting "us" or "we." Perhaps it was because until now I considered myself a part of the community involved and interested in this case. I think that I am simply not as devoted to this hobby as much as those who felt insulted by Ms. Cornwell. So, I can see how many of you may have felt insulted by her remarks. I do apologize for that. I do find the tours somewhat bizarre and the phrase "ripperologist" somewhat odd - but of course that is probably based upon my own ignorance. Again, Christopher, thanks for making this issue clear to me. Best regards, Richard
Author: Richard P. Dewar Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 09:54 pm
Hi John, Regarding your post: "Trolls are recognizable by the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll." The irony between the first sentence and what you wrote in the second is hilarious. Richard
Author: Vila Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 09:55 pm
Rich, The interviews that I read with Ms. Cornwell's remarks are posted in the Casebook in the "In the News" section. The only other article that I've read was in the Atlanta Journal. I regret not being able to quote you the exact URL, but I do state that I read the remark with my own eyes. I'm not simply repeating gossip. I'm sorry that there has been this misunderstanding. But I assure you that the remarks attributed to Patsy do indeed exist. I appologise for not taking the time to wade through months of interviews to give you the exact quotes that you ask for. All I can recall about the article that I read her remarks in was that it was one of the really early ones. She started off her publicity campaign with the disparaging statements about the online ripper community and the pro Ripper writers. The truth is out there, I just don't have time to look it up for you. Vila.
Author: John Hacker Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 09:57 pm
I didn't write any of it Rich. That's why I cited where it came from... Do you actually read any of the posts you respond to? Ever?
Author: Richard P. Dewar Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 09:59 pm
Hi Ivor, Thanks for the reply. I am sorry that is your opinion of your readers. I had a similiar experience in college. As a journalism major I quickly discovered that newsmen were required to write down to the fifth grade level. At that point, I decided to change majors and change audiences. Richard
Author: Richard P. Dewar Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 10:16 pm
John, My error - and regrets. I still find it hilarious. I think what you "posted," if intended as a swipe against me, is quite unfair but that's fine. My purpose is not to inflame or agitate anyone. In fact, I really do not have the power to do that. On this thread, there seems to be two kinds of posts: 1. Those that are critical of the works of Cornwell but stay out of the fray about her personally 2. Those who attack her based on their feelings and opinions of her personally. What I have done is simply ask those in the second category to provide some evidence of their allegations. All day, a few people were ranting hysterically about it but refusing to support their allegations. Finally, Christopher did explain why some are so enraged - and he is not even one of the people who engages in such hyperbolic insults against Ms. Cornwell. I understand his position and he taught me a lot. So it is time to move on. John, asking someone who makes a charge in writing to support their opinion is not "trolling" (admittedly I am not online enough to be familiar with this jargon). You may believe that anyone who raises a dissenting view with regard to Cornwell is just trying to cause trouble - you are entitled to your opinion. However, my previous questioning of the personal attacks and allegations made against her was sincere. The issue regarding the personal attacks was answered yesterday so the issue is dropped. And now the issue as to the charges of rude comments from Cornwell is answered and hopefully the issue is dropped. Those who do not like my questions are free to ignore them - rather than attacking me for asking them. Rich
Author: Richard P. Dewar Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 10:21 pm
Hi Vila, Thank you for your post - I will check out the remarks you cite in the In the News section - thats all anyone really needed to do in the first place - tell me where to get the information. I have enjoyed your posts in the pasts and I don't recall every seeing you post anything particularly nasty. I just found it odd that a few people were posting really mean personal attacks in retaliation for remarks allegedly made by Cornwell that they could not even quote. It was almost as if they were furious, but didn't quite know what they were furious about. Thanks to you and Christopher for putting it into perspective. Richard
Author: Richard P. Dewar Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 10:34 pm
Hi Christopher & all, I think Christopher is also absolutely right the Ms. Cornwell appears to be setting herself up in a confrontational way - that is inappropriate. She clearly is not, as he writes, "the authority" on the case. I think she is an outsider to the realm of the study of this case and that is why she has some of the opinions she holds. In some regard, I do share some of her views on the "Ripper" world - though I would in no way extend such feelings universally to everyone. I realize that my discomfort with certain aspects of the popular Ripper culture are probably based upon my own ignorance. Perhaps Ms. Cornwell would do well to make the same admission. Regards, Richard
Author: John Hacker Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 10:36 pm
Rich, You posted an incorrect definintion for Troll. I corrected you. And indeed, trolling is what you are doing. I would agree there are 2 types of posts on this board. There are on topic posts about Cornwell and her suspect, and a bunch of whiny crap from one person who wants to discuss HOW the discussion is to proceed. "What I have done is simply ask those in the second category to provide some evidence of their allegations. All day, a few people were ranting hysterically about it but refusing to support their allegations." What a crock Richard. You've been flapping your yap on this subject for weeks. If you can't be bothered to learn anything about what you're talking about, don't expect us to educate you at the 11th hour. There have been numerous quotes posted here over a period of time, as well as links to relevent information. Here's an idea. Why don't you do some reading instead of posting? "John, asking someone who makes a charge in writing to support their opinion is not "trolling" (admittedly I am not online enough to be familiar with this jargon)." Yes Richard, it is. You've had ample opportunity to do a bit of basic checking and you admit that you have not. Answers to your questions have already been provided. Go find 'em if you're interested in anything more than being an argumentative ass. "You may believe that anyone who raises a dissenting view with regard to Cornwell is just trying to cause trouble - you are entitled to your opinion." No. I do not. I want to make this perfectly clear. I think that you specifically, Richard Dewar, are trying to cause trouble. As you have for quite some time. I have no issue with anyone whatsoever based on their position regarding Cornwell or her work. And another thing. How the heck can you have a dissenting view when you admit you don't know what you're talking about? Everyone else has managed to read her book and check the interviews, reviews, etc. What entitles you to pretend that your offering an informed opinion? Regards, John Hacker
Author: Richard P. Dewar Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 11:17 pm
Hi John, Because I choose not to watch television doesn't mean I am ignorant of what goes on in the world. Actually, in my view, the reverse is actually the case - people who watch lots of TV I find to be lacking information. You presume, incorrectly, that because I don't watch TV interviews with Ms. Cornwell and have not yet read her book, that I am totally ignorant of the controversy swirling around her. I have read many articles about her and have read these message boards. My questions had nothing to do with the scholarship of her book. I took two positions on the boards based not on her book, but the remarks made against her. One, that the personal attacks and name calling of Ms. Cornwell were inappropriate. Two, that those who said the personal attacks against Cornwell were justified based upon her universal condemnation of everyone interested in the case had failed to provide the evidence that she ever made such a remark. You charged that on the first point that I was attempting to moderate or control debate. While that was not my intent at all, I subsequently apologized for expressing my opinion in that area and said I would not raise the issue again. Rather than condemning the personal attacks, I simply asked what was the basis for the charges made in them - specifically, what did she say that condemned all people interested in the case? You are wrong to suggest I was wilfully ignorant on that charge. Now, I have looked at the information, read the interviews and reviews, scoured the record, and still cannot find any remark that universally condemns anyone interested in the case. Another poster indeed asked for the same information from the accuser but it was not provided. I am sure you see this as obstinance on my part- but that is not my intention. Christopher posted some remarks he attributed to Ms. Cornwell and explained why he finds them so offensive. They do not offend me but I understand now why he might find them so personally insulting. Thankfully, he has given me what I consider a pretty firm grasp of the current controversy. Let me try to explain to you, and the readers of the board who may believe your charges against me, what actually happened. When the charge was made that Cornwell has insulted all of "us" - I included myself and some of the rest of us who have a more passing interest in the case. So I did not see any insult because indeed she never made such an allegation me. While interested in the case, I have never been interested in tours, never considered myself a "ripperologist," never attempted to make money off the case (though I hope to eventually by writing fiction) and never felt any anger toward her. Those are the only criticisms I have seen attributed to her thus far, so since they did not apply to everyone interested in the case, I didn't think the criticism that she insulted "us" and everyone interested in the case had been sustained. What she did do was ridicule those with a stronger devotion to the world of "ripperology" so I can now see why some of the people on these boards felt so insulted. I really apologize for missing the point - I was defining to broadly people involved in the case while those protesting her attacks were indeed speaking of those more devoted to the case than the rest of us. That is all that has happened here, John. I wish you could get over your ill will and negative opinion of me. However, anything I might say I know you would probably view as patronizing. I didn't take Ms. Cornwell so seriously so I didn't understand why some people who dislike her, or don't respect her, spent so much time watching, listening, and devouring everything about her. I now understand. This case is personally more important to some than others and that sometimes is reflected in the emotional remarks occassionally that occur. There is nothing wrong with that. We all have different things to which we are devoted. I assure you, and I do not mean this dismissively, I will not underestimate the feelings some people have for this subject again. Unfortunately, Ms. Cornwell continues to do so. Best wishes, Richard
Author: Richard P. Dewar Friday, 06 December 2002 - 01:13 am
Hi all, I apologize for the length and numerous spelling and grammatical errors in my previous post. I should have edited before posting. Richard
Author: Billy Markland Friday, 06 December 2002 - 02:42 am
(Pardon the typing as I am working on a laptop resting practically on the floor in a hotel room in Killeen, Texas tonight). My, my...what a tempest in a teakettle!!! Most, if not all, of the participants on this board are researchers. Why sink down to her level and call her names or, in her absence, her defenders? If I understand PC's theory correctly, without reading the book (waiting for the bargain bin!) she accuses Sickert based upon three premises (discounting the "evil eyes" ) 1) mDNA on two letters which has a 1 in 1000? match against mDNA from his personal correspondence. 2) No evidence of his whereabouts on the nights of the canonical murders. I believe the letter from his mother and the painting are circumstanial evidence at the best. 3) 1+2=Case Solved (I know, bear with me!) It seems fairly simple that if someone had the resources, they should be able to shoot #2 down in flames (I am not qualified to even speculate about mDNA but the concensus of people whom I respect is that it is a non starter). What resources? The ability to read French and access to French newspapers of the period of the murders. Sickert was a "celebrity" and in tune with the artistic community. Therefore, I do not find it illogical to imagine either he going to a party/gathering/exhibition in Paris or even having a visitor from the artistic community of enough stature to cause notice visit him at the "shore". My feelings are that either example would be captured in a blurb in the newspaper. Now my contribution to the "whine" party. Richard, please let it rest!! If you really like tilting at windmills, I see Melvin has posted something new regarding Mr. Smith and the diary fur-ball Seriously, when I first started reading this board, I distinctly recall a post in which Ally clearly differentiated her private posts from her Czaress of the Board personaes, i.e., Ally = personal & Alegria = the Czaress from Hell! Best of wishes, Billy P.S. As an avid reader of history, I abhor authors who do not source their material! IMHO, PC has read less history than she has written.
Author: Harry Mann Friday, 06 December 2002 - 04:04 am
Ally, Your remarks,'When a respectable person who has shown genuine interest in the case asks me,I'll answer'. Well I'm respectable and have shown a genuine interest in the case,so I will ask you. Save face allround.
Author: Ally Friday, 06 December 2002 - 08:17 am
Actually Harry, I have searched back a few weeks and haven't found a single post on this thread by you expressing any interest in Patricia Cornwells theory. So I would say your interest here is primarily to be a sht stirring pissant like Dewar and I don't care how respectable you are. In three interviews, one which CG alluded to, one in which Scott Medine attended, and one in which I read somewhere on the net (do do at least that much searching) she has made comments that people interested in this case are ghouls because we tour the murder sites (as she has done), we attend conferences on Jack the Ripper ( as she as done on other murders)and seek to profit from them (hello!). All this makes us what she has bluntly called ghouls. And that the only reason we refuse to accept her theory is not because she is full of it but because we're having a party and as she stated in her book, we are cynically and self-servingly refusing to accept she's right because we are motivated by financial self-interest. Yeah. All those Sickert people who appreciate the man as an artist, all us out here who have visited the murder sites, we're ghouls. She brags in her book about standing in the pits of dead at the behest of towns she has visited because she has gotten an invitation at the behest of the mayor due to her celebrity status and we who are interested and disagree with her are ghouls. And you know what? From now on, I'll state whatever the hell I want about PC and remark I have heard her say and if you don't believe me then just accept your disbelief because I am not going to pander to the whim of a whining little brat that cries I DON't WANNA watch all the shows but I damn well want to argue about them anyway. Ally
Author: Christopher T George Friday, 06 December 2002 - 09:00 am
Hi, Rich, Ally, Billy, and John: I think what disturbs me more about Cornwell is not so much that I feel insulted by her remarks about Ripperologists but the hypocrisy that she is displaying. What upset me at the time of her comments at Lisner Auditorium about Ripperologists in general and the Ripper Walks was that it occurred to me, "Lady, you're just like us." In other words, she is a Ripper author like any other, but somehow she is striking a pose to make herself appear different to other authors on the case, which I felt was faintly ridiculous when I saw when I arrived at the auditorium, people lined up to get her book, people with armsful of books for her to autograph. But as she told me, her book is "science" and not a "theory." Possibly the fact that Stewart Evans believes she started off to do a fictional Kaye Scarpetta novel on the Ripper case and ended up doing a nonfictional treatment, she really does see herself in that role of Scarpetta, as Judy Stock has said several times on these boards. I don't know if any of you have read her mysteries but Scarpetta is also in a combative "me and them" role against the mostly male establishment. As for her cancelled National Public Radio appearance, I get the impression that there were more people who knew about the case to be invited other than Stephen Ryder and that she did not like the idea that she would be appearing with people who were informed about the case. It seems that she prefers a forum where she is the lone speaker or the only person discussed, as in the Primetime Live show with Diane Sawyer around a year ago to this day, and the upcoming Learning Channel special on her book. In those sorts of forums, she can easily portray her opposition as wrong or misled without having to field awkward questions. All the best Chris George
Author: Richard P. Dewar Friday, 06 December 2002 - 09:27 am
Hi Chris, Thanks for your reply. I am just bit reluctant to express any opinion that might be mildly favorable to Patricia Cornwell because it such a sore spot for some people. Indeed, it has been suggested that if anyone mentions anything that might be favorable to her than we are stirring up "feces." I understand your point that her comments could be construed as hypocrisy - she is castigating the same actions she herself has taken. I have little doubt that she wants to avoid confrontation with those who know more about the case then her - and she is scheduling and manuevering interviews so that her ignorance on the case is not exposed. On the otherhand, as displayed by some people here and elsewhere, her perception that some are obsessive and irrational about the case is justified. Just witness the personal fury of some who really come off as unbalanced toward anyone who dares question their position. Fortunately, there are people like you and others who are thoughtful, considered, open-minded, and best of all informative. Thanks again, Richard
Author: Richard P. Dewar Friday, 06 December 2002 - 09:38 am
Hi Billy, Thanks for the post. You're right. The beliefs about Cornwell in some sectors, both pro and con, are highly emotional and personal and it really does no good to try to debate with such people. The case and the subject of Ms. Cornwell is interesting and entertaining to me. I also enjoy when people post informative remarks that teach me things about history and the case. I am really thankful for the opportuntity to communicate with such people on the boards. Richard
Author: Richard P. Dewar Friday, 06 December 2002 - 09:45 am
Ally, Is it not possible that just because Harry, David, and myself are not as devoted to the words and works of Ms. Cornwell that our questions about what you have said about her are sincere? Your formulation that anyone who asks you a question about what you have said about Ms. Cornwell MUST post regularly on this thread or they are deliberately trying to provoke you is revealing. I ask my mechanic questions - because I don't read everything on the combustine engine in advance does not mean that my question to the mechanic is an attempt to provoke. Richard
Author: Richard P. Dewar Friday, 06 December 2002 - 09:53 am
Patricia Cornwell has never ridiculed everyone interested in the case. That allegation has been suggested and it is demonstrably false. She has criticized those she thinks are obsessive about it - labeling themselves Ripperologists, attending conventions, and touring the death sites. She believes such interests are indeed ghoulish. This is not an uncommon notion. In more than one review or interview I have read with her, the authors have echoed her sentiments on that score while also criticizing her for the quality of her work and hypocrisy. Ms. Cornwell's contention about such people is an unfortunate and polarizing remark but also a debatable point. And it is quite understandable why people who enjoy such activities feel personally attacked by Ms. Cornwell. But, in the interests of fairness, Ms. Cornwell never insulted everyone interested in the case - only those she thinks are obsessively devoted to it. Rich
Author: R.J. Palmer Friday, 06 December 2002 - 10:21 am
Chris--It's not hypocrisy, it's delusion. Like William Blake said of John Milton "A true poet, of the Devil's party without knowing it." By the by, a book critical of "Ripperology" already exists. It's called 'The Age of Sex Crime' by Jane Caputi [Bowling Green State University Press, 1987]. She uses the Ripper myth extensively as a metaphor for her thesis. But this is kicking against the pricks. People have a human need for mystery, and for confronting their fears. It's why people still trudge through the streets of the East End, and why the Whitechapel crimes were remembered in the first place. It's really has little to do with the blood & guts, and more to do with the 'mystery', the 2,000+ law abiding citizens that disrupted an investigation by posting letters, the amateur detectives that flocked to Whitechapel, and the hundreds of crack-pot theorists [which includes Cornwell] that have been obsessed with the mystery ever since. RP
Author: Christopher T George Friday, 06 December 2002 - 10:30 am
Hi, Rich: To be clear about it, Ms. Cornwell herself is clearly obsessed with serial killers. One of the things that I did in preparing to write the review of her Case Closed for Ripperologist was to access a thesis that is available on the net. This thesis, by a Finnish author, though in English, makes the point that she is possibly unique, or at least unusual in being a female mystery-suspense novelist writing about serial killers. Yet she finds Walter Sickert and us bizarre for being interested in the Ripper case? Again, I see hypocrisy in her stance. She is suggesting Sickert had to be the killer because he had a fascination with the case, but then so did many many people of the day, as evidenced by the Ripper letters that she thinks, illogically and bizarrely, were as much as 90% written by Sickert. When did he have time to do any paintings? No, she has a fascination with the Ripper case and with serial killers. But no one is suggesting to dig up her back yard nor ours. She is on a campaign to pillory and villify Sickert and those who oppose her. I would say that all I am doing, and others, is pointing out the hypocrisy and illogicality in much of her argument. And I do admire her as a mystery novelist, as I told her in the WAMU Radio show when I had a chance to ask her a question when I phoned in. I also continue to think that her bringing science to the case is admirable, even if her techniques are misapplied, to the Ripper letters, which are probably a dead end in terms of identifying the killer. I think she is out of her depth in this investigation and out on a limb about Sickert being the killer when she clearly does not have the proof that he was the Whitechapel murderer. Best regards Chris George
Author: Christopher T George Friday, 06 December 2002 - 10:47 am
Hi, RJ: Thanks for your sage thoughts about Cornwell's delusion, as you call it, that Walter Sickert was the Ripper and about the reason why people are fascinated with mysteries, that would, for example, lead to them taking part in Ripper Walks. I am going to quote another part of the same e-mail from Paul Begg to me that points out that at least her being taken round the East End sites is not hypocritical, to which I will accede to his view, due to her reason for going on the tour as part of her research into the case: "She has made it clear that she believes that victims deserve to have their murderers exposed no matter how long after the crimes were committed (and it could be argued that this is especially true when the murderer turns out to be someone otherwise lauded), and in her belief that the murders were committed by Walter Sickert she, as a writer, sought to expose him in a book. This involved her in doing unsavoury things, such as being given a tour of the East End by John Grieve. And the point is that there is a BIG difference between doing it for research and doing it as part of a tour providing just one of several diversions to an evening at Les Miserables or standing outside Buckingham Palace and the Houses of Parliament." Best regards Chris George
Author: Ally Friday, 06 December 2002 - 10:48 am
Richard, Get over yourself. "Oh I am afraid to post anything in support of Cornwell for fear I'll be attacked!" And then you manage to post four more posts. No real fear there. But maybe that will convince some gullible person that the reason you are being attacked is for defending Cornwell. It isn't, and you know it. THe reason you are being attacked is because you had the incredibly poor manners to tell everyone on this site how they ought to behave..your way..while behaving just as badly as you told us we shouldn't. And not once, but several times. You have no interest in Cornwell at all--this could just as well be about Melvin Harris and indeed you have stuck your nose in their as well to tell everyone how they ought to be behaving. Cornwell is your platform of the week but it all goes back to the same thing--you want to run the boards and tell everyone how they ought to behave on them. So yes, you are a sht stirring troll and it has nothing to do with your position on Cornwell. Argue Cornwell if you want, support her if you want, but at least have the brains to read some of the stuff we are arguing about first, that might go along way towards convincing us that you actually care about the Cornwell debate and aren't just trying to be a boil on the butt of the boards. Ally
Author: Alegria [Moderator] Friday, 06 December 2002 - 10:49 am
A large chunk of the archives has now been moved to the thread Cornwell Archives. THis will hopefully make for easier access to this thread.
Author: Ally Friday, 06 December 2002 - 10:54 am
Hi Chris, I am afraid I have to disagree with you on that one. Or Paul rather. At the time she took the tour, her goal was to write a FICTION book about the Ripper murders. So it was for pure entertainment value and profit gathering that she would have been taking that tour, not for the purpose of finding the killer. Ally
Author: David Radka Friday, 06 December 2002 - 10:54 am
"As a journalism major I quickly discovered that newsmen were required to write down to the fifth grade level. At that point, I decided to change majors and change audiences." By George, you've finally got it after all these years! You've studied hard, and are now actually able to write at the fifth-grade level. Congratulations! David
Author: Stewart P Evans Friday, 06 December 2002 - 10:57 am
Patricia Cornwell:- "If I were wrong about Walter Sickert I want to know, even after six million dollars and thirteen months of working myself to death. Because I would never, ever, want to accuse somebody of any crime, much less serial murders and dismemberments and if I found evidence right now that completely exonerated Walter Sickert I would have to accept it. I would admit it. I would go back to being a waitress, 'cause my career would probably be over with." [Omnibus, BBC Television, 30 October 2002.]