A
Anonymous
Guest
Got a couple of books last night. My girlfriend is in a book club so I got Cornwell's masterpiece for thruppence ha'penny, just to be able to authoritatively debunk it, but I also got Jack the Ripper Letters from Hell. The complete collection of existing letters and their history and analysis. They were supposed to be for christmas but I could not resist and spent half the night reading the Letter from Hell. Superb.
LD
LD
A
Anonymous
Guest
Cornwell appears in person on BBC4's Readers and Writers' Roadshow, Wed. 18th Dec. at 8.30 p.m.
Followed by a repeat of her documentary at 9 p.m.
Followed by a repeat of her documentary at 9 p.m.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2001
- Messages
- 5,823
Hope she's wearing a flack jacket.
A
Anonymous
Guest
She has no worries on that score, if the audience consists of the usual bland book-group types.
Now, if only we could all be there instead ...................................!
Now, if only we could all be there instead ...................................!
F
FraterLibre
Guest
The Cornwell Dilemma
Been thinking what she should do. Considered the idea of her recalling the book, literally withdrawing it from sale, with an offer of money back, but that's not going to fly with her publisher.
Considered Cornwell doing the patented Trent Lott Insincere Apology, repeating as needed until forced out.
Considered her writing a true crime book about the Ripper book, in which she confesses ignorance, arrogance, and egotism and in pennance promises to stick to fiction from now on.
To such a huge gaffe, how does one say, "Oops, sorry," or even, as Gilda Radnor's character on SATNITELIVE, Roseanna Roseannadanna always said after being outraged by mishearing something ordinary as outrageous, "Nevermind," ?
Sadly, she's likely to brazen it out and move on. Of course, this is another considered idea, one many have used successfully, but it'd be nice if she just got it all the sudden and simply apologized, backed off, and let it drop.
One also has to hold the editors and publisher responsible to a degree, too. Where they hell were they on this? One vets a ms. to ensure there are no lawsuits embedded in its pages. Could they not have consulted even marginal experts on Ripper, who surely would have hooted derision? Could they not then have rejected the book?
Here is where the cynical money-making ploy comes in, not with Cornwell, whose ego is as big as her bank account already, but with the publisher, who very likely knew it would be "controversial" -- to use an overly kind word -- and who knew they could exploit her good name for at least fast profits.
As her forté is fiction, this nonfiction blunder ought not appreciably dampen her career, but it might. One never knows where backlashes will strike.
Too bad the least likely backlash would be that against the publisher for such a debased, exploitative move. They either knew better or should have. Either way, they're culpable.
Been thinking what she should do. Considered the idea of her recalling the book, literally withdrawing it from sale, with an offer of money back, but that's not going to fly with her publisher.
Considered Cornwell doing the patented Trent Lott Insincere Apology, repeating as needed until forced out.
Considered her writing a true crime book about the Ripper book, in which she confesses ignorance, arrogance, and egotism and in pennance promises to stick to fiction from now on.
To such a huge gaffe, how does one say, "Oops, sorry," or even, as Gilda Radnor's character on SATNITELIVE, Roseanna Roseannadanna always said after being outraged by mishearing something ordinary as outrageous, "Nevermind," ?
Sadly, she's likely to brazen it out and move on. Of course, this is another considered idea, one many have used successfully, but it'd be nice if she just got it all the sudden and simply apologized, backed off, and let it drop.
One also has to hold the editors and publisher responsible to a degree, too. Where they hell were they on this? One vets a ms. to ensure there are no lawsuits embedded in its pages. Could they not have consulted even marginal experts on Ripper, who surely would have hooted derision? Could they not then have rejected the book?
Here is where the cynical money-making ploy comes in, not with Cornwell, whose ego is as big as her bank account already, but with the publisher, who very likely knew it would be "controversial" -- to use an overly kind word -- and who knew they could exploit her good name for at least fast profits.
As her forté is fiction, this nonfiction blunder ought not appreciably dampen her career, but it might. One never knows where backlashes will strike.
Too bad the least likely backlash would be that against the publisher for such a debased, exploitative move. They either knew better or should have. Either way, they're culpable.
What's the problem? With all the attendant furor, she's probably already recouped on the advance! The publisher loves her!
I'm sure she can take the heat and shift some more units. She's not the only dumbass who writes a crap book then tries to fob it off as fact: how 'bout that French abomination about the CIA pulling off 9/11?
The marketplace is not a meritocracy. Valuable things like honesty, insight and thorough research don't necessarily help with promotion.
Anyhoo, I'm sure there will be some vocal Ripperologists there. If they're let in...
edited for pre-coffee spelling errors
I'm sure she can take the heat and shift some more units. She's not the only dumbass who writes a crap book then tries to fob it off as fact: how 'bout that French abomination about the CIA pulling off 9/11?
The marketplace is not a meritocracy. Valuable things like honesty, insight and thorough research don't necessarily help with promotion.
Anyhoo, I'm sure there will be some vocal Ripperologists there. If they're let in...
edited for pre-coffee spelling errors
A
Anonymous
Guest
I think you're right Minor. There's no such thing as bad publicity. this book will be bought by a lot of people who don't really have an interest in the Ripper, purely because of who the author is. And we'll all end up buying it, or having it bought for us. So at least we'll be able to hoot derisively 
And I have to say, I had good fun watching the programme, I rarely get the chance to vent so much spleen in so short a time. It was very therapeutic
And I have to say, I had good fun watching the programme, I rarely get the chance to vent so much spleen in so short a time. It was very therapeutic
A
Anonymous
Guest
Having watched the repeat of the documentary on BBC4 yesterday, one thing that struck me was Cornwell's disingenuity.
She tries to disarm her critics by insisting that, should evidence ever emerge that "completely exonerates" Sickert, she will have no qualms in throwing up her hands and admitting her mistake.
Yet she knows fully well that it's no more likely that direct evidence will emerge which unambigously and scientifically disproves Sickert's candidacy than it is that the same kind of evidence will convict him.
Cornwell is happy to hang the artist on circumstantial evidence, yet demands categorical proof of his innocence. It hardly need be pointed out that this runs counter to the legal process she so painstakingly documents in her novels.
She tries to disarm her critics by insisting that, should evidence ever emerge that "completely exonerates" Sickert, she will have no qualms in throwing up her hands and admitting her mistake.
Yet she knows fully well that it's no more likely that direct evidence will emerge which unambigously and scientifically disproves Sickert's candidacy than it is that the same kind of evidence will convict him.
Cornwell is happy to hang the artist on circumstantial evidence, yet demands categorical proof of his innocence. It hardly need be pointed out that this runs counter to the legal process she so painstakingly documents in her novels.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Saw the documentary last night on BBC4 and I couldn't understand the significance of the paintings. Ok, they show naked women lying prone on beds often with men in attendence but I cannot see how this can be a proof that Sickertt was the ripper. The paintings can be viewed in many ways as mildly erotic,as comments on the futility of sex and passion, as remorse or even just as a picture of a naked woman.
Plus, on a purely personal note, she irritated the hell out of me............
Plus, on a purely personal note, she irritated the hell out of me............
F
FraterLibre
Guest
Small Quibble
Her Kay Scarpetta novels are about forensic science and melodrama, not courtroom theatrics or the intricacies of law or the justice system, and her other novels, about a precint of cops in Florida, are more ironic or black comedic looks at cop life and have even less to do with the niceties of law. Just a small quibble to keep things on an even keel as much as is possible given the vituperation she's aroused.
She has in the past been mentally wobbly, what with her assistant having charged her with lesbian breach of contract or what ever it was, so it isn't surprising she's demonstrating less than sterling mental health now, as she wallows in this dark Ripper material.
In Ripper's time she'd have been known as "eccentric". LOL
Her Kay Scarpetta novels are about forensic science and melodrama, not courtroom theatrics or the intricacies of law or the justice system, and her other novels, about a precint of cops in Florida, are more ironic or black comedic looks at cop life and have even less to do with the niceties of law. Just a small quibble to keep things on an even keel as much as is possible given the vituperation she's aroused.
She has in the past been mentally wobbly, what with her assistant having charged her with lesbian breach of contract or what ever it was, so it isn't surprising she's demonstrating less than sterling mental health now, as she wallows in this dark Ripper material.
In Ripper's time she'd have been known as "eccentric". LOL
A
Anonymous
Guest
Blueswidow said:
yep, Blues, it was a kind of Freudian approach: she had to see everything in terms of her theory. The fact that Sickert painted a picture called "Jack the Ripper's Bedroom" and others depicting the Camden town murder could mean he was the perpetrator of these crimes.....but what would Occam's Razor say about it? That it's much more likely there's a prosaic explanation....i.e. that Sickert, known to be fascinated with the Ripper crimes, explored the hugely high profile media phenomenem through his choosen professional medium: painting.
I mean, how about that Inspector Abberline? He was a bit suspicious wasn't he?....always there shortly after the crime took place; seemed to have an unnatural interest in the murders. Known to have filed a large number of reports about the Whitechapel murderer.....he's our man I reckon.
F
FraterLibre
Guest
Hitchcock
By Cornwell's logic, Sir Alfred Hitchcock would be one of the most prolific and devious serial killers of all time.
Then again...
By Cornwell's logic, Sir Alfred Hitchcock would be one of the most prolific and devious serial killers of all time.
Then again...
Desert Island Discs had Patricia Cornwell on so I listened. Sue Lawley asked her what the most persuasive piece of evidence that had convinced her about Sickert. Her response was interesting Cornwell said that it was something that did not appear in the book because it was found after publication.
It seems that a researcher in the US had found that some of Sickert's letters (in the Getty) were from the same batch of 6000 sheets as 2 of the From Hell letters. Obviously she assumes the Ripper letters were from the criminal.
As I recall writing paper at that time was sold in single sheets, not pads. Reams were sold to stationers and printers not the general public. 6000 sheets is 30 reams. Not very good evidence if Sickert bought paper in the East End he would have using the same limited number of stationers.
NB Of the serial killers we know of I wonder what proportion of them actually do send taunting letters?
It seems that a researcher in the US had found that some of Sickert's letters (in the Getty) were from the same batch of 6000 sheets as 2 of the From Hell letters. Obviously she assumes the Ripper letters were from the criminal.
As I recall writing paper at that time was sold in single sheets, not pads. Reams were sold to stationers and printers not the general public. 6000 sheets is 30 reams. Not very good evidence if Sickert bought paper in the East End he would have using the same limited number of stationers.
NB Of the serial killers we know of I wonder what proportion of them actually do send taunting letters?
F
FraterLibre
Guest
Letter Type
intaglio - Good question. I don't think it's a percentage so much as a type. Some types of serial killer -- the David Berkowitz gang, or Zodiac -- do it to taunt police and for various compulsive ego-driven reasons. Most aren't this type and don't seek direct ego-boosts in this way, but prefer to remain unknown and to chuckle secretly in the shadows when their crimes are mentioned in media. This more common general type is perhaps more like a hoaxer, although even there the parallel breaks down because hoaxers often let immediate family in on things, such as the recent Bigfoot hoaxer's death revealed, whereas many serial killers go to their deaths never telling anyone.
I'd say that the types that seek publicity by communicating directly with either rmedia or the cops are distinct from the types that remain covert. Different psychology at work, different methods used to catch them, etc.
intaglio - Good question. I don't think it's a percentage so much as a type. Some types of serial killer -- the David Berkowitz gang, or Zodiac -- do it to taunt police and for various compulsive ego-driven reasons. Most aren't this type and don't seek direct ego-boosts in this way, but prefer to remain unknown and to chuckle secretly in the shadows when their crimes are mentioned in media. This more common general type is perhaps more like a hoaxer, although even there the parallel breaks down because hoaxers often let immediate family in on things, such as the recent Bigfoot hoaxer's death revealed, whereas many serial killers go to their deaths never telling anyone.
I'd say that the types that seek publicity by communicating directly with either rmedia or the cops are distinct from the types that remain covert. Different psychology at work, different methods used to catch them, etc.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Well, I'm a few chapters in now. It's hard going, let me tell you. Thank God I didn't pay for it. Some of the stuff about Sickert's childhood is quite interesting, but difficult to know what is fact and what is fiction. Certainly, anything that talks about Jack the Ripper is fiction. The second line of the book irritated for starters - 'The city was a carnival of wondrous things to do for as little as pennies if one could spare a few.' Well, the vast majority couldn't spare any, Ms. Cornwell, so yah boo shucks.
Chapter 2 starts with a heart-rending account of how harrowed she felt one lonely evening before Christmas 2001, when she bared her soul to her publisher/agent (I forget which - probably both). The poor little lamb was hollow within, knowing what she knew, hating the torment of being the only one to know who the Ripper was; hating the thought that she might be wrong but knowing with all certainty that she wasn't. Yadder, yadder, yadder.....it's quite nauseating.
This is closely followed by the 'startling' (!) admission that she didn't have a clue about Jack the Ripper until May 2001 when she visited London and was offered a tour of the Black Museum. She didn't know it was unsolved. She didn't know he killed prostitutes. She'd never read a book. And she still hasn't. Is anyone surprised? Honestly?
One of the most annoying things (and there's quite a few) is she will spend about a page or more describing a picture of Sickert's, but can't be bothered putting in a plate of it, for us to examine for ourselves. So we are left to believe her when she states that all women painted by Sickert have a dark line around their throats, which is not jewellry nor wrinkles. And another picture depicts a prostitute talking with a bearded man, who has his back partially towards us and who, she claims, gives the impression (useful word that, she employs it quite a lot) that he is holding a knife in his right hand and that his penis is exposed. Again, we must take her word for this, as no reproduction of the picture exists in the book.
Cornwell's argument is lame in the extreme, so far. I don't forsee it getting any better. Lewis Carroll was a better suggestion, and a better argument. She assumes all the letters (or at the very least the vast majority of them) were written by Sickert. As an artist 'obviously' he could disguise his handwriting.
Oh, and by the way, Sickert was also an ardent admirer of Hogarth. It's a pity Cornwell didn't look a bit further into that.
There is no proof. No evidence. Nothing. She just states Sickert was the Ripper - end of argument. She waffles on about police procedure and forensic examiners, citing her six years cleaning up, weighing organs and typing up notes as her experience which we are not at liberty to question. By that argument, my seven years as a legal secretary makes me a barrister.
It's all very wearing. I even read 'Scourge of the Swastika' in the middle of it (a lovely hardback copy of it my father in law elect bought me for Christmas, bless his little RAF socks!) The Other Half bought me a HUGE book on criminal profiling, which I may retreat into as this Cornwell crap is doing nothing for my blood pressure.
Nevertheless, I will persevere. I will tell you more, if you can bear it....
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa....
Chapter 2 starts with a heart-rending account of how harrowed she felt one lonely evening before Christmas 2001, when she bared her soul to her publisher/agent (I forget which - probably both). The poor little lamb was hollow within, knowing what she knew, hating the torment of being the only one to know who the Ripper was; hating the thought that she might be wrong but knowing with all certainty that she wasn't. Yadder, yadder, yadder.....it's quite nauseating.
This is closely followed by the 'startling' (!) admission that she didn't have a clue about Jack the Ripper until May 2001 when she visited London and was offered a tour of the Black Museum. She didn't know it was unsolved. She didn't know he killed prostitutes. She'd never read a book. And she still hasn't. Is anyone surprised? Honestly?
One of the most annoying things (and there's quite a few) is she will spend about a page or more describing a picture of Sickert's, but can't be bothered putting in a plate of it, for us to examine for ourselves. So we are left to believe her when she states that all women painted by Sickert have a dark line around their throats, which is not jewellry nor wrinkles. And another picture depicts a prostitute talking with a bearded man, who has his back partially towards us and who, she claims, gives the impression (useful word that, she employs it quite a lot) that he is holding a knife in his right hand and that his penis is exposed. Again, we must take her word for this, as no reproduction of the picture exists in the book.
Cornwell's argument is lame in the extreme, so far. I don't forsee it getting any better. Lewis Carroll was a better suggestion, and a better argument. She assumes all the letters (or at the very least the vast majority of them) were written by Sickert. As an artist 'obviously' he could disguise his handwriting.
Oh, and by the way, Sickert was also an ardent admirer of Hogarth. It's a pity Cornwell didn't look a bit further into that.
There is no proof. No evidence. Nothing. She just states Sickert was the Ripper - end of argument. She waffles on about police procedure and forensic examiners, citing her six years cleaning up, weighing organs and typing up notes as her experience which we are not at liberty to question. By that argument, my seven years as a legal secretary makes me a barrister.
It's all very wearing. I even read 'Scourge of the Swastika' in the middle of it (a lovely hardback copy of it my father in law elect bought me for Christmas, bless his little RAF socks!) The Other Half bought me a HUGE book on criminal profiling, which I may retreat into as this Cornwell crap is doing nothing for my blood pressure.
Nevertheless, I will persevere. I will tell you more, if you can bear it....
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa....
F
FraterLibre
Guest
Good Review
Helen - well-done, and gods it makes one wish she'd just written a novel and been done with it.
Makes one all the more contemptuous of her agent, editor, and publisher, too, any one of whom ought to have had the integrity to tell her what an ass she was making of herself, and any one of which would have sufficed either to derail the nonficton project entirely or at least to divert her back into doing FICTION, which is her onlly skill apparently.
Confabulating makes for great novelists, but look at the mess she's made of nonfiction, hm?
Helen - well-done, and gods it makes one wish she'd just written a novel and been done with it.
Makes one all the more contemptuous of her agent, editor, and publisher, too, any one of whom ought to have had the integrity to tell her what an ass she was making of herself, and any one of which would have sufficed either to derail the nonficton project entirely or at least to divert her back into doing FICTION, which is her onlly skill apparently.
Confabulating makes for great novelists, but look at the mess she's made of nonfiction, hm?
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
Yes, Frater, agree about Helen's brlliant critique (is that the word?)
But it has made me want to read the book for its entertainment value! But I won't buy it - I'll wait until it filters down to my local library. (And judging by experience, they'll probably put it in the Crime Fiction section anyway!)
But it has made me want to read the book for its entertainment value! But I won't buy it - I'll wait until it filters down to my local library. (And judging by experience, they'll probably put it in the Crime Fiction section anyway!)
F
FraterLibre
Guest
Analysis?
Rynner - Helen's analysis is cogent, yes.
I got a copy of the dreaded book for the holidays so I'll be fending off its drunken advances soon enough, I'm sure. I'm also sure I'll enjoy it on at least one level as a remarkable, even spectacular, reminder that one ought not put too much stock in what one reads in any one place, hm?
Rynner - Helen's analysis is cogent, yes.
I got a copy of the dreaded book for the holidays so I'll be fending off its drunken advances soon enough, I'm sure. I'm also sure I'll enjoy it on at least one level as a remarkable, even spectacular, reminder that one ought not put too much stock in what one reads in any one place, hm?
A
Anonymous
Guest
At least I'm not suffering in vain!
Actually, I had just stiffened the sinews sufficiently to read a little more, and I would be grateful if someone could clear something up for me. At present, Ms. Cornwell is lambasting Dr. Llewellyn etc for not taking the temperature of Nichols, checking the state of rigor mortis, livor mortis; checking whether blood had begun to separate, and taking samples of blood away for analysis. I ask you - this was the murder of a prostitute in an area of London not unaccustomed to violent crime. Would these things have been done? They weren't to know they were dealing with a series. More to the point, would these procedures be carried out today for the more-or-less routine murder of a prostitute? (Believe me - I am in no way suggesting they 'ask' for it) The public are well known to be lacking in sentiment when it comes to the oldest profession, and the police force are famous for finding them next to impossible to solve because a) no one admits to having seen the victim before; b) none of her immediate associates are keen to be questioned; c) the victim goes willingly with her assailant. So - am I being unreasonable to accuse Ms. Cornwell of romanticising somewhat here?
Her low opinion of Dr. Llewellyn is somewhat annoying, it must be said.
I had to laugh however - she recounts a story about a book dealer obtaining a scrap book for her which had numerous cuttings from The Sunday Despatch complete with annotations in a scrawled, messy handwriting. She doesn't know whose handwriting. It could be a journalist; it doesn't appear to be any of the police officers involved with the case, because she's seen examples of their handwriting, and besides, policemen's handwriting of the day was quite beautiful (!). She does, however, mention that it reminds her of Sickert's untidy scrawl. Surprise, surprise. She doesn't think it belonged to Sickert however. (Which leads to the question - why surmise? Why suggest Sickert, only to then say she doesn't think it is?)
I like to think the book dealer in Chelsea chucked some newspaper clippings together and made a tidy sum off Ms. Cornwell. Shades of the Ripper Diary, perhaps?
Actually, I had just stiffened the sinews sufficiently to read a little more, and I would be grateful if someone could clear something up for me. At present, Ms. Cornwell is lambasting Dr. Llewellyn etc for not taking the temperature of Nichols, checking the state of rigor mortis, livor mortis; checking whether blood had begun to separate, and taking samples of blood away for analysis. I ask you - this was the murder of a prostitute in an area of London not unaccustomed to violent crime. Would these things have been done? They weren't to know they were dealing with a series. More to the point, would these procedures be carried out today for the more-or-less routine murder of a prostitute? (Believe me - I am in no way suggesting they 'ask' for it) The public are well known to be lacking in sentiment when it comes to the oldest profession, and the police force are famous for finding them next to impossible to solve because a) no one admits to having seen the victim before; b) none of her immediate associates are keen to be questioned; c) the victim goes willingly with her assailant. So - am I being unreasonable to accuse Ms. Cornwell of romanticising somewhat here?
Her low opinion of Dr. Llewellyn is somewhat annoying, it must be said.
I had to laugh however - she recounts a story about a book dealer obtaining a scrap book for her which had numerous cuttings from The Sunday Despatch complete with annotations in a scrawled, messy handwriting. She doesn't know whose handwriting. It could be a journalist; it doesn't appear to be any of the police officers involved with the case, because she's seen examples of their handwriting, and besides, policemen's handwriting of the day was quite beautiful (!). She does, however, mention that it reminds her of Sickert's untidy scrawl. Surprise, surprise. She doesn't think it belonged to Sickert however. (Which leads to the question - why surmise? Why suggest Sickert, only to then say she doesn't think it is?)
I like to think the book dealer in Chelsea chucked some newspaper clippings together and made a tidy sum off Ms. Cornwell. Shades of the Ripper Diary, perhaps?
A
Anonymous
Guest
And - A Big Thank You to Rynner and Frater I'm very flattered that my previous post was called 'a brilliant critique' (Rynner) and 'cogent' (FL).
I may put that on my CV
I'm very flattered that my previous post was called 'a brilliant critique' (Rynner) and 'cogent' (FL).I may put that on my CV
F
FraterLibre
Guest
Temps & Things
Actually, I believe those are basics she's griping about, although whether they routinely did such things in 1888 I don't know and rather doubt. Today they almost certainly would be done, I think, and it wouldn't matter if the murder victim were prostitute or politician -- oh, wait, I'd better choose something that CONTRASTS with whore, hadn't I? Okay, how's this? ...whether the vicitim were prostitute or Princess.
Gee, now I'm really confused; those blur, too, don't they?
*sigh*
Originally posted by Helen -- At least I'm not suffering in vain!
Actually, I had just stiffened the sinews sufficiently to read a little more, and I would be grateful if someone could clear something up for me. At present, Ms. Cornwell is lambasting Dr. Llewellyn etc for not taking the temperature of Nichols, checking the state of rigor mortis, livor mortis; checking whether blood had begun to separate, and taking samples of blood away for analysis. I ask you - this was the murder of a prostitute in an area of London not unaccustomed to violent crime. Would these things have been done? They weren't to know they were dealing with a series. More to the point, would these procedures be carried out today for the more-or-less routine murder of a prostitute? (Believe me - I am in no way suggesting they 'ask' for it) The public are well known to be lacking in sentiment when it comes to the oldest profession, and the police force are famous for finding them next to impossible to solve because a) no one admits to having seen the victim before; b) none of her immediate associates are keen to be questioned; c) the victim goes willingly with her assailant. So - am I being unreasonable to accuse Ms. Cornwell of romanticising somewhat here?
Actually, I believe those are basics she's griping about, although whether they routinely did such things in 1888 I don't know and rather doubt. Today they almost certainly would be done, I think, and it wouldn't matter if the murder victim were prostitute or politician -- oh, wait, I'd better choose something that CONTRASTS with whore, hadn't I? Okay, how's this? ...whether the vicitim were prostitute or Princess.
Gee, now I'm really confused; those blur, too, don't they?
*sigh*
A
Anonymous
Guest
Thanks, Frater. I just wasn't sure whether in (what could appear to be) a straight forward, never likely to be solved murder of a prostitute, these procedures would be followed. I thought they would in the case of a suspected series, but not on the first one. At least, not all the time.
But thanks for clearing that up.
But thanks for clearing that up.
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2002
- Messages
- 50
Did Jack the Ripper really exist?
Having just read through a list of murders that occured around the same time as the 'Ripper' murders, i started wondering if the Ripper murders were actually related or if a huge myth had inadvertantly been created. The East End of London was a particularly brutal place and there is no doubt that some savage killers were afoot back in 1888 but did Jack really exist ?
(Forgive me if someone has already said this,it's been a while since i read the thread and i wanted to put my thoughts down before i forgot them!)
Also it has always struck me as odd that theorists marvel at the killers anatomical knowledge.Who is to say that the organs ripped out were searched for in the first place, couldn't it just be that the killer/s ripped out whatever they did at random?
PS don't have nightmares. Happy New Year to you all
Having just read through a list of murders that occured around the same time as the 'Ripper' murders, i started wondering if the Ripper murders were actually related or if a huge myth had inadvertantly been created. The East End of London was a particularly brutal place and there is no doubt that some savage killers were afoot back in 1888 but did Jack really exist ?
(Forgive me if someone has already said this,it's been a while since i read the thread and i wanted to put my thoughts down before i forgot them!)
Also it has always struck me as odd that theorists marvel at the killers anatomical knowledge.Who is to say that the organs ripped out were searched for in the first place, couldn't it just be that the killer/s ripped out whatever they did at random?
PS don't have nightmares. Happy New Year to you all
F
FraterLibre
Guest
Methods
At least five of the murders were releated, linked, by methodology, which set them apart in many ways from the usual brutality and mayhem seen by the cops and pathologists back then.
As for the organs, many simply aren't easily found and must be searched for. It's evident the Ripper had some pretty good working knowledge, at least, of anatomy and dissection of human beings. On the job training perhaps accounts for the latter, but finding and taking some of the organs he did takes actual knowledge and skill.
At least five of the murders were releated, linked, by methodology, which set them apart in many ways from the usual brutality and mayhem seen by the cops and pathologists back then.
As for the organs, many simply aren't easily found and must be searched for. It's evident the Ripper had some pretty good working knowledge, at least, of anatomy and dissection of human beings. On the job training perhaps accounts for the latter, but finding and taking some of the organs he did takes actual knowledge and skill.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Well, a lot of it hinges on which murders you link together. If, for the sake of argument, we stick with the canonical five, then we have similar throat slashes, with mutilation of the abdomen in four of the five cases. Also, similar witness descriptions of the man last seen with the victims. That's if you believe witness statements. Personally, I think it depends on how fresh they are.
The medical knowledge argument goes along the lines of the kidneys being rather difficult to locate amongst fat and flesh. The real question, I reckon, however, is just how much medical knowledge is necessary for that particular 'operation'. Particularly when one bears in mind that Denis Nilsen had little difficulty dismembering corpses (he had had minimal training as a butcher in the army, IIRC) and Jeffrey Dahmer had no training at all (again IIRC) despite managing several trepanning attempts and subsequent dismemberments.
Oh, and the forensic examiners of the time linked those five. They did not consider any of the other murders to have been done by the same hand. The pattern of mutilations, the method of throat slashing, and the shape of the blade used being what they based that opinion on. (As opposed to 'not liking the look in his eyes' method as adopted by Ms. Cornwell )
Oh, BTW. She's also attacked Victorian England for using the Bertillon method of measuring criminals and cataloguing identifying marks, as used prior to fingerprinting. And it's subsequent physiognomy pseudoscience. Which is quite right - it was ridiculous. HOWEVER - All this from a woman who has based her assumption of Sickert as the Ripper because she 'doesn't like the look in his eyes' . She also thinks Sickert's father had 'evil' eyes. The section fantasising about Sickert's alleged penile fistula operation needs to be read to be believed. The nurse could have been a drunken wretch, cruel and nasty to her young charges - or she could have been a teetotaller. Please, tell me why, why-o, why-o, why, does she persist in pointless flights of fantasy???? If she doesn't know, why postulate? Well, it inveigles her notions into your mind, doesn't it? It implants the idea without having to back it up. Dear God, tell me no one ever asks her to sit on a jury!!!
The medical knowledge argument goes along the lines of the kidneys being rather difficult to locate amongst fat and flesh. The real question, I reckon, however, is just how much medical knowledge is necessary for that particular 'operation'. Particularly when one bears in mind that Denis Nilsen had little difficulty dismembering corpses (he had had minimal training as a butcher in the army, IIRC) and Jeffrey Dahmer had no training at all (again IIRC) despite managing several trepanning attempts and subsequent dismemberments.
Oh, and the forensic examiners of the time linked those five. They did not consider any of the other murders to have been done by the same hand. The pattern of mutilations, the method of throat slashing, and the shape of the blade used being what they based that opinion on. (As opposed to 'not liking the look in his eyes' method as adopted by Ms. Cornwell
)Oh, BTW. She's also attacked Victorian England for using the Bertillon method of measuring criminals and cataloguing identifying marks, as used prior to fingerprinting. And it's subsequent physiognomy pseudoscience. Which is quite right - it was ridiculous. HOWEVER - All this from a woman who has based her assumption of Sickert as the Ripper because she 'doesn't like the look in his eyes' . She also thinks Sickert's father had 'evil' eyes. The section fantasising about Sickert's alleged penile fistula operation needs to be read to be believed. The nurse could have been a drunken wretch, cruel and nasty to her young charges - or she could have been a teetotaller. Please, tell me why, why-o, why-o, why, does she persist in pointless flights of fantasy???? If she doesn't know, why postulate? Well, it inveigles her notions into your mind, doesn't it? It implants the idea without having to back it up. Dear God, tell me no one ever asks her to sit on a jury!!!
The lambasting of Dr Llewelyn seems to be particularly ridiculous. Blood typing (ABO) was not discovered until after the second world war. Ambient and body temperature readings to determine time of death were not standard proceedure until Spilsbury's time (1920's). Coagulation as a means of determining time of death was always inaccurate as is post mortem lividity.
Thinking back I'm pretty sure that true forensic pathology did not start in this country until Spilsbury.
Thinking back I'm pretty sure that true forensic pathology did not start in this country until Spilsbury.
F
FraterLibre
Guest
Yes, and Yes
Helen - She confabulates in order to flesh the ms to book length, perhaps.
intaglio - I believe you're right as to dates and precursors.
Helen - She confabulates in order to flesh the ms to book length, perhaps.
intaglio - I believe you're right as to dates and precursors.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Yes, Frater, she does. I promise to stop going on about it, as I expect you're all sick of my ranting The thing is there are several times it's all I can do to not laugh aloud as she criticises other investigators, saying how they have nothing to add. So I find myself getting quite infuriated and I need to let off steam. You should be grateful you can't hear the discussions that go on in this house! Poor Mike keeps getting sections read to him, or pointed out. He just thinks she's raving! And I'm inclined to agree.
There. Enough about her. Happy New Year!
The thing is there are several times it's all I can do to not laugh aloud as she criticises other investigators, saying how they have nothing to add. So I find myself getting quite infuriated and I need to let off steam. You should be grateful you can't hear the discussions that go on in this house! Poor Mike keeps getting sections read to him, or pointed out. He just thinks she's raving! And I'm inclined to agree.There. Enough about her. Happy New Year!
A
Anonymous
Guest
Yes! Enough of Cornwell's amateur ravings - take a look at some thoughts on the subject of JRT from that master-raver Lyndon La Rouche: Encrypted Proclamation of the Fake Apocalypse