|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through 09 January 2003
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects:
How many others believe that Walter Sickert was " Jack the Ripper"?:
Archive through 09 January 2003
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 10:22 am |        | Rich,
Since this has nothing to do with our argument, I feel like I can post on it:
I reviewed "Blumenthal v. Drudge" (I've actually met Sidney Blumenthal, he worked at the White House while I was there). He settled the case with Drudge, and ended up paying Drudge's attorney fees in return for a promise from Drudge not to counter-sue. So what's your point?
The Casebook is protected because they do not purport statements made here to reflect their own opinions. All of us who have made comments on this thread are protected because we have not made "false statements of fact". All we've done is expressed opinion.
So next time do a little fact checking before throwing around words you don't understand.
B |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 10:50 am | | Brian,
Drudge had to also post a retraction. The point I am trying to make is simply because something is posted on the internet, does not mean that one is not subject to libel laws.
I am not sure that you can express any opinion you want about someone, even if false, and not be subject to potential legal action. I question whether "In my opinion, Brian is the New Orleans serial killer/child molestor/criminal" is protected speech.
Rich |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 11:16 am | | Hi all,
I withdraw my comments suggesting those making allegations against Cornwell and VFI are airing unsubstantiated charges.
In Ally's last post she wrote:
"Let them sue ..terrific publicity for the Casebook..national attention of our every argument against Cornwell."
If Cornwell/VFI elect not to respond, with your direct challenge, I would have to say that the allegations you and others have made are given credibility.
I think unsubstantiated charges are grossly unfair. But when someone makes remarks, and challenges those who disagree to take them to court, I have to believe the individual making the remark is confident in their comments and that they can defend them with evidence.
My apologies to all for questioning the lack of evidence in your assertions.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 11:44 am | | Rich,
Everyone is at risk of "potential legal action". You can sue anyone for anything. Whether or not it stands up in court is the question.
And by adding the "In my opinion," to your post does make that protected speech. If it was left out, I'd have a good case for defamation of character. You'd me making a false statement of fact. But if you are merely expressing an opinion, it's protected. You aren't saying that I definitely killed anyone, just that you think I did. No one is going to read that and say "Well, if Rich Dewar thinks Brian killed someone, he must have". I'd have a hard time proving that my reputation was tarnished by your opinion.
Now if you were Matt Drudge, with 8 million readers, and say that I have a documented legal history of beating my wife, and it's categorically untrue, it's a different story.
Do yourself a favor - go read something about libel.
And if you are retracting what you said before, I guess that means we win.
Then again, I am reminded of a favorite quote of mine from an unknown source: "Arguing on the internet is like being in the Special Olympics: Even if you win, you're still retarded."
B
(PS - Hope that doesn't offend anyone.) |
Author: Caroline Morris
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 11:46 am | | '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.'
DAN NORDER
This is the same as saying:
Cornwell may have crossed the line to outright fakery but if she hasn't I submit the reason is because she knew it would be difficult for her to cover it up.
Dan submits that Cornwell is a person who will stoop to outright fakery if she thinks she can get away with it.
It may be only an opinion, but I do wonder what Dan, or anyone, gains by expressing it.
It's an opinion that makes no logical sense because Cornwell has laid her cards on the table, arguing that she has solved the case with them. She hasn't, and everyone can see as clear as day that she hasn't, from the very cards she has laid. We can see Jack high while she is saying look - four aces.
To me that makes her an innocent abroad - not someone who would fake the evidence if she could get away with it.
And that makes Dan’s opinion sound more silly than serious - IMHO.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ally
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 11:54 am | | Sigh...people are really thick. Of course they would have to sue the individual posters. The Casebook has several disclaimers that say that the opinions expressed within in are not that of the Casebook and they take no responsibility blah blah..
If Cornwell wants to sue me for expressing my opinion, go ahead. I can see the headlines now:
"Patricia Cornwell tries to stifle Free Speech!!
Ever gone to a terrible movie? Ever come out and said.. my god that actress is terrible! She ought to be washing dishes rather than acting. She must have slept with the director to get that part!! Well according to the Patsy Cornwell school of logic, such talk is libelous and you can now be sued! That's right folks, keep your opinions to your self otherwise you are going to be tied up in costly litigation!"
Gee..I am thinking there ought to be a new ban. Anyone who mentions libel..bye bye. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 12:12 pm | | Hi all,
I am not going to mention the magic word - and I think we can conclude the conversation regarding legal actions Cornwell/VFI etc on this thread.
However, Brian did make the comment that anything written as opinion is protected speech. I would not want anyone to operate under the assumption that is not necessarily true.
Posted on James Goodale's internet website is the following passage, and since he is a constitutional lawyer, I think his remarks deserve consideration when we post remarks:
"One of the most important decisions to rely on this reasoning was that of Ollman v. Evans[44] in which a professor sued two syndicated columnists for writing that he was a Marxist activist. The district court ruled that the column was opinion and was thus protected under the First Amendment.[45]
However, the United States Supreme Court put an abrupt end to this exception and the protection of opinion in the area of defamation in its decision of Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., [46] stating: “we do not think this passage from Gertz was intended to create a wholesale defamation exemption for anything that might be labeled ‘opinion.’ ”
I think its important to understand that just because we are expressing our opinion does not necessarily mean we are unaccountable for the remarks.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 12:39 pm | | Rich,
Once again, I'm talking apples and you're talking catalytic converters. Your analogy to Ollman v. Evans and Milkovich is not even close to what we're talking about. It's almost a non-sequitir.
If you can't see the differences, well...I'll let other readers fill in the blank there.
I thought you gave up?
B |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 12:40 pm | | Ally,
I'm up for that new ban. And I promise to be good from now on.
B |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 01:13 pm | | I agree implicitly with everything Ally says. I am further beginning to feel a powerful romantic attachment to her. Not only do I agree with everything she says, I will do anything she asks. I've never felt like this before.
David |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 02:47 pm | | Hi all,
VFI is a respected research institute. No one with expertise has questioned their findings. In fact, no major author on the case has disputed the DNA results. No one, to my knowledge, has challenged VFI to release the samples so that they can test the material themselves.
There is no evidence or even suggestion by one responsible or noteworthy authority questioning the veracity of their findings.
The only criticism of VFI, as far as I can see thus far, are by those here with their whispered hints of imagined appearances of inpropriety.
Rich |
Author: Dan Norder
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 02:56 pm | | Caz,
The two statements you say are equal aren't at all comparable.
People were saying that she couldn't have had control over the evudence because if she had the evidence would have ended up looking better. I was just pointing out that based upon the science (age of the DNA) the evidence *couldn't* have looked better or it would have been an obvious fake.
My saying she either didn't try to fake or wanted to but knew she couldn't get away with it is not the same as saying she definitely tried to fake.
But, as far as that goes, the way Cornwell has selected which facts to highlight (fistula, Sickert was in London at some point, etc.) and which to sweep under the rug (fistula not on penis, Sickert in France at the time of killings, etc.), as well as her refusal to go to radio interviews where informed Ripperologists can counter claims, it's clear that she's not at all interested in having all the evidence publicized. Her actions have nothing to do with science or research (as the VFI was intended to be when created) but on innuendo, ego-boosting, and sales of her book.
So to me she looks exactly like the kind of person who would fake evidence if she could get away with it. She already knowingly misleads the press and her readers about the full nature of the case and makes personal attacks on other authors and the operator of this website. She also purposefully writes about her experience with a forensic group in such a way that it misleads people into thinking she was a medical examiner when she was actually just a secretary. It's very clear that she's a master at misdirection and leading people astray. That's the same intent as a liar, but just more devious.
In my mind, all of that makes her unethical and makes the members of the forensics team irresponsible and unprofessional for not stating publicly that what she is doing is the complete opposite of what the mission of that organization is.
Knowing how the law works and also the public sympathy involved for the underdog should she set her millions against my not meager finances, I know Cornwell and VFI wouldn't dare try to sue me for these comments. But, hey, if they want to try I'll welcome the attention, press, and eventual big paycheck they'd have to cough up for harassing me just for stating what needs to be said.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 03:20 pm | | Hi Dan,
Since you have suggested that someone who refuses to release all their evidence or debate those who oppose them is a liar or devious, let us see if you will support your the three accusations you make in the following two sentences:
"She already knowingly misleads the press and her readers about the full nature of the case and makes personal attacks on other authors and the operator of this website. She also purposefully writes about her experience with a forensic group in such a way that it misleads people into thinking she was a medical examiner when she was actually just a secretary."
1. What evidence do you have that Cornwell "knowingly" misled the press or the public - specifically, what is it that she "knows" that she is hiding?
2. What are the specific quotations that qualify as "personal attacks" against authors and the operator of this website?
3. What has Cornwell written that leads you to believe that she suggests to be a medical examiner? What evidence do you have that her duties never went beyond secretarial?
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 03:36 pm | | Hi all,
The suggestion has been made that because Ms. Cornwell declines to debate her findings with noted "ripperologists" indicates that she knows that her findings are untrue. Let me say, categorically, that such a contention is untrue.
Many people in the public world, authors and politicians, decline to debate their opponents. This does not indicate they do not believe their theory. It may indicate that they are weak in debate.
Frequently, those who refuse to debate, do so under the belief that they do not wish to share the stage with someone of lesser standing.
It is understandable that Cornwell, even if she feels her book is 100% accurate, has nothing to gain by sharing the stage with other Ripper authors. Why draw attention to what she sees as her competitors? Why risk losing her audience based on her becoming flustered or emotional from potential personal attacks?
I agree with the view, that many have expressed, that many people who have followed this case closely would likely reveal her lack of understanding of many of the fundamental elements of this case. That does not mean that she feels that way.
I have looked to see if Cornwell has ever participated in a debate on any subject. I have found no information.
I believe that if someone could show that in the past she debated topics she knew about, and now she refuses to debate a subject for which she claims expertise, then the allegation made has some credibility.
Lacking any evidence, it is yet again another attack on Cornwell lacking any evidence whatsoever - based entirely on intuition.
Rich |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 03:45 pm | | | Yawn. |
Author: Dan Norder
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 04:12 pm | | Rich,
I thought you said, "But when someone makes remarks, and challenges those who disagree to take them to court, I have to believe the individual making the remark is confident in their comments and that they can defend them with evidence. "
I have already challenged you (and especially Cornwell or the VFI) to take me to court. The argument is thus either over or will have a change of venue from these boards to a court of law.
Either way you can stop wasting your time here trying to reargue the same points we've already seen from you a hundred times already, and which have already been counterargued. I know I have better things to do.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 05:04 pm | | Dan,
My remarks are in the context of actionable items - I don't think your words are actionable. And even if they were, I have no standing since I am not the injured party.
You were the one who said that if Cornwell refuses to release all of her evidence or debate those who oppose her is indicative that she is either a "liar" or "devious."
Then, in your very next post, you refuse to support your allegations with one bit of evidence.
Cornwell sees your demands for her to repeat her charges and provide evidence the same as mine - an irritating nuisance.
The difference between Cornwell and you, is at least she tried to include some data beyond her own intuition. Thus far, you have not.
Rich |
Author: Dan Norder
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 05:19 pm | | "Cornwell sees..."
She does, huh? You her official spokesperson now?
All evidence to support my allegations has *already* been posted to these boards by myself and others *several times now*. And how much evidence do you even need to prove someone is "devious"? Unbelievable.
It's like arguing with a brick wall, except the wall has an excuse for being dense.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 05:24 pm | | Hi all,
If we are going to hold Cornwell to certain codes of conduct and action, in order to prove that her work is ethical, honest, and sincere, we should not complain when someone says we should be held to the same standard when making such charges.
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.
What happens repeatedly, because a vocal and emotional minority loathes Cornwell, is that charges are made continually against her personally. I have asked for one shred of evidence to support any of these charges against her or her research center.
The debate has been roughly like this:
Cornwell detractor: Cornwell is a liar.
Me: What evidence do you have Cornwell is a liar?
Cornwell detractor: I never accused Cornwell of being a liar. It is the way I feel. Stop arguing with me. Besides, Cornwell IS a liar.
Me: But why do you feel that way?
Cornwell detractor: You are being argumentative - why not let it rest?
So, at this point, I suppose I should.
Rich |
Author: Jeff Murrish
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 05:27 pm | | Hello all. I am a new poster (introduced myself over at the "Pub")who has been lurking here for about 6 months now. Please forgive me if this has been brought up before, but there are some facts about mitochondrial DNA that Ms Cornwell does not address in her book.
As she mentions, it is passed from mother to son/daughter. As such, your mitochondrial DNA can be traced back along the direct line of your FEMALE ancestors.
PC mentions in her book that to dig up Sickerts parents would not be helpful in looking for a DNA match (or makes some such similar statement. I do not have her book with me at the current time). Actually, if there were enough non-degraded DNA associated with his mothers remains, and it could be tested (getting family OK), that WOULD give us Walters DNA pattern.
Another route that can be taken would be to find a living descendant who can trace their ancestors thru the FEMALE line to one of Walters female ancestors (or his sisters, aunts, great aunts, etc.). Their mitochondrial DNA will be identical to that of Walters (assuming no mutations, which are very rare). Has anybody undertaken this? PC makes no mention of these possibilities in her book. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 05:32 pm | | Dan,
I have tried for months to get one critic to post the very accusation you made today against Cornwell - that she has made "personal attacks" against other authors and the operator of this website.
The charge is made repeatedly. It has never been substantiated. You said if someone makes charges and refuses to share the evidence they are either liars or devious.
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.
I asked a month ago about this and the only reply was for me to "do my own research." I haven't found one personal attack. It is one of those mythical criticisms that seems to have come from nowhere.
So, Dan, what was the "personal attack" Cornwell launched on other authors (plural) and the operator of this website?
Rich |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 05:37 pm | | Jeff,
You are absolutely correct - the flaw you note is very important in showing the weakness of Cornwell's case.
Cornwell says her current research is ongoing - yet I do not believe she is going on the interesting path you mentioned.
Rich |
Author: judith stock
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 05:38 pm | | Dear Jeff, et.al. I KNOW I said I was "outta here"....so I lied. I have a "heads up" to add to all this tempest....for anyone who cares to see what the rest of the world (that includes Sickert experts, journalists, reviewers) has to say about Cornwell's rubbish, check out the editorial in the latest RIP.....'nuf said.
J |
Author: Jeff Murrish
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 08:03 pm | | | Judith, sorry, I'm not familiar with "RIP" (other than the tombstone version). Is this a journal/magazine? |
Author: judith stock
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 12:28 am | | OOOPS, sorry, Jeff. Because I'm lazy, I called THE RIPPEROLOGIST by its' short name. It is the journal of the CLOAK AND DAGGER CLUB, is edited by Paul Begg, and is produced beautifully by Adam Wood. This month's editorial is a beaut....maybe I can get Stephen to get permission from Paul to put the op-ed on the Casebook..are you listening, Stephen??? Apologies, Jeff.
J |
Author: Jeff Murrish
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 01:39 am | | | Thanks J. I suspected that is what it was. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 03:41 am | | Hi All,
If Dan can see that Cornwell has told lies and deliberately misled her readers, then the rest of her readers must be in a position to see that too - unless Dan has new and different information from everyone else. And if everyone can already see Cornwell is trying to mislead them with devious lies, they are obviously not being misled by them, so where's the harm, except to Cornwell herself?
So if not everyone can see what Dan sees, could Dan please help open their eyes by giving them the info they lack - as a public duty.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Dan Norder
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 04:53 am | | Caz and Rich,
I'm getting really sick of you two twisting people's words to try to make them worse than they are. I didn't say Cornwell was a liar, I said that she tries to mislead people, and pointed out that that is the same basic intent as a liar but more devious. I didn't say she was a liar (so nobody is "lying about liars" as Rich claims) or even a "devious liar" (as Caz says).
As far as providing the info to show this, earlier today on this very thread I gave examples of Cornwell misleading people and now Caz shows up asking me to provide examples as a public duty. Been there, done that.
As far as Rich asking for proof that Cornwell insulted ripperologists, way back on Nov. 21 he himself said on these boards, "I am generally aware of her remarks suggesting that many "Ripperologists" are weird, strange, unbalanced lunatics." And no wonder, since a lot of examples of Cornwell attacking ripperologists were posted that day and the days previous from people who were at her Smithsonian lecture and listened to or participated in radio shows she was on. She made all sorts of outrageous accusations, and they were listed here, but got buried under lots of posts.
And now he wants evidence... Great. Just go check out the posts from Nov. 17 - 23 on the "Patricia Cornwell/Walter Sickert" thread (unfortunately archived in several separate folders because of the sheer volume of posts during that week) under the Ripper Suspects section of this site. There are many examples.
I can't for the life of me figure out what Caz and Rich hope to accomplish by constantly rehashing this argument and asking for people to give proof that has already been given several times over.
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: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 05:53 am | | Jeff Murrish:
I am looking for any relatives of Walter Sickert. The research is being done in Germany, Denmark, Australia and the UK and is progressing well. |
Author: Ally
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 07:31 am | | Hiya Dan,
I can help explain the motivation involved here. It's the basic troll principle. Just argue repetitively, vociferously and retardly whatever is most likely to be contrary to the established opinion. It's even better if there is no actual fact or reason supporting your argument such as Dewie's insistence that there is no appearance of impropriety in PC hiring her own company to test the results of her independent money making venture--no conflict of interest there, no sir! So you see they do this on and on until the entire mass turns on them, and then they claim persecution and harassment and how this kind of behavior is what's making the boards a terrible place and driving away all the "good" people. Usually the "good" people are either former supporters or boot-lickers of theirs, people who had no problem disparaging others until the tables got turned or people who share the same philosophy that the boards ought to be run how they want them run, and if they aren't ta ta.
Ta ta,
Ally |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 09:30 am | | Dan,
Talk about twisting words! We say you are calling Cornwell a liar and your reply is that you are not calling her a liar - you are saying she deliberately misleads people. Talk about a difference without a distinction!
You made a specific allegation - that Cornwell launched personal attacks on authors (plural) and the operator of this site. You also said that someone who makes allegations and refuses to share their information is "misleading."
What Cornwell has said, reflected in the quote from my earlier post, is that many people (not all) who treat this case as a parlour game, who enjoy going on walking tours to revist the ghoulish site, and don't see these killings as vicious, cold blooded murders are weird, lunatics. This is hardly the "personal attack" you describe.
There is no need to revisit that thread Dan because, as you know, I was a participant. And I was asking the same question then that I ask now. People were throwing around the accusation that Cornwell had somehow personally attacked authors and this website, ergo posters stated they felt the right to personally attack her (her sexuality, her name, her sanity, her honesty, etc etc).
What I did then, was simply ask, what is the specific personal attack? And the reply then, as it is now, is that she does it constantly and all you have to do is look it up. Because I simply ask for the quote - because I cannot find it - I am regarded as "lazy."
What I am beginning to believe, and I am sure it is clear to any neutral observer, is that you are actually aware of no specific quotes attacking any "authors or the operator of this website."
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.
If you have time to look up my past posts and quote me, certainly you have time to find these remarks from Cornwell which have so outraged you.
Rich |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 09:41 am | | Ally,
Asking you to provide evidence for your charge is not arguing. You obviously don't like to be held to the same standard that you hold (others).
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.
Because, the fact is, Caz and I could be quieted very easily. All you have to do is if you make a charge "Cornwell personally attacked an author" is tell us who the author was and what was the attack.
Instead, you go on a hysterical rant about how asking that question is trolling and causing trouble.
Yes, I can see how you feel someone asking you to provide evidence for your charges is causing trouble.
Rich
Ps - rather than the ad hominem assaults. . .lets just stick to the facts:
It is alleged Cornwell made a personal attack against authors of the case and this justifies attacking Cornwell
Again, who are the authors, what were the attacks? |
Author: John Hacker
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 09:47 am | | | Zzzz... |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 09:49 am | | Prediction: In their next posts, Ally and Dan will not provide the requested evidence for the pending charge made against Cornwell (that she made personal attacks upon authors).
One of three possible scenarios will occur:
1. Most likely they will attack me personally for asking the question (you are just causing trouble)
2. They might offer some vague quotation ie "some ripperologists are weird" and claim that this is personal attack against everyone interested in the case. Or the old standard they used before (everyone knows, you are an idiot for not following the issue).
3. They might ignore my post entirely since they really have no proof of the charges
Number three is really the best I can hope for - thought number one is the most likely.
Rich |
Author: John Hacker
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 09:55 am | | | Zzzz... |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 10:09 am | | Interesting that flamboyant unsupported charges keep some people alert, but the request for the facts puts these same people asleep.
Must be the same reason that tabloids sell better than journals.
Rich |
Author: John Hacker
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 10:16 am | | | Zzzz... |
Author: Ally
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 11:35 am | | Richard,
Did you take a class in sanctimonious bullsh*t? You got an A, didn't you?
I don't have to provide evidence, I didn't make the claim but since you want evidence, go back and read the last 24 million posts where it has been provided over and over and then read her book, and then listen to her taped interview where she calls Rumbelow a ghoul.
Prediction: Dewie will get banned for being a troll.
Yes, I am a member of the Klingon conspiracy.
Ally |
Author: Ally
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 11:35 am | | | Oh wait...she didn't call him a ghoul...she said he was ghoulish. Talk about a difference without a distinction. |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 01:46 pm | | Rich,
I've tried not to get involved here, but I can't help it.
First, why do you think it's okay to call Dan a liar and not Cornwell? Where is your evidence Dan is a liar?
Second, here's the evidence you've requested:
1.) From a transcript of a Washington Post online chat that can be found here: Cornwell Wash. Post Chat
"What I find extremely important about solving this case -- and I didn't do it by myself -- is first of all, the Ripper has become an industry and people have forgotten that the point is justice and the victims and remembering that this was a savage lust murderer [not] someone who should be halfway celebrated or entertaining.
I'm very offended when people begin to mythologize a violent offender. He does deserve to be unveiled. It is never too late for justice."
That, to me, is an attack on all of the authors who have written books and/or make money off of the case.
2.) The same chat: "I did not reference Knight because my method was to use primary sources, not people's theories. Although I am somewhat aware. Most of these theories are ridiculous. There is no evidence that Victoria's elderly surgeon, who had already suffered a stroke -- or the Duke of Clarence -- is simply silly. "
This is an attack on Stephen Knight. Knight's book did have a lot of theories, many were bad, but he also did a lot of credible research.
3.) A post of David Radka's (and I remember what he was talking about, as I watched it too) Saturday, 21 December 2002 - 10:18 pm: " I watched the entire program on C-Span2 earlier today. Ms Cornwell spoke before a group of forensics experts in Glen Allen, Virginia, on 12/10/02. She seemed rather younger than I'd expected. The crowd, mostly middle-aged and female, seemed enthusiastic.
"This program contained a rebuke of Stephen Ryder. Ms Cornwell referred to him indirectly, as "the guy who has a web site on Jack the Ripper." She picked up on a statement Stephen apparently made that she hadn't adequately shown that the letters attributed to Sickert were written by the murderer. She stated that since a jury would convict Sickert based on the letters, therefore running a web site concerning the case doesn't equip one to understand the case. This got a laugh from the audience. No attempt was made to link the letters to the murderer by case evidence. "
This is an attack on Stephen. I made a post after Radka's, mentioning that I saw it as well.
4.) A quote of hers from a review of her book in the weekly standard which can be found here: Weekly Standard Review
" "These were not cute little mysteries to be transformed into parlor games, or movies, or the subject of conventions of mystery buffs, but rather a series of horrible crimes that no one should get away with, even after death." She also deplores the posthumous character assassination of wrongly accused Ripper suspects: "I don't think you should ever theorize about someone being a criminal just because they're dead and you can get away with it. That's a terrible thing." "
Here we have two things going on. First, she's attack all of us - including YOU Rich - for this being a hobby of ours. Apparently we're evil because we attend "conventions of mystery buffs". Second, she's being hypocritical because what she has accused all of the other authors of: "theorizing about someone being a criminal" is exactly what she did, and her theory is no more plausible than Stephen Knight's is.
5.) An article on iAfrica.com located here: iAfrica article
"Cornwell's findings and conclusions have been challenged by established "Ripperologists" who have made a living out of the mini-industry surrounding the Ripper mystery.
"These Ripper people are understandably very angry," Cornwell said. "They don't want somebody else to find out the suspect. It ruins their party."
Apparently, we're having a nice old happy party here. That's not the tone say, Stephen Hawking would have about the research of Alan Turing. This also appears to be a review or article that is made up of AP wire stuff, because I saw these quotes quite frequently.
6.) An article from the Denver Post that goes into more detail about her not hypocrisy, which can be found here: Denver Post review (I can't link directly to it.)
"For Cornwell, writing "Portrait of a Killer" was more than just the opportunity to defend helpless victims and "show how far you can push forensic science." It was also a chance to set the record straight for some wrongly accused men. "Even if someone's dead you should not name them as a suspect in such a horrible crime if you don't even have evidence that that person did it," said Cornwell, referring to countless books espousing theories of who Jack the Ripper really was.
"It's terrible to say that the Duke of Clarence was a serial killer. It's terrible to say that poor, depressed Montague Druitt drowned himself in the Thames because he was a serial killer. There's no evidence, whatsoever, that any of these people committed these crimes. That's a terrible legacy to leave somebody." But, after more than a year of investigations and 20 trips to England and France (among other places) in search of more evidence, Cornwell has no such compunction about her main suspect. "The more I got into it, the more it was clear to me that Walter Sickert was a very strong suspect," Cornwell said, adding, "Then I became convinced." "
Okay. So there is some evidence that she has attacked other authors. Not merely their theories, but also their integrity - saying they the put forth names of suspects with no evidence, and hinting that they were just trying to make money.
And keep in mind that this is only the stuff that I could find from transcripts and articles online in twenty minutes of searching. She's gone on a major tour promoting these books, and frequently took questions from the audience, so there's the possibility (I feel probability) that she's blasted us and them even more, especially if she knows no one is taping. It's the same in politics - we don't say the really bombastic lines we have until we are off camera. So, do you finally believe us when we say she's attacked us?
Predictions:
1a.) Rich won't shut up, and say I am misinterpreting what she wrote.
OR
1b.) Rich will ignore me.
2.) He won't provide any evidence that Dan Norder is a liar.
3.) Rich will keep arguing with Ally because subtlety is lost on him.
B |
|
|
|
|
