Archive through 09 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 09 December 2002

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects: Patricia Cornwell/Walter Sickert: Archive through 09 December 2002

Author: Christopher T George Friday, 06 December 2002 - 10:58 am
Hi, Ally: Thanks for your work in moving the posts in this Cornwell/Sickert thread into the archives so, as you say, this will make access to the thread easier. It looks as if the message boards on Cornwell will before long outpace those on the Maybrick Diary, incredible as that might seem. All the best Chris
Author: Richard P. Dewar Friday, 06 December 2002 - 11:03 am
Hi Chris, I really cannot find anything to disagree with in your post. I think your criticisms of Ms. Cornwell have been well justified and sustained. Your ability to point out and her errors and hypocrisy is an important contribution to the discussion. Again, thank you for your work on the case and your interesting opinions. Regards, Richard
Author: Richard P. Dewar Friday, 06 December 2002 - 11:43 am
The only points I have made are these: 1. I think its inappropriate to engage in personal attacks on Ms. Cornwell when her work itself offers such rich targets. This is not my attempt to tell "everyone" how to behave and or an effort to provoke. I was surprised by the emotional and agitated reactions to this position. I subsequently apologized to those who found my position insulting and stated that I would no longer comment on the efficacy of personal attacks upon Ms. Cornwell. Yet, some keep dragging it up. 2. Cornwell never insulted everyone interested in the case, as alleged by a few extremists, she only criticized people she thinks are unhealthily obsessed with the case. The charge has been made that my correcting the record is some kind of personal affront - a ridiculous position since I have stated that I do not endorse Cornwell's position. It has been noted that since I am not a Cornwell devotee, dedicated to reading and listening to her every word, my position is based on ignorance. I state that it is the responsibility of the person making the allegation against Ms. Cornwell to substantiate their charges. I leave to the audience to determine the more reasonable approach and whether the burden of proof has been met in refuting my statement of Cornwell's position. I am glad to exchange information, ideas and opinions with people like Christopher and others. I am no longer interested in conversations with people as narrow-minded and intolerant of differing views and opinions as Ms. Cornwell and some of her more obsessive detractors. So, if I choose not to respond to hysteric rantings in no way should be construed with my endorsement of their position. Rich
Author: Richard P. Dewar Friday, 06 December 2002 - 11:51 am
Hi Stewart, Her quote is certainly self-serving. . .and really cannot be taken seriously! Does she really believe that if she were proven to be untrue her career would be over - of course not! She certainly knows how to manipulate her examiner! Regards, Rich
Author: Philip C. Dowe Friday, 06 December 2002 - 11:54 am
Hi Ivor, David and well everybody, Ivor: Thanks for explaning on "who writes the covers". I really thought that the author had a hand in it. I am half way through your book and I will come back to you (I am up to five questions). And an now going to take a hot bath for the next pages... Please accept my apologies for comparing you and Mrs. Cornwall. I was not my intention comparing you both, but the texts on the covers. David: I read your post and wanted to answer but I -ehm- can't remeember what I was going to put! This thread is moving way to fast for me... Yours, Philip who has somehow got lost in this thread
Author: David Radka Friday, 06 December 2002 - 12:04 pm
"She is on a campaign to pillory and villify Sickert and those who oppose her." Isn't this the same as what I'm saying about her? I'm basically saying that she is a lesbian who is fronting a campaign to induce women to blame a man with insufficient evidence, as a piquant assertion of, and a building up of, feminine power over an innocent man. The more she FAILS to logically and provably associate Sickert with the crimes, the more she SUCCEEDS in publicly asserting the power of women to blame a man, simultaneously attacking those who would oppose them and their "right" to do so. Will one or two of you finally get what I'm saying? Now, why is it that when Mr. George says what she's up to, people agree with him, but when I say practically the same thing, I am villified as a "misogynist?" Who is the real hater in this matter, and who is the hatee? Think about the Nazis and the Jews, about the Serbs and the Croatians, about bin Laden and the "crusaders," about the Inquisitors and the heretics. Isn't Cornwell simply running the contemporary equivalent of the venerable Auto da Fe at this time? What was the real result of the Auto da Fe, now? Didn't it STRENGTHEN the power of the Catholic church, even though it resulted in the murders of millions of INNOCENT people? Wasn't it considered a WONDERFUL thing by mainstream society, even though every thinking person knew its victims were being set up on an ARBITRARY basis, and WEREN'T really guilty of crimes? History shows you don't get quick, tasty, juicy power by earning it in a sociable way, you get it precisely because you are willing to utilize antisocial measures to please a certain group of people who believe they will gain or profit by what you do. This is a real point to ponder, a genuine morsel for thought. It is not "antics" on my part, as John Hacker has obtusely stated. I stand by the position. Use your heads. David
Author: Christopher T George Friday, 06 December 2002 - 12:05 pm
Hi, Philip: Actually, Ivor is absolutely correct that an author does not always have the ultimate say in what the title of the book is to be, what is on the dustjacket, and so on. There are other people involved at the publishers who have input in these matters. I also know that in work I have done as a journalist, the editor has the ultimate job of finalizing the article so there may be elements of the text in the published piece that are not the way the writer intended, or a headline chosen that may not mirror the author's story, which has happened to me, aggravatingly, on several occasions! These are just some of the perils of being a writer. Best regards Chris George
Author: Peter Wood Friday, 06 December 2002 - 12:10 pm
I once heard Michael Jackson say something too, along the lines of "Owwwwwwwww! Eeeeh Heee Owwwwwwwwwww!". I did my research, he says it in every song he's ever done. Practically. Now you're gonna have to listen to all his songs Rich, just to dispute that. At least I've given you something to do this weekend. Chris T. G. I know from the tone of your posts that you weren't particularly impressed with Patricia Cornwell's attitude at the meeting you had with her. I can only balance that by saying I was impressed with her attitude when I met her. She seemed well researched, well briefed, very well mannered and not at all argumentative. Maybe she learnt her lesson from the early round of programmes she did with her book? It's not uncommon for someone new to a subject to make mistakes, surely? I'm not disagreeing with anyone's right to post their opinion of PC on the boards, but surely we're just looking at two sides of the same coin? By the way - I believe someone already is doing tours of the sniper shooting sites. Same as they do tours of places like the place where OJ didn't kill his wife and the place where the Menendez (?) brothers killed their parents. It's gruesome, sure, but it ain't new. The ripper books mention that the householders either side of 29 Hanbury Street were charging the public admission to get a view of the murder site there. People have been flocking to Soham since what happened there. I can pretty much understand PC's comment that she finds such things ...what was it ...ghoulish? Distasteful? I think she missed the point a little though, I don't think ripperologists and the like go to the murder sites because of what happened there, I think they go there because they can stand at one of five locations where they know Jack definitely was at one moment in time. And before long that will be impossible with redeveloping. Now I'm going to beat it, beat it - 'cos no one wants to be defeated. Peter
Author: Peter Wood Friday, 06 December 2002 - 12:16 pm
David O. Point taken. By the way, that's Jennifer you can hear screaming in the trunk - but I didn't tie her up 'cos then she'd suffer more. Thanks for giving us Rock 'n' Roll, we're trying to give you Robbie Williams right now ...will you take him, please? Bless my soul, what's wrong with me? Peter
Author: Christopher T George Friday, 06 December 2002 - 12:34 pm
Hi, Peter: I have seen twice, in the WAMU broadcast and at Lisner Auditorium, that Patricia Cornwell is a master at seemingly giving credit to Evans and Skinner for their book, even recommending it to the audience, and yet by the same token indicating that she believes those authors don't know what they are talking about. So she questioned at Lisner whether those authors had done tests on the letters that she had (they have not but their expert opinion as to the authenticity of the letters should still count), and that she was the first to find the watermark, which Stewart has said, validly, he did see first, though she is right that she was the one who put two and two together in that she found the same watermark in Sickert letters, whatever that means. I think it is clear, in my experience of her, that Patricia Cornwell is not going to credit anyone with knowledge on the Ripper unless what they are saying supports her case. Possibly this is the same as any author who has a suspect does, but I somehow think we are seeing a new phenomenon here that may have something to do with the fact that she has, moneywise, gone out on a limb to name Sickert as the Ripper, and that she has made vainglorious comments that she will go back to waitressing if she is wrong (on BBC's Omnibus program 30 October 2002), or that her reputation will be at an end if she is wrong (ABC's Primetime Live, 6 December 2001). Best regards Chris
Author: Richard P. Dewar Friday, 06 December 2002 - 12:50 pm
Hi Philip & Chris, That is a very interesting question and subject - where to draw the distinction between the works of an author and those of a publisher. One of the highly praised authors who has a new book out on this case told me that the title of his book was not his choice, but that of the publisher. He did not, in our dialogue, though distance or deny the title. I myself have had publishers demand changes in the text of my work. I think most writers have had their works revised or edited in ways that were not altogether satisfactory. Ted Sorenson was once asked whether he had ghost written "Profiles In Courage" for John Kennedy. His answer was revealing and a sentiment I agree with. He said that if someone's name appears on a book, they are responsible for its contents. I have on occasion seen authors quarrel with their own autobiographies - later insisting that the person who had ghost written the project had gotten it wrong. The fact is most writers have to answer to their editor and publisher and make changes that sometimes they disagree with. However, we all have the option that if the change is so outrageous and unsupportable, we can walk away. Admittedly, that's a very difficult decision to make and most of us choose to compromise. If we make that compromise, I think it's our obligation to take what appears on the pages or on the cover as our own. Regards, Richard
Author: David O'Flaherty Friday, 06 December 2002 - 01:29 pm
Most of her career has been about writing about murder--for her to criticize others for painting, writing, and reading about Jack the Ripper is insane. For her to complain about commercialization, I repeat--who's making the money here? Who's coming out with cookbooks(the Kay Scarpetta cookbook)? Just wait, they'll be coming out with a Sickert cereal soon--"Golden Fistulas," or "Ripper Flakes." I know there's a movie coming. Dave
Author: Timsta Friday, 06 December 2002 - 01:52 pm
Hmmmm...Kay Scarpetta cookbook. Does it have any recipes for Kidne in it? Regards Timsta
Author: John Hacker Friday, 06 December 2002 - 02:06 pm
Rich, "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." Yes Rich, you are willfully ignorant. You've been lecturing people for weeks without showing the slightest interst in determining what people's problem with Cornwell is, and now at the 11th hour you want to appear like Mr. Reason and we're supposed to take you seriously? Spare me. Do your homework BEFORE you stake out your position, not afterwards. You keep asking for informed and reasoned debate, put your research where your mouth is. "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 know you are intent on trying to frame this discussion as Cornwell centric, but the problems that I and others are having with you has absolutely nothing to do with Cornwell and everything to do with your poor behavior. Other people here are defending Cornwell, and they aren't getting any crap. (Hello Peter, it's good to see you back again) It's not your views, but your attitude that's getting you into trouble. And this isn't the first time this kind of thing has come up with you Rich. All you need to do to get on my good side Rich is to stop abusing the hospitality that has been extended to you. That's it. I don't care what you believe, or what your position on any point is as long as you behave respectfully towards those who provide this wonderful service for us. Just stop acting like a troll, and we'll stop treating you like one. Regards, John Hacker
Author: Stewart P Evans Friday, 06 December 2002 - 02:19 pm
To repeat something that I have already posted on these boards in the past; I found and photographed the watermark in the Openshaw letter at least a year before Ms. Cornwell even knew of the existence of this letter. Also, Keith and I examined all the actual Ripper letters first-hand, and photographed them, again before Ms. Cornwell ever knew of their existence. The letters held at the PRO are laminated making them more difficult to examine and check for watermarks. Those at the CLRO are not, and Keith and I noted all the watermarks. The watermark found on the Openshaw letter was not at all uncommon and to match it to another contemporary letter is virtually meaningless. However, to make any comparison you have to have something to compare it with (obviously). In the case of Ms. Cornwell she had her chosen suspect, and many Sickert letters have survived allowing her to make the comparison of the papers. I dare say that if you checked other collections of Victorian correspondence you would find many others using the same paper. There is no way that I know of, under normal circumstances, that the public bodies that hold the Ripper letters would allow any interference with them, or tampering. In fact, at the PRO you are required to wear cotton gloves before touching the actual documents. There can be no doubt that Ms. Cornwell's massive wealth and influence gained her access to the materials and tests she required. The cost of the tests alone is beyond the budgets of the proletariat. However, despite all this she failed dismally to find any evidence at all to positively link Sickert to any of the letters, (none of which letters, I hasten to add, was written by the killer in my opinion). I do not find her approach at all scientific. It is naive and based on assumptions (like most of the letters were written by the killer) and wishful thinking. I am very grateful to her for the recommendation (albeit qualified) that she has given our Letters book. It is very obvious that Ms. Cornwell believed that her great financial resources would find her the answer to the mystery that the rest of us have failed to solve. It didn't, proving that there are some things that money just can't buy. And Sickert, what a choice for a suspect. Of course he never was a suspect, and, as far as the Ripper is concerned, merely ranks alongside many others who just took an interest in the case. These include G. B. Shaw, A. J. Munby, Dr. Barnardo, George Moore, G. R. Sims, etc. etc. Indeed, he was initially proposed as a suspect by those ace inventors of Ripper fiction, Donald McCormick and Stephen Knight. With a pedigree like that he's one to avoid.
Author: Caroline Morris Friday, 06 December 2002 - 02:39 pm
Hi All, Since Cornwell's views on Sickert are not based on anything like hard evidence, I'm not sure why anyone needs to take her stated views on Ripperologists seriously either. I don't tend to feel insulted by someone whose views I don't respect and can't take seriously - even if I felt she was aiming her barbs at me for my interest in serial murder cases. It's child's play to demonise someone like Cornwell - and in this case the demon is definitely not a ghoul's best friend..... Love, Caz
Author: John Hacker Friday, 06 December 2002 - 02:42 pm
Stewart, Amazingly, (if the reviewer is correct) she appears to be attributing Sickert's suspect status to Scottland yard... Here's a quote from a review of her book from CNN.com: "Cornwell is not the first to suspect Sickert as the Ripper; that she readily credits to Scotland Yard." I can only hope the reporter got it wrong and that is not what she is telling people. Regards, John Hacker
Author: Richard P. Dewar Friday, 06 December 2002 - 02:43 pm
Hi Caz, It's hard to argue with your post - though I won't be surprised if someone tries. Regards, Richard
Author: Richard P. Dewar Friday, 06 December 2002 - 02:59 pm
My intention is not to "frame" any discussion. Anyone can write whatever they want. The only points I have made are: 1. It is inappropriate to personally attack Ms. Cornwell. 2. It is a false charge that Cornwell attacked everyone interested in the case. She did make unflattering remarks about those she thinks are obsessed with it. There is a difference. I really don't care about the histrionics of those who think my expression of these views is rude, obnoxious, unfair, and an attack on the boards. It clearly is not. Rich
Author: John Hacker Friday, 06 December 2002 - 03:21 pm
Rich, "2. It is a false charge that Cornwell attacked everyone interested in the case. She did make unflattering remarks about those she thinks are obsessed with it. There is a difference." Uh huh... She also thinks going on Ripper Walks qualifies you for her abuse. You post more than anyone else here. Do you really think you weren't included in her little comments? I mean, if a guy who makes an astonishing 41(!!!) posts in the past 24 hours to Casebook: Jack the Ripper isn't obessed, who is? If you choose to opt out and not feel insulted, that's up to you. Stop trying to split hairs and just let it go Rich, before you make even more of a fool of yourself. John
Author: Stewart P Evans Friday, 06 December 2002 - 03:24 pm
Caz, The reason why some find they need to take Ms. Cornwell's views seriously is, paradoxically, because others, the less well informed, take them as given fact. I am likely to swear at (or hit) the next person who says to me "I see that Patricia Cornwell has solved the case..." As a person I have no reason to dislike her, I don't even know her. I do not feel insulted by her personally as she usually generalises when she gives her views on other Ripper authors. It is a bit galling, though, to think that I have wasted nearly forty years studying this case, spent more money than I really can afford amassing what, to my knowledge, is the largest collection of Ripper material in the world, spent many years transcribing all the official material only to have her pop up at the eleventh hour to solve the case and tell me that I haven't done a proper job. John, No suspect has any status at New Scotland Yard. No one at New Scotland Yard is a leading authority on the case. The case has no meaning at New Scotland Yard and all the records have been moved from there long ago. There is no 'Scotland Yard list of suspects', the nearest to that is Macnaghten's report of 23 February 1894, and that has been thrashed out by many over the years. The reviewer quotes are, probably, the result of publisher's blurbs. Such blurbs can be very inaccurate and misleading. Once and for all, Walter Richard Sickert was never a suspect for the Whitechapel murders. He was named as a 'suspect' only in recent years, as I have shown, by the fictioneers Donald McCormick and Stephen Knight. He rode to glory in this status on the back of the Royal/Masonic fantasy. I have explained in previous posts how Ms. Cornwell, during her research, went to New Scotland Yard where she was introduced to Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Grieve. John was a very experienced senior police officer and is a very pleasant person. He has been a Ripper enthusiast for many years. Whatever John may have said to Ms. Cornwell about the Ripper case was in his private capacity, talking about a private interest of his. It should not be quoted as an official Scotland Yard statement. John would be the first to admit this. When I watched the Omnibus presentation on Ms. Cornwell's book I was amazed to hear John Grieve say the following:- "People have talked about Walter Sickert since almost the time of the murders to such an extent that the catalogue of a recent exhibition about him saw it necessary to dismiss the suggestion that he was Jack the Ripper, but in considerable detail which is not something you normally find in an exhibition catalogue." Walter Sickert's name was never mentioned in the context of being a Ripper suspect until 1970. How many times does this have to be repeated? There is nothing, zero, to connect him in any way with the murders or the letters. The fact that he appeared as an 'invented suspect' over recent years, and that Ms. Cornwell latched onto him only because of this, incredibly weakens her theorising. Hopefully this will explain the situation a little better for those who have not assessed the full facts. Best Wishes, Stewart
Author: Richard P. Dewar Friday, 06 December 2002 - 05:11 pm
Hi John, I don't know Ms. Cornwell's position but based on her remarks she probably does think those who spend a lot of time posting on the boards are obsessive. As you have noted, I am in no position to debate that. In fact, she may have a good point about me. She may feel that as a poster on this website I am excessively obsessed with the case - almost as obsessed as the one person who went to the time and effort to look up all my posts and count them! The fact is that most people interested in the case never visit Ripper walks, attend conventions, or post on internet sites. Ms. Cornwell never said anything remotely insulting to these folks. So, I reiterate, the charge that she insulted everyone interested in the case is wrong - she gave some examples of what she regarded as obsessive behavior by some that she found distasteful. That may be a distinction you do not appreciate - it is not hair-splitting. I do not agree with all of Ms. Cornwell's sentiments in this regard. I have no idea what she would think of my interest in the case. What is more relevant is I do not really care. As Caz aptly remarked there is no reason to feel insulted by someone you don't take seriously. I am sorry, John, I do not share your resentments toward Ms. Cornwell. No matter how much anyone whines that Cornwell is such an outrage, I am not going to surrender my position and endorse the personal attacks and distortions of what she has said - regardless if my personal opinion of her is the same as those espousing the vitriol. Regards, Richard
Author: Richard P. Dewar Friday, 06 December 2002 - 05:20 pm
Hi Stewart, Didn't the same thing happen (the false assumption that the case had been solved) when the Dr. Stowell information came out? And, indeed, Stephen Knight's book? It seems to me that this is a regular occurence in Ripper lore. It's lamentable that this trend continues to repeat - but is there any alternative to simply putting the facts straight? I fear the tactic of character assassination (which I explicitly note you have not engaged in) is doomed to failure simply because in the minds of the public Cornwell has more credibility than the assassins. This is not to say that is what the circumstances should be - but an expression of the way things are. Anyone has a right to say or write whatever they want. I try to put myself in the place of someone who knows nothing of the case. If all I was aware of were Cornwell's reputation and "conclusion" to the case and the angry personal attacks of people I was unfamiliar with, I would side with her. I think people like you, Rumbelow, George, Begg, Fido and can do a terrific job of exposing the flaws and falsehoods perpetuated by Ms. Cornwell. I hope, in the minds of the general public, your position is not confused or muddled by those taking a less thoughtful approach. Regards, Richard
Author: Walter Timothy Mosley Friday, 06 December 2002 - 05:56 pm
Due to a certain book released recently, Findagrave.com has now included Walter Sickert, even though there is no grave. http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=6946009 Outraged Ripperologists may wish to visit this site and post their own opinions, as I have done. WTM
Author: David Radka Friday, 06 December 2002 - 11:25 pm
Patricia Cornwell stands as a monument to Patricia Cornwell's concept of feminine empowerment. Is vainglory of this magnitude an appropriate mode of comportment for an author writing on the Whitechapel murders? Does it reflect a sufficiently deep understanding of the difficulties associated with resolving this case? It wouldn't seem so. Who could rationally stake their fortune, career, and job on being correct with a theory on the identity of Jack the Ripper? The case hasn't been solved in 114 years! The evidence has not been made to make sense by 100,000 or more people who've devoted themselves to it! Is it indicative of a mature, educated, reasonable personality to say she's 100% certain, who'd give up her $100 million of personal wealth and return to waitressing, based on what she's got on her suspect? Thus her vainglory is an entirely real factor in her writing. It is a driving part of why she wrote her book, and why she is seen enthusiastically promulgating her theory everywhere. Think of the worst Ripperologists you've read and their wildest excesses--do any of them compare with Patricia Cornwell? I think she's something completely new and different indeed. This excess of vainglory indicates she's got a major cause motivating her, perhaps a timeless one. You need to be smart enough to ask yourself what it could be. It's more than just making money--she's got a ton of that. I believe she sees herself as having a chance to go down in history as the most female-empowering woman in a thousand years. A woman who was so tough and who stood up to men to such an extent that even the moral notions of right and wrong don't apply to her. A woman who taught other women how to seize the whole question of right and wrong by their will, and shoot it as an arrow--a weapon of mass destruction if you will--to defeat their common enemy. David
Author: Ivor Edwards Saturday, 07 December 2002 - 01:04 am
David, You tell em !!! go on my son let it all out.
Author: Harry Mann Saturday, 07 December 2002 - 05:01 am
Ally, Didn't you say interested in the case.I've been interested in the case for a long time now,so not posting on this particular thread shouldn't mean a thing. Anyhow congratulations on your search proficiancy,wish I were half as efficient.What technique do you employ. Now Ms Cornwell does not cast judgement on myself as of course I am not a Ripperollogist.I never met the person,never knew his name,his abode,habbits or anything peculiar to him. I do know quite a bit about the Whitechapel victims,and about Whitechapel itself.I know of victorian England and social conditions of that era,but that isn't the same thing as knowing the Ripper.He is unknown,so how can we write about him?. Cornwell has done no more and no less than many before her.That is make a quid from her profession,and I say good luck to her.If she stretches the truth a little ,she is in good company.If she wastes money,it is her money.If she is wrong,she is not alone.If she prefers women,well so do I.I can't fault the woman,but then I am not so intelligent as yourself and others.
Author: Ally Saturday, 07 December 2002 - 05:52 am
David, Your eyes are brown, aren't they? Ally
Author: Caroline Morris Saturday, 07 December 2002 - 06:56 am
Hi Stewart, I apologise if you thought my last post was in any way a response to yours - it wasn't. I actually wrote it before I read your own, and I totally understand your point of view here. I agree that the less well informed may take Cornwell's views on Sickert seriously, and this must indeed be infuriating for you and others who have worked so hard on the subject of the ripper over the years, and for little comparative reward. But you are doing the only thing you can be expected to do, which is setting down the facts, calmly and professionally, in the hope that the message will finally get through. I can fully appreciate why your gut feeling, in the position you are in, is to swear at (or hit) the next person who says to you "I see that Patricia Cornwell has solved the case...", as I hope you can appreciate that my own reaction, in the position I am in, has been to smile, shake my head and say "Come to the Casebook, my friend, and read the words of Stewart Evans and other experts on the ripper, and you will see things very differently." Love, Caz
Author: Warwick Parminter Saturday, 07 December 2002 - 09:40 am
Harry, what can I say, except, I'm with you cobber Rick.
Author: Howard Brown Saturday, 07 December 2002 - 10:48 am
Dave: There have been quite a few women that have "made their bones" in the world,so Mrs.Cornwell is certainly not the first to attempt or succeed in their efforts....First of all,its her money....Second of all,if she was a man,what would your objection to her/him be? That she wrote a book? Speaking for myself,I detect a little bit of what that minor writer,whatshisname,Shakespeare,said about"protesting too much..." Again,speaking for myself,take a gander at your above post.Its the foreward to the Misogynist Manifesto. Did you not realize how insulting that is to women? How would a post like that sit with your Mother or sister?
Author: Brian Schoeneman Saturday, 07 December 2002 - 12:25 pm
Hey all, Don't know if this has been posted yet, but I just saw an advertisement for "Jack the Ripper: Case Closed" on The Learning Channel. It's going to be on next Monday at 10, and it's all about our favorite Ripper writer (and I don't mean Stewart). I hope someone watches it, as I've got class. Ugh. B
Author: David Radka Saturday, 07 December 2002 - 12:52 pm
Nothing I have written is insulting to women. To say that it is is nothing more than a transparent attempt to intimidate me. Adolph Hitler persecuted Jews falsely. Does that mean that all German people do? Patricia Cornwell persecutes Sickert falsely. Does that mean that all women do that to a man? Concerning my mother, if I had ever spoken misogynistically in her presence, there would have been big trouble in our house. Neither of my parents tolerated bigotry or unfairness, and both taught me better than that. David
Author: Stewart P Evans Saturday, 07 December 2002 - 03:55 pm
Caz, Sorry, did I sound a little tetchy?.......AAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrgghhh.... Love, Stewart
Author: Howard Brown Saturday, 07 December 2002 - 06:54 pm
Dave: I'm sure somebody up in Connecticut can explain the last paragraph of your post of 11/6 11:25 P.M. to you ........just be sure to be at arms length from any female. As far as "intimidating" you,you got it backwards,bubs...You sorta scare ME !
Author: Harry Mann Sunday, 08 December 2002 - 03:27 am
Thanks Warwick, As usual you make a sane and responsible statement.It is time to drop this thread and move to more interesting discussion.
Author: Ivor Edwards Sunday, 08 December 2002 - 04:11 pm
Hi Harry, I cannot see your joke as offending anyone and if I may say so you are one of the most inoffensive and sensible posters on the boards.Long live King Harry and England. Ps.Did you know that Lucky and his mate had two distant relations who turned up at Agincourt and Crecy and the same thing happened to the French Knights? which reminds me, In days of old when Knights were bold and women were not invented The French bored their holes in telegraph poles and had to be contented.
Author: Harry Mann Monday, 09 December 2002 - 03:31 am
Thanks Ivor, A little humor hurts no one.I actually respect and admire the American soldier very much. As to one eyed soldiers,The British at one time conscipted one eyed males.They were sent to the front to keep an eye out for the enemy.
Author: Peter Wood Monday, 09 December 2002 - 01:20 pm
Hiya John H. You've all missed the point about Cornwell's work, because James Maybrick was the Ripper. Smiling, as always, Yours Truly Peter. Caz: I loved (and got) the joke - straight from a spoof Marilyn Monroe film, I'm sure - even if no one else did.
Author: Esther Wilson Monday, 09 December 2002 - 06:44 pm
Tonight on the TLC network they will be showing a program called, "Ripper: Case Closed". My TV guide does not give any other information about this but I'm thinking it has something to do with Cornwell's book. Will anyone else be watching this? If so, I'd love to compare notes later. Esther