|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 08 January 2003
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects:
How many others believe that Walter Sickert was " Jack the Ripper"?:
Archive through 08 January 2003
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 01:16 pm |        | Quote of the day from John Hacker:
'Some people simply have the innate tendancy to want to "please the boss"...' 
(my hubby is pleasing the boss right now - I can hear the sound of spuds being peeled  )
As for being wise, one day Cornwell may realise just how many unwise things she did when she stepped into ripperland. Some people are busy counting them all already.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 01:48 pm | | Rich,
"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. "
Right. It IS both outrageous and unfair to suggest that the VFI team faked the results. No one has done that, have they?
And how would we have evidence of something that no one claims happened?
B |
Author: Philip Rayner
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 01:55 pm | | I can't help but agree Rich and I have been watching this thread with some alarm. These comments are bordering on the libellous. I am deliberately trying to avoid Cornwell at the moment as I have made many comments regardng her work and I don't wish to be labelled a boring old fart. However I would never dream of implying that she in any way influenced the tests for DNA and more importantly that a serious scientist would let her.
Attack her work, yes but accuse her of influencing test results in her favour, no. Although her case is a hopeless mishmash I am sure she sincerely believes she has solved it and has no need to manipulate evidence. |
Author: Avril Sprintall
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 02:40 pm | | | Although I do not agree that she influenced the test results, I do think she manipulated the results to suit her "theory". All ripperologists have their own theories, but we do not all compile a book - say this is the solution and arrogantly assert that we are right. Surely the basis of our interest is that we do not know and can therefore jump from one "solution" to another quite happily without any problem. |
Author: Ally
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 02:47 pm | | Considering that no one has seen the results of the forensic team's analysis and we have only patsy's word for what they contain, while we're making demands for proof or evidence, how about demanding she coughs up the evidence that supports her outrageous claims?
As long as she is making libelous claims without a shred of evidence to back them up, she can hardly blame others who do the same.
Ally |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 03:49 pm | | Brian,
I could paste some quotes of people suggesting that the results were a fraud or faked - but I choose to let others decide if that was the implication made on this thread.
As you know, on another thread, with regard to Cornwell, accusations were made against her but you and others denied that the quotes meant what they said. I don't want to go down that path again. It wasted a lot of time - suffice to say that you don't think anyone has accused the results of being faked and I do.
And to address another poster: I do not agree with the position that if Cornwell has done something irresponsible excuses anyone else's misconduct. I tried that logic as a child - fortunately my parents expected more of me.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Vila
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 04:01 pm | | Hello everyone,
I didn't read into Brian's posts above that he was accusing VFI of faking anything. Not even in the post that set off that particular segment of this debate. It looked to my eyes that he merely said that results not to Cornwell's liking would have been given less creedence by her than those that supported her theory. And as Ally pointed out, no one but VFI and Cornwell know what results were accepted by her and what were discounted.
I think that it is only common sense to believe that a writer would use evidence that supports their theory in preference to that which would bring the theory into doubt. It is also natural to assume that VFI would have wanted to give Cornwell the best possible evidence to support her theory, because the Institue is beholden to her.
Nothing that I read in Brian's posts looked like an accusation of faking test results. I think that what we have here is an example of different readers interpreting words differently. This is a natural and normal human thing to do and casts no slurs upon anyone.
Vila |
Author: Ally
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 04:03 pm | | "To address another poster.." as if somewhere between reading my post and replying directly beneath it, you forgot who wrote it? Or is that the "If I don't directly mention their name, I am not directly insulting them" theory of logic?
Wanna know what my parents said? They said if two kids are misbehaving, then there is no sense beating one and defending the other. Either beat them both or stay the hell out of it. Your Save Patty crusade is getting tiresome for sure.
PATRICIA CORNWELL RIGGED THE WHOLE THING---has anyone seen any of this so-called forensic evidence? Have they? I bet she bought their silence. Bought it! THat's where that 6 million went. It's all a conspiracy, the raelians are in on it too.
Ally |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 04:21 pm | | I have criticized Ms. Cornwell, her methodology, her theory, and her final work product. That does not mean that I endorse false allegations or implications made against her.
I said I would not paste earlier the suggestion that Cornwell or her researchers presented false evidence. However, the suggestion is made that no one said or suggested that. Let me post some quotes by various people, that I feel, suggest malfeasance on the part of Ms. Cornwell or the lab in question:
Brian:
"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"
Judith:
"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"
John:
"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 do not see how anyone could read these quotes without coming to the 'theory' that the results of the testing were biased. That is completely unfair - even though it could be true. That is because the accusers have provided no evidence of their charge.
So, again, for those who publically proclaim such a theory possible, please cite your evidence.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 04:36 pm | | Rich,
You really need to wake up. Do the words "suggest", "think", "believe", "smacks of", "possible", or "theory" mean anything to you?
Because those are all words or phrases that were used by myself, Judith and John in describing our opinions about the relationship between Cornwell and VFI.
None of them indicate evidence, affirmation, attestation, averment, confirmation, corroboration, data, declaration, demonstration, deposition, documentation, info, substantiation, testament, testimonial, or testimony to the effect that Cornwell faked any of the results VFI came up with.
Now can you quit being so damn literal? Does the "appearance of impropriety" mean anything to you? You quote me as saying directly "I don't think she faked the results" and then accuse me of saying she faked the results.
For a "writer", you seem to have a very shaky grasp of the wonderful nuances that make up the English language.
B |
Author: Dan Norder
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 05:00 pm | | Rich,
You seem determined to twist everything said about Cornwell into some major insult. It's not an insult to point out the obvious fact that you hush up and don't contradict the lady who pays all your bills. Based upon what we know of the DNA evidence, a forensics professional with morals who didn't have to worry about Cornwell backlash would have simply stated that there is no match, and that all anyone is proven is that someone who came in contact with one letter is roughly the same ethnic background as someone who touched another letter.
In other words, they HAD to be thinking, "All that money she paid us was a complete waste as we've got nothing, but I can't really say that so I'll just say really vague words indicating a possible relationship and let the loud mouthed whackjob millionairess with the big bucks put her spin control on it."
They don't have to fake anything. They just clam up while Cornwell totally misrepresents the mature of the results. Or, as Twain is rumored to have said, "Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please."
At some point though you have to seriously wonder where the line is between lying about the results and outright faking them. It's all a matter of degrees, and while she doesn't appear to have faked anything outright, what she is doing might be just as bad.
Also, this whole concept that if she were going to fake the results she would have made the DNA evidence look better doesn't ring true with me. Suppose instead she had come forward and said she had a nuclear DNA match. Anybody with any genetics background would know that was a lie, because there's no way that kind of DNA could have been preserved. I submit that the reason she may not have crossed the line to outright fakery is because it'd be all that more difficult for her to cover it up.
I'd love to see her release all her data for confirmation by independent researchers. All the money she spends doing any DNA tests, looking at types of paper, supposedly using computer techniques to read hidden text on ripper letters to show that "Jack the Ripper" was used in correspondence before the Dear Boss letter, etc. doesn;t do anyone any good if we just have to take her word for it all.
True scientific research is verifiable and can be confirmed by others. She's not using science, she's using innuendo.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please donate to ripperology research you can trust. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 05:03 pm | | Brian,
Postulating, theorizing, suggesting, expressing belief about someone's integrity still requires some kind of evidence or proof.
One could comment, as you do, that they "suggest" "think" "believe" that you are a child molestor. They have their right to their personal imagination or fancy - but if someone is going to make such a suggestion they should have the proof to back it.
You have theorized that professional DNA analysts may have colored their findings to please their boss. This accusation is reprehensible since this the profession of these people, you apparently know very little about what they do, yet feel free to pronounce your personal feelings about their internal motivations.
Whatever your job is, you would be rightfully insulted, if I "suggested" that your work is a fraud.
So, I ask again, what evidence do you have to suggest your theory is true - or is it your imagination?
Rich |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 05:25 pm | | Hi, Rich et al.--
I was reading about the sad case of former top rocker Gary Glitter. Now there's a guy who has been jailed for child pornography offenses in Britain and now is accused of child molestation in Cambodia. No need for innuendo there. A clear case of how the mighty are fallen.
All the best
Chris |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 05:40 pm | | Rich,
Fact 1: VFI would not exist if it were not for Patricia Cornwell.
Fact 2: Patricia Cornwell sits on the board of directors at VFI.
Fact 3: Patricia Cornwell spent multiple millions of her own money researching this book.
Fact 4: Patricia Cornwell has staked her reputation on proving, using forensic science, that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper.
Now, when looked at objectively, I feel that I have a strong argument that there is an appearance of impropriety in the use of VFI as the sole DNA lab involved in her research.
How could she have gotten around this? Easily - she could have used outside consultants instead of her own organization. She could have asked another indepedent organization to confirm her findings. She could release the full reports to the public. There are many avenues that could clear this up without any impairment to her - she's already spent $6 million, what's a couple of thousand more?
Had she hired an outside firm to do the work, or hired an additional firm to confirm her firm's findings, this issue would not be an issue. And, as far as I know, we're the only ones talking about it so it's not really an issue at all.
Now, as to your child molestation example. Let's look at that in an analagous - but entirely hypothetical - fashion.
If you were to come on the boards and say I'm a child molester, and then say here are the facts that I have:
1.) He does not have any children of his own, but frequently offers to babysit for children of friends and family by himself.
2.) His house is filled with toys and other objects that children would be enticed by, but an adult would have no use for.
3.) He is a frequent internet chatroom user, and has multiple accounts in different names.
4.) He coaches little league and soccer despite never having played them as a boy.
5.) He is seen frequently hanging around at playgrounds or school yards for no apparent reason.
None of those beliefs are enough to have me hauled into jail. But they do raise an "appearance of impropriety" (none of them are true by the way, I'm not a big fan of kids and I was a kickass little leaguer). Even I - the accused abuser - would have to admit that taken as a whole, they appear damning. I would have to answer them, despite the fact that none of them are based on hard fact. No one SAW me molest a child. No one caught me in the act.
Just as no one say Cornwell sneak into a lab and fake a test result. No one heard her order a staff member to skew a report in her favor. We're not even accusing her of doing that. It's merely the appearance that it was possible.
How do you explain how two psychologists - one paid by the prosecution and one by the defense - can have vastly different interpretations of a murder suspect's mental state? How do you explain how two building inspectors - one paid by the state and another by the builder - can find a building to be built to code or not?
Obviously, in those two examples, one of them is being less than honest. OR both are interpreting the same results two different ways - not illegal, or even unethical. But they do fall under the petina of an "appearance of impropriety". It appears that one of the two is doing something improper, even if there is no paper trail.
Would the above facts convince a jury that she was guilty of faking her research? Probably not. But it would definitely be enough for a grand jury to indict. And that's all we are here. The grand jury of public opinion. But that's also assuming that Cornwell gives a flying rats ass what we think of her or her research. I certainly don't have CNN knocking down my door begging for interviews about Cornwell's poor research.
Now Rich, you can keep on defending Cornwell until the cows come home. I don't care. But you really need to drop the whole righetous indignation for all the poor downtrodden masses of mystery authors and forensic scientists we on the boards so ruthlessly evicerate with our unethical, immoral, rephrensible, libelous, and imagined hatred day in and day out. It's unbecoming.
B |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 08:01 pm | | Hi Dan & Brian,
I am not twisting anyone's words - let us try to be clear what the allegation is and what my critique of those criticisms is.
Certain posters have questioned the interpretation of DNA data processed by VFI because of Cornwell's personal relationship with that organization. The suggestion has been made that VFI, deliberately or otherwise, gave Cornwell the results/interpretation she wanted rather than the facts.
This is, in my opinion, an unfair and unfounded allegation. Yes, indeed, it has been worded as "suggestion" or "theory." That does not minimize the insult to the researchers involved.
For all we know, the researchers at VFI labored honestly and sincerely and presented their accurate findings to Cornwell. I have no evidence to the contrary.
Why should anyone cast a suggestion of impropriety against these researchers?
The question is asked why Cornwell did not use other research organizations? Why should she? Has there ever been a case of VFI presenting fraudulent findings? Has their information ever been questioned?
What if Cornwell had paid some other organization to process this DNA? Because Cornwell paid for the studies, wouldn't they be subject of your same suspicions?
Rich |
Author: John Hacker
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 08:18 pm | | Dan and Brian,
Don't waste your time trying to reason with Rich. This guy could find an anti-Cornwell Insult/Accustation/Allegation in a Rorschach inkblot.
John |
Author: judith stock
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 08:30 pm | | SHEEESH!! I check in less than 24 hours later, and find I have been archived already! Scarey, that!
JOHN....NOPE, it's not 2004 yet, but it will be soon, so save your shekels...I want to see you there WITH BELLS ON, OK?
And to all......please re-read what I said about VFI/Cornwell employees. While I have not read every post between my last and this one, it sounds as if the contention is being made that VFI researchers altered/fudged test results on purpose; I said, and still think, that it is not unlikely that Cornwell's employees might have been trying to make the boss happy with what they found. That happens all the time, guys...when trying to hold onto a job, very often a little stroke here and there helps, and if Cornwell is as tough a boss as she appears to be, strokes might keep her happy. I NEVER SAID VFI PEOPLE FAKED ANYTHING. It is also entirely possible, that when faced with results of a dubious or uncertain nature, a positive spin might be placed upon said results.....motives be damned. I APOLOGISE FOR SAYING WHAT I DID.....IT REALLY DOES NOT MATTER WHAT RESULTS CORNWELL PUBLISHED....SHE HAS NOT PROVEN SICKERT TO BE THE RIPPER; THEREFORE, THE CASE IS NOT CLOSED.
Apologies to all, and to all another good night!
J |
Author: John Hacker
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 08:50 pm | | Judy,
I'll be there, bells and all. Just try and stop me. :-)
Sleep well!
John |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 09:46 pm | | John & all,
Here are the quotes I find objectionable, on this thread, which suggest that VFI findings, as announced by Ms. Cornwell, may not be accurate due to bias:
"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"
"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"
"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"
Again, I don't see how anyone could read those remarks and not come to the conclusion that VFI may have passed on to Cornwell information that was either inaccurate or biased. And there is no evidence whatsoever to support this conclusion.
The Board of Directors of VFI is not only Patricia Cornwell. A Manhattan district attorney sits on the board, as does Virginia's Health Department Medical Examiner, as do distinguished professors, and so does a United States Senator with expertise in health issues.
VFI is not some minor, rank little outfit. It is a distinguished research organization - but perhaps less so now with the abject, unsubstantiated attacks on its methodology and scientific approach posted by some people here.
I believe a member of the VFI team may have read this thread. And based on the email I received, these charges are taken seriously.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Dan Norder
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 09:58 pm | | Rich,
Any distinguished research organization would not allow itself to be used to try to paint such worthless evidence as if it could actually be used in a court of law. They ought to be ashamed. Any criticism pointed at them is only reasonable considering how they let themselves be tarnished just to keep the money coming in.
If you disagree, that's fine. Don't expect anyone to give you a medal for defending them though.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Ally
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 10:06 pm | | Gee Richard...with all those emails you get of support from your anonymous friends, it just must make you wish they had the balls to say something in public too.
Who cares whether VFI the FBI or NASA reads this thread. Welcome to America where we can say, that we don't believe whatever some bottle blond half-whacked, forensic fake claims until we see unbiased proof. And so far, we haven't seen it.
Ally |
Author: John Hacker
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 10:16 pm | | Rich,
Let me be perfectly clear here.
1) I wasn't making any "charges" I was making an observation. She could have easily have eliminated any appearance of impropriety. She choose not to do so. This is not a "charge".
2) If a member of the VFI team wants to contribute something to the board, they should go for it. I'd like to hear what they have to say.
3) I frankly don't care what you think of the propriety of my posts. Particularly in regards to Cornwell. As far as I'm concerned you're not rational on this subject and I'm simply not interested in your persecution fantasies on her behalf.
If you disagree, or have a problem with any of the above, I couldn't care less. :-)
Just give it a rest Rich.
And th-th-th-that's all folks! |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 10:44 pm | | Rich,
I am one measly graduate student - albeit a well read and opinionated one. VFI's reputation has nothing to fear from me.
If your VFI team member would care to defend his organzation here, he or she will be welcomed and treated with the respect he or she deserves.
Again, Rich, you are misrepresenting all of the quotes above.
No one is saying VFI does shoddy research. No one is claiming they are horrible at what they do. No one is calling them all frauds and charlatans. They are a well-funded, professional organization. What we are calling into question is Cornwell's objectivity. And that's based solely on the relationship between the organization and Cornwell. Why use an organization you are a member of when you have to expect strict scrutiny of your findings?
This is a completely isolated and rare situation - in no other case would a sitting board member or the founder of VFI be hiring or using their faculty or employees to solve a case.
If Cornwell had wanted to do to this right she would have hired multiple labs to do the work independently. That way there could be no room for questioning the results.
Look at this like a Court case - except instead of having the defense be the "dream team" of attorneys and experts, it's the prosecution. And your client is presumed guilty until proven innocent. And no one is running to Sickert's defense. Except us.
The least Cornwell can do is to release the complete details of the tests to other labs to verify VFI's findings. That's all.
And if the VFI staff member wants to talk to me personally, my email address is in my profile. I'd be happy to clear up any misconceptions your misrepresentations have made about my comments directly.
This is getting ridiculous, Rich.
B |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 11:08 pm | | Hi Dan,
Researchers are "used" all the time by authors and attorneys. The researchers are responsible for the information - that an author or attorney chooses to interpret the information in a different way is not their responsibility.
I understand your opposition to the word "match." I agree with you that in this case there is no DNA "match." However, unfortunately, as you know there is NEVER such thing as a DNA "match" - only statistical probabilities. But this does not deter people of every field (history, law, politics, etc) of claiming "matches" for simply results that are "consistent." It is now a part of the vernacular.
Hi Ally,
I would not expect someone from VFI to choose to debate people who have called one of their board of director's insulting names, suggested that she cannot think clearly because she is a lesbian, hinted that she knew all along Sickert was not the killer but choose to publish anyway, and now suggest that VFI biased their results. Rather than arguing on the internet, they may allow their lawyers to do the arguing for them in a court of law.
Yes, you are right that in America people have the right to question Cornwell's findings. However, I am not certain that those who suggest private individuals engaged to render scientific reports actually presented false or biased results is protected. Certainly, those of us who question such charges have the right to ask for evidence.
Hi John,
Your quote from earlier today:
"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"
Your quote from tonight:
"I wasn't making any "charges" I was making an observation."
Hi Brian,
Initially, you questioned the objectivity of VFI:
"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"
Now, you write:
"No one is saying VFI does shoddy research. No one is claiming they are horrible at what they do. No one is calling them all frauds and charlatans. They are a well-funded, professional organization. What we are calling into question is Cornwell's objectivity."
The first quote clearly contradicts the second.
Your court analogy is, in my opinion, inappropriate. In most cases, the defense has no DNA experts. Only the prosecution has DNA researchers. The defense may hire its own defense research team if it questions the results.
I would ask all of the above posters, who suggest the VFI results cannot be relied upon, and that Cornwell is refusing to share her evidence, can you even substantiate that charge?
Can you name one authority who asked for her DNA evidence and who has agreed to pay for independent research to verify the data? And can you show where Cornwell refused to give the data?
The charges here are flying fast and furious - it would be nice if someone had some evidence to back up those charges.
And, again, for the record, I do not support the conclusions of Cornwell's book. I think it is badly researched and makes serious errors. But that does not mean that I condone the unsubstantiated attacks against her and VFI.
All I have ever asked is for those who make such charges to provide their evidence.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: John Hacker
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 11:12 pm | | | Yawn. |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 11:45 pm | | Rich,
For the last time - no one has said anything to the effect that the VIFSM results can't be relied upon.
Please explain to me if you understand what the difference between "impropriety" and "the appearance of impropriety" is. Because I've said this about thirty times and you continue to ignore it.
Why do judges recuse themselves from cases that involve defendants they know, are related to, own stock in, etc? Not because they think they can't rule on the law without objectivity or integrity. But because the mere appearance of impropriety damages their credability, and therefore, cannot be allowed to exist.
It is the same here.
I'm not an authority, but I would like to see the DNA evidence myself. I would love for VIFSM to publish a white paper on the issue. I would love for them to put out a press release that acknowledges they have critics and responds to our questions. I have done enough research that I can understand it. I'd like to see it first hand. Hell, I'd even like for the researchers who did the testing to come out and explain their findings directly, not through the prism of Cornwell's flawed theory. And I would love for an anonymous donor to come up with some dough and send the samples to Cellmark for independent confirmation. But hey, who - besides Cornwell herself - has that kind of money? And I don't think me writing her a letter and asking nicely is going to cause that to happen.
Cornwell doesn't have to respond to any charges anyone here brings up, nor does VIFSM. Who am I? I'm nobody - I'm a student. If I had $6 million to spend on this case THEN I'd be an authority. The only other way for me to get that kind of credability is to devote my life to researching and writing about the case, like Stewart or Paul. Someday, perhaps, I will. But now, like I've said many times before, the only people who give two craps about what I say are the friends and colleagues who read these boards.
And Rich, c'mon - any case where DNA is used and the defendant can afford it is going to hire their own experts. It's part of providing the best defense. Look at the OJ Simpson case. The prosecution had rock solid DNA evidence against him and had their own experts (Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld) dumping on it AND they had THREE labs independently confirm the results (Cellmark, LAPD and California State). Asking for a bit more proof isn't "outrageous" or "reprehensible". We're just being cynics.
Sickert's got nobody with the kinds of means Cornwell has defending him. If she wants us to believe her - if she wants ME to believe her - she's not only got to prove that he did it, she has to prove that she's done good research too. I just don't want her side. I want a refutation of what the critics are saying too.
Look, Rich, nobody is attacking anything here except Cornwell's credability. As a public figure, she gets this all the time. VIFSM has to argue it's credability everytime it or one of it's graduates goes to court. It's a standard procedure. I find it difficult to believe that they care what I, John Hacker, Judith Stock, Vila, Ally or anyone else thinks about them. If they do, let 'em talk to us personally. I'd love to chat with someone from VIFSM. I already made the offer.
I've provided all of the evidence that I have.
Now, answer my question - do you understand what "the appearance of impropriety" means?
B |
Author: Neale Carter
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 12:22 am | | Rich,
As your meretricious request for evidence of impropriety by the VFI clearly will not be successful, why not acknowledge the thrust of what Brian et al are getting at, ie. Ms Cornwell has an apparent conflict of interest in using results to support her theory provided by a party over which she ostensibly has a significant degree of control.
Pointing out a conflict of interest requires only evidence of the conflict. Whether actual impropriety occured cannot be readily known but is not necessary as the appearance is usually enough to undermine credibility. This princple is based on our understanding of fundamental human nature. As a former Australian Prime Minister once said, "In the two horse race between Conflicted Interest and Independence, you won't go broke backing the favorite". |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 12:36 am | | Brian,
Because an author makes a charge and says her findings are corroborated by a study conducted by a research institute she finances does not give an "appearance of impropriety."
Brian, as you know, many authors on this case rely upon researchers to provide them with much of the needed information to advance their particular theory. Because the author has a biased opinion of the case does not mean that the researcher failed to report accurate and complete information. The information a researcher produces can be used, basically, in any fashion the author wishes.
For example, I might disagree with conclusions that Stewart Evans has written - that does not mean that I think that he or his researcher, Keith Skinner, are biased.
If an author pays a researcher, does that give the information the researcher unearths an 'appearance of impropriety'?
I could make all the accusations you make against VFI against Skinner - that he simply feeds Evans the information he wants. That would be grotesquely unfair unless I had evidence to prove my charge.
Now, I think the work of Evans is vastly superior to Cornwell. I have no idea about the quality of work of either Skinner or VFI - because I do not have access to all the information shared with their writers.
If a prosecutor pronounces that he believes a suspect is guilty - then a week later the criminalist affiliated with the DA confirms that DNA evidence implicates the suspect, this does not mean there is an "appearance of impropriety."
Your initial remark had nothing to do with appearances. You keep saying I am misrepresenting quotes. I am cutting and pasting these quotes from the text of the authors.
What you wrote was:
"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"
There is no mention of appearances. You have written that you think they wont be objective. That is an accusation.
As to the allegation that Cornwell or VFI have refused to release their information, please cite any official request made and the subsequent denial. The charge was made earlier that she will not allow independent verification. Again, I ask who asked for such independent verification and agreed to pay for it?
There have been those that have charged others (suspects, journalists) of writing the Ripper letters. I have not seen it alleged that since these researchers did not seek DNA testing that therefore they are biased and probably know their theory is untrue. Such a proposition is unfair and ludicrious. It is just as ridiculous to suggest that because Cornwell had her institute do the testing, or because she paid someone to do the testing, that the results are flawed or biased.
What I have noted with Cornwell is some of her most vociferous opponents make outlandish and declarative accusations against her and her organization. When challenged, they back off suggesting that what they meant was that it "appeared" she "knew all along" her evidence was false or there was the "appearance of impropriety" when the initial charge was the stated opinion that VFI was not objective. The reply consistently seems to be the author didnt mean what they wrote.
Rich |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 12:51 am | | Hi Neale,
I understand your point - but I guess we have to agree to disagree. Any author or researcher who pays any organization or lab, under the construction you have outlined, might be subject to questions of credibility.
Years ago, scientist Adrian Shine organized and financed a large team of boats to use sonar to scan the entirity of Loch Ness to prove that there was no Loch Ness monster. His team said they found no such creature.
Now, one might question the quality of the study. But I think it is grossly unfair to say that since Shine was paying researchers to monitor the sonar some may have deliberately ignored sonar hits to please their boss. This, in essence, is what some are suggesting VFI of possibly doing.
Now, if someone is willing to do comparative studies on the DNA - and those studies come to alternative conclusions, then I think the credibility of VFI would be under legitimate question.
I understand your point, Neale, and it is not without its merits. However, an alternative "theory" is just as plausible.
Imagine if VFI had rejected Cornwell's claims and she subsequently, in retaliation, withdrew all her support for that institution. Would that have not damaged her reputation even more that this current suggestion? Is that not a risk she took when she had her own people review the material?
Rich |
Author: Neale Carter
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 01:14 am | | Rich,
She did indeed run some risk to her credibility in getting her "own people" to provide findings but in the context of the gaping holes in much of her scholarship this probably isn't that significant. If I were be defending Sickert in a court of law the absense of any proven link between writing Ripper letters and killing would be undeniable.
Neale |
Author: brad mcginnis
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 01:38 am | | | Dear Rich, youre really Peter Wood arent you?, Brad. |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 02:31 am | | Rich,
I know I'm wasting my time here, but here's one last post on this issue. I can't sleep anyway.
My point about the "appearance of impropriety" has nothing to do with the fact that Cornwell paid them to perform this study. As you have stated, and I agree with, merely paying someone - such as Stewart paying Keith - does not create such an appearance. I've never said that it did.
Here's the difference: Cornwell had a relationship with the VIFSM that went above and beyond that of a "vendor-customer" type relationship. She FOUNDED the Institute. She's a sitting director. Your examples are not analagous.
Let me use an example. I'm a property manager. I have a building that has a mouse problem. When I contract with a pest control company to kill mice in my buildings, I pay them and they do it. If I ask them to give me a report on what they did, they do it. If they do a bad job, I get another vendor (I did that just last month, in fact). This is analagous to the Evans-Skinner relationship.
Now, imagine that I'm still a property manager. But in this situation, I FOUNDED the pest control company, and I sit on the board of directors. I then pay them to kill the bugs in my buildings. Not only am I their "client", I'm also - technically - their BOSS. Now, if I ask them, "did you do a good job killing those bugs", do you really expect them to tell me "no"? When their livelihood is on the line? This isn't just about getting rid of them as a vendor - this is about firing the person responsible. This is a better analogy to the relationship between VIFMS and Cornwell.
In fact, my company expressly forbids me from using any vendor or contractor to whom I have an outside affiliation. For example, my Dad works for a cabinet manufacturer. He could get me custom kitchens at cost. Can I use him to do the work? No - because it looks like I'm kicking back business to my Dad because he sees some of that money, and that is an illegal business practice. Even if he was just doing me a favor, it STILL LOOKS BAD. The appearance of impropriety can be just as bad as actual impropriety.
Here's an even clearer example. Linda Fairstein was the Chief of the Sex Crimes Prosecution Unit in the Manhatten DA's office. She also sits on the board of directors of the VIFSM. Imagine that she held both posts at the same time. Do you think the idea would ever cross her mind of using VIFSM affiliated experts to prosecute her cases? Any defense attorney would have a field day with that. "How can you be objective, Dr. Expert? You are an employee of the Institute that the prosecuter sits as a Director!" It's different when government employees are the experts, because they work for the state, not directly for the prosecuter. But I guarantee that defense experts always get asked how much they are being paid for showing up that day. I've seen it happen.
Cornwell had a next to unlimited budget. All she needed to do was get a different firm. If that happened, my questions about her relationship with it would be moot. Strictly vendor-customer. Nothing wrong with that.
Rich, you consistently point out my first post - one that was vague, and meant more as an off-hand comment in response to Dan's question about Cornwell's relationship to the VIFSM - as being "my accusation". Please read what I have written since then - hell, READ THE NEXT SENTENCE - it clears up what you claim is an unfounded allegation. See, that's the point of responding to threads. I write something, you respond, I respond back. If there's a question as to what I meant, I respond explaining it, like I did. But you keep ignoring my responses clarifying and keep going back to my first post. Stop doing that. I'm trying to answer your questions.
As to the "allegation" (you like to throw that word around) that Cornwell or VIFSM refused to release their raw data - when did I say they refused? When did I say she wouldn't allow independent confirmation? All I said was she SHOULD do this, as a way of clearing up the issue, of removing any appearance of impropriety. I never said she was asked and refused to do so. Again, you're twisting my suggestion into an allegation.
But I'm going to try and get in touch with both and see if they'll give it to me, just to see how they respond. I'll let you know if they do. See what happens when you piss me off enough?
I think an interview with someone on her mDNA team would be a fine addition to Ripper Notes or one of the other magazines if I can get one. Perhaps I'll put on a "freelance reporter/graduate student" cap, and start making phone calls.
This is going to be my last post on this thread, unless I can get a copy of her mDNA report, or an interview with Dr. Ferrara, or another researcher who worked on the project.
Frankly, I'm getting a little sick of everytime I post a criticism of an author I don't like getting called a libeler. This isn't what these boards are about. I've been here long enough to figure that out. For anyone else who is still reading this thread, I'm sorry for causing all the ruckus. I'm still a newbie here, bear with me.
B |
Author: judith stock
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 03:39 am | | Dear Rich, Brian, et.al.,
TO RICH,
As far as I know, freedom of speech is, indeed, alive and well on the message boards. Since my last post, I have gone back and read every one on this thread back to the first of the archived material from yesterday; it STILL appears to me that those who think Cornwell's use of VFI personnel was ill-advised, are merely expressing an opinion. Nowhere is the charge of fraud made as fact. While I believe you, Rich, are on shaky ground defending Cornwell's use of her employees, that is still your opinion and your right to have it. Please be gracious enough to allow me, Brian and the rest the same right.
And, while we are on the subject, I THINK O.J. DID IT! That IS libellous, I know, but it is what I THINK. I also think Bloomberg is a crappy mayor for NYC, that Bush is an idiot who looks like Howdy Doody, that Hilary Clinton set women's rights back four million years when she "stood by her man" (GAG!!), that Germany KNEW what Hitler planned for the camps (he TOLD them what he would do to the Jews and other "undesirables" in MEIN KAMPF),that Nessie will eventually show herself, that the Ripper was Victoria in lifts and a false moustache, that Judge Crater will eventually come home, that Lee Harvey Oswald was NOT a lone shooter, AND, that, Hauptmann did NOT kidnap the Lindbergh baby. Believing all this does not make it so, NOR does saying that I believe it make it truth. What I believe, and what opinions I may express, are solely my own, and I have the right to believe and express 'em. That is not crying "fire" in a crowded theatre; it is saying what I believe....NOT what I know to be fact....and I can believe what I wish.
Brian, I would NOT count on getting any data out of her research team, luvvy, so forget the phone call, save your pennies, and come to Baltimore in 2004 for the conference, OK? This is my last post here, too, Brian; this thread is NOT gonna make me crazy. There's no other way to explain, so I'm outta here!
Cheers to all,
J |
Author: Philip Rayner
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 06:21 am | | Can't you guys just agree to disagree, her theory is pants anyway (UK slang lit. Crap, Rubbish, total and utter nonsense.). Why argue about a technical side issue. Both sides have explained themselves over and over again and you are now flogging a dead horse.
Caz and I disagree over the Diary and we argued it back and forth for a while but we realised that neither would change the others mind and backed off. The only worry is that Cornwell, being who she is, would have a field day with this. As she doesn't give a toss about serious Ripper research I doubt she would come near the casebook so that's not likely, but it's possible.
Cornwell on the message boards, wow, there' an idea. |
Author: Ally
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 07:08 am | | "
I would not expect someone from VFI to choose to debate people who have called one of their board of director's insulting names,"
Yeah it's so much easier to only email a sychophantic toady who will deliver the threat of lawsuit for them and hopefully scare us into shutting up before people realize how improper this whole business does appear.
Let them sue ..terrific publicity for the Casebook..national attention of our every argument against Cornwell. Not to mention that national attention to the fact that the board members of VFI can apparently hire out their teams on a whim for their own independent money making venture.
I would love to see them build a case: They said it appeared improper for a sitting board director to use her own team to prove her pet suspect was the Ripper and earn herself millions of dollahs.
Yup yup. They have a case.
And by the way, considering Patty is a famous person, libel would be very hard to prove anyway.
Ally |
Author: Philip Rayner
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 07:56 am | | That's quite interesting Ally. I have been wondering how, given the contentious nature of the subject matter, the casebook as a business feels about possible legal action. Some of my own remarks about the Barretts and the Diary could be construed as potentially libellous. Some of the Cornwell/VFI comments are also. Freedom of speech is paramount but let's not forget, Cornwell comes from the land of the lawsuit.
Purely as a layman, I realise that the comments are not made by the owners of the site. We are all private citizens in several countries. Having said that the Casebook could be seen as the 'Publisher' of those comments. I just wonder if Stephen shares your view of 'Let them sue.' Any court case is expensive, win or lose.
I am not taking issue with you Ally. You clearly hold strong views on this. I don't share those views as previous posts on this thread will show. We are, I think, agreed that whether tests were influenced or not it does not make Cornwell's theory any more credible and so is immaterial but it is just the legal issues that I am querying.
Phil |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 08:28 am | | Sigh. I'm getting really tired of seeing the "L" word tossed around. It's depressing.
For those who are interested in what libel actually is, and what is required to prove it check out this excellent article on CNN findlaw:
CNN Findlaw
It's an anlysis of Gary Condit's suit against Dominck Dunne, but it covers the basics very well. There's some pretty high hurdles to jump.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Philip Rayner
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 08:56 am | | John
Thank you for the link to CNN, I can now see why it would be difficult for Cornwell to prove a case against these comments.
I just wished to clarify for others like myself how a message board stands legally and I think the main problem Cornwell would have would be to prove that we had damaged her reputation with our opinions. Similarly with others mentioned in the boards. I hereby promise not to mention the depressing 'L' word again.
Phil |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 09:14 am | | Hi all,
I think Philip's advice is wise - the argument has gotten very circular very quickly.
Hi Brad,
Actually, I am not Peter Wood - a year ago you probably would have been quite dismayed to see he and I go round and round against the diary.
Hi Ally,
Let's get a few things straight. I am not a "sycophantic toady" for Cornwell. It's certainly your right to call me names because I disagree with you, but you surely can come up with a better insult than that.
As I have written repeatedly, I think Cornwell's work is terrible, her book is poorly researched, and I think she relies on intuition too heavily. Would a "toady" really say that about someone they are allegedly devoted to?
What I oppose are venomous personal attacks. So, although you and I don't get along, I would oppose the same insults directed at Cornwell if they were directed at you - namely that because you are a woman your critical thinkins is weak, if someone labeled you "Allyger," that you deliberately put out a theory that you "knew all along" to be untrue, and the multitude of other insults posted.
With regard to potential libel action, let me make clear that no one wrote me that any legal action was planned. I was emailed that the charges that VFI produced biased results to assist their boss is seen as a serious charge.
I am not a lawyer. You are correct. Cornwell is a public figure. But are the researchers at VFI? And why assume the Casebook would be liable - perhaps it would be the individual posters.
And, for those who believe that lawsuits against those who post unfounded allegations over the internet are so remote and unlikely might review the case Blumenthal v. Drudge.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Philip Rayner
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 09:46 am | | "the argument has gotten very circular very quickly."
And is becoming more so with each new post. |
|
|
|
|
