Author: April Cooper
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 12:48 pm |        |
| Hi. I am new to the message boards and I am reading the book out right now by Patricia Cornwell..... Portrait of a Killer- Jack the Ripper case closed. Her claim that Walter Sickert was " Jack the Ripper" seems to make alot of sense to me after reading 2 thirds of her book. Does anyone else believe hes " the one "? If not which suspect do you believe is the true "Jack the Ripper"? |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 01:43 pm | |
April,
On the main page of the Casebook, you'll find a link to "Patricia Cornwell and Walter Sickert: A Primer" by Stephen P. Ryder. It's a great overview to the problems with Cornwell's case, and very even handed given that Stephen has been
jabbed at by her.
Sir Robert
CID (retired) |
Author: Philip Rayner
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 02:03 pm | |
| I don't think you'll find many takers for Sickert as the ripper. Of the theories I know featuring him none are convincing but I'd be interested in hearing your views when you have finished the book. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 02:58 pm | |
Hi April,
Welcome to the message boards. If you review the unscientific poll on this website, you are not alone in your belief that Walter Sickert is Jack the Ripper.
I personally am not convinced by her book. I think she makes a good case that Sickert may have written some of the letters (although we don't know if they were from the killer).
Certainly, no one has yet proven that Sickert was not Jack the Ripper. And so he just may have been. But the same could be said for thousands of others.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 03:25 pm | |
April,
It is not reasonable to think that Walter Sickert committed the Whitechapel murders. In Cornwell's mouth, it is essentially an unfounded pejorative proposition.
David |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 03:38 pm | |
Hi April,
Do not be dissuaded by so-called experts who tell you what is or is not reasonable - the facts of this case are open to differing interpretations.
Just a few weeks ago, some of the experts were insisting that the Washington DC sniper was an angry white male. Those who thought otherwise, in some quarters, might have been called "unreasonable."
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Leanne Perry
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 04:21 pm | |
G'day April,
I've finished Patricia Cornwell's book and just wrote a critical review for 'Ripperoo'. Cornwell accuses Sickert of writing alot of the correspondences received by people claiming to be the Ripper. She says that he was an expert at disguising his handwriting!
He could have been so obsessed with the case that maybe he did pen some of the letters, but why would he need to change his handwriting so many different ways? If he wanted them to be treated seriously, he could have just stuck to the one style of writing that was different to his own.
LEANNE |
Author: Howard Brown
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 05:00 pm | |
| Amen,Rich,amen...another "expert' bites the dust ! |
Author: julienonperson
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 06:46 pm | |
Hi April,
I hope you find the message board as informative
and enjoyable as I have. Welcome to the board.
There are many different opinions shared by the
individuals who frequent this board, many of which
for very valid reasons.
Are you new to Jack the Ripper as well? If you are
it will be worth your time and money to purchase
other JtR books for comparison, suspect wise.
I personally do not think Sickert was the Ripper,
but of course that doesn't make me right. I've
changed my mind many times over the years.
If you haven't already done so, go through this
website for a mass of great information.
I'm sure there are many people who can recommend
several good books on JtR if you are unsure which
ones would be best to read.
regards julie |
Author: Dan Norder
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 06:59 pm | |
April--
Please do read Stephen's essay from the link off the main page or by clicking here.
In it you'll find that Sickert most likely was in France at the time of the Ripper killings. He was there frequently, as he was also there later when a book came out with pictures of the crime scenes, the same photos Cornwell claims were unavailable until the last half of the 20th century.
Cornwell was a pretty sloppy researcher all around. Don't you think it's a little suspicious that she admits she knew nothing about the killings and then immediately assumes that the first guy she hears about as a possible suspect must be the killer? It's pretty evident that she spent two years trying to fit the evidence to match the suspect.
If nothing else her book is a nice introduction to the case for those who otherwise wouldn't be interested. Before assuming Cornwell is right though you should read some other books first.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: judith stock
Sunday, 05 January 2003 - 11:51 pm | |
Dear Dan,
Actually, you have given a time credit to Cornwell that she didn't have...she says she was in the UK in 2001 when she first spoke to John Grieve. That means she HEARD about the Ripper, decided whodunnit, "researched" it, wrote it, and got it published in just a bit over a year and a half. NOT BAD, considering it takes years to do respectable, reputable research, collate said research and assemble it into logical format, write, edit, RE-write, edit, go to galleys, edit AGAIN, correct and tighten, and then publish. But then, I have assumed that Cornwell did any of the above in a believable manner... we KNOW she didn't correct or do much editing, as she consistently spells Eddowes name as "Eddows" and Tabram's as "Tabran".
Regarding an above post about the Virginia forensic "scientists" that would be in some sort of disrepute over their "conclusions" made for Cornwell, I'm not holding my breath for that to happen..they were HER employees from the Virginia Institute of Forensics....imagine THAT!!!
Hope everyone has a great new year!
J |
Author: April Cooper
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 01:12 am | |
Hi again everyone....Happy New Year!
Well I am almost done with Patricia Cornwells book ..... and honestly I'm not sure if I like her writing style all that much.... is it just me or does she ramble on and on at times? Sometimes ( to me at least ) whatever shes trying to get across to her readers is hard to understand. Anyway I am almost done with the book and will post my thoughts when I finish.
Thanks to all of you that replied to my original post about this subject.
April |
Author: Dan Norder
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 02:34 am | |
Judith,
Actually, as far as I know Cornwell doesn't own the Virginia Institute of Forensics. I think she hired people away from their normal jobs for a while. In one of many threads (or news reports) talking about the "research" I think people were questioning if these forensics "professionals" violated the rules of their main jobs in running off to rubber stamp whatever insane idea a multimillionairess fiction author paid them to. I don't remember if the violated the terms of vacation hours or what the problem was. If nothing else I question their ethics.
April,
If you actually make it through the whole book I have to give you credit. I could barely finish the introduction for all the poorly constructed language and ridiculous assertions. The idea that anyone would pay her to write anything astounds me, but then maybe it's just that the more rich an author gets the less the editors try to fix their language. Stephen King has similar problems.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Philip Rayner
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 03:48 am | |
You mean she actually did some research-serious research-No I don't believe it.
And April-only one Ripper writer I know never gets through a description of a murder without digressing two or three times. Thinking about it the murders are incidental to Cornwell, like the background to a painting of which Sickert as the ripper is the foreground. |
Author: Stuart
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 09:51 am | |
Short answer on this one...
I dont. |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 11:09 am | |
Dan,
VFI was made possible by a grant from Cornwell in 1999, and she sits on the board of directors. So it's reasonable to think she'd have some kind of sway over their results. (Meaning that since they work for the company she helped start, they'd work for her on the side and no one would mention the conflict of interest). And to clarify again - I don't think she faked the results. I just think that a group of researchers who know that their continued funding could be directly related to how happy they keep her won't be as objective as an outside group of forensic scientists with grant money. I hope this now defangs any potential assaults from the Norder/Dewar/Caz crew (no offense is meant by lumping ya'll together).
B |
Author: Monty
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 11:49 am | |
Dan,
Im struggling too.
It took me 2 days to get over Tabran !!!!
God knows what the rest is like !!!
Just an all round poor effort....undefendable Woody old mate...nice try.
Monty
 |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 12:50 pm | |
Hey Brian,
When you say Cornwell might have some sway over the lab results, are you saying that the results, as limited as they may be, were tampered with? Or are you saying they bent over backwards to work with her?
PC has done a shoddy piece of research, but in no way do I think she faked lab results. And in fact, I think the one good thing she brought to the case is the examination of evidence by modern forensic methods.
Sir Robert |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 01:17 pm | |
Sir Bob,
I'm saying that she could have gotten anyone there to work for her on the side, seeing as how they were beholden to her in the first place for the money to start the whole thing up. No one in charge over there is going to tell one of their Directors that she can't borrow a few of their professors to do some work for her for a while - they don't want the funding to go bye bye.
I don't think for a minute that she rigged the testing - if she had, it would be a lot more conclusive. Who rigs a test and then has it be as useless as the ones she did? 
B |
Author: Philip Rayner
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 02:16 pm | |
I note from Ms Cornwell's bibliography that there is a lot of Information, misinformation and speculation out there. Who am I to disbelieve her, most of the 2 latter commodities are in her own book.
Why was the last chapter about the death and funeral of Sickert's wife Christine. Call me Mr Picky but what relevance has that to the Ripper murders. Come to think of it that last statement applies to the whole book. Surely the last chapter would have been more suitable if it described the miserable funerals afforded to the victims. The end was sudden, irrelevant and puzzling.
Mary Jane Kelly or Harvey or whoever was Ripped, literally, to pieces and Cornwell barely even mentioned her in comparison to her rantings about Sickert's paintings, wives, Journeys to France, visits to music halls, paedophile tendencies and boltholes.
Yours disgustedly
Mr Picky. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 02:30 pm | |
Hi Brian,
Saying that Cornwell could have got anyone there to work for her is hardly the same as saying that she would have had 'some kind of sway over their results', surely?
As you say, she can't have taken dishonest advantage of such a 'sway', otherwise the results would have been more favourable to her theory. So what was the point of the remark? To show Cornwell's honesty, even when she had professionals working for her whose results she knew she could have influenced, had she so desired?
Isn't this overkill? No one here is disputing the fact that Cornwell's conclusions don't follow logically from the results she has managed to obtain, and is using to support her theory.
Isn't that sufficient to pour cold water on her Walter as ripper theory?
Love,
Caz |
Author: judith stock
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 03:23 pm | |
Thank you Brian, for the clarification of the VFI/Cornwell connection. AND YES!! I DO believe her employees just MIGHT find something that would make their boss happy, Caz! Cornwell misses no opportunity to talk of VFI and what she does for it financially, and NEVER fails to mention that she is on the Board. This state of affairs smacks of more than a bit of biased reporting. I would have thought that she would have required totally objective research and reporting....oh, well, color me naive!
And I STILL say the time frame stinks...ask any of the authors who post here just exactly how long it takes them to come up with an idea, research it, write it, go through all the pre-publication prep work, etc.....I would bet not one will say it can be done WELL in a year and a half. DONE, yes...done WELL.....NO. Besides being exhausting and often boring, writing does not happen in a nanosecond; good writing takes ages, and well-researched, provable theories that are backed by facts (and not suppositions) add to the amount of time required to do the job well... OOPS! I just realised this all is rubbish...I am pre-supposing she did the job well. Forget the above paragraph, and have a lovely Monday!
J |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 04:30 pm | |
Caz,
I edited the comment to make it more clear.
I didn't realize you were such a Cornwell enthusiast.
B |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 07:50 pm | |
Patricia Cornwell's logo, taken from a French web site which gives a biography of her.
In this biography, it states, translated:
"In 1999, she took an active part in the creation of an innovative university, the first in its kind in the United States, intended to train medical examiners and pathologists, the Virginia Institute of Forensic Science and Medicine. Patricia Cornwell made gift of a million and half of dollars to establish it, but also fought to employ in the institution the most qualified pathologists and scientists, so that it could be equivalent in status in the field of forensic medicine to the top American universities of medicine."
Best regards
Chris George
|
Author: Dan Norder
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 08:38 pm | |
Thanks, Brian, for the clarification on who all Cornwell has in her pocket, besides just lazy news media personalities and rabid fans.
Judith's on the money on this one.
Chris, is there any explanation how Patricia Cornwell gets a logo featuring a big S on it? Whacky. Maybe if she put a B in front of it...
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 09:27 pm | |
Scarpetta maybe?
If it wasn't for Kay, she'd still be a secretary. Maybe it means secretary?
B |
Author: judith stock
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 12:24 am | |
Color me nuts, but I still think that she has begun to think she IS Scarpetta. She DOES present herself as quite the forensic expert, and it's a bit scary that an author of crime fiction (and not very good crime fiction, at that!) behaves as if she is the ultimate authority on murder.
OK, I will defend the "not very good crime fiction" remark, too....might as well: it's late and it's Monday! Cornwell's first couple of books were tight and well-written, with good plots and believable characters. After that, Scarpetta became the ONLY forensic pathologist on the planet being pursued by EVERY serial killer born in the last 100 years. She spends most of her time pursuing killers, a job usually undertaken by police, and, in turn, being pursued by them. She was rarely in the lab, a place where medical examiners usually hang out; she carried a gun and used it. So much for believability. As to the plots, she began to pad when her plots ran thin. In POINT OF ORIGIN, she spent numerous pages describing a motel room on an interstate highway...a place most of us could describe with our eyes shut....walls, rugs, bathroom, towels, bedside tables, etc...ad nauseum. The point of all that was.......there was NO POINT. It was a stop her character made..that's it. The room had no significance in the story, nor did it move the plot forward or explain characters or motives... it was padding, full stop. Sadly, an author who once had promise, has derailed, and is now selling redone plots and empty stories. READ KATHY REICHS: at least she knows what the hell she's talking about!
Cheers to all, and to all a good night,
J |
Author: Philip Rayner
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 05:01 am | |
'The point of all that was.......there was NO POINT.'
A Masterly summing up of her attempt at non fiction as well, it's not written well, researched well or interesting. Very little actual facts about the case are mentioned and where they are.................Oh I give up, Trees died so she could write that book, I'd rather have had the trees. |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 09:21 am | |
"Thank you Brian, for the clarification of the VFI/Cornwell connection. AND YES!! I DO
believe her employees just MIGHT find something that would make their boss happy, Caz! "
Hi Judith! Happy New year!
I still maintain that as execrable a piece of research as PC has presented, it's a real leap to suggest that VFI 'cooked the books', so to speak.
Do I think they would bend over backwards to help their benefactrix? Absolutely! Fake results? No.
"And I STILL say the time frame stinks...ask any of the authors who post here just exactly how long it takes them to come up with an idea, research it, write it, go through all the pre-publication prep work, etc..."
Excellent point. Interesting that Cornwell cites no secondary sources like Sugden, Rumblelow, etc. She only credits "Letters From Hell" and "The Ultimate JtR Sourcebook". We're supposed to believe in such a brief time, she got her hands around the case using only primary sources?
Regards,
Sir Robert |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 10:17 am | |
Hi Brian,
I wrote:
No one here is disputing the fact that Cornwell's conclusions don't follow logically from the results she has managed to obtain, and is using to support her theory.
And that makes me 'a Cornwell enthusiast'. Right.
I'm just amazed at the amount of supporting arguments people feel they need to offer to show Cornwell and/or the people she works with in a worse light than they have already shown themselves. She has dismantled her own theory IMHO because Sickert now looks a less likely candidate for the ripper post-Cornwell's accusation than he was before she started work on him.
I for one didn't know that Sickert was most probably in France when Jack was murdering women and hoaxers were sending letters - not until his biographical details were more widely advertised as a result of Cornwell's suspicions.
Hi Judy,
Couldn't agree with you more about the time and effort needed by authors if they want to produce the goods their readers deserve. Cornwell has already got what she deserves for cutting corners and publishing anyway - an almost universal thumbs down from those who know the subject better than she does.
Love,
Caz |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 10:34 am | |
Hi, all
I've been reading about the letter by Sickert's mother which places him in France during some of the murders. Pat Cornwell, during her appearance on Diane Rehm's show, questioned the authenticity of this letter by saying it had not yet been produced. Since I'm loathe to take her word for it, can someone tell me what the story is? Has this letter been made available for examination?
Thanks,
Dave |
Author: John Hacker
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 11:43 am | |
Hiya Judy,
It's good to see you kicking around the boards. How've you been doing?
I couldn't agree more with your assesment of Cornwell's fiction. My wife and I used to be big fans of her Scarpetta books, but they certainly seemed to take a huge dive in quality fairly early in the series. My wife struggled on for a a book or two after I gave 'em up, but she gave 'em up in disgust a few years back. (It didn't take a JtR theory to get my wife calling Cornwell "Cornball", Last Precinct did it for her.)
Personally, I always was rather partial to the Prey books by John Sanford. They're not particularly realistic, but at least they're fun and keep you interested. I'll have to pick up one of Kathy Reichs books and give them a shot. Thanks for the tip!
Regards,
John Hacker
P.S. Isn't it 2004 YET? :-) |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 12:19 pm | |
Hi, John and Judy (wasn't that a British film of the 1950's or was that John and Julie?)
It's a typical pattern for a fiction writer to write well for a number of years and then as the production continues, for the quality of writing to fall. I have also given up on some recent Cornwell novels, particularly her non-Scarpetta ones (e.g., the one with the Reb flag on the cover), ... and its unusual for me to give up on a book once started. Few writers who write at high volume can keep up the quality in their writing. That's what being a great writer is all about, even if you are called Stephen King, who I think has managed to keep to a high standard. Others might disagree though, I'm not really an expert in his works.
All the best
Chris |
Author: Eliza Cline
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 12:20 pm | |
| I don't buy the idea that Cornwell somehow influenced the Virginia forensics team to fake the DNA results. Surely if Cornwell was in control, and dictating what results she wanted, she would have opted for the more definite nuclear DNA results on the letter. She would not have settled for the much less specific mtDNA. I believe the mtDNA on the Openshaw letter is most likely a genuine match for Sickert's. That is far from saying he is Jack the Ripper, but it makes Sickert a credible suspect. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 12:22 pm | |
I keep looking at April Cooper's name and thinking it says "Alice Cooper"!!!!
Sorry, April, similarities of certain names (though not bodies, I hope) can be deceiving!  |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 12:24 pm | |
Dear Chris:
You too?
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 12:35 pm | |
Eliza,
Like I said before, I wasn't claiming that she faked the results. Just that, in legal parlance, there could be "an appearance of impropriety" by having individuals who are affliated with an organization that she has some control over working on an investigation into which she has invested considerable money. There may not have been any bad stuff, but if she had any sense, she would've hired out an outside firm to do the work. VFI isn't the only group out there.
As for the DNA - she can't even prove that the DNA she tested IS Sickert's. He was cremated so there was no confirmed DNA to test. And even if there were mDNA testing only narrows the focus of an investgation, it doesn't solve it like nuclear DNA testing can. Sickert is only credible in so far as (as Dan Norder is so fond of saying) there are very, very few people we can totally rule out.
Cornwell's heart was in the right place, but somehow it migrated down from her chest into her wallet and this feeble attempt at research is what is left.
And Caz, I still feel the need to discredit Cornwell personally, not merely her theory, because through her myriad of media venues and appearances she has attempted to discredit us all personally. That's why I don't let up on it. When she comes out and says "they're not all scary weirdos", I'll back off. Because I'm certainly not scary.
B |
Author: John Hacker
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 12:43 pm | |
Eliza,
"I don't buy the idea that Cornwell somehow influenced the Virginia forensics team to fake the DNA results. Surely if Cornwell was in control, and dictating what results she wanted, she would have opted for the more definite nuclear DNA results on the letter. She would not have settled for the much less specific mtDNA."
There is certainly no evidence to suggest that she conciously influenced the results. And I agree that if she were going to try and influence the results that she would have probably come up with something more beneficial to her case than the mtDNA tests.
However she was clearly in a position where the people under her could feel that it was in their best interests to please her.
She went into this looking at a specific suspect and her efforts were bent towards establishing him as the Ripper. Some people simply have the innate tendancy to want to "please the boss", and it's possible that this could influence their results.
I tend agree with Brian that it would have been wise of her to seek outside aid simply to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 12:50 pm | |
Hi all,
It is both outrageous and unfair to suggest the Virginia forensics team faked the results. No one has provided to slightest evidence to suggest this is true.
Just because Ms. Cornwell is disliked is not an excuse to make up some elaborate conspiracy involving faked forensic results.
And, as has been noted earlier, if Cornwell intended to have the results faked, don't you think she'd choose to make the results more conclusive?
My challenge is to those who have suggested that the results were faked or doctored, is to please name your evidence.
Rich |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 01:07 pm | |
Hi Brian,
I just find it strange. If Cornwell discredits herself so easily with her opinions on Sickert, and no one is taking those seriously, why would anyone take her opinions about 'us' seriously, whatever they might be.
Mind you, by reading these boards, she could produce far more evidence for some if not all of us being 'scary weirdos', than she has for Sickert licking a stamp on a ripper letter.
Love,
Caz |
