Archive through 02 January 2003

** 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 02 January 2003

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Media: Specific Titles: Non-Fiction: Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper--Case Closed (2002) by Patricia Cornwell: Archive through 02 January 2003

Author: James Jeffrey Paul Monday, 30 December 2002 - 09:15 pm
I've looked through Cornwell's book and I'm appalled. As far as I can tell from the index, she doesn't mention A SINGLE EYEWITNESS of the Ripper or his victims in the entire book! How can she get away with something like this?
Author: Jon Van Skiver Monday, 30 December 2002 - 09:42 pm
Hi, I just saw Patricia Cornwell on CSPAN2 giving a lecture about her book. During the talk she said she she went to the cemetary where Liz Stride is buried and someone took her to the grave. She said there was a brass plaque in the ground identifing it. I thought Liz's grave was unmarked. Is there a marker? Jon
Author: Howard Brown Monday, 30 December 2002 - 10:42 pm
...for someone who is ostensibly so involved in crime fiction,crime stories,crime period,I found that Mrs.Cornwell's sense of outrage at the women's murders a little late in coming...How old is this Cornwell? She makes it seem that she just discovered the case 2 years ago. Maybe its me,I dunno,but she really reminds me of a bad used car salesperson. Her display on television looked like Marjoe Gortner with the soon-to-be-fleeced-for-everything-in-their-pocket crowd.
Author: Philip Rayner Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 08:44 am
The main problem with Ms C is that the uninformed will just accept her theory. The same was true of the 'Gull/Netley/Sickert' theory. As a UK resident and one who initiates ripper discussions regularly, the response you get is "They solved that, those masons did it to protect the prince" or variations thereof. I believe most film makers who attempt to rehash the story accept this as fact. The only book about it by Stephen knight (Or at least the version I had.) contained a retraction by the author, an admission that he had been duped. Yet still this theory is accepted by many because popular films, books and so on use it as their premise. Whatever else this book and it's associated documentary are they are high profile and just the sort of thing which will be accepted by the masses. One other thing, in the documentary (leaving aside it's shameless self serving images of the author.) Ms C often tells us of the toll it took on her. Maybe it was because she knew that the cause she was championing if presented in a court would be dismissed out of hand, but she was financially and emotionally committed. Maybe she knew how Stephen knight felt when he wrote that retraction of years of work?
Author: Philip Rayner Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 08:53 am
By the way James, McNaghten was mentioned in the book and he isn't in the index. There are some witnesses in the book and as a ripperologist I assume you looked for them. If they are not in the index then I wonder why they bothered including one.
Author: John Knox Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 01:15 pm
Hello all. I have had a general interest in The Ripper, going back probably 30 years or more, punctuated with occasional periods of intense interest. I discovered this site a year or so ago and have been "lurking in the shadows" ever since, but I have previously not been sufficiently moved to jump in. However, I guess this is as good a time and topic as any. My wife gave me Cornwell's book for Christmas, and, before I could express my opinion that it was nonsense, she proceeded to tell me how that was my gift that she was most proud of because she knew of my interest in Jack, had seen Ms. Cornwell plugging the book on TV, had checked my "library" and determined that I did not yet have it, etc., etc., so, you know how that goes, and I was stuck with having to read the darn thing. Anyway, I did in fact find it largely nonsensical, being based largely on general observations such as, since the doodles in the guest book from an inn that Sickert "might" have visited bear a vague resemblence to the drawings on some letters that "might" have been sent by the ripper, it follows that Sickert was the ripper. What disturbed me most was that she used the ripper and Sickert interchangeably, making statements that Sickert did this or Sickert did that, as if it was a foregone conclusion that he was the ripper. Having said that, she did raise some interesting points, but their validity was diluted and lost in the overall context of her rambling. Also, although I disagree with Cornwell's "evidence", I'm not ready to dismiss Sickert as a potential suspect, as his ties to the case have popped up from time to time in the past. I think that it is clear that he had a strong interest, if not a fasination, with the case and did and said some peculiar things in that regard. However, that is not that much different from many of us, and, as we know, none of us were the ripper. On the other hand, Stephen Knight, in his "The Final Solution", attributed many of his facts to Sickert via his son(?) Joseph. The fact that the book has subsequently been largely discredited, there is doubt as to whether Joseph is really Walter's son, and Joseph has recanted his "testimony" does not change the fact that Knight brought forth a considerable amount of subsequently validated new information prior to it being presented anywhere else, and the only real source of it could have been as passed down from Sickert, as the book aledges. From this I think it is clear that Sickert had some sort of intimate knowledge of the case, but, as to how he derived it, that is the question.
Author: David Radka Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 02:25 pm
Most women, especially lesbians, do not find logical nonsense a significant detriment to a viewpoint if concrete solemnity is somehow present to them in it. They are all looking to get hooked on a feeling, essentially. A cat or a bird isn't capable of feeling compelled, that's the difference. Hence Cornwell's position. David
Author: Howard Brown Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 04:33 pm
In other words,women are inferior in terms of logisticizing and planning....is this what you are implying ?
Author: Alegria [Moderator] Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 04:34 pm
I am going to state this very clearly so there is no confusion now or in the future: Any person who uses a biologically assigned characteristic such as race, sex, orientation or other as a basis for an insult will be banned. Radka, you are on shaky ground anyway so if I were you, I would throttle back before you hit the cliff. Ally
Author: David Radka Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 07:30 pm
All, No insult is intended in my post above. I'm talking essentially about a characteristic of all women that I see exaggerated almost to caricature in Cornwell. I've now watched her C-Span presentation three times, and have studied her. I'M WRITING CONTEXTUALLY, WITH PATRICIA CORNWELL IN MIND. Women have from time immemorial been taken as concrete and emotional, and correspondingly men as abstract and analytical, by insightful literary and psychiatric figures. Shakespeare, Freud, I could spend the whole evening writing you examples. Wasn't Ophelia concrete and emotional? Don't we learn something from reading about her? Or do we learn nothing from it? Should we stop reading about her? Isn't any human characteristic subject to excess? On the part of women as well as that of men? I'm willing to allow there are good people who post here who aren't able to empathise with curmudgeonliness, who perceive the above as an insult to a group. I'm grateful when this is pointed out to me--I need to keep myself aware of the difference between them and myself. I certainly don't mean to offend their real sensibilities, and apologise if I have. But please, folks, ban me or not, don't let yourselves be led by uncouth, oversimplifying thugs like Mr. Brown. All such a person wants is to see how much harm he can do to anyone he dimly perceives as superior to him. He's been doing it his whole life, and has become good at pleasuring himself in this regard. Let me repeat: THERE IS NO INSULT TO WOMEN INTENDED IN THE ABOVE. I ADMIRE AND RESPECT WOMEN. I DON'T THINK WOMEN ARE "INFERIOR" TO MEN. I MAKE CURMUDGEONLY CRITIQUES OF MEN ON THESE BOARDS AS WELL. MAKING CURMUDGEONLY CRITIQUES IS THE WAY I AM, FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE, AND IN NO WAY DO I CONSIDER MYSELF OR WHAT I WRITE PERFECT OR THE FINAL WORD. IF YOU WERE TO SIT IN A PUB WITH ME FOR TWO HOURS, THIS SORT OF THING IS PRIMARILY WHAT YOU'D HEAR FROM ME. I LIKE LITERARY CRITICISM, MUSIC CRITICISM, PHILOSOPHICAL CRITICISM, HERMENEUTICS, HISTORICAL CRITICISM, POLITICAL PUNDITRY, THAT SORT OF THING. THESE ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF WHAT I THINK OF AS THE POSITIVE GROWTH OF THE HUMAN SPECIES, AND LOVE. IT IS IN MY NATURE TO THINK OF AND SHARE RISKY, CRITICAL THINGS BECAUSE I AM A LOVER. I understand and support the idea that the hosts and management of the web site have 100% authority to determine what posts are acceptable here and which are not. I trust in them to do what is best, for both themselves and me, concerning my posts. If there is a problem with ANY of the posts I make in their opinion, I would be happy to withdraw it. Their opinion is the only one that counts. David
Author: Ivor Edwards Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 09:32 pm
David, You are completely out of order when you accuse Mr Brown of being uncouth and a thug. Before you make such insulting remarks about people you should think before you post such accusations which are unfounded.Also you do not know what he has been doing all of his life so do not assume so much about total strangers.You wrote in the post above that no insult was intended in a previous post then in that very same post above you attack and insult Mr Brown who asked you nothing more than a simple question !!!
Author: David Radka Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 10:23 pm
Fact: Mr. Ivor Edwards is a convicted felon, having spent thirty years of his life living as an uncouth thug, much of it in prison. Like follows like. David
Author: Garry Ross Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 10:58 pm
David, I think what people object to the most is that some things are best done on a private level, if you have a problem with someone then deal with it via e-mail or something. People will always have differing opinions on things...that doesn't make them right or wrong on the whole, it's just the facts of life. Also name calling and the such like only adds to the problem and can cause other hostility (right or wrong) Some people learn from mistakes and can get on with things, we've all done things we regret. It's a New Year so let's forget the little grudges and move forward, a message board isn't the place to start wars. I can also vouch for the fact that Howard and Ivor are both really nice people...I'm sure you are too. Happy New Year all!! take care Garry
Author: Ivor Edwards Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 02:40 am
Radka, You offend many people so just watch your big mouth and for the record I did not spend much of a 30 year period in prison.Out of a 30 year period as a criminal I spent a total of about 3-4 years in prison and I was certainly not a thug and in stating such a remark I would be prepared to make an exception to that rule in your case.If I had the choice of being like you or a convicted felon I would choose the latter any day of the week.Do us all a favour and either get off the boards or increase the dosage.
Author: Jim Jenkinson Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 04:46 am
Happy New Year to everyone !! (including lesbians,non-lesbians and David Radka !)
Author: Ally Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 08:52 am
David, You don't deem it as an insult that you find women to be incapable of logic? Of course, it's exaggerated in Cornwell because she is a lesbian, but really she is the archetype of what all women actually are? That's not insulting to me that Cornwell is the epitome of what I am as a woman? Shakespeare, Nietzche and all those other men you hold in such high esteem were all raised in a time when women were viewed as nothing more than property. Their views of women were warped and when you emulate them, you warp yourself. Nietzche's exalted world view made him insane, you don't seem to be that far behind. Ally
Author: Howard Brown Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 10:48 am
Ugh..Me not hurt by Ubermensch. Ugh...me not understand what thug is. Er..me drag knuckles across floor...look in dictionary...no find thug...find instead other word....word is "misogynist"....ugh...no word...just picture of freckle-faced boy,about 46,want many smacks in face...Ugh ! Me like ! Me Like ! Me can do... but seriously,...Nietzsche once made the observation that women were not even shallow. This is where Radka gets his very unoriginal source material from. A man who went insane. Like Shakespeare said,"Methinks the (Radka ) protest too much.." Radka goes through his routine of insulting other posters (Brian as "Audrey Hepburn" ?? Huh?...)and his wimpy attacks on some others are well known. Then he proceeds to go through the phoney intellectual musings, telling all about his onanistic journeys through the fields of those areas guys who can't get dates go through...Thats okay. I get far more serious name calling from my daughters,grandkids,and subordinates at work....Being called a thug suits me fine....Ivor's business is not yours ,Radka...One might say that your profession,of CPA,a fine one I'm sure,has also had its share of people who stepped outside the law....You should try this as a guideline whenever you post,: Just pretend that the person you wish to insult is standing next to you when you do it..Who knows? Maybe one day they MAY be !! Then the shortcomings you have as a man would be really obvious,huh? ....
Author: Howard Brown Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 11:22 am
Dear Garry; Thanks for the nice remark. I appreciate,as well as my fat friend Ivor does,the opinion that we are nice guys. We are.
Author: Divia deBrevier Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 11:48 am
Greetings all: I dunno, I think you're all kind of nice, Garry, Howard, and Ivor. I have never met any of you face to face, but I definitely have gotten to know you through your posts and some casebook members via private email. I even like Peter Wood, but that's because he's a Duran Duran fan... can't dislike someone that likes Duran Duran. wink Just teasin', Peter. I like you anyway. Much love to all the posters! Divia
Author: James Jeffrey Paul Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 12:27 pm
I think that the reason Patricia Cornwell believes in, and expects her loyal fans to believe, her outrageous new theory is a simple case of arrogance. In (I believe) November of 2000 she appeared at a Borders store here in Raleigh, North Carolina. A fellow writer and friend of mine worked at the store then. She told me that Miss Ripper Expert laid a series of outrageous demands on the store owners, including: (1) the table at which she sat had to be at the FRONT of the store. Such tables are usually placed at the back of the store, so that in case there's a big crowd, it can congregate inside the store. But she wanted the line of fans to extend OUTSIDE of the store, so that she could see a line of her adoring fans lined up outside the store when she entered it! (2) My friend was scheduled to do a reading from her new book the evening of Miss Cornwell's appearance, but the Big Lady insisted that no other readings be scheduled for that day! (The store went ahead and sponsored my friend's appearance that night anyway, and didn't tell Patricia. I'm withholding my friend's name, and the exact location of the store, to protect them from Miss Cornwell's vengeance.) Perhaps Patricia Cornwell was "Jill" the Ripper! That theory makes about as much sense as her cockamamie theory.
Author: David Radka Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 12:41 pm
Ally, Women are NOT incapable of logic. Some of my best professors in philosophy and logic were women. One in particular mentored me in logic. Women and men are different; neither is inferior to the other. Cornwell is NOT the epitome of what you are as a woman, unless you do the kinds unfounded things she does, such as claiming that Sickert writing some of the letters convicts him of doing 40 murders. I don't think it would be a good idea to claim that Shakespeare didn't understand his female characters. Or, as Martin Fido once did on this site, claim that Socrates and Plato weren't necessarily all that smart. We are not as capable as they. Have a great New Year! David
Author: Philip Rayner Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 01:24 pm
Can't this all be summed up by saying that men and women are most definitely different (It's only taken me 41 years to find that out.). A man and a woman can examine, for instance, a document and draw different conclusions or insights. That is not to say that either is less valid and is no reflection at all on the relative intelligence or logical ability of the person concerned. Cornwell seemed to me to be relying on intuition and emotional response more than evidence but she is an individual and this should not be taken as a generalisation on the whole of womankind. I know many women who are far better logicians than men and many men who are emotional and rely entirely on feelings. It is simply impossible to generalise based on anything other than knowledge of the person concerned. All that really needs to be said is that Ms C, by general opinion has not proved her case in this instance. Attacking her for this has a place in this board because she has entered that arena but it is definitely not the place to be discussing her private life or that of fellow researchers. Surely above all the casebook should attract as broad a spectrum of ideas and opinions as possible, but those who have joined in this great debate should do so knowing that their right to be treated with respect will be upheld (As indeed it is by the moderators.) It's just a shame that this thread deteriorated in the first place.
Author: Ivor Edwards Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 01:40 pm
Hi Divia, Thank you for your very kind words which I know both Howard and Garry will also appreciate and a very happy new year to you.
Author: Timsta Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 02:48 pm
Ivor: 30 years as a professional criminal, and only 3-4 of them in pokey? Sounds like a result to me. Regards Timsta
Author: Richard P. Dewar Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 03:08 pm
Hi all, I just finished reading Patricia Cornwell's "Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper Case Closed." I would not have purchased the book myself, but it was given to me as a gift for Christmas (now there is a happy title during this wonderful season!). Based on some of the vitriol launched in Ms. Cornwell's direction, I expected her book to be sheer rubbish: poorly written, awfully researched, filled with hysterical rantings. Clearly, this is not the case. Actually, of all the Ripper books I have read on the case, this is the most colorfully and vividly written. She paints (sorry for the pun) a harrowing picture of Whitechapel, and her descriptions of the murders are wrenching. The narrative is clear, crisp, concise and intelligent. I can see why she has many fans of her novels (of which I have read none). Obviously, Cornwell has come to the conclusion that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper. The book doesn't make clear why she had this suspicion. It is clear she believes he was a sinister and evil man - perhaps driven to madness by childhood surgeries on his penis that left him raging. I give her credit for acknowledging, throughout the text, that this is based on her speculations. Her "proof" is the linkage of Sickert's DNA to some of the infamous Jack the Ripper letters. And she makes a good case that it is possible that Sickert did write some of the Ripper letters. This, of course, does not prove Sickert was Jack the Ripper. Most believe, as she acknowledges, that the bulk of letters were hoaxes. She does not. Indeed, she thinks most of the letters were written by Sickert and he is, indeed, the Ripper. Attacks have been made against Cornwell's scholarship. Names of victims are misspelled (allegedly). And she leaves out a great deal of information. There is no mention, for instance, of Schwartz sighting of the attack on Stride - a fact which may have dealt her theory a serious blow. Cornwell's suspect may have been Jack the Ripper - but she certainly has not proven it. She says she is currently amassing even more evidence against her suspect. Time will tell. She is obvious, in interviews and her book, that she considers herself an outsider in the world of "ripperology." She is disdainful of those who build their careers and livelihood on celebrating a notorious murderer. These opinions have generated claims of hypocrisy and many exaggerated claims against Ms. Cornwell. I don't believe she detests those interested in the case or all of those who have written books on the subject. Her closing sentence belies that sentiment: "I honor those who have gone before me and dedicated their efforts to catching Jack the Ripper." Rich
Author: Howard Brown Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 05:20 pm
Dear Phil Rayner........Good post.Right on the mark and well stated.... Radka's patronizing comment that "some of my best teachers were women" sounds like what closet racists say," Oh yeah,some of my best friends are______"( fill in the blank ). Radka,you fool no one. Don't blame it on a 'syntax" problem or on how "language falsifies reality".....We know what you meant..Another thing: who gives a flying one what Shakespeare thought about women? Like what he thought should hold weight over anyone else? Too much hero-worship,Radka .
Author: Howard Brown Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 05:42 pm
Timsta...The only reason Ivor stayed in the slammer that long was because he enjoyed the conjugal visits...I swear he told me this !!! J.J Paul's post above further illustrates the aggressive manner in which Mrs.Cornwell promotes,much like a car salesperson, her book.I got that perception from just watching her on TV.
Author: Richard P. Dewar Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 05:45 pm
Hi all, Most books written on mysterious events of the past that propound unprovable theories, it seems to me, are written by men. There are numerous books on the Jack the Ripper case that propose suspects with very little substantial backing in fact - and almost all of them have been written by men. So I don't think relying on personal opinion, intutition and the like is necessarily a gender related issue. What Cornwell has done, apparently to her disadvantage though I personally admire her for it, is in her book and in speeches she continually states that certain claims she makes are conjecture and opinion. I continually read in books, and among some of the posters on these boards, declarative statements that suggest the author's theory is factual. Few authors who propose suspects admit that a great deal behind their theory is educated guesswork. Cornwell gives her evidence, openly states that it is subject to differing interpretations, yet consistently finds in favor of the interpretation most damaging to Sickert. This is what many authors do - Cornwell has simply had the intellectual honesty to concede her bias. Rich
Author: Philip Rayner Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 03:41 am
OK Richard, she admits that her theory is based on conjecture, so how come the 'Case closed' of the title and the documentary in which she makes it quite clear that as far as she is concerned she has solved the mystery and other researchers might as well give up. If the book had been presented as 'A personal view' or something similar the fur would not be flying now. Admittedly Stephen Knight fell into the same trap but at least he used evidence which backed his theory. I found very little evidence in her book and where evidence may have been included she went off on a tangent about Sickert. If she was merely relying on intuition she should not have arrogantly declared the case solved. The only thing that struck a chord for me were the similarity in Sickert's and the Rippers letters but even this presupposes that the letters are genuinely from the ripper or if sent by Sickert that he was not just climbing on the bandwagon of sending hoax letters. I must admit to reading the book in the hope hat she actually had solved the case but like the documentary there were so many gaps in the theory. I agree that many writers on the subject use the same method (Deciding on a suspect then examining the evidence and in some cases stretching it to fit.) but there is very little evidence at all in the book to justify the title.
Author: John Knox Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 08:28 am
Richard, As I acknowledged in my post some 24 messages ago, before everyone got off on the Radka thing, I also received the book for Christmas and read it. However, I had a completely different understanding of it than you. Yes, from time to time, Cornwell did begrudgingly admit to something being a theory or conjecture, but, in general, she presented everyting, even the wildest form of speculation, as a stone cold fact. My impresiion was by no means that of yours when you say, "I give her credit for acknowledging, throughout the text, that this is based on her speculations." This is especially true in regard to the ripper letters. I conceed that there is a possibility, maybe even a strong one, that Sickert wrote some of the alledged ripper letters, but, since most "experts" feel that most, if not all, of the letters were hoaxes, that proves nothing other than that Sickert had a morbid fascination with the case and somehow wanted to be a participant in it. However, I recall only one sentence in which Cornwell mentioned this distinction at all, with her general thesis being that, by proving that Sickert wrote a letter, it goes without saying that he is the ripper. John
Author: Richard P. Dewar Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 09:03 am
Hi Philip & John, You both make excellent points - in many circumstances Cornwell renders her opinion as it is fact. Nonetheless, I am glad that on occassions in her book, and frequently in her speeches, she concedes that major points of her book are based on speculation. Most authorities on the case believe the letters are hoaxes and written by dozens if not hundreds of different authors. Cornwell does not believe this - she says that Sickert disguised his hand and could write in almost any style. I don't agree with her interpretation - but I cannot say she has not addressed the question. I suppose I am not in an uproar about this all because her book is basically what I expected - a fiction writer's guess as to who was Jack the Ripper couched with scant facts. What particularly riles me is that she fails to take a stand on the most infamous letters - whether she believes they indeed were written by Sickert. For example, she believes the kidney sent to George Lusk was genuine - but never even mentions the text of the letter that accompanied it. As to the "case closed" portion of the book, I don't agree with that either. And I wonder if she does because she says she is now accumulating more evidence - why seek more if the case is already proven? My sense is that the only phrase "case closed" refers to her own interpretation of the facts. It appears, to her, that the case is closed. Rich
Author: John Knox Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 09:18 am
I may be wrong in this, but I seem to remember having read (on more than one occasion) that it is not possible for someone to truly disguise their handwritting from an expert, as subtle nuances come through. If so, that would totally destroy Cornwell's theory about Sickert disguising his writting. John
Author: Brian Schoeneman Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 10:01 am
John, Unfortunately, as I've discovered in trying to teach myself handwriting analysis from a bunch of textbooks I've bought, there's more "art" to this science than any real science. It's fairly subjective, like profiling or polygraph testing. Theoretically, based on the research and the reading that I've done, I could call myself a "handwriting expert" (which I am not by any means), because there is no accrediation procedure and very, very few training courses. So I'm sure that if we submitted all of the letters to different "experts" we'd get different opinions from each. There's just not the level of scientific standardization that you find in a lot of other forensic sciences. B
Author: Sir Robert Anderson Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 10:17 am
I just found this on Cornwell's web site; it's interesting food for thought. Sir Robert 28 November 2002 PAPER HISTORY AND ANALYSIS by Peter Bower GURNEY IVORY LAID From discussions with various colleagues: It is more than likely that the four pieces of GURNEY IVORY LAID paper, that have been identified as coming from the same batch of paper (ie: 2 Sickert letters and 2 Ripper letters) actually come from a much smaller group of sheets than was originally thought. The practice at many small manufacturing stationers, such as LePard & Smirths, who produced this paper, when they were producing relatively small runs of papers such as personal stationery, was as follows: The sheets were roughly guillotined to size and then folded and divided into quires of twenty-four sheets. Each individual quire of paper was then given a final bim in a hand-fed guillotine. Every guillotining would produce very slightly different bims. The match between the short edge cuts on the four identified sheets shows they came from the same quire of paper. The four identified letters came from a group of 24 sheets.
Author: R.J. Palmer Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 11:03 am
Sir Bob--All old-fashioned hand-fed paper guillotines had a 'stop' or 'guide' [I own one], so the difference in the edge cuts would be minimal or perhaps even non-existant--I can't imagine how this would be conclusive, unless the edges of the said sheets were somehow botched. Cheers.
Author: Sir Robert Anderson Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 11:26 am
R.J., Lord knows at my advanced age (161) I don't want to become an apologist for Cornwell! I'm not a supporter of what I feel was a shoddy research effort. However, I was poking around Google and Amazon.UK for references to Peter Bower, the author of the note I cited. I see he edited The Exeter Papers: Proceedings of the British Association of Paper Historians Fifth Annual Conference (Studies in British Paper History) Peter Bower (Editor) and has written several other volumes on paper analysis. So I am inclined to think prima facie that he's not a novice rendering a casual opinion. As I said, food for thought. Sir Robert
Author: Caroline Morris Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 11:50 am
Hi RJ, And besides, Bower and his various colleagues presumably all share this informed opinion which, from the outset, was qualified with the words 'more than likely' - so no one here is claiming it as being 'conclusive'. Anyway, Cornwell will never prove the killer wrote those Ripper letters if Sickert wasn't guilty, so there's no need for anyone to panic. Love, Caz
Author: R.J. Palmer Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 11:58 am
Sir Bob--To be honest, I liked your methods better then those of our modern counter-parts-- there's just no substitute for pounding the sidewalks and peeping in key-holes. Prima facie, if our man Sickert was in France and the letters were posted in London, then the paper came from a different stock. Of course, point taken. We don't yet know with certainty that Wally was in France. Unlike those posting here, I sort of like Ms. Cornwell. She has the one greatly admired Victorian virtue: she's earnest[no pun]. And she's by no means the first novelist that tried to crack a real-live case and has made herself a bit of a laughing-stock in the process. Unfortunately for her, she's the bastard child of the forensic psychologists, and made the mistake of believing the fairy tale that these crimes are committed by 25-30 year-old white males with a physical defect and a propensity for injecting themselves into the investigation. Once she found out about his fistula, there was no stopping the snowball from gaining momentum. And ah, when a poor soul has a roll of banknotes to spend, she'll soon be surrounded by flattterers. All in all, her much maligned documentary on the Learning Channel was much less harmful than the project of a couple years back that named your old friend Aaron Kosminksi as the Ripper. Ms. Cornwell dog-paddling around her pool and jumping in a black Mercedes for a quick spin to Liverpool supplies her own anti-dote; the Kosminski documentary masqueraded as history. Cheers, RJP
Author: James Jeffrey Paul Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 12:54 pm
Help! Patricia Cornwell is after me! I don't know why she does this--perhaps Michael Jackson dangled her over a hotel balcony when she was a child, and the trauma made her hate women-- Who's that lurking in the shadows? Is that her? Oh no! It is her! She's got a knife-- AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHRRRRRRGGGGGGGG!!!!! Egad! She's carved me up. I look like-- I say! I look like a Walter Sickert painting! You know what this means, don't you! PATRICIA CORNWELL IS WALTER SICKERT!!!!!!!
Author: Philip Rayner Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 01:48 pm
Oooooooh she don't look nearly 150. She certainly had me fooled. There was me thinking she was a female writer of baseless theories when in fact she was an impressionist painter. As they say, 'there's nowt so queer as folk.'* *Note for those not familiar with England, queer should not be taken as 'Gay' This is a quaint North country phrase and is treated as a joke. Others include 'Well I'll go to the foot of our stairs' or 'ee by gum' Just thought I'd mention this so no one thought I was homophobic. I am also a part time impressionist painter and serial killer.