Patricia Cornwell and Walter Sickert

[WTM]

This article appeared earlier this year in Ripper Notes, in the 'Cornwell Bashing' issue.

PATRICIA CORNWELL – PLEASE DON’T CALL IT SCIENCE

"This is so serious to me that I am staking my reputation on this. Because if somebody literally proves me wrong not only will I feel horrible about it, but I will look terrible."
- Patricia Cornwell

There can hardly be anyone anywhere in the free world today that has not seen or heard the name Patricia Cornwell trumpeted in some form of the media. She is, after all, not only an immensely successful, high-profile novelist, but she is also the outspoken enfant terrible who has taken the Ripper world by storm with a highly-touted and controversial ‘solution’ to the case, a theory which has by now received more press than all other competing theories and proposed solutions combined over the last several decades:

“Cornwell writes that as of May 2001, she "had never read a Ripper book in [her] life, . . . knew nothing about his homicides, . . . did not know his victims were prostitutes or how they died." By December 6, however, she was telling "Primetime Thursday"'s Diane Sawyer that she would stake her reputation on the claim that Walter Sickert was the Whitechapel killer. Many Ripperologists have devoted decades of study to the mystery without claiming to have solved it, but a scant eighteen months after her introduction to the case, Cornwell's brief against Sickert has been published.”6

Indeed, a pre-order form released by one mystery book club shows an immaculate but determined-looking Cornwell scrutinizing documents intently under a banner headline which proclaims, in all capitals, “CORNWELL CRACKS THE GREATEST WHO-DUNIT IN HISTORY!” As if that bit of hyperbole weren’t enough, the advertisement copy goes on to relate: “Now with her masterful intuition into the criminal mind, Cornwell digs deeper than anyone before her….examining all the available evidence:….fingerprints….items of clothing worn by the victims….and traces of DNA to arrive at a most shocking conclusion.” And shocking is the word, for the author had been unaware that some of these things even existed, despite having studied the case for more than twenty-five years.

Naturally, such profound and authoritative claims, all of which have been delivered with an arrogance never before observed in a Ripper Author, have elicited considerable and stiff resistance. Typical of such is the following:

"'I am absolutely positively sure that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper,' announces the American crime novelist Patricia Cornwell. It seems rather over-emphatic considering that she has failed to come up with any firm facts after an investigation lasting two years. But Cornwell, whose book Portrait of a Killer is published on November 11, is in the grip of an obsession, one dangerous to truth and the memory of Sickert."1
- Matthew Sturgis

Ms. Cornwell, however, has impatiently brushed aside such criticism, and here she rather curtly relates her apparently non-negotiable position on the matter:

"I don't have to prove that Sickert committed a murder. You guys have to prove to me that he didn't."
- Patricia Cornwell

Her rather imperative inversion of both the American and British justice systems’ presumption of innocence until proven guilty has left many nonplussed. How does one respond adequately to arrogance such as this? Certainly, ordinary logic is to no avail:

“Arguing that Sickert is still a viable suspect because no one can prove 100% that he didn't do it is foolish. Under those reasonings no one can be removed from being a suspect.”1
- Brian Schoeneman

No, to be able to respond properly and effectively to Ms. Cornwell requires that we first understand her, not necessarily an easy thing for Ripperologists to do. However, at least some of Ms. Cornwell’s important aspects and traits have become patently obvious over the last year or so:

 This is truly a woman who uses her wealth and celebrity like a club.
 If you are not for her, then you are against her.
 Although she is a gifted and talented author, she is also a poseur who would have everyone believe that she is an expert in criminology and forensics, when she is actually untrained in either of these fields.
 One is quickly reminded of an old Dilbert cartoon, the one concerning a scowling woman who stated: “I’m a successful career businesswoman; now get out of my way, damn it.”
 “Hillary Clinton is not the smartest woman in the world - I am.”
 Any discussion on the Ripper will be conducted by her rules, if you wish for her to participate.

No man may be an island, but the world’s smartest woman, now, that is a different matter altogether. Although Ms. Cornwell has largely eschewed the work of others before her, claiming that she did not wish to be biased in her investigation by anyone else’s theories or error-ridden work, the truth is probably much closer to the postulation that she wanted to prove to the world, and Ripperologists in particular, that she didn’t need anyone’s help to solve this case - period. In other words, this whole exercise is likely nothing more than an extended ego trip for an overachiever.

Her identification of Walter Sickert as the Ripper is somewhat anticlimactic; Sickert is definitely not a thinking man’s suspect, and never had been taken seriously before by any but the intellectually-challenged. It seems incredible that she targeted Sickert before any detailed investigation had taken place, and we are left sadly with what could have been – for $6 million, she might have at least finally and definitively settled the diary’s hash, an act for which all Ripperologists would have praised her. Still, Sickert apparently did have some quirks that are definitely interesting to Ripperologists, and Ms. Cornwell has exposed these, as we see here:

“Walter Sickert seemingly had a fascination with the Ripper case but so did many people of the day. Roslyn D'Onston, another suspect, also had a fascination with the case, documentedly more so than Sickert. But that doesn't make him Jack the Ripper.”1
- Christopher T George

“Cornwell has indeed made a good case that Sickert was interested in the Ripper. Unfortunately, that wasn't her goal. She set out to *solve* the crime, and I can't imagine that anything less than a dramatic "solution" will help her offset the considerable costs of her research.”1
- Madeleine Murphy

“I have never had difficulty in accepting that Sickert may have written one or more of the Ripper letters, or even pretended to be the killer while sketching in a guestbook. That certainly seems in line with what we know of his eccentricity of character. But the case against him in Portrait of a Killer is far too speculative for my taste.”1
- Christopher-Michael DiGrazia

Ah, yes, the letters. Where would Ms. Cornwell be without the Ripper Letters? As weak as her case against Walter Sickert has already been judged to be, it fades away into the ether without the many Ripper Letters. Why is she so smitten by documents that practically everyone else in the Ripper world has pronounced to be fakes?

“As no physical evidence of the murderer has survived there is a problem for anyone wishing to apply modern scientific techniques to the case. Thus the letters, if they were genuinely from the killer, would provide the only surviving 'evidence'. Needless to say Ms. Cornwell 'latched' onto these.”1
- Stewart P Evans

“Ms. Cornwell's contention that Sickert could have written up to 150 Ripper letters or 90% of those in the archives seems absurd to me as it would to most people who have studied the case.”1
- Christopher T. George

“Regarding the so called 'evidence' of the Openshaw letter I would have the following to say. There is nothing whatsoever to connect it with Sickert. The DNA testing that was conducted on the letters at the PRO was a failure and no nuclear DNA was traced. Tests were carried out for mitochondrial DNA and the tests were not negative, but they proved little. It does not even link Sickert to any letter. It merely does not exclude him, as it does not exclude many thousands of others.”1
- Stewart P Evans

“I keep getting annoyed at her huge leaps in the dark concerning her wild interpretations of Sickert's artwork, which I still think are very off the mark, and constitute no kind of evidence whatsoever. Her blind faith that the letters were nearly all written by Sickert is astonishing and generally baseless.”1
- Garen Ewing

“She made the point that the killer could not have been someone like Kosminski because being an illiterate immigrant he could not have written the Ripper letters.”1
- Christopher T George

Ms. Cornwell may be merely obsessed with the concept of Walter Sickert as Jack the Ripper, but her preoccupation with the Ripper Letters is something of an idee fixe. Contrary to what all noteworthy Ripper authorities – and the huge majority of Ripperologists – believe, Ms. Cornwell is convinced that most of the Ripper Letters are genuine, and that they were all penned by none other than Walter Sickert.

While such attitudes and convictions are definitely hallmarks of an iconoclast and free-thinker, there is nothing surprising about the manner in which Ms. Cornwell has elected to handle what evidence she has. Her preferential inclusion/exclusion/interpretation of the evidence and her ‘non-sequitor logic’ are more shameful than anything ever perpetrated by the diary camp, another faction desperate to “win” the Ripper War:

“Cornwell picked him as the killer before research started and now is willing to twist any evidence and throw any insult in an effort to boost her weak case. She also willfully ignores all evidence to the contrary and does not seek to verify claims she knows are weak.”1
- Dan Norder

“Cornwell commits textbook examples of the logical fallacy of begging the question, proving her conclusion from premises that assume her conclusion--as when she writes: "The lack of seminal fluid in the Ripper lust-murders is consistent with the supposition that Sickert was incapable of sex." The murderer's missing ejaculations prove that Sickert was impotent, and Sickert's impotence proves that he was the murderer.”6

Ms. Cornwell is nothing if not imaginative, as she weaves her web around Walter Sickert, making connections that certainly no one else has ever made before. Is this true detective genius or mere clutching at straws? Numerous Ripperologists proffer an answer to that question, as we see here:

“In terms of the Lizard hotel register, there are caricatures in there but no proof that Sickert did them. Sickert did some primitive drawings that are somewhat like those caricatures, but if you look at them when you get the Cornwell book you will see that Sickert's known drawings of stick figures etc., as you might expect of a great artist, are materially better drawn than either the ones in the hotel ledger or the ones in the JtR letters. This really is a case of Ms. Cornwell clutching at straws.”1
- Christopher T George

“I looked at her book with dismay tonight and said aloud, "Jesus, 6 million dollars spent on writing THAT" I still find it hard to grasp. The bulk of her evidence is in relation to her interpretation of pictures painted by her suspect Sickert. Anyone can put any interpretation on most of those pictures. She does indeed appear to be clutching at straws to recoup her money.”1
- Ivor Edwards

“I feel that Ms Cornwell has been clutching at straws. Evidence appears to be purely circumstantial. I hope Sickert's reputation is not tarnished by this fast food approach to criminology. Ms Cornwell, please leave the art to the art historians.”1
- Dean James Hines


To wander off into Ripperology’s left field is one thing; to do so and call such prolonged public attention to it is quite another. Surely, discovering the Ripper’s identity would be big news, but others who have professed to do so in the past have generally been a good deal more discreet about it. One exception, the discoverers of the purported Maybrick Diary, made quite a splash in the media ten years ago, but that splash pales in comparison with the tsunami generated by Patricia Cornwell. What can possibly be responsible for her extraordinary actions in this regard? The prime motive here would appear to be the usual suspect, money, with her obvious goal being to sell as many books as possible to a captivated public:

“Like the Maybrick diary, I think this illustrates the difficulty of pursuing academic work in a commercial environment. Academic inquiry often gets you nowhere, which doesn't exactly make for a compelling read.”1
- Madeleine Murphy

“The purpose of writing the book is to publicly strike a pose to encourage mass numbers of people to unconsciously grant her the queenly privilege of determining for them what evidence solves the case. When her position that Sickert wrote 150 letters becomes untenable, she'll say that 23 are proven and forget about the other 127. New DNA studies will generate new claims, and the previous claims becoming increasingly disputable will be merged into the new claims and thus forgotten. This will continue until great revenue figures are reached, and her position is honed to nothing but the most likely few suggestive possibilities.”1
- David Radka

“It should be noted that the books that have reaped the greatest financial rewards are those that are of a 'sensational' nature and/or involve famous or well-known names. These are the books that appeal to the bigger commercially-minded publishers. They can be relied upon to appeal to 'Joe Public' and sell in heroic numbers. It is also notable that with the most successful 'suspect' books the authors tend to dogmatically claim to have solved the case and truly believe in their 'suspects' guilt.”1
- Stewart P Evans

“No wonder she never wanted to talk to any Ripperologists about her book since day one. She is a well-known author now so she can afford to write a crap book on JTR and get paid millions of dollars for doing so. This subject has always been wide open for those who have wished to exploit it at the expense of either others or the truth, or both.”
- Ivor Edwards

Even with a proponent as charismatic as Patricia Cornwell, the huge shortcomings to be found in her theory have seemingly necessitated drastic action on a scale hitherto unseen in the Ripper world. For her theory to survive the inevitable attacks by Ripperologists in general and Ripper authorities in particular, a propaganda machine has been carefully crafted to give the illusion of fair debate with any and all opposition, BUT which is carefully controlled in her favor, all the while generating enormous amounts of publicity on the side.

“Ms. Cornwell has decided to stake out the moral high ground, it seems, in order to lesson the impact of any criticism to her or her theory from the Ripperological community.”1
- Wolf Vanderlinden

Make no mistake, she wants to win these Ripper debates, and will apparently attempt to do so at any cost. Aided and abetted by the liberal media, Patsy’s Propaganda/Publicity Machine, as we will call it, utilizes the same classic instruments and techniques found in the serious propaganda machines of the 20th century. Following is a short treatise on historical propaganda, itself followed by detailed discussion as to how it applies to Ms. Cornwell’s case:

“Recognizing Propaganda4”

In the years between World Wars I and II, the rise of the public relations industry in the United States and the growing use of propaganda by fascist and communist governments prompted a group of social scientists and journalists to found a remarkable organization called the Institute of Propaganda Analysis (IPA). The IPA published a periodic newsletter that examined and exposed manipulative practices by advertisers, businesses, governments and other organizations. Fearlessly eclectic, it hewed to no party line and focused its energies on studying the ways that propaganda could be used to manipulate emotions. It is best known for identifying several basic types of rhetorical tricks used by propagandists:

1) Name-Calling
2) Glittering Generalities
3) Euphemisms
4) Transfer
5) Testimonial
6) Plain Folks
7) Bandwagon
8) Fear
9) The Big Lie
10) Information Glut

1. Name-Calling

This technique, in its crudest form, involves the use of insult words4.

Indeed, this woman has stood on the shoulders of giants and has insulted them all, even as she has likely insulted you who are reading this:

“Watching some home-movie footage of an ancient Sickert, shot just before his death, she said of the bearded old gent: 'Evil, cold, sinister; what a self-centered, unfeeling son of a ***** he is.'”
- Andrew Anthony, The Observer

“She began with a hugely confrontational manner before most of us even knew she was interested in the case, and manages to slur not only all of us but herself and her fans who buy her ripper book also.”1
- Madeleine Murphy

“She started out by heaping abuse on Ripperologists in general and also anyone who expresses an interest in the case through books or the ripper walks and so forth. She's throwing innuendo and insults out in lieu of facts and has claimed that she has scientifically proven it, and everyone who disagrees is jealous, ghoulish, and stupid.”1
- Dan Norder

“She says that after LESS than a year and a half, she knows EVERYTHING there is to know about this case, and that we are all ghouls, and pretty stupid ones at that.”1
- Judith Stock

“She went on to say that we naysayers simply don't want the case to be solved, and that's why we can't acknowledge the truth. Perhaps most revealing was when she said her greatest satisfaction will come when her closing of the case brings an end to sites <such as Casebook – Jack the Ripper>.”1
- Bob Dulaney

“She launched into what I would have to say was a tirade against all the people who have ‘exploited’ the murders thus far, "Ripperologists" of course heading that list. She thought such people disgusting.”1
- Christopher T George

“She has categorized those who are interested in the Whitechapel murders as either "ghouls" or, for those who have published books on the subject, people only interested in making money off of the victims.”1
- Wolf Vanderlinden

“Having read the press and television comments she has made about Ripperology and its cadre as a whole, I doubt she would wish to be considered as one of us; her tone (at least publicly recorded) has always been one of sneering contempt.”1
- Christopher-Michael DiGrazia

2. Glittering Generalities

This technique is a reverse form of name-calling. Instead of insults, it uses words that generate strong positive emotions - words like "patriotism," "motherhood," and "science". Politicians love to speak in these terms4.

“She stated that unlike all other people who have worked on the case her findings are NOT a theory, but scientific fact. She made the remark that she did not fully understand the tests that were being done at her behest, as if the scientific analyses stood by themselves. This could be part of her contention, of course, that her research is about science and not a theory.”1
- Christopher T George

“Just because she studies DNA doesn't mean she brings science to the study of the case. In order to do that, she would have to study DNA by a methodology which relates to the case evidence in a valid, demonstrable way. But she does not show that her DNA sample is related to the case evidence. First, there is no conclusive evidence that it is Sickert's DNA, and second, even if it were Sickert's DNA, there is no reason to believe the author of the letter was the murderer. Therefore Cornwell does not bring science to the case. The case has no more science in it with Cornwell than it had pre-Cornwell.”1
- David Radka

“There can be no doubt that Ms. Cornwell's massive wealth and influence gained her access to the materials and tests she required. The cost of the tests alone is beyond the budgets of the proletariat. However, despite all this she failed dismally to find any evidence at all to positively link Sickert to any of the letters,. I do not find her approach at all scientific. It is naive and based on assumptions (like most of the letters were written by the killer) and wishful thinking.”1
- Stewart P Evans

Indeed, Patsy’s Propaganda/Publicity Machine might as well claim that her results must be correct because she used a computer to generate them.

3. Euphemisms

Another type of word game. Rather than attempt to associate positive or negative connotations, euphemisms merely try to obscure the meaning of what is being talked about by replacing 'plain English' with deliberately vague jargon4.

In more familiar layman’s terms, “If you can’t beat them with the facts, baffle them with BS.”

“Patricia Cornwell has, in a sense, "bought" a place at the Ripper table with her millions. Is this just a case of "smoke and mirrors" with more and more “scientific” data being trotted out to make a weak case seem stronger?”1
- Christopher T George

"The best result came from a Ripper letter that yielded a single-donor mitochondrial DNA sequence, specific enough to eliminate 99 percent of the population as the person who licked and touched the adhesive backing of that stamp. This same DNA sequence profile turned up as a component of another Ripper letter, and two Walter Sickert letters."
- Patricia Cornwell

“She is relying on the general public's ignorance of DNA. She is relying on throwing the term Deoxyribonucleic Acid at the public and hoping that they swallow it when they gasp in wide wonder.”1
- Scott E. Medine

“She had already in her talk made the point that "etching ground" a material only an artist would use was put on some of the letters by Sickert to look like blood and again cited his "cunning" in doing so.”1
- Christopher T. George

4. Transfer

This is described by the IPA as "a device by which the propagandist carries over the authority, sanction, and prestige of something we respect and revere to something he would have us accept." For example, most of us respect and revere our church and our nation. If the propagandist succeeds in getting church or nation to approve a campaign on behalf of some program, he thereby transfers its authority, sanction and prestige to that program4.

“Most of the callers seemed interested in her book without taking a hard line, and the gentleman who was asking about the Yard just appeared to be gently asking what the Yard's view was. Of course she has a ready answer for this because it was Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Grieve of Scotland Yard who suggested Sickert to her as a possible suspect, and she makes a point of saying that he has said that with the evidence she has, Sickert would have been put under surveillance and possibly arraigned.”1
- Christopher T George

"Like the best detectives I've ever worked with, she never lets go. She just goes on and on and on, and she'll get to the bottom of it. And I think she's taken the Jack the Ripper case further than I've seen anybody else take it."
- John Grieve, New Scotland Yard

It should be noted, of course, that despite appearances to the contrary, Patsy’s Propaganda/Publicity Machine did not receive an actual endorsement by New Scotland Yard, but only a star-struck individual’s fawning opinion, disguised as such.

5. Testimonial

This is a specific type of 'transfer' device in which admired individuals give their endorsement to an idea, product or cause. Cereal companies put the pictures of famous athletes on their cereal boxes; politicians seek out the support of popular actors; and activist groups invite celebrities to speak at their rallies. Sometimes testimonials are transparently obvious. Whenever they are used, however, the IPA recommends asking questions such as the following: Why should we regard this person as a source of trustworthy information on the subject in question? What does the idea amount to on its own merits, without the benefit of the testimonial? 4

‘Name dropping’ is a legitimate form of Testimonial:

"John Douglas is a friend of mine."
- Patricia Cornwell

“She named as part of her team a man named Peter Bower whom she said is an international expert on documents and paper specifically and who, she claimed, is the man who proved the Maybrick Diary to be a fake. This name is completely new to me, despite my studying the vicissitudes of the Maybrick Diary for the past nine years, and perhaps Shirley Harrison, Robert Smith, or Paul Begg could confirm if this man did examine the Maybrick Diary.”1
- Christopher T George

And we must also recognize her considerable PERSONAL endorsement, of course:

“Ms. Cornwell was very combative both during her talk and during the question and answer period, downplaying every Ripper theory except her own. The Royal conspiracy theory "is just plain silly" she said. She said that it was human nature to want to look for conspiracies but that Jack the Ripper, in her judgement, was a serial killer plain and simple. In reference to her chosen suspect, artist Walter Sickert, she stated, "He was without doubt the most diabolic and cunning serial killer that I have come across in my twenty years of studying crime."”1
- Christopher T George

“She felt that her own evidence, no matter how slight, would be accepted as definitive proof.”1
- Richard P. Dewar

6. Plain Folks

This device attempts to prove that the speaker is "of the people." Even a geeky multibillionaire like Bill Gates tries to convey the impression that he's just a regular guy who enjoys fast food and popular movies.4

"These poor women seemed to be screaming out for help from beyond the grave. Suddenly this was more than research for one of my novels. This was a criminal investigation, this was my crusade..."
- Patricia Cornwell

“The reason she targeted Sickert, Cornwell explained, had nothing to do with needing to find a villain for the book she was writing on the Ripper, and everything to do with gaining justice for his victims. Abandoned by her father, sexually assaulted by a work colleague, she also saw herself as a victim. 'One of the reasons I have so much compassion for victims is that I know what it feels like to be one.'”
- Andrew Anthony The Observer

“Ms. Cornwell, for her part, stated in the Primetime Thursday television program that aired in October 2001 that she was going to sell all of her Sickert paintings and donate the money to some women's charity. Very altruistic of her I'm sure, for, after all, she is no ghoul."1
- Wolf Vanderlinden

7. Bandwagon

This device attempts to persuade you that everyone else supports an idea, so you should support it too. Sometimes opinion polls are contrived for this very purpose, such as the so-called "Pepsi Challenge," which claimed that most people preferred the taste of Pepsi over Coca-Cola.4

“At the end of the interview, Matt Lauer of Today asked "So you got all of this evidence, and you showed it to Scotland Yard. What did they do?" And she answers "I showed all of it to 'my friend at the Yard' and he told me that with all of the info there, he'd take it to court."”1
- Brian Schoeneman

“Cornwell spent $6 million on her investigation and she seems to have bought the goodwill of a number of so-called experts who should have known better.”
- Andrew Anthony, The Observer

8. Fear

This device attempts to reach you at the level of one of your most primitive and compelling emotions. Politicians use fear when they talk about crime and claim to be advocates for law and order. Environmentalists use it when they talk about pollution-related cancer, and their opponents use it when they claim that effective environmental regulations will destroy the economy and eliminate jobs. Fear can lead people to do things they would never otherwise consider. Few people believe that war is a good thing, for example, but most people can be convinced to support a specific war if they believe that they are fighting an enemy who is cruel, inhuman and bent on destroying all that they hold dear. 4

Patsy’s Propaganda/Publicity Machine utilizes different types of ‘fear’ than those alluded to by the IPA. ‘Fears’ in her case would be identified as:

 Fear of humiliation – try to pick holes in her case and she will insult or attack you. Or have your air time terminated if in a public forum.
 Fear of being ‘left behind’ – if she manages to convince everyone else that she is right about the Ripper, then where does that leave you?
 Fear of celebrity – she’s rich, famous, attractive, glamorous, well-connected, influential, and you’re probably none of the above. Do you really feel at ease debating her in front of a world-wide audience?

The IPA disbanded at the beginning of World War II, and its original analysis does not include some of the propaganda devices that came to light in later years, such as: 4

9. The Big Lie

This propaganda device is based on Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels' observation that "the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it." 4

In layman’s terms, it all boils down to something like this: “It MUST be true, or they wouldn’t let her say things like that.”

“I was momentarily flabbergasted when she said that it has been proven that Sickert was able to write in so many handwriting styles. I think it is more her theory that he wrote in so many styles of writing, not that such different penmanship on Sickert's part has been proven. The idea of the different penmanship goes along with her additional points that he was an actor and would effect disguises or that he would use different names for himself such as "Nemo." Unfortunately, that type of naive thinking is what characterizes her entire theory of the case, entirely consistent with her contention that Sickert may have written upwards of 150 Ripper letters.”1
- Christopher T George

“In graphic detail, Cornwell creates a completely speculative account of Walter Sickert's surgery, and then forgives the child for hating the nurse and his mother for this traumatic experience -- an experience that she has no evidence ever occurred as she describes it.”5
- John W. Dean, CNN.com

“It is interesting to note that Cornwell had stated that this murder had happened "suddenly" after Sickert's return and that during the ABC on-line chat she claimed that the murder had happened "less than a year after he returned to London." In reality Sickert had returned to London and moved to Camden town some two and a half years before Emily Dimmock's murder.”1
- Wolf Vanderlinden

“She made the point that she discovered the watermark in the Openshaw letter, a point that Stewart has publicly said is not so--that he had photographed the watermark before she even saw the letter. She also claimed that her investigators were the first to handle the letters but I countered by saying that Keith and Stewart had to do so to write their book.”1
- Christopher T George

On page 217 of her book, Ms. Cornwell states: "I could find nothing to suggest that Sickert spent anytime at all in France during the late summer, early autumn, or winter of 1888." Can this really be true? Well……

"Cornwall makes no attempt to link Sickert to the murder scenes. In fact, for much of the late summer of 1888 he [Sickert] was staying with his mother and brother in France, 20 miles from Dieppe. The exact dates of his holiday cannot be fixed but he probably left London in the middle of August - one drawing is dated August 4 and after that there are no references to his being in town. On September 6, six days after the murder of the Ripper's first victim and two days before the murder of the second, Sickert's mother wrote to a friend about the happy time they were having. It seems Sickert may have stayed until early October as he painted a picture of a local butcher's shop flooded with the late summer light; he titled it The October Sun. If so, he missed the murders of Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes in the early hours of September 30. Cornwell does not even acknowledge this pretty good alibi..."”1
- Matthew Sturgis


This particular propaganda device has proven to be quite effective on its own. The author’s own mother inquired as to whether Portrait of a Killer would make a suitable Christmas gift for a Ripperologist, seeing as how “it tells who Jack the Ripper was”. Upon being questioned about this last statement, she said that: “Patricia Cornwell proved it was an artist because he always painted pictures of his victims afterwards”. Censorship by the Ripper Notes Editor forbids reporting of the rest of this conversation.

Another device which the IPA did not mention, but which is becoming increasingly common today, is the tactic of:4

10. Information Glut

This propaganda device involves jamming the public with so many statistics and other information that people simply give up in despair at the idea of trying to sort it all out, finding it easier to accept it all as truth.4

Following are examples of this ‘glut’ as generated by Patsy’s Propaganda/Publicity Machine:
“On the Today show, Matt Lauer starts talking about JtR and she immediately substitutes Sickert's name in for it.”1
- Brian Schoeneman

“She also made the point in her talk that in the past few weeks her team had discovered some Sickert and Ripper letters that were a batch of only 6,000 sheets of paper produced by one stationer and wasn't it incredible that four samples out of the 6,000 were shared by Ripper and Sickert letters, closely matched by weave of the paper.”1
- Christopher T. George

“Sometimes she tries to connect the tiniest little flakes of stories, as on page 228 - "[a local constable] described the knife as 'smothered' with dried blood and the sort a baker or chef might use. Sickert was an excellent cook and often dressed as a chef to entertain his friends”. Well, case closed!”1
- Garen Ewing

As we see, no detail is too small or too insignificant to fuel Patsy’s Propaganda/Publicity Machine. How many other examples can you name?

The media, naturally, loves the sensationalism, attendant publicity, and ‘feeding frenzy’ generated by a topic such as Jack the Ripper, especially when also involved is a figure as glamorous, as prominent, and as controversial as Patricia Cornwell. The media’s attitude, generally always biased toward celebrities and even the most trivial of their actions, becomes all too clear during these times:

“I have an open mind and was prepared to listen to Ms. Cornwell's arguments, but she didn't have any! I am very disappointed that the BBC saw fit to broadcast a documentary which was so full of holes and which was basically the Patricia "I'm the world's best investigator" Cornwell Show.”1
- Michael Thompson

“The BBC is making the lifelong ripperologists take a backseat to *her* on a televised debate.”1
- Richard P. Dewar

Today’s media seems tailor-made for Patricia Cornwell, as its actions dovetail with the operation and intent of her own propaganda/publicity machine quite well. Although she has proven to be a master at media manipulation, the media of modern times has often needed no such master to pull its strings. Following are excerpts from a rather blunt condemnation of the media in this regard, A Personal Rant About Journalists, written by someone who was furious over its handling of the story of Robert Peary, the polar explorer. Peary’s reputation was long ago ruined through erroneous reporting, and those errors persist to this day. Following each point made by the article is an appropriate example as it now pertains to Patricia Cornwell’s machinations:

 You can not be trusted - your attention span ends with tomorrow's deadline.3

“This isn't your normal crank, but a millionaire crank who can use her money and notoriety to push a theory that otherwise wouldn't have been taken seriously. Cornwell comes in with just as little background in historical research and an equally implausible suspect, and she is on TV news shows and being taken seriously by major institutions who should know better.”1
- Richard P. Dewar

 You love the sleazy angles. "The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it."3

“Things would be completely different if Cornwell had solid research to back up her extraordinary claims, or presented this as a new theory to be debated against others. The attention to her is necessary, because if we just ignore her the public will basically accept this nonsense as fact.”1
- Richard P. Dewar

 Bigfoot Journalism3

People write books about subjects based upon evidence that would be laughed out of any courtroom, civil or criminal. But that hardly stops the "freelance writer" crowd. Look at the 47 books for sale on Amazon.com about Bigfoot.3

“She says that is not up to her to prove Sickert guilty....it is up to us to prove him INNOCENT! While that approach appealed to the Cheka, KGB, and Gestapo (along with multitudes of other secret police groups, and generally stupid people), the principle of law in this country, and the UK, is still that Sickert is innocent until someone PROVES him guilty. SO FAR, all we have from Cornwell and her supporters are "maybe", "must be", "obviously", and "we can infer". I believe a qualified, seasoned homicide detective told Cornwell there was NOT enough evidence to arrest, let alone, indict. Until Cornwell can prove to me that Sickert was the Ripper, I will not believe it. Her research is shoddy, her methodology questionable, and her conclusions are made from allegation, inference and guesswork. NONE of which is proof.”1
- Judith Stock

 Journalists created a nightmare3

Journalists were delighted to give front page attention to Dennis Rawlins when he found "proof" that Peary faked reaching the North Pole. Or when that librarian wrote his 1,100 page tome on his hero, Dr. Cook! Not one of you ever read that nightmare. You all simply passed off the publisher’s dust cover remarks as your review.3

“It is also interesting that, in Britain, the attack on Cornwell's theory seems to be coming from the art world rather than from the true crime world. In North America there seems to be no attack whatsoever but merely a credulous acceptance from the news media. Luckily the art world has done a wonderful job in poking gaping holes in Ms. Cornwell's theory.”1
- Wolf Vanderlinden

 Some of you seem hell-bent to print anything sensational regardless of whether it is true or not. Even if it is complete BS you'll put it on the front page!3

Back to Dennis Rawlins. His proof (which you did not check before propagating it all over the news media in the 1980s) was not what he thought it was at all. Rawlins had found the chronometer serial numbers among Peary's National Archives' records. But he thought, and you idiots printed his story, that these numbers were "secret sextant readings" made by Peary showing he was 100 miles from the North Pole.3

“What irritates me is that the media keeps saying that Cornwell tested "the DNA of Jack the Ripper" and compared it with that of Sickert. Hello--no one HAS the DNA of Jack the Ripper! If it could have been obtained then the police could test it against all the other suspects. All Cornwell got was DNA from one JTR letter widely believed to be a hoax.”1
- Eliza Cline

 Have you apologized for the scandal you created?3

Do you realize that there are now text books which think they have to discuss the "Polar Controversy" to be open minded.3

Fallout from the slavish media coverage in tandem with Patsy’s Propaganda/Publicity Machine has yet to be evaluated. The smart money says that nowhere near as much attention will be paid to any forthcoming retraction or admission of error on her part.

 You destroyed true heroes. Are you sorry?3

You have victimized the heroes and made famous the criminals. Children now doubt the truthfulness of legendary American explorers Henson and Peary. And the sad fact is that Henson & Peary really did what they said they did.3

“I do know that Patricia Cornwell has mutilated Walter Sickert's reputation -- convicting him in the public mind without enough supporting evidence to do so.”5
- John W. Dean, CNN.com


The intense media hype beginning in November 2001 was intended to introduce Ms. Cornwell’s theory to the general public, ‘carpet-bomb’ its traditional brief attention span, and thereby whet its appetite for her book that was to be published the following year. This it certainly did, and it can safely be said that no Ripper book was ever more publicized, or more eagerly anticipated by both friend and foe alike. And therein lay one of Ms. Cornwell’s biggest problems – how to perform all of the comprehensive research necessary, correlate and verify the results, and write a credible account of her theory, all within the severe time constraints imposed by a publisher eager to release Portrait of a Killer upon a frenzied buying public.

“Book deadlines do not wait on science.”6

Since there was so little time to prepare and deliver the goods, Ms. Cornwell could hardly afford to be too discriminating in her research, and her approach to the case might best be described as that of the proverbial bull in the china shop. Rush in, jump to conclusions, make a lot of noise, publicly disparage those who disagree with you, emphasize your past triumphs, and hope that no one really reads what you wrote too closely. Naturally, such overt acts have not escaped the notice of Ripperologists across the board:

“There has been much discussion on this thread about the content of Ms. Cornwell's book, the amount she spent on research and the flawed reasoning. Not much comment has been made about the glaring factual errors and omissions in the book. Now, with $6 million spent during research plus a team of experts one would hope that such errors would be truly minimal. But they are not. With all the hype that this book has received such lengthy flawed reasoning and poor research leaves one bewildered.”1
- Stewart P Evans

“Ms. Cornwell has made the claim that she has found a link between Sickert and the murdered Dimmock and offered as evidence a newspaper clipping which claimed that Sickert had been allowed to sketch the body of Emily Dimmock while she lay dead in her bed at 29 St Paul's Road. Unfortunately for Ms. Cornwell this newspaper clipping from The Evening Standard is not dated from the time of the murder in 1907 but from thirty years later, 29 November 1937. As no sketches of Emily Dimmock's body have ever been found and none of Sickert's series of paintings titled The Camden Town Murder actually depict Emily Dimmock or the circumstances surrounding her death and also considering the newspaper article was written thirty years after the event it is likely that both Cornwell and the newspaper clipping are wrong. We can strengthen this view by adding that Wendy Baron, the foremost expert on the life and works of Walter Sickert, has stated that Sickert was in France when Dimmock was murdered.”1
- Wolf Vanderlinden

“Her answer to the Sickert authority’s claims that the painter was in France at the time of the murders was also cavalier -- that it only took four hours to get from Normandy to London. It might take four hours or less today by today's transport, but how long did it take by steam train and steamship? This morning I thought she sounded defensive yet is accusatory to those who contest her theory.”1
- Christopher T George

“How to explain that Sickert was in France during the murders of Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes? Cornwell theorises that he must have slipped back across the Channel from Dieppe every so often in order to commit another murder but Sickert wasn't in Dieppe for much of the time as Cornwell has wrongly claimed. Undaunted, Cornwell claims that proof that Sickert had slipped back into London is shown by the September 17th Dear Boss letter, (even though there is solid evidence that he was at St Valéry-en-Caux in France on the 16th), the letter "discovered" in 1988 and clearly a modern forgery and its use in her book is damning.”1
- Wolf Vanderlinden

“Cornwell is never able to demonstrate the clincher of guilt in detective fiction: that Sickert had knowledge of the crimes that only the Ripper could have. In her effort to put Sickert in as damning a light as possible, Cornwell asserts that as a teenager he "stalked" Ellen Terry and Henry Irving. The lack of notes prevents the reader from tracing where she got this idea, and despite loaded language that cries for more detail, she never expands on the accusation.”6

“Like all Ripper theories, Ms. Cornwell's is a house of cards. Pull out enough cards or the right one and the whole thing comes crashing to the ground. Much like the diary believers, she will merely pull a card or two from the fallen pile and cling tightly to them like a drowning sailor clings to a life preserver in a stormy sea. How else can one interpret her claim that her theory "only continues to get stronger," when it actually seems to have hit some major snags.”1
- Wolf Vanderlinden


If there is any doubt whatsoever about the impact that Patsy’s Propaganda/Publicity Machine is having on Ripperology and the public segment that author Harlan Ellison calls The Great Unwashed, the following examples should serve to illustrate the clear and present danger:

"Out there is an element who is going to believe this nonsense that Sickert is the Ripper. Some lunatic will go into the Tate or somewhere else and slash a canvas because he was Jack the Ripper.”
- Donald Rumbelow

Rumbelow’s fears are well founded; witness the vandalism and desecration that followed, when, a decade ago, the same gullible and impressionable public that Harlan Ellison characterizes first ‘learned’ from the media that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper. It is only a matter of time before Rumbelow is proven correct, unless Patricia Cornwell now takes it upon herself to personally destroy the man’s paintings, as she has his reputation.

Next in this vein is an excerpt from the Message Boards of Stephen Ryder’s Casebook – Jack the Ripper1, posted by a wide-eyed Ripper neophyte who has been attracted to the case by the tireless, and apparently successful, actions of Patsy’s Propaganda/Publicity Machine. If the following doesn’t scare you, it should:

“What she is very versed in, what she knows extremely well, is crime. I will not go into detail as to her credits along these lines, look in a bibliography or check out her web site to get the details, it is enough it to say that she has a remarkable knowledge in this area. There has been multitudes of historians, true crime authors and "Ripperologists" who have covered this topic, nearly all of which have zero experience in criminal investigation or science. She lends an insight and perspective that exists because of her experience with criminal investigation, her understanding of criminal behavior and patterns conspired within them, forensic pathology (yes I know she is not a forensic pathologist), and her accessibility to experts in those fields.1

She makes the statement, and backs it with fact, that the Ripper was not from the medical field. To my satisfaction I think she has given a definitive answer to that question. An answer no historian, or armchair detective, or even a typical police detective has the background or experience to dispute.1

If this is all that is gained in her endeavor it was well worth her efforts. I suggest you all read the book before you rip it apart (no pun intended) and try to take from it what she can truly contribute to the case, a new and criminally knowledgeable perspective.”1
- Barbara Heilchuck

Refuting this woefully misguided praise above, two far more knowledgeable and far less star-struck Ripperologists now comment:

“I don't wish to minimize Cornwell's background, as I don't think it makes that much difference in trying to determine if her theory is correct or not, but I do have to say that it sounds like she is exaggerating her knowledge for the sake of selling books, and the public is buying into it.1

She worked as a crime reporter, sure, but that's not the same as being a crime investigator. She hypes the fact that she worked for a medical examiner, but, correct me if I'm wrong, I believe she did so as some minor support staff. Adding author of fictional crime books still doesn't add up to any sort of level that could make her claims of expert status legitimate.1

Many Ripper authors have superior practical experience in criminology, psychology and so forth. And some have exactly the sort of real-life crime investigation experience that Cornwell wishes she had. The fact that Cornwell chose her suspect *before* she started any investigation is a clear indication that it's her ego and not any supposed crime background leading to her conclusions. Pretty much everything else she has come up with looks more like a carnival than a criminal investigation to me.”1
- Dan Norder

“She writes fictional works but has never actually solved any real police cases herself. She makes her living in the world of make-believe without taking the risks that real police officers and investigators take. Because she has never solved a real case, she doesn't understand the whole working of the criminal justice system. This lack of expertise on her part shows through too clearly. With her so-called evidence, she is making more mistakes than a dumb rookie cop or rookie prosecuting attorney would ever make. If she showed up in a court of law with her "evidence" she would find it to not be admissible anywhere and at any time.”
- Carl Dodd


There has been a groundswell of anger against Patricia Cornwell, which seems natural enough, considering what all she has claimed, what all she has said in such a haughty, arrogant, and disrespectful manner, and her blatant manipulation of the media:

“A writer who is so dogmatic in making her accusation, after deploring earlier writers who made their cases no more incompetently, should not be let off the hook easily.”6

As evidenced by the content of a great number of messages posted on Stephen Ryder’s Casebook, many Ripperologists have taken her actions and ranting as personal insults. Although what she has had to say about Ripperology and Ripperologists seems to be quite clear in its intended meaning, there are still those who really do not understand the violent and vitriolic responses that she has in turn received:

“My question is why do you take this so seriously and so personally? If she has written a bad book, poorly researched, and clumsily documented, with false conclusions, why not leave it at that? What is the source of this anger?”1
- Richard P. Dewar

Ms. Cornwell, naturally, has a ready answer to this last question:

"Jack the Ripper has almost a fan club. These Ripperologists, and the people that go on Ripper walks….These Ripper people are understandably very angry. They don't want somebody else to find out the suspect. It ruins their party."
- Patricia Cornwell

Some of this anger might possibly be attributed to the proletariat’s attitude toward all those who are better off than they. A relatively young, chic, wealthy, and famous woman, especially a ‘control freak’ possessed of such an arrogant temperament, does make a tempting target:

"In Britain, any degree of success is met with envy and resentment."
- Christopher Lee

However, it is the author’s opinion that her preposterous theory, its tenuous and convoluted ‘proof’, and her propaganda/publicity machine are all really insulting to one’s intelligence, especially so to the many who are knowledgeable about the Ripper and have studied the case for decades; hence, the anger across the board. Her ‘dissing’ of Ripperologists who were already studying the case when she was still a waitress, and in such a cavalier and arrogant fashion, has only fanned the flames. Following are some qualifying statements, typical of the multitude of angry Ripperologists of whom she speaks:

“She has claimed that we see the whole series of murders as some sort of game." 1
- Wolf Vanderlinden

“No doubt, Ms Cornwell's contemptuous remarks have contributed to the enmity that many interested in the case have directed at her.”1
- Richard P. Dewar

“Her aggressive and, some may say, arrogant approach has won her few friends.”1
- Stewart P Evans

“I don't like her because she is arrogant, she makes incorrect assumptions and bases conclusions on them, she refuses to give credence to others work, she refuses to admit the possibility that she is wrong, and she is bound and determined to make as much money off her shoddy research as she can.”1
- Brian Schoeneman

“Of course people resent her pretending to be a serious researcher, and rightfully so. This surprises you? It's like when NASA astronauts train for years and never make it on a shuttle mission see some rich tourist buy his way onto the International Space Station through the Russian space program.”1
- Dan Norder

“It is a bit galling to think that I have wasted nearly forty years studying this case, spent more money than I really can afford amassing what, to my knowledge, is the largest collection of Ripper material in the world, spent many years transcribing all the official material, only to have her pop up at the eleventh hour to solve the case and tell me that I haven't done a proper job.”1
Stewart P Evans

For someone who considers herself an ‘expert’ in the cutting edge of forensic science, and who prides herself as being the first to bring “science” to the Case of Jack the Ripper, Ms. Cornwell has gone about her business in a most peculiar fashion. For ALL true scientists know that there are rules of protocol to be followed when announcing a discovery of any sort to the press and the public, and the penalty for not following these rules can be most severe. Remember the “cold fusion” debacle of the late 1980’s? Can you now even name the two men responsible for it? Well, there are sound reasons why not:

“The most ballyhooed discovery of our time (apparently false, as it turned out) was the announcement that two scientists had achieved nuclear fusion in a glass jar. The two scientists, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, broke academia’s cherished unwritten rule in announcing their alleged discovery and paid dearly for it. Instead of waiting until a full account of their experiments had been published in a scientific journal, they instead called a press conference.”2

Modern-day science does not work that way – most of the time. Results are vetted before they are announced. To ensure that the work published in scientific journals is sound, papers are first sent for review to people who presumably know the subject best: the author’s peers – his (or her) professional competitors. Only if it passes muster is it accepted for publication. You may get away with breaking these rules of protocol if your findings are instantly recognized as correct. But there is all the difference in the world between the sweet smell of success and the odium of highly publicized error. Much depends on how the discovery was first announced. It can be OK to be wrong; but to jump the gun and be wrong as well is unforgivable. In some cases, reputations survive with little damage; in others the unfortunates become objects of derision.”2

“At least two prominent physicists were so irritated by their actions that they let it be known that they would “slam Pons and Fleischmann against the wall”.2

And slam them they did. Today, these two physicists are outcasts, pariahs doomed to toil in obscurity and shadow for the rest of their careers, if not their lives. What they did was unforgivable to their peers, and naturally, it will not ever be forgiven. Now, is there any real difference between announcing to the press, rather prematurely, that you have discovered “cold fusion” in a laboratory and announcing to the press, rather prematurely, that you have solved the Whitechapel Murders?

Although she has certainly generated plenty of negatives of late in the Ripper world, has Patricia Cornwell accomplished anything positive here? It must be admitted that she has contributed considerably toward the knowledge about Walter Sickert, if that is worth anything to Ripperologists, but even this statement must be tempered with the caveat that she has also contaminated fact with fantasy, and the two are not readily distinguished from one another. So little truth has now been adulterated with so much opinion, embellishment, and outright falsehood that her accomplishments are practically worthless to students of the case, an astounding result for an investigative expenditure of over $6 million.

At the least, should we all be grateful for the hordes of new people that she has attracted to the case? As vilified as the Maybrick diary has been, it was after all responsible for first attracting Stephen Ryder to the case, and where would we all be today without his Casebook website? Although there may yet be some eventual good realized from this Ripper cause celebre, it may also come at a considerable cost:

“No one denies that all these nonsense theories and fantasies that surround the Royal conspiracy hogwash, Sickert and the 'Maybrick diary' humbug brings new interest in the subject and new recruits. But what is the cost in terms of the truth, genuine history and plain decency?”1
- Stewart P Evans


Ms. Cornwell has stated that she will ‘feel horrible’ if proven wrong, but Ripperologists won't hold their collective breath waiting for her to admit the fact. Although she may have since realized the enormity of her indiscretions and other errors, her only recourse now would be to brazen it out, for she could never admit that she was wrong after all what has been publicly declared. Such an act would be very bad, possibly fatal, for her reputation and carefully crafted image as the world’s premier criminologist, peerless forensics expert, and absolutely infallible crime author.

Her aggressive attitude demanding that ‘we’ prove that Sickert didn’t do it seemed to be a safe enough position to take for the present, for no new evidence that would positively exonerate Sickert is ever likely to come to light after so long a time. However, cracks may at last be beginning to appear in her façade, as witnessed by an account of her recent public appearance in London, in promotion of her book, Portrait of a Killer:

“Patricia backed down quite a lot at the BBC4 programme, at least she backed down from what she had been reported to say. For instance she said she couldn't say what made someone a psychopath and didn't think the fistula would have done it - other people have said that was the main crux of her argument before now. She also accepted, out of hand, Paul Begg's argument that even if she had proven Sickert wrote some of the letters then that didn't make Sickert the ripper. Maybe she's backtracking a little.”1
- Peter Wood

By way of explanation for Ms. Cornwell’s uncharacteristic docility here, it is probably accurate to say that she was totally unprepared for the strong negative reaction of the huge number of people who know so much concerning the true facts of the case. Even Patsy’s Propaganda/Publicity Machine cannot absorb a continual rain of body blows over time, and now she may just be trying not to make the hole any deeper than she already has. This book, after all, was her first foray into non-fictional crime, a realm where her genius of a female medical examiner cannot, does not, and never will solve cold crimes that have baffled everyone else. Queen of criminal fiction she may be, but even a queen can expect to get a wake-up call when in hostile territory.

As of this writing, the latest news concerning Ms. Cornwell is her apparent unwillingness to engage Ripper authorities in future debate. She apparently took quite a shellacking in England from Paul Begg, Ivor Edwards, and others, and she has no doubt vowed ‘never again’. This quote below concerns a recently scheduled panel discussion of Ms. Cornwell’s theory on National Public Radio (NPR), for which she tried to dictate the terms and conditions of her appearance:

“Apparently Cornwell called NPR and refused to be on the show if there were to be other guests who actually knew something about the case. Rather than bow to her demands, NPR cancelled the show. Hats off to NPR for their stance and jeers to Cornwall, who is apparently too insecure in her theory to debate it with knowledgeable guests. Apparently she hasn't liked it very much when she has had to.”1
- Alegria

Against such a tough, inspired, and knowledgeable crowd as these Ripperologists that she had insulted, Ms. Cornwell may have belatedly realized what Paul Feldman and so many others have themselves discovered long before her – that she doesn’t have the definitive solution she once thought that she had, and that her highly-touted ‘evidence’ is at best circumstantial, just has been everyone else’s:

“It is very obvious that Ms. Cornwell believed that her great financial resources would find her the answer to the mystery that the rest of us have failed to solve. It didn't, proving that there are some things that money just can't buy.”1
- Stewart P Evans

“The evidence does not exist in reality - it can only be found in the mind of a woman who has brainwashed herself into believing that she is the main character portrayed in her novels.”
- Ivor Edwards

“At no point does Cornwell offer any real evidence linking Sickert to the Ripper murders.”6

“Cornwell's argument can be boiled down to a sentence: Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper because I say so.”6


And so we see that there may have been a general retreat on Ms. Cornwell’s part, after she tested and found the limits of her own abilities to engage ‘disgusting’ Ripperologists face to face in a public forum. The time may be drawing near when she finally decides to ‘declare victory and go home’:

“This will continue until great revenue figures are reached, and her position is honed to nothing but the most likely few suggestive possibilities. At that point she'll retire from the case, planting behind her a few diehards to execute a rear-guard action attesting to her "value", if not her success, in resolving the case.”1
- David Radka

“In the 9 December PEOPLE magazine piece on her, she says she doesn't like being among the "bad guys" and is ready to return to Scarpetta, so she can be with the "good guys" again.”1
- Judith Stock

“I somehow think we are seeing a new phenomenon here that may have something to do with the fact that she has, moneywise, gone out on a limb to name Sickert as the Ripper, and that she has made vainglorious comments that she will go back to waitressing if she is wrong (on BBC's Omnibus program 30 October 2002), or that her reputation will be at an end if she is wrong (ABC's Primetime Live, 6 December 2001).”1
- Christopher T George

“It would not surprise me if Ms. Cornwell is sitting in her kitchen at this moment with a cup of tea, a slice of toast and reading the Casebook forum, thinking "I have made a *&%$ing big mistake and should never have published that damn book".”1
- Philip C. Dowe

Ms. Cornwell may very well have regrets about what she has said, if not how she has said it, but she now has little choice but to continue ‘whistling past the graveyard’, if only for the sake of appearances. Her many dedicated fans are no doubt waiting patiently for her to deliver a deathblow to all naysayers, just like her fictional alter ego Kay Scarpetta would undoubtedly do under these same circumstances. This may, of course, be a long wait.

Will Patsy’s Propaganda/Publicity Machine ultimately triumph in the end and quash all opposition, or will Jack the Ripper claim yet another victim – Patricia Cornwell? As another recent Pretender To The Throne has said, “Time Reveals All”.
SOURCES:

1. Ryder, Stephen www.casebook.org

2. Smithsonian Magazine, Science is Dandy, but Promotion Can Be
May 1991 Lucrative

3. A Personal Rant http://www.matthewhenson.com/terms2.html
About Journalists

4. Recognizing Propaganda http://www.oxygen.com/health/healthyliving/healthclaims_prop_20020325_print.jhtml

5. Dean, John W. http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/25/findlaw.analysis.dean.ripper/index.html

6. Breen, Jon L. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/966inagj.asp

[How Brown]

Great piece,Tim. First time I ever saw Radka make sense. Whats this world coming to ?

[How Brown]

My Fellow Texan ( well......I went to High School there...), I would gladly pay 17 pounds,kopeks,or rubels for a book you put out. You are one of the true criminologists on this case, cutting away the proverbial fat. I enjoy your writing/work because I am the kind of person who is less interested in the "what" than the "why",something that many Ripperheads differ from me on. Start writin' !!!! HB

[Peter Wood]

Just thought I should drop in to comment on my "quote" that is detailed somewhere below. It is NOT meant to be taken as dissing Patricia Cornwell. I, unlike a lot of people who post about her, have had the pleasure of meeting her. I found her to be a most affable woman. I met Peter Bower too. Her arguments for Sickert having written SOME of the ripper letters are persuasive. Was Walter JTR? No, of course he wasn't, that was James Maybrick. Did Walter write some of the letters? Of course he did. Don't bother trying to argue otherwise 'cos it just won't wash.

I have to say that I like the woman's style; she's got a whole bunch of grown men, including well respected authors, crying into their milk 'cos she dared to suggest that she had solved the case. And what self respecting author with a book to promote is EVER going to say "My book is s***, I haven't solved the case"?

So she's obnoxious ... big deal. Learn to live with it.

And Walter is a much better suspect than George Chapman ever was.

Meanwhile I'm going to find a thread where I can argue that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper ...

With much love

Peter

P.S. For those who have never heard of me ... I'm the guy who thinks OJ was innocent, that man has never been to the moon and that Rio should not only be found NOT GUILTY but should have his court costs and taxi fare home paid by the FA. Monty, please explain to them.

[WTM]

Hello, Peter:

Long time no see. Glad to see that rumors of your early demise were exaggerated.

We are glad that you approve of the place, and it has been around for some time now.

This site is plumb full of polls that would like your vote, and we do take suggestions and such in the inbox forum, so feel free to spill your guts.

[Peter Wood]

Hiya WTM

I am chuffed to hear that there are even more ripper sites available now than I could have previously imagined. As I mentioned to Monty in a private e mail today, you guys have saved me a lot of money 'cos I was in discussions to open up something pretty much like this right now. Only, I don't see the point anymore, what you have going here seems fantastic although I haven't checked out the site fully yet - and can't even dream of when I'll have time to go and visit other sites such as James as Jack.

I haven't bought a ripper book in ages, I stopped doing so about the time that I stopped posting to the casebook. It all got a little incestuous on there for my liking and, for the likes of John Omlor to be banned ... well, there must be something seriously wrong with the powers that be. Ok, John and I didn't see face to face - but I was first to admit that he was head and shoulders above me when it came to debating. I think my steadfast refusal to budge from Maybrick as the ripper was what sent John to the funny farm eventually.

I avoided the Ripper Conference mainly because my wife had just gone and run off with a guy I worked with and I couldn't afford to go! I really wanted to see you all, or whoever turned up - and still hope to one day.

I did a tiny miniscule amount of research for Paul Begg a while ago, about the time that I had problems with my pc and had to reboot more than once. I don't know if Paul has published the book he said the research was for, so I really don't want to say what it was just yet. It was nothing earth shattering though.

Who are the owners of this site? Who are the bods with hammers?



Anyway guys, big up on an excellent site. And yes, I promise to behave.

[Peter Wood]

See post above for a picture of my 3 wee bairns.

Anyway, WTM started this thread on PC, so I guess it is to her that we should return ...

Oh yeah, I've remembered now what it was that I was going to say!

I believe in playing both sides of the argument - thus, whilst I admire and agree with much of what Patricia has written you may just be interested in the following:

I've become something of an avid reader of her fiction works since buying the Sickert based JTR book - and on no fewer than FOUR occasions one of her characters mentions Jack the Ripper. Purely in passing, of course, as in "That guy's worse than Jack the Ripper". But, for someone who professed to have no interest in the subject, and knew nothing about him, that is an astonishing statistic - especially as you should consider that I've only read four of her works of fiction - so she averages out so far at one mention per book. No mentions of Bundy, no mentions of Peter Sutcliffe or Brady & Hindley - but FOUR mentions of Jack.

And here is the really interesting thing, in "Body of Evidence" ... wait for it ... she even uses the word "ennui", which as those of you who bothered to read the Sickert book will know, is the title of one of his paintings.

Now dudes, I'd never heard of the word, let alone the painting, until PC wrote her book - so I think she may have been just a little more interested in both JTR AND Sickert than she was letting on.

That, however, doesn't take away from the fact that her research is the most important to take place in 115 years of Ripperology.

By the way, her fiction is ok, but not a patch on Jeffrey Archer or John Grisham or, even, another young aspiring author that I've been reading recently ... Peter Wood.

See you all around.

Peter.

[WTM]

Sorry, Peter; I couldn't get it to resize on your post so I had to post it separately. A cute bunch, though, and well worth the effort. They do all have that quintessential British look about them, eh, what?

[Peter Wood]

Thanx for that mate. I thought it would only appear as one of them smaller images on the left of the post. I'll know better in future.:(

[tel]

P.S. For those who have never heard of me ... I'm the guy who thinks OJ was innocent, that man has never been to the moon and that Rio should not only be found NOT GUILTY but should have his court costs and taxi fare home paid by the FA. Monty, please explain to them.

I'm gettin' together a nice lil Flat Earth Society you might be interested in then
:smoker:

[Bob Hinton]

Dear Peter,

You say in a post above:

"That, however, doesn't take away from the fact that her research is the most important to take place in 115 years of Ripperology."

What exactly do you base that statement on?

[tel]

I'd like to know that as well, her book was, in my opinion, utter drivel from go to whoa.

[Maria Birchwood]

Bob and Tel:

Yes Patty´s book was a drivel. Notice that Peter Wood last posted in 2003 so I don´t think he believes now what he wrote all those years ago. In fact, I don´t think he believed that when he wrote it. He just likes to be mischievious and create an opposing view, just for a debate !

[How Brown]

Dear Maria,Tel,and Bob:

Peter wasn't kidding in one respect.

Regardless of her conclusions,Mrs.Cornwell did attract attention to the Case and from what I remember Peter telling me at the time...she had spent a lot of money on her desired area (Sickert) which most Ripperologists can't or don't do. He was giving her credit for putting her money where her mouth was.....not that others don't,of course.....but he felt she deserved that much credit at least.

[admin tim]

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514110

[Stan Russo]

The best line from that article is that Sickert's biographer, Matthew Sturgis, has "mustered evidence to show that Sickert was PROBABLY in France during the time of the murders".

How does one "muster evidence" that ends up in a "probably"?

As crazy as Cornwell is, and there is no denying that she is, it would seem that Sturgis' evidentiary deductions are as close to crazy as New York is to New Jersey (right next door).

Stan

[admin tim]

http://www.straight.com/article/jack-the-ripper-tour-travels-back-in-crime-0

[Raven]

Still out to prove Sickert dunnit!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2007/11/26/bocornwell126.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox

[ferret]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm quite an article!!! We will -of course -all be bating our breath for 'The Letters' in 2012!

[admin tim]

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/howard_jacobson/article126039.ece

Who? You gotta read the article.

[Mike Covell]

Surely not Ken Barlow of Coronation Street fame?
Coronation Street is Britains Longest Running Soap and Ken Barlow is the longest running actor to appear in the show, here's his profile and a couple of pics.

Its intresting to note that Kens Daughter Tracy Barlow, is locked up in the soap, her crime, she killed her husband!!:twitch:

[Chris G.]

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/howard_jacobson/article126039.ece

Who? You gotta read the article.


"Sickert's interest in a serial killer no more makes him one than does Patricia Cornwell's. Here was the irony of her demonstration: Sickert was steeped in the subject, she argues, but nothing like as obsessively steeped as she is; Sickert loved blood and guts, she insisted, but it was she who hacked away at home-made cadavers, plunging her arms up to her elbows into as much liver and kidney as would fit into her shopping bag.

"Sick? As a parrot. Never a smile, never a break from the automatic rifle fire of her delivery. And when she stared at rare footage of Sickert in white-bearded old age, starting from the "evil" in his eyes, we could not forget the photograph of her father we'd seen earlier, the father who'd walked out on her, white-bearded as Father Christmas."

Interesting, Tim. Thanks!

Chris

[Peter Wood]

Bob and Tel:

Yes Patty´s book was a drivel. Notice that Peter Wood last posted in 2003 so I don´t think he believes now what he wrote all those years ago. In fact, I don´t think he believed that when he wrote it. He just likes to be mischievious and create an opposing view, just for a debate !

Ho ho!

There is no hiding the fact that I know James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper, but I actually thought Patricia Cornwell wrote an excellent book on Walter Sickert and may have gone some way to "proving" that he wrote some of the Ripper letters.

Cornwell and Feldman were the only people prepared to make major investment in the subject. Those who dis Cornwell do so purely based on her personality and probably haven't read her book.

That said, Maybrick was the ripper.

So there.

Live with it.

Or don't.

[tel]

Sure Peter, and I'm Cinderella's fairy godmother.

[A.P. Wolf]

I like to cut Pat a bit of slack, who knows she might become my best friend.

[Bob Hinton]

Ho ho!

There is no hiding the fact that I know James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper, but I actually thought Patricia Cornwell wrote an excellent book on Walter Sickert and may have gone some way to "proving" that he wrote some of the Ripper letters.


So you know Maybrick was the Ripper and you think Cornwell wrote an excellent book. At least that gives us a scale by which we can measure your knowledge of the subject!

[Mac The Knife]

I've met the lady in question at the NA. I can confirm one or two others' description of Patricia being a nice lass. We spoke of things Ripper, neither of us are ripperologists leaving most of that discussion to the experts. She is though a drummer, which is mighty cool with me.
If nothing else she is sincere in her beliefs and who amongst us are so convinced of something relating to this topic that we are willing to stake our entire reputation on it.

Too much personal stuff going on here that shouldn't be.

[How Brown]

Exactly, Mac.

I think everyone would enjoy it if she made herself accessible here.

Like Peter said....she has spent a chunk of change in her research and has drawn people to the Case.

[Mike Covell]

The thing that really got to me was Cornwell's idea that having a fistula
A- Affected Sickert's Libido
B- Caused him to become a serial killer

Having a fistula will not and does not do such a thing.
After reading that I lost intrest in the rest of the book.
:blah:

[A.P. Wolf]

Quite right Mac & How, even I have assumed a more reasonable attitude in this particular regard; and would support and welcome her views on this board.

[Kim Ross]

Gday


Please don't start up about Maybrick. An arsenic ingesting loser was not Jack. Nor was a self promoting not very good painter.

Maybrick WAS NOT JACK.

We all know this. Now how about Prince Albert Victor? Nobody seems to mention him. :der:
Cheers

[Magpie]

I like to cut Pat a bit of slack, who knows she might become my best friend.


Hmmm...The ultimate Ripper iconoclast/anti-commercialist becoming best friends with the only author to actually have made an appreciable amount of money by publishing a Ripper book (and probably the closest thing to the "superpornographer" that you define and condemn in your book)....

It's hard to say whose credibility would take the hardest hit, AP.

[How Brown]

Mag:

If that was to occur, there wouldn't be a dull moment around here....thats for damned sure.

I even wrote a limerick for this occasion.

A.P. & Patsy
Flying in her Lear
A.P. drank brandy
Patsy drank beer

At 30,000 feet
They had a dreadful altercation
They crashed headfirst
In the midst of Evisceration Nation@..

A.P. brushed himself off
"T'was nothing but a scratch..."
Patsy commented quickly
"Darling, you've got the gumption...perhaps we are a match !":kiss:

A.P. mulled it over
As he poured out a snifter of hooch
Patsy dreamily contemplated
Being the The Countess of Cooch

Yeah Kev...I can see it happening.:playball:

[admin tim]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20021020/ai_n12669800

All old news, but Schadenfreude is worth something, y'know.

[Paul]

Sadly there was a lot of it about. And there still is.

[admin tim]

Whoops, I somehow botched that last link and just now noticed it. It's fixed now, below.

As a bonus for your patience, here is another:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_4_27/ai_104733259

It's hard to deny that Paul is correct here, but I am unaware of anyone who has any sympathy for this particular author. A little humility and a few mea culpas would no doubt ameliorate that situation. But alas, the hole only continues to grow deeper.

[admin tim]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20050823/ai_n14914468

More Schadenfreude

[Doctor X]

Many believe that Cornwell's efforts are unlikely to bear further fruit. 'She's acting the part of the fearless girl reporter, attempting to sort out what she probably sees as a great conspiracy of male incompetence that has been unable to solve the terrible murders of these poor women," said Matthew Sturgis, whose recent critically acclaimed biography of Sickert, six years in the making, comprehensively demolished the Ripper theory. 'But in her desire to find answers, she simply hasn't followed very sound principles of investigation. It is a nonsensical misreading of the facts."

Cornwell is clearly determined not to let go of the Sickert theory, about which she has said she is '100 per cent sure.' The author herself was 'on holiday' and not available for interview, but has been reported as saying: 'I have never treated this is a book you walk away from. I am more certain than ever that Walter Sickert was the Ripper.'

Sort of summarizes the pathology right there.

--J.D.

[How Brown]

Hmm...

I'll bet I know who two of the reviewers of her book were..:playball:

She's still worth getting on the Podcast or on message boards.

I don't know if anyone is cognizant of this, but this effort by Mr. Grieve is the third time I can remember him getting involved with Ripperology in some form.

The first was when he inferred on a documentary ( If anyone has this particular documentary,Howard The Mooch would like a copy) that the police were sure that the Ripper had ceased operations since the police presence trickled down in early 1889...and he appeared to lean towards Kosminski. John Ross of The Black Museum was on that program dismissing Cutbush, if this rings a bell.

The second was when he went along with Mrs. Cornwell....and the third was the recent documentary with Laura Richards and the "composite of the Ripper" program which featured Rossmo and his geographic profiling.

[Celesta]

I understand that she is doing something with Keith Skinner on the letters. There's a lot of discussion about it on Casebook at the moment.

[Paul]

I understand that she is doing something with Keith Skinner on the letters. There's a lot of discussion about it on Casebook at the moment.

It is no secret that Keith Skinner has been hired to undertake research for Patricia Cornwell, although it is not exclusively about the letters, and at a dinner at Scotland Yard recently at which Patricia Cornwell was the guest of honour and helped to raise a substantial sum of money, she spoke briefly and in general terms about Keith working for her, acknowledging that she had made mistakes and saying that she certainly wouldn't have 'Case Closed' on the next edition, and so forth. The 'discussion' over on Casebook currently seems to be spiraling away from two main threads, one being whether or not Patricia Cornwell should be cut some slack, to which the answer seems to be 'no', and the other is the very serious accusation that the experts she hires accept her money to produce the results she wants, this accusation in particular being levelled at the forensic paper historian Peter Bower.

[Celesta]

It is no secret that Keith Skinner has been hired to undertake research for Patricia Cornwell, although it is not exclusively about the letters, and at a dinner at Scotland Yard recently at which Patricia Cornwell was the guest of honour and helped to raise a substantial sum of money, she spoke briefly and in general terms about Keith working for her, acknowledging that she had made mistakes and saying that she certainly wouldn't have 'Case Closed' on the next edition, and so forth. The 'discussion' over on Casebook currently seems to be spiraling away from two main threads, one being whether or not Patricia Cornwell should be cut some slack, to which the answer seems to be 'no', and the other is the very serious accusation that the experts she hires accept her money to produce the results she wants, this accusation in particular being levelled at the forensic paper historian Peter Bower.

Thank you, Paul. Did she actually say Skinner was working for her? Not with her? Sheesh. I did make the point, on one of those threads, that it would worthwhile, if Skinner and Cornwell could say something truly definitive about any of the letters. Others may not agree, but hopefully we'll find out in the not too distant future. I would be inclined to cut her a little slack because I know she, at the time the book came out, had a righteous rage aimed at the Ripper. I suppose some might think that was misplaced at this late date. Apparently some find her arrogant, and it doesn't work in her favor.

Anyway, thank you, Paul.

Best,

Celesta

[Chris G.]

Thank you, Paul. Did she actually say Skinner was working for her? Not with her? Sheesh. I did make the point, on one of those threads, that it would worthwhile, if Skinner and Cornwell could say something truly definitive about any of the letters. Others may not agree, but hopefully we'll find out in the not too distant future. I would be inclined to cut her a little slack because I know she, at the time the book came out, had a righteous rage aimed at the Ripper. I suppose some might think that was misplaced at this late date. Apparently some find her arrogant, and it doesn't work in her favor.

Anyway, thank you, Paul.

Best,

Celesta

Hi Celesta

I think it is highly ironic that Ms Cornwell chose to hang her theory on the idea that her suspect, Walter Sickert, wrote the majority of the "Ripper" letters, which most students of the case believe are hoaxes. It's also ironic that her book came out on the heels of the definitive book on the letters so far, Jack the Ripper: Letters from Hell by Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner, with their book coming out at the end of 2001 and her book a year later.

Chris

[Paul]

Hi Celesta
I think it is highly ironic that Ms Cornwell chose to hang her theory on the idea that her suspect, Walter Sickert, wrote the majority of the "Ripper" letters, which most students of the case believe are hoaxes. It also ironic that her book came out on the heels of the definitive book on the letters so far, Jack the Ripper: Letters from Hell by Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner, with their book coming out at the end of 2001 and her book a year later.
Chris

Hi Chris,
I'm open to correction, but I don't think Patricia Cornwell 'chose to hang her theory on the...letters.' Wasn't that in the main the conclusion of Anna Gruetzner Robins? Ms Robins certainly argued that case in her presentation at the Tate Gallery, and I asked her if she believed Sickert also wrote 'Dear Boss' and the Lusk letter, to which she replied that she did.

Hi Celesta,
I don't recall whether Patricia Cornwell actually said that Keith was working 'with' or 'for' her. Either word could be used pejoratively by some of Patricia Cornwell's critics, I'm afraid.

[SirRobertAnderson]

Hi Celesta,
I don't recall whether Patricia Cornwell actually said that Keith was working 'with' or 'for' her. Either word could be used pejoratively by some of Patricia Cornwell's critics, I'm afraid.

I don't recall what she said either, but there is no doubt that Cornwall is paying Keith to do research for her, and that has caused some major schisms amongst Ripper authors. At least one senior and very prominent author will no longer speak to him because of his undertaking this project.

For a very long time I thought AP was over the top in his jihad against the Ripper "establishment". Now I think he's been right, and it's the field that's fundamentally sick.

[Mr. Poster]

At least one senior and very prominent author will no longer speak to him because of his undertaking this project. For a very long time I thought AP was over the top in his jihad against the Ripper "establishment". Now I think he's been right, and it's the field that's fundamentally sick.

Judging by whats going on on certain other threads.....I don't know if its sick but its quite embarrassing to watch what are, I presume, grown men going at it like a bunch of brats.

On a recent podcast it was mentioned that groups of people in any academic pursuit can get fairly nasty when discussing their theories but at least some of them are arguing over something that may actually mean something.

I don't think whats going on right now re: Cornwell and Skinner and watermarks and guiilotines has anything to do with righteous anger at Sickert being accused or whatever.

It seems to be more about the fairly sad personal animosities which are often passed off as zeal for the subject or something more noble than they actually are.

Its like Maybrick spats all over again.

p

[Paul]

Judging by whats going on on certain other threads.....I don't know if its sick but its quite embarrassing to watch what are, I presume, grown men going at it like a bunch of brats.

On a recent podcast it was mentioned that groups of people in any academic pursuit can get fairly nasty when discussing their theories but at least some of them are arguing over something that may actually mean something.

I don't think whats going on right now re: Cornwell and Skinner and watermarks and guiilotines has anything to do with righteous anger at Sickert being accused or whatever.

It seems to be more about the fairly sad personal animosities which are often passed off as zeal for the subject or something more noble than they actually are.

Its like Maybrick spats all over again.

p

Yes, it is. But in this case wasn't the argument actually over something that mattered. It's got lost amid all those personal animosities, but it was claimed that Patricia Cornwell hires people to provide her with the results she wants, and specifically that Peter and Sally Bower took money to produce the results Patricia Cornwell paid them to produce and that their research was inadequate and not performed to acceptable standards. This statement clearly demanded substantiation and the substantiation given was that 24-sheets business, it being claimed that Peter Bower was so inept that he failed to notice that watermarks in the various papers showed they had been manufactured a year apart. This claim proved to be incorrect and maligned the character and professionalism of the Bowers. Unless it can be proven that Peter and Sally Bower have accepted money for producing the information that Patricia Cornwell wants, isn't that allegation well into the realms of unfair criticism, not to say libellous? But for goodness sake, let's not bring all the bile-spitting into these calmer waters.

[admin tim]

I agree with Paul and guarantee that these waters shall remain (relatively) bile-free, unless captions and violins are somehow involved.

[Paul]

I don't recall what she said either, but there is no doubt that Cornwall is paying Keith to do research for her, and that has caused some major schisms amongst Ripper authors. At least one senior and very prominent author will no longer speak to him because of his undertaking this project.

Robert,
Keith is a highly respected professional researcher who accepts commissions even from people who may have theories with which he disagrees, his primary objective being to establish the facts. I think Patricia Cornwell is fully aware of his integrity (she couldn't fail to be after witnessing the respect he's accorded by Scotland Yard) and I seem to recall her saying something along those lines at the SY dinner I mentioned a post or two back. So I would hope that anyone who knows Keith would agree with that and not be so silly as to not talk to him. Anyway, I don't know of any 'senior' Ripper author who refuses to speak to Keith because of it, nor am I aware of any schism. The only complaint I have is that Keith is tight-lipped about the research he's doing and doesn't tell me what it is, which is very frustrating!

[Mr. Poster]

Hi Paul

Yes, it is. But in this case wasn't the argument actually over something that mattered. It's got lost amid all those personal animosities, but it was claimed that Patricia Cornwell hires people to provide her with the results she wants, and specifically that Peter and Sally Bower took money to produce the results Patricia Cornwell paid them to produce and that their research was inadequate and not performed to acceptable standards.

Thats fair enough Paul....but it refelcts more on the people making the accusation than the field itself. There is a cadre of tosspots whos activities, such as those described above, have begun to be described as the "field" and the excuse thats used is that the public is being "protected" or something.

The correct way to handle "wrong" research or whetaver is to write and article or book or whatever and address it properly. Not sniping from the sidelines and using the excuse to swagger around mouthing off.

Whatever one says about Cornwell, she had the money and the balls to follow her notion.

People are smart enough to figure out things for themselves....they dont need som gasguts "protecting" them from...what exactly? The notion that a long dead painter may have been a long dead killer?

p

[SirRobertAnderson]

The only complaint I have is that Keith is tight-lipped about the research he's doing and doesn't tell me what it is, which is very frustrating!

There is a straightforward explanation for that, and it's that he doesn't "own" the research he's done for Patricia. Until she says it's OK to come forward with it, his hands are tied.

Some folks are upset that he's dropped a few tantalizing hints, but I'm more inclined to be thankful for the bits we have gleaned. I mean, unless we put up the $$$, to some extent we're not entitled to more.

[Paul]

Hi Paul
Thats fair enough Paul....but it refelcts more on the people making the accusation than the field itself. There is a cadre of tosspots whos activities, such as those described above, have begun to be described as the "field" and the excuse thats used is that the public is being "protected" or something.

The correct way to handle "wrong" research or whetaver is to write and article or book or whatever and address it properly. Not sniping from the sidelines and using the excuse to swagger around mouthing off.

Whatever one says about Cornwell, she had the money and the balls to follow her notion.

People are smart enough to figure out things for themselves....they dont need som gasguts "protecting" them from...what exactly? The notion that a long dead painter may have been a long dead killer? p

There's nothing to disagree with there, although I'm inclind to believe that the tosspots do reflect on the field. In fact I had some evidence of that today. But overall, I guess - and I certainly hope - you're right.

[Big Jon]

There's nothing to disagree with there, although I'm inclind to believe that the tosspots do reflect on the field. In fact I had some evidence of that today. But overall, I guess - and I certainly hope - you're right.

Hi Paul,

May we ask what happened?

[admin tim]

http://www.writerswrite.com/wblog.php?wblog=827051
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4190572.stm
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6254031.html
http://specials.rediff.com/getahead/2005/aug/31cornwell.htm
http://www.econ.ucla.edu/lal/bustan0805.pdf (at the bottom)
http://www.thingsmagazine.net/2004_10_01_oldthings.htm
http://www.adjab.com/2005/08/27/author-denies-ripper-obsession
http://history.howstuffworks.com/european-history/jack-the-ripper-artist1.htm
http://www.blottered.com/2005/08/crime-author-announces-shes-sooo-over.html

Short but sweet - you know, like Nina.

[Magpie]

Hi All.

The press release I read about Keith involvement was that he'd been hired strictly as a "fact-checker" with the assumption that he was going to correct the myriad of factual errors that appeared in Cornwell's book.

If that's the case, I applaud Cornwell for making the move and I say good luck to Keith in the endeavour!

If Keith is doing new research for Cornwell, then I personally have no doubt that he will do it with both the determination and integrity that he is justly known for, and I still don't have a problem with the partnership.

Either way, with Keith on board Cornwell's next book on the subject is virtually guaranteed to be better than her output so far.

[SirRobertAnderson]

If Keith is doing new research for Cornwell, then I personally have no doubt that he will do it with both the determination and integrity that he is justly known for, and I still don't have a problem with the partnership.



He is, and in some fashion that I don't pretend to be privy to, it's led him to Battlecrease.

My guess? Cornwell wanted to put paid to the Diary, at which all the so called "respected authors" in the field have utterly failed.

I'm not trying to turn this into a Diary thread; it's just that my suspicion/educated guess is that Cornwell - as a person outside mainstream Ripperology - wanted to "debunk" Maybrick once and for all as a way of enhancing Sickert as a suspect.

[Chris G.]

Hi Chris,
I'm open to correction, but I don't think Patricia Cornwell 'chose to hang her theory on the...letters.' Wasn't that in the main the conclusion of Anna Gruetzner Robins? Ms Robins certainly argued that case in her presentation at the Tate Gallery, and I asked her if she believed Sickert also wrote 'Dear Boss' and the Lusk letter, to which she replied that she did.



Hi Paul

The text plus the illustrations section of Case Closed show clearly that Patricia Cornwell's case rests largely on the letters, so it's the author herself who relies on the letters to indict Sickert, irregardless of what Anna Gruetzner Robins has concluded. Ms Cornwell in a reply to a caller on the Diane Rehm show on National Public Radio, when I also called the show while she was in Washington, D.C. in Fall 2002, said that she believed Walter Sickert wrote "90% percent" of the "Ripper" letters. Also she can be heard in that broadcast claiming that the Sickert notepaper and the Openshaw letter were the same batch of paper, although the watermarks are of those two different years, 1886 and 1887, respectively. Go to Diane Rehm Show, Tuesday, November 19, 2002 (http://wamu.org/audio/dr/02/11/r2021119-4186.ram) to hear the broadcast.

Chris

[Paul]

Hi Paul, May we ask what happened?

Yes, basically I offered to contact someone to do something and that person expressed a sincere reluctance to do it because of the bitchiness and personal comments made on Ripper message boards - the field, or those involved in it, were tarred with the same brush, so t speak.

[Paul]

He is, and in some fashion that I don't pretend to be privy to, it's led him to Battlecrease.

I don't think so, Robert, because it was announced at the Trial of James Maybrick in Liverpool that Keith would be working with Patricia Cornwell on the revised edition of her book, and it was at the same event that Keith said whatever he said about Battlecrease, so it would seem that the Battlecrease info was acquired before he began undertaking research for Patricia Cornwell.

[Paul]

Hi Paul, The text plus the illustrations section of Case Closed show clearly that Patricia Cornwell's case rests largely on the letters, so it's the author herself who relies on the letters to indict Sickert, irregardless of what Anna Gruetzner Robins has concluded. Ms Cornwell in a reply to a caller on the Diane Rehm show on National Public Radio, when I also called the show while she was in Washington, D.C. in Fall 2002, said that she believed Walter Sickert wrote "90% percent" of the "Ripper" letters. Also she can be heard in that broadcast claiming that the Sickert notepaper and the Openshaw letter were the same batch of paper, although the watermarks are of those two different years, 1886 and 1887, respectively. Go to Diane Rehm Show, Tuesday, November 19, 2002 (http://wamu.org/audio/dr/02/11/r2021119-4186.ram) to hear the broadcast. Chris

Sorry, Chris, I see what you mean. I was thinking more about the source of Patricia Cornwell's information. When you wrote that Patricia Cornwell chose to hang her book on the Ripper correspondence all being written by Sickert I thought you meant that she conceived the book after looking at the correspondence and reaching that conclusion herself. Whereas in her book she explains that Sickert was suggested by John Grieve and that the idea took on form in her mind as she looked at some of Sickert's odder paintings and learning some facts about him. The person who concluded that a lot of the Ripper letters wer written by Sickert seems to have been Anna Gruetzner Robins - it's somewhat ambiguous in Patricia Cornwell's book, but speaking of the Ripper correspondence she writes, 'But nobody noticed the remarkable nature of these documents until art historian Dr Anna Gruetzner Robins and paper conservator Anne Kennett examined the originals at the Public Record Office (PRO) in June 2002.' Anna Gruetzner Robins also gave a paper in which she presented her case for Sickert having been responsible for many of the letters at the Tate on 28 November 2003, at which I was present along with Matthew Sturgis, Peter Bower, and others. So it wasn't Patricia Cornwell's idea so much as that of Dr Robins that Sickert wrote all the letters; Patricia Cornwell simply accepted the conclusions of her expert.

Anyway, you are of course right that there is a heavy emphasis in the book on the belief that Sickert wrote the Ripper letters.

[Chris G.]

Sorry, Chris, I see what you mean. I was thinking more about the source of Patricia Cornwell's information. When you wrote that Patricia Cornwell chose to hang her book on the Ripper correspondence all being written by Sickert I thought you meant that she conceived the book after looking at the correspondence and reaching that conclusion herself. Whereas in her book she explains that Sickert was suggested by John Grieve and that the idea took on form in her mind as she looked at some of Sickert's odder paintings and learning some facts about him. The person who concluded that a lot of the Ripper letters wer written by Sickert seems to have been Anna Gruetzner Robins - it's somewhat ambiguous in Patricia Cornwell's book, but speaking of the Ripper correspondence she writes, 'But nobody noticed the remarkable nature of these documents until art historian Dr Anna Gruetzner Robins and paper conservator Anne Kennett examined the originals at the Public Record Office (PRO) in June 2002.' Anna Gruetzner Robins also gave a paper in which she presented her case for Sickert having been responsible for many of the letters at the Tate on 28 November 2003, at which I was present along with Matthew Sturgis, Peter Bower, and others. So it wasn't Patricia Cornwell's idea so much as that of Dr Robins that Sickert wrote all the letters; Patricia Cornwell simply accepted the conclusions of her expert.

Anyway, you are of course right that there is a heavy emphasis in the book on the belief that Sickert wrote the Ripper letters.

Hi Steve

Okay, then, thanks for setting me right that it is Dr Anna Gruetzner Robins who contends that Sickert wrote that many of the Ripper letters were written by Sickert and Ms Cornwell did not come up with the idea on her own, just as she did not come up with the idea of Sickert as a suspect independently, but was given that idea by Scotland Yard Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Grieve. However, the idea that as she has asserted, Sickert wrote "90 percent" of the hundreds of Ripper letters is clearly absurd since they are all written in different hands, in various inks, pencil, or crayon, on different types of media (stationary, postcards, scraps of paper), and posted from all over the place. If he was that active writing the Ripper letters, when did he have any time to do any paintings, travel to Dieppe, mingle with other artists, etc? :confused:

Chris

[Paul]

Hi Steve

Okay, then, thanks for setting me right that it is Dr Anna Gruetzner Robins who contends that Sickert wrote that many of the Ripper letters were written by Sickert and Ms Cornwell did not come up with the idea on her own, just as she did not come up with the idea of Sickert as a suspect independently, but was given that idea by Scotland Yard Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Grieve. However, the idea that as she has asserted, Sickert wrote "90 percent" of the hundreds of Ripper letters is clearly absurd since they are all written in different hands, in various inks, pencil, or crayon, on different types of media (stationary, postcards, scraps of paper), and posted from all over the place. If he was that active writing the Ripper letters, when did he have any time to do any paintings, travel to Dieppe, mingle with other artists, etc? :confused:

Chris

Steve?

Hey, I'm not saying Patricia Cornwell is right. I don't think it likely that Sickert wrote all the letters either.

[Mr. Poster]

hi ho

What is most appalling about the Cornwell case in particular and the case of other ripper writers in general is the fairly recent trend of heaping opprobrium upon anyone who declines to enter either a specific website or radio show or whetavere and "face us" to answer the questions and accusations levelled at them.

It happened with Cornwell, Marriott, and some others.

As soon as a new book comes out, irrespective of subject or quality, if that book is not from an author who is a member of some kind of general "clique", a fairly well defined and demonstarble pattern of behaviour emerges.

1. Before the book/exhibition/film/article even emerges, some verbal casting of eyes up to heaven is done about how bad it undoubtedly will be. Then some fevered Googling is done to try and cast aspersions on anyone associated with the project.

2. The item is published/launched/released and is dissected by a bunch of self appointed abriters who tart up their criticisms with the scurrilous snippets they have managed to dredge up of manufacture.

3. Anyone associated with the item is attacked, professionally and personally and when the baying crowd who lap up the bile this select bunch of berks manage to spew out is appropriately frenzied (and cowed into acceptance of the opinions of the Ripper Illuminati by the venom with which the new item is received).......calls are made for the new author/director/organiser to get his/her ass to the Casebook to answer for their crimes.

4. When they do not (and why would they given the stuff that goes on) they are deemed to be whatever the Illuminati decide they should be and doomed to ridicule whenever they are mentioned.

Everyone forgetting of course that no one has the right to judge anyone, the ones who cast the most stones are hardly productive and indeed in some cases can barely write legibly, that the obnoxious behaviour indulged in is exactly the behaviour assuring no one would ever bother to enter into a discourse and therefore part of a self fulfilling scheme ensuring that the bile spewing can continue unabated and that individuals or websites do not have some kind of quality assurance role on all things ripper.

The general public of course do not care and lump the self appointed quality assessors and the fruitcakes and every other Ripper enthusiast into the same boat.

And what does all this achieve? Nothing.

It makes ceratin groups of chaps and chapettes look like lunatics,
Promotes the sales of the books/films/exhibitions they spend so much time loathing,
Allows "normal" authors to case the bunch as complete lunatics, pushing them ever farther back into the bastions they have constructed and allowing even more bitterness and bile to flow,
Keeps legitimate and genuine authors out of the way, preventing discussion with them and devaluing the very forum where the lunatics demand people defend themselves,
Keeps people like Bower away by accusing him of ludicrous activities and frothing at the mouth with indignation,

And best of all.......it scares away with a torrent of abuse people worth talking to to like the recent relative of a victim wwho dared to surface on a website only to not meet the criteria that a certain bunch have decided are to be used to determine who can enter the hallowed halls of Ripperdom.

p

[Chris G.]

Steve?

Hey, I'm not saying Patricia Cornwell is right. I don't think it likely that Sickert wrote all the letters either.

Steve??? Well what do you expect when I am writing at 2:00 am in the morning after a hard work week and other worrries, and have just been reading about Steve Powell/Steve Park on the "other" forum. . . :becky:

All the best

Chris

[Chris G.]

hi ho

What is most appalling about the Cornwell case in particular and the case of other ripper writers in general is the fairly recent trend of heaping opprobrium upon anyone who declines to enter either a specific website or radio show or whetavere and "face us" to answer the questions and accusations levelled at them.

It happened with Cornwell, Marriott, and some others.

As soon as a new book comes out, irrespective of subject or quality, if that book is not from an author who is a member of some kind of general "clique", a fairly well defined and demonstarble pattern of behaviour emerges. . . .

Hi Lars

Some of this might have to do with the general lack of courtesy in general discourse in society, just as politics these days has become more dog-eat-dog than across the aisle courtesy given to your political foe, as was the case in past decades.

But I think some of us might say that some of the hostility that two of the authors you name, Cornwell and Marriott, have incurred, might be because of the illogical or outrageous claims they have made, the Eddowes apron being moved by an animal as Mr. Marriott has contended, for example.

But I would contest your implication that each and every Ripper book that comes out receives such a reception if the author is not part of a clique. First I don't know what clique you could mean. And second, I don't recall any such hostility for Rob McLaughlin's book on the victim photographs, Rob Clack and Philip Hutchinson's book on East End Ripper murder locations, or Neal Sheldon's book on the Ripper victims. So your statement is far from true, and in fact might actually be a false observation.

All the best

Chris

[Mr. Poster]

Hi Chris

Cornwell rubs people up the wrong way so its logical she would get some stick at any rate.

And second, I don't recall any such hostility for Rob McLaughlin's book on the victim photographs, Rob Clack and Philip Hutchinson's book on East End Ripper murder locations, or Neal Sheldon's book on the Ripper victims. So your statement is far from true, and in fact might actually be a false observation.

And what sthe common denominator between the above characters (and I both purchased aand liked the majority of those books) ?

Ooohh hang on.....they all post regularly on the site. And Trevor Marriott......zoinks.....he didnt. Which accords with, whilst not proving, my hypothesis.

Paul Begg has been getting a roasting of late....doesnt post there either.

I could contine the list. Now whether they dont post there is because of the atmosphere or the atmosphere is because they dont post there is hard to tell.

Of course the above characters werent postulating really as to suspects. Books on letters, books on photo's......fairly safe really.

NOw imagine a situation............one of the above (and Im only using the set to save me typing) writes a book on a suspect. And some unknown JOhn writes one who has never posted on a certain site nor is likely too or is well known and doesnt post there for whatever reason.

Who do you think is going to get flayed?

AP might be a drunken Father Jack....but sometime he has a point. Hmmmm......that should make me popular.

Ripperology, in general, is a fairly incestuous environment. And the inevitable genetic problems inherent in such environments seem to be coming to the fore.

p

[Chris G.]

Hi Lars

I am not sure that being a regular poster at Casebook has anything to do with it. You mean Chris Scott, Neal Sheldon, and Philip Hutchinson, are spared a roasting because they post on Casebook. I'm sorry but give me a break. And surely you know that the criticism of Jack the Ripper: The Facts is coming from the editor of a rival Ripper journal -- is that just coincidence?

Chris

[Chris G.]

AP might be a drunken Father Jack....but sometime he has a point. Hmmmm......that should make me popular.



AP dredges up a lot of interesting information, I agree. However, if I may say so he has been given a lot of leeway on this website to make aspersions about, for example, the authenticity of the Littlechild letter, that might be out of bounds.

Chris

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho Chris

I doubt posting on Casebook has much to do with it other than its a useful indicator of who "knows" who. I would imagine if GH had written a stinker (not that I imagine he would) and named a specific suspect like .....someone ridiculous.....he would have been spared the type of venom that people who dont ppost there and dont know the "community" would have gotten.

AS to Paul Begg............you've just proved my point in a way.

p

[Chris G.]

Hi ho Chris

I doubt posting on Casebook has much to do with it other than its a useful indicator of who "knows" who. I would imagine if GH had written a stinker (not that I imagine he would) and named a specific suspect like .....someone ridiculous.....he would have been spared the type of venom that people who dont ppost there and dont know the "community" would have gotten.

AS to Paul Begg............you've just proved my point in a way.

p

Hi Lars

Your argument sounds very much like the argument by people who claim they don't want the Ripper case solved because they have vested interests.

I am not sure there is the clique on Casebook or here or elsewhere that you claim there is. Yes I know a number of people on both this site and Casebook but does that make me one of the "in crowd"? I don't think so. Rather, I think on both sites there are a number of people who have come together for varying motives and from various backgrounds that don't exactly act as a body on whatever topic is under discussion.

I also don't know what your point is about Paul's book. I have pointed out a possible motivation for the hostility he has been receiving from a certain party that does not have much to do with a Casebook "clique" but more to do, as I see it, with personal enmity or self-promotion.

Best regards

Chris

[Pilgrim]

Whatever the consequences... I find it a great relief if people outside of this field have indeed become aware of the thoroughly sick state of the "community" gathering around that messageboard. I know well enough what happened there. The bullying and harassment I witnessed, and came to experience, I guess a more sensible person would have left within a few weeks. But I'm too stubborn. I did however take to my senses in the end, and had my account cancelled by expressing my sincerest opinion, to the administrators.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho Chris

Yes I know a number of people on both this site and Casebook but does that make me one of the "in crowd"? I don't think so.

Ooohh I dont think so. There is a mind set involved that Im not sure you are involved with.

Take it another way. Stand back and look at some symptoms:

1. The recent kerfuffle over some chppie deciding he wanted to set up a site to discuss Ripper stuff and invite who he wanted to attend, presumably to avoid the twits hed didnt invite.

2. The recent bellyaching about someone organising an exhibition and what went on and who wasnt asked to help and why they should have been and so on.

3. The less recent by equally memorable bitch fest over wikipedia entries.

4. The ongoing belching about various journals, pamphlets and so on.

5. The fact that 80% of posts on the primary ripper website are either to do with crap or long standing personal vendettas or chirruppy little quips of no particular relevance.

7. The by now traditional "Im leaving" posts, followed by entreaties to stay and how sad everyone else is and then the return "ONly to address a certain post" before being back until doing it all over again. Rinse and repeat.

and so on. I havent even mentioned half the things that indicate the terminal condition of the entire subject. If it was a human it would be bleeding from the eyes and the nurses would be wearing raincoats ready for the final blood spattered twitching.

You really think there isnt something distinctly rotten in the state of Ripper?

How posted a poll recently about what should the website contain and I freely admit to thinking all content that is not expressly ripper related should not be featured.

p

[Chris G.]

Hi ho Chris


Ooohh I dont think so. There is a mind set involved that Im not sure you are involved with.

Take it another way. Stand back and look at some symptoms:

1. The recent kerfuffle over some chppie deciding he wanted to set up a site to discuss Ripper stuff and invite who he wanted to attend, presumably to avoid the twits hed didnt invite.

2. The recent bellyaching about someone organising an exhibition and what went on and who wasnt asked to help and why they should have been and so on.

3. The less recent by equally memorable bitch fest over wikipedia entries.

4. The ongoing belching about various journals, pamphlets and so on.

5. The fact that 80% of posts on the primary ripper website are either to do with crap or long standing personal vendettas or chirruppy little quips of no particular relevance.

7. The by now traditional "Im leaving" posts, followed by entreaties to stay and how sad everyone else is and then the return "ONly to address a certain post" before being back until doing it all over again. Rinse and repeat.

and so on. I havent even mentioned half the things that indicate the terminal condition of the entire subject. If it was a human it would be bleeding from the eyes and the nurses would be wearing raincoats ready for the final blood spattered twitching.

You really think there isnt something distinctly rotten in the state of Ripper?

How posted a poll recently about what should the website contain and I freely admit to thinking all content that is not expressly ripper related should not be featured.

p

Hello Lars

Isn't what you are talking about a general malaise on the Internet more than that there is a clique on Casebook that acts as one body? As I say, the posters on Casebook act as individuals for their own motivations. Sorry, but I really don't really see any coordinated conspiracy as you seem to describe it.

Chris

[Mr. Poster]

Hi Chris

Im not sure if its a conspiracy. Think of the last days of the Roman empire.

The claustrophobia of Hitlers circle before implosion.

And its not an Internet malaise at all. Its ripper malaise. Its symptoms are many but are due to an infectious agent that emanates from certain groupings.

Symptoms like the barely concealed barfing about an exhibition that had the gaul not to consult at the Oracle of Wipperdom is hardly an internet malaise. Or the brass neck someone had to invite people to his own discussion board. As if he hadnt the right.

Or the chorus of whining everytime something appears on radio or TV without having consulted with the doyens of Ripperology (who seem to be th eones who have never written anything or done anything worth while at all).

Thats not internet malaise. Its something else. NOt sure what the correct term is though.

If it was an individual it would be "being full of your own shite".

For a subject though.....I dont know what you'd call it.

p

[Vila]

TEXT SNIPPED

'As soon as a new book comes out, irrespective of subject or quality, if that book is not from an author who is a member of some kind of general "clique", a fairly well defined and demonstarble pattern of behaviour emerges.

1. Before the book/exhibition/film/article even emerges, some verbal casting of eyes up to heaven is done about how bad it undoubtedly will be. Then some fevered Googling is done to try and cast aspersions on anyone associated with the project.

2. The item is published/launched/released and is dissected by a bunch of self appointed abriters who tart up their criticisms with the scurrilous snippets they have managed to dredge up of manufacture.'

I'd like to point out that the Ripper Community never got the chance to demolish Cornwell's book because 90 days before it was due to hit the bookstores her theory was knocked to shreds by a group that had no interest in JTR whatsoever: Art Historians.

I was there, and had just heard about Cornwell's theory, upcoming book, and habit of avoiding questions by anyone in the Ripper field of research. I download a dozen or more news reports from independent sources and advance publicity statements by Cornwell's publishers just to find out what the book and theory was about. Over half of the independent reports were from art historians who'd knocked the bottom off of Cornwell's house of cards. The rest flatly stated that Cornwell had only produced the book after being unable to write it up as yet another Scarpetta novel. The statements from her publishers occasionally admitted that her original aim had been yet another fiction novel, but that they had great faith that her "true fact" version of her failed novel would be a best seller.

Then came the Great Publicity Machine push to convince the whole world that Cornwell had solved the "crime of the century" and that everyone on Earth needed to buy at least two copies of her book. The only thing that the GPM storm of material managed to convince me of was that Cornwell was a thoroughly conceited person who was afraid to let anyone who had any real knowledge of DNA tests, JTR, Sickert, or writing get close enough to her to ask embarasing questions that she'd be unable to answer without showing her complete ignorance of everything outside of producing badly-written murder mysteries. (And yes, I've read some of her fiction, it's boring, badly plotted, and why anyone would want to buy them is a bigger mystery than anything in her novels. As an editor and publisher, I've had better submissions from schoolchildren. But I digress.)

As I said, no Ripperologist had a chance to deconstruct or test her theory before the art historians had exposed it as a hack-job done by a shoddy researcher who chose a suspect and ignored all evidence that condradicted her conclusions!

It was only after that event that Ripperologists were able to start pointing out the flaws in her reasoning. But she and her GPM managed to keep everyone who wasn't ignorant of Ripperology out of her section of the limelight until such time as her book hit the stores.

I hate to disagree with your assessment of the folks at Casebook Forums and JTR Forums, but in this case I feel that I must. I think that you're mistaken about the existance of a Ripper Clique or some sort of exclusive Inner Circle of Ripperologists. I've seen *every* JTR writer & expert disagree with one another over the years. They're *competitors* for our book-buying dollars, yet they remain some of the nicest folks I've ever had the pleasure of conversing with! The idea that they would deign to join forces just to exclude someone new from entering the field is too far-fetched for me to believe. The worst that I've ever seen happen is that anyone proposing a theory that depended on a far-fetched, nearly impossible, highly unlikely series of events got themselves questioned mercilessly as to their source material and research. If they couldn't or wouldn't provide straight answers to simple questions, then we onlookers concluded that they were in error as to their conclusions.

Some few individual members of one online forum or another might fit your description of disagreeable posters, but to tar the whole of Ripperology with that same brush is incorrect. Please reconsider your opinion, I beg of you.

Thank you for your time,

Vila

[Doctor X]

For what it is worth, the behavior at that site is the same as in the legion of fora devoted to many diverse subjects.

--J.D.

[Pilgrim]

Complex repetition may disguise its difference and variability. A bare (simple) repetition is a mechanical, stereotyped repetition of the same element, while a clothed (complex) repetition is a repetition which has difference hidden within itself. Repetition may employ disguising and displacement of the difference which it conceals within itself. The difference which may be found in repetition is seen in the play of difference by which repetition may be bare or clothed, covered or uncovered, masked or unmasked, static or dynamic, extensive or intensive, horizontal or vertical, material or spiritual.

Difference and Repetition (http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/deleuze.htm#H1)

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho VIla

I hate to disagree with your assessment of the folks at Casebook Forums and JTR Forums, but in this case I feel that I must.

How can you disagree with my assessment of folks at those two places when my assessment has neither been specific to either place nor holistic as to "folks"? Confused I am.

I think that you're mistaken about the existance of a Ripper Clique or some sort of exclusive Inner Circle of Ripperologists.

Clique is an unfortunate word and while Inner Circle (or Sphincter) may be better, it appears to my jaded eyes that the consitutents of such a circle are not "Ripperologists" but merely mouths. Seems to me the most productive Ripper folk rarely post at all. Anywhere.

The idea that they would deign to join forces just to exclude someone new from entering the field is too far-fetched for me to believe.

Oooh....they dont stop them entering the field. They like it when they do. They need people to enter the field. Who are they going to bitch about otherwise? I suppose they could just continue sniping at the already present people but that quickly attains the patina of personal bitching. That doesnt gel with their adopted persona of "Professional" Ripperologists or whatever so they need new chaps to be taken to pieces to maintain some kind of semblance of "we're only attacking him because its a bad book and he refuses (!) to show up here and answer questions".

The worst that I've ever seen happen is that anyone proposing a theory that depended on a far-fetched, nearly impossible, highly unlikely series of events got themselves questioned mercilessly as to their source material and research.

That would be the worst? Karen Trenouth threads still bubble away with hundreds of posts (must be a lot of questions!), Paul Begg is still being harangued over a book written years ago, Shirely Harrison/Harris/Feldman/Morris.....still get abuse over their tomes, and so on.

I take it you havent been reading all about Patricia? You classify that as being questioned mercilessly or as being harrassed?

If they couldn't or wouldn't provide straight answers to simple questions, then we onlookers concluded that they were in error as to their conclusions.

Why should they answer you anything? What you should have concluded perchance was that the person did not see that you any right to an answer as you are not a representative of any professional or regulatory body or whatever.

When are Ripper folk going to get down of their high horses and realise that are members of a bunch and conduct a hobby seen, at best, as slightly daft by th evast majority and which is no more significance or credibility than people who look for Loch Ness monsters or discuss the vagaries of Matchbox Model Cars packaging: 1956-1967.

Some few individual members of one online forum or another might fit your description of disagreeable posters,

Thats not my description.

but to tar the whole of Ripperology with that same brush is incorrect. Please reconsider your opinion, I beg of you.

Nope. I wont. The evidence is there for all to see.

We can only be thankful that private fora are being set up for people to discuss their interest without it being associated with what has become a most distasteful assemblage driven by extremely unsavory practices and notions of what is acceptable and to whom people are "answerable".

p

[Doctor X]

No, it just people is it not?

--J.D.

[Paul]

Chris and Lars,
I think you are both generally right in what you say. I think the message boards are a superb way of being able to share thoughts and opinions and above all the tit-bits of information picked up during research, but there is no question that little groups dominate certain threads or come together to bash an individual. It is also noticeable that when trouble seems to be brewing certain people join the 'discussion' and appear to deliberatly fan the flames, often spinning the argument off into directions the original poster never intended.

This amounts to bullying, and certainly seems to be perceived as such by the victim of it, and Pilgrim is one of several people who have expressed this view.
The outside observer even perceives it as bullying - even I received that impression regarding Karen Trenouth on this site - and Patricia Cornwell is a victim of it too. With respect, Vila, whatever she did and whatever she said she did it and said it six years ago, has acknowledged that she made mistakes, has said she won't call her revised edition 'Case Closed', has hired Keith Skinner to supervise research, and done much else, and it strikes me that she ought to be cut some slack and that folk should stop the offensive comments like calling her 'Cornball', which was never justified anyway.

Overall, I know that a lot of people cast an eye over Ripper message boards, especially journalists and assorted media people, and I know that they look at the squabbles and rudeness and silly one-liners, and they go away thinking its all rather obsessive and moronic. I know this because they tell me, and, as said, I encountered an example of it the other day,

I don't know whether the bashing is reserved for people who don't regularly post to the boards, like Mr P asserts, or whether people like Philip Hutchinson and Robert McLaughlin didn't make extravagant claims for or in their books, unlike Patricia Cornwell or Karen Trenouth, but it does happen, as it happened to Chris Jones for example.

[Chris G.]

Chris and Lars,
I think you are both generally right in what you say. I think the message boards are a superb way of being able to share thoughts and opinions and above all the tit-bits of information picked up during research, but there is no question that little groups dominate certain threads or come together to bash an individual. It is also noticeable that when trouble seems to be brewing certain people join the 'discussion' and appear to deliberatly fan the flames, often spinning the argument off into directions the original poster never intended.

This amounts to bullying, and certainly seems to be perceived as such by the victim of it, and Pilgrim is one of several people who have expressed this view.
The outside observer even perceives it as bullying - even I received that impression regarding Karen Trenouth on this site - and Patricia Cornwell is a victim of it too. With respect, Vila, whatever she did and whatever she said she did it and said it six years ago, has acknowledged that she made mistakes, has said she won't call her revised edition 'Case Closed', has hired Keith Skinner to supervise research, and done much else, and it strikes me that she ought to be cut some slack and that folk should stop the offensive comments like calling her 'Cornball', which was never justified anyway.

Hi Paul

I appreciate that Ms Cornwell has admitted that she made mistakes in the first version of her book. On the other hand, her recent (November 2007) remark that "The Sickert Trust had better watch out when copyright expires on his letters in 2012" suggests that her fervor to "stick it to Sickert" that people objected to in the first place is unchanged. If she is being more careful with her research now, where is the objectivity that we might expect from her?


Overall, I know that a lot of people cast an eye over Ripper message boards, especially journalists and assorted media people, and I know that they look at the squabbles and rudeness and silly one-liners, and they go away thinking its all rather obsessive and moronic. I know this because they tell me, and, as said, I encountered an example of it the other day,



You make an excellent point that people who post on the forums do Ripperology no favor by appearing to feud or make silly remarks. I think sometimes posters forget that they are posting on a public forum that can be read by absolutely anyone. Ego gratification is one thing but thinking before one posts has its virtues.


I don't know whether the bashing is reserved for people who don't regularly post to the boards, like Mr P asserts, or whether people like Philip Hutchinson and Robert McLaughlin didn't make extravagant claims for or in their books, unlike Patricia Cornwell or Karen Trenouth, but it does happen, as it happened to Chris Jones for example.


I suppose the distinction is that Chris Jones, organiser of the Maybrick Trial in Liverpool a year ago and the Maybrick website he has just initiated, is dealing with a hot button topic: the Diary. Similarly, Patricia Cornwell and Karen Trenouth are, righly or wrongly, lightning rods for controversy.

Chris

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ChrisG

Fair points, temperately made.

Cornwells continuing focus on Sickert. Its hardly any different to folks determination to nail Hutchinson (which generated and will generate more words than Cornwell will ever manage), Maybrivk or anyone else. She is barely in the Feldman category yet as it hasnt killed her. In one way....I admire he sheer willingness to stick it out. She obviously thinks the man did it and has the courage of her convictions all backed up by the size of her wallet/mouth.

I suppose the distinction is that Chris Jones, organiser of the Maybrick Trial in Liverpool a year ago and the Maybrick website he has just initiated, is dealing with a hot button topic: the Diary. Similarly, Patricia Cornwell and Karen Trenouth are, righly or wrongly, lightning rods for controversy.

Karen Trenouth in all probability was a slightly vulnerable character. A fair amount of jibing could be understood but a couple of years after the event and she is still being pilloried? How far is it going to go or how long exactly or do we just need someone as a whipping boy?

Chris Jones got a load of stick over something that was hardly deserving of it and continues to have barbs slung at him in his abscence.

Paul Begg recently came in for a trouncing for what exactly? I suggest you read the rather rabid posts made recently else where, where the lunatic venom being directed is clear for all to see.

Now a Ripper exhibition is or was being trashed and why? Because they didnt ask along a group who felt they should have been asked? dared not to consult those who deem themselves necessary for all ripper things?

Keith Skinner....getting a roasting for working with the enemy or something. How dare he work for a living!

P.Bower...getting a roasting for "being a paid man" (all said without any proof by the way).

I suppose Knight gets away without being roasted because he is dead or something.

Trevor Marriott ...picked at because he had some interesting suggestions about animals.

The book on Uncle Jack....more baying for blood.

Films, musicals, books, articles, radio shows, you name it. All getting a lambsting and mostly because people had the balls to do something without first having sought the permission (?)/approval (?)/ advice (?) of an ill defined bunch of people who seem to spend too much energy defining their lives by their "achievements"/interest in all things ripper to the detriment of learning some manners/finding a healthier hobby/getting some fresh air.

The last original thought on Jack the Ripper was David Radkas. And it was 0only on his death that people started being nice to him.

APWolf, not a nice man but having original notions, gets regularly whupped for not following along the now accepted route of toeing whatever line has been set by a seclect group of big mouths.

Everything else conducted on the main forum for Ripper stuff is bitching, tearing down anyone else who doesnt feel the need to scrape at the altar of Ripperr and cosy up to its high priests, self congratulatory garbage, chest puffing declarations of ones position in the Ripper universe, 5 word posts and crap about other things.

And it infects this site too on occassion although it is much less frequent.

Thank God someone had the brains to set up a closed alternative site. I genuinely hope that such a forum will be less filled with crap and might actually function to further "Ripperology" (got to hate that word).

p

[Paul]

Hi Paul
I appreciate that Ms Cornwell has admitted that she made mistakes in the first version of her book. On the other hand, her recent (November 2007) remark that "The Sickert Trust had better watch out when copyright expires on his letters in 2012" suggests that her fervor to "stick it to Sickert" that people objected to in the first place is unchanged. If she is being more careful with her research now, where is the objectivity that we might expect from her?Chris

Why do people object to her fervour, Chris? Can't Patricia Cornwell be as passionate about her suspect as other people are about theirs? And was it her fervour they objected to, rather than not liking her theory, her methodology and that she called Ripperologists Klingons?

If the Sickert Trust is refusing reproduction rights to some Sickert letters and if Patricia Cornwell believes that when those letters can be published it will be shown that they were written by the same person who wrote some Ripper letters, and if perhaps Patricia Cornwell thinks the Sickert Trust know this, which is why they are denying reproduction rights (and I do not know that this is what she believes, I am merely speculating) then it seems reasonable to me to say that the Trust 'had better watch out'. Is't that pretty much what anyone would say if they felt their research was being blocked?

I appreciate that Maybrick is a hot topic - well, it is for three or four people - but that hardly justified the accusations that got chucked at Chris Jones. He had a very hard time of it and quite frankly sight of that would have made even a strong man wilt at the idea of staging anything similar.

[Doctor X]

. . . then it seems reasonable to me to say that the Trust 'had better watch out'.

Not if you are reasonable. The Trust may simply not want to deal with what appears to be a opportunist. Such a threat merely feeds the impression that she is not worth the their time. That may not be a fair judgment on the Trust's part, but it is certainly as "reasonable" if not more than her opinion.

Is't that pretty much what anyone would say if they felt their research was being blocked?

Depends on the researcher. Nevertheless, Cornwell has given as good as she has received. It does not make that "right" or "proper," it just means that she really cannot cry about what her behavior generated.

On the other hand, that she may have behaved like a jerk or whathaveyou in and of itself challenge subsequent work. If Mr. Skinner does good research for her, the results should be judged on the merits of the work and not whether or not she was "mean" to someone or Mr. Skinner got an extra roll at a dinner! As you suggest, however, it is easy to transform personal dislike or favor of a particular view into the belief one is being "objective" and "critical."

--J.D.

[Chris G.]

Why do people object to her fervour, Chris? Can't Patricia Cornwell be as passionate about her suspect as other people are about theirs? And was it her fervour they objected to, rather than not liking her theory, her methodology and that she called Ripperologists Klingons?

If the Sickert Trust is refusing reproduction rights to some Sickert letters and if Patricia Cornwell believes that when those letters can be published it will be shown that they were written by the same person who wrote some Ripper letters, and if perhaps Patricia Cornwell thinks the Sickert Trust know this, which is why they are denying reproduction rights (and I do not know that this is what she believes, I am merely speculating) then it seems reasonable to me to say that the Trust 'had better watch out'. Is't that pretty much what anyone would say if they felt their research was being blocked?

I appreciate that Maybrick is a hot topic - well, it is for three or four people - but that hardly justified the accusations that got chucked at Chris Jones. He had a very hard time of it and quite frankly sight of that would have made even a strong man wilt at the idea of staging anything similar.

Hi Paul

It sounds to me from the remark Patricia Cornwell made, "The Sickert Trust had better watch out when copyright expires on his letters in 2012" that she is looking for more than a handwriting or stationery match but that she has made up her mind there is something in the archive that would tie Sickert to the murders. And, if I am right, that kind of reflects the problem with her way of operating from the beginning: reaching a conclusion before you have the proof combined with her lack of objectivity toward Sickert and, less the needed conclusive proof, her drive to pillory Sickert anyway at all costs. That is I think why many observers have a problem with her aggressive approach and her attitudes, e.g., calling Ripperologists "those people" (listen to the recording of her appearance on the Diane Rehm Show if you have not already).

Chris

[How Brown]

Karen Trenouth in all probability was a slightly vulnerable character. A fair amount of jibing could be understood but a couple of years after the event and she is still being pilloried? How far is it going to go or how long exactly or do we just need someone as a whipping boy?
Good points Lars...I rather liked Felicity Lowde more,since she has a better sense of humor.

Chris Jones got a load of stick over something that was hardly deserving of it and continues to have barbs slung at him in his absence.
True. I agree 100%

Paul Begg recently came in for a trouncing for what exactly? I suggest you read the rather rabid posts made recently else where, where the lunatic venom being directed is clear for all to see.
Because Mr. B is actually objective and not involved with the stifling of discussion of the Maybrick "saga", he's a bad egg,that Begg.:kiss:

Now a Ripper exhibition is or was being trashed and why? Because they didnt ask along a group who felt they should have been asked? dared not to consult those who deem themselves necessary for all ripper things?
If this exhibition attracts people to the field, thats a job well done.

Keith Skinner....getting a roasting for working with the enemy or something. How dare he work for a living!
I hear that.


I suppose Knight gets away without being roasted because he is dead or something.
Knight gets ignored for the most part...probably because people avoid the Royal conspiracy concept 30 years after his book came out.

The book on Uncle Jack....more baying for blood.
The end justifies the means,Lars. You just can't toss a suspect-based book up nowadays without a higher level of scrutiny than say back in 1958.
Films, musicals, books, articles, radio shows, you name it. All getting a lambsting and mostly because people had the balls to do something without first having sought the permission (?)/approval (?)/ advice (?) of an ill defined bunch of people who seem to spend too much energy defining their lives by their "achievements"/interest in all things ripper to the detriment of learning some manners/finding a healthier hobby/getting some fresh air.
Let 'em rant,Lars...The minute "they" get within handshaking distance,they go into "ambassador" mode. Several of the "they" who don't post here anymore used to praise this site as if it was the Second Coming...but it doesn't matter in the scheme of things.

The last original thought on Jack the Ripper was David Radkas. And it was only on his death that people started being nice to him.
People miss Dave primarily because he was a "draw". There are some people who were friends with him prior to his untimely death still here and elsewhere. I for one fail to see how his "theory" of a relative of the Anderson-suspect killing prostitutes to facilitate the extrication of said Anderson-suspect from his place of residence is "original". Maybe its just me...I dunno.

If I told you that it was primarily due to David's comments made about me on an old post which nudged my wife,Nina, to get in touch with me in the first place in an email exchange and that I owe Dave more than anyone on Earth for my current state of unrivaled bliss, you might not believe me...but its true.

APWolf, not a nice man but having original notions, gets regularly whupped for not following along the now accepted route of toeing whatever line has been set by a seclect group of big mouths.
A.P. Wolf is a nice man and if he ever toes the line, he will cause distress for many people...

Everything else conducted on the main forum for Ripper stuff is bitching, tearing down anyone else who doesnt feel the need to scrape at the altar of Ripperr and cosy up to its high priests, self congratulatory garbage, chest puffing declarations of ones position in the Ripper universe, 5 word posts and crap about other things.
Which is their perogative,old bean.

And it infects this site too on occassion although it is much less frequent.
We all get testy at times Lars....its to be expected...even me and you.


Thank God someone had the brains to set up a closed alternative site. I genuinely hope that such a forum will be less filled with crap and might actually function to further "Ripperology" (got to hate that word).
I wish 'em all the success in the world. If it succeeds in its mission, thats good for the field, regardless of who runs the operation. We have had an actual alternative site for over a year now...but have held back from cranking it up. We might even start that up soon. It won't be exclusionary, but will contain only Ripper related essays and such... My thinking on the whole issue is that its better for Ripperology to have other watering holes than just one main one. Not as competition, but only as "more" Ripperology for the civilians and modern Ripperologists to use in a variety of ways.

[How Brown]

Dear C.G.:

Mrs. Cornwell's comments on the Diane Rehm program were made 6 years ago...which I know you know.

During that interval, I'd wager her opinion has changed in say the same way some of ours has changed in several areas. That she is a "name" where How Brown or Joe Blow aren't "names", might be the reason she still gets the treatment she gets.

I applaud her for spending her money and drawing people to the field.

I do not believe it when she says she knew nothing of the WM in a documentary made three years ago, when we have proof she worked with Melvin Harris in 1993....15 years ago.

No matter...I'd still be anxious to see her appear on the Podcast or here on the Forums.

[Doctor X]

She has nothing to gain from joining either.

--J.D.

[Paul]

Hi Paul

It sounds to me from the remark Patricia Cornwell made, "The Sickert Trust had better watch out when copyright expires on his letters in 2012" that she is looking for more than a handwriting or stationery match but that she has made up her mind there is something in the archive that would tie Sickert to the murders. And, if I am right, that kind of reflects the problem with her way of operating from the beginning: reaching a conclusion before you have the proof combined with her lack of objectivity toward Sickert and, less the needed conclusive proof, her drive to pillory Sickert anyway at all costs. That is I think why many observers have a problem with her aggressive approach and her attitudes, e.g., calling Ripperologists "those people" (listen to the recording of her appearance on the Diane Rehm Show if you have not already). Chris

I don't think you are right on that score, Chris. The letters on which there is a copyright restriction are apparently those which Peter Bower believes belong to the same quire of 24-sheets as several Ripper letters. There is no secret about that. It seems to be why Peter Bower has not published for peer review.

As for your comments about her lack of objectivity, that's not something that can only be said about Patricia Cornwell, nor can her desire to prove her suspect guilty. As for her aggressive approach to Ripperologists and others, she took a hell of a lot of very personal stick too. I'm not interested in who started it all. And what she said six years ago was said six years ago and she's said quite a fair bit since then. As said, I'm not trying to defend Patricia Cornwell, but I feel she deserves to be cut some slack.

[SirRobertAnderson]

AP dredges up a lot of interesting information, I agree. However, if I may say so he has been given a lot of leeway on this website to make aspersions about, for example, the authenticity of the Littlechild letter, that might be out of bounds.

Chris

The admins and mods have talked quite a bit about this behind the scenes.

We've made it clear that the "official" position of the Forums is that the Littlechild letter is authentic.

But it isn't a sacred document, and if someone like AP believes that there are problems with it, we'd rather that person publicly state his or her reasons for doubt. Then said arguments can be refuted.

Personally, I want there to be as few "no fly" zones as possible on the Forums so long as individuals are not attacked or slandered. Authors and/or notable people in the field should not be allowed to decide beforehand what subjects should be censored from discussion.

In fact, if an author tried to stop all discussion of a given document, I'd get suspicious right there and then. :tape:

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho

Comments made by Patricia C. as to "those people"and "klingons". Im not really sure of the prooblem.

Take a wander through Ripper land and see how many of the natives conduct themselves.

Its not exactly elegant or indicative of a sound state of mind in the main.

Why on earth would she refer to them as anything other than "those people"?

If I was her and had formd my opinion of Ripperologists based on their most public face.....then "klingons and "those people" would be very tame indeed.

"Sad gits", "bad mannered saddo's" and "uncivilised stuck up their own arses" would be more accurate but she is obviously a diplomatic woman.

p

[Stephen Leece]

Mr. Poster (and others) are spot on with their assessment of 'the field.' I was disgusted to read what had been written about the new exhibition and the accompanying book on another site. The level of debate the last time I looked was how they didn't the like the front cover of the book- it seems the content was immaterial. I'm actually half way through the book, and it's very scholarly and at the same time stylish. It's rather like a condensed version of Prof. Fishman's work. I think certain mouths in 'the field' think that the exhibition should have been set up for their own aggrandisement, as opposed to the real motive of informing and educating the general public. That's the impression I've been left with anyway and I may be wrong in that conclusion. But it has left a nasty taste in my mouth.
There is a lot of bullying in the field, there is a lot of personal animosity and it does put people off making research contributions and observations (I'm one of the people that has been put off by some distance).

[How Brown]

Lars:

Just a couple of comments here:

1. The question of "whom" Mrs. Cornwell was trying to impress with her declaration of a "case closed" is seldom approached. I think its safe to assume that had no one from the Ripperological community taken her to task, the number of people who would have taken her to task would have been substantially less present and obviously less vocal. In the civilian world, the passion and subsequent vitriol or counterpoint is less present than in "our" world to issues that pertain to "our" world. Indeed,Lars...you are correct when you state that to a number of people Ripperology is merely a "hobby", but to those of us who are in it a little deeper, its not. The "bad ink" that Mrs. Cornwell has recieved in the past has not hurt her financially,neither does it hurt her to get some sort of reception from the hardcore cadre in our field. I rather think she anticipated it, to be perfectly frank.

2. She appears to have wanted to present her conclusions with as little opposition as possible...and marketed her book in the same way and to the same readership that her fiction books are marketed due to her monetary advantages that no one in our field has. No other Ripperologist has their books displayed in convienence stores as hers did. Robert Mclaughlin and Alan Sharp are well respected men and Ripperologists, but to the mass of civilians, they are pimples on Cornwell's backside in terms of recognition...and so is JTRForums. This is a factor in the eyes of some people who display animosity to her at times.

3. The flip flop of two years ago ( The full page ads in British newspapers asking for assistance ) are an indication that she indeed is not as certain as she once may have been on the conclusions she posited based partly on the vitriol and counterpoint to her position on Sickert.

4. She doesn't have anything to gain,as Doc X says, by engaging in discussion here or on a podcast. It would be nice to see her attempt it,nonetheless.

[Stephen Leece]

Howard,
What also needs to be addressed is how much influence Cornwell's publisher had over the final product. As I understand it, a major publisher such as hers, will proof read it perhaps a dozen times, make any changes they see fit (with or without her consent), then submit the book for prizes and awards. The book is then passed onto sales reps who then place it in the convenience stores, Wal-Mart, Barnes and Noble etc. Cornwell will have had little to do with the marketing of her book.
If it's any consolation to the die-hard Ripperologists out there, four years ago I had one of my literature classes (a group of 14 year old Arab girls no less) read the first chapter and write a report on it. I'm happy to say that out of a class of twenty, three of them twigged that it read more like a novel, than the history it was being marketed as. The other 17 never listened to a word I said at the best of times, so as far as I'm concerend that experiment was a 100% success :)

[Paul]

Hi ho

Comments made by Patricia C. as to "those people"and "klingons". Im not really sure of the prooblem.

Take a wander through Ripper land and see how many of the natives conduct themselves.

Its not exactly elegant or indicative of a sound state of mind in the main.

Why on earth would she refer to them as anything other than "those people"?

If I was her and had formd my opinion of Ripperologists based on their most public face.....then "klingons and "those people" would be very tame indeed.

"Sad gits", "bad mannered saddo's" and "uncivilised stuck up their own arses" would be more accurate but she is obviously a diplomatic woman.

p

I don't often laugh out loud... but that's priceless. I wish I'd said it. Hell, I probably will.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho How

1. The question of "whom" Mrs. Cornwell was trying to impress with her declaration of a "case closed" is seldom approached.

I had always taken it in the same vein as "The FInal Chapter" or "The FInal Solution" or any other blurb on the cover of a book.....I had actually never thought of it as a statement of unassailable of fact or anything...........

I think its safe to assume that had no one from the Ripperological community taken her to task, the number of people who would have taken her to task would have been substantially less present and obviously less vocal.

But what is being taken to task? IF it was a statment of her opinion, which is the most it could ever be, she is perfectly entitled to say that she feels the case is closed. And continue to say it. The sort of people who swallowed it are never likely to ever read anything a Ripperologist would have to say about it so the protestation of a few Ripperologists will never have the slightest impact on the people they say they are trying to enlighten. Or could it be that it was more a case of a certain group asserting themselves and demanding to be heard, acknowledged, lauded, respected, whatever as opposed to trying to enligthen the general public?

Indeed,Lars...you are correct when you state that to a number of people Ripperology is merely a "hobby", but to those of us who are in it a little deeper, its not. The "bad ink" that Mrs. Cornwell has recieved in the past has not hurt her financially,neither does it hurt her to get some sort of reception from the hardcore cadre in our field. I rather think she anticipated it, to be perfectly frank.

That is true. Then again, the press generated by her will not hurt future sales of any book by any author. It generates interest in Ripper stuff and a certain cadre of book buyers will purchase other books.

I doubt anyone will say "Im never buting another ripper book as the case is closed". So in that respect, the hubbub generated by Ripperologists also served to fan the flames of the book buying public so did income no harm, although I dont think the same can be said for professionalism.

2. She appears to have wanted to present her conclusions with as little opposition as possible...and marketed her book in the same way and to the same readership that her fiction books are marketed due to her monetary advantages that no one in our field has.

I cannot argue with that.

3. The flip flop of two years ago ( The full page ads in British newspapers asking for assistance ) are an indication that she indeed is not as certain as she once may have been on the conclusions she posited based partly on the vitriol and counterpoint to her position on Sickert.

Or a cynical excercise in keeping interest alive to sell more books. That 20000 probably generated more discussion and interest in her books due to the inconventional means of communication than any 100000 TV spot?

I note that the first post in this thread dealt with the example of Pons and Flesichman and I do think parallels can be drawn but not the ones perhps the author of that piece intended.

Pand F were not popular for their unconventional means of communicating first results.

However, there was, in their community, never any of the sort of bitching and bellyaching and bad mouthing that went on and goes on in Ripperology. There were professional comments, criticisms of what they did but there were no long term bridges burnt and the sort of harrumphing that Ripperologists indulge in did not occur in their scientific field.

Nor let in be forgotten that one of the pair, contrary to what is indicated in that peice, went on to an extremely well funded research post (in "cold fusion") with a subsidiary of Toyota corp. and the other I beleive retired quite peacefully.

In the mean time, the phenomenon they reported on (rashly) has been replicated a significant number of times in independant experiments and while it may not be cold fusion, it remains and unexplained fact so P and F have been vindicated in their work if not their communication methods.

In this case, the lack of bitching, sniping, unprofessionalism, shite blowing and downright nastiness enabled the process to continue, allowed useful work to be done and did not bog the field down in a mire of ego's, chest swelling, aggressive posturing, foul mouthing and steam venting.

If only the field of Ripperology could be so mature.

IF Ripperologists had kept their pie holes shut and stopped squawking then perhaps universities would be more willing today to analyse or be associated with the Diary for example. As opposed to not wanting to touch it due to the train of wailing lunatics that splurge their ill considered ignorant opinions all over certain parts of the internet.

p

[Chris G.]

Robert Mclaughlin and Alan Sharp are well respected men and Ripperologists, but to the mass of civilians, they are pimples on Cornwell's backside in terms of recognition...and so is JTRForums.



I like your nice sense of perspective, Mr. Brown. :becky:

Having said that, I got a personal eye opener at Lisner Auditorium at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., in November 2002, when Ms Cornwell, having just lambasted Ripperologists for making money from the murders, played host to people with, literally, arms full of books for her to sign. Money (and celebrity) do indeed talk.

I should be fair in recognizing that Ms Cornwell is generous with her money, donating money to forensic institutes and to Scotland Yard, and giving priceless Sickert artworks to an art museum in Boston.

Patricia Cornwell is bound, I think, to continue to be a controversial and enigmatic figure in the field that she both criticises and has made herself a part of. Hmmmm. :rolleyes:

Chris

[A.P. Wolf]

Thanks for the few kind comments, folks. I been away in the Caribic Sea drinking rum punch with Pat.
Nah, only joking, I fell over a bottle of fine Spanish brandy and broke its neck. Couldn't get a plaster on it so I drunk the lot.
I must admit to be one of a pack that bayed at the the bright moon of Cornwall because we didn't like it in our sky, but hey, I grew up a bit more since then, and I now want to see Cornwall's work being discussed in a more reasonable, rational and reliable manner.
Although I do not think that her approach to this subject has been reasonable, rational or reliable... I have to say, with good grace, that neither has mine.
But that doesn't mean to say that I can't grow up as a writer or researcher, and then begin to make a contribution, and impact to this study.
I believe that Cornwall does want to make a genuine contribition.
When I think of the absolute crap that some of our most respected writers and researchers of today were producing ten or fifteen years ago, I shudder.
And it's not the brandy.
It's the past that snaps at our heels.
But 'tis the future we must concern ourselves with.

Ah, the Littlechild letter, Sir Robert.
Like you I believe that nothing is sacred, and I am still not satisfied about the 'Thaw' references in that letter. That doesn't mean to say I think it a 'sport', but rather I question Littlechild's assumed knowledge about the Whitechapel Murders.
Devil's genitals! I just tripped over another brandy bottle and broke its neck.

[SirRobertAnderson]

Having said that, I got a personal eye opener at Lisner Auditorium at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., in November 2002, when Ms Cornwell, having just lambasted Ripperologists for making money from the murders, played host to people with, literally, arms full of books for her to sign. Money (and celebrity) do indeed talk.



I hear you loud and clear on the hypocrisy, Chris.

There is no denying, however, that our own luminaries show up at our conventions with books to sell and autograph. (And I buy them, and I get the autographs...:juggle:) No one's hands are clean here.

Which reminds me, A.P. Shouldn't your Malayan book have been reprinted by now ? I need a copy. I have the terror of the anorak upon me.....

[Stephen Leece]

Sir Robert,

I think what Cornwell meant by that statement was that 'Ripperologists' tend to get stuck over who the killer was, was he a medical man?, a gifted amateur? etc and she thinks that the victims get overlooked. That combined with it being a largely male-dominated field in her eyes. She is a strong feminist, and her novels certainly champion women's equal rights, to say nothing of her own background being an influence on her attitude.
Having said that though, the charge of hypocrisy still stands. The only difference between Cornwell having an entire stand in Barnes and Noble and one of us hawking a vanity published effort at a conference like over-ripe melons is that she has a major publisher (and all the marketing that goes with it) and a broad fan-base. I think her belief is, because she's a woman, and an open feminist her money is more honourably earned than any of her Ripper 'rivals.'

[Doctor X]

. . . and she thinks that the victims get overlooked.

Apparently never read Sugden?

I think her belief is, because she's a woman, and an open feminist her money is more honourably earned than any of her Ripper 'rivals.'

Curious. "Ists" and "isms" rarely advance scholarship.

--J.D.

[Stephen Leece]

Well she's clearly not seen the god-awful Ustinov documentary either where Martin Fido described Chapman as 'the most tragic victim,' Eddowes was, 'the most charming victim.' I believe Cornwell said she deliberately didn't read other work because she did not want to be biased or influenced by other peoples opinions.
As for 'isms' I too find them a problem for serious objective scholarship- all I'm doing is trying to get into her mindset. I'm not endorsing any of her opinions, preconceptions and prejudices.

[Doctor X]

I believe Cornwell said she deliberately didn't read other work because she did not want to be biased or influenced by other peoples opinions.

Never saw that as a valid approach unless you just so happen to start from "the ground up." But then it will take years of research and, frankly, waste a lot of time since others have done some of the work. I am not telling you or anyone else anything new, of course, when I note that more modern research has exposed mistakes in earlier descriptions. How does one know that without researching every single bit?

Ultimately, one stands on the shoulders of giants . . . or maybe gnomes depending on your opinion of some of them!

Next, one should have a familiarity with different schools even if one finds the school stupid. I am slogging through a work by a scholar I greatly respect in one critical area. Unfortunately, he has branched out. He does not like the primary understanding of a major area of the discipline--so he just snipes at it. To give a Ripper analogy, imagine if my disposal of the graffito or Lusk letter consisted of "imaginary letters" or "scholars finding the Ripper in everything." That hardly addresses those who feel either are legitimate.

To overturn a theory, one has to attack its structure, show where it fails to explain observation. This scholar ignores a rather sizable responsibility.

Now with Ripperology, some theories may be very easy to dispense with--like the theory it was an alien eventually dispatched by Cpt. Kirk! Then there are theories "everyone has heard of"--like the Royals/Masons. Now, scholars may bristle as such, but it is to their detriment. That a scholar is sick of such nonsense does not help defeat it. Cornwell, however, is not writing for scholars--she is writing for the public who, frankly, do not have the time to read the basics and engage in these debates.

So to ignore such does a disservice to both the discipline and the public.

As for 'isms' I too find them a problem for serious objective scholarship- all I'm doing is trying to get into her mindset. I'm not endorsing any of her opinions, preconceptions and prejudices.

Understood. When I encounter such things as an "ism" approach to something, I wonder about things such as Marxism at Qumran, A Feminist Colonoscopy Reader, and Post-Modernism and Dementia.

Okay . . . the last one is redundant. . . .

--J.D.

[Stephen Leece]

You're preaching to the converted but you're right, her work has been a disservice to historical discipline and the general public. However I think you are worrying about something that is perhaps not worth worrying about. I stated in an earlier post that a bunch of 14 year olds saw through her work (and these people had never heard of Jack the Ripper, never heard of Sickert before, and probably couldn't have cared less about either of them). Similarly, her fan base is not going to be any less sensitive to an obvious historical fallacy, than a committed Ripper researcher. You've just mentioned an academic that you admire in some respects but in one other respect he goes off his rocker. I imagine many people can make a similar distinction about almost any subject and commentator that they are passionate about.
I think a lot of people are attaching almost supernatural powers to Cornwell's influence on the wider public. She is not a toxic substance that needs to be handled with tongs. If you actually do a bit of background checking on her career and her personal life experiences, it's pretty clear what her agenda was with that book. Her book is a form of hubris I suppose, but her claims can be, and should be, dealt with in open debate.

[Doctor X]

Her book is a form of hubris I suppose, but her claims can be, and should be, dealt with in open debate.

But what am I going to do with all this hot tar, torches, and goose feathers?
:becky:

--J.D.

[Stephen Leece]

Oh there's no answer to that mate! I'm sure you'll think of something!

[Sam Flynn]

But what am I going to do with all this hot tar, torches, and goose feathers?...build yourself a fluffy airport runway? It might work.

[Chris G.]

I hear you loud and clear on the hypocrisy, Chris.

There is no denying, however, that our own luminaries show up at our conventions with books to sell and autograph. (And I buy them, and I get the autographs...:juggle:) No one's hands are clean here.

Which reminds me, A.P. Shouldn't your Malayan book have been reprinted by now ? I need a copy. I have the terror of the anorak upon me.....

Hi Sir Bob

There is nothing wrong with writing a book and selling it. The implication I dislike is Ms Cornwell's assertion that others are exploiting the murders for private gain and she is not. And I am not necessarily saying that she is exploiting the murders either: just that we need some objectivity about what the true situation is rather than accusations.

Chris

[How Brown]

Dear C.G.

Mrs.Cornwell reminds me of someone on one level...ahem...me, in that I jumped in the RDS pool with both feet and then had to deal with the consequences. I think she is making a good move in trying to "correct" her previous position by asking Mr. Skinner for assistance.

[Chris G.]

Dear C.G.

Mrs.Cornwell reminds me of someone on one level...ahem...me, in that I jumped in the RDS pool with both feet and then had to deal with the consequences. I think she is making a good move in trying to "correct" her previous position by asking Mr. Skinner for assistance.

I agree that her bringing Keith Skinner on board is a wise and judicious move.

Chris

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho

I agree that her bringing Keith Skinner on board is a wise and judicious move.

I wonder does he think getting on board was a wise and judicious move?

p

[Doctor X]

I agree that her bringing Keith Skinner on board is a wise and judicious move.

Why? Does he like tar and----

*Flees Flying Bricks*

[Paul]

Hi Sir Bob
There is nothing wrong with writing a book and selling it. The implication I dislike is Ms Cornwell's assertion that others are exploiting the murders for private gain and she is not. And I am not necessarily saying that she is exploiting the murders either: just that we need some objectivity about what the true situation is rather than accusations.
Chris

Let's suppose that Patricia Cornwell saw the murders as incidental (for want of a better word) to her application of modern forensic methodology to proving the case against Walter Sickert. She wouldn't see herself as exploiting the murders would she?

[Paul]

Hi ho
I wonder does he think getting on board was a wise and judicious move?
p


I think he does. To a researcher seeing what's going on from the inside is far preferable to speculating from the outside.

[SirRobertAnderson]

I think he does. To a researcher seeing what's going on from the inside is far preferable to speculating from the outside.

I think he does as well. And as far as being excommunicated by a luminary in the field, if I were he I'd take it as a demonstration of the intellectual if not moral bankruptcy of at least one of the grand poobahs. :sick:

Now, the elephant in the room IMHO is why Ms. Cornwell is so interested in the September 17th letter.

It is my firm belief that if one of the big name authors had found it, it would have been trumpeted as a major find, and one that would have upset several of the sacred tenets of Ripperology. It'd have been good for at least two books.

[A.P. Wolf]

Well, Sir Robert, me old shipmate, what could not be a better launch for a brand new Rip book than featuring a letter from the man himself?
Case Closed.

[Chris G.]

It is my firm belief that if one of the big name authors had found it, it would have been trumpeted as a major find, and one that would have upset several of the sacred tenets of Ripperology. It'd have been good for at least two books.

Sorry Sir Bob but I don't find this idea credible. Besides, the tenets of Ripperology in terms of the primacy of the Dear Boss letter come from the Metropolitan Police not from the authors. The Met thought they saw the importance of the Dear Boss letter and follow-up postcard. The authors have just been writing about the sequence of events concerning Dear Boss. If a big name author, as you put it, had found the 17 September letter they would have recognized a letter writer who was "codding" by emulating a couple of supposedly later Ripper letters.

Chris

[Stephen Leece]

Chris!

Does your scenario not depend on who found it and when they found it? I imagine if the 17th September letter had been found five and a half years earlier than it was few would have questioned its authenticity. I'd lump the Maybrick Diary and the Watch into that as well....

[Paul Butler]

What a great topic to read after a few days away.

Stephen. That's a very intriguing thought.

I'm obviously not alone in thinking that Ms Cornwell's book was pretty awful, and I have to confess I never made it to the end despite several attempts, but don't we have an awful lot to thank the woman for?

She's getting the 17th september letter looked at properly. It's no use people saying its a fake.....well, because it is. Obviously it is, isn't it? I've yet to see a convincing explanation as to why it must be so, and even more so a convincing explanation as to how the very tight security at the NA/PRO was breached, and how the perpetrator managed to get away with it, despite everyone having access to the original documents having to provide ID AND a bloody good reason.

She's got the cash, and she's at least putting it where her mouth is. Yes her writings come accross as arrogant. So do Harris's pompous writings, and they put your back up, but somewhere in her writings, and Feldman's, and even begrudgingly Harris's there are almost certainly nuggets of truth that are being ignored due to tarring it all with the same brush.

Good luck to her. She's taking the sensible route now of employing someone with the right credentials to ensure objectivity, as did Feldman. If she discovers that Sickert really did write some of the ripper letters that can only be a good thing surely?

If she shows the 17th september letter to be a recent fake or genuinely of the period, then the knock on for the diary is obvious too.

I do like discussions that are prepared to question much of the accepted wisdom in ripperology. It may be the only way it will ever move forward.

regards.

Paul. (The one thats interested in the diary, not the other more famous one.)

[Stephen Leece]

Hey Paul,

One of the things that people forget is that one can learn much from disagreeing with people (often quite violently) and sometimes arrogant so-and-sos like the Melvin Harris's and Cornwells of the world perform a useful role in that respect.

[Chris G.]

Chris!

Does your scenario not depend on who found it and when they found it? I imagine if the 17th September letter had been found five and a half years earlier than it was few would have questioned its authenticity. I'd lump the Maybrick Diary and the Watch into that as well....

Hello Stephen

The finding of the 17 September letter around the time of the 1988 Centennial of the Whitechapel murders by researcher Peter McClelland seems suspicious, but I am not casting an aspersion on Mr Mclelland's story of being an innocent party in the matter: it is entirely credible that he just stumbled on the document while going through the Home Office files, as he said he did, in a folder that was stuck together.

The question in my mind is who planted the letter there, if they did.

But really I don't think if the letter had been discovered five years earlier by a leading Ripperologist, say for example, Sugden or Evans or Skinner -- as Sir Bob indicates would make a difference -- that it would have given it any more credibility. Due to the pastiche nature of the text of the 17 September missive it would still have been regarded, I believe, as a questionable document. Worthy of further investigation, yes, as Skinner is now doing, apparently. But not worthy of unrestrained acceptance as a legitimate "Ripper" letter.

All the best

Chris

[A.P. Wolf]

'unrestrained acceptance as legitimate'

Have you ever considered politics as a career, Chris?

[Chris G.]

'unrestrained acceptance as legitimate'

Have you ever considered politics as a career, Chris?


I'll stand for Parliament if you pay my deposit, AP. :becky:

[A.P. Wolf]

It's only 150 quid, Chris. I'm up for that.

However I hope you are not snobbish.
I just spent an hour and more listening to the latest podcast, and I have to say that I was left with a feeling that there is a good degree of resentment and jealousy in this particular department.
Here's an excerpt:

Ally: 'Well, if the bitch apologised to me personally, in the international media, I might accept that, but if she kissed my asp I'd be happier about that... not on national tv, **** that, it's gotta big, and like she's got to really grovel and spit repentence, and say that I am the most distinguished female in this field of cows, and then I might, just might, let her apologise to me personally; but we have to be stood on the surface of the moon at the time...'

PHONE RINGS.

'Hey, Ally, it's Pat, how would you like to work for me on my next big book?'

'Hi, Pat, nice to hear from you, love to... er, how much am I getting?'

[Stephen Leece]

Hi Chris,

To me it takes a special kind of paranoia, to still cry fraud, when the preliminary tests show there is nothing inconsistent with a late 19th century date for the letter. I'm not saying we should be out and out credophiles, but I do think an awful lot of people need to get out of this Hitler Diaries mentality. There's big money in a forgery like that, but sh*g all in forging a Ripper letter as inconsequential as the September 17th one. The only duff documents at the PRO that we are aware of, are the documents that claimed Himmler was murdered. Now you could tell by looking at them that they were not the real deal, and no one took them seriously apart from one amateur. Also there is a vested political interest in making Himmler's death look like foul-play- it could resurrect Nazism. What gain is there in forging a Ripper letter such as that? This is a niche subject, of no real consequence and it's the height of arrogance to assume forgery on the grounds that it makes Ripper researchers look foolish; I think we look foolish just by what we say, without relying on forgeries to do the job for us (see AP quoting Ally from the Podcast above- it sums up everything that's wrong with this field- is that a genuine quote or is it satire? Nothing would surprise me if it was genuine). It's also the height of sophistry to attempt to describe how such a forgery event could occur. Forgery hasn't even been proven, so we are automatically two steps away from describing how it could have been forged with justification.

Regards

Stephen

[Chris G.]

Hello Stephen

Am I not correct in saying that the hundreds of Jack the Ripper letters are viewed by people in this field as being hoaxes? Then why not the 17 September letter as well? Only in this case it would be someone who hoaxed a hoax letter. I don't think you should underestimate the lengths that people might go to in order to fool other people or simply to perform a practical joke. The fraud does not have to have been done for monetary gain.

Chris

[Paul Butler]

Due to the pastiche nature of the text of the 17 September missive it would still have been regarded, I believe, as a questionable document. Worthy of further investigation, yes, as Skinner is now doing, apparently. But not worthy of unrestrained acceptance as a legitimate "Ripper" letter.


Chris


Hiya Chris.

Couldn't you say exactly the same thing about many, if not all of the bona-fide ripper letters? That they are all in some way pastiches of the famous three? Red ink, bloody fingerprints, American "accent" etc.etc.

The only difference with this one is the seemingly unlikely date.

Of course if the date were genuine, and we'll probably never know for certain, then the others are a pastiche of it, rather than the other way around.

If 17th September is a pastiche as you say, and I'm quite open to accepting that it may well be, then that in itself is no evidence of it being modern any more than its evidence that it was written, say, late in 1888.

At the moment, as Stephen says, the balance of probability is that it could well be contemporary with the real Jack. I'm certainly looking forward to the day we find out a bit more, and that will probably be the day "Portrait of a killer" gets its second edition. I just hope I can make it all the way through this time!

regards.

Paul

[Stephen Leece]

Chris! you're a sociopath! :kiss:

If that's the case was the forger likely to be someone we know?

[Chris G.]

Chris! you're a sociopath! :kiss:

If that's the case was the forger likely to be someone we know?

Not necessarily. No more than we know who wrote all those other letters allegedly from the killer.

Chris

[Stephen Leece]

So what's your hypothesis Chris? It sounds to me like you're saying the September 17th letter was a hoax of a hoax, forged by someone who didn't know the leading Ripper contributors (Rumbelow, Fido, Begg, Evans at that time), but perversely wanted to play a practical joke on these people who he had never met? So he dumps his hoax in a place where it can potentially remain hidden for years, but a chance discovery by Mr. McClelland allows this lame practical joke to take effect. Our joker has never pointed the finger and laughed at everyone though.

It's a bit thin isn't it?

[Chris G.]

So what's your hypothesis Chris? It sounds to me like you're saying the September 17th letter was a hoax of a hoax, forged by someone who didn't know the leading Ripper contributors (Rumbelow, Fido, Begg, Evans at that time), but perversely wanted to play a practical joke on these people who he had never met? So he dumps his hoax in a place where it can potentially remain hidden for years, but a chance discovery by Mr. McClelland allows this lame practical joke to take effect. Our joker has never pointed the finger and laughed at everyone though.

It's a bit thin isn't it?

No it isn't. The Diary and the watch could be practical jokes as well. I don't see anyone laughing there either.

Chris

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho

Im going to have to do a hands up and say I have not followed the 17th of Sept letter case very well.

Is this the letter Feldman was referring to in his book?

p

[Chris G.]

Hi ho

Im going to have to do a hands up and say I have not followed the 17th of Sept letter case very well.

Is this the letter Feldman was referring to in his book?

p


Yes he was, and Professor John J Edleston in his Jack the Ripper: An Encyclopedia also devotes space to discussing the letter as if it is the real deal. But both could be wrong in thinking it is the real McCoy.

Chris

[Stephen Leece]

If we assume that the diary and watch are forgeries it's fair to assume they are of the Hitler Diaries ilk- ie created for financial gain (wasn't it Billy Friedkin that was going to make a film about them until Warner Books got cold feet?) But it's an irrelevant comparison that, as you know.
With this letter though there's no financial gain, and there's no obvious 'ha ha' factor. A practical joke to me is a bucket on top of a door, or handcuffing a drunken, naked mate to a lampost. It's something that's immediate, and funny. There's no immediacy with that letter and it's content hardly rewrites history.

Look at other forgeries:
Hoffman- rewrote history and made money (he was angry with the Mormon Church)
Konrad Kujau- rewrote history and made money

Potential fogery:
Maybrick diary- rewrote history (potential money maker but it never happened)

September 17th letter- doesn't do squat in the grand scheme of things.

[Chris G.]

September 17th letter- doesn't do squat in the grand scheme of things.

Hi Stephen

You have named a couple of famous instances of forgeries for gain such as the Mormon diaries. But what about all the hundreds of Ripper missives that someone, probably scores if not hundreds of people were writing, not only in England but in the United States and elsewhere, from September 1888 onward, at least down to 1896 and probably beyond. Hardly for monetary gain, only for a laugh up the sleeve, since after the initial reaction from the Met, they didn't much react publically to the continued flood of letters. So the letters were done by someone, persons or persons unknown, mainly to get their private jollies off, weren't they? And I would think the 17 September letter might be the same situation. That's all I am sarying. To put one over on the PRO and on people in the field, whether they knew them or not. I do grant you that the Diary is a larger project and on the surface might seem to have been done for profit but we don't know that for certain.

Chris

[Stephen Leece]

I hear you, but it seems you're suggesting that the letter was created recently as a hoax of a hoax. All the others were hoaxed during an active murder investigation, so every sicko, wannabe writer, git with a grievance and functioning schizophrenic scribble a note for their own cheap thrills and/ or personal gain. I can't see a cheap thrill when you're writing a hundred years after the event.
I don't think there's anything suspicious in Mr. McClelland's discovery in 1988. Many people were getting excited over the centenery- I've got a whole shelf full of trash centenery Ripper books. McClelland went to the right place for Ripper material- the archives. He's following the trend (apparently more thoroughly than anyone else too).

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho

Its also worth remembering that there is an Eddowes shawl and a Ripper knife that are obviously not the real deals either and yet were created by someone. And it doesnt seem like they were created for financial gain.

p

[Gumshoe]

Wot "Mormon diaries" are you on about, Mishter George? Would this be in reference to the forgings of Mark Hoffman? I do not recall a diary being among those documents that he is known to have fabricated.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho

Whilst I see the point that a person could/would create a letter for a laugh, Im just not sure I see them sneaking into the PRO and sticking it in a folder, thereby presumably breaking the law and being open for legal hassles, where its not likely to be found.

If the letter is a modern hoax/joke/prank then I do not see how the finder was not inolved.

If it was in the place the finder said it was and he is telling the truth then I cannot see it haveing been stuck there by modern persons unknown as a joke that might never be found and it must be a contemporary document.

Theres no point writinga joke letter for it to be never found.

Plus, once the Ripper diaries were exposed, surely people of a mind to hoax documnets must have balked just a little given how quickly a couple of scientific analyses exposed them?

After the Ripper diaries.....surely hoax documents must have fallen down the list sustantially with respect to things that are handy to hoax?

p

[Stephen Leece]

Aye it was a bunch of letters that Hoffman fabricated (Salamander letter leaps to mind- that was the one that was the killer history rewrite).

Good point Mr. P, but hardly devastating. I think the shawl/ knife, are just symptomatic of the cult of celebrity that gets attached to any event/ individual these days. The possibility that 'he' touched it- it's just another form of medieval relic collecting.

[A.P. Wolf]

Thanks Stephen, it was satire but broadly based on what Ally was saying at the time... demanding an international public apology.
For what?
Saying that the Ripper world is full of charlatans, idle boasters and ego-maniacs?
I say that everyday, and I make no apologies for it. I even wrote a book about it, and it was sold internationally. Colin Wilson's publishers threatened me with legal action if I quoted from any of his gaw blimey 'works', so I had to change all the quotes at the last proof.
There are good folk out there; and I do see change, but it is a cosy little world which does not take kindly to new or radical opinion.
The 17th September letter is, I think, a genuine article of faith from the LVP; but it also illustrates the great schisms in the study of the case today, in that it splits the community into two clear camps, one who are not afeared of change and progression, and the other stuck in the mud of the 1980's where their written word was the command of gods.
Run the pack down the plank I say.

[Mr. Poster]

I dont see why Patsy should give any sort of apology: didnt she graciously thank real Ripperologists?

I quote:

"I honor those who have gone before me and dedicated their efforts to catching Jack the Ripper. He is caught. We have done it together."

Page 365.

I think she was very gracious indeed. Stand up and take a bow those who have dedicated their efforts to catching JtR!
p

[Chris G.]

Hi ho

Its also worth remembering that there is an Eddowes shawl and a Ripper knife that are obviously not the real deals either and yet were created by someone. And it doesnt seem like they were created for financial gain.

p

Hi Lars and Stephen

The shawl and the knife came into the equation less because of someone's intent to deceive but more, it seems, because of some of the inaccurate or duff information that swirls around the case and that has done so for over a century.

That is, both of them may or may not have come from other Whitechapel murders not the canonicals, but the information is blurry: the knife appears to have been found beside the body of a murder later than MJK. The shawl may have come from Eddowes but no shawl is recorded in her belongings, although her dress (described by the East London Observer of 10 October 1888 as "made of green chintz, the pattern consisting of Michaelmas daises") might correspond to it, and it may or may not have been in the hands of PC Amos Simpson (http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-amos.html) who may have been one of the officers in Mitre Square, etc.

Chris

[Caroline Morris]

He is, and in some fashion that I don't pretend to be privy to, it's led him to Battlecrease.



Hi Sir Robert,

I just read through this thread so forgive me for coming late to the discussion.

Paul (Begg) is correct in thinking that Keith was not yet working on Patricia Cornwell's project when he was led to Battlecrease. I am not aware that Cornwell had/has any knowledge of, nor indeed any interest in, the diary documentation, or the evidence that led him to the house.



If she shows the 17th september letter to be a recent fake or genuinely of the period, then the knock on for the diary is obvious too.



Hi Paul,

Is there anything about the letter that connects it in any obvious way with the diary? I'm trying to see the knock on effect in either case, but I'm failing. Or did you simply mean that the diary could then be tested using the same technology?



Plus, once the Ripper diaries were exposed, surely people of a mind to hoax documnets must have balked just a little given how quickly a couple of scientific analyses exposed them?

After the Ripper diaries.....surely hoax documents must have fallen down the list sustantially with respect to things that are handy to hoax?

p

Hi Mr P,

I take it you mean the Hitler Diaries here?

Hi Chris, All,

Like Stephen, I can't really see the wizard wheeze involved in risking prosecution to insert a single newly created ripper letter in the PRO files around the centenary (a letter which does bugger all to claim anything about the ripper's actual identity), especially since it was stuck as if with glue inside a plain folder, which hardly guaranteed anyone finding it within a certain time frame - if ever - or that its finder would have the curiosity, or indeed the balls, to 'unstick' the folder (I don't know that I would!), recognise what was inside as a previously unheard of document, or appreciate the significance of its pre-Dear Boss date.

I mean, it's all a bit subtle, isn't it? And why stop at the one document, if it was so easy to insert under the noses of the PRO staff? The culprit might have been bonkers enough not to care whether it was found in their lifetime or not, or whether they would get to hear the reaction. But you'd think they would prefer to be around to see how their little joke would go down, and maybe try two or three in case one fell flat. (In fact, that would be precisely what happened, if the writer of the September 17th letter went on to send Dear Boss and the postcard, hoping that they would get more attention than the zero attention his first got him!)

People argue that documents just like this one are regularly hoaxed by pranksters. But are they - really?

Love,

Caz
X

[Stephen Leece]

Yeah Chris that's why it call it relic collecting, there's a provenance that may or may not be relevant to the case. There's also Mary Kelly's alleged crucifix (that turned up on ebay a few years back). None of these things are in the same league as the 17/09 letter though and I think it's an unhelpful comparison.

[Chris G.]

Hi Stephen

I don't believe the alleged Maybrick crucifix was on ebay. It was in the possession of Anne Graham, supposed found with the Diary in the trunk with the tropical gear. As far as I know she still has it.

Chris

[Stephen Leece]

Well it was marketed as being hers, and then taken down for that reason (and I was winning the bid!). Doesn't matter though because it turned out my Grandma had one exactly like it which I've inherited!

[Chris G.]

Well it was marketed as being hers, and then taken down for that reason (and I was winning the bid!). Doesn't matter though because it turned out my Grandma had one exactly like it which I've inherited!

Interesting... Just think if you had got it you could have opened a Ripper crucifix store... :becky:

Chris

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho ChrisG

Not wanting to be a cheeky git but the following could equally be said about the letter:

That is, both of them may or may not have come from other Whitechapel murders not the canonicals,

The letter may or may not hve come from the LVP but not be written by the Ripper.

but the information is blurry: the knife appears to have been found beside the body of a murder later than MJK.

The letter appears to be have been found in a collection of contemporary documents relating to the Ripper murders.

The shawl may have come from Eddowes but nothing corresponding to it is recorded in her belongings, although an undergarment might correspond, not a shawl, and it may or may not have been in the hands of PC Amos Simpson, etc, etc.

The letter may or may not have come from the police records, etc etc.

The point I am trying to make is that I do not think either the shawl or the knife display any less of an intention to deceive, based on the information above, than the letter may display.

Just because there are rumours to their provenance or their association with the murder means nothing.

Indeed if either of those two artifacts turned up last week, with those provenances in tow, and claims were made as to their even been associated with any crime at all..............they would be laughed off the stage by a certain posse.

The only thing that separates them from the diary/letters/watch etc. is age. They are possible hoaxes of an older vintage.

Peoples desire for a laugh, profit, to get one over on someone, to make relics,.....they are not exclusive to late 20th century people. Victorians and folk throughout the yers between then and now were equally prone top wanting to take th episs.

p

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho Caz

I did indeed mean the Hitler diaries. Sorry about that. It might be too late to edit it...
p

[Stephen Leece]

The thing about the Hitler Diaries was the tests came later, long after they had been denounced as forgeries. The reason they were so quickly discredited was that they had actually been hawked around Third Reich memrobilia collectors for a whole two years before Stern and the Sunday Times published them. Rupert Murdoch was actually warned by David Irving (I know he's a reprehensible revisionist) that they were forgeries because he was offered them a long time before they became public knowledge. Which is why he (Irving) gate-crashed the Stern press conference with his old photocopies of the faked pages and caused a riot. All the tests there did was demonstrate what most people knew anyway.

[Chris G.]

Hi all

You know the problem here is that we are trying to apply logic to something that isn't logical. If I am right and someone slipped that letter in the files as a prank, there doesn't have to be much logic involved. As you ask, what gratification would the prankster have got out of it, and it's true, it's hard to see what that might have been other than putting something over on persons or persons unknown. On the other hand, murdering women on the streets of Whitechapel and hoping you can get away with it time and time again doesn't seem logical or practical either, does it? And yet that's apparently just what happened. :rolleyes:

Chris

[Stephen Leece]

Chris

I'm now seriously confused as to whether you are saying this is a prank designed to make Ripper authorities look foolish, or whether you are saying it's a motiveless prank performed for no particular reason.
If it's designed to make Don Rumbelow, for example, look silly, why make a 'hoax of a hoax' as you call it, why not make a hoax that appears to be the real thing?

[Mr. Poster]

Hi Chris

Thats a good point. However to stick a fake letter in the PRO must be at least a misdemeanour or at least something that could get one in trouble if caught. And it must be assumed there is a list of who visited that archive?

The usual incentive to doing something that could get one in trouble with the law is money. The same thing acting as a disincentive to pranks.

And I do not see how money was going to be made.

p

[Doctor X]

Fascinating.

So I wrote a long-winded exposition on the different purposes of forgery . . . stared at it, sipped some coffee, and thankfully deleted it. Instead, I ask, what are some of the motivations possible for this letter being a forgery in the opinion of those who have studied it?

--J.D.

[Celesta]

Hi Celesta

I think it is highly ironic that Ms Cornwell chose to hang her theory on the idea that her suspect, Walter Sickert, wrote the majority of the "Ripper" letters, which most students of the case believe are hoaxes. It's also ironic that her book came out on the heels of the definitive book on the letters so far, Jack the Ripper: Letters from Hell by Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner, with their book coming out at the end of 2001 and her book a year later.

Chris

Hi Chris,

The more I learn about Ripperology, the more puzzled I am at the gaps in her research. Why did she leave gaps? The material was there, including new books on the letters. She knew the letters were believed to be hoaxes, yet she chose to assume otherwise. It's because she wanted to use science in a strong way. Science was going to outdo all the Ripper researchers. I'm not saying she was being malicious about it. The letters are the only tangible objects that could have been physically linked to JTR, obviously, so that is why she chose that approach. It's like that joke about the drunk looking for his car keys. He dropped the keys elsewhere, but he was looking under the street lamp because he could see better there!

In other words, she wanted to wow us with science, but she made wrong assumptions, which invalidates the work. At least as far as we know, right now. I hope she and Skinner do turn up some interesting information. I'm going to try to keep an open mind about it.

The thing is, if one is going to do this sort of work, one has to be ready to challenge one's own assumptions, and if they're wrong, walk away from them. We may come back to them, if more evidence comes in, or a new insight overtakes us. We can sometimes be our own worst critics, and that's not always a bad thing. If we can find loose ends in our work, then we shouldn't be surprised when others do, too. My sense is that Cornwell is not seeing the loose ends in her work, or she refuses to accept them, and is hanging on for dear life, to her certainty, that Sickert is the man. I believe she is listening to what she thinks her intuition (or her gut-feeling) is telling her. I don't think she expected the reaction she got from Ripper researchers.

Thanks, Chris.

Best to you,

Celesta

[Celesta]

Robert,
Keith is a highly respected professional researcher who accepts commissions even from people who may have theories with which he disagrees, his primary objective being to establish the facts. I think Patricia Cornwell is fully aware of his integrity (she couldn't fail to be after witnessing the respect he's accorded by Scotland Yard) and I seem to recall her saying something along those lines at the SY dinner I mentioned a post or two back. So I would hope that anyone who knows Keith would agree with that and not be so silly as to not talk to him. Anyway, I don't know of any 'senior' Ripper author who refuses to speak to Keith because of it, nor am I aware of any schism. The only complaint I have is that Keith is tight-lipped about the research he's doing and doesn't tell me what it is, which is very frustrating!


Hi Paul,

Absolutely. Skinner's knowledge of the cases is vast. I can't, for a minute, see him sacrificing his professionalism for this. I, too, think he is trying to learn as much as he can from what he is doing on this project. His knowledge is not going to let him accept a load of hogwash. After all these years? No, sir!

Not that I know him personally! I just think he's trying to learn as much as he can on the letters. I think he is trying to move forward on the cases, and that is what he has been doing for years.

Best to you,

Celesta

[How Brown]

As per usual,Cellie...great post and great points ( one in particular is that the letters are the only tangible link ( yet or at least to date ) to the Ripper.

My sense is that Cornwell is not seeing the loose ends in her work, or she refuses to accept them, and is hanging on for dear life, to her certainty, that Sickert is the man. I believe she is listening to what she thinks her intuition (or her gut-feeling) is telling her. I don't think she expected the reaction she got from Ripper researchers.

Cel...Mrs. Cornwell spent a bit of moolah on a full page spread in a British tabloid two years ( or was it last year?) which leads me to think that she has doubts after all. I also think, not to slight you for your opinion here, that she did anticipate the reaction she got. She once claimed,as I previously mentioned, that she was a "newbie" to Ripperology just prior to writing Case Closed and hooking up with John Grieve. Thats not true. She had worked with Mr. Melvin Harris ( The True Face of JTR ) and is acknowledged in the credits of that 1994 book...8 years before Case Closed came out.

I doubt if Mr.Harris used Mrs. Cornwell's talents in fiction writing in the making of his book. How she helped,I do not know...but she had to have known something of the WM and Ripperologists from working with him on a book dealing with the subject. I'd even bet she has a copy of Mr. Harris's book from him.

[Celesta]

I see her as stubbornly hanging on, I guess. But that is because she is not convinced that she is wrong. She may have doubts. Maybe that's a step in the right direction.

Yes, I see your point. She did anticipate a reaction. I didn't think she anticipated one as strong as the one she got. I read a short interview with her, where she mentions that there are people called Ripperologists and that they didn't agree with her findings. When I first read her book, I got the impression that she was covering herself in advance. At the time, I got the strong impression that she was a newbie.

I did see your post earlier about her attracting people to the field. I agree. She renewed my interest in the cases. I'm sincere in hoping that something useful will come out this new endeavor.

Best,

Cel

[Paul]

As per usual,Cellie...great post and great points ( one in particular is that the letters are the only tangible link ( yet or at least to date ) to the Ripper.

My sense is that Cornwell is not seeing the loose ends in her work, or she refuses to accept them, and is hanging on for dear life, to her certainty, that Sickert is the man. I believe she is listening to what she thinks her intuition (or her gut-feeling) is telling her. I don't think she expected the reaction she got from Ripper researchers.

Cel...Mrs. Cornwell spent a bit of moolah on a full page spread in a British tabloid two years ( or was it last year?) which leads me to think that she has doubts after all. I also think, not to slight you for your opinion here, that she did anticipate the reaction she got. She once claimed,as I previously mentioned, that she was a "newbie" to Ripperology just prior to writing Case Closed and hooking up with John Grieve. Thats not true. She had worked with Mr. Melvin Harris ( The True Face of JTR ) and is acknowledged in the credits of that 1994 book...8 years before Case Closed came out.

I doubt if Mr.Harris used Mrs. Cornwell's talents in fiction writing in the making of his book. How she helped,I do not know...but she had to have known something of the WM and Ripperologists from working with him on a book dealing with the subject. I'd even bet she has a copy of Mr. Harris's book from him.

Hi Howard,
I don't have The True Face... to hand but precisely what does Melvin say in the acknowledgements about Patricia Cornwell? I mean, if he simply contacted her with some unrelated or indirectly related question then that wouldn't be working with him would it?

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Paul,

I have the paperback in front of me, and in the acknowledgements Melvin writes:

Special thanks to Joel Norris, Robert Ressler and Patricia Cornwell for their illuminating confirmations.

I can't immediately find any other references to Cornwell anywhere.

As usual, Melvin appears to have left it wide open for a number of interpretations, ranging from a formal working relationship between himself and Cornwell, leading to her 100% endorsement of his 'case closed', right down to a quick dip into one of her novels, in which the killer may have displayed certain similarities to the monster he believed Stephenson to be. :rolleyes:

Love,

Caz
X

[Caroline Morris]

Hi all

You know the problem here is that we are trying to apply logic to something that isn't logical. If I am right and someone slipped that letter in the files as a prank, there doesn't have to be much logic involved. As you ask, what gratification would the prankster have got out of it, and it's true, it's hard to see what that might have been other than putting something over on persons or persons unknown. On the other hand, murdering women on the streets of Whitechapel and hoping you can get away with it time and time again doesn't seem logical or practical either, does it? And yet that's apparently just what happened. :rolleyes:

Chris

Hi Chris,

You are getting perilously close to suggesting that the author of this letter may have the same mentality as the author of the Whitechapel Murders.

[Now I don't think you wanted to do that - Harry Enfield ;)]

Love,

Caz
X

[Caroline Morris]

The thing is, if one is going to do this sort of work, one has to be ready to challenge one's own assumptions, and if they're wrong, walk away from them. We may come back to them, if more evidence comes in, or a new insight overtakes us. We can sometimes be our own worst critics, and that's not always a bad thing. If we can find loose ends in our work, then we shouldn't be surprised when others do, too. My sense is that Cornwell is not seeing the loose ends in her work, or she refuses to accept them, and is hanging on for dear life, to her certainty, that Sickert is the man. I believe she is listening to what she thinks her intuition (or her gut-feeling) is telling her. I don't think she expected the reaction she got from Ripper researchers.



Hi Celesta,

The very fact that Cornwell has chosen to take Keith on board - someone whose whole philosophy is to challenge his own and everyone else's assumptions, and to go on challenging them even when the evidence for or against something may appear solid on the surface - must be a sign that she is seeing and accepting loose ends, and wants a pair of independent eyes to help her explore the implications. One thing she cannot be faulted on is the fact that she now has the best man for the job.

Love,

Caz
X

[Paul Butler]

Hi Paul,

Is there anything about the letter that connects it in any obvious way with the diary? I'm trying to see the knock on effect in either case, but I'm failing. Or did you simply mean that the diary could then be tested using the same technology?


Love,

Caz
X


Morning Caz.

Yes. That's exactly what I meant. If PC manages to get anything significant and convincing in her attempts to authenticate this letter, she will have achieved something that diary tests have so far failed to do.

Its a wicked thought but, should testing of this letter prove it to be modern without a doubt, and the same test applied to the diary showed it to be over a century old, that would put the cat amongst the pigeons wouldn't it?

It does make you wonder what exactly PC is looking for. I understand the envelope no longer exists, if it ever had one, so she can't be looking for Sickert spit under the postage stamp.

regards.

Paul

[Caroline Morris]

Its a wicked thought but, should testing of this letter prove it to be modern without a doubt, and the same test applied to the diary showed it to be over a century old, that would put the cat amongst the pigeons wouldn't it?



Hi Paul,

From the kind of contrariness we have seen in the past, I doubt it would worry people in the slightest to declare one test reliable and another from the same source unreliable, to fit in with their set-in-stone beliefs.

Faith is what these documents will always be up against, regardless of what the latest scientific technology may be able to ascertain.

Love,

Caz
X

[Paul]

Hi Paul,

I have the paperback in front of me, and in the acknowledgements Melvin writes:

Special thanks to Joel Norris, Robert Ressler and Patricia Cornwell for their illuminating confirmations.

I can't immediately find any other references to Cornwell anywhere.

As usual, Melvin appears to have left it wide open for a number of interpretations, ranging from a formal working relationship between himself and Cornwell, leading to her 100% endorsement of his 'case closed', right down to a quick dip into one of her novels, in which the killer may have displayed certain similarities to the monster he believed Stephenson to be. :rolleyes:

Love,

Caz
X

Thanks, Caz. I believe that Norris and Ressler are both serial killer profilers and might have been approached for general, non-specific Ripper information, and ditto Patricia Cornwell. Or, as you say, Harris may not have had any direct contact with these people at all and simply be acknwledging assistance given via their books. So until we know more, I'd be very wary of concluding that Patricia Cornwell lied when she said she'd had no prior contact with JtR.

[Paul Butler]

Hi ho

Whilst I see the point that a person could/would create a letter for a laugh, Im just not sure I see them sneaking into the PRO and sticking it in a folder, thereby presumably breaking the law and being open for legal hassles, where its not likely to be found.


p

Hiho Mr P.

Well as anyone looking at the originals in the NA, (and the old PRO), had to provide ID first, no exceptions, then the NA have the name and address of any modern culprit conveniently on file.

Should we seriously believe that Ms Cornwell and Keith Skinner wouldn't have checked this out before spending time and money on forensic tests? Bit obvious isn't it?

regards.

Paul

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho PaulB

I have no major opinion on the matter at all.

Given that it is a simple matter of seeing who had access to the file (And there cannot be hundreds) ..... I do not see why there is such a hoo haa at all.

If the list is mainly composed of serious researchers then either one of them stuck it in , in which case they werent very "serious" and Ripperology is, by virtue of the fact that its such a joke that one of it proponents thought this was a good plan, not a credible field.

If there was an unknown person in there who isnt a ripperologist then presumably it could have been him/her and it should be easy to narrow the list.

And so on and so forth.....

Its not like the Diary where anyone could have written it (you know what I mean Caz...)

Whoever stuck that letter in there, if thats what happened, must be on the list.

Unless it was stuck in in the early 1900's or something. In which case it is just as valid a document as any other letter and differs only in the path it took on its way to Ripper fame.

All of the above assuming that ID's were recorded and not just shown.

p

[Chris G.]

Cel...Mrs. Cornwell spent a bit of moolah on a full page spread in a British tabloid two years ( or was it last year?) which leads me to think that she has doubts after all. I also think, not to slight you for your opinion here, that she did anticipate the reaction she got. She once claimed,as I previously mentioned, that she was a "newbie" to Ripperology just prior to writing Case Closed and hooking up with John Grieve. Thats not true. She had worked with Mr. Melvin Harris ( The True Face of JTR ) and is acknowledged in the credits of that 1994 book...8 years before Case Closed came out.

I doubt if Mr.Harris used Mrs. Cornwell's talents in fiction writing in the making of his book. How she helped,I do not know...but she had to have known something of the WM and Ripperologists from working with him on a book dealing with the subject. I'd even bet she has a copy of Mr. Harris's book from him.


Hi Howard,
I don't have The True Face... to hand but precisely what does Melvin say in the acknowledgements about Patricia Cornwell? I mean, if he simply contacted her with some unrelated or indirectly related question then that wouldn't be working with him would it?

Hi Howard and Paul

I do have Harris's True Face and it seems from the reference to her in the text that he just conferred with Patricia Cornwell about serial killers, rather than about the Whitechapel Murderer. I would agree though that she did have some (probably vague) knowledge of Jack the Ripper before she began her investigation that resulted in her book, Case Closed. She mentions the Ripper in passing in one of her early Scarpetta novels that came out in the early 1990's. I believe, if I am not mistaken, Body of Evidence, published in 1991.

Chris

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho

Now I have read all 59 pages of the bloody necklace thread.

And for the life of me I cannot figure out:

1. Why is this an obvious hoax/fake/forgery and is there anything an approaching an authorative opinion on that (like an historian from the PRO etc)

2. Who exactly sealed it up in plastic or whatever it is and when, is that standrad practice in the PRO and was it done to other documents?

Thanks in advance

p

[Caroline Morris]

Its not like the Diary where anyone could have written it (you know what I mean Caz...)

Whoever stuck that letter in there, if thats what happened, must be on the list.

Unless it was stuck in in the early 1900's or something. In which case it is just as valid a document as any other letter and differs only in the path it took on its way to Ripper fame.

All of the above assuming that ID's were recorded and not just shown.



Hi Mr P,

Yes, I know what you mean. If this letter was slipped into the PRO shortly before it was found, the person who did it will be one of a fairly limited number of individuals and will have taken considerable risks for this decidedly damp squib of a prank.

This is what I wrote on the necklace thread last year:



When I went to the NA (it was the PRO then) the first thing I had to do was to get a reader's ticket. I'm looking at it now. It is like any credit/debit or store card and has Mrs C A Morris and the date: 19 Feb 99 written on it in biro (but not by me). ;)

I must have had to give my address too because the wording on the back includes the instruction to let the PRO know immediately if I lose it or change address. The ticket cannot be lent or transferred to another person either.

I can't recall if I had to show any ID or proof of address before the ticket was issued to me, but I wouldn't be surprised.



Love,

Caz
X

[Stephen Leece]

You do need ID (passport or driving licence). Also I would add that if the PRO took the forgery suggestion seriously they would have an internal enquiry into the letter. Has anyone actually voiced their suspicion of forgery to the PRO? I know the WW2 historians did when the duff Himmler documents were discovered....

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Caz,taken considerable risks for this decidedly damp squib of a prank. It's hard to tell whether one has a damp squib until the fuse is lit. As far as we know, nobody got round to lighting this particular one - and therefore we don't know what part it was intended to play in whatever display it may have been intended for.

I might allude to various rather iffy "letters" or "diary entries" we've seen over the years which, seen in isolation, might have appeared superficially innocuous but which (in the context of a narrative or commentary aimed at proving a particular point) take on a wholly different light.

[Stephen Leece]

Sam, are you suggesting this letter is a modern forgery that is part of a wider circle of forgeries with one strategy in mind?
If so could you elaborate please?, If not could you clarify what exactly you are trying to suggest please?

Regards

Stephen

[Paul Butler]

Afternoon all.

Despite this letter being mentioned by Feldman in his book, really it neither helps nor hinders the Maybrick cause. Was there any other suspect suggested at around the time of the centenery that might have benefitted from this letter if its a fake? I can't think of any.

What is intriguing though is that when the 25th September Dear Boss was returned to Scotland Yard in 1987, it was attached to a docket marked with a "2", and its envelope similarly attached to a docket marked "3".

What was number "1" I wonder? Were they numbered chronologically?

Hmmm.

regards to all.

Paul

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, are you suggesting this letter is a modern forgery that is part of a wider circle of forgeries with one strategy in mind?It's only a suggestion, Stephen - based on an observation that documents seen in isolation can appear innocuous until embedded in a theory.

To take a purely hypothetical example, imagine that a scrap of paper were found 25 years ago in the Archives that said:"Dear Revd Barnett,

Thank you for the tea at the Mission today, and for a very stimulating conversation
about the welfare of the poor. I enclose £20 towards the Fund, as promised.

Yours, JM. 8th Nov. 88"Now, that wouldn't have made much sense, nor raised any interest, until after the publication of the "Maybrick" diary. Context is everything.

Now, I'm not saying that such a stratagem was planned around the 17th Sept letter, or that it was part of a wider circle of forgeries - we don't know that, and the letter may yet prove to be genuine, for all I care. If it isn't, then its apparently banal content need not negate the possibility that it was once destined for things other than damp-squibbery (as George Cullen would have been, if that horse had peed on him).

[Celesta]

Hi Celesta,

The very fact that Cornwell has chosen to take Keith on board - someone whose whole philosophy is to challenge his own and everyone else's assumptions, and to go on challenging them even when the evidence for or against something may appear solid on the surface - must be a sign that she is seeing and accepting loose ends, and wants a pair of independent eyes to help her explore the implications. One thing she cannot be faulted on is the fact that she now has the best man for the job.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Yes, that's what I was thinking, when I said that if she was having doubts, it was a step in the right direction. It shows promise, unlike certain over-the-top egotists and narcissists, that she's capable of having doubts. She found a person who can get her on track, and I think his motives are the best ones, professionalism and seeking knowledge and insight. One of my former bosses told me that, if I was certain my interpretations were right, and, if I had the evidence to back them up, I shouldn't be swayed otherwise, until someone could provide evidence that I was wrong. In that case, as a professional, I would be obligated to take a look at the new evidence and, if necessary, change my interpretation. This is where I thought Pat might have been, when she partnered up with Skinner. I thought she might be waiting for the evidence to prove, to herself at least, that she was wrong.

My background in science taught me that one is not going to make progress unless one anticipates questions and looks carefully at the loose ends in one's theory. One's theory has to hold up to one's own doubts and those of observers.

Toodles,

Celesta

[Stephen Leece]

I understand now Sam- I thought you had specific example in mind, but obviously not. But surely that's not the problem of the document in question and is the fault of the berk that interprets it? It's our responsibility to point out such logical fallacies. It's not the documents we should be picking fights with, it's the commentators who attach undue significance to them....
So does anyone here really have a beef with the September 17th letter, or is it more of a beef the way Feldman used it to bolster (unconvincingly I may add) his case against Maybrick?

[Sam Flynn]

I understand now Sam- I thought you had specific example in mind, but obviously not.I do actually, Stephen, but this field is so full of mines that the hypothetical seemed the more sensible and diplomatic option!

[Stephen Leece]

I know you do Sam!- I was being sarcastic- I was just hoping you'd speak up instead of being coy.

[Sam Flynn]

Those who've met me will confirm that I'm the epitome of coyness, Stephen ;)

[Caroline Morris]

So why say anything, Sam, if you are not prepared to say it all? :banghead:



One of my former bosses told me that, if I was certain my interpretations were right, and, if I had the evidence to back them up, I shouldn't be swayed otherwise, until someone could provide evidence that I was wrong.



Hi Celesta,

I always think the evidence should come first, and should not allow for more than one interpretation, before anyone reaches a firm conclusion or makes a definite claim. Anything less, and it is certainly not up to anybody else to provide evidence that the conclusion, or the claim, is wrong.

Just my take on it - as a non-scientist (but the proud sister of an incredibly gifted scientist :nod:).

Love,

Caz
X

[Celesta]

So why say anything, Sam, if you are not prepared to say it all? :banghead:



Hi Celesta,

I always think the evidence should come first, and should not allow for more than one interpretation, before anyone reaches a firm conclusion or makes a definite claim. Anything less, and it is certainly not up to anybody else to provide evidence that the conclusion, or the claim, is wrong.

Just my take on it - as a non-scientist (but the proud sister of an incredibly gifted scientist :nod:).

Love,

Caz
X

Hey Caz,

This is true. You can't have an interpretation with no data. This is as true of JTR cases as anything. Well, some people have tried that, but they aren't likely to convince you and me. When you're dealing with certain types of data, it's very possible to have different interpretations, especially if you're dealing with Mother Earth. Some things can be interpreted in more than one way. (Trust me on this. I've seen enough geoscientists at each others' throats to know!) For example, when you're constructing a geologic map & cross-section, there's often a chance (or hope) that more data will come along. New wells may have been drilled by some other company, providing new electric log data, new outcrop data may become available, new geophysical data may come in. Or old data may exist, but it was proprietary data, and you can't get your hands on it. Sometimes you can get your counterparts, in another company, to trade you well-data. If you already have a working map, you can't afford to not look at any new information and determine whether it fits your map or not. If it doesn't you need to redo that part of the map to reflect reality. The best interpretation of the data is needed. Sometimes, new data can save millions of dollars and the drilling of dry wells. If the difference between drilling a dry well and drilling a producing well depends on which way a geologic feature, such as a fault zone, trends depends on the data from one or two new wells, then you are definitely going to want that data!

However if the data you possess has been reasonably interpreted, and you think your interpretation is accurate, you would be less inclined to change your interpretation until you get data that can be analyzed and incorporated.

Phew! Hope that makes sense. At any rate, that is often the way I approach data and evidence. One can't just toss information out, if it doesn't fit or it's inconvenient. Unless there is something actually anomalous about it, ie wrong. Finding JTR is going to take finding a trail of evidence.

Sorry to be so long-winded.

Bless...

Celesta

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Caz,So why say anything, Sam, if you are not prepared to say it all?Because I rather think that most of us could think of our own examples of dodgy documents, without my going further than "nudge-nudge, wink-wink". Admittedly, my approach was borne out of a desire not to rock or burn any boats, but then I have the excuse of having very little Viking blood in me ;)

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho Celesta

Enjoyed your post very much. But I think you have skirted something of which I am in no dubt you are aware.

I've seen enough geoscientists at each others' throats to know!) For example, when you're constructing a geologic map & cross-section, there's often a chance (or hope) that more data will come along. New wells may have been drilled by some other company, providing new electric log data, new outcrop data may become available, new geophysical data may come in. Or old data may exist, but it was proprietary data, and you can't get your hands on it. Sometimes you can get your counterparts, in another company, to trade you well-data. If you already have a working map, you can't afford to not look at any new information and determine whether it fits your map or not. If it doesn't you need to redo that part of the map to reflect reality.

In all this you have fogotten the one thing that does not really ew data or extra data and that is interpolation which all geoscientists are familiar with.

And that is what we do.

We have known points. We use "models" or "functions" to interpolate likely values for what we do noyt have data for.

We test those models using other data sets (other killers) and so on. Much of the discussion of the ripper is not on the facts or known data but on the validity of the models used for our interpolation.

Of course the bit we do not do is jack knifing the model or cross validation.

In that instance, we eliminate sequentially each victim or a "fact" and try and see how our "model" performs in describing the elinated value and so on.

So, lets take organs.

If we pretend we never knew anything about the Eddowes killing bar that it was the same man what coudl we predict about it based on the other four killings and whatever "m0odel" we choose to use? That model may be profiling, the idea that the rage was progressively getting wors, time available and so on.

Now repeat for the other victims. Th emodel that in this validation best describes the victims injuries is therefore the m0ost appropriate (based on a range of parameters you choose as relevant).

Then when th emost appropriate interpolative model is found, applying it to other potential victims should decide who was a ripper victim etc.

All of course dependant on a range of factors.

But this type of testing should be applied to geographic profiling. And has!

Where the positioning of certain victims was predicted by the model and compared to the reality. And it didnt work very well (the profiling that is).

Surprise surpise.

Either way...........I feel interpolation (what we do) should have been on your list.

p

[Celesta]

Hi Lars,

Sorry to get you mixed up with Caz! So here we go again.

Thank you. You're right. I should have mentioned that, when you have a map, there are areas between well points, esp. if the areas are large, that you have to interpolate. I implied it, but didn't say it. For example, I worked an area in Alaska and the wells were often many miles apart. The best that could be done was a broad mapping of trends. I had no idea what might be between some of those wells. None! All I could say was that certain rock units occurred in each well, or didn't. In an area, where there is little data, the best you can do is interpolate. Many geologic maps start out as interpolations between a few points, and as more wells are drilled, the interpolations between the points come closer and closer to reality. You go from the general to the specific.

With the Ripper cases, you have so little concrete evidence to use. So you do the best you can to find an interpretation that incorporates as much of it as you can. You go from the general to the specific. You establish trends, for example the MO's, and you can feel more confident in saying that the Ripper's habits were that he worked on the victims from the right side, that he cut their throats on the left, etc.

At least, I hope I correctly understood what you were saying. Nice response. Thank you!

Best to ya,

Cel

[Paul]

I always think the evidence should come first, and should not allow for more than one interpretation, before anyone reaches a firm conclusion or makes a definite claim.

Hi Caz,
Isn't it also arguable that nobody can ever reach a firm conclusion when it comes to history because we weren't actually there and didn't see it happen, and that those who were there and did see it happen only saw it happen from their perspective and that people seeing it from other perspectives might see it very differently. The historian's job is to collect all the evidence and attempt to put it together in a way that gives the most likely picture, but because the evidence can be put together in different ways to produce slightly different pictures this almost inevitably allows for more than one interpretation, and firm conclusions and definite claims are only firm and definite whilst they have peer acceptance. That's why history isn't dead, isn't moribnd.

[Doctor X]

Isn't it also arguable that nobody can ever reach a firm conclusion when it comes to history because we weren't actually there and didn't see it happen, and that those who were there and did see it happen only saw it happen from their perspective and that people seeing it from other perspectives might see it very differently.

Depends on the event and the level of objective evidence attached to it.

--J.D.

[Paul]

Depends on the event and the level of objective evidence attached to it.

--J.D.

Of course. But the point is that history is not a dead subject, static or moribund, but is open to reinterpretation as historians look at the available source material in different ways.

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Caz,

Thank you. You're right. I should have mentioned that, when you have a map, there are areas between well points, esp. if the areas are large, that you have to interpolate. I implied it, but didn't say it. For example, I worked an area in Alaska and the wells were often many miles apart. The best that could be done was a broad mapping of trends. I had no idea what might be between some of those wells. None! All I could say was that certain rock units occurred in each well, or didn't. In an area, where there is little data, the best you can do is interpolate. Many geologic maps start out as interpolations between a few points, and as more wells are drilled, the interpolations between the points come closer and closer to reality. You go from the general to the specific.

With the Ripper cases, you have so little concrete evidence to use. So you do the best you can to find an interpretation that incorporates as much of it as you can. You go from the general to the specific. You establish trends, for example the MO's, and you can feel more confident in saying that the Ripper's habits were that he worked on the victims from the right side, that he cut their throats on the left, etc.

At least, I hope I correctly understood what you were saying. Nice response. Thank you!

Best to ya,

Cel

Hi Celesta,

I think you confused me with Mr Poster there. Horribly insulting for him, but very complimentary for me. ;)

Love,

Caz
X

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Caz,
Isn't it also arguable that nobody can ever reach a firm conclusion when it comes to history because we weren't actually there and didn't see it happen, and that those who were there and did see it happen only saw it happen from their perspective and that people seeing it from other perspectives might see it very differently. The historian's job is to collect all the evidence and attempt to put it together in a way that gives the most likely picture, but because the evidence can be put together in different ways to produce slightly different pictures this almost inevitably allows for more than one interpretation, and firm conclusions and definite claims are only firm and definite whilst they have peer acceptance. That's why history isn't dead, isn't moribnd.

I absolutely agree, Paul. Even when the 'history' is purely related to certain scientific conclusions, we know from bitter experience of the diary saga how 'expert' interpretations of evidence can differ wildly.

That is precisely why I feel very strongly that individuals should avoid reaching their own firm conclusions and making any definite claims when they have reason to believe all the evidence is not yet safely gathered in and available to them.

But on their heads be it, when this is pointed out to people time after time and they still insist on airing their fixed views. You and I have got a lot of stick over the years from such people, for admitting we cannot be 100% sure about pretty much anything at all (apart from perhaps that Mike Barrett has told a few porkies in his time).

Love,

Caz
X

[Paul]

The important word, of course, is 'firm'. It is perfectly permissable to reach conclusions based on the available evidence, but said conclusions will obviously change if and when new infomation comes along. Mind you, sometimes there is no new information - as is the case the further back in time you go, when all the source material is known.

Yes, we have taken a lot of stick - and we continue to take a lot of stick - but you have to consider the calibre of those wielding the strick. I mean, I see that you are elsewhere dealing with someone who thinks Feldy was an originator of the diary scam, an idea so utterly preposterous to anyone who knew him that it's laughable. But that's a digression.

What interests me, however, is just how fair it is to compare the work of historians and the rules of historical evidence with the work and rules of scientists, policemen, lawyers, judges and courts of law, and so on. Should people be applying or trying to apply or make comparisons between these differen disciplines. There are points of comparison, but being a judge doesn't make you a historian, or being a historian make you a policeman.

[Doctor X]

What interests me, however, is just how fair it is to compare the work of historians and the rules of historical evidence with the work and rules of scientists, policemen, lawyers, judges and courts of law, and so on.

I would look at it a different way: it is quality of the evidence. With the law, while it is a matter of argument to some extent, you have statute and case law that renders things certain in many cases. Or one can take the quip from an American Supreme Court Justice who noted: "we are not final because we are infallible, we are infallible because we are final."

However on ANOTHER BOARD , a "feriner" tried to lecture everyone on what "copyright" law in America is. Problem was he was statutarily ["Statutarily?"--Ed.] wrong, as even an appellate attorney informed him. He could believe what ever he wanted and blather about how a lawyer could argue this or that, but the law stated he was wrong. He did not take this well and wasted pages of bandwidth trying to convince everyone he was "right." Not that you are arguing otherwise, but some of the arguments I have seen remind me of this Not Terribly Great Dane.

With SCIENCE [!--Ed.] one has the ease of testability--you can test the damn theory! Well . . . not always . . . but you can for the most part, and as another quip goes, "electrons don't lie." Provided one uses the proper method one can draw conclusions.

So I think it is the method that is important: the attempt to look at what evidence you have objectively and be willing to concede where "fact" becomes "supposition" to even "wouldn't it be neat if!"

Case in Point: reconstructions of figures for whom there is little evidence--like Jack. I do not mind a Ripperologist giving a list of what is known, what is generally accepted then reconstructing a figure so long as he concedes where his assumptions lie. Provided he is willing to note that and not wet his pants every time someone questions an assumption. Unfortunately, it is all too common in disciplines like Ripperology to go from "reasonable assumption" to "established fact" a few pages later with the hope no one noticed.

Theoretical sciences--the ones that cannot yet test their theories--have to leave those "outs" all of the time even if their passions get to them.

While I know you are [b]not arguing this, Paul, but I "twitch" whenever people mention the uncertainty of history and science and other disciplines. The reason is that woos use that as an excuse to "shoe-horn" whatever crackpot idea they have, as if uncertainty makes the silly certain.

*Descends from Soapbox*

--J.D.

[Pilgrim]

In the English-speaking world, the connection Bachelard made between psychology and the history of science has been little understood. Bachelard demonstrated how the progress of science could be blocked by certain types of mental patterns, creating the concept of "epistemological obstacles". One task of epistemology is to make clear the mental patterns at use in science, in order to help scientists overcome the obstacles to knowledge.

Gaston Bachelard (http://www.slideshare.net/matthawthorn/bachelard-presentation/)

[Caroline Morris]

While I know you are not arguing this, Paul, but I "twitch" whenever people mention the uncertainty of history and science and other disciplines. The reason is that woos use that as an excuse to "shoe-horn" whatever crackpot idea they have, as if uncertainty makes the silly certain.


Hi Doc,

This is similar to how conspiracy theorists will always descend on gaps in the evidence like crazed hawks and proceed to fill them with goodness knows what crap, just because they can.

If the gaps are left by authorities who could fill them but won’t (the facts may be embarrassing, have legal ramifications, or just not be in a publishable form yet) the craziest conspiracy theories can be allowed to grow to extraordinary proportions.

Your words put me in mind of certain discussions elsewhere, where it has been pointed out to absolutely no avail that just because something does not appear in the records doesn’t mean one can confidently assert that it didn’t happen - case in point, that Mary Jane never brought paying customers back to her room, because it would undoubtedly have been recorded somewhere if she had, and what’s more we would know about it today. Similarly, Florie Maybrick and one of her lovers, Alf Brierley, could not possibly have been sweet on each other a moment before the record shows they were at it. At points like these it becomes clear that (in Miller's Court-speak) the lights are on but no one's at home, and all common sense has left the building.

I have little doubt that before long some poster will have all the Whitechapel murder victims going out to earn their doss by giving bible readings, or singing hymns for their supper, because there is no hard and fast evidence that they indulged in anything "shameful" like giving the Victorian male what he wasn't getting at home.

But maybe we should worry more for the individual posters concerned than for the field, which has survived nonsense like this for 120 years and manages to sweep most of it to the edges.

Love,

Caz
X

[Doctor X]

This is similar to how conspiracy theorists will always descend on gaps in the evidence like crazed hawks and proceed to fill them with goodness knows what crap, just because they can.

ExxxxxxxxXACTLY!

If the gaps are left by authorities who could fill them but won’t (the facts may be embarrassing, have legal ramifications, or just not be in a publishable form yet) the craziest conspiracy theories can be allowed to grow to extraordinary proportions.

Depending on the conspiracy, they may just no longer have the information or the interest. There is also the natural dumbfoundedness of the knowledgeable when confronted by the confused. Imagine someone demanding "why Ripperologists refuse to confront the Satanic Evidence [Tm.--Ed.]?!!"

Oh?

You cannot ANSWER?!!!11!! WHAT ARE YOU HIDING?!!11!!!Eleventy!!1!

The whole "9/11 Truth" crapolla is a wonderful example of that. An internet wit did a great satire of it with his Titanic Conspiracy (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07) video--Safe for Work, your Mum, and That Guy Raving in the Alley.

Your words put me in mind of certain discussions elsewhere, where it has been pointed out to absolutely no avail that just because something does not appear in the records doesn’t mean one can confidently assert that it didn’t happen - case in point, that Mary Jane never brought paying customers back to her room, because it would undoubtedly have been recorded somewhere if she had, and what’s more we would know about it today.

Because they kept such meticulous records back then. . . .

You remind me of a wonderful documentary I wish I could find--You English Lot did it methinks--where they show all of the conspiracies surrounding Rudolf Hess--all the way to "it-was-not-Hess-it-was-an-impostor-who-was-murdered-in-Spandau"--and then dismantle them. One of the key points is they could find records because the Germans are that meticulous. Another great documentary by Erroll Morris--Mr. Death--deals with a Schmuck hired by that fat [CENSORED--Ed.]nt Ernst Zundel to "investigate" Auschwitz. Had the idiot merely went to the records he could have seen the damn plans!

I have little doubt that before long some poster will have all the Whitechapel murder victims going out to earn their doss by giving bible readings, or singing hymns for their supper, because there is no hard and fast evidence that they indulged in anything "shameful" like giving the Victorian male what he wasn't getting at home.

You . . . mean . . . they were . . . fallen women?

http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/images/smilies/waaaa.gif

But maybe we should worry more for the individual posters concerned than for the field, which has survived nonsense like this for 120 years and manages to sweep most of it to the edges.

One of the sad truths of such investigations: one is never going to know the answer barring a deux ex machina where new evidence falls out of a box.

Though always be careful to establish the provenance of such finds:

http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/thumbnails/osstoilet.gif

--J.D.

[Paul]

Doc X
I appreciate that woos try to shoehorn crackpot ideas into historical gaps, but, as you acknowledge, I'm not talking about that sort of thing. I'm primarilly asking for opinion on the extent to which a biologist or a psychologist, or a detective, or a lawyer, or a doctor, or whatever, is qualified to do what a professional historian does. Obviously there are points of similaritybetween what these people do, but what are the differences? Why does it seem commonly supposed that a scientist or a detective makes a good historian. One would hardly claim that a historian could solve a crime or crack some thorny problem of quantum mechanics.

As for the gaps in historical knowledge, I was really replying to Caz's assertion that 'the evidence should come first, and should not allow for more than one interpretation, before anyone reaches a firm conclusion or makes a definite claim.' (my italics) I broadly agree about the 'firm' conclusions and 'definite' claims, though I think it is understood by historians that conclusions and claims can and probably will be subject to change, but historical source material is often open to many interpretations. The sources often leave pieces of the historical picture blank - in some cases there are huge gaps - which historians try to 'colour in', which obviously leaves scope for speculation and consequently different interpretations, and, sadly but inevitably, the 'woos' who pop up to stick all kinds of crap in the gaps.

Caz,
Your words put me in mind of certain discussions elsewhere, where it has been pointed out to absolutely no avail that just because something does not appear in the records doesn’t mean one can confidently assert that it didn’t happen - case in point, that Mary Jane never brought paying customers back to her room, because it would undoubtedly have been recorded somewhere if she had, and what’s more we would know about it today.

A nice example is give by Bill Bryson, who writes that someone claimed in the New York Times some time back that Shakespeare never owned a book, a claim which cannot be refuted because we don't know anything about his incidental possessions, but 'the writer might just as well have suggested that Shakespeare never owned a pair of shoes or pants. For all the evidence tells us, he spent his life naked from the waist down, as well as bookless, but it is probable that what is lacking is the evidence, not the apparel or the books.'

[Doctor X]

I appreciate that woos try to shoehorn crackpot ideas into historical gaps, but, as you acknowledge, I'm not talking about that sort of thing. I'm primarilly asking for opinion on the extent to which a biologist or a psychologist, or a detective, or a lawyer, or a doctor, or whatever, is qualified to do what a professional historian does. Obviously there are points of similaritybetween what these people do, but what are the differences? Why does it seem commonly supposed that a scientist or a detective makes a good historian. One would hardly claim that a historian could solve a crime or crack some thorny problem of quantum mechanics.

Well . . . you would be surprised. Or maybe not, actually, historians have done a piss-poor job reconciling QM with SR. Damn Marxist influence.

Anyways, I look at "history," "SCIENCE!", "critical thinking" and all of that as processes rather than attributes. Granted a person who trains in a discipline should be more likely to follow the proper process. So, IF a scientist, detective, approaches the subject as a historian does, he will can do a good job. Furthermore, historians can make mistakes by not knowing how a profession was understood "back then." Again . . . it is a process.

Not really disagreeing with you; just keeping the conversation going.

I broadly agree about the 'firm' conclusions and 'definite' claims, though I think it is understood by historians that conclusions and claims can and probably will be subject to change, but historical source material is often open to many interpretations. The sources often leave pieces of the historical picture blank - in some cases there are huge gaps - which historians try to 'colour in', which obviously leaves scope for speculation and consequently different interpretations, and, sadly but inevitably, the 'woos' who pop up to stick all kinds of crap in the gaps.

Understood. I think if a historian practices history appropriately and allows the interpretations even when choosing his own, he is being honest. I had the pleasure to read a "debate" between two historians on a topic. Very well done in that both addressed in essay the points of the other.

A nice example is give by Bill Bryson, who writes that someone claimed in the New York Times some time back that Shakespeare never owned a book, a claim which cannot be refuted because we don't know anything about his incidental possessions, but 'the writer might just as well have suggested that Shakespeare never owned a pair of shoes or pants.

Well, you know, Mark Twain noted that Shakespeare never wrote the plays attributed to him; it was "someone else with the same name."
:becky:

--J.D.

P.S. Wait . . . it may not have been Twain . . . could have been Clemens. . . .

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Doc,

I loved the Titanic Conspiracy video. I think I found a second smoking gun if the first doesn’t convince everyone. If you take the ice out of coincidence - twice - you will get (by adding just a single e) conned.

Coincidence? I don’t think so.



Because they kept such meticulous records back then. . . .

Quite. But there are just some things - like secret trysts between lovers, or knee tremblers between prostitute and client, to name but two - that the individuals involved will have striven to keep off the record since the dawn of time, for a number of reasons that are evidently quite beyond some people’s imaginations. But try pointing it out and some bright spark will inform you confidently that ‘off the record’ actually means ‘on the record’, just some other record kept away from the public record.

So it’s all a wee bit disconcerting to think of some sad little government inspector going round snooping on every single couple in history, with his notebook and pencil raised (at the very least), recording every lovely (sorry, I meant to say sordid - I was momentarily taken back to a scene in Frenzy there) detail.



Though always be careful to establish the provenance of such finds:



Oh I think that’s exactly what some of us have been working on for some considerable time now - and some people get awfully twitchy about it. You see, they've already filled in the gaps with their own crap, and invested heavily in the final edifice.

Love,

Caz
X

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Paul,

Yes, my original assertion was relying wholly on the inclusion of the words 'firm' and 'definite'. I appreciate what you say about historical source material often leaving us with many possible interpretations. Unfortunately, there are no guarantees that the best man with the best interpretation will win, and often no way for the public to know if they are picking a winner or loser.

On balance, I feel safer in the hands of historians who make a clear distinction between delivering facts and giving their own interpretation of the facts, and who always acknowledge when they are filling a gap that may have other valid ways of being filled.

Love,

Caz
X

[Paul]

Hi Paul,

Yes, my original assertion was relying wholly on the inclusion of the words 'firm' and 'definite'. I appreciate what you say about historical source material often leaving us with many possible interpretations. Unfortunately, there are no guarantees that the best man with the best interpretation will win, and often no way for the public to know if they are picking a winner or loser.

On balance, I feel safer in the hands of historians who make a clear distinction between delivering facts and giving their own interpretation of the facts, and who always acknowledge when they are filling a gap that may have other valid ways of being filled.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,
Ah, sticky problems which have abdorbed historians for years. What is a historical 'fact'?

I think you need to define what you mean by a historical 'fact'.

It's a fact that Mrs. Maxwell claimed she saw Mary Kelly outside Miller's Court between 8.00-8.30 a.m.

It's a fact (well, it may not be, but for the sake orgument we'll accept that it is) that a gingerbread-seller was kicked to death at an event in Staleybridge in 1850.

These facts don't mean much and may have no value until they are interpreted, otherwise placed in some sort of context, such as the medical evidence showing that the woman in Room 13 was dead by that time, or that events in mid-Victorian England were plagued by crowd violence.

But the incident with the gingerbread-man may not in itself show that events were plagued by crowd violence. We need other examples, other evidence supporting the conclusion. And, of course, here we are introduced to another word, 'evidence'. And what is evidence? It's the interpretation of a fact. So a conclusion is based on evidence which is in turn based on the interpretation of facts. So it's unlikely that one historian will be delivering facts and another will be delivering interpretations. What you'll have is two historians both delivering interpretations, so the problem you've got is balancing one interpretation against another.

[Doctor X]

Coincidence? I don’t think so.

Notice there is no video of the most significant accident in human history. They have film of the Hindenberg, JFK assassination, Cortney Love . . . but not this.

Unfortunately, some make such arguments. If you have had the misfortune of encountering a "9/11 Truther" you get all sorts of moving claims--no plane hit the Pentagon . . . it was a missile . . . no it was a smaller plane.

[He starts to launch into 24 paragraphs on 9/11 conspiracies. Best to just skip over that.--Ed.]

Now, all of that, by being so extremely ridiculous--"STEEL DOES NOT MELT AT THE TEMPERATURE OF BURNING GAS!!11!!"--"Whoever claimed the Towers melted?"--serves as a nice paradigm for other conspiracies. They cherry-pick their data--take what "fits"--ignores/denigrates all that do not.

Glad you liked the video. One of my favorites.

Oh I think that’s exactly what some of us have been working on for some considerable time now - and some people get awfully twitchy about it. You see, they've already filled in the gaps with their own crap, and invested heavily in the final edifice.

That, incidentally, was one of the major signals that the above pictured ossuary was a forgery--there was no clear provenance for it. As someone smarter put it, "major discoveries do not just 'fall out' of the aether!"

Right, Paul makes a good point:

I think you need to define what you mean by a historical 'fact'.

It's a fact that Mrs. Maxwell claimed she saw Mary Kelly outside Miller's Court between 8.00-8.30 a.m.

Indeed. Such is a major problem. How does one deal with such evidence?

--J.D.

[Paul]

Notice there is no video of the most significant accident in human history. They have film of the Hindenberg, JFK assassination, Cortney Love . . . but not this.

Unfortunately, some make such arguments. If you have had the misfortune of encountering a "9/11 Truther" you get all sorts of moving claims--no plane hit the Pentagon . . . it was a missile . . . no it was a smaller plane.

[He starts to launch into 24 paragraphs on 9/11 conspiracies. Best to just skip over that.--Ed.]

Now, all of that, by being so extremely ridiculous--"STEEL DOES NOT MELT AT THE TEMPERATURE OF BURNING GAS!!11!!"--"Whoever claimed the Towers melted?"--serves as a nice paradigm for other conspiracies. They cherry-pick their data--take what "fits"--ignores/denigrates all that do not.

Glad you liked the video. One of my favorites.



That, incidentally, was one of the major signals that the above pictured ossuary was a forgery--there was no clear provenance for it. As someone smarter put it, "major discoveries do not just 'fall out' of the aether!"

Right, Paul makes a good point:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul
I think you need to define what you mean by a historical 'fact'.

It's a fact that Mrs. Maxwell claimed she saw Mary Kelly outside Miller's Court between 8.00-8.30 a.m.

Indeed. Such is a major problem. How does one deal with such evidence?


Indeed. Such is a major problem. How does one deal with such evidence?

--J.D.

Well, first thngs first, it isn't 'evidence' until it's used to support a theory or conclusion, or whatever.

You have to add it to Maurice or Morris Lewis's testimony that he saw Kelly at roughly the same time, the good character given to Mrs Maxwell by Dew, the newspaper report that she was certain of the day because she'd been to the milk shop, which she hadn't done for some time, and the elleged confirmation that this was the case, and by how you interpret Mrs Maxwell's insistance that she had the day right despite the pressure to her to consider that she'd got the day wrong. All these facts could be combined together and be the evidence upon which the conclusion is based that Mary Kelly was not the woman whose body was found in Room 13.

Or you could conclude from the medical evidece that either Mrs Maxwell did not see Kelly, got the day wrong or was lying.

I'm not sure that strictly speaking either conclusion would be invalid.

This is simplified, of course, because you'd have to assess, say, Lewis's testimony and judge it by its own merits.

But the point is that I'm not sure which historian, the one who concludes it wasn't Kelly in the room or the one who concludes it was Kelly in the room best fits Caz's criteria of a historian who delivers the facts and a historian who delivers interpretations.

[Pilgrim]

If you have had the misfortune of encountering a "9/11 Truther" you get all sorts of moving claims--no plane hit the Pentagon . . . it was a missile . . . no it was a smaller plane.

[He starts to launch into 24 paragraphs on 9/11 conspiracies. Best to just skip over that.--Ed.]

Now, all of that, by being so extremely ridiculous--"STEEL DOES NOT MELT AT THE TEMPERATURE OF BURNING GAS!!11!!"--"Whoever claimed the Towers melted?"--serves as a nice paradigm for other conspiracies. They cherry-pick their data--take what "fits"--ignores/denigrates all that do not.Fact/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff)Chaff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff_%28radar_countermeasure%29)
http://www.stelzriede.com/ms/photos/chaff.jpg
The True Story of Azef the Spy/ (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n37_v10/ai_15794198)Ali Mohamed Never Publicly Sentenced; Whereabouts Unknown (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a0701neversentenced#a0701neversen tenced)

[Doctor X]

Well, first thngs first, it isn't 'evidence' until it's used to support a theory or conclusion, or whatever.

Oh it is evidence, just of what is the question.

*semantic argument continues for 47 pages*

All these facts could be combined together and be the evidence upon which the conclusion is based that Mary Kelly was not the woman whose body was found in Room 13.

Could.

Or you could conclude from the medical evidece that either Mrs Maxwell did not see Kelly, got the day wrong or was lying.

Yup.

I'm not sure that strictly speaking either conclusion would be invalid.

Though one of them is, the problem is there does not appear to be significant evidence to determine which. Granted the former has the problem of explaining a "stranger" dissected on the bed.

But the point is that I'm not sure which historian, the one who concludes it wasn't Kelly in the room or the one who concludes it was Kelly in the room best fits Caz's criteria of a historian who delivers the facts and a historian who delivers interpretations.

Meh . . . the True Historian [Tm.--Ed.] will do sort of what you just did in more detail--give the evidence, reasons, ideas for each theory then try to sort it out. If one disagrees, one can go through it and know why. A True Historian [Tm.--Ed.] can then state, "based on all of this, I feel the body was Carmella Snord of Swansea" and you know know how he got there. You can also judge whether or not he provided sufficient evidence for his case.

Granted . . . that rarely happens in the real world. I like mine better--we all get ponies!

Pilgrim:

Please summarize the links.

Thank you,

--J.D.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho

I do not want to derail this thread anymore than it is but this stuff about Kelly and time of death is, despite the bleating of the insistent mob, barely evidence aat all.

Th tempearture of the corpse is a function of nakedness (less clothes-faster colder), posture (more prone - faster colder), environment (cold environment - faster colder), drinking (can cool the body faster if alchohol has been consumed), weight (the more meat you have the slower you cool).

All Kellys attributes indicate fast cooling. She was drunk, naked, skinned, filletted and in a cold room lying splayed out. The tempearture of the body in this case is a pointless indicator as even the most reliable indicator (liver or rectal) was in this case already exposed defeating the point.

Activities such as sex, or general physical activity can speed up rigor which can in any case be fully set in, in a warm room, in 6 hourss.

There is nothing less certain than the time of death of Kelly. Despite what the witch sniffers try and say. Or rather shout.

p

[Paul]

Hi ho

I do not want to derail this thread anymore than it is but this stuff about Kelly and time of death is, despite the bleating of the insistent mob, barely evidence aat all.

Th tempearture of the corpse is a function of nakedness (less clothes-faster colder), posture (more prone - faster colder), environment (cold environment - faster colder), drinking (can cool the body faster if alchohol has been consumed), weight (the more meat you have the slower you cool).

All Kellys attributes indicate fast cooling. She was drunk, naked, skinned, filletted and in a cold room lying splayed out. The tempearture of the body in this case is a pointless indicator as even the most reliable indicator (liver or rectal) was in this case already exposed defeating the point.

Activities such as sex, or general physical activity can speed up rigor which can in any case be fully set in, in a warm room, in 6 hourss.

There is nothing less certain than the time of death of Kelly. Despite what the witch sniffers try and say. Or rather shout.

p

Yes, we have gone wildly off topic, and yes time of death is difficult to establish, but it was only an example to illustrate a point about the interpretation of raw data.

[Caroline Morris]

And what is evidence? It's the interpretation of a fact. So a conclusion is based on evidence which is in turn based on the interpretation of facts. So it's unlikely that one historian will be delivering facts and another will be delivering interpretations. What you'll have is two historians both delivering interpretations, so the problem you've got is balancing one interpretation against another.

Hi Paul,

That's what I was trying to get at, but I didn't express it very well and guess what? My lousy choice of words led to a misinterpretation. ;) I wasn't intending to make a distinction between some hypothetical historian who sticks to facts and another who offers nothing but personal interpretations. I meant that each historian should make it clear when he/she is deviating from a recorded fact, such as: 'X claimed she saw Y doing Z', to a personal interpretation that leads to a conclusion that: 'Y did Z', or 'Y did not do Z, therefore X saw no such thing', preferably acknowledging if and when there may be other valid interpretations.

We have both seen far too many self-professed historians on internet message boards going straight to 'Y did or didn't do Z' without so much as a by your leave. And that's what I was thinking about when I mentioned the perils of reaching firm conclusions or making definite claims with no visible means of support.

My fault for the deviation. As you were, chaps and chapesses. :tape:

Love,

Caz
X

[Paul]

Hi Caz,
No fault at all. It was an interesting diversion.
Cheers
Paul

[Dan Norder]

being a judge doesn't make you a historian, or being a historian make you a policeman.

And writing books about a topic in history doesn't necessarily make one a historian either. It depends a lot on if the goal is to uncover what really happened or if the goal is to present the evidence in a slanted way to try to advance a theory to sell books, get documentaries made, to advance a personal agenda, or so forth.

And there certainly are some judges and policemen who are far more dedicated to following the methods and goals of historians than some authors who call themselves historians.

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Dan,

But doesn't that, in turn, depend on the reader's own interpretation of the material (a reader who may or may not be a historian, amateur psychologist, or whatever, in their own right); followed by the reader's own assessment of the validity or otherwise of the writer's favoured interpretation(s); and finally - the minefield where most fools rush in with no qualifications whatsoever - the reader's own interpretation of the writer's 'goals', ie the writer's personal motives for reaching a particular conclusion?

You have highlighted one of the main problems when two or more people interpret the material differently and reach different conclusions: if the differences can't be put down to incompetence, someone will soon start presuming to have identified some agenda that has nothing to do with trying to arrive at the truth. But this time it will merely be this person's interpretation of the situation, and they may not be doing a good job of it, or a fair one either. And quite frankly, anyone who claims to be able to extend that to a writer's motives is on very shaky ground indeed.

Love,

Caz
X

[Pilgrim]

Fact/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff)Chaff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff_%28radar_countermeasure%29)
http://www.stelzriede.com/ms/photos/chaff.jpg
The True Story of Azef the Spy/ (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n37_v10/ai_15794198)Ali Mohamed Never Publicly Sentenced; Whereabouts Unknown (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a0701neversentenced#a0701neversen tenced)


Pilgrim:

Please summarize the links.

Thank you,

--J.D.I spent quite some time last night wondering how to summarize those links. A question of interpretation, surely. Most interesting, in my view, and possibly somewhat related to Mrs. Cornwell's idea about the "necklace" in one (or more ?) of Walter Sickert's paintings, were the two first links, when "summarized" with the equally sounding title to my post: Fact/Chaff + Fact/Chaff. It seemed to me the sum of it turned into a "necklace".

I was somewhat unsure if the title to my post there ought to have said Chaff/Fact, instead of Fact/Chaff, as a reversal might sound less repetitive... But then, after considering how to summarize the links for some time I was struck by the fact that the repeated sound of Fact/Chaff + Fact/Chaff makes sort of a loop, beginning and ending with F. After pondering this fact further, for some time, I could not help but be struck by the fact that the same "loop sound" also (somewhat) resembles ****t/Ya + ****t/Ya. At that point I was tempted to "summarize" all four of the links in my post with an image of an ellipsis, the elision possibly being the I.

I'm not sure if pun and Équivoque (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89quivoque)
cover quite the same concept.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Conicas1.PNG

[Doctor X]

Pilgrim:

What are you trying to convey?

--J.D.

[Paul]

And writing books about a topic in history doesn't necessarily make one a historian either. It depends a lot on if the goal is to uncover what really happened or if the goal is to present the evidence in a slanted way to try to advance a theory to sell books, get documentaries made, to advance a personal agenda, or so forth.

And there certainly are some judges and policemen who are far more dedicated to following the methods and goals of historians than some authors who call themselves historians.

Dan, as others besides myself have pointed out, your understanding of what history is all about is so minimal that your comments have no value whatsoever, and it's a pity that you have more than once demonstrated that you are a fool. If your knowledge and ability exceeded your arrogance, you might be worth listening to, but they don't and you are not. You generally make sweeping generalisations to which no sensible reply can be made, but when you ocassionaly cite specifics and are called to provide substantiation you invariably can't, as was classicly demonstrated when you recently alleged that the distinguished paper historian Peter Bower was unprincipled and dishonest and so inept that he didn't realise that paper he believed comes from the same quire of 26 sheets had watermarks that showed they'd been manufactured a year apart. Amid the utter drivel you have written about me and my work on the other site I see stuff like: - 'Begg inists that the person referred to as the "City PC" who witnessed someone in "Mitre Square" as being Schwartz, who was not a PC, not in the City, and nowhere near Mitre Square' and the attempted clarification of the gobbeldygook, 'That's where he gets into trying to claim that a witness described as being related to the City PC and being near Mitre Square was actually someone in Berner Street completely unrelated to any City police investigation, and so forth and so on.' What on earth does that rubbish mean?
Sorry, Dan, but I don't have the time or the interest to indulge your nonsense.

[Doctor X]

Oh snap!

--J.D.

[A.P. Wolf]

Until I heard Dan and Paul talk on the Podcast, I had no time for either of 'em.
But since then I gotta a lot of time for both.
It sort of reminds me of some of the disputes I've had with Stewart over the years. Which I'm sure would have just been gentle and idle conversations if we had met in a pub; and we would be great mates.
I have to say that Paul's obsession with a Jewish suspect is detrimental to a fair and objective view of the crimes; but equally so, Dan often stands there like a donkey with his dick stuck in the sand.
Maybe condoms would prove useful?

[Paul]

Until I heard Dan and Paul talk on the Podcast, I had no time for either of 'em.
But since then I gotta a lot of time for both.
It sort of reminds me of some of the disputes I've had with Stewart over the years. Which I'm sure would have just been gentle and idle conversations if we had met in a pub; and we would be great mates.
I have to say that Paul's obsession with a Jewish suspect is detrimental to a fair and objective view of the crimes; but equally so, Dan often stands there like a donkey with his dick stuck in the sand.
Maybe condoms would prove useful?

A.P., I doubt that the convivial atmosphere and the finest ales of the loveliest pub would cast a rosy hue over someone who seizes any and every opportunity to criticise you and your work, especially when they are wrong and generally stupidly wrong. At least with Stewart you are dealing with someone who commands respect, but right now in the 'other place' Norder has written, 'The main reason Kosminski is treated as such a serious suspect by some people are the claims made by Anderson and Swanson many years later that a witness had positively identified him as the person seen near Mitre Square (not Berner Street, as Begg tries to turn it into to make it sound like the sighting was more than a fleeting glimpse and so he can twist things to make them sound even more damning than what Anderson and Swanson actually said).' Needless to point out, except to Norder, neither Anderson nor Swanson said the suspect was seen near Mitre Square.

I am not obsessed with a Jewish suspect, by the way. As I have said and written a great many times, I'm not much interested in who Jack the Ripper was. However, I do believe that Anderson and Swanson need to be looked at very seriously and be properly assessed, which is what I have tried to do.

Any chance of you doing a podcast?

[A.P. Wolf]

I've no particular aversion to doing a Podcast, Paul, apart from the fact that I like to keep myself to myself.
Me and Dan have been at each other's throats for years now, but one is able to smoke a pipe together, and begin to understand the practicality of peaceful dialogue.
Stewart and myself have done it many times.
Uneasy, but good fun.
And it is just one quick step back, instead of a marathon forward.
I must say that I do enjoy you on the Podcasts.
What about you, me and Stewart?
That's a pipe for you.

[Paul]

A.P., I understand what you mean about keeping yourself to yourself, but you contrbute to the message boards, so do share of yourself a little, and the podcast is only an exension of the message boards, with the disadvantage of having no time to consider your reply, which can be a little nerve wracking. But why not give it a try. You'd be a great guest, I'm sure Jonathan would agree.

[Doctor X]

The Podcast also has PEZ.

--J.D.

[A.P. Wolf]

I think I'd certainly enjoy the experience, Paul, and I believe JM and myself have briefly discussed the idea, but as I explained to him at the time it is the technical aspects that baffle me.
At the moment I am able to download and listen to the Podcasts, but whether that means I could actually contribute to one... I don't know.

[Paul]

I think I'd certainly enjoy the experience, Paul, and I believe JM and myself have briefly discussed the idea, but as I explained to him at the time it is the technical aspects that baffle me.
At the moment I am able to download and listen to the Podcasts, but whether that means I could actually contribute to one... I don't know.

You have to download some free software called Skype, which installs very easily, and you'll need a headphone with a mic which should be availale from any Dixons for less that £20. Apart from doing a podcast you can use Skype to 'phone' other Skype users anywhere in the world for free. Good if you have family or friends living abroad.

[jmenges]

Hi AP, Paul

Correct me if I'm wrong, but AP is pretty much set up to do a podcast. I added an award-winning name to my contact list a month or so ago. We were waiting for an additional guest to appear for a Tumblety show, but AP is welcome to come on any time. We''ll sort it out.

Stay Tuned.

And thanks again for the compliments on the show, AP. Your support is appreciated.

JM