Patricia Cornwell to speak and take questions

** 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 **

Patricia Cornwell to speak and take questions

Casebook Message Boards: Pub Talk: Patricia Cornwell to speak and take questions

Author: james T. Bletner Monday, 04 November 2002 - 06:02 pm
Patricia Cornwell is going to speak on her new book, Portrait of a Killer:Jack the Ripper-Case Closed, to benefit the University of Tennessee Forensics Institute. The event will be held at the Knoxville Convention Center, November 17, 2002 at 2:00 p.m. She will speak for about 30 minutes and take question for about an hour. Dr. William Bass professor emeritus of the UT Department of Anthropology will introduce her. Tickets may be obtained by calling 865-656-4444 and are $50. Presigned copies of her book will be available at the lecture. Regardless how you feel about this research and book, this in an excellent opportunity to pick her brain or grill her as you choose. Myself, I'll keep an open mind until I read her book and fire some questions at her. Most of you know of Dr Bass, the founder of the 'Body Farm' and world wide expert. This might also be an opportunity to meet him. Cornwall comes here to study from time to time and wants to give something back to the department for their help. Contact JBletner@utk.edu if you need further information.
Author: Scott E. Medine Tuesday, 05 November 2002 - 09:02 am
Thanks for the information James. Athens is not that far away so I'll be there with my tape recorder and questions. Thanks. Scott
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Tuesday, 05 November 2002 - 10:46 am
Scott - Sounds good. Will you contact me before you go? If you could, I'd like you to write up a report of her appearance for Ripper Notes. CMD
Author: David Radka Tuesday, 05 November 2002 - 02:53 pm
The Cornwell countdown: ...5...4...3...2...1... Arf! Arf! David
Author: David O'Flaherty Saturday, 21 December 2002 - 06:20 pm
Pat Cornwell is on Book TV (C-Span2) right now. Dave
Author: Howard Brown Saturday, 21 December 2002 - 08:33 pm
Thanks Dave and Steve.....I learned zero from her discussion. She estimated over 45 people were killed by Sickert....She also whined about spending 6 million bucks for her effort....this scam is not as slick as the Maybrick one.
Author: Ivor Edwards Saturday, 21 December 2002 - 09:11 pm
Stephen and all, CONNED YET AGAIN BY ANOTHER SCAM!!! While checking the book reviews yesterday I noticed that a certain book just released which places Sickert in the frame as JTR has 500 votes!!!! and the book is listed as 16th out of 113. Just a few hours later I found that the votes had increased to 518.Most posters believe the book in question is crap so where have all these votes appeared from all of a sudden. Someone is having a laugh here surely and one does not need to be a brain surgeon to note that somthing is amiss. Even the Diary which has been on these boards for about 10 years and Stephen Knight's best seller have nowhere near this amount of votes between them.What exactly is going on here?
Author: Dan Norder Saturday, 21 December 2002 - 09:30 pm
Ivor, Even stranger is that before it was even released it had a lot of very highly rated votes here. There was a mysterious attack of people who couldn't have possibly read the book showing up to say how great it was. Dan ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See: http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Author: David Radka 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. I confess I found it hard to concentrate on what Ms Cornwell was saying, because it was so specious. Try as I might, I couldn't find any meat to sink my teeth into. Speaking in a quavering but determined voice, she seemed to jump around haphazardly, throwing journalistic hooks and rhetorical tricks. She spoke disparagingly of the U.S. Navy, based on the fact that two sailors she'd recently worked with had their fly open or were drunk on duty. The U.S. Navy could thus not win the upcoming war with Saddam, she concluded. The notion that Sickert had an evil personality development stemming from having a botched surgery on his penis when a child was delivered with solemn concrete seriousness, as if she were speaking out of a profound knowledge of human males, their possibilities, their psychological issues, and a real maternal concern for their welfare. I cannot say she has any depth whatever in understanding the case. Generally, her whole speech was delivered from the perspective of the foregone conclusion that Sickert was guilty, and thus that anyone disputing this as fact was disputing the univocity of science. Ms Cornwell took pains to repeat that forensics experts were good people, that she loved them, that they were underpaid, undertrained, and deserved better than they had. I came away wondering at the damage she was doing to the objectivity of their profession by alleging that forensics has proven Sickert guilty when it hasn't. I honestly don't believe her audience had thought through her claims well enough to realize that she is in fact shaming them since, if forensics is used to justify false allegations, its value is diminished, not enhanced. This is all it takes to get $100 million nowadays. A sadder state of affairs I have not seen. David
Author: Brian Schoeneman Saturday, 21 December 2002 - 11:39 pm
So, anyone want to defend her now? I saw the same thing, David, and it made me want to puke. I suppose I shouldn't get angry though - that might make me sink to her pathetic level. B
Author: Christopher T George Sunday, 22 December 2002 - 02:03 am
Hi, all: Knowing C-Span, the Cornwell broadcast will probably be shown again in rotation, so check the schedule. It occurs to me she may have been referring to Stephen Ryder when she referred to "the guy who has a web site on Jack the Ripper" who said she hadn't adequately shown that the letters attributed to Sickert were written by the murderer... or else she may have thought I was Stephen Ryder when I had my two run-ins with her when she was in Washington, D.C. As you may recall during those encounters, I brought up the fact that Messrs. Evans and Skinner in their Jack the Ripper: Letters from Hell make the point that none of the letters have been proven to be from the murderer. Best regards Chris George
Author: Peter Wood Sunday, 22 December 2002 - 07:54 am
Come on guys, I'm sure we all pretty much agree - at this stage - that Walter Sickert wasn't Jack the Ripper, but why not try to take something positive out of what Patricia Cornwell is doing? The crux of all the arguments against her seem to be that she can't prove that the letters were sent by the murderer, right? Maybe not, but she's done a pretty damn good job of proving that Sickert sent some of them - even Paul Begg and Peter Birchwood didn't put up much opposition to that! In all the time that the case has been discussed, how many people have been conclusively proven to be the authors of any of the letters? Cornwell's research is valuable, get down off your high horses and listen to her. You may learn something. Peter P.S. I still find it offensive that any of you think you have the right to refer to James Maybrick's diary as "The Maybrick Hoax". Clearly none of you have proof that the diary is a hoax and you never will, because it is genuine. Do yourselves a favour and at least try to disguise your ignorance on the subject, don't make inflammatory statements that you cannot possibly prove.
Author: chris scott Sunday, 22 December 2002 - 08:08 am
For all UK readers of casebook Next Sunday (29 December) Patricia Cornwell is the guest on "Desert Island Discs" on Radio 4 at 11.15am For non Uk readers who dont know the programme, the guest had to choose 8 discs they would choose to take of they were stranded on a desert island plus one book and one luxury. And no, Im not going to hazard any guesses as to what she will choose!! Chris Scott
Author: Spryder Sunday, 22 December 2002 - 08:30 am
My stance on Patricia Cornwell: None of the points made in her book convince me that Walter Sickert was either (a) the Ripper or (b) wrote any of the Ripper letters. They do, however, open the possibility that Walter wrote at least a few letters. The evidence Pat Cornwell now claims to have (voiced on the C-SPAN2 programme last night), namely that she has matched a "new" Sickert letter to the same batch of paper (approximately 6,000 sheets) as a Ripper letter, is significantly more convincing. If we take this point at its face value, I believe we now have to admit the probability that Walter Sickert did indeed write at least one Ripper letter. That said, I am still reticent to accept Cornwell's word as fact, for the following reasons: 1. We already know that Pat has either ignored or overlooked significant evidence that did not corroborate with her argument. Namely, that Sickert was alleged to have sired numerous illegitimate children, the existence of Joseph 'Hobo' Sickert, the numerous independent sources that place Sickert in Dieppe between August and October, etc. This is due either to a rushed investigation, or a deliberate attempt to quash all evidence that points the other way. Either way, it seriously impairs my ability to take Cornwell at her word. 2. Patricia Cornwell has a significant financial interest in Walter Sickert being the Ripper. Her objectivity in this issue is near-to-nil. She admits as much several times in her books and interviews when she states that she would be "mortified" and "broken" if she were to hear forensic results which eliminated Sickert as the killer. Ripperologists know all too well how a lack of objectivity can result in serious lapses of judgment when it comes to evidence pointing against a particular suspect. 3. We have not heard a single scientist on Cornwell's team state that THEY would be willing to stake their scientific reputation on the fact that Sickert was the killer. Cornwell herself has said as much, but one asks, WHAT reputation? She's a fiction writer, full stop. If "science solved this case," as Cornwell herself said last night, I don't want to hear it out of her mouth - I want to hear it from the scientists who performed the investigation, analyzed the evidence and produced the results. I want to know what they think, in their own words. So far, the little we've heard from the scientists has been extremely conservative. 4. Finally, I don't have much faith in Cornwell's ability to accurate paraphrase the words of others. She completely misrepresented comments I made to People Magazine in last night's C-SPAN2 programme, specifically for the purpose of discrediting me as some who "just runs a web site". If she were able and willing to misrepresent me, is she able and willing to misrepresent her scientists, if they came up with results which were not flattering to her case? When all is said and done, Cornwell's investigation has certainly re-opened the case against Sickert, at least in the sense that he seems a likely candidate to have hoaxed at least one Ripper letter. The problem I have is not with the investigation, but with Cornwell herself. I do not find her to be an objective investigator, nor a credible reporter. I want to hear these results from the source. If a legitimate paper expert can definitively stake his reputation on the fact that this new Sickert letter is indeed from the same batch of about 6,000 sheets of paper as one of the Ripper letters, then that's really something to be excited about. In fact, since Patricia obviously knows about this web site and may be reading this right now (long shot, but who knows)... I would be more than happy to publish, in full, the complete raw data and analyses compiled by your forensic team on this web site. Melvin Harris has done the very same thing with his independent investigations into the Maybrick Diary, allowing readers to independently view the scientific results on their own and decide for themselves just how damning they are. I would republish the data as they are, without comment.
Author: Dan Norder Sunday, 22 December 2002 - 08:41 am
Peter, People aren't just saying that someone who wrote Ripper letters isn't necessarily Jack the Ripper, they are also saying that she hasn't even proven that Sickert wrote any of the letters. Don't choose to focus on only one issue and assume that everyone agrees on the others. Cornwall hasn't proven anything except that she has no business trying to write nonfiction. The Maybrick Hoax is a whole other topic, but one equally shameful in the history of ripperology. Dan ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See: http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Author: judith stock Sunday, 22 December 2002 - 10:34 am
Just a reminder to everyone: Cornwell's "team of crack scientists" was composed of HER employees at the Forensic Institute in Richmond, VA. Does anyone care to speculate what results HER employees might have reached? Only trying to create a perspective here...... J
Author: Howard Brown Sunday, 22 December 2002 - 10:48 am
Dave Radka.........Great post ! Right on the money...We heard more about this woman complaining abut wearing pink wings when her silly ass went underwater,then facts of Sickert being the Ripper.....Dear Peter Wood; My man ! If I had the money and opportunity,I would try to persuade all of the participants in the Maybrick Diary submit to polygraphs to at least see if there was the possibility of a couple of bulls*** artists working in cahoots. You're a smart man,Peter,and you know they won't. Actually,I'd like the more direct method of investigation: The West Philly Lie Detector. Thats me and my cousin with 35 oz. baseball bats,a pot of coffee to keep us awake,and any 5 of the Maybrick "team" strapped to chairs inside my cousin Angelo Gravenese's garage.....THEN we would have the truth as to who started that whole ho...er..Diary.....Dear Steve Ryder: In light of the posts that Ivor and Dan have made above,is it not true that say for instance,the average poster can log in and vote for their favorite suspect each time they "visit" the site? I mention this,as these two gentlemen have brought up a good point.. Thanks Howard
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Sunday, 22 December 2002 - 11:41 am
Dear Mr Spryder, So, it seems YOU are the major obstacle which stands between Ms P. Cornwell and eternal glory! If she makes an offer you can't refuse...would you take it? Curious, Rosey :-)
Author: Peter Wood Sunday, 22 December 2002 - 11:56 am
No Dan, no one has been saying that, no one at all. Patricia Cornwell has been crucified for claiming that Sickert was the ripper and the main plank of the argument against her is along the lines of "How do you know that the ripper wrote those letters?" You see, she has proven that Sickert wrote some of the letters, she thinks those letters are 'confessional' ergo she makes the connection that Sickert must have been the ripper. Personally, I just think he was a sicko - but I don't think he would have stopped at just one letter. Her views are no more speculative than those of many other ripper authors whose books I have read. Her views on Stephen, if recorded correctly, are to be regretted. I doubt she has visited this site more than a couple of times and is therefore as guilty as those who condemn her book without having read it. But, whatever her opinion on Stephen and his band of merry men (that's all of us, by the way) that does not detract from the serious probability that she has identified the author of one, if not more, ripper letters. How many of you, who condemn her out of hand, can say that you've done the same? The way she goes about the case will not conclusively identify the ripper, apart from the mtDNA everything else is circumstantial evidence. It is enough to make her think "Wait a minute ...". That's her view, leave her with it. Just accept that, although she has pursued the wrong suspect and been rude to Stephen, the best of her evidence should not be ignored. Who knows where it may take us? As for you Dan, you're getting repetitive. I can't stand repetition. I say, I can't stand repetition. It gets boring. See what I mean. Peter. The "One true voice" in support of the "Genuine" Maybrick Diary".
Author: David O'Flaherty Sunday, 22 December 2002 - 02:52 pm
For those of us who missed the Pat Cornwell talk in its entirety, I think Book TV will rebroadcast it sometime December 29th. The schedule is a little confusing--probably they're having too much eggnog. Hmmm, eggnog. For those without access to cable television in the States, they have a web simulcast--just click the 'watch online' link. Plenty of good stuff there every weekend. The address is www.booktv.org Cheers, Dave
Author: Christopher T George Sunday, 22 December 2002 - 06:12 pm
Hi, Stephen: Thanks for clarifying your position on Ms. Cornwell's research, and I am glad that you clarified that she was talking about you when you said she mentioned you as the guy with the website, though you feel she misrepresented your remarks to People magazine. In regard to the figure that she mentioned in her Book TV presentation about the manufacture of 6,000 sheets of paper making it likely that Sickert wrote a certain Ripper letter, this figure was mentioned by her in the talk she gave at Lisner Auditorium on November 19 last. But I would like to know where her information comes from that only 6,000 sheets of paper were produced. Does this information come from a definitive inventory from the paper manufacturer that proves that 6,000 sheets and no more were produced, or only a partial inventory that may have survived that leaves open the possibility that a fuller inventory might tell a different story, or is it the case that someone has made the guess that it is estimated that only 6,000 sheets were manufactured? Thus until it is revealed how definitive this information is and how reliable, I agree with you that we cannot take Ms. Cornwell's say-so that she has such proof. I second your call to have Ms. Cornwell allow all her findings to be published on this site. If this is a scientific investigation, as she tells us, the results should be fully available to the public, and not closed to public scrutiny. Best regards Chris George
Author: Ivor Edwards Sunday, 22 December 2002 - 08:19 pm
Howard, Good post my man I quite agree. I think I will employ a dancer from Paul Raymonds Review Bar to spend eight hours a day pressing the vote button on the reviews.I worked it out that this time next year the review would state I have outsold the bible. When the dancer is not pushing the review button she can always push mine why not enjoy your work and obtain some fun from it ? As for baseball bats Howard my wife ( Kentucky born ) bought a rather nice Louisville Slugger which she said was for me.She was correct the "Slugger" was indeed for me and on many a day when her tea was not on the table she would beat me with it until I was black and blue all over.If that wasn't bad enough she had me cleaning up the 3 pints of blood afterwards suffice to say those Kentucky women are something else Howard. Yes many is the night that I have experienced the tap of a baseball bat upon my head while turning my back on the cherished one!!!!! or rather the one known in the household as SHE who must be obeyed at any cost. One of my duties was to wake my wife at precisely 7.00am each morning. This is where the cattle prod came in handy because I used it on my wife every morning when I woke her.Ok so it made her scream but that is not at issue here the point is that it got her to work on time!! The moral of this story could well be that a cattle prod can be just as effective as a baseball bat.
Author: Dan Norder Sunday, 22 December 2002 - 10:18 pm
Peter, Speaking of being repetitive, claiming that Cornwell has proven that Sickert wrote one or more letters over and over and over again does not make it so. You ignore what the DNA evidence means no matter how simply it is explained to you, so I'm afraid there's no hope for you when it comes to figuring out Cornwell's gameplan: confuse, lie, distort, imply and claim that that's enough to convice a man and prove 100% that she's right. She has no compelling evidence to prove (or even point strongly toward) any of her claims. I'm with Stephen in not trusting her to tell the truth about the supposed new evidence based upon her distortions we already know about, which means, right now, she has no evidence. But then at least this time you aren't insulting all Americans by implying that because TV shows here aren't to your liking that we are all idiots and not to be trusted, like the last time we went in a circle about Cornwell's lack of evidence. Dan ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See: http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Author: Brian Schoeneman Sunday, 22 December 2002 - 10:41 pm
Spryder, You're a better man than I. When I heard her make that quip, I about put my hand through the wall. There is nothing I hate more than a blowhard tramping on the good works of good people. You have done more for Ripperology with this site than she and her umpty-million dollars has ever done, or will ever do. I hope that that fact makes you feel warm and fuzzy. And ignore that woman - if she had any guts, she'd take on Stewart or you, instead of bashing you when you can't respond. Coward. B
Author: Howard Brown Sunday, 22 December 2002 - 10:50 pm
Dear Peter....While respecting Mrs. Cornwell for probably linking Sickert to a letter or even more,she makes wild comments in front of that sedated,(not sedate,) looking group in Virginia of cookbook and crime fiction aficinados such as Walter Sickert "probably killed 45 people".....There was no one there to toss her a question like some of the ones I have seen here posed....There was no one there to challenge a writer investigating the most eagerly sought after conclusion in history, with her own "squad" of friendly forensic experts....Thats because she likes a stacked deck.....Sure,you are correct that she has contributed to the case,if thats true about the DNA stuff. Thats it. She doesn't smell right,and I ain't talking hygeiene....I wouldn't buy a used car from her or her theory,regardless of DNA possibly being from Sickert on a letter.
Author: Ivor Edwards Monday, 23 December 2002 - 12:26 am
Hi Howard, That about sums it up quite nicely as it happens.
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Monday, 23 December 2002 - 11:04 am
Dear Mr Spryder, I second your idea...too. Curious and curiouser, Rosey :-)
Author: David Jetson Monday, 23 December 2002 - 02:18 pm
When I first heard about Patsy C spending big money on investigating JtR, I was kind of doubtful. In the world of publishing, at the top level that Patsy C works, you sign the contract and get the money and gaurantee there will be a saleable book at the end of it. So, what would happen if Patsy spent the money and came up with the same thing every other attempt has come up with? Inconclusive evidence. Not proven. Well, nobody is going to buy a book that ends up with the simple truth: I don't know who JtR was. So like every book except for the compilations and overviews, every POPULAR book that's intended to make money, someone has to be the patsy. (Pun intended) Sickert was pretty obviously picked out by Patsy as the patsy at a very early stage, probably before the actual work was written. We all know how scientific THAT approach is. Anyway, once I heard that the villain Patsy came up with was Walter Sickert, my immediate thought was "bulls**t" and I see no reason to modify that view. If she proved that Sickert wrote one or more of the letters, which I regard as possible but unlikely, then that proves nothing other than what we all already knew: Walter was a bit creepy. Great revelation there. There's no real evidence linking Walter to the crime. There's a lot of avenues that could have been checked and were obviously ignored that could prove that Walter DIDN'T do it. Patsy has come up with a really shoddy piece of work, and I think she well deserves the ridicule of the people on this forum. If she had genuinely proved anything, we should congratulate her, but the only thing she's proved is that she's STILL making money by writing fiction.
Author: Ivor Edwards Tuesday, 24 December 2002 - 12:02 am
Hi Dan, Good post to Peter if I may say and I quite agree with your comments which were very well put.
Author: David O'Flaherty Tuesday, 24 December 2002 - 12:38 am
Book TV will rebroadcast the Patricia Cornwell segment from 1:30 to 3:00 pm eastern on Sunday, December 29th. Just a reminder to those without cable or who are overseas, the show will be streamed at the Book TV site--you'll need the free RealPlayer to watch or listen. Cheers, Dave
Author: Caroline Morris Tuesday, 24 December 2002 - 06:10 am
Hi All, Question: would Cornwell have been better off, financially and every other wise in the long run, had she chosen to write more Scarpetta stuff during the time it took her to venture into Ripper territory? Love, Caz
Author: Howard Brown Tuesday, 24 December 2002 - 10:28 am
Dear Caz..........Your post above reminded me of a comment that Mrs.Cornwell made during the Glen Falls Va. press conference on C-Span,what my kid calls,"The Boring Channel" ( actually its more like the "Snoring Channel" )......anyway,she was reflecting on her labor spent and money used on her "quest" as she said for the "victims" over the last year or so....she seemed real world weary and made the comment that she wondered if it was all worth it...The impression I got,before I went back to my crack pipe,was that she feels as if she has done a good thing for the world and would like you and I to buy her book,if not her theory,to make her feel wanted....Thats just me. What do you think,Caz ? ...
Author: Dan Norder Tuesday, 24 December 2002 - 08:04 pm
Caz, Honestly, yeah, I think Cornwell really screwed up in her decision to try to write nonfiction. Her fans wanted more fiction, so she could have just given them what they wanted. Instead there's this supposed nonfiction book that almost nobody is being fooled by. If you go check the Amazon reviews on it, it's getting hammered on all sides. People with a genuine interest in ripperology are tearing it to shreds (including our Stephen, yet another reason Cornwell probably thinks of him as her personal nemesis), a lot of Cornwell's normal fans are saying things like "Interesting book, flimsy evidence," and only a handful of people are writing to say that she got the right person (and from the choice of fanboy phrases you can just picture the drool hanging off their chins as they type). From the looks of it, a lot of her normal fan base now knows that her ego got the better of her and that the book makes no sense. The overall Amazon reader review ratings are just about the lowest there for any Jack the Ripper-themed book. (Odd then that she's rated so highly be "readers" of this site -- it's probably just more likely that Amazon is better at catching people trying to spam the ratings.) It looks to me that the more she concentrates on Jack the less her normal fans are happy, and the more people realize that she doesn't know what she's talking about. It could end up derailing her career completely unless she gives it up. Dan ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See: http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Author: David O'Flaherty Tuesday, 24 December 2002 - 08:38 pm
Hi, Caz, Dan, Howard Anytime you've got a best seller on your hands, things are hunky-dory. Patricia Cornwell is definitely better off--she's all over television and making loads of money, which I believe is the bottom line for her publishers. Her bad reviews aren't hurting her sales, and controversy always helps. However stained her reputation gets, I bet she doesn't lose a single Scarpetta reader, which is her real fan base, not those of us here. Merry Christmas from your cynical friend, Dave
Author: David Radka Wednesday, 25 December 2002 - 01:06 am
What did y'all get for Christmas? There was a lot of giving and getting at our end of the street this year. We spent a lot at Godiva Chocolatiers and The Body Shop, giving assortments of chocolates, boutique shampoos and conditioners, and scented glycerine soaps to our female friends. We also bought out a liquidation sale at Ames Department Store, including towels and washcloths for everyone. We have a cat fancier on our list too, and bought them a case of Science Diet and a bottle of liquid catnip concentrate. In return we received several bottles (I wonder why anyone thinks of giving me that?), a pair of flannel boxer shorts, a 25" RCA color TV, a case of gourmet microwave popcorn, the official Encyclopedia of the Beatles (from someone who knows me well), a Walkman-type FM radio and some $$$. What sort of folks are y'all--what kind of gifts do you give and receive? Sharing this kind of information might be a good way to get to know one another better, avoiding misapprehensions in future postings. Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night. David
Author: Sir Robert Anderson Wednesday, 25 December 2002 - 03:29 pm
Where indeed? From Amazon: "Where's "Saucy Jack" when I need him?, December 18, 2002 Reviewer: Boss Nemo from Washington, DC USA What an almost complete waste of time! I say "almost" because I try to always find something good in everything. There was some interesting research about the history of policing in England and tidbits about paper manufacturing and handwriting analysis. However, if Ms. Cornwell had chosen to write this book as historic fiction and used one of her own characters as the investigator on the case then she might have been able to create something entertaining and worthwile. She then could have taken poetic license and beefed up some of her so-called evidence. Perhaps she could have had her protagonist find evidence in Inspector Abberline's "diary" or the Ripper's scrapbook. Instead she has served up nothing but sheer speculation and far-fetched hypotheses. All of her theories hinge on so many other possibilities that the case against her suspect tumbles like a house of cards. I have read many Jack the Ripper theories and I must say that most of them, although easily disproven, have been more interesting and plausible than Cornwell's unsubstantiated accusations. She backs up none of her "facts" with anything concrete, but has the hubris to claim that she has come up with the definitive solution. I'm especially irked by comments in which she says things like, "I wouldn't dare claim that these letters were written by Sickert or even Jack the Ripper," and then in subsequent paragraphs she states, "Clearly, the Ripper had a mixture of A Pirie batches (of paper) when he wrote these November 22nd letters..." That sounds to me like she's certain that those particular letters were indeed written by the Ripper. Throughout the entire loathesome book she does things like this and I found it more and more frustrating with every page that I turned. And yet I'd kept on reading because I kept hoping that she'd actually present some facts that would knock my socks off, but it didn't happen. Stick with fiction, Pat. Your story has more holes in it than a middle-aged, alcoholic unfortunate's worn out cotton knickers. Was this review helpful to you? See all customer reviews..."
Author: Howard Brown Wednesday, 25 December 2002 - 07:20 pm
....I got my kid a 12 gauge pump shotgun, a handbook on stalking, a leather bound copy of The Satanic Bible, a whole lotta knives,an expensive signal-blocking device for bypassing those pesky Lo-Jack alarm systems on cars she wants, the biography of Carl Panzram,our favorite serial killer and a bag of M & M's.....Naturally,she was pissed off. "Next year,Dad,when I'm 9,while you still be getting me these effing M & M's ???Enough already !!!'"....ahh,kids !
Author: Joel Barnett Thursday, 26 December 2002 - 01:15 am
Hi David, This is my first post to Casebook, been lurking for a while. But let's talk Christmas ! My sweetheart got me a DVD player which I will enjoy, as I am a big movie fan. I'm looking forward to seeing the only DVD I've got, Orson Welle's "Othello". I gave her a set of wine glasses from Scotland. There's a little shop near where we live that is devoted to all thing Scottish, (I'm an American). My 15 year old son has developed an interest in music, specifically the Who and Pink Floyd. I got him CDs of "Meaty, Beaty, Big and Bouncy" and "Pipers at the Gates of Dawn". Will be interesting to know what he thinks of the latter. Hope you and everyone here had a merry Christmas, Joel Barnett
Author: Brian Schoeneman Thursday, 26 December 2002 - 01:12 pm
David, Hmm...let's see what I've got here under the tree. Well, I got a new shirt and tie for work, a white scarf I'd been annoying my girlfriend for, the "Band of Brothers" DVD set, a new "sport" CD walkman for when I'm running, Paul Begg's book, the new Jeff Shaara revolutionary war book, the new Michael Crichton book, an anthology of Sherlock Holmes, a Dickens anthology, Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights (notice the Victorian trend here?) and an emergency tool kit for my car. My girlfriend made out like a bandit though - she got two DVDs, and all of the Sim's games and a bunch of Audrey Hepburn (the two could be twins) pictures for her room. That should keep her busy while I'm reading! B
Author: Joseph P. Matthews Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 03:29 am
Hello all, I was lucky this Christmas. I received the PRO Document pack put together by Evans and Skinner, Paul Begg's new "Definitive History" book, the 2nd and final part of Jeff Shaara's revolutionary war series (The movie based on his book "Gods and Generals" will be released in 2003), Mayor Giuliani's book, "Leadership," and a few DVDs. It was a good holiday and I gave many gifts as well. Hope everyone had a happy holiday!!! Best wishes, Joe

Add a Message