|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
How many others believe that Walter Sickert was " Jack the Ripper"?
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects:
How many others believe that Walter Sickert was " Jack the Ripper"?
Author: Jeff Murrish
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 02:48 pm |        | | Peter Birchwood; Thats great that you have undertaking a search for WS's relatives! The female line would be most helpful in trying to confirm what WS's mitochondrial DNA sequence was. Did you have any plans to try to get blood samples for testing? (PC, seriously, may be willing to put forward the $$ and access to the testing facilities.) |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 03:42 pm | | Hi Ally,
The quote I saw said that Cornwell found Ripper Walks ghoulish. Now, since Mr. Rumbelow guides such tours you may come to the conclusion she is calling Rumbelow a ghoul. I do not. Therefore I do not consider it a personal attack.
One might say Cornwell's book is weird. I would not consider that personal attack. Calling her weird would be.
Brian,
I don't believe I ever called Dan Norder a liar. If I did, I apologize. Do you have the quote?
Mr. Norder claimed that Cornwell making charges and refusing to divulge all of her evidence to those who disagree with her, implies she is misleading. I responded by pointing out he had made charges that he has not provided evidence.
You have not responded to my inquiry. I asked for evidence to support the remark that Cornwell directed "personal attacks" on authors.
Remember the context - people on this thread were ridiculing her name, her sexuality, her honesty and integrity. Some of those making the attacks justified them by saying Cornwell had done the same thing.
I do not oppose someone expressing the opinion Cornwell's theories are poorly researched or badly constructed - as you have noted accurately that Cornwell has said about others.
Now point by point from your post:
1 & 2) We are talking about "personal attack." To say that Knight did poor research is not a personal attack. Calling his theory ridiculous is not a personal attack. People have said the same things about Cornwell and I do not consider such remarks personal attacks.
Calling him a name, saying we should doubt his credibility because of his sexuality, or saying he is knowingly dishonest and failing to provide evidence is a personal attack.
3) Mr Radka's characterization is false. I have seen the event just recently. Please note he offers no specific quotes. She did make reference to internet sites that celebrate the case - she did not name the sites. Indeed, why don't you look up on a search engine and look for yourself - there are internet sites that allow you to chat with "Jack the Ripper." Do not assume she is addressing the Casebook. She never mentioned Mr. Ryder or this site.
4) Because Cornwell finds distasteful the parlor game aspect of the case, the movies that celebrate the killer, and the conventions does not mean she is rendering a "personal attack" against those who attend. I might say that chocolate cake is fattening - that does not mean I am personally attacking those who like chocolate cake.
5) The first sentence of the IAfrica article was written by the author of the article - not by Cornwell. This is the closest you come to an actual "personal attack" with the second sentence. When asked what she feels about people who are attacking her, she makes an accusation that the people doing so are angry and are upset that she has come in and solved the case. I would grant you that is inappropriate, and I would question her about that too. I do not feel, though, it constitutes a personal attack.
6) This item is in no way a personal attack. In fact, almost every modern author on the case has written about the same thing.
Cornwell has said that some (this is important, not all) don't take the brutality of the murders seriously and see these crimes as entertainment and some kind of parlour game. She finds that objectionable.
I do not take that criticism personally for two reasons:
1. It is not personal. She is not saying that "Richard doesnt take the brutality of the murders seriously and sees it as a parlour game."
2. I don't believe that the murders are a game so obviously the quote does not relate to me.
When Cornwell says that people should not consider the case a "parlour game" or get "ghoulish thrills" from the events, and someone steps forward and claims that is a "personal attack" it reveals more about them than her.
Respectfully, Brian, I think you are missing the subtlty of accusing Cornwell's general negative opinion of Ripperology with "personal attacks against authors and the operator of this website."
I think this is the heart of the disagreement and I sincerely apologize for the misunderstanding.
When Cornwell says that some people interested in the case are in it for commercial purposes or are ghoulish they think she is referring personally to them.
As you said Brian, you think she is referring to everyone here, even me. I really don't. So I think that is the disagreement.
Though we see the definition of personal attacks differently - I now see how you and some of the others believe she is referring to you.
Best wishes,
Rich |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 04:20 pm | | Rich,
Thanks for the apology.
Here are the quotes of yours that either directly call Dan, or others (which I can only assume includes me) liars:
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 09:41 am
"I have never claimed persecution or harrassment. It is a very small yet vocal minority on the boards who continually make up lies or personally attack public figures and fellow posters who then become enraged when they are asked to provide some evidence and proof for their charges. "
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 09:30 am
"So, sir, who is really the liar: Cornwell for "misleading but not lying" (that is hilarious) or those who make wild accusations against her (you) but cannot supply one shred of evidence to back up the charge."
That's pretty clear.
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 05:24 pm
"I suppose I am in the minority in opposing the axiom that "lying about a liar" is an effective means of argument. That is what is being defended here."
Do you see what you are doing here? You carefully avoid coming right out and saying that you think Dan is a liar, but you imply it in the above examples.
You get around having to take any responsibility for the posts in which you make accusations by ensuring that instead of naming names you say "some posters" or "many posters". This way, you can get off on a technicality. Quite similar to a former boss of mine. He later got impeached.
And, just to review:
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 05:32 pm
"Okay, what is the quote of Cornwell that you feel constitutes a personal attack? All anyone has to do to shut me up on this issue is to provide the evidence. "
Now that I've done that (in my earlier post) hopefully we can quietly strangle the last bit of life from this thread and put it to bed permanently.
B |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 04:57 pm | | Hi Brian,
Point taken but I stand behind each of those posts.
I never called Dan or Cornwell a liar.
Dan accused of Cornwell of being "deliberately misleading" (ie lying) for making accusations and then not providing evidence to substantiate them.
I merely cited instances in which Dan had made accusations and not supplied evidence to substantiate them himself.
I was showing how Dan has done the same thing that he accuses Cornwell of doing.
By my standard, neither of them are "deliberately misleading." Yet, if we are accept Dan's standard, as he applies it to Cornwell, they both are.
In any case, we have cleared this up in that we simply disagree about our interpretation of Cornwell.
To summarize, I think fairly:
You and some others believe that when Cornwell ridicules the commercialism and ghoulishness of some people interested in the case, or challenges the quality of work done by authors, this is an attack upon everyone interested in the case - therefore personal attacks upon her are to some extent justified.
I am not commercialistic or ghoulish so I do not feel she is describing me so I do not feel there is anything to retaliate for.
It's a debatable point - I understand your view. Though I don't agree with it, that is fine.
Best wishes,
Rich |
Author: Ally
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 05:57 pm | |  |
Author: Dan Norder
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 06:21 pm | | Bloody hell,
Rich, you have definitely won the hypocrite of the year award. You come out and say I'm a liar with no proof and then falsely accuse me of calling Cornwell a liar. And I (and several other people) already presented proof of what we say a hundred times over, including a direct quote example where you admit we were right, and then you turn around and say it never really happened and ask for the proof again.
You've said you'd shut up if someone backed up the statements with evidence, and we have and you haven't kept up your end. You also said you'd have to believe anyone who backs up their statements by saying they'd defend it in court, which I have, and yet you still haven't stopped.
We've done everything you asked and still you complain.
At this point if you aren't going to shut up, I hope you are sending funds to Stephen to cover all the traffic you are causing on your personal crusade. I also recommend you take this back to the whine and cheese thread, as you keep killing off perfectly good conversations about the ripper with your endless, petty arguments.
Dan
------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation
(And that goes double for anyone wasting bandwidth on this
site in pointless rehashes of the same stupid arguments.) |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 08:50 pm | | Hi Dan,
I did apologize - I don't know what more you want.
Dan, I formerly tender my apology and retraction:
DAN NORDER DID NOT CALL MS CORNWELL A LIAR, AS I SUGGESTED. MR NORDER MERELY SAID THAT MS CORNWELL "DELIBERATELY MISLEADS."
What more do you want? I gave you an apology and my confession of being unable to match your superior ability, in this regard, for subtlety.
Brian did provide me the quotes from Cornwell that he and apparently some of you find so offensive - her stated view that a small unnamed group of people in ripperology engage in poor research, commercialism, and ghoulishness.
I never took such remarks personally because I do not feel those remarks apply to me. But I respect the opinion of those who seem to think for whatever reasons Cornwell was talking about them.
I hope this clears the differences. Now we can move on since we have come to some common understanding.
I hope now that I have apologized and seen your point of view, we can put aside the personal insults.
Best wishes,
Rich |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 10:59 pm | | "3) Mr Radka's characterization is false. I have seen the event just recently. Please note he offers no specific quotes. She did make reference to internet sites that celebrate the case - she did not name the sites. Indeed, why don't you look up on a search engine and look for yourself - there are internet sites that allow you to chat with "Jack the Ripper." Do not assume she is addressing the Casebook. She never mentioned Mr. Ryder or this site."
You've got to be completely off your rocker to post this baloney. Hundreds of people saw the C-Span2 videotape, and know its content. There is no doubt whatever that she was talking about Stephen Ryder. What other male JtR web site owner made specific statements concerning how Cornwell had not linked the letters to the muders recently before her 12/10/02 conference? Be specific, who else could it have been? Don't try to pass junk off on intelligent people, you won't get respect for that here.
David |
Author: Howard Brown
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 11:22 pm | | | Yeah ,Rich ! Talk about Ivor's gastrointestinal aromas,like this "college graduate with a degree" does...Talk about how I look like Al Capone........Dan Norder and his shortcomings.....Mrs.Cornwell as a lesbian....Ivor as a jailbird ....Brian looking like Audrey Hepburn ( okay,okay....one out of 5.)....Radka: Your room is ready at Philly General. I'm doing the lobotomy....Thug |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 11:37 pm | | Hi Howard,
I never know whether I should respond to Mr Radka's remarks or simply ignore them.
In any case, David and I saw the same speech and what he has posted as occurring is not what I saw.
My recollection is that she made remarks to the effect that those who question her scholarship tend to have investments in other suspects or run internet websites. He is correct that the audience laughed at this remark.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Howard Brown
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 11:50 pm | | | Rich: Most of that audience were there to see the Kay Scarpetta(?) Cornwell and her latest book which just happens to be about Sickert. Their laughter was like "tennis applause",not really sincere,just that formal kind of behavior people display when someone makes a dumb,Radkaesque@ joke and don't know what to do with it. She didn't mention this site by name,but considering it's the biggest midget in the circus,I'd have to agree it was a poke at Casebook. WHO CARES !! Regards HB |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 01:02 am | | All,
As seems to happen often when dealing with some people's perception of Ms. Cornwell's words and actions, as compared with my own, I have to disagree with some of the comments made about Cornwell's comments.
If I remember correctly - because I couldn't find a transcript - Cornwell's quote was something to the effect of "He runs a website, but that doesn't mean he knows anything." It was said in a very snide, derisive way, with the clear implication of "I'm a bestselling author who's spent millions on research, who is he to tell ME I'm wrong?".
This is the only website that has any legitimate claim to being a force within the scholarship of Ripperology. Posters and readers of Stephen's website have made legitimate and important contributions to the advancement of the field. I am personally offended that she can so easily dismiss it. None of the other, more knowledgeable authors in the case - like Stewart, Paul Begg, Martin Fido and the rest - have ignored it. Granted, some of them do not post anymore, but they still read it, and acknowledge that it is useful.
To certain posters who do this frequently, let me explain something: just because someone does not come out and specifically name the person they are attacking does not grant them exemption or mitigate their responsibility for what they claim.
Here are two seperate things that say the same thing but these people would read differently:
"Cornwell is a liar who has used her wealth to try and unfairly convict a man of the Ripper crimes in the court of public opinion with her shoddy research and poor investigative techniques."
AND
"Certain writers in the field of Ripperology do not tell the truth, and use their wealth to try and unfairly convict suspects of the Ripper crimes in the court of public opinion with their shoddy research and poor investigative techniques."
In the second one, the implication is that I am clearly talking about Cornwell. But since I haven't come out and named her, I can always come back with the argument of "I wasn't talking about anyone specific, so it wasn't an attack on Cornwell". Since someone on the boards could argue that I meant Stephen Knight, or another junk author, I'm apparently "safe" from rebuke.
It's like asking what the definition of "is" is.
It's a technique used by debaters and those of us on these boards who do not have the testicular fortitude to come right out and say what they mean. It's a trick, and worse, it's one that when overused - like some people on this board have overused it - leads many readers to think that those individuals who used it are annoying windbags who have contributed nothing but wasted space to our ongoing debate on Jack the Ripper.
B
(Who enjoys demonstrating absurdity by being absurd.) |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 07:32 am | | Hi Dan,
You wrote:
‘I gave examples of Cornwell misleading people.’
Er, no. To do that you’d have to show that people have actually been misled. The most you can do is show where Cornwell has potentially misled people. As you haven’t been misled, I haven’t been misled, and no one else reading these boards is apparently being misled, isn’t it rather pointless, not to say patronising, to keep insisting people have been misled, despite them having access to the same information as you?
Same with deviousness. Please tell me how Cornwell has been devious by showing you and I and the cat the cards she claims beat everyone else’s hands down, when we can all see that they don’t?
This is the pantomime. Cornwell says, “Look how clever, compassionate, unghoulish and well-balanced I am compared with others who are interested in this case. And I’ve solved it – I’ve shown you all the proof you need.”
And we all chorus, “Oh no you haven’t.”
How does that make Cornwell misleading or devious? Putting ‘case closed’ on the outside of a ripper book and failing to close it on the inside is no more misleading or devious than putting ‘True Face of JtR’ or ‘The Final Solution’ on the wrapper and failing to produce the goods.
Since none of the poor fools you insist are being misled by Cornwell The Devious are reading these boards, wouldn’t it be more productive for you to go and find out who they are so you can tell them what Cornwell is doing?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Billy Markland
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 09:50 am | | This thread reminds me of what the great American philosopher, Yogi Berra, once said, "Its deja vu all over again".
May we all agree to disagree on what was heard or the various interpretations thereof? This circular logic is eroding a vast amount of intellect which could be used to better effect in solving this mystery.
Just my two cents worth (and I expect change back!)
{--slinks back off to his corner--}
Billy |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 10:09 am | | Billy,
Let me know where I can send the change. ;)
I'm done pontificating here. I'm trying to focus on other things now. My point's been proven.
B |
Author: Ally
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 10:14 am | | You want an example of someone she misled? Fine. Right here baby. When I first started reading her (more than ten years ago so I can't give exact quotes, do forgive me) PC's biographys all said stuff like: with her vast knowledge of forensic medicine from her days working for the Chief Medical Examiner of VA, PC brings unparalleled realism to her stories." I spent years thinking she actually had a medical background, and was not a glorified paper pusher. It wasn't until she gained enough popularity that he background was looked into for interviews that it started to be published that she had been a secretary.
Did she lie? No. Was the truth presented in such a way that people would be misled? Yep.
Thank you and good night.
Ally |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 10:42 am | | Hi all,
Anyone who has worked in a professional office or in government knows that frequently administrative assistants are of varying degrees of expertise.
Some are, simply paper-pushers. However, there are others who are curious, energetic, thorough, and learn quickly and develop expertise not only about their own responsibilities but the overall thrust of the work their organization performs.
I have been blessed, as have my colleagues, to work with outstanding administrative assistants who not only learn their jobs, but that of their superiors.
To suggest that Cornwell, or other administrative assistants, are all only "glorified paper pushers" conveys an arrogance and elitism and lack of appreciation for others.
My field is statistical analysis - I would have no problem with my assistant saying she has developed vast knowledge of statistical models based on her work with me - because she has. And anyone who assumes because of that remark she is claiming to be a statistician simply fails in comprehension.
I do not know whether Cornwell was merely a paper-pusher or someone involved in the work process at the Chief Medical Examiner's office. I tend to doubt anyone on these boards knows either.
Rich |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 11:28 am | | Rich,
She was a "computer analyst", according to this website: Cornwell's biography
Take from that what you will.
And Rich, your profile says you are a "writer", not a "statistical analyst". Do you consider that to be "misleading"? Not an attack - just a question.
B |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 11:49 am | | Brian,
I am both. I do not consider it misleading. But to satisfy you, I will edit my profile.
Rich |
Author: Monty
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 12:08 pm | | Brian,
I was led to believe she was a typist...sorry, I mean she transcribed autopsy notes.
Sorry Patsy, I may be wrong.
Either way...she cant spell Tabran 
Monty
 |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 12:50 pm | | Sorry, I thought people were whining because Cornwell was deliberately misleading us, and being devious, when it came to her work on Sickert.
I was just pointing out that none of us here have been misled about this, and find her conclusions, based on that work, less than convincing. If, by coming out with her theory, in such a blaze of publicity, Cornwell has shed light on other areas of her life, where people now feel they were once misled by her, that's a plus, isn't it?
Cornwell won't ever be able to mislead those people again, will she? They'll be ready for her.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 01:04 pm | | Cornwell started as a crime beat reporter for a newspaper. During her tenure with the medical examiner's office she transcribed autopsy notes.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Philip Rayner
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 03:20 pm | | Why is the message board full of Cornwell said this, Cornwell said that, Cornwell influenced test results.
Her book is a non event, Her theory is total Crap and she doesn't give a monkey's ass about us so why do we give her such a prominent part in this-OUR forum.
As for criticising the casebook- we have thrown enough her way yet get upset when she does it to us. Fact is she thrives on publicity-any publicity. This just adds fuel to the fire.
Consign her to the ranks of rubbish theorists and lets talk about the Ripper again. |
Author: judith stock
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 04:13 pm | | Well said, Philip. Well said.
J |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 04:45 pm | | Ditto.
B |
Author: Caroline Morris
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 10:52 am | | Here here!
Love,
Caz |
Author: April Cooper
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 02:11 pm | | Hi all...
I finished Patricia Cornwells book last night. One thing that really bothers me is ( especially at the end of the book ) that she is so POSITIVE that Walter Sickert did it, yes there were some things that seemed to match the "Ripper", the water marks on letters etc. but without Walter Sickerts body for DNA I don't see how she claim to be so sure.... to me it almost seems like slander? There may be a better word to explain the way she talks about him and his activities but that just came to mind.
Anyway it was interesting to read but I have doubts that Walter Sickert was 100% positively "Jack the Ripper". In her book when she explains alot of the murders going on during the time of the "Ripper" murders they all seem to be from the same person.... but the "Torso" murders seem to possibly be from a different person.... anyone have any ideas about that one?
Have a great day!
April |
Author: richard nunweek
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 02:53 pm | | HI EVERYONE.
I HAVE RECENTLY REMARKED ON THESE BOARDS THAT WALTER SICKERT MAY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THESE MURDERS BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY THAT HE MAY HAVE ATTENDED KELLYS FUNERAL ,THUS THE PICTURE A PASSING FUNERAL ,HOWEVER IF YOU READ MY NEW CONTRIBUTION UNDER ;NOT JUST A NUMBERS GAME; I MAY ADJUST THAT SLIGHTLY BY SAYING HE MAY HAVE BEEN MADE AWARE OF THE EVENTS AT KELLYS FUNERAL BY A PERSON WHO WAS. IF I AM RIGHT IN MY NEW APPROACH ON THIS SUBJECT THE CONSPIRACY THEORY WHAT EVER THAT SHOULD ENTAIL COULD BE MORE THEN A LONGSHOT THE KILLER KNEW EXCACTLY WHO HE WAS AFTER . IN MY MIND WALTER SICKERT KNEW A LOT ABOUT THIS SUBJECT AND NOT JUST A FASCINATION WITH IT
REGARDS RICHARD |
Author: Jeff Murrish
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 04:24 pm | | | Hi Richard. Would you mind not "yelling"? (Typing in capitals). Thanks. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 12:31 am | | Hi April,
Thank you for the sensible post. There is merit to your comments.
I agree that Cornwell has made some interesting discoveries. I think she has made a good case that Sickert likely wrote at least two Ripper letters. Beyond that, I think most of her book is speculative.
Sickert could have been the kind of man she described - and perhaps did the things she claims. However, there is absolutely no proof of this - sheer conjecture.
You are right as well, April, that the number of murders has always been a source of controversy. Cornwell seems to think Sickert was involved in about every murder of women or children during that era in the area.
What she does state, and I think it has merit, is that we have always assumed that there were 5 victims and the number could have been much more.
I personally only believe 3 of the murders can be definitively linked - beyond that we engage in speculation.
With regard to the torso killing, it does seem different from the others in the series. Cornwell thinks Jack the Ripper did it. I don't know that he did - but I see no reason to rule out the possibility.
Some serial killers change their modus operandi and signatures. I don't think we can know for certain.
Regards,
Rich |
|
|
|
|
