Archive through 13 June 2002

** 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 13 June 2002

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Media: Ripper Media: Patricia Cornwell's New Book: Archive through 13 June 2002

Author: Wolf Vanderlinden Friday, 07 June 2002 - 10:46 am
Any one interested in Patricia Cornwell's new book, Its apparent title is: Jack the Ripper, Case Closed, (so you can all go home now), and it will be published in October of this year. Wolf.
Author: Ally Friday, 07 June 2002 - 11:14 am
The really sad thing is, there are a lot of people out there who will think that because she writes popular crime fiction, she has skill at investigative procedure and will believe anything she writes whether there is evidence to support it or not. Oh well. October should be good times here.
Author: Tom Wescott Friday, 07 June 2002 - 11:43 pm
Hello all, Ally. Ha ha. Good times indeed! I considered sending my recent article on Sickert (from the last issue of Ripper Notes) to Cornwell since it includes some information relating Sickert to the Ripper letters that she most likely hasn't considered. But then I thought...Hell, if she's the researcher she pretends to be, then she's already got a subscription to RN and has my article! What do you want to be she doesn't. Yours truly, Tom Wescott P.S. I am very much looking forward to Wolf's Sickert article in the next Ripper Notes. All of his stuff is good.
Author: Stan Russo Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 01:11 am
Dear Ally and Tom, I think that just being an unabashedly obnoxious and arrogant person should not take away from her research. I have seen the 20/20 piece and agree that she comes off like a jackassette (I would not want to incorporate her into a slur that is generally issued to a man as I may incur her incredibly pro-woman wrath). I am looking forward to her book because if she claims to have solved the case, then let her writing and evidence prove it. I do however know first hand that she is less than outwardly trustworthy. In the 20/20 piece she plainly states that she does not want to be associated with the 'JTR' case at all yet she is coming out with a book. During the interview, she came through like the only reason she wanted to solve the case was because he murdered and mutilated women. It appeared that she took it personally, for the reason that we all know she probably did. All this being said, I still am looking forward to reading her book, because in the long run, just because she is who she is, and presents that outward appearance, does that really affect her suspect in a negative way? Unless you answer no you are following the wrong case. STAN
Author: Leanne Perry Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 03:56 am
G'day, I've read a few of Patricia Cornwells novels lately. I never even knew she existed until she claimed that she solved the Ripper case. I quite enjoy her fiction and believe she may be just after perfect publicity! LEANNE
Author: Leanne Perry Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 03:58 am
G'day, I'll buy her book, just like others here said they would, and like I believe many people will!
Author: Ally Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 08:02 am
Stan...stan...stan... What boards are you reading on?? Don't you know that here on these forums, the only thing that matters is how sweet and nice you seem regardless of whether you are right or wrong? If you are a woman on these boards, you have to play sweetness and light, otherwise you have nits coming out of the woodwork to yell "catfight!" Actually, it is not her arrogance that I have a problem with. I think arrogance is a fine thing to have personally. What I think disqualified her from any iota of respect being shown to her is when she said that she'd like to see Sickert's family prove he didn't do it. Forgetting for the moment that it is impossible to prove a negative, that shows a complete lack of accountability for her own research. She basically threw out a theory to a national audience (the majority of which will not buy her book) and then because she didn't want to reveal anything in her book, presented no evidence whatsoever and challenged his family to prove he didn't do it. That is not arrogance. That is sheer stupidity compounded by a complete lack of understanding of how one goes about condemning a killer. And with such a disregard for the investigative procedure, I can't imagine her investigation will be at all believable. Cheers, Ally
Author: John Hacker Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 08:14 am
Stan, I agree that her annoying, arrogant, and highly grating personality shouldn't detract from her research. If she has a strong case, her poor behavior wouldn't be an issue. The problem is that she went on national tv, and declared victory with no apparent case whatsoever. Her approach seemed to be to go through the existing suspects, find one she didn't like personally, and throw money at trying to prove they were the Ripper. And when she failed to do so, she declared him as the Ripper anyway because she spent 4 million dollars. 4 million dollars spent and all she could come up with was she doesn't like his paintings and the meaningless fact that he used the same stationary as one of the many letter writers who sent in JtR letters. (A letter that has not been established as being by the killer) Lionel Hutz could get this guy off on what she shown us so far. She can make blithe assertions that a jury would convict to her hearts content, but the reality is that she'd never get him into court on what she has. I hope that there is more information in the book, and it will certainly be an interesting read. But I do think that the 20/20 interview demonstrated clearly that her fundamental approach was less that impartial and was based on her personal distate for Sickert and his art. She didn't seem to put a lot of effort into looking at the crimes themselves, or any suspects other than Sickert. And Ally is absolutely correct, her challenge to Sickert's family to prove his innocence is absolutely beyond the pale and shows no understanding of where the burden of proof lies. It was also by far the most offensive moment in the entire show. I will certainly buy her book when it comes out. (I have a place set aside for it next to Richard Wallace's book on Lewis Carrol as JtR.) And I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and see what additional (cough) evidence that she comes up with, but based on what she presented I'm not holding a lot of hope. (I bet we get a lot of psychobabble and bit's about other killers that she claims are just like Sickert in some way.) Unforuntately due to her popularity as an author of fiction, she'll undoubtedly raise him to the top of the suspect list in popular perception. Poor Sickert. Regards, John Hacker
Author: Chris Hintzen Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 09:27 am
Hi All, I'll buy the book for two reasons. One is just cause I read anything at all dealing with the case.(Even if it's obscure nonsense.) Two because it should be a PRIME example of HOW NOT to look at this case, as well as the mistakes that a researcher makes.(Especially that whole 'Reputation on the line' mistake I've seen happen so many times. Hey, we all make mistakes, so why get upset if your theory folds under closer examination? Least that means there's one less person on the pile, and maybe you're research will help someone else find out who the true killer is. I don't believe in reputation, cause there are many times where one goes against his/her Rep. That reminds me too much of those High School Clicks and their oh most holy 'Rep. to Protect' mentality. It was silly then, it's silly now.) Hi Ally, "CATFIGHT!!!" Your Eternal Nit, Chris H.
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 10:16 am
Oh. Sigh. Gasp. At long long last it looks like we have found something on which we can all agree. (Well I hope so). Cornwell will prove nothing. Insulting one of England's finest and most sought after artist's, by destroying some of his works should be a crime. She should be re-named Patricia Vandal.
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 12:48 pm
Hello all, I, much like Chris, will buy the book for completeness in my collection but I will do so with a knot in my stomach. As Tom has stated, I recently finished six months of research into Sickert's life and works for an upcoming article and I was left with only the highest regard for Walter Sickert and his work. I was angered by Ms Cornwell's comments that Sickert, "...doesn't deserve to have his art celebrated", especially when Ms Cornwell has shown that she has little or no understanding of that art. Having said that, it is always my policy to read each new book on the Ripper case with an open mind, letting the author do their best to win me over with their arguments. I do know that Ms Cornwell has either purchased or made copies of much of Sickert's personal correspondence so that it can be argued that she has a better idea of the nature of the man himself and perhaps she has come up with some surprises, unfortunately we will have to rely on her interpretation of the meaning of those surprises. Ms Cornwell has shown that she has a bias towards Sickert and has already skewed several facts in order to try and make her case so I am not hopeful that her book will be free of that bias. Her sterling research includes making erroneous statements based on "facts" from Stephen Knight's book, Jack the Ripper The Final Solution, rather than using works by Wendy Baron, Richard Shone or Lillian Browse, the acknowledged experts on Sickert's life and works. Cornwell may include their works in her bibliography but she hasn't seemed to include their expertise in her theory. I am afraid that rather than impress us with her research, Ms Cornwell will settle with baffling us with her bs. Wolf.
Author: brad mcginnis Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 05:22 pm
I'll read her book, but I'll get it from the library. Cornball's not gonna make any money off me. Brad
Author: Tom Wescott Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 11:13 pm
Hello all, I believe I am one of the 'nits' Ally is referring to. As for Cornwall, we haven't seen a good non-fiction book from a Ripper-chick yet (with the possible exception of Fuller's), and I somehow doubt hers will be an exception. Nevertheless, I must agree with Wolf since some part of me feels that Cornwell may have a surprise or two up her sleeve. Surprises that will prove Sickert the Ripper? No, but maybe a few dollars of her 4 mil DIDN'T go to waste and she has unearthed some new info regarding the Ripper case. Am I being naive? Hell, yeah! But you never know. Yours truly, Tom Wescott
Author: Stan Russo Sunday, 09 June 2002 - 05:44 am
Dear ALL, especially ALLY, THE WHOLE POINT to my post was to state that just because Patricia Cornwell is acting jackasette-like, doesn't make her suspect any less of a candidate. MacNaghten was a total boob, and we know that now. Does that make Montague John Druitt less of a suspect? No. And what about Kosminski and Ostrog? Donald McCormick blatantly abusing information about Ostrog should not affect Ostrog, and I believe there might be a restraining order against me commenting on Kosminski. But does that make them less likely suspects? NO. Let's list all the crazy people who have named suspects over the years. Better yet, let's say that Patricia Cornwell is who she is, and Sickert is the person she wants to show as 'JTR'. Her case will show how good how information and reserach is about Sickert. Do not dismiss Sickert because of her, or else dismiss every suspect, who has had a biased crazy man-hating rich lesbian, with 4 million dollars to spend on the case, that proposes them. I do believe she is arrogant. I do believe she is obnoxious. I do believe she has said things that are wrong about the case. I DO NOT believe that buying a painting and cutting it to shreds is an implorable act. SICKERT WAS NOT PICASSO, and not even close to any other artist you can name off the top of your head. If I thought I could solve the case by punching a nun in the stomach and learning how to play the accordian, I would give it a try. And I hate the accordian. Do not blame SICKERT becauswe CORNWELL is brash. Apparently the new style of brash is man-hater. But also do not state that POOR SICKERT is being used. Nobody weeps for POOR DRUITT, or POOR STEPHENSON, or POOR JOHN Q. SUSPECT. Walter Sickert should remain a suspect until someone proves he could not be a suspect, like it has been done with suspects like Dr. Thomas Neill Cream, Dr. John Hewitt and John William Smith Sanders. Even though Cornwell was wrong to challenge the family to prove her wrong, Sickert should remain a suspect until someone proves he could not have been. That is only fair, to Sickert, who for some reason everyone suddenly seems to love. I sense that he is suddenly loved because a jackassette hates him. That is not the proper way to attack this case. STAN
Author: Paul Begg Sunday, 09 June 2002 - 07:02 am
Setting aside any personal feelings that one may have about Patricia Cornwell herself or that awful TV interview she did, which looked like one of those mock interviews you see on some of the shopping channels when flicking through Sky, unless far too much money than was sensible was invested in her Ripper project before the research was done and she is now seriously out of pocket (doubtful) or contractually committed to go ahead irrespective of what proofs she has, one can only suppose that her evidence is something more substantial than the watermark of a probably spurious Ripper letter being the same as that of paper used by Sickert. She�s said that the watermark is in two letters and as far as I know, we don�t know what the other letter is. So if she has that card up her sleeve, perhaps she has more. Maybe we should be very cautious and reserve comment for a couple of months.
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Sunday, 09 June 2002 - 12:52 pm
I was unaware that Patricia Cornwell was a man-hating lesbian bitch. Always good to have information about an author. . . In any event, I suppose my return to the boards after a long absence should be, appropriately, on the Cornwell board, since I have just finished editing and selecting illustrations to go with Wolf's devastating article on Sickert, his paintings and their connection, if any, with the Ripper murders ("The Art of Murder," in the July RN). Let me state up front that I was less than impressed with her television appearance. I have not yet seen the lecture she gave to the Virginia Institute for Forensic Science, but expect that to be more of the same. I will buy her book, since it is my duty to review it for the readers of RN. She may, as she continually reminded us, have much more on Sickert that will prove her case beyond a reasonable doubt. But from what she has said IN PUBLIC SO FAR, it appears there is no there there (as Stein would say). Let us look at some of what she has publicly stated in her "case" against Sickert: - he had three secret studios during the time of the Ripper murders. Beyond the likelihood of this being a misreading of the studios we know Sickert to have had, his boltholes can be conclusively shown to have been occupied after 1888, not before and not during. - he was impotent. This is "proven" by reference to a yet-unnamed Sickert descendant, who stated the artist had a penile disease/deformation. This is pretty fairly disproven by the birth of a child to Sickert's mistress/wife, Therese Lessore, generally agreed to be almost certainly Sickert's. - he could only have seen the bodies in situ, as police photographs were not printed in any Ripper book until after 1900. This is wrong; photos of Eddowes and Kelly were both published in a French crime treatise in the late 1890s. - Sickert did drawings of the victims, but his sketchbook has been lost. How convenient. - he did not paint pictures of the murders in 1888, because the police would immediately consider him a suspect. If he was so smart in 1888, what caused him to lose his intelligence in 1907 and paint the "Camden Town Murder" series after the death of Phyllis Dimmock? And these are just a few off the top of my head. The more astute readers of these boards can, I am sure, provide even more examples. I must, however, disagree with Stan. The art of Sickert may not be to his taste (nor, honestly, to mine), but there is no doubt that he is one of the finest of the British Post-Impressionist artists. To tear apart his work in order to prove a theory is, so far as I am concerned, destruction of Talibanesque proportions. Let us presume, for a moment, that an author believed the case of the Whitehall Torsos could be solved by an examination of the paintings of Franz Xaver Winterhalter. And, in the course of this author's research, he bought a dozen Winterhalter paintings and destroyed them, fuming "he's a murderer and doesn't deserve to have his art celebrated." Would you then look upon that author with the same benign shrug of the shoulders, saying "well, Winterhalter's no Gainsborough, so no loss there?" If so, then I fear we have no common ground on which to continue a discussion. The generous Mr Begg, of course, has the proper response: Patricia Cornwell may have some devastating evidence up her sleeve that no-one has considered. We should not prejudge her case because of her choice of suspect or before her book is written. However, when considering her public statements about Sickert's life and career and the material that she has FREELY CHOSEN to put in the public arena, I can only say that she appears to have based her "case" on sloppy research and wishful thinking. But, to paraphrase Sir Jim, time will reveal all. Christopher-Michael
Author: Stan Russo Sunday, 09 June 2002 - 02:16 pm
To all, Welcome back CMD. I hope my half-sober post last night played a part in bringing you back onto the boards The point of my post seems to be continually missed. Cornwell is Cornwell, but that does not diminish Sickert as a suspect. Who is to say that he is any less of a suspect than Maybrick, Tumblety or Druitt? Just because someone does an interview claiming to have 'solved' the case, the likelihood of the suspect she uses should not be diminished. With regards to Mr. Begg's comments, we certainly do not know what secrets her book will reveal. I have dealt with Mrs. Cornwell's manager and have procured a certain opinion regarding her out of this. It should be obvious during her interview how she feels about the case, and I think that is the wrong way to approach it. Destroying Sickert's painting because he was not Picasso was a comment made to simply imply that in a search for the truth, sometimes you have to break a few eggs. She finds a watermark in similar letters and Sickert is rumored to have painted clues about the murders within his paintings. I can totally understand why Ms. Cornwell 'RIPPED' the painting apart looking for something that may have been hidden there. Who is to say that she just picked the wrong painting of Sickert's? Let me also state that at no point in my life did I entertain the notion of punching a nun in the gut, or playing the accordian. STAN
Author: Ally Sunday, 09 June 2002 - 03:11 pm
Stan, Why exactly did she pick that painting? What were her reasons? What led her to that painting? You say she may simply have picked the wrong one which leads us to believe there must have been something behind that choice. So what was it? Probably nothing. Just the sheer delight of destroying something to say she did it? I would definitely have to say that Sickert isn't any less of a suspect that Maybrick or Druitt-- they are all three equally bad suspects.
Author: John Hacker Sunday, 09 June 2002 - 04:03 pm
Stan, I've read through the entire board and I don't think anyone is missing your point. Cornwell CAN'T diminish Sickert as a suspect. As an author who is attempting to build a case against him, it is her job to RAISE HIM UP. As it stands now, there is no reason to think he was the Ripper. None. If she would like us to think differently, she's got some work to do. I will gladly say that he is a lesser suspect than Druitt or Tumblety. They were contemporary suspects, named by policeman. He IS a better suspect than Maybrick. (But then so is my cat.) If she has any actual evidence to back up her case, that's another matter altogether. But the burden of proof is on her. It's not her personality that's hurting her case, it's her approach, reasearch, and reasoning. A purely circumstantial case can be built against anyone. I've got shelves of suspect books with tons of the sort of circumstantial tidbits that CMD kindly addressed above. This doesn't make a case. It seems to me that Cornwell is falling into the trap the M.J. Trow described in his "The Way To Hell" article in the Mammoth JtR. I really hope she does have something more than she's shown us so far, but her interview didn't leave a lot of reason for hope. Regards, John Hacker
Author: Stan Russo Sunday, 09 June 2002 - 07:14 pm
Ally, I am not sure why she picked that particular painting. The last I heard was that she was selling the rest of the paintings and giving the money to some type of woman's group. There is no proof against any suspect. So until you firmly establish that the suspect could not have done it, as in the cases of suspects Frank Miles, Dr. John Hewitt, Jon William Smith Sanders, and Dr. Thomas Neill Cream, all remaining suspects COULD have done it. Obviously some are likelier than the other. I do not see where Tumblety is a far better suspect than Sickert, or Druitt, or Maybrick. The big question regarding Tumblety is how do you commit the murders of four women while being under 'constant watch'? And then murder Mary Kelly while in jail? I don't get why he is still looked upon as such a popular suspect. But that's just me, I don't get a lot of stuff. Like Teletubbies. they scare the hell outta' me, but kids seem to love them. I just don't get it. If you examine all the suspects as a whole, you'll see that standards for some suspects are used against other suspects. Stephenson writing to the police was a ploy on his part to make himself seem like a nut to the police, taking suspicion away from him. This theory is used to push for him actually being the killer. But then a suspect like Sickert constantly talks, and writes, and paints about the murders. Yet this is used against his candidacy for being 'JTR'. It is inconsistent. I am always for new theories because it opens the door for new thought on the subject. Cornwell's book will come out and she will show no absolute evidence to prove that Sickert was 'JTR'. Does that automatically mean he wasn't? No. STAN
Author: Tom Wescott Sunday, 09 June 2002 - 11:51 pm
Stan, You keep comparing Sickert to Druitt, Stephenson, and Tumblety as suspects, but you forget that all but Sickert in that list were legitimate contemporary suspects. I would say that is an important difference. Sickert's involvement began with Knight in the 1970's. As I stated in my recent article on Sickert in Ripper Notes, it's hard to accept Sickert as the Ripper because when he would go through 'Ripper periods' and dress up as his interpretation of the Ripper, he would put on 'toff' clothes and carry about a black bag. This was not the Ripper, but WAS the popular fictional image of him. I wouldn't at all be surprised if he wrote a couple of 'Ripper letters' (although not necessarily the famous ones), but I find it hard to believe that the real Ripper could get any satisfaction by dressing up as the fake one. Yours truly, Tom Wescott
Author: Christopher T George Monday, 10 June 2002 - 11:27 am
Hi, all: Stan, I have to side with CMD, Tom Wescott, and John Hacker, in arguing against your thesis that one suspect is as good as any other no matter the evidence. Sickert in truth is in the same category as any other suspect only to the extent that he drew breath in London or England at the time of the murders, but then so did Gladstone and Lewis Carroll and James Maybrick, each of those three with not an iota of substantiated evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, against them. At least D'Onston was known to have been involved in the case and to have been questioned by the police and to have been in Whitechapel at the right time. The names of Tumblety, Kosminski, Druitt, and even Cutbush and Jon William Smith Sanders appear in the police files or in the writings or police officials, which give their candidacy some basis. You can't say the same at all about Walter Sickert. I rather think that Patricia Cornwell will have something more than she has so far shown us otherwise she is going to look ridiculous when her book comes out. On the other hand, maybe she doesn't care whether she looks ridiculous and is so obsessed that she is correct in her theory that she has lost all objectivity. I hope the latter is not the case but greatly fear that it may be. Christopher-Michael, I am greatly looking forward to reading Wolf Vanderlinden's article on Sickert, his paintings and their connection, if any, with the Ripper murders ("The Art of Murder," in the July RN). It should serve as a very good counterpoint to Cornwell's book For my part, I find the idea that, if Sickert was the murderer, he had any time to study the crime scenes to recreate them in his Camden Town murders years later, plainly ridiculous. He recreated the Eddowes murder for example from remembering it in the dark of Mitre Square???? We will recall that one of the "planks" of the Cornwell theory was the "necklace" given to the victim in the Camden Town painting which was supposedly like the Eddowes postmortem picture. Please...!!! Best regards Chris George Co-Editor, Ripper Notes
Author: Stan Russo Monday, 10 June 2002 - 01:58 pm
Chris and Tom, Comparing Sickert to Druitt, Tumblety and Stephenson was just to compare him to three suspects. I did not plan for them to be three that were known at the time of the murders. Although, that should bring up a good point. Since there is no direct evidence against any suspect, wouldn't it be more likely that 'JTR' was someone that the police did not know about? M.J. Druitt does kind of fall into this category. He was never questioned or approached or followed at the time of the murders. Much like Edward Buchan, his status as prime suspect arose out of his death, and the apparent cessation of the murders. Tumblety was not 'JTR'. Again, please address the question of how you commit at least four murders while under constant police surveillance? Stephenson is a tricky suspect, because he was in London Hospital at the time of the murders, but was also a known liar. I used him in the Sickert analogy, because a smart man told me that he was going to be the 'new flavor of the month' (CG). I am not trying to push for Walter Sickert, only to state that within the group of 100 suspects, who have not been positively eliminated, Sickert is as likely as the above three, as well as Maybrick, James Kelly, and Francis Thompson. The Maybrick Diary may be a complete hoax, but what does that amount to? It does not mean that James Maybrick could not have been 'JTR'. To think that is naive. I'm not saying he was, but nobody should say he definitely wasn't. No proof against any suspect. Theory is where the future of Ripperology lies. STAN
Author: Tom Wescott Monday, 10 June 2002 - 06:02 pm
Stan, I wasn't aware that Buchan had achieved 'prime suspect' status. And as for D'Onston being a known liar having anything to do with his candidacy, are you saying that serial killers are honest by nature? I'm not sure where you're going with any of this. As for theory being where the future of Ripperology lies, that should be no surprise since that is where it has always lain. Yours truly, Tom Wescott
Author: Stan Russo Monday, 10 June 2002 - 07:53 pm
Tom, I did not mean Buchan was a 'prime suspect', but rather referred to MJD as one because his suicide coincided with what is believed to be the cessation of the murders, similar to Buchan being offered as a suspect. Stephenson being an habitual liar does impact his status as a suspect, if the theory that he made himself notorious to police to take suspicion away from him. Obviously serial killers are not honest people, except the two I play poker with every Tuesday night. Again let me clarify. Theory is not simply the naming of a suspect and saying that he was an insane sexual murderer. That theory has not proved itself so far. New ideas of why the murders were committed could be the direction of the future. Of course Dr. William Gull did not commit the murders, but it was a new theory as to why the murders were committed, and that has led to the research theoretically proving that the new theory was not correct. I am for the advancement of new theories because they get people thinking. And everyone says poor William Gull. Who is to say how good or bad of a person he actually was. But at least we can say he wasn't 'Jack the Ripper'. The old addage that when all the Ripperologists go to Heaven and they get together in a room and GOD announces the true identity of 'JTR'. And they all look at each other and say "WHO". Well if you were in London during the time of the murders, and cannot prove you didn't do it, then you can become a suspect. No one can say with certainty who it really was, but at least we can say it wasn't some people. STAN
Author: Christopher T George Monday, 10 June 2002 - 11:22 pm
Hi, Stan: How can you say it wasn't Sir William Gull and then say that it could have been Sickert? I should say there is no more evidence exonerating Gull than there is to put Sickert in the frame. Stan, I like you, and I appreciate your curiosity and energy, but, if you don't mind me saying so, it seems to me your arguments are becoming entirely circular. You end by saying, "Well if you were in London during the time of the murders, and cannot prove you didn't do it, then you can become a suspect." Now that's a negative argument, isn't it? I didn't write the Maybrick Diary but I can't prove that I didn't write it... does that then make me a suspect in its fabrication? We must have some criteria to treat an individual as a viable suspect in the Whitechapel murders and merely saying they were in London, along with a couple of million others (!!!), does not, repeat not, make that person a suspect. Best regards Chris George
Author: Stan Russo Tuesday, 11 June 2002 - 12:29 am
Chris, Well there is more evidence exonerating Gull than there is Sickert. Gull was 72. He had just suffered a stroke. And the only theory connecting him as the murderer rests in him committing the murders in a carriage and dumping the bodies. According to the doctors on the scene, I believe all of the murders were committed where the body was found. The whole theory behind Gull being 'JTR' is what I meant by he could not have been 'JTR'. Yet there is also other evidence like his age and his health. What I meant by if you were in London at the time of the murders, than you could become a suspect. This obviously does not mean that you were 'JTR', but I just don't get people who defend suspects they don't believe in by saying 'Poor him' and 'Poor him', as is often used when referring to Sickert. I am in no way trying to push Sickert as a suspect here, although it may seem like that to some. I was simply trying to defend the creation of new theories. There are a lot of suspects who I don't view as viable candidates, yet offer up a good theory and I'll be the first one to reevaluate my stance on the subject. I really hate to defend Patricia Cornwell, but that's what is going on here. There is this preconceived notion of Sickert as a suspect, based largely in part to the Royal Conspiracy theory, and theories that emerge regarding Sickert as a suspect bear the brunt of those preconceived notions. Recently Mr. Westcott wrote an article for Ripper Notes stating that Sickert may have authored the "Dear Boss" letter, or may have been solely responsible for the 'Jack the Ripper' moniker. I would challenge anyone to name another suspect who has not been fully exonerated that can be theoretically linked to either the 'JTR' letters or the creation of this name, and that suspect would suddenly rise closer to the top of the pool of suspects. Yet in this article, even if Poor Sickert did write the letters and create the name, this does not make him the killer, or even looked upon as a more serious suspect. I am sorry, but this just baffles me. I do not know who 'Jack the Ripper' was, but I feel it is these negative comments against highly creative and radical theories that does more bad than good. STAN
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 11 June 2002 - 10:26 am
Hi, Stan: I am not aware of an article by Tom Wescott linking Sickert to the Dear Boss correspondence. Tom and I think D'Onston may have written the Lusk and Openshaw letters. All the best Chris
Author: Caroline Morris Tuesday, 11 June 2002 - 12:12 pm
Hi All, On the subject of likely suspects or, more accurately, likely rippers, isn't it always more a case of judging which candidates are unikely to have been the killer on what we know about them? There may never have been, or may never be, enough evidence for anyone to seriously claim that a known individual is actually likely to have been the culprit. Like Stan appears to be suggesting, I can never quite grasp the logic of a kind of points system, comparing one suspect with another, and declaring one more or less likely than another to be the murderer of three or more women in London in 1888. There are good arguments, it seems to me, against all of them being the ripper. At present, if one assumes the Maybrick Diary is the late 1980s product of hoaxers, the chances of them accidentally stumbling across the real ripper, if they picked on Jim just for jolly, and not because they really thought he was the killer, are nil. So, while it is argued that this makes him a complete non-starter as a suspect, it also means, ironically, that he should be one of the easiest to eliminate and bury for good. But unless or until this assumption about the diary�s origins hardens from personal opinion into definitely ascertained fact, by way of new evidence, the ghost of Maybrick is likely to hang around whether anyone likes it or not. (For instance, John Hacker thinks his cat is a better suspect than Maybrick because of this same assumption about the diary�s origins. But at least John is currently working to make sure the scientific reports are available in their entirety, in case any evidence has been missed that could help prove his assumption correct, and therefore, once and for all, that Maybrick was at least as unlikely as his cat to have been prowling round Whitechapel in 1888, trying to decapitate bitches who reminded him of his unfaithful mate. ) Suspects are always going to have books written about them, by over-enthusiastic individuals who think they have solved the mystery that has kept everyone else baffled for so long. We can disregard them all due to lack of evidence, or because the case against them seems manipulated, implausible or downright ridiculous. We may point out errors or faulty reasoning, or simply disagree with certain conclusions. We can try to eliminate the suspect from our joint enquiries. Or we can keep demanding proof, all the while knowing that it would be laid out before us if the theorist possessed any. Not everyone will be deterred from publishing theories about a pet suspect because of other people's disapproval. But why should the level of that disapproval change according to whether it is generally received as a well-argued theory, or a badly-written, poorly-researched load of cobblers? Or according to whether the story is told by a really nice bloke or a character everyone loves to hate? Or even according to whether or not the suspect is among those who came to notice at the time - considering the unlikelihood of any of them actually being Jack? Love, Caz
Author: Stan Russo Tuesday, 11 June 2002 - 02:59 pm
Chris, Was there not an article in the last Ripper Notes suggesting that Sickert may have been the man responsible for creating the moniker 'JTR'? I could have sworn I read this article that proposes that Sickert's painting 'Ennui', had nothing to do with Dr. Gull, but could be linked back to a writer named 'Dekker', who in the 1600's created a character named 'Jack' who would 'rip'. I will reread the artilce today but I believe I got the jist. Assuming that Sickert created the moniker 'JTR', then he would have been responsible for the 'Dear Boss' letter. As Caroline Morris just wrote, if the Maybrick Diary is a true hoax, what are the odds that the hoaxers framed the actual real killer? Not very likely. That is why I state that Dr. Gull can be more likely eliminated from suspicion because the theory that proposes him has been proved untrue. If we use this and apply it to the Westcott article, If Sickert created the 'JTR' moniker, and he is a historical suspect, why wouldn't this make him a better suspect. I recall the article saying that this still doesn't mean he committed the murders. Of course it doesn't mean that, but what will it take for a suspect to increase his own status as suspect, not just viewed as a better suspect than others? I am assuming that if you and Mr. Westcott believe that Stephenson wrote the Lusk Letter that he was 'JTR'? STAN
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Tuesday, 11 June 2002 - 08:10 pm
Dear Folks, Have we a new perspective on JTR, with a lesbian (and Freudian!) perspective on serial sexual murder. Anderson will be gyrating in his grave. Rosey (The Sisterhood):-)
Author: NR Tomasheski Tuesday, 11 June 2002 - 08:37 pm
Hi, all. I'm very interested to hear what the Cornwell book has to say (I've referred to some of that in my intro in the Pub; the short version is that I hope it goes into some detail in support of her conclusions, and is well-referenced.) I already have it on pre-order at Amazon (US). I will also repeat here what I have already said in several other places on the Boards -- and what may become a bit of a refrain with me -- which is that I do not believe that enough evidence exists at the present time to conclusively determine who was JtR, no matter how satisfactory the circumstantial evidence may be. Cornwell is going to have to pull out some evidence that none of us here has seen before in order to adequately support her conclusions. Still, I am interested to read what she's come up with, just as I am in any theory. Regrettably, the book doesn�t seem very long � it�s �only� US$28 � which suggests to me that it is not the weighty, well-referenced, scientific work I want to see. Also in my intro piece, I asked if anyone had seen the Virginia Institute of Forensic Science and Medicine video. A couple of folks asked for more info on it, but I did not hear from anyone who�s seen it. I see that Christopher-Michael mentions the vid, but hasn�t seen it. Has anyone? Should we order a copy and pass it around? I�m expecting that, this lecture being created for the Forensics community, it will have more scientific detail and support, though it could well be just another promotion teaser for the book. In Cornwell's defence, I must point out that she is not merely a "popular crime fiction" author, but has spent time as a crime reporter and has some professional-ish (by which I mean, not as a regular employee, but with hands-on experience) with the Virginia ME office, the details of which escape me now. Admittedly, this is from her publisher�s biography, and may be embellishment. The forensics in her novels is generally accurate; since the story must come first, there is the occasional, minor artistic license. I do not believe her to be an average hack. I�m pleased to see that everyone posting here seems to realise that the Cornwell-Sickert theory is not the Royal Conspiracy, Redux. I think that�s an important point to keep in mind, before throwing about �Sickert!?! Ridiculous!� Thank you all for being the sensible folks I thought you were. I�m not sure what her theory says about why he killed (the deformed penis isn�t anywhere near enough motivation, true or not); one of the reasons I�m so interested to read the book. As I heard, the reasons for �destroying� the painting was to seek Sickert dna from saliva used in mixing paint and/or to determine whether any human blood was contained in the red paint used. This information is implied in a Cornwell chat transcript from the 20/20 webpage, and was also I believe mentioned in that television interview. The description of Sickert as having a �flamboyant, theatrical nature� is intriguing � that�s just type to not only enjoy �dressing up� as a character such as JtR, but to feel the need to brag about it, and embellish the story. On the other hand, such a fellow might simply think that JtR was �cool�, as Sickert undoubtedly did. Personally, I believe that he did tell the Royal Conspiracy story to his family � but cannot say whether it was because he believed it to be true; because it enabled him to �brag� about the killings without incriminating himself; or, as a complete invention, because the story of JtR appealed to his love of the bizarre. I wonder if Cornwell�s research can at least answer that question for me. I�m looking forward to reading the Sickert article in Ripper Notes; I guess I�ll have to get my subscription cheque in quickly! And, John, I really enjoyed the reference to Lionel Hutz. Well, I really must get back to work. NR nrbt@att.net
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 12 June 2002 - 11:40 am
Hi, NR: The last, I heard CMD was trying to order the Cornwell video but was unable to get the e-mail to go through to them, so I believe he has not yet obtained the video. I was interested in your theory that the Cornwell book will not be weighty or well-referenced judging by the retail price. I see the list price given on Amazon for Patricia Cornwell's Jack the Ripper, Case Closed due out in October is $27.95 and "their" price is $19.57. Yessiree, as the internet booksellers say, "You Save: $8.38 (30%)." While no page count is given we might note, for example, that John E. Douglas and Mark Olshaker's The Cases that Haunt Us which had a list price of $25.00 when it came out at the end of 2000 racks up at 352 pages. In other words, I would not necessarily conclude from the list price that the Cornwell book will be skimpy. In fact, judging by her "PrimeTime Live" performance I would make a guess it will probably be verbose if not meaty in terms of evidence and referencing in the way we would wish. Best regards Chris George
Author: brad mcginnis Thursday, 13 June 2002 - 01:20 am
Ok, im going to try to establish Cornball's professional conections as best I can. For the most part i don't read fiction so I've never read one of her novels. Friends of mine who have say she is a very good author. The dust jackets intimate she is a M.E. She isnt. When I pushed it I got she was a "technical writer" for the Va. M.E. When I pushed that I found that meant she was the person who took the tapes the M.E.s spoke and typed them. She was a typest and transcriptionist for the Va. ME. I shall be interested in her disertation. But seeing how she has fluffed her backround, I shall be very wary. Brad
Author: Christopher T George Thursday, 13 June 2002 - 09:53 am
Hi, Brad: I am a fan of Patricia Cornwell's mysteries but don't own any... all the copies I have read were from the library. I am not aware that it is claimed on the dust jacket of her novels that Patricia Cornwell was a medical examiner. Her fictional character, Kay Scarpetta, is certainly a medical examiner. As far as I know, the blurbs on her dust jackets merely state that Ms. Cornwell worked in the Richmond medical examiner's office before becoming a full-time novelist. Are you able to quote the wording from the jacket of one of her novels that claims she was a medical examiner? Best regards Chris George
Author: Leighton Ronson Young Thursday, 13 June 2002 - 01:50 pm
Sickert couldnt have been Jack the Ripper because he was out of the country at the time of the murders.
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Thursday, 13 June 2002 - 02:36 pm
NO MORE CORNWELL VIDEO As my repeated e-mails to the Virginia Institute for Forensic Science and Medicine were fruitless, I placed a call to them this afternoon. There are no more copies - either DVD or VHS - of Cornwell discussing her Sickert theory, and there are no plans at VIFSM to make any more. This means one of two things: 1. Demand was so intense, that the supply was instantly exhausted. 2. Cornwell shot her mouth off too much during the speech, and subsequent research reveals she painted herself into a corner, thus requiring the speech be pulled. I am unaware if a transcript of Cornwell's speech is available. I shall attempt to locate it. In the meantime, I would suggest that if anyone has some time to cruise Ebay, it might be worthwhile to see if the speech is being offered for sale. RN would be happy to sponsor anyone who wishes to make the purchase in the interests of Ripperology. CMD
Author: David Radka Thursday, 13 June 2002 - 03:28 pm
Certainly the unavailablity of the video CANNOT be reduced to only the two possibilities given above. There may be hundreds of other reasons for the video not being presently available. The above is what is generally discussed in philosophic circles as a "bad reduction"--a superficial and premature attempt to boil down a multiplicity of causes and effects into easily-disposed bits. It is generally observed in immature graduate students overly-eager to please their professors, or in cynical incompetents prone to snap judgements. David
Author: Paul Begg Thursday, 13 June 2002 - 03:49 pm
Hi David I think this is a little snippet of news some Rip readers might be interested in, but as the product is no longer available, I would assume, as has CMD, that broadly speaking it either sold out or it was withdrawn. What alternatives do you have in mind? Cheers Paul
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Thursday, 13 June 2002 - 04:14 pm
Thanks, Paul - As it happens, the receptionist who transferred my call did not know why the material was pulled, and the director of the VIFSM was reticent to say why other than a vague "there are no more, and no plans to have any more copies available." When pressed that this was a video which was of great interest to Ripper scholars, he intimated that it was really Cornwell's call as to whether the speech would ever be reissued, though without saying so "on the record." Perhaps Mr Radka would care to call the VIFSM and apply a dollop of his epistemological intelligence to the quandary of why Cornwell's video/DVD is no longer available. Certainly he cannot trust this cynical incompetent's (who, oddly, still has him as an RN subscriber)snap judgements in such a delicate matter.